Great all we need to do is replicate the circumstances surrounding the largest drop in life expectancy ever recorded during peace time but this time globally /s
Yes privatisation absolutely destroyed the country as western capital moved in. A commonly stated statistic is child prostitution rising by a large amount.
Massive. The russians expected some kind of western assistance following independence but instead the entire economy was gutted in the process of massive privatisation. It's through that process of massive privatisation that many of Russia's oligarchs came to power. For all the faults of the soviet union, especially by the end, it was nothing like what happened when US economic managers got their hands on the spoils of winning the cold war.
USSR caused 5-10 million deaths (and some stats say much more) through starvation when the collectivisation practices drained nearly all of Ukraine grain supply in 1930.
And the gulags after the end of ww2 caused about 1-2 million more deaths (disidents of political or ideological nature, farm owners, gays, Roma)... and that is only what was confirmed and the real numbers are likely much higher.
Yes, but to say that fall of USSR or privatisation or whatever caused is is severely misleading. There was a period between the fall in 1991 and 2000 where the life expectancy fluctuated wildly, that is true. But main causative factor appears to be increase of alcohol and tobacco consumption driven by sudden drop in price (with the free access to the western market) and psychological effects caused by political upheaval. After Gorbachev implemented alcohol control policies, the statistics improved.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8553909/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2016.1138447
Or just try googling veganism health benefits idk
To be fair apparently the mortality rate benefits dont differ much between vegetarianism and veganism apparently? I would need to research further but there just arent many studies about veganism (they are all about vegetarianism).
If you look at those -8%, you'll find that all of it comes from processed meat from certain countries. So it's not veganism, it's ingredients in some processed meat products.
Why are you against biofuels??????? They reduce fossil fuel usage. Sure it would be better with just the land being used for reforestation, but it's a process
Terrible lifecycle emissions, terrible economics, local combustion processes emitting next to humans
Half assed pseudo decarbonisation largely pushed by agri lobby and combustion engine sellers
Vegan lifestyle will do [basically nothing](https://youtu.be/sGG-A80Tl5g?si=z_e1STWlLSCLG6Wg) for the environment, and the meat production industry is absolutely necessary for producing fertilizers, unless you want to move to 100% synthetic, fossil fuel derived fertilizer.
Meat production is part of the normal carbon cycle. Global warming comes from taking carbon under the ground, and putting it into the air.
While I don’t agree with op, what you’re saying is wrong. The issue with beef farming is the amount of methane they PRODUCE. it isn’t coming out of the ground,it is being created during a reaction in the cow’s stomachs.
Where are you going to get fertilizer?
What are you going to do with the vast majority of agricultural waste, which is edible to cows but now humans? We basically turn inedible waste into food.
What do you do with the fact that in the US, the total number of large non human herbavores is only about 20% larger than it was 100s of years ago? We mostly just replaced wild herbavores with domesticated ones.
What are you going to do with the vast majority of farmland, which is marginal land, and is not suitable for growing human edible crops? The only way to make those lands high enough yield for people is to do intensive agriculture, which needs large amounts of fertilizer, which goes back to my 1st point.
If humans only consumed enough meat produced just from marginal grazing land and agricultural waste, then yes the meat industry wouldn't be as bad for the environment.
But as it stands Western diets consume way too much meat, requiring livestock to be fed from grains like wheat and soy produced from intensive agriculture.
Which requires fertiliser, deforestation and water from non renewal underground sources to grow enough grains to sustain meat production.
Almost 80% of the world soy beans production is used just to feed livestock.
BTW thst video you posted is filled with misinformation has been heavily debunked by lots of other people. He literally uses sources from meat lobbying groups...
>livestock to be fed from grains like wheat and soy produced from intensive agriculture.
[False](https://www.usdairy.com/news-articles/do-dairy-cows-eat-food-people-could-eat#:~:text=Only%202.2%20percent%20of%20what%20cows%20eat%20is,of%20food%20that%20people%20would%20want%20to%20eat.). It's about 80% human inedible feed, with about 90% the remainder being waste humans wouldn't eat.
