- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
capitalism can’t solve climate change :(
You can have industrialized production and consumerism without capitalism. Not that I’m defending capitalism, I just think our problem is deeper than what you make it, and human nature combined with unchecked technological ability to remodel out planet would yield the same outcome, no matter the dominant flavor of our economical structure.
I’d recommend looking into how indigenous people have historically dealt and wish to deal with climate change before claiming much about “human nature”. A lot of so-called “human nature” is just the universalisation of European capitalist values. I suggest starting by reading about the Red Deal, specially if you’re from the USA.
Although interesting, I don’t think your link is the gotcha counterexample you think it is. Previous civilizations caused environmental collapses without having capitalism to blame for it. We could switch overnight to soviet style communism and that would not solve anything if our expectation is to provide everyone on earth with their today’s living standards. We could blame greed, selfishness and that would take us closer to the truth, but even that would be very shortsighted. We would need all humans on earth to be united around a same goal and same path forward, and share the same willingness to sacrifice. No sect or religion has ever achieved that and never will (we are just so many, and spread that wide).
Looking at the world from the lens of an economic ideology alone only gets you so far. Wrong tool for the job.
Not sure what you’re talking about on “sect or religion” when referring to different cultures doing things differently. The link is not some “gotcha” Reddit moment, it is a good source for you and others to start questioning this notion of “human nature” given that lots of humans have been questioning this very same “human nature” dogma since it was imposed on them by Europeans starting 500 years ago and continuing to this day. Notably you shifted the discussion to talk about the Soviet Union, which has nothing to do with my point and doesn’t even exist anymore. Just because nameless “previous civilisations” caused uncited “environmental collapses”, doesn’t mean that every civilization works by the same rule. Specially considering this current environmental catastrophe is on a whole different level and we have current day civilizations that would love to prevent it, if only they got their Land Back.
Mind telling me what this One Goal of yours might be and how it could be possible within capitalism? The ones who have the most to sacrifice are those at the top, ghettoised minorities will go mostly unharmed in most actually practical solutions.
Looking at the world while compartmentalising the overarching mode of production will only get you solutions from that overarching mode of production. You were quick to dismiss it as the wrong tool, but what is the right tool then?
Is it weird that I have the feeling that I’m arguing with a bot? I don’t see what’s hard to understand: the whole premise of this thread is that the cause and solution to climate change is inherently bound to capitalism, and my point is that taking this approach to explain and remedy it is very limiting because capitalism itself is no basis to describe how societies impact their environment (it only describes who owns what in an economy).
When I talk about human nature, it’s because I’m convinced that (and there’s anthropological evidence for) any larger society to inevitably contain selfish individuals with exploitative and sociopathic tendencies, and individuals who can’t get enough when someone else has more than they have (same reason there are cold blood and serial killers all around the world). My opinion is that any rule of law society has the means to limit the power and negative impacts of those individuals, and this extends to corporations who are ultimately led by humans who we should collectively make accountable for their actions on behalf of the organization they lead. There is absolutely no need to bring capitalism into this, and colonialism even less so.
When I talk about sects and religions, it is to emphasize the fact that humanity has never been a uniform species and probably never will be. Tackling climate change in this context in a relevant time-frame will require to exert the current power structures no matter what.
And I don’t pretend to have a solution for climate change, all I’m sure about is that the actual solution is more elaborate than blind antagonism.
It sure is weird since chatGPT is not as advanced as me yet. It also doesn’t like communism. Sadly bots are made by the very same corporations I have issues with.
Compartmentalising the impacts of a mode of production in a society is usually how we get into a bind on trying to tackle problems that arise from them. They are not just “who owns what” but also dictate how humanity and society produces and therefore reproduces. Large urban factories were not a possibility nor desirable under feudalism or North American indigenous collectivism. When one says that “capitalism is the root of the problem” it means that the climate crisis we are living now is a clear consequence of our society’s organisation over production.
So here’s some examples to illustrate. Due to the arbitrary concept of “private property” inherent to capitalism, lithium mines in the Lithium Triangle can be owned by foreign corporations. That means that despite those mines directly affecting the lives of the local communities (which includes most workers there), they are kept there and protected by world governments no matter how much they protest. That is an anti-democractic use of the local resources that can’t easily happen under either communism, anarchism or collectivism and yet is the norm under global capitalism.
Another example is the production of sugar, which relies on both work conditions akin to slavery but also constant burning of the plant that wrecks the local ecology. Populations who work producing sugar cane (in particular slaves) have revolted against that in favour of self-sustainable agriculture since sugar monocultures have been a thing, and yet they have had little power to change that economy without also locally abolishing capitalism. These often come with foreign invasions, as was the case of Haiti.
