• 0 Posts
  • 98 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 22nd, 2024

help-circle



  • I don’t disagree with you, but this is unrealistic.

    But…we don’t have a choice if we are to survive. Continuation with any system like our current system (i.e. exploitation of nature for economic growth) will lead to obvious ecological collapse. Why is certain ecological collapse viewed as the more realistic choice?

    This is akin to a person well on their way to a heart attack saying “well, eating healthy is unrealistic, so let’s switch to diet coke and pretend that’s enough”


  • The truth is that no system of rule is functional long term, anarchism is the only stable system, it worked for 200k years.

    So long as the state is how humans organize, there will be boom and bust cycles until either ecological collapse or invulnerable fascism brings us to a new terrible stable state.

    The only logical position (in the U.S.) is to vote blue to buy time in hopes that anarchism can be reached by other means.

    … Oh, not that kind of truth probably














  • To some degree, fission also, though it has a few other problems like safety and security concerns around nuclear materials, locations of fuels and whether they are in friendly nations, other things the fuels can be used for and all the politics that goes with that, etc.

    But we need more than just energy. At some point, regardless of our energy, we are going to destroy Earth’s ecosystems using up other resources, using this energy to mine unsustainably, etc. More energy just means we kill ourselves faster. We should not be looking for more or cleaner energy with which to kill ourselves with, we should be looking to continuity of our species and that requires living sustainably within the bounds of our environment.