this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Collapse
3237 readers
1 users here now
We have moved to https://lemm.ee/c/collapse -- please adjust your subscriptions
This is the place for discussing the potential collapse of modern civilization and the environment.
Collapse, in this context, refers to the significant loss of an established level or complexity towards a much simpler state. It can occur differently within many areas, orderly or chaotically, and be willing or unwilling. It does not necessarily imply human extinction or a singular, global event. Although, the longer the duration, the more it resembles a ‘decline’ instead of collapse.
RULES
1 - Remember the human
2 - Link posts should come from a reputable source
3 - All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith.
4 - No low effort posts.
Related lemmys:
- /c/green
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/[email protected]
- /c/[email protected]
- c/[email protected]
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Degrowth = austerity is eco-fascism" is a statement of fact.
Sounds more like you have a problem with me using the term at all, which is extremely suspicious. What's going on, here?
It is not just a category error but conflating three independent concepts.
Ecofascism is prescription ethics. "It is morally good to kill all people so that the planetary ecosystem can return to its natural state, hence we should strive to kill all people". I guess there are such people who adhere to such a value system. Not many of them, though.
Descriptive term would be "We are in deep overshoot, so excess deaths of billions are unavoidable within about a century". You will notice complete absence of a moral value statement here.
Degrowth and austerity sound like the planetary system Earth can have considerable degrees of freedom in that respect. It has not, but you might think that sustained existance 8.1 billion people and a decline in net energy per capita availability while crashing the planetary ecosystem are compatible.
Do you think that that 8.1 billion people and fast decline in net energy per capita availability while crashing the planetary ecosystem are compatible? If yes, please cite your references.
I am giving you an opportunity to explain what you mean.
should have a copypaste of something like this so we dont have to type it out every time someone comes in parroting the "blah blah science is ecofascism" nonsense
I'm not going to waste my energy explaining a very basic concept to someone who clearly wants so much to not-see it. If your view of degrowth involves the massive drop in quality of life, you are, without a doubt, little more than an ecofascist and I and everyone else is beyond reasonable for wanting nothing to do with you.
you aren't explaining yourself because you don't make sense, don't pretend like its because you are taking some high ground .
In the numerous discussions I've seen on this I've never seen it done. Recognizing a reality of our predicament is choosing a particular monstrous ethos in response, apparently, and no, they won't explain.
A lot of these younger leftists are authoritarian and anti-intellectual, and react with hostility to any disagreement with their beliefs. This was a problem on Reddit and it's a problem on Lemmy. I don't know what happened to the left, but when I was young they were the intellectual and rational ones. These days, anything other than "fully automated luxury communism" is ecofascism I suppose. Yes, they do take the view that an accurate assessment of our predicament makes you a terrible person.
Also blaming white people for this is inappropriate as there is basically no part of the world today that's on a sustainable trajectory in the scenario of energy descent.
That's an easy one. These people are not left. The movement as a whole has died. There are still individuals who are left, but organizations no longer.
You're correct. The poster has called me names and refused to explain what he meant.