climate change can only be happen by dismantling capitalism.

Watch
cadaanshaydaan
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Environmental veganism and a conversion to metal straws isn't enough.

This individualist, liberal sentiment that all it takes is one single person replacing their car with a bicycle (when it's well documented that many poor people don't have the luxury of making that choice) to fix the environment is tiring and false. Instead it would be more use to confront (over)consumption in the global north, mass resource extraction and capitalism's tendency towards global capital accumulation at the expense of "environmental devastation"(Michael Parenti).

It's really interesting to me how indigenous people are the best guardians of the planet and also ensuring biodiversity (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...biodiversity-/) despite facing displacement and murder while the West cry and scaremonger about "overpopulation".

Every argument that attempts to reconcile the maintenance of capitalism and the prevention of the impending ecological collapse is contradictory or shallow at best. Like the work of Polly Higgins (https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...P=share_btn_tw).
Last edited by cadaanshaydaan; 2 years ago
1
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
What would yuou be replacing capitalism with?
How would you enforce it?
What are the chances of that?
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by cadaanshaydaan)
Environmental veganism and a conversion to metal straws isn't enough.

This individualist, liberal sentiment that all it takes is one single person replacing their car with a bicycle (when it's well documented that many poor people don't have the luxury of making that choice) to fix the environment is tiring and false. Instead it would be more use to confront (over)consumption in the global north, mass resource extraction and capitalism's tendency towards global capital accumulation at the expense of "environmental devastation"(Michael Parenti).

It's really interesting to me how indigenous people are the best guardians of the planet and also ensuring biodiversity (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...biodiversity-/) despite facing displacement and murder while the West cry and scaremonger about "overpopulation".

Every argument that attempts to reconcile the maintenance of capitalism and the prevention of the impending ecological collapse is contradictory or shallow at best. Like the work of Polly Higgins (https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...P=share_btn_tw).
your point about indigenous people is an interesting one. As far as I see, there are two ways to live sustainably on this planet:

1 - we regress to a sustainable point, based on our current knowledge and understanding
2 - we keep progressing, hoping to innovate/progress past/through the problem

Your position is a variant of number 1. It slows progress, and mandates (through your new non-capitalist system) that we live within our environmental means. We would have a more basic life then we have now, have to accept that the current way we are living is not sustainable, and cut back significantly until we can slowly move towards more advanced options. E.g. we have to only use renewable energy, use less plastic products, support less industry, less travel, less importing, less wealth etc. until we are all living at a level that doesn't harm the plannet. Then from there within our means we push forward slowly, never exceeding the planets tolerance.

My problem with this position, is that it slows progress down to a crawl. First it requires regression, and then progress afterwards by being restricted to the environmental limits of the planet/sustainability, is much slower.

The reason why that's a problem for me is that we know two things about our environment.. both of which are very well established and indisputable:

1, Climate changes have occurred for all of the planets history, mostly gradual, but occasionally rapid
2, Currently humans are causing climate change to vastly accelerate, and are exaggerating its effects

The problem with position 1, the regression-within-our-means option, is that it perfectly solves the second fact about climate change. It completely eliminates the human factors.

But it completely ignores the first fact. The climate will change, even if we stop all of our negative actions. We will go through warming phases, and cooling phases.. ice ages, sunamis etc. all will still happen. External events such as meteor strikes will still happen. For example, at the end of the last ice-age, 11000 years ago, the sea level rose by something crazy like 200 meters in less then a hundred years. It Changed the face of the earth in a century, and nearly wiped out all human life. That wasn't caused by humans. Equally the little ice-ages that partially led to the plauges that killed most of europe in the middle ages, were not caused by humans.

The point is, even if we stop making the problem worse, the problem is still there.. the climate will change, and it will happen in ways that will be awful for us.

That for me is why I edge towards the more risky option. The idea that the best way of solving climate change is to innovate more, grow more, push more, populate more.. keep pushing further, and eventually a solution will be found. Capitalism is key in this due to its promotion of competition and how it rewards innovation. In a capitalist system there is a delay.. sure now there is a motivation for energy companies to keep the status-quo, but as reserves run dry.. the motivation exerted by capitalism changes, and there becomes a huge motivation to innovate. Eventually who ever can solve the energy crisis will be the richest and most powerful man on earth. The idea behind the second way is that as the situation worsens the motivations change, and as the motivations change people will respond by sovling the problem. New sources of energy will be found, the market will respond etc.

For me this solves the situation better because - if it works - it keeps progress pushing ahead, and hopefully puts us in an advanced enough position to be able to mitigate against future climate events that we don't cause. Meaning it has the potential to solve both of the 2 facts about climate change.