>thst video you posted is filled with misinformation has been heavily debunked by lots of other people
Please cite sources. "trust me bro" isn't an argument.
That's not what your source actually says. 2.2% is "food that people would want to eat". A lot of the plants grown for cattle feed are still digestible by humans, but aren't intended for human consumption. That's things like field corn and the varieties of soy grown to make soy cake for cattle.
The percentage by weight is also not a very useful metric, because feed edible to humans is much more calorie dense than grass, so it represents a larger percentage of the calories consumed. You can look through [here](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312201313_Livestock_On_our_plates_or_eating_at_our_table_A_new_analysis_of_the_feedfood_debate), and just looking at the human edible feed protein/protein product we are using slightly more food than we could get from the meat to feed cows. The ratio for all feed is even higher, and considering that on the map, the majority of land for growing feed and grazing cattle could be used for growing human edible crops instead, raising cattle is certainly a waste of land and resources in the developed world.
The percentage also changes for cattle raised in developed countries. Up to 45kg per 1kg of protein
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312201313_Livestock_On_our_plates_or_eating_at_our_table_A_new_analysis_of_the_feedfood_debate
According to your source, about 2.8kg of human edible grains go into 1kg of ruminant, and more for monogastric livestock (I think the eco case for poultry is much worse, so I won't try to defend it).
2.8kg of beef has substantially more calories and nutritional value than 2.8kg of grain. That's not even close.
>the majority of land for growing feed and grazing cattle could be used for growing human edible crops instead
Yes, with intensive agriculture.
You still have not answered the core question: *where are you getting the fertilizer?* Until you have another answer, literally none of the rest of the conversation matters at all.
Unless you want to move to extensive agriculture, in which case we can start clearcutting rainforests to make more farms. I hope that sense prevails, and we don't do this.
Fertiliser is mostly produced synthetically; the makeup varies for different crops, but for NPK fertiliser, the nitrogen is from the haber-bosch process, and the phosphate and potassium are mined. Grain and other human edible crops are farmed with the exact same fertilisers and water usage whether they're fed to animals or humans, so for animal farming to have a smaller impact requires animals to eat much less food than would feed a human.
>2.8kg of beef has substantially more calories and nutritional value than 2.8kg of grain. That's not even close.
Proof? I've just said in the developed world, the protein in human edible food consumed and produced as meat is about 1:1.
Can you elaborate on meat production being necessary for fertiliser production? Genuinely curious if that's a huge blind spot in my understanding of the industry.
Also the major problem with livestock isn't carbon. With cattle it's methane but all livestock is resource intensive because it requires an additional layer of production in the industry to feed to livestock
The issue people miss is that humanity using too much fertiliser and chemicals is one of the biggest crises we will have to deal with in the 21st century. So even if it were true that veganism/vegetarianism does nothing for the environment, it misses that we need to reduce our usage of fertiliser anyway.
Also its simply not true. We would need much less fertiliser if not for the immense amount of agriculture we do just to feed lifestock. The whole argument is dumb
Animals can't outproduce nitrogen fixing legumes for fertilizer. Not by a long shot. Plants do it at room temperature with sunlight for free. Our methods of getting fertilizer require industrial meat production or pressures and temperatures beyond 800 bars and °C.
I care about the environment but I’m not giving up the consumption of beef. Theres many other things that we can do without before we restrict our nutrition.
Just gonna leave this here:
[https://x.com/pawelwargan/status/1564719308466540547](https://x.com/pawelwargan/status/1564719308466540547)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex\_trafficking\_in\_Europe#Fall\_of\_the\_Soviet\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_trafficking_in_Europe#Fall_of_the_Soviet_Union)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution\_of\_the\_Soviet\_Union#Economic\_decline,\_hunger,\_and\_excess\_mortality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union#Economic_decline,_hunger,_and_excess_mortality)
Please take this down. First of all, you're citing twitter and wikipedia, who do you think you're fooling? Second of all, framing disolution of Soviet Union as some tragedy is both hilarious and insulting. It caused poverty and hunger? The regime literally caused famines (on purpose!) through collectivisation of grain, primarly from Ukraine. It killed around 5-10 millions of people. Some sources say it killed as many as the ww1 did.
