Climate Change

StevenC

Javier Strat 7 2024
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
7,919
Reaction score
9,635
Location
Northern Ireland
People laugh at me when I say primitivism is the only way to save the planet. But if you think about it all other methods and beliefs destroy it. Mining is mining and no matter what you mine for it destroys trees.
"People dying before 30 is the only way to stop people dying"
 

mbardu

SS.org Regular
Joined
May 21, 2013
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
3,336
Location
California
People laugh at me when I say primitivism is the only way to save the planet. But if you think about it all other methods and beliefs destroy it. Mining is mining and no matter what you mine for it destroys trees.

And even destroying trees is like the smallest issue with mining. You could easily re-plant trees for the surface of what we're mining, and they'd suck a good chunk of CO2 while growing. But the amount of energy (and resources in general) the industry uses is obscene...
 

mbardu

SS.org Regular
Joined
May 21, 2013
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
3,336
Location
California
I like the "Be suspicious of alarmists. They are profiting from it."

Be suspicious of non-alarmists. They are many of the most profitable companies on the planet.

As a rule of thumb, everyone is trying to profit.
So be suspicious of everyone.
Not even joking.
 

bostjan

MicroMetal
Contributor
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
21,080
Reaction score
12,870
Location
St. Johnsbury, VT USA
"People dying before 30 is the only way to stop people dying"
Taken to extremes, it's not technically incorrect, but maybe just missing the point.

As far as the environment goes, humanity is in and of itself, a problem. As long as we exist, the environment will continuously get worse. Maybe not every year, but as an overall trend century to century, we make the environment worse.

It's a sad truth. Solar panels produce energy in a clean way, but there is no clean way to produce solar panels. And solar panels have a limited lifespan, so you'll have to continually produce more no matter how careful you are with them. So, using solar energy is necessarily more negatively impactful on the environment than just not using electricity. Wind turbines are the same way. There are tons of toxic chemicals released into the environment in the process of producing the blades, the towers, and the turbines themselves. And they are horribly unreliable, that is to say that they tend to explode or fall apart before they can produce enough energy to break even on investment. So, again, using wind energy has more negative impact on the environment than not using electricity at all.

The logical endpoint of all of those tracks is the same - that simply living a modern lifestyle is necessarily going to negatively impact the environment. Some paths are much much harsher than others, but the only way to not negatively impact the environment is to go back to primitivism. Even that, IDK - if you breathe, you are releasing CO2. If you go to the bathroom, you are polluting something somewhere. Even if you stopped breathing, you'd leave a carcass behind that might already be full of toxic stuff. Life isn't a positive sum game, it isn't even a zero sum game. You take usable energy from the universe and convert it into unusable heat. It's just basic thermodynamics.

So what does that tell everyone? Well, the goal should never be to leave the world better off than you found it. If you want to reduce the negative impact you have on the world, that's great - probably just being aware of this much and having the desire to do better is most of the battle.
 

mbardu

SS.org Regular
Joined
May 21, 2013
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
3,336
Location
California
Taken to extremes, it's not technically incorrect, but maybe just missing the point.

As far as the environment goes, humanity is in and of itself, a problem. As long as we exist, the environment will continuously get worse. Maybe not every year, but as an overall trend century to century, we make the environment worse.

It's a sad truth. Solar panels produce energy in a clean way, but there is no clean way to produce solar panels. And solar panels have a limited lifespan, so you'll have to continually produce more no matter how careful you are with them. So, using solar energy is necessarily more negatively impactful on the environment than just not using electricity. Wind turbines are the same way. There are tons of toxic chemicals released into the environment in the process of producing the blades, the towers, and the turbines themselves. And they are horribly unreliable, that is to say that they tend to explode or fall apart before they can produce enough energy to break even on investment. So, again, using wind energy has more negative impact on the environment than not using electricity at all.

The logical endpoint of all of those tracks is the same - that simply living a modern lifestyle is necessarily going to negatively impact the environment. Some paths are much much harsher than others, but the only way to not negatively impact the environment is to go back to primitivism. Even that, IDK - if you breathe, you are releasing CO2. If you go to the bathroom, you are polluting something somewhere. Even if you stopped breathing, you'd leave a carcass behind that might already be full of toxic stuff. Life isn't a positive sum game, it isn't even a zero sum game. You take usable energy from the universe and convert it into unusable heat. It's just basic thermodynamics.

So what does that tell everyone? Well, the goal should never be to leave the world better off than you found it. If you want to reduce the negative impact you have on the world, that's great - probably just being aware of this much and having the desire to do better is most of the battle.

Today, for sure, we're not efficient.
Worst offenders- things like electric cars are probably very counterproductive to the actual preservation of "the environment".

But in theory at least, there would be no reason to think that nature as it is (through random evolution) is 100% efficient as-is at what it does. So you could imagine a utopia where, through things like fusion energy, AI-optimized design and actual recycling, we can become neutral to even more efficient than nature, and as such be able to have our own modern comfortable niches while not negatively impacting the surrounding "environment". Or being able to mould the environment even more than we do today.