Obviously the risk though is that, either a solution will never be found, or that it will be found to late. Both of which are genuine risks to the second approach. The risks to the first aproach are that you stiffle progression so much that when the next ice-age comes around (which we are over-due) we are not advanced enough to cope with it.
1
reply
username2393237
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
I respectfully disagree because I think that metal straws will be our saviour.
1
reply
Molseh
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
Realistically a Global Extinction Event is the only way to potentially recover from whatever effects mankind is having on our planet.

p.s. Communism needs industry too.
0
reply
cadaanshaydaan
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
your point about indigenous people is an interesting one. As far as I see, there are two ways to live sustainably on this planet:

1 - we regress to a sustainable point, based on our current knowledge and understanding
2 - we keep progressing, hoping to innovate/progress past/through the problem

Your position is a variant of number 1. It slows progress, and mandates (through your new non-capitalist system) that we live within our environmental means. We would have a more basic life then we have now, have to accept that the current way we are living is not sustainable, and cut back significantly until we can slowly move towards more advanced options. E.g. we have to only use renewable energy, use less plastic products, support less industry, less travel, less importing, less wealth etc. until we are all living at a level that doesn't harm the plannet. Then from there within our means we push forward slowly, never exceeding the planets tolerance.

My problem with this position, is that it slows progress down to a crawl. First it requires regression, and then progress afterwards by being restricted to the environmental limits of the planet/sustainability, is much slower.

The reason why that's a problem for me is that we know two things about our environment.. both of which are very well established and indisputable:

1, Climate changes have occurred for all of the planets history, mostly gradual, but occasionally rapid
2, Currently humans are causing climate change to vastly accelerate, and are exaggerating its effects

The problem with position 1, the regression-within-our-means option, is that it perfectly solves the second fact about climate change. It completely eliminates the human factors.

But it completely ignores the first fact. The climate will change, even if we stop all of our negative actions. We will go through warming phases, and cooling phases.. ice ages, sunamis etc. all will still happen. External events such as meteor strikes will still happen. For example, at the end of the last ice-age, 11000 years ago, the sea level rose by something crazy like 200 meters in less then a hundred years. It Changed the face of the earth in a century, and nearly wiped out all human life. That wasn't caused by humans. Equally the little ice-ages that partially led to the plauges that killed most of europe in the middle ages, were not caused by humans.

The point is, even if we stop making the problem worse, the problem is still there.. the climate will change, and it will happen in ways that will be awful for us.

That for me is why I edge towards the more risky option. The idea that the best way of solving climate change is to innovate more, grow more, push more, populate more.. keep pushing further, and eventually a solution will be found. Capitalism is key in this due to its promotion of competition and how it rewards innovation. In a capitalist system there is a delay.. sure now there is a motivation for energy companies to keep the status-quo, but as reserves run dry.. the motivation exerted by capitalism changes, and there becomes a huge motivation to innovate. Eventually who ever can solve the energy crisis will be the richest and most powerful man on earth. The idea behind the second way is that as the situation worsens the motivations change, and as the motivations change people will respond by sovling the problem. New sources of energy will be found, the market will respond etc.

For me this solves the situation better because - if it works - it keeps progress pushing ahead, and hopefully puts us in an advanced enough position to be able to mitigate against future climate events that we don't cause. Meaning it has the potential to solve both of the 2 facts about climate change.

Obviously the risk though is that, either a solution will never be found, or that it will be found to late. Both of which are genuine risks to the second approach. The risks to the first aproach are that you stiffle progression so much that when the next ice-age comes around (which we are over-due) we are not advanced enough to cope with it.
I agree my wording was slightly wrong, instead of saying climate change can be prevented in its entirety I should've spoken about lessening the impact/damage. The term climate change as its adopted in popular culture and colloquial use has become synonymous with environmental destruction so while yes, at this current point in time, we have not yet devised a way to address the unpredictability of the planet, the environment and how truly vulnerable we are to inevitable obstacles such as a meteorite or rising sea levels or even the plague as you mentioned. However, the issue of irreversibility poses a different problem entirely.