And finally in the case of the Paris Accords, the big majority of Unitedsadians supported staying in it, and yet the USA left it either way. The people who will suffer and die due to ecological crises of any scale are usually the workers and not the owners. That means that if the workers are in charge of production rather than the owners, it is easy to see how they’ll be more willing to change that production to prevent harm to themselves, even if you ascribe to individualism as a natural human trait.
There is absolutely a need to bring capitalism into this, and even more its birth in colonialism and descent into imperialism. There can be no “accountability of the bourgeoisie” if we live in a dictatorship of this same bourgeoisie. The slave masters didn’t bend over backwards to help the slaves, and the kings have routinely sent levies en masse to their deaths. We shouldn’t expect any different from our current rulers. One obvious example of a communist (“anti-capitalist” if you object to that label) nation that has done the most to combat climate change is the PRC. On the other hand the übercapitalist United States is historically the worst at that. This is not coincidence.
And on the matter of “human nature”. As I’ve pointed out before and that you’ve not acknowledged, many natural human societies parallel to European and settler ones have long pushed back against this backwards pseudoscientific notion. In order to make any universal rules for whatever domain you’d need to have complete information about it. However not a single person knows all known history, and all known history doesn’t even include all actual history. It is typical of those who know little history to make bold proclamations about how “humans have always been a certain way” against humans that are a different way right before one’s own eyes.
Your position seems to have softened to say that the issue is “selfish people controlling corporations”, but that assumes that corporations themselves are universal concepts. Either way, the existence of selfish people doesn’t automatically imply that all modes of production and equally vulnerable to it, and liberal capitalism in itself exists on the principle that all people should focus on self-interest and selfishness. It is no surprise that a system that was developed to effectively colonise a land, genocide its people, exploit workers and extract every local resource only for short-term profit will end up doing just that.
If you yourself don’t have any solution and yet feel your opinion is relevant you are the one engaging in contrarianism. The very least you can do is read (and by that I mean actually read in depth) of those who actually have ideas. The Red Deal link is meant only as an introduction for something which I assume is from your country, feel free to develop your understanding further in whichever direction you want. Even if you come up with a solution under capitalism, it’ll be a start. Just don’t come back with no solutions while complaining that others’ solutions are not good enough.
When one says that “capitalism is the root of the problem” it means that the climate crisis we are living now is a clear consequence of our society’s organisation over production.
good that you and OP are convinced that “our society’s organization over production” links climate change to “capitalism”, but my point is that it is probably not as simple as you make it to be, and I still don’t see any evidence of causation for this exceptional claim.
My “hot take” is that we are not doing anything new or different now than we did thousand of years ago (so, before the advent of capitalism and globalization) when it comes to destroying our environment. The main difference is the scale at which we do it now, which is leveraged by our progress in science which permits the usage of large amounts of readily available energy.
The good thing about this discussion is that I only need a single counter-example to disprove your thesis (but you can find many throughout history). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf02664569 : here you see how ancient Chinese dynasties caused environmental collapses forcing large populations relocations. You may not want to call this human nature, but humans have since forever poked at things without understanding consequences, and with ever larger populations and techniques, the bigger the blowbacks. Capitalism had nothing to do with that: it didn’t provide the means, it didn’t provide the motive, it didn’t provide the opportunity.
And yes, I understand how tempting it is to look at the problem under the lens of current ideas and ideologies, but this is just cheap presentism.To close on the subject, I am not a climate change denialist, and I am certainly not a capitalism apologist. I am a strong believer that people in future generations will keep poking at things without understanding the consequences. All I hope is that those future generations will be wise enough (i.e. have enough understanding of the world/advances in science, and enough safeguards against demagogic and other unsound ideals) to mitigate the negative impacts.
If you yourself don’t have any solution and yet feel your opinion is relevant you are the one engaging in contrarianism.
Fair. I cannot pretend that I have a single “cookie-cutter” solution for a complex global issue that’s been going on for centuries and whose effects and remedial actions will affect every single individual on earth. I still think I stand higher than those that claim to have such a solution while having their nose and mouth delved into local political matters of no global relevance. I have listened to the whole podcast you linked and the Red Deal offers nothing of substance, just more opinions, as it has no predictive value (it doesn’t try to show quantitatively how much of the problem is remediated under which circumstance).
We are over the edge of no return.
We should stop begging for change and act now. Politics must hurt them with reforms, taxes, and the rule of law.
We cannot stop climate change now, but we can try to de-accelerate by fighting against big oil, corrupt politics, and billionaire newspapers supporting them.
Ya right. When has prices went over 5 dollars a gallon in the US, people there list their minds. God forbid we should drive a bit less or consume less.
This is a consumer problem not big oil. The second biggest company in the world by revenue and by far the largest by profit is Saudi Aramco. And why are they so big and countries like Russia are energy giants? Because we are tax and regulated our oil companies significantly more while increasing our consumption. Instead of buying locally, we are now buying from countries like Russia and Saudia Arabia. Look how that is working out.