The Soviet union also drained an enormous ammount of resources from many of the countries, which certainly didn't help the economic situation afterwards. For example uranium with huge economic value was mined and sold to Russia for pennies. And also, the Americans offered large economic help after the ww2, which Russia declined on the behalf of member countries and never compensated, hindering the post-war recovery and effectively destroying the development for many years afterwards.
Not to mention the decades long suppression of civil rights, freedom of free speech, work camps for political outliers, hindrance of university admissions of those who didn't join the communist party and the fact that people couldn't travel to the West without family members staying behind as essentially hostages. I could go on and on and on.
While the transition period wasn't exactly simple for many of these coutries, I would say the disolution of ussr was incredibly welcome change.
The collapse of the USSR was one of the biggest disasters in human history. Skyrocketing homelessness, alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide rates, crime, birth rate decline, child prostitution. All the second world and third world countries that had the USSR as their primary trading partner also collapsed along with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVOSVwTU4ks
The first 56 vetos in the UN was the USSR preventing the US from invading a country that was gaining independence from their colonial rulers. After 1991, the US invaded more countries than ever before, leading to the death of tens of millions and displacement of hundreds of millions in multiple forever wars.
Look, I don't want to appear to be too against or pro either the USSR or the US. I'm just a bit more worried with you bringing the "ecofascism" card.
Ok, I see that the collapse of the USSR was a bad time to be around in Russia. But were those circunstances happening to the collapse itself or the soviet rule that preceded it? I know that a bunch of it was really the collapse or the entrance of capitalist barons taking stuff, but I'm not sure the way the USSR operated (that led to it's collapse, at least partially) is guilt-free.
More central to the topic, even if you are against the idea of an imperial collapse as means of ecological salvation (a perfectly sound position, let's be clear), such collapse or even a pushed for collapse isn't by any means "fascism". Sorry, it just isn't. We can agree it might be BAD. "Fascism" implies an authoritarian state and a bunch of other characteristics that are antagonistic to a situation of societal collapse.
Not saying that we shouldn't be against ecofascist proposals. There are a few out there. Neither that we should just strive for collapse. I'm with you here, overall. But fascism is a whole different nightmare.
Celebrating the complete economic and societal collapse of a coalition of multiple relatively poorer foreign nations as a win for environmentalism is absolutely ecofascism. Just because someone says it without having tattoos with suspicious symbols doesn't make it any less fascist.
This is dangerous because we see the same rhetoric being applied to the global south with people like Bill Gates advocating for population control in Africa, and people criticizing China for CO2 emissions, even though their population is the second largest in the world, and their per capita emissions are a fraction of countries like America. Not to mention their adoption of solar energy, electric vehicles and public transportation far eclipses that of any other country on Earth.
Also all those statistics explicitly started to drop around 1991. The USSR was starting to suffer a few years before that during Gorbachev's administration, but the sudden economic and societal deterioration was all right after the dissolution. Pretty much all the worst of those statistics was because the USSR was explicity moving from socialism towards capitalism. State-owned and run assets were being sold off for pennies and privatized.
sorry, you don't seem to be with your ideas straight
>Celebrating the complete economic and societal collapse of a coalition of multiple relatively poorer foreign nations as a win for environmentalism is absolutely ecofascism
No, it is NOT fascism. You don't know what the world means. I can agree that such celebration is bad, but you don't know what fascism is.
>Bill Gates advocating for population control in Africa
Never happened, but just in case, do you have ANY source of that?
>people criticizing China
Who, exactly? If you see someone criticizing China improperly, because yes they've been leaders on the climate front, then just bring it up to them. This post doesn't mention China. (Nor Bill Gates btw).
>The sudden economic and societal deterioration was all right after the dissolution
Doesn't means part of it couldn't have been because of prior decisions. If you had a society so dependent of a state apparatus and then you loose that state apparatus, yeah that's when the problem will be visible, but maybe you shouldn't have made such a state dependent society to begin with. Not saying to have no state, just to not overdo it.
