/dead/ - Post-Left

'Green Politics' as in liberal green politics are useless to begin with, but even if we could socialise a majority of industries tomorrow I still think it wouldn't be enough to stop the more disastrous effects of global warming. I dont think this is a an end of the world scenario, but we'll face shortages of many resources and movements of large groups of people into the first world, which might just destabilise the system. I however suspect that capitalism bounce back and adjust, as it always does, so yeah prepare for the ancap wasteland I guess…

>>501
We are on /dead/, of course I don't mean liberal politics. But think of the ELF, ALF, ZAD, the Hambach forest occupations, and thousand other ecologically motivated actions. Were they all for nothing?

>Were they all for nothing?
Basically. I feel that without our ideas becomming more popular within the masses, none of those actions will achieve anything but slef-profilisation for those carrying them out. And the masses just don't care about anarchism. In the west, they are pretty happy about living in a capitalist society.

yes and yes. don't fall victim to black and white thinking, it's not like the possible outcomes here are "okay" and "bad". it's an endless continuum right up to a repeat of the p-t extinction event and turning the planet into a second venus.

every tiny bit of prevention could be the difference between activating a runaway feedback loop or not. we could end up with centuries of relative climate stability during which worsening material conditions lead to revolution and global socialism, which then gets wiped out when the methane clathrates get released because something we did in 2064 made it inevitable.

>>500
Green politics may genuinely help in small ways, but small at best. Revolution is the only way to survive, at best green politics just gives us a few more days on life support.

>>559
Green politics at this point is just another ploy by the woke bourgeoisie to create new markets and keep capitalism running.

>>566
yes, production under capitalism is for profit. it's still real production, it doesn't matter why the capitalist produces it, it matters whether it somehow decreases or redistributes the environmental strain so that our odds of survival increase. which it undeniably does.

>>582
it's the logic of ever greater production itself that is killing the planet

>>585
logic is an abstraction, production is real. no matter how much you are against the logic of ever increasing production you still have to support production and increasing production in some sectors.

>>591
>you still have to support production and increasing production
"no"

>>591
>you still have to support production and increasing production in some sectors.

The only reason that I can see to think this is to support modern civilization, which I couldn't care less about it existence, so, no

>>591
I support increasing production in the dead cop sector.

>>593
>>592
well then why would you care about ecological collapse either? clearly you don't care about humans or their suffering or needs. nature and life have faced extinction events before, they're going to be fine no matter what happens.

>>596
> Saying that the biodiversity lost and damages caused to the planet are just fine
You know you are included in this right? Just because you are a human and you have a big brain doesn't matter to ecological collapse, it doesn't care if you can think about the girl that you masturbate to. I doubt you can survive a planet without clean water, most animals extinct because of change in the habit, more and more natural catastrophes, uncontrollable weather making agriculture less reliable. I see way more reasons to care about ecological collapse than civilization

>>597
i'm not the one making the case that human life and human suffering doesn't matter here. that would be the people who think production and civilization are unnecessary. if those go, 99% of humans go too.
i'm asking why someone who does not care about humans would care about nature going through one of it's reboots again.

>>599
"capitalist ideas of productivity" weren't being discussed. actual production was.

>>600
oh please enlighten me on this "actual production" that is somehow independent from the historical condition we live in

>>601
are you even trying to understand what i'm saying or do you just read my words to look for deliberate misunderstandings and possible nitpicks? are you a bot, am i talking to a dumb algorithm?

you need actual production to live. eat, you know, all that shit. even if there's only capitalist production around, you still need it to live. no matter how much you loathe capitalism, that is not going to enable you to subsist on hate alone while you burn all existing production to the ground.

>>596
Nice numbers.

>>598
You talked about further increasing production. There are other alternatives to that other than just not doing anything ever anymore.

&lt Just saying I am not skeleton anon I am >>597
>>598
> i'm asking why someone who does not care about humans
My whole point is to save people and let the planet live a little more because without it I don't think we can live
> would care about nature going through one of it's reboots again
Because guess what, if an ecological collapse because of today's system which is completely dependent on mass production which is obviously unsustainable, we'll all die, not even 1 single person would be alive, because we depend in our environment for literally everything. I don't think that we could live without today's flora and fauna, and I don't think it would be great to live in a shithole with massive natural disasters everyday and because of climate change I think is completely plausible to assume that we would probably not have much time left here on earth

>>606
yes. there are plenty of unmet human needs that can't be addressed without increasing production in some sectors. a transition to a sustainable economy will also require increased production in many sectors and the creation of some entirely new sectors. i didn't say and do not think we need to increase production overall.

>>607
we agree that humans are completely dependent on nature and that our survival is at risk because of ecological destruction. but we are also completely dependent on technological civilization. there are so many of us the planet can't support us with primitive technology. trying to transition to a primitive economy in a collapse scenario would mean worse damage to ecosystems as people would use wood for fuel, try to hunt and fish to stay alive, and leave densely populated areas for the last places where there is still nature they can consume. we would eat and burn all of what's left of nature and then go extinct anyway. we just have to do our best to balance ecological preservation and restoration with maintaining civilization.

>>609
I agree with you that people would probably do all the things that you mentioned, but this would still be way less harmful than keeping the techno-industrial system. Humans can and will do damage to the environment, put a forest on fire, hunt many animals without thinking, but it still way, way less harmful than full techno-industrial civilization could ever be. It is too hard for only individuals with few needs(food, water and happiness[over simplifying but yeah]) to cause as much harm as today's civilization does.

>>609
>there are plenty of unmet human needs that can't be addressed without increasing production in some sectors
no. needs are manifactured to keep capitalist accumulation going.

>>612
Greetings from /leftypol/

Wants are manufactured needs are needs

>>613
Sounds like sophism but OK

>>615
Stop eating till you get it

>>616
Damn fam I'm carving some McWendy's now

>>613
>>616
the world's population can be fed easily

>>638
that's why we need sustainable production, not more of it

>>612
i will admit that the needs for penicillin and post-stroke surgery are relatively recent inventions and a byproduct of the pursuit of accumulation

but you see, people will still literally die without them

if you die without something it is a need and capitalist accumulation doesn't enter into it

basic education is another example of a need that is hugely underserved by current production. the lack of it kills people and causes damage to nature and property all the time. education is a service so all that is produced is also consumed, so clearly we don't produce enough

>>639
how do you make production sustainable without causing an increase in any sector?

>>639
at this point we're probably in a position where that's not all that possible considering various feedback loops and the lag in terms of emissions causing CO2 rise
We're locked in for at least 2C minimum, which is non-compatible with current human industrial civilization, and the IPCC is shifting their opinion to a more likely 5C increase this century given that even their worst case scenarios are looking optimistic