I'm fairly convinced that the status quo can do nothing to prevent the collapse of complex industrial society. Obviously it's a complicated topic, but if you assume the position that by 2030 there will be dramatic, uncontrollable warming of the planet (and all of the side effects that will bring), what is to be done to prevent that?

As a guy with a decent work-from-home kind of job (for now) and enough resources to be comfortable, it's been incredibly tempting during quarantine to think about building a house off the grid, finding a stable source of drinking water, and building a sustainable farming homestead in rural America. 2020 has demonstrated that things don't always just work out. I'm worried about the precarious material conditions that pervade contemporary urban culture (at least from the perspective of sustainability if food/water/power systems are interrupted). And I know I could develop the skills I need to live like that.

But obviously, something can be done to prevent a collapse. We could work together to ensure the stability of urban environments, and produce all of the energy and matetials we need here, locally. We could put everyone to work with this goal in mind. We could build a better world collectively.

But how? How do I find a group of people to work with? How do I convince the liberals who just shrug and say, man, isn't it just terrible that trump is in charge? How do I find anyone who's thinking about this shit, and realizes that actually yes, this can all fall apart. Things are not as stable as they seem. Climate change is literally the only issue that matters in any time frame beyond 10 years.

What is next? What is there to do?

    • Gorn [they/them,he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I guess flight and diet are pretty huge ones too, tbh. But really, it all just scratches the surface imo :)

        • Gorn [they/them,he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Ya, veganism is the best thing you can do; specifically, don’t eat beef or dairy. Flight is second best to stop; the average round-trip doubles the average flyer’s carbon emissions for that year.

          I both agree and disagree on children. I think it comes from a place of believing that humans existing is the fundamental issue, rather than the fundamental issue being consumption and capitalism. The richest 10% of humanity is responsible for over half of climate emissions. Basically, those 1/10 people just need to do less, and we’ll be fine.

          And I find ‘depopulation’ narratives tend to place that responsibility instead on the people who are contributing the least to climate change. The venn diagram of ‘places with growing pop’ns’ and ‘places responsible for climate change’ has little to no overlap.

          And what happens when ppl from those rich places don’t have kids? Immigration, to keep the capitalist economy propped-up. Very little change.

          But of course, you’re also right. Haha. Because children from rich places will have a higher impact. So it’s not all one thing or the other; how could it be, with something as global and complex as climate change?

          And adoption is always based. Always. And it truly is important for as many people as possible to have healthy, leftist upbringings . :af-heart:

          • RobotnikFeminism [they/them]
            ·
            4 years ago

            The global top 10% is not as exclusively megarich as you think it is. Anyone with a net worth north of $94k is in the global top 10%. Chances are, if you're making more than a few bucks more than minimum wage in any developed country, *you * need to drastically lower your carbon footprint and you're in no ecologically ethical position to reproduce.

            • Gorn [they/them,he/him]
              ·
              4 years ago

              Oh, I'm fully aware. If you go by income instead of wealth, earning over $30,000USD per year doesn't just put you in the top ten percent, it puts you in the top one percent. I definitely don't think of the 10% as the exclusively rich, quite the opposite, I think of them as basically everyone I've ever met.

              I just completely disagree that reproduction is an important part of the equation, for a few reasons. Namely, rich countries will just accept more immigrants to replace the 'missing' people, and people are always willing to immigrate to rich places. If there aren't enough rich people being 'born', they will be 'made' to keep the GDP good for the overlords. The system will always balance itself out, regardless of who does or doesn't have kids.

              The 'don't reproduce' angle is just too individualistic for me. We're better off, frankly, with large leftist families than we are with leftists who choose not to reproduce imo.

              This is coming from someone terminally unpartnered who makes extremely little money by 'developed world' standards btw, hahaha, just so you know that I'm giving you my honest truth, unbiased by a desire to procreate or whatever.

              (But also, virgin leftist anti-natalists vs. the chad quiverful kid farmers hahaha, it's a war out there)

              • RobotnikFeminism [they/them]
                1·
                4 years ago

                We are absolutely not better off with large families in first-world countries, whether they're leftists or not. At least not until multiple generations have passed since fixing the ecosystem.

                Yes, the rich will try bringing in immigrants en masse to use more labor. That's why you have to burn the system the fuck down, but the new system will only save the planet if it is committed to consuming and producing drastically less shit, such that society can be maintained with a smaller population.

                • Gorn [they/them,he/him]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  I agree we need to burn the system down. But, until we do, the system will keep sourcing the bodies it needs from wherever it can, making individualist efforst at depopulating developed countries futile. Developed countries have all had declining birth:death rate ratios for years and years, but they keep their population growing through immigration. Because that’s what the system needs.

                  It’s not about ‘developed nation people’, it’s about ‘developed nations’. You can’t stop it by not reproducing, you have to dismantle it.

                  And how do you dismantle it? By winning the class war. Not having children does nothing, because capitalism ‘promotes’ immigrants to counteract that. Again, it’s already been happening for decades.

                  But not having children does weaken us. We need to build left power to dismantle the system. We need to win the class war and, unfortunately, children learn their politics largely from their parents.

                  So to me, not having children has a negligible material impact. You either dismantle the system or you don’t. And you know what doesn’t help us dismantle the system?

                  Having the average leftist have 0.5 children while the average chud has 3-5.

                  It’s gross and weird to think about. And I think you’re rad and cool and based! (And also have a dope username) But, I just totally disagree with you about this haha. Oh well! :P

                  • RobotnikFeminism [they/them]
                    2·
                    4 years ago

                    There's plenty of orphans and foster kids to adopt and teach Marxism to. Until the revolution, the average first-world lifestlye that you'd be multiplying by reproducing is not going to become any less carbon-intensive, and frankly, given the generally productivist attitudes on the left, I'm not all that confident that it'll become any less carbon-intensive after the revolution.