<"So yes, the 'Earth' will have to be taken into account if for the simple reason of keeping those services stable until they can (can they?) be replaced by artificial means.">The answer is, yes, they can be. Other than that, I generally agree, but to even pursue this requires a recognition that there is no mystique, no emotional, ideological or superstitious investment in what we call those "natural processes" - we must purely approach them from the standpoint of practicality, and convenience. Soberly, of course.
>A science is the opium
He doesn't really refer to ecology as the science of what plants grow well with other plants. He means the ideology of it. To be honest ecology in the scientific sense can just be referred to as biology. However I agree it is a poor word choice, but if you know 'ecologists' or people invested in the 'ecology' movement you know how absolutely drowned in anti-scientific mysticism they are.
>Utopian thinking that isn't based in what people want
Why do people want things? Obviously because of the ideology of the society. This is a nothing argument. People don't 'want' communism right now. Shall we give up?>He rejects knowledge about the environment
Again, no where does he deny any facts of environmental science. We know why tsunamis form, this has no baring on whether or not we should try and stop them. Idiots would claim that we shouldn't try and stop them because that would be 'interfering with nature'. As communists that's exactly what we do, we destroy the current 'nature' of things. Should I also stop living in a house because the house 'gets in the way' of the oh so natural wind? Nature has no consciousness, has no agency, it doesn't care whether it exists or doesn't. To say otherwise is by definition mysticism.
>Anyways yes anyone who is okay with exploiting and destroying all nature
So how much nature are you okay with destroying then? Just enough so that the western world can develop, but not enough so that the whole world can live pleasant lives? >Rafiq is pretty explicit that anything that could die to serve Humanity SHOULD die
Why not? >Muh exploitation
Who am I exploiting? Who owns the land that I am appropriating? Oh yeah the human race because we are the only things ever to exist that have a conception of 'possession'. Like I have said you can't exploit the Earth unless you accept the mysticism that the Earth is conscious or some other God 'owns' it.
Communists are those that acknowledge the fact there is no god and choose to change the world ourselves, as opposed to waiting for the divine right to by anyone else. We don't wait for an afterlife, we create it here on Earth. This heaven won't necessarily adhere to your liberal beliefs regarding how great the environment is.
>why should we allow some idea of "maybe in the future people will actually like this" to dictate what we do now?
Yeah why should we save nature because 'some people in the future might like it'? The point is that a future society removed from the ideology of capitalist society won't share your views on 'nature'. It won't view 'nature' as this sacred thing that we mustn't mess with, lest we bare the wrath of 'God' (climate change to the ecologists in this context). You are sold this ideology on years of disney films where animals can talk. The idea of this hidden animal world where they are conscious beings, but is this true?
Optimizing nature destroys everything natural about it. You think it's natural for us collect millions of tonnes of crops an ship them across the globe with great ease? It is not natural; it is the product of thousands upon thousands of years of human labour.
>Im not against legit optimizing, but if it happens at the expense of the old, then really i dont trust it.
Here is the anti scientific view of the ecologist. Who gives a shit about the old?
<I'm not against optimizing tsunamis to kill as little people as possible but destroying tsunamis alltogether? Why would we do that!
Do you see how arbitrary your argument is?>Real optimizing meshes the old with the new
…No it doesn't it just makes it better. We optimized communication with phones. We didn't just breed carrier pigeons to fly really fast.
Granted this doesn't mean there haven't been technological failures. Like you mention with lead in gasoline. They weren't predicted because of various reasons. If we don't have capitalism to pressure people into releasing things prematurely we limit this problem. Also with better understanding of science these problems get minimized as well.
In the quote at the top it spells out Rafiq's position quite clearly. No one is saying we should blow up the Earth tomorrow. The process would be a slow one where everything that is deemed unnecessary is removed. This isn't about burning down the amazon tomorrow, however the extreme ideological reaction in this thread paints it that way.
>indigenous people across the world fought against it
So if indigenous people fight against us stopping them rape and kill each other it's 'good' is it? Reactionaries are reactionary, it doesn't matter how 'natural' and 'pure' you find their so-called 'culture' to be. >There are still maotists out there like this.
This tells us nothing. There are also unironic anprims, they are reactionaries too. It doesn't matter who you are, it matters WHY you do something.>Understand that the project of Capital is the project of progress and city-building and "optimizing" and unthinking alienating of things from their environment and into their constituent elements.
Why can't we do this in a communist society? Why can't we remove plants from the ground in a society where humans are treated fairly? I fail to see how "progress" is bad intrinsically. >[communists] dont want the worker alienated from their community, from their labor (i.e. their life time and power), from the land and tools they use frequently, from their homes, etc
True.>The answer to this is not replacing the separatory power of money with that of the government. The answer is reuiniting the rifts that were caused and removing this tumor that we call Capital. Its about workers but about so much more.
What are you *actually* proposing here? We return to monke?
<"For you Communism is a fantasy, plain and simple, it is the 'good' of capitalism minus 'the bad'. What you fail to understand is that the overthrow of capitalism entails just that - both what you perceive the 'good' and the 'bad' are sublated, because both are conditions of the other's existence."
I actually missed a point>Fundamentally, we ARE animals, and we DO live in a biosphere, and even though we've dramatically changed our ecosystem, look at where we changed it.
You didn't read either of the Rafiq threads, did you? You think a fucking cockroach is of equal worth to humans? You think humans have no agency in changing our environment? I offer you all of known human history as my source to back this up.
This is what I talk about in my other post just now about the lack of care of anyone to read the threads. They just read >environment go bye bye
and shut their eyes and ears. >>3509
This has already been addressed. It honestly baffles me how anyone could read this in good faith and come away thinking that he is advocating destroying everything all at once tomorrow.