Get ready for countries like the US to "take on the responsibility" of altering the world's climate and fucking it even further.

How anyone can think that our world will not severely fuck "geoengineering" the planet is insane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSu5sXmsur4

  • PaulWall [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    ya and bourgeois production of gimmick commodities for profit is the driving force behind consumption

    • Corbyn [none/use name]
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      4 years ago

      That does not remove you from personal responsibility. The most immediate action you can take is changing your own behaviour and then that of others.

      • PaulWall [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        when you can’t take your theory out of its individualistic pitfalls, you know you’re a liberal.

        • Corbyn [none/use name]
          arrow-down
          26
          ·
          4 years ago

          I am a lib because I advocate for less consumption? Ok, I guess I am a lib then.

          • CarlTheRedditor [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            You're advocating it under a liberal framework.

            That does not remove you from personal responsibility.

            Everyone on this website could go fully anprim and it would achieve fuckall in terms of fixing the problems. Thus, discussing "personal responsibility" in this context is utterly futile. The changes necessary must be systemic.

            • Corbyn [none/use name]
              arrow-down
              19
              ·
              4 years ago

              You’re advocating it under a liberal framework.

              That everyone has a responsibility, to do what they can, to contribute to the improvement of our current situation, is not a "liberal framework".

              Everyone on this website could go fully anprim and it would achieve fuckall in terms of fixing the problems.

              Fortunately, the world does not end here.

              Thus, discussing “personal responsibility” in this context is utterly futile.

              Personal consumption (mostly in western countries) has caused it. That there are systemic reasons for it does not change that anyone still has a responsibility, and can bring immediate improvements, which is what we need.

              The changes necessary must be systemic.

              Did I ever say that it doesn't have to be systemic? No. In theory we could solve climate change by changing our way to live tomorrow, but that won't happen. Neither is soon enough systemic change realistic. That shouldn't stop us from fighting for either. But resigning and handing over all your responsibilities to large corporations, then getting mad them, is pathetic.

                • Corbyn [none/use name]
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  You might not have intended it, but the structure that upholds the argument that a group of individual actors could reduce their consumption and that would reduce production is rooted in the flawed liberal analysis that individual actors (even acting in groups) have power over the machinery of the global union between states and capital.

                  No, but they have control over their individual consumption and often choose to simply not care. Even if systemic issues are the driving force behind this behaviour, I don't agree with categorically relieving humans from their responsibilities. Not in any system.

                  The counter to that line of reasoning is that we simply cut off the production of greenhouse gasses at its source, the producers.

                  As I have said, that should be the goal and is key to having any chance of not reaching 5°C. But I also believe that not everyone is just a victim of capitalism but often choosing to participate to an unnecessary degree. They are aware of the damage they cause, yet tell themselves why it isn't so bad, why it is ok. A different mindset would have a significant impact on emissions. The capital would react to this is, if "necessary", but that also doesn't justify this kind of destructive behaviour.

                  If your argument is that under a socialist state the individual must uphold their commitment to reducing consumption that would also be stupid because if u have a socialist state why not just be like “uhh yall need to waste less fucking food smdh” like chynah is doing? at that point you arent asking individual yeoman farmers to make the logical conclusion that their patriotic duty is to do something, your just telling them.

                  Because this won't happen in capitalist governments, the individual actions are even more significant. That the state doesn't tell you to behave less shitty does not make shitty actions ok.

              • JoeySteel [comrade/them]
                ·
                4 years ago

                Read a book you fucking lib and preferably not one written by that sucdem, manhole cover collecting loser and capitulator you named your account after

                • Corbyn [none/use name]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  I have bought "Fire and Fury" and try to finish it by the end of the year.

          • PaulWall [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            it’s the means by which you think less consumption will occur that makes you a lib, individual reduction of consumption isn’t going to take place when there is systemic incentivization of perpetually increasing consumption.

      • Blottergrass [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        If people made their own decisions on their own then companies wouldn't invest so much money into marketing and advertising. Take away the ads and show me the rabid consumers, then I'll give your point some merit.

      • LangdonAlger [any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Yes, consciousness choices would do immeasurable (the bad kind of immeasurable) benefit to the planet, but the system of capitalism will kill to uphold the consumptive system. Until consumer choices include the option to choose to abolish capitalism, the climate cannot be saved

        • Corbyn [none/use name]
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          4 years ago

          Until consumer choices include the option to choose to abolish capitalism, the climate cannot be saved

          The choice is to consume significantly less.

          • communistthrowaway69 [none/use name]
            ·
            4 years ago

            The pollution happens during production, not consumption, you fucking idiot.

            If you think you can shift supply by changing individual demand, you don't fucking understand capitalism. And you've just fully deep throated bourgeois propaganda.

            The entire point of it is to control production. They're not going to stop because you don't want their stuff. Literally entire wars are started solely to "open up markets" to push products onto. Entire infrastructure systems have been destroyed solely to bolster the need to consume products.

            They're currently running airline flights that are fucking empty, one of the most polluting things we do, just to make sure the routes still work.

            If we all magically stopped consuming, then a hyper consumer class would gobble to the rest. Or they'd force you to at gunpoint, basically.

            The idea that you have individual choice in capitalism is just part of its hegemony. Without completely restructuring the entire global economy, your "individual responsibility" means dick.

            • Corbyn [none/use name]
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              4 years ago

              They’re not going to stop because you don’t want their stuff.

              No, they won't, but that isn't an excuse for unsustainable consumption. If you make the decision to be more wasteful than you could be, then you are to blame too. Most people in the west could easily reduce their consumption and many choose not to. I don't know why you want to defend selfishness.

              Without completely restructuring the entire global economy

              That should be the goal.

              • 1van5 [he/him]
                ·
                4 years ago

                There's no ethical consumption under capitalism

                • Corbyn [none/use name]
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 years ago

                  There are different degrees of exploitation. This was about luxuries and wastefulness though.

              • PaulWall [he/him]
                ·
                4 years ago

                you aren’t being more wasteful than you need to be if you buy a ticket for a plane that would’ve ran empty either way. you aren’t increasing pollution in anyway by participating in the plane trip bc it would took place with or without passengers as we have seen in corona

                • Corbyn [none/use name]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  Unpopular and not lucrative routes get cut all the time. Covid is an exception because of governments bailing out airlines and rules that required airlines to have some flights to keep their spots.

                  Those were few flights, the overall flights dropped more than ever before: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104036/novel-coronavirus-weekly-flights-change-airlines-region/

                  • PaulWall [he/him]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    on how many fronts are you defending this individualist, reactionary take now? last night when i started this sub-thread it was just contra-me. but now comrades too have stepped in to help and you still can’t see the err in your theory.