• SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 hours ago

    A big issue with this approach: The United States is not a law of nature; it doesn’t have to exist. The system may only allow two options, but it does not guarantee that either one of those options will keep the system viable. Reduced harm is still harm, and at some point we needed to stop doing it.

    • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      This rhetoric is what is known as accelerationism. It’s the idea that things have to get worse in order for them to get better. The United States not existing would mean the collapse of a society that supports about 340 million people. Letting the US burn to the ground is not useful, because it doesn’t help any of the people living here.

      The truth is that things get better when people learn from their mistakes and the bad things that happen to them. They then use that knowledge to make things better. There’s no bottom to how bad things can get. Things can always get worse. And they will get worse unless we work to make them better.

      Anyone can be tempted by the idea that they can make things better by letting them burn. But letting everything burn is how to harm the most people possible. In order to help anyone, we need to start leveraging power for each other. That means giving up on moral victories and analyzing strategies using utility instead of moral reasoning. edit: typo

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        It’s not accelerationism at all! It’s fatalism.

        Accelerationism is, “It has to get worse before it can get better.”

        My point here is, “The system that only allows for getting worse will never get better.”