this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
959 points (88.7% liked)

Political Memes

5428 readers
2429 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because people love to not die, and suddenly ending our use of fossil fuels would kill a fuckload of people.

Dude think for half a minute

[–] PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

First off, I disagree with that assessment. But secondly, are you implying climate change won't kill people?

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

No I'm responding to the idea that communists won't use fossil fuels, which they did, and would.

How do you think Venezuela affords their socialism?

This is just the dumbest take possible.

[–] PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Where did I say communists don't use fossil fuels? I do maintain they use objectively less though. There just less need less production all around.

Hell, your knowledge about. Venezuela is even incorrect. Its categorically a failed socialist state, not a communist one.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Neither of those things are capitalist, so my statement holds.

If people need to consume fossil fuels, socialists or communists will produce fossil fuels. This isnt rocket science.

[–] PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"People" are not responsible for the majority of our emissions. Businesses are, as well as the military to an inordinate extent.

Again, I never once mentioned a zero fossil fuel society. You are putting words in my mouth.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

People cause there to be demand for fossil fuels, not corporations. Businesses don't burn oil for funsies.

People are absolutely the cause of all carbon emissions. Businesses only exist because there is demand

This is why a carbon tax is an effective means of fighting climate change. It disincentivizes consumption of fossil fuels and thus lowers demand

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's not as simple as that, bro. There's demand for fossil fuels because our entire society was built around it, before we knew it was a problem. Now we do know there's a problem, but our industries and lives are still dependent on energy, with the majority of the energy required to be from fossil fuels. For consumer demand to stop, we'd have to literally stop using energy altogether.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

People don't need to consume fossil fuels, though, so... 🤷‍♂️

Defeated by your own argument

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No one said communism "doesn't use fossil fuels", so I'm not sure why you're trying to disprove that

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The argument is that climate change is a result of capitalism which is demonstrably false.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So demonstrate it. The vast majority of pollution is caused by extremely profitable capitalist industries, supported by neoliberal capitalist states. And democratic will continues to swing towards reduction, yet states, bought off by fossil fuel companies, refuse to take action.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those capitalist industries are either transportation or fossil fuels companies, and if they weren't capitalist, they'd still exist, and they'd still make the same shit.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And they'd also have to bend to the will of the people, unlike now. Currently, they are allowed to continue with absolutely no pushback.

Under a democratic market, they'd be forced to scale back fossil fuel production in favour of green energy. Because that's what the people want.

You also still haven't demonstrated your claim.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It doesn't need to end fucking immediately, because of that very reason.

Think for just a second, friendo.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Weird that you'd want economic conditions that don't contribute to new tech rather than economic conditions that do contribute to new tech, then.

Also I'm not your friend.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Source? Do people just not go to school or have ambitions to improve the world, simply because their basic needs are met? You think no one dreams of tech in communism? That a social order based on cooperation and mutual aid would not engender exactly that?

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A source on socialism having less incentive to fund new technologies and more barriers in the way of such progress?

It's called "economic incentives" and you are more than capable of giving it a Google.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I tried to find a scholarly article titled "economic incentives" that proves that socialism doesn't heavily invest in technology, but found none. I ended up discovering great leaps in technology in the USSR and China, though.

Also, those economic incentives are driving climate change. I googled it and found that capitalist states pay fucking billions into fossil fuels.