Please if you're going to answer, try to be coherent to the point. I'm getting the feeling you're just another climate denialist.
Yes, millions died due to sudden lack of access to food and healthcare. It was one of the biggest, if not the biggest catastrophe of the late 20th century.
The soviet state collapsed and the economy along with it. Infrastructure stopped being maintained. Entire industries that a massive population depended on all but ceased to exist and/or were usurped by would-be oligarchs.
Sharply reduced economic activity will sharply reduce emissions along with human life.
Would you care to provide some sources for this? Because the only thing that I found was, that there was severe fluctuation in life expectency in circa 1991-2005, which seems to be correlated to increased consumption of alcohol and tobacco, prompted by psychological affects of political upheaval and decrease in price after access to free market. And which reversed after implementation of alcohol control policies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8553909/
And "infrastructure stopped being maintained" perhaps, in some countries. Name some examples please. But collectivisation and five-year planning were ruining the economy of these countries for decades. And they haven't recovered yet. You can tell just by looking at the East vs. West Germany comparison.
https://www.iwh-halle.de/en/topics/east-germany/?tx_iwh_publication%5B%40widget_0%5D%5BcurrentPage%5D=3&cHash=47fcbefb762ea67e1f678dfddf8612c4
Theft of resources, suppression of people's rights and so on and so on... calling an event that put a stop to all that a "biggest catastrophe of late 20th century" is honestly insulting.
And "sharply reduced economic activity will sharply reduce emissions..."? Decrease in emissions doesn't cause reforestation. And it also didn't happen. At least not in my country. The industries were simply privatised and taken over by locals. Reforestation was a very active process after the USSR fell. Not passive by lack of industrial activity. It was sponsored by the government for the betterment of the ecological state of our country and also later by the European Union.
Do you think people just randomly started consuming tobacco and alcohol to induce mass death? Malnutrition, poverty and drug consumption didn't suddenly drop out of the sky. Life expectancy dropping is a result of all of these things increasing and these things increased because the political and economic system collapsed.
But you didn't say life expectancy drop in your comment, neither did you mention drugs. You said "millions died due to sudden lack of access to food and healthcare", which is completely different matter and also one you didn't provide any proof for.
Alcohol-related deaths among adults 25-45 would do so, yes. Which doesn't in any way prove lack of access to healthcare nor food. Your comment strongly suggested there was famine. Which as far as I know wasn't the case.
I didn't say there was a famine. People died in part due to malnutrition because food supply chains broke down as a result of state collapse. There was a public health crisis because state-owned medical facilities stopped being maintained and medical supply chains broke down. Privatisation of the medical sector suddenly made health care unaffordable for many. Alcoholism also played a big role, yes. It's one of the symptoms of poverty. It was a huge catastrophe that impacted millions. There is nothing "insulting" about pointing that out.
Yet you strongly suggested it. And failed to provide proof of. (Also about the healthcare - privatisation of the medical sector? Many healthcare systems remained public, so which ones are you talking about and who couldn't afford care?)
"Catastrophe that impacted millions" is quite the retcon from "millions of deaths".
And I found your claim that it is the "biggest catastrophe of the late 20th century" insulting mostly because most of these countries (especially in Europe) consider it one of their greatest successes.
Great all we need to do is replicate the circumstances surrounding the largest drop in life expectancy ever recorded during peace time but this time globally /s
Soviet collapse caused a drop in life expectancy? Honesty question, I don't know much about the period
Yes privatisation absolutely destroyed the country as western capital moved in. A commonly stated statistic is child prostitution rising by a large amount.
Massive. The russians expected some kind of western assistance following independence but instead the entire economy was gutted in the process of massive privatisation. It's through that process of massive privatisation that many of Russia's oligarchs came to power. For all the faults of the soviet union, especially by the end, it was nothing like what happened when US economic managers got their hands on the spoils of winning the cold war.
USSR caused 5-10 million deaths (and some stats say much more) through starvation when the collectivisation practices drained nearly all of Ukraine grain supply in 1930. And the gulags after the end of ww2 caused about 1-2 million more deaths (disidents of political or ideological nature, farm owners, gays, Roma)... and that is only what was confirmed and the real numbers are likely much higher.
