We don’t have to cut everyone’s quality of life. Hell, we can drastically raise quality of life for most of the planet. We do have to restructure the global economy, though, so that raising quality of life doesn’t require expanding industrialization. Ironically, we had a model or two of that kind of economic distribution, but we kind of destroyed the records of how it was done.
So... no electronics, no cars, no planes or self-propelled ships, no agriculture.
Are you ready to give up travel, entertainment, shelter, and food? I'm not.
Either hunter/gatherer, or some form of command (read communist/fascist) economy.
Nevermind that globalism only compounds the issue, along with every other issue in the modern world.
One good thing about this epidemic, it uncovered the folly of relying on others.
I’ve never understood the vilification of globalism. Where do you think we go from here? We had tribes, then city-states, then nations. As we become more connected through faster communication the natural progression is to larger groupings. A world government is the next logical step if we are ever planning on spreading out from this planet. And spreading is the only way we survive in the long term.
Plus none of the things you’re claiming must be discarded actually have to be discarded to reach sustainability goals. Localization of certain supply chains and economic globalization would handily raise standard of living for most of the world while raising sustainability. We can’t have the currently “efficient” (cost-wise - environmentally it’s anything but) concentration of industry/agriculture we currently have, but just because it’s the only model we use doesn’t mean it’s the only viable model. Plus, a available sustainable technologies are out there, they’re just suppressed in the name of market stability - see the early 21st century suppression of the electric car.
A world government should not be implemented, because it's only possible by erasing cultures and individualism. Much like every other attempt to bring even a continent under one government. For example, Manifest Destiny US, Colonial Britian/France/Spain/etc, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, USSR.
And it ain't an Earth flag on the moon, so you don't need a global tyranny to go to space.
And electric cars weren't suppressed, they're just barely becoming somewhat practical. You'd have a better argument claiming Nuclear Energy is suppressed.
It isn't about sustainability or the environment, that much is stupidly obvious. It's about power and control.
Why is it a zero sum game?
Like, we are smart enough to develop so much technology but we can’t figure out how to do it in a way that is not devastating? We can, we just have to try and not throw the whole thing in the trash because it doesn’t look like our current system.
So what is the next step as a species I your opinion? Just because it hasn’t worked before doesn’t mean it’s not possible. We are only human, we learn from mistakes; giving up and going backwards isn’t an answer.
On one front: heavy research into algal, biodegradable plastics. ASAP restrict non biodegradable plastics to medicine (bc medicine is the place where we have to be most careful with adaptations, and disposable steriles are paramount in medical care right now).
Next step as a species? There is no roadmap or outline to follow. We'll live until we die like everything else. When the barrier of space travel is broken, humanity will ideally fracture with it. Nations and non-government entities will fling their lights into the void, while individuals will set out to carve their slice out of space. We will love and hate. Create and destroy. Live and die.
Maybe we'll be swept up by a blackhole tonight. Maybe in 2567 people will study the Johnson's Rebellion from the Trans-Nigerian colonies that went on to become a hyperpower in the Andromeda. Our only concern ought to be living firmly by our own ideals, while respecting the autonomy of others.
Not at all. I don't hurt or take from you, and you don't hurt or take from me.
I have something you want? Offer me a deal, make giving it to you worth my while.
I want to force you to give up something you don't want to (money, an heirloom, your body), then do whatever is necessary to keep yours.
Maybe you don't like it, maybe you're greedy and think you're entitled to mine, or perhaps you're convinced I'm acting against my own interests? Too bad. You don't own me.
Maybe I think you need to accept my God, or I think your love is a disgusting perversion of what's just and holy. "Too bad", you can say. I don't own you.
Right, that’s the problem, in this thread your stance appears to be one that is destructive and lackadaisical to the environment, in which I happen to live. So, how is it that one of us isn’t being forced to live in the others wishes?
It just happens that people who share your point of view also have a lot of power and control. I’m not allowed the freedom to have the autonomy I want, because others are forcing theirs on me. Your all about your autonomy, but not the autonomy of others who have different views. But more importantly, it can’t always be about the one. Sometimes we do have to consider the many. No, not to the exclusion of individuals. There’s a balance. And you do what you want and I’ll do what I want is not how we, as a connected population, get there.
If you're talking about China you're dead wrong. Back about 30 years ago China moved to a hybrid economy. They keep the style of government control, but the markets actually have some freedom to operate and own property. You're also seeming to forget that China commits atrocities on the daily, so there's that.
How is that dead wrong? They are communist and they adapted to the global market. Capitalism doesn’t work right out of the book either. Adapting to reality is functional. So, in the case of China, communism seems to be working just fine.
Actually I’m talking about several cultures in pre-European North America. There were over 200 nations here, some with evidence of enormous cities and incredible ecology management - and we destroyed almost all written records of it. Woo manifest destiny?
I think we should cut down on container ships (or do something with them other than making them diesel-guzzling beasts like making them nuclear-powered). 15 of said ships produce as much CO2 and sulfur and shit as ALL THE CARS IN THE WORLD (760-FUCKING-MILLION), and there's 50000 of those ships out there.
Are you ready to give up travel, entertainment, shelter, and food? I'm not.
Either hunter/gatherer, or some form of command (read communist/fascist) economy.
Nevermind that globalism only compounds the issue, along with every other issue in the modern world.
One good thing about this epidemic, it uncovered the folly of relying on others.
And it ain't an Earth flag on the moon, so you don't need a global tyranny to go to space.
And electric cars weren't suppressed, they're just barely becoming somewhat practical. You'd have a better argument claiming Nuclear Energy is suppressed.
It isn't about sustainability or the environment, that much is stupidly obvious. It's about power and control.
Like, we are smart enough to develop so much technology but we can’t figure out how to do it in a way that is not devastating? We can, we just have to try and not throw the whole thing in the trash because it doesn’t look like our current system.
Maybe we'll be swept up by a blackhole tonight. Maybe in 2567 people will study the Johnson's Rebellion from the Trans-Nigerian colonies that went on to become a hyperpower in the Andromeda. Our only concern ought to be living firmly by our own ideals, while respecting the autonomy of others.
I have something you want? Offer me a deal, make giving it to you worth my while.
I want to force you to give up something you don't want to (money, an heirloom, your body), then do whatever is necessary to keep yours.
Maybe you don't like it, maybe you're greedy and think you're entitled to mine, or perhaps you're convinced I'm acting against my own interests? Too bad. You don't own me.
Maybe I think you need to accept my God, or I think your love is a disgusting perversion of what's just and holy. "Too bad", you can say. I don't own you.
It just happens that people who share your point of view also have a lot of power and control. I’m not allowed the freedom to have the autonomy I want, because others are forcing theirs on me. Your all about your autonomy, but not the autonomy of others who have different views. But more importantly, it can’t always be about the one. Sometimes we do have to consider the many. No, not to the exclusion of individuals. There’s a balance. And you do what you want and I’ll do what I want is not how we, as a connected population, get there.
Not even close mate