The suggestion you make, in which there will come a time where we finally understand the severity of what is meant by ecological collapse and the natural competitiveness encouraged by the free market system will allow for people to compete to create a solution (regardless of their motivations lol) I would argue is utter nonsense. It's not so much that billionaires, conglomerates and industries have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo it's that their goal of global capital accumulation is of immediate concern to them at the expense of a distant abstraction such as ecocide, the very nature of capitalism necessitates this. In fact, to assert that our inhabitance of the same planet makes this an equal concern of theirs would be wrong. "They reside in a different class reality, residing in places where the air is somewhat better than in low and middle income areas. They have access to food that is organically raised and specially prepared. The nation's toxic dumps and freeways usually are not situated in or near their swanky neighbourhoods." (Michael Parenti)

And if we were assured that they would at some point become willing, how long can we wait for billionaires or capitalist "innovation" to save us if we also know that the longer we wait, the worse the damage will be? Which presents the ultimate problem, that innovation requires resources and access to those resources. How can this happen if there is currently an unethical distribution of education and health services which hinders, far more than the prospect of lowering our consumption and waste, the possibility of adequately and effectively addressing ecocide. Even if in our current trajectory we could become advanced enough to cope with the overdue, incoming ice age it would be naive to suggest everyone would equally benefit from these advancements. If Bill Gates can't alleviate poverty in Africa without suggesting eugenicist measures (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/g...ulation-booms/) and the "modernist conceit" that imbues the sciences and which allows for you to insist on maintaining modernity in the hopes that science will bring a solution (which is not a condemnation on you or science) despite the violent history entangled with science and technology. How can we trust that science can save all of us and not just the elite few?

as for practical solutions these were very interesting reads imo:
https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/b...ental-strategy
https://monthlyreview.org/2015/06/01...netary-crisis/
0
reply
cadaanshaydaan
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by 999tigger)
What would yuou be replacing capitalism with?
How would you enforce it?
What are the chances of that?
1) socialism
2) through democracy
3) By prioritising people are properly educated on socialism outside of reading Orwell's animal farm I think it's likely with effort. I've recently moved away from a defeatist attitude that Britain will never be truly socialist.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by cadaanshaydaan)
1) socialism
2) through democracy
3) By prioritising people are properly educated on socialism outside of reading Orwell's animal farm I think it's likely with effort. I've recently moved away from a defeatist attitude that Britain will never be truly socialist.
What sort of socialism exists without capitalism as its means of commerce?
Give us some model countries.
0
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
I am really sorry, but I don't understand a word of the OP. However, capitalism is well placed to solve environmental issues. It just requires guts from the world's governments to make environmentally damaging products more expensive (through taxation) than environmental alternatives. The market will sort out the rest.

It has worked brilliantly with smoking to a certain extent - alcohol.
1
reply
Wōden
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by cadaanshaydaan)
1) socialism
2) through democracy
3) By prioritising people are properly educated on socialism outside of reading Orwell's animal farm I think it's likely with effort. I've recently moved away from a defeatist attitude that Britain will never be truly socialist.
How will socialism magically solve our environmental problems? There will still be 8 billion people on the planet, who will still need feeding, housing, clothing, heating, transport etc, all the things currently contributing to environmental destruction.
1
reply
username2950448
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
Your thread's title is incoherent and nonsensical.

I agree that capitalism is destroying the planet, but I also think capitalism can be moulded and used for the opposite purpose too.
0
reply
cadaanshaydaan
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by 999tigger)
What sort of socialism exists without capitalism as its means of commerce?
Give us some model countries.
https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/b...ental-strategy
https://monthlyreview.org/2015/06/01...netary-crisis/
two interesting reads on Cuba and The Soviet Union about the environmental strategies socialist countries adopted.

As for your other point regarding commerce could you care to expand??
0
reply
cadaanshaydaan
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by Palmyra)
Your thread's title is incoherent and nonsensical.

I agree that capitalism is destroying the planet, but I also think capitalism can be moulded and used for the opposite purpose too.
lol it wouldn't let me change my title. And are you arguing capitalism can be moulded to prevent the prospect of ecocide? is that a gut feeling or do you have evidence?
(Original post by Wōden)
How will socialism magically solve our environmental problems? There will still be 8 billion people on the planet, who will still need feeding, housing, clothing, heating, transport etc, all the things currently contributing to environmental destruction.
LOL did i suggest that we all run around naked and hungry or did i propose a suggestion to address overconsumption in the global north which is both unsustainable and unethical. Also, not every person on this planet is equally fed, clothed and given adequate shelter etc. All of these are issues caused by capitalism.....so what are you arguing for? A system that can't even properly eradicate malnutrition or illiteracy despite all the lovely advancements we've made...
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by cadaanshaydaan)
https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/b...ental-strategy
https://monthlyreview.org/2015/06/01...netary-crisis/
two interesting reads on Cuba and The Soviet Union about the environmental strategies socialist countries adopted.

As for your other point regarding commerce could you care to expand??
They are failed countries though. Do you think people in the UK want to be like the USSR or CUBA?
0
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
Cool story.
0
reply
Wōden
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by cadaanshaydaan)
lol it wouldn't let me change my title. And are you arguing capitalism can be moulded to prevent the prospect of ecocide? is that a gut feeling or do you have evidence?