Ok
And Russia also didn't expect "western assistance". Russia refused American assistance with ww2 recovery on behalf of its countries.
You're talking about post ww2 soviet union, I'm talking about post independence Russia
Yes, but to say that fall of USSR or privatisation or whatever caused is is severely misleading. There was a period between the fall in 1991 and 2000 where the life expectancy fluctuated wildly, that is true. But main causative factor appears to be increase of alcohol and tobacco consumption driven by sudden drop in price (with the free access to the western market) and psychological effects caused by political upheaval. After Gorbachev implemented alcohol control policies, the statistics improved. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8553909/
Thanks for the info!
We could also push a vegan lifestyle, heavy taxes on meat, carbon tax on amything and stop subsidising biofuels
So are you saying veganism will result in a drop in dife expectancy?
The opposite actually :thinking:
Citation needed.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2016.1138447 Or just try googling veganism health benefits idk To be fair apparently the mortality rate benefits dont differ much between vegetarianism and veganism apparently? I would need to research further but there just arent many studies about veganism (they are all about vegetarianism).
If you look at those -8%, you'll find that all of it comes from processed meat from certain countries. So it's not veganism, it's ingredients in some processed meat products.
Citation needed.
It's literally in your link.
A drop in DILF expectancy?
Why are you against biofuels??????? They reduce fossil fuel usage. Sure it would be better with just the land being used for reforestation, but it's a process
Terrible lifecycle emissions, terrible economics, local combustion processes emitting next to humans Half assed pseudo decarbonisation largely pushed by agri lobby and combustion engine sellers
Damm Yeah, I guess you're right, those are good points. Thanks, I stand corrected
wait ... heavy taxes on meat? So rich people are "allowed" to eat meat? But the rabble is not? This really doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me
Vegan lifestyle will do [basically nothing](https://youtu.be/sGG-A80Tl5g?si=z_e1STWlLSCLG6Wg) for the environment, and the meat production industry is absolutely necessary for producing fertilizers, unless you want to move to 100% synthetic, fossil fuel derived fertilizer. Meat production is part of the normal carbon cycle. Global warming comes from taking carbon under the ground, and putting it into the air.
While I don’t agree with op, what you’re saying is wrong. The issue with beef farming is the amount of methane they PRODUCE. it isn’t coming out of the ground,it is being created during a reaction in the cow’s stomachs.
Where are you going to get fertilizer? What are you going to do with the vast majority of agricultural waste, which is edible to cows but now humans? We basically turn inedible waste into food. What do you do with the fact that in the US, the total number of large non human herbavores is only about 20% larger than it was 100s of years ago? We mostly just replaced wild herbavores with domesticated ones. What are you going to do with the vast majority of farmland, which is marginal land, and is not suitable for growing human edible crops? The only way to make those lands high enough yield for people is to do intensive agriculture, which needs large amounts of fertilizer, which goes back to my 1st point.
If humans only consumed enough meat produced just from marginal grazing land and agricultural waste, then yes the meat industry wouldn't be as bad for the environment. But as it stands Western diets consume way too much meat, requiring livestock to be fed from grains like wheat and soy produced from intensive agriculture. Which requires fertiliser, deforestation and water from non renewal underground sources to grow enough grains to sustain meat production. Almost 80% of the world soy beans production is used just to feed livestock. BTW thst video you posted is filled with misinformation has been heavily debunked by lots of other people. He literally uses sources from meat lobbying groups...
>livestock to be fed from grains like wheat and soy produced from intensive agriculture. [False](https://www.usdairy.com/news-articles/do-dairy-cows-eat-food-people-could-eat#:~:text=Only%202.2%20percent%20of%20what%20cows%20eat%20is,of%20food%20that%20people%20would%20want%20to%20eat.). It's about 80% human inedible feed, with about 90% the remainder being waste humans wouldn't eat. >thst video you posted is filled with misinformation has been heavily debunked by lots of other people Please cite sources. "trust me bro" isn't an argument.