Too many people believe they can just continue living like they were 30 years ago - if big oil would stop producing stuff and plastics, gas and airplane fuels would not be available anymore then people would riot
Even threatening to increase prices to a level that would make sense to limit the use to absolutely necessary levels would piss off too many people to be a viable option because everyone just wants to believe that it’s just for “the others” to change but not for themselves.
Everyone has to act and change their Livestyle…
This is the truth right there. Gas prices went up two measly dollars compared to normal in 2022, and everyone flipped the fuck out. People were prepared to elect Republicans-- fucking Republicans- to office, they were so furious about it.
And don’t @ me about “100 corporations are responsible for like 90% of emissions”. Who’s buying those corporations’ goods? Who’s refusing to vote for politicians that’ll meaningfully regulate these corporations? Who’s spending all day fantasizing about Da Revolushun^TM that’ll never fucking come (and would kill tens of millions of civilians and likely result in fascists winning and seizing control of your country, if not the whole thing splintering into a bunch of warring fiefdoms controlled by ruthless oligarchs) instead of getting to actual work trying to effect real change in the real world? And I don’t mean “direct action” (read: looking edgy and getting photos for the 'gram), I mean actually fucking getting policy passed that’ll have a real impact on people’s real lives.
Policy like regulating those 100 corporations?
Yes. I said so explicitly in my previous comment.
Seems odd to say
And don’t @ me about “100 corporations are responsible for like 90% of emissions”. Who’s buying those corporations’ goods?
People bringing up the 100 corporations are usually calling for regulations on them, and the “you’re the ones buying the goods” people are usually calling for Personal Responsibility and Voting With Your Wallet.
It’s possible to both think those companies should be regulated and that people are doing almost nothing personally to help, including electing people to enact those policies. For most people I talk to the “but 100 corps” is a total deflection of personal responsibility. This crisis will not be solved without a good heaping helping of both personal responsibility and aggressive government regulation. If nothing else because that aggressive regulation will never pass into law unless people acknowledge their personal responsibility and are willing to accept the sacrifices that will come with it.
This crisis will not be solved without a good heaping helping of both personal responsibility and aggressive government regulation.
100%. People usually argue for one to the exclusion of the other but we need both.
In the US, unless you are willing to vote third party, you don’t get the choice to vote for Anti-Capitalist politicians. And there are millions of liberals waiting in line to scold you for not voting for the parties of Capital.
It’s almost like our society is car centered, and raising gas prices directly results in worse outcomes for the majority of people. You can’t expect people to just stop using cars, but you can use the state to create massive infrastructure policies paid for wholly by the polluting industries who most heavily profit from our current situation. Use the next decade to build high speed rail, electrified busses and lightrails, subway systems, and other mass transit, and then when gas prices go up, people will have an option other than cutting back on their food to ensure they make it to work every day.
I replied to the wrong comment in this thread, but if I delete it’ll only delete from my instance, so I’m just gonna leave it.
Our society is 100% car centered. My kids’ schools are miles away from my house, my job is miles away, and you cannot convince me to ride a bike or walk when it’s over 100°F outside. Fuck that shit. I’m happy to take public transit, but any public transit available to me isn’t feasible because it would take literally 1.5-2 hours to get to work and back each way, which cuts down severely on my family time. And I can’t work from home either due to the nature of my job, which is maintaining the machines that build microchips.
Maybe don’t move somewhere that your job and kids school is hundreds of miles away? My child’s school is down the street, and I can take the subway to work in about 15min. This was a specific choice my wife and I made when we chose to live here.
Holy privilege Batman
“Just don’t live in a place like that” rofl
Oh great, let’s use privilege as a bludgeon to enforce the status quo. This is great and also happens to be indistinguishable from doing nothing.
Gas prices went up two measly dollars compared to normal in 2022, and everyone flipped the fuck out.
Yeah, sure. They flipped out because the love their cars so much and don’t want to change anything. Oh, wait. No, they flipped out because companies and corrupt politicians made them completely dependent on cars so they will starve without them and kept them so poor that even increasing the cost of using the cars they dependent on just a bit again ends with starving.
And here you are babbling none-sense again about how it’s the stupid people buying products -as if they had a choice- and not the companies and politicians that are to blame.
Emissions can’t be stopped at the point of consumption.
They didn’t say we can stop it at our individual points of consumption. They explicitly mentioned policy. People need to be willing to support policy that will drastically change their own lives, likely in ways they don’t even realize, and be ready to live with that. Otherwise pretty soon we won’t be living with much at all.
don’t @ me about “100 corporations are responsible for like 90% of emissions”. Who’s buying those corporations’ goods?
Suggesting that the consumer is responsible for emissions at the point of production betrays a deep misunderstanding of climate change.
