• argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Then why are you here? Your horrid omnicidal wish will be, by your own admission, inevitably granted. You have nothing to worry about.

        • possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not true. Choosing degrowth prevents deaths, kicking the can until nature forces degrowth leads to more deaths.

          Is this one of those projection things driven by a guilty conscience?

          • shanghaibebop@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Degrowth is a dangerous ideology. For those living in rich countries, degrowth might just mean austerity, for those living in middle and lower income countries, degrowth is going to mean destitution and certain death for x percentage of the population.

            • possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I disagree for many of the reasons I’ve already explained on responses to this comment. The climate science community also disagrees based on a consensus of studies. After becoming informed on the situation, degrowth is clearly the least dangerous ideology to pursue because it doesn’t further extend our overshoot. And that applies to all locations.

              • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                And how, exactly, do you expect to institute this proposal over the objections of the rich? Every previous attempt to do something like this, like the communist revolutions in Russia and China, ended up killing millions of people and accomplishing nothing of virtue, because the rich retained power and forcibly twisted the new post-revolution economy into something even worse than capitalism.

                  • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So, you propose that I live in a state of perpetual nausea from eating nothing but horrid-tasting, questionably-nutritious, plant-based “food” instead of actual food, and then die in the apocalypse anyway? No thanks. Civilization is done for, living in it is miserable enough already, and I am not interested in sacrificing what few shreds of happiness remain in order to accomplish basically nothing.

                    The only way to avert the coming disaster is decisive, mandatory action from the top of society on down, and that obviously isn’t going to happen, so the best I can realistically hope for is to live it up and be dead before it gets really ugly.

                    But I still do what I asked of others: I reduce my footprint

                    Not as much as you could. You still live in shelter, use electricity, exhale carbon, eat carbon-absorbing plants, and excrete methane. Humanity’s very existence is driving global warming. There is no escape.

                    support workers’ rights

                    running for office

                    working towards things like ending harmful subsidies

                    None of these things are going to happen. The rich will string you up by the toenails before they let you derail their gravy train, and your fellow proles will cheer as they do it. That’s why we’re doomed: powerful people are enforcing our doom, and everyone else worships them.