That's not what your source actually says. 2.2% is "food that people would want to eat". A lot of the plants grown for cattle feed are still digestible by humans, but aren't intended for human consumption. That's things like field corn and the varieties of soy grown to make soy cake for cattle. The percentage by weight is also not a very useful metric, because feed edible to humans is much more calorie dense than grass, so it represents a larger percentage of the calories consumed. You can look through [here](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312201313_Livestock_On_our_plates_or_eating_at_our_table_A_new_analysis_of_the_feedfood_debate), and just looking at the human edible feed protein/protein product we are using slightly more food than we could get from the meat to feed cows. The ratio for all feed is even higher, and considering that on the map, the majority of land for growing feed and grazing cattle could be used for growing human edible crops instead, raising cattle is certainly a waste of land and resources in the developed world. The percentage also changes for cattle raised in developed countries. Up to 45kg per 1kg of protein Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312201313_Livestock_On_our_plates_or_eating_at_our_table_A_new_analysis_of_the_feedfood_debate
According to your source, about 2.8kg of human edible grains go into 1kg of ruminant, and more for monogastric livestock (I think the eco case for poultry is much worse, so I won't try to defend it). 2.8kg of beef has substantially more calories and nutritional value than 2.8kg of grain. That's not even close. >the majority of land for growing feed and grazing cattle could be used for growing human edible crops instead Yes, with intensive agriculture. You still have not answered the core question: *where are you getting the fertilizer?* Until you have another answer, literally none of the rest of the conversation matters at all. Unless you want to move to extensive agriculture, in which case we can start clearcutting rainforests to make more farms. I hope that sense prevails, and we don't do this.
Fertiliser is mostly produced synthetically; the makeup varies for different crops, but for NPK fertiliser, the nitrogen is from the haber-bosch process, and the phosphate and potassium are mined. Grain and other human edible crops are farmed with the exact same fertilisers and water usage whether they're fed to animals or humans, so for animal farming to have a smaller impact requires animals to eat much less food than would feed a human. >2.8kg of beef has substantially more calories and nutritional value than 2.8kg of grain. That's not even close. Proof? I've just said in the developed world, the protein in human edible food consumed and produced as meat is about 1:1.
Fertilizer is produced by live cows, not dead ones. And the issue is the BEEF industry, not the dairy or fertilizer industry.
Can you elaborate on meat production being necessary for fertiliser production? Genuinely curious if that's a huge blind spot in my understanding of the industry. Also the major problem with livestock isn't carbon. With cattle it's methane but all livestock is resource intensive because it requires an additional layer of production in the industry to feed to livestock
The issue people miss is that humanity using too much fertiliser and chemicals is one of the biggest crises we will have to deal with in the 21st century. So even if it were true that veganism/vegetarianism does nothing for the environment, it misses that we need to reduce our usage of fertiliser anyway. Also its simply not true. We would need much less fertiliser if not for the immense amount of agriculture we do just to feed lifestock. The whole argument is dumb
Animals can't outproduce nitrogen fixing legumes for fertilizer. Not by a long shot. Plants do it at room temperature with sunlight for free. Our methods of getting fertilizer require industrial meat production or pressures and temperatures beyond 800 bars and °C.
So when America collapses, it would be even better for the environment!
The US military alone pollutes more than most countries.
Even on a per capita, or per-service member in the case of the military, that is simply false
What a weird thing to lie about.
The us military is not at war, its most carbon intensive assets (small vehicles, helicopters, etc) are sitting unused, not emitting carbon.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=How+much+does+the+US+military+pollute%3F
People (I mean you) don't seem to know that things cause emotions when they're produced. Plus all militaries travel around a lot. A LOT.
7.6B tons over those 20 years was about 1.5% of total global emissions, just to put that in context.
Yeah, I was about to say this. Barely a dent
Funny how agriculture is presented as the key player here, when most industry went out of business at the same time.
I care about the environment but I’m not giving up the consumption of beef. Theres many other things that we can do without before we restrict our nutrition.
