• XIIIesq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think it’s fine to think of it as imperfect, even if those imperfections can never be truly solved.

    We only need nuclear to bridge the gap between now and a time when renewable CO2 neutral power sources or the holy grail of fusion are able to take the place the base load power that we currently use fossil fuels for, and with hope, that may only be a few decades away.

    • kool_newt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Degrowth is the only realistic solution.

      Anybody who thinks humans and civiilization will exist in 200 years without degrowth is living in a fantasy world. We can’t solve our problems of fossil fuel dependence and an ever-growing population with recycling, denser housing, and nuclear power. Nature needs space, not everyone wants to live like a sardine in a dense city.

      Where will we get our nitrogen fertilizer at massive scale w/o fossil sources?

      Use of fossils are the only reason humanity was able to grow way outside the bounds of normal Earth capacity. Without fossils we’ll be forced into a sustainable relationship with our planet and that probably isn’t 8 billion or more people living in “civilized society” regardless of it’s efficiency.

      And no, I"m not an “eco-fascist” and don’t want genocide or want poor people or brown people to disappear, don’t fall into false dichotomies.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The estimates I’ve seen project the world population will hit a peak before long, and gradually decline. It’s because of birth rates declining as development/education/wealth rise in a region.

        Plus looking that far ahead, humans will probably have technologies that we today don’t even know are possible. If we had all the energy and high tech new materials we needed, many more options become possible.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How is degrowth realistic at all? And how does degrowth happen in a way that isnt billions of people starving to death?

        • kool_newt@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Uh, lower birth rates? …which can be helped along with expanding education and birth control. I’m pretty sure religion and capitalism promote growing populations, if we could reduce the power of either of those, that too could have significant effect.

          I find it odd how limited your brain is that you could only conceive of two possibilities, infinite growth or genocide.

      • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Eco-fascist outcomes come from Eco-fascist methods. How do you propose to accomplish this degrowth without subjecting the world’s population to genocide and privation?

        Human nature is to strive, to fight for a better life for themselves and their communities. The preservation of agrarian lifestyles and “harmony with the planet” a bunch of backwards romantics push is not more important than the betterment of the species, no matter how much people cry about it.

        If people need to live in dense cities, then they will live in dense cities.

        • uis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          genocide and privation

          It’s opposite of degrowth. It is capitalism with its wide beastly grin.

          The preservation of agrarian lifestyles and “harmony with the planet”

          I like how you mix it togerher under pro-nuclear thread about combating climate change. Also it says you didn’t research what degrowth is and possibly doesn’t have even common sense.

          is not more important than the betterment of the species, no matter how much people cry about it

          And it is you who calls someone fascist?

            • uis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, when you improve people’s living condition is called improving people’s living condition. Americans call it socialism.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Okay let’s break it down.

            De- means the opposite of. Growth is when things get bigger. De-growth means shrinking human resource usage.

            How can we shrink human resource usage? Two ways:

            1. Shrink the human population. ie genocide.
            2. Shrink the resource usage per person. ie privation.

            Address the question. How is “degrowth” not a dog whistle for either killing hundreds of millions of people, or forcing hundreds of millions of people to live in poverty?

            • sudneo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not OP but:

              • population control (is hard but) can be done in a way that in 20-30 years starts having effect. Genocide is not the only way to reduce population?
              • reducing the consumption of individuals does not amount necessarily to starvation and poverty either. Right now we produce too much and too poorly. Reducing consumption might mean less conspicuous consumption from the top 50% of the population but also less “things” that last more.

              In both these examples unfortunately the main obstacle is economic.

        • kool_newt@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          8 billion plus humans are not sustainable on Earth regardless of how efficient our electrical production is, how cool Tesla’s cars are, or how many people go vegan. Nature will bring our numbers to sustainable levels if we don’t do it. Nature will not be so kind.

          How do you propose to accomplish this degrowth without subjecting the world’s population to genocide and privation?

          • Education
          • Opportunity
          • Help those who don’t want to give birth not to give birth
          • Reduce the influence of religion that promotes childbirth and irresponsible family planning
          • Reduce the influence of pressure to grow in every way that is likely exacerbated by capitalism

          I find it funny that those who immediately go to genocide are the ones implying I have the sick mind.

          • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            8 billion people is absolutely sustainable, we could support significantly more at a modern standard of living with just the resources we use today. The problem is the way we organise how and where we live, and a parasitic owner class using and abusing vastly more resources than they could ever need.

            • Education
            • Opportunity
            • Help those who don’t want to give birth not to give birth
            • Reduce the influence of religion that promotes childbirth and irresponsible family planning
            • Reduce the influence of pressure to grow in every way that is likely exacerbated by capitalism

            And if after all that people still want to have children?

            Nature will bring our numbers to sustainable levels if we don’t do it. Nature will not be so kind.

            Let it try, we’ll see who wins.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nature will bring our numbers to sustainable levels if we don’t do it.

            Are you proposing that we do it? How exactly does reducing the number of humans work, if we do it? Is there any word for this that isn’t “genocide”?

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            who do you educate? those people will be genocided.

            who do you give birth control to? those people will be genocided.

            there is no policy you can create and implement that will not disproportionately effect one group over another.

            it’s all genocide.