But at the end of the day, the definition of "environment" is pretty nebulous. Even without humans the environment has had and will have its ebbs and flows. There were invasive species and extinction events before humans (albeit, not quite as accelerated), and at the end of the day, we only think of "the environment" as the one that supports and pleases us humans. There's no absolute criteria to what the environment "should" be, and it has not always favored beauty or diversity.
I don't even know what we'd do about the environment were we to end up in our utopia. Leave it untouched while we stay in our bubble? Preserve diversity or another metric even if artificially?

That's just theoretical though. We have maybe 10 "good" years left at this rate, and we're clearly not getting to that utopia with the current incentives, so it's all a moot point :)
 
Last edited:

wheresthefbomb

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
4,051
Reaction score
6,473
Location
Fairbanks, AK
People laugh at me when I say primitivism is the only way to save the planet. But if you think about it all other methods and beliefs destroy it. Mining is mining and no matter what you mine for it destroys trees.

I couldn't say why anyone else is laughing at you, but I'm laughing at you because you're either a secret socialist or don't understand the political and ideological legacy of anarchism. It's extremely hilarious to me that you've not only hitched your horse to a deeply leftist wagon, but one that is widely viewed as risible within broader far left, even anarchist circles.

This is the kind of thing that you get when people think bernie or kamala is "the radical left."
 

AMOS

SS.org Regular
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
887
Reaction score
536
I couldn't say why anyone else is laughing at you, but I'm laughing at you because you're either a secret socialist or don't understand the political and ideological legacy of anarchism. It's extremely hilarious to me that you've not only hitched your horse to a deeply leftist wagon, but one that is widely viewed as risible within broader far left, even anarchist circles.

This is the kind of thing that you get when people think bernie or kamala is "the radical left."
I'm the farthest thing from leftist, Just ask anyone around here. In a society with very little industrialization, politics wouldn't need to exist. There would be no corporations or unions to suck up to.
 

nightflameauto

SS.org Regular
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
2,659
Location
Sioux Falls, SD
I'm the farthest thing from leftist, Just ask anyone around here. In a society with very little industrialization, politics wouldn't need to exist. There would be no corporations or unions to suck up to.
It's politics at a different level, but politics would still exist. Anytime you get more than two humans together, somebody wants to be the leader, and some other somebody is gonna wanna pick a fight with the leader.

I think what you may be thinking of is corruption. Awful hard to hide the corruption in a hunter/gatherer society of small tribes sometimes warring with each other. And look at us, all cozy on the opposite end of the spectrum where the political class don't even really feel the need to hide the corruption. In fact, we give it pretty names and parade it around the country like it's a good thing. Like, for instance, Lobbyists.
 

wheresthefbomb

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
4,051
Reaction score
6,473
Location
Fairbanks, AK
I'm the farthest thing from leftist, Just ask anyone around here. In a society with very little industrialization, politics wouldn't need to exist. There would be no corporations or unions to suck up to.

Do you agree with the anti-capitalist conclusions of anarcho-primitivisim?
 

AMOS

SS.org Regular
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
887
Reaction score
536
Do you agree with the anti-capitalist conclusions of anarcho-primitivisim?
Yes, if there's no central Government then there's no central market system I would gather. I disagree with violent forms of Anarchism, it's not necessary. Antifa are wannabe's that found group discounts on Che Guevara T-shirts, but they know nothing about living beyond mom's basement. I believe in peaceful communities.
 

bostjan

MicroMetal
Contributor
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
21,080
Reaction score
12,870
Location
St. Johnsbury, VT USA
Meh, politics isn't really a one-dimensional, nor a two-dimensional array of issues and positions. Especially when you get extreme, and the ends of the spectrum start to look more alike than different.
 

narad

Progressive metal and politics
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
13,437
Reaction score
22,780
Location
Tokyo
Yes, if there's no central Government then there's no central market system I would gather. I disagree with violent forms of Anarchism, it's not necessary. Antifa are wannabe's that found group discounts on Che Guevara T-shirts, but they know nothing about living beyond mom's basement. I believe in peaceful communities.
No one who spends this much time on a guitar forum is self sufficient to such an extent that they would live a better life in some primitivistic world. It's just the pot calling the kettle black (with Che Guevara faces).
 

TedEH

Cromulent
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
10,806
Reaction score
8,820
Location
Gatineau, Quebec
Yes, if there's no central Government then there's no central market system I would gather. I disagree with violent forms of Anarchism, it's not necessary. Antifa are wannabe's that found group discounts on Che Guevara T-shirts, but they know nothing about living beyond mom's basement. I believe in peaceful communities.
I don't understand this....
if you have a peaceful community, then that sense of community is probably built on some form of sharing, which would form a market, and they'd need rules to keep that system from breaking down, or to "govern" it, so to speak. If you have no rules, you have no market, you have no community, you have no incentive to be peaceful. "Peace" doesn't just happen because people agree to be nice to eachother.
 


Top