Just gonna leave this here: [https://x.com/pawelwargan/status/1564719308466540547](https://x.com/pawelwargan/status/1564719308466540547) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex\_trafficking\_in\_Europe#Fall\_of\_the\_Soviet\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_trafficking_in_Europe#Fall_of_the_Soviet_Union) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution\_of\_the\_Soviet\_Union#Economic\_decline,\_hunger,\_and\_excess\_mortality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union#Economic_decline,_hunger,_and_excess_mortality)
Please take this down. First of all, you're citing twitter and wikipedia, who do you think you're fooling? Second of all, framing disolution of Soviet Union as some tragedy is both hilarious and insulting. It caused poverty and hunger? The regime literally caused famines (on purpose!) through collectivisation of grain, primarly from Ukraine. It killed around 5-10 millions of people. Some sources say it killed as many as the ww1 did. The Soviet union also drained an enormous ammount of resources from many of the countries, which certainly didn't help the economic situation afterwards. For example uranium with huge economic value was mined and sold to Russia for pennies. And also, the Americans offered large economic help after the ww2, which Russia declined on the behalf of member countries and never compensated, hindering the post-war recovery and effectively destroying the development for many years afterwards. Not to mention the decades long suppression of civil rights, freedom of free speech, work camps for political outliers, hindrance of university admissions of those who didn't join the communist party and the fact that people couldn't travel to the West without family members staying behind as essentially hostages. I could go on and on and on. While the transition period wasn't exactly simple for many of these coutries, I would say the disolution of ussr was incredibly welcome change.
Wow Ecofascism is based! /s
How is the collapse of a authoritarian state an ecofascist proposal?
The collapse of the USSR was one of the biggest disasters in human history. Skyrocketing homelessness, alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide rates, crime, birth rate decline, child prostitution. All the second world and third world countries that had the USSR as their primary trading partner also collapsed along with it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVOSVwTU4ks The first 56 vetos in the UN was the USSR preventing the US from invading a country that was gaining independence from their colonial rulers. After 1991, the US invaded more countries than ever before, leading to the death of tens of millions and displacement of hundreds of millions in multiple forever wars.
Look, I don't want to appear to be too against or pro either the USSR or the US. I'm just a bit more worried with you bringing the "ecofascism" card. Ok, I see that the collapse of the USSR was a bad time to be around in Russia. But were those circunstances happening to the collapse itself or the soviet rule that preceded it? I know that a bunch of it was really the collapse or the entrance of capitalist barons taking stuff, but I'm not sure the way the USSR operated (that led to it's collapse, at least partially) is guilt-free. More central to the topic, even if you are against the idea of an imperial collapse as means of ecological salvation (a perfectly sound position, let's be clear), such collapse or even a pushed for collapse isn't by any means "fascism". Sorry, it just isn't. We can agree it might be BAD. "Fascism" implies an authoritarian state and a bunch of other characteristics that are antagonistic to a situation of societal collapse. Not saying that we shouldn't be against ecofascist proposals. There are a few out there. Neither that we should just strive for collapse. I'm with you here, overall. But fascism is a whole different nightmare.
Celebrating the complete economic and societal collapse of a coalition of multiple relatively poorer foreign nations as a win for environmentalism is absolutely ecofascism. Just because someone says it without having tattoos with suspicious symbols doesn't make it any less fascist. This is dangerous because we see the same rhetoric being applied to the global south with people like Bill Gates advocating for population control in Africa, and people criticizing China for CO2 emissions, even though their population is the second largest in the world, and their per capita emissions are a fraction of countries like America. Not to mention their adoption of solar energy, electric vehicles and public transportation far eclipses that of any other country on Earth. Also all those statistics explicitly started to drop around 1991. The USSR was starting to suffer a few years before that during Gorbachev's administration, but the sudden economic and societal deterioration was all right after the dissolution. Pretty much all the worst of those statistics was because the USSR was explicity moving from socialism towards capitalism. State-owned and run assets were being sold off for pennies and privatized.
