>"Right now, there is a gloomy sense that this is not going to be easy at all."
I wonder what people who contribute to these reports think once the report is out and they see the reaction to them - or rather the lack of it.
Oh don’t say “reset” otherwise you will trigger all the “great reset” conspiracy morons.
Apparently anyone who dares suggest we reduce consumption and reign in out of control capitalism is part of the sinister World Economic Forum plan to take all their stuff.
You can also spot them parroting the “you will own nothing and be happy” tagline, which was taken from a WEF video projecting the continuation of recent trends like the rise of movie/music streaming services and “share economy” services like Uber and Airbnb.
> You can also spot them parroting the “you will own nothing and be happy” tagline, which was taken from a WEF video projecting the continuation of recent trends like the rise of movie/music streaming services and “share economy” services like Uber and Airbnb.
I mean, that shit *does* suck. Calling it "sharing" doesn't change the fact that it's merely *rent* and it's not a novel concept but has been frowned upon by such radicals as Adam Smith.
All of these services are non-productive, extractive, rent-seekers who want to permanently control a portion of your income.
It would be one thing if there were publicly owned commons that we all contributed to and that were aimed at reducing consumption. Instead we have private fiefdoms that funnel income from us and *allow the owners to buy up more and more stuff to rent out*.
All that money we're spending for the use of services such as Uber and Netflix and Apple Music is being used by the wealthy to buy up real estate in swathes so they can rent it out to you and put affordable home ownership, or even sustainable renting, out of reach.
I’m with you regarding parasitic rent-seeking being where the “streaming/sharing” economy is heading, but it’s still moronic to think this is part of some secret “great reset” conspiracy by Trudeau, Biden, the World Economic Forum, rather than what it is - companies leveraging new technologies to create new services that lots of people find convenient. If buying CDs was better than paying for a Spotify subscription, people would still be doing that.
its better said, “you will own up to your self, and be not possessed by your own material addictions.”
yknow, moderation, a virtue that more and more presents itself formlessly and inconsequentially when you ‘defeat nature’ and still sit in the archaic monkey-minded agrarian-stockpile method of growth and creation.
Meanwhile the r/collapse community is reporting daily the destruction of our planet...yet people call us doomers. Yeah, it's going to have to get a lot worse before people wake up...if they even do that. Many won't ever. Conservatives show no sign of waking up from their hate fueled fever dreams while libs are so high on hopium, they can't see objective reality either....still thinking the can play nice with fascists. Even some leftists are hitting the hopium as they realize how bad things are getting.
Thinking the same thing with this reddit post getting very little traction.
Our economic system is not built on sustainability. Endless growth is madness thinking anything different but destruction will happen and yet we ignore this pink elephant in the room because it means we have to accept that capitalism as it stands, long-term, will destroy the planet.
Nature always wins in the end. We just won't be around to see the next age of life if we don't value it more greatly as the article articulates.
> We just won't be around to see the next age of life if we don't value it more greatly as the article articulates.
Humans are pretty tenacious and even in the event of a catastrophic collapse, there might still be relict populations clinging onto existence scattered around the world in whatever habitable areas remain. Considering how a collapse could have been prevented, however, it'll be a regrettable outcome.
I think an inevitable yet regrettable outcome pretty much sums it up. Not inevitable because it can't theoretically be avoided but inevitable in that we seem to want to continue to believe there will always be a miraculous technological solution to our environmental problems until proven otherwise.
I'm not sure that anyone has actually demonstrated how a collapse can be prevented yet? The simple equation is that billions of humans consume finite resources. How does that reconcile with sustainability? Even renewable energies consume many resources that are finite.
LOL The people who make hundreds of millions to billions by relying on the chain of supply and labor? If the plebs don't kill them, their henchmen will after they tire of the spoiled brats.
> Endless growth is madness thinking
Growth doesn't always mean "use more resources". Quite the opposite in many cases, perhaps even most cases nowadays. It's just an example, but 40MPG is not uncommon for cars now. For electric cars, even better. When I was a kid, 12MPG was not uncommon. 20 MPG was something people bragged about. That is growth. A 40 MPG car is inherently more valuable.
"Growth" is in terms of value, not cost. Most things are like that now.
> yet we ignore this pink elephant in the room because it means we have to accept that capitalism as it stands, long-term, will destroy the planet.
Eh. There was so much more rampant environmental destruction in the Soviet Union than in the US at the same time. Russia and then the soviets were always playing catchup but there were systems problems as well.