Suggesting that “people’s” willingness to support policy that would change their lives is holding back cuts to emissions at the point of production betrays a similarly deep misunderstanding of political power.
Not immediately but they’ll stop producing if people stop buying. Just takes a lot of people to have any meaningful change. And that starts with every single one of us.
And that’ll never happen, because everyone else will ignore you and just buy the shit anyway.
It NEEDS to be regulatory change. Shaming consumers into not consuming doesn’t work. Oil companies want you to think it works, that’s why THEY invented the concept of the carbon footprint. To make everyone ignore real solutions that could actually work.
Politicians love their bribes more than they love the planet, so that’s probably not going to happen. Dems and cons both
“bOtH sIdEs”
Fuck off
You read a comment from a person criticizing the current government for being self motivated and taking bribes under a story about climate change and how we’re all fucked and you thought this was a centrist comment?
Malcolm X has an old speech which applies very well to this issue as well. Too bad you can’t vote for him anymore.
deleted by creator
Violence…
These companies will not change unless they are forced to do so and our government isn’t going to do shit since most of congress is in the pocket of big oil. So what are our other options?
Everyone likes to blame individuals for not using renewables or buying an electric car, when it reality their options were limited in the first place by big oil. Most people can barely afford to put food on the table and green or renewable products are usually significantly more expensive and not really an option. Besides that, IIRC ordinary citizens only account for roughly 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions. So the onus lies on big oil to make changes and offer affordable renewable options instead of the same gas guzzling/polluting bullshit we’ve been offered up to this point. But like I said, they won’t do something like that unless they are forced to do so, they will always pursue profit over people, unless those people get in their faces and force them to pursue other options.
most of congress is in the pocket of big oil. So what are our other options?
Vote only for candidates against FPTP. When that’s gone, we can just vote for candidates who are against big oil.
How many election cycles can we postpone climate action for?
Their unwillingness to act on climate change is a major (if not the biggest) reason we need representation. The Democrats hand power back to Republicans who undo this session’s climate action.
Destroying the world more slowly by slightly impacting one election at a time brought us here.
I understand and support the sentiment: something needs to change. I just don’t think that re-framing electoral politics will work unless it’s backed by a mass movement of organised workers. If that happens, the question becomes, why bother with the middlemen? They can legislate for themselves without having to beg the ruling class for mild compromises.
Destroying the world more slowly by slightly impacting one election at a time brought us here.
That’s kinda what I was driving it. How many elections would it take to abolish FPTP? We’d have to wait for that and only then could we think about voting in politicians who might do something and the system would still be dominated by capital. That makes a three-step process out of a two-step process.
Seems like a request to wait for an indefinite number of election cycles—the same request of those who say to vote for this or that faction of the capitalist party and one day, just maybe, conditions will be just right for one of those parties to effect any change. Too many African, Latin American, and Asian homes and lives would be destroyed while they wait patiently for the US to get its act together.
It would take too long to work unless you know of a massive campaign across the western world to implement FPTP. If it doesn’t exist already, it must be built within the next year or so or the west will be locked into another four-ish years of no progress. And that’s just for a shot at electing politicians who might vote to abolish FPTP. Before they even come within hearing distance of, never mind face-to-face with, the contradictions of imperialism.
Currently, almost all I see in the west is how to do business as usual but in green. That means denying progress to the subjugated masses so that USians can maintain their standard of living. Oppressed people shouldn’t have to wait for the US to figure out how to tactically solve the world’s ills through an electoral technicality. Round and round we’d go with electoralism.
At this point, there is one, single option: revolution. Anything else will take too long. Luckily for humanity, whatever the US thinks or wants is largely irrelevant. The world is revolving anyway. The only question for the world is what form the revolution takes. And the additional question for USians is whether they want to be part of the change or to ruin everything out of spite and self-interest.
The Red Deal may be of interest (click drop-down menu under ‘articles’): https://therednation.org/environmental-justice/
At this point, there is one, single option: revolution
You’re the world’s biggest sucker if you think that’s even a possibility.
Or more likely, a russian/right wing shill
“Voting is useless” is right wing propaganda.
I have to admit, I did not expect this response. I’m struggling to see how an anti-capitalist argument in favour of socialist revolution is right wing.
A possibility? It’s happening as we speak. Time will tell.
It’s a spoiler, a red herring. “Don’t bother doing the thing that could actually threaten our power. Instead, focus on this other thing that has no shot of happening.”
Electoralism isn’t going to save us.
If current green companies can’t make affordable options, why in God’s earth would you think it would be cheaper if conventional energy companies join the mix?
Your entire statement is conflicting. Angry about high costs being unaffordable then suggesting oil companies to not produce low cost energy that keeps prices down while acknowledging the high cost of green energy.
Removed by mod
Relying on businesses to self regulate doesn’t work?
I am shocked! Shocked!