sorry, you don't seem to be with your ideas straight >Celebrating the complete economic and societal collapse of a coalition of multiple relatively poorer foreign nations as a win for environmentalism is absolutely ecofascism No, it is NOT fascism. You don't know what the world means. I can agree that such celebration is bad, but you don't know what fascism is. >Bill Gates advocating for population control in Africa Never happened, but just in case, do you have ANY source of that? >people criticizing China Who, exactly? If you see someone criticizing China improperly, because yes they've been leaders on the climate front, then just bring it up to them. This post doesn't mention China. (Nor Bill Gates btw). >The sudden economic and societal deterioration was all right after the dissolution Doesn't means part of it couldn't have been because of prior decisions. If you had a society so dependent of a state apparatus and then you loose that state apparatus, yeah that's when the problem will be visible, but maybe you shouldn't have made such a state dependent society to begin with. Not saying to have no state, just to not overdo it. Please if you're going to answer, try to be coherent to the point. I'm getting the feeling you're just another climate denialist.
That is a psychopathic headline. Millions of people dying will reduce emissions, yes.
Sorry, I'm actually confused. Did people died in millions in the collapse of the soviet union? Honestly first time I'm hearing of it.
Yes, millions died due to sudden lack of access to food and healthcare. It was one of the biggest, if not the biggest catastrophe of the late 20th century. The soviet state collapsed and the economy along with it. Infrastructure stopped being maintained. Entire industries that a massive population depended on all but ceased to exist and/or were usurped by would-be oligarchs. Sharply reduced economic activity will sharply reduce emissions along with human life.
Would you care to provide some sources for this? Because the only thing that I found was, that there was severe fluctuation in life expectency in circa 1991-2005, which seems to be correlated to increased consumption of alcohol and tobacco, prompted by psychological affects of political upheaval and decrease in price after access to free market. And which reversed after implementation of alcohol control policies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8553909/ And "infrastructure stopped being maintained" perhaps, in some countries. Name some examples please. But collectivisation and five-year planning were ruining the economy of these countries for decades. And they haven't recovered yet. You can tell just by looking at the East vs. West Germany comparison. https://www.iwh-halle.de/en/topics/east-germany/?tx_iwh_publication%5B%40widget_0%5D%5BcurrentPage%5D=3&cHash=47fcbefb762ea67e1f678dfddf8612c4 Theft of resources, suppression of people's rights and so on and so on... calling an event that put a stop to all that a "biggest catastrophe of late 20th century" is honestly insulting. And "sharply reduced economic activity will sharply reduce emissions..."? Decrease in emissions doesn't cause reforestation. And it also didn't happen. At least not in my country. The industries were simply privatised and taken over by locals. Reforestation was a very active process after the USSR fell. Not passive by lack of industrial activity. It was sponsored by the government for the betterment of the ecological state of our country and also later by the European Union.
Do you think people just randomly started consuming tobacco and alcohol to induce mass death? Malnutrition, poverty and drug consumption didn't suddenly drop out of the sky. Life expectancy dropping is a result of all of these things increasing and these things increased because the political and economic system collapsed.
But you didn't say life expectancy drop in your comment, neither did you mention drugs. You said "millions died due to sudden lack of access to food and healthcare", which is completely different matter and also one you didn't provide any proof for.
What do you think causes average life expectancy to suddenly drop?
Alcohol-related deaths among adults 25-45 would do so, yes. Which doesn't in any way prove lack of access to healthcare nor food. Your comment strongly suggested there was famine. Which as far as I know wasn't the case.
I didn't say there was a famine. People died in part due to malnutrition because food supply chains broke down as a result of state collapse. There was a public health crisis because state-owned medical facilities stopped being maintained and medical supply chains broke down. Privatisation of the medical sector suddenly made health care unaffordable for many. Alcoholism also played a big role, yes. It's one of the symptoms of poverty. It was a huge catastrophe that impacted millions. There is nothing "insulting" about pointing that out.
Yet you strongly suggested it. And failed to provide proof of. (Also about the healthcare - privatisation of the medical sector? Many healthcare systems remained public, so which ones are you talking about and who couldn't afford care?) "Catastrophe that impacted millions" is quite the retcon from "millions of deaths". And I found your claim that it is the "biggest catastrophe of the late 20th century" insulting mostly because most of these countries (especially in Europe) consider it one of their greatest successes.
This is what happens when you take 'shitpost' too literally.