completely true at this stage in humanity at least
stegosaurus posted:
2% is conservative for maoist china. it wasnt breakaway growth but it was like 6 or so percent.
That's Meisner's number if you disinclude the famine years I believe. Also I don't know that that is "across the board" or not
hahahah wow you are extremely mentally unstable
Edited by Crow ()
http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,0&rel=emailNation
where she goes into the economic and political consequences of climate change. she's correct that capitalism is predicated on a false premise of an unlimited earth and infinite resources (which has been known since before marx) and correct that permanent growth will be impossible even within the next century (david harvey also makes this point a lot) but she basically has this religious devotion to the good nature of mankind and the purity of the natural world. she advocates against both capitalism and stalinism (whatever that means) and thinks that with proper decentralized democracy the environment will be saved because some rich hippies live in a green commune in europe somewhere.
to anyone who is not a "believer" in the soul and the power of democracy it's obvious that a global socialist totalitarian state which completely regulates all pollution, carbon emissions, allocation of resources and economic growth (which will have to be strictly confined to the most desperately poor regions) is the only solution to all life being wiped off the planet within the next century. it doesn't really matter what anyone thinks about this, it's the only alternative. I guess my question is, how do we make people see what they already know (the vanishing mediator between economic catastrophe leading to the end of all life and the everyday outsourcing of pollution and destruction while buying organic shit) on the left specifically? the global warming deniers are in fact far more honest than the liberals because they realize what the consequences of such a truth are. they at least are acting out their part as businessmen destroying themselves to keep up with the coercive laws of capital.
babyhueypnewton posted:
...is the only solution to all life being wiped off the planet within the next century...
Here, I think, is the one and only part where your argument fails. I don't think we're even close to being on track to destroying all human life, let alone all life. What we'll see is massive famine, horrible wars, deep, unrelenting poverty, rising sea levels, huge refugee populations and a simple biosphere where various invasive species with nearly world-wide ranges compete against one another. the end of cheap energy will also do a lot to prevent any large-scale organization of human beings. all of this may or may not be enough to support a tiny, superrich elite, but i'd put my money (get it?) on them surviving
despair may be certain but unfortunately i'm not sure death is
im not really too concerned about the environmental crisis tbh. the earth will shove back and lots of people will perish as our precariously arranged structures of modernity collapses but thats happened before its no biggie
thirdplace posted:babyhueypnewton posted:
...is the only solution to all life being wiped off the planet within the next century...Here, I think, is the one and only part where your argument fails. I don't think we're even close to being on track to destroying all human life, let alone all life. What we'll see is massive famine, horrible wars, deep, unrelenting poverty, rising sea levels, huge refugee populations and a simple biosphere where various invasive species with nearly world-wide ranges compete against one another. the end of cheap energy will also do a lot to prevent any large-scale organization of human beings. all of this may or may not be enough to support a tiny, superrich elite, but i'd put my money (get it?) on them surviving
despair may be certain but unfortunately i'm not sure death is
medieval europe best europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Townsend_White,_Jr.
http://www.zbi.ee/~kalevi/lwhite.htm
Edited by babyfinland ()
Impper posted:
no, and i never will be
That's why Rhizzone is the worst kind of ivory tower leftists, paco. Your Attitude in Particular.
babyfinland posted:
marxism has a terrible environmental track record despite the nice idea that all we have to do is Force Nature Really Hard to Do What We Make it Do
im not really too concerned about the environmental crisis tbh. the earth will shove back and lots of people will perish as our precariously arranged structures of modernity collapses but thats happened before its no biggie
The Opposite of that lol
babyfinland posted:
alternatively,
The exact corollary to that
babyfinland posted:
Impper posted:
no, and i never will be
That's why Rhizzone is the worst kind of ivory tower leftists, paco. Your Attitude in Particular.
certum est quia impossibile
Wow nice racism. Modss??
Genghis Khan has been branded the greenest invader in history - after his murderous conquests killed so many people that huge swathes of cultivated land returned to forest.
The Mongol leader, who established a vast empire between the 13th and 14th centuries, helped remove nearly 700million tons of carbon from the atmosphere, claims a new study.
The deaths of 40million people meant that large areas of cultivated land grew thick once again with trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
babyfinland posted:
anyone familiar with Lynn White?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Townsend_White,_Jr.
http://www.zbi.ee/~kalevi/lwhite.htm
no but it looks interesting
mistersix posted:babyfinland posted:
anyone familiar with Lynn White?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Townsend_White,_Jr.
http://www.zbi.ee/~kalevi/lwhite.htmno but it looks interesting
i'm reading his book on technological change in european middle ages. will post more later as news develops