LOL did i suggest that we all run around naked and hungry or did i propose a suggestion to address overconsumption in the global north which is both unsustainable and unethical. Also, not every person on this planet is equally fed, clothed and given adequate shelter etc. All of these are issues caused by capitalism.....so what are you arguing for? A system that can't even properly eradicate malnutrition or illiteracy despite all the lovely advancements we've made...
I wouldn't say I am pro-capitalist (certainly not in it's current neoliberal, consumerist form), nor am I anti-socialist (there are some elements of socialism I do agree with), my point was not to argue the merits of these two systems, I merely wish to know why you think socialism would be the more environmentally friendly system, because the way I see it, we would still have to consume the same amount of natural resources to sustain humanity as it currenty stands either way. The real issue is not how we choose to manage our economic affairs, it's quite simply that there are too many people on the planet.
1
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
Love the idea, who will need to eat evil steak and burgers when they are given their daily bread rations, who will want to drive about polluting the world when they have to stand in line all day to get the daily bread ration, we wont be burning any coal, we can use the currency when it becomes worthless. We can also cut down on the amount of humans on this planet (big cause of climate change) by killing the undesirables. Sounds great.
0
reply
angelinahx
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
is this news?
0
reply
cadaanshaydaan
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#19
(Original post by Wōden)
I wouldn't say I am pro-capitalist (certainly not in it's current neoliberal, consumerist form), nor am I anti-socialist (there are some elements of socialism I do agree with), my point was not to argue the merits of these two systems, I merely wish to know why you think socialism would be the more environmentally friendly system, because the way I see it, we would still have to consume the same amount of natural resources to sustain humanity as it currenty stands either way. The real issue is not how we choose to manage our economic affairs, it's quite simply that there are too many people on the planet.
Firstly, I apologise for misunderstanding your earlier point.

With that being said, overpopulation is a eugenicist myth. What most people mean when they argue this point (and correct me if this isn’t what *you* align yourself with) is either that there is not enough resources to go around for everyone or that the current state of overpopulation means that our global consumption isnt sustainable and is contributing to the state of environmental destruction (https://www.theguardian.com/environm...r-report-finds). However, if we look at the legacy of underdevelopment that plagues most former colonised countries and the rates of malnutrition, food production, poverty (incl. total poverty) as a result of that it would be very easy to conclude there is a significant gap in difference and therefore most resources are concentrated in and pivoted to the global north.

Which brings us to my main point, there is a difference between “natural resources we have to consume” versus the current state of overproduction, over saturation, overconsumption and waste contribution of the West. If we use toothpaste as an example, ignoring herbal toothpaste as they actually differ in formula, there is largely no difference between the many variations available in the market and they are just largely advertised to make it look like they contain different features such as helping sensitive teeth or teeth whitening (https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopener...oothpaste.html).

Unfortunately this is not just reserved for toothpaste and this trend of over-saturation and overproduction present as a result of the free market system can be generalised to everything from energy drinks to bread. “Every year in the UK 18 million tonnes of food end up in landfill. Approx 1/3 from producers/ supply chain, 1/3 from retail and 1/3 from households” (https://foodawarecic.org.uk/stats-2/). It is also the same for the garment industry “Consumers in the United Kingdom have an estimated $46.7 billion worth of unworn clothes in their closets.” (https://edgexpo.com/fashion-industry-waste-statistics/).

Which is why I firmly believe the abolition of capitalism is required so a socialist state can manage production through a planned economy and allocate resources towards the prevention and repairment of the environment. There needs to be a combination of sustainable development for countries in the global south that to increase access to social needs like food and healthcare etc and away from making profit like Cuba and Venezuela and degrowth in wealthy countries in the West.
0
reply
cadaanshaydaan
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by 999tigger)
They are failed countries though. Do you think people in the UK want to be like the USSR or CUBA?
The USSR collapsed and Cuba is still socialist and standing btw but that is besides the point. In my first post I included an article about how indingenous people encourage and defend biodiversity and have been doing so for centuries and then I included a further two articles that discuss the different practical approaches of preservation and conservation adopted by two socialist countries. One of the articles I linked mentions how the USSR pursued rapid industrial expansion at the expense of the environment as well as developing “some of the world’s most dialectical contributions to ecology, revolutionizing science in fields such as climatology, while also introducing pioneering forms of conservation.”
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How do you prefer to get careers advice?

I like to speak to my friends and family (18)
8.74%
I like to do my own research online using careers specific websites (125)
60.68%
I like speaking to the careers advisors at school, college or uni (30)
14.56%
I prefer to listen watch videos or listen to podcasts of people in my chosen career (29)
14.08%
Something else (let us know in the thread) (4)
1.94%

Watched Threads

View All