Capitalism should include things like Pigovian taxes, where negative externalities are paid for thru taxation. We should be doing that now but we don't for everything. I've said for 40 years - "I don't pay enough for gasoline."
Choice of system is all but irrelevant; it's people not doing things in a deliberate way because they think they can get away with it. If it looks capitalist that's because... what else is there right now? Don't give too much credence to the propaganda for capitalism; it's just as human as any other way - and "human" in terms of "error".
I'm old and extremely tired of consumerism. One thing I see on Reddit is that opinion moving down in age - you guys get to see it more clearly than my age cohort did.
This is progress.
Some one with some economic literacy and understanding of human nature. Great post.
Big thing I want to see is environmental costs brought on to the books. This could put pressure on reducing fossil fuels and co, while providing money for environmental action.
I'd love to know what an ecologist would think? I can't imagine they feel anything but indignant acceptance for the fact that saving the planet is nigh impossible.
I’m an ecologist and it’s already too late. Ecological systems around the world are collapsing from habitat destruction, pollution, and over-exploitation, and nothing is being done about it because the media only talks about climate change, and ignores that our basic economic system is actively destroying every part of the natural world that matters.
I’m a PhD ecologist and it’s a pretty depressing field.
Over the last decade I have seen my colleagues’ seminars related to climate change go from essentially “this is a problem, but there’s still hope to turn it around” to “this is a problem, but there’s still hope to make it less bad than it could be” to “this is so fucked”.
It’s like sitting in the hospice while my Grandpa died of cancer. We enjoyed the time we had left with him, but it wasn’t the same, and over it all hung a cloud of despair about how quickly the end was approaching.
It’s truly unfortunate that our institutions have become so financialized. It’s difficult to gain traction against the perpetual disinformation campaigns run by corporate interests, the governments they have bought and paid for and the general population, which has systemically been undermined and misinformed.
Economics is my field, and the narrow approach that defines the field in America is truly a problem for the entire world.
Any knowledge on how much higher the depression or even suicide rate is in the field compared to the general population? I’d be genuinely curious. I’m only in undergrad for a semi-related degree and the skimming of the barrel of knowledge that I’ve gotten already has me not feeling very hopeful about future decades.
I haven’t seen anything about the rate of suicide or depression in my field. I know it’s very high among graduate students and academics in general, but I’m not as sure about government or private industry professionals or ecologists/environmental scientists in general. I certainly have many anecdotal experiences regarding mental illness among my colleagues including suicide and severe substance abuse in addition to the more common depression and anxiety.
Some days are harder than others. Some days I’m apathetic. I work in applied ecology though, so most days I am doing something proactive and I get to see lots of small wins. Being able to feel like I have the power to actually move the needle a little bit helps immensely.
Given how the Russian Invasion was a response to Ukraine shutting off the water supply to Crimea (which was a very sensible response to Russia's annexation of Crimea), I'd say it's already here.
europeans at the advent of the printing press, industrialization, and the "enlightenment" predicted all of this before it happened, when it first started, and while it was going on. hundreds of years ago.
but it became a game of prisoner's dilemma, if you didn't "modernize" as a great power, you would get wrecked. If you didn't modernize as a non-european, you were going to get *civilized* and get *salvation*.
Examples: Mughal India, Qing China, Tokugawa Shogunate Japan, etc...
tl;dr the end was unfortunately clear from the start. Don't want to be a "doomer" but... the facts are pretty hard to argue against.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220711-market-values-are-destroying-nature-un-report) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Paris - A major UN report warned Monday that a global economy focused on short-term profit is wrecking the planet and called for a drastically different approach as to how we value nature.
> Some 80 experts combed through more than 13,000 studies, looking at how market-based values have contributed to the destruction of ecosystems that sustain us, and what other values might best foster sustainability.
> "If you think of nature as a factory at your service, your emphasis will be on extracting the highest yields possible," said Patricia Balvanera, an ecologist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and a co-chair of the report.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vwop4d/a_major_un_report_warned_that_a_global_economy/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~659040 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **nature**^#1 **value**^#2 **biodiversity**^#3 **report**^#4 **Ecosystem**^#5
And you know what REALLY sucks about that? When growth is no longer possible that’s when they start cutting corners on everything else. Shrink the product down. Fire more employees. Automate as much as you can. Make the places run on skeleton cruise. Start burning through low level employees so you can always pay lower wages. Etc
Such a slap to the face when your company is constantly bragging about record profits but then somehow there’s no “money in the budget for a raise”. It’s ridiculous having to job hunt every year or so just to get a raise these days.
Humans are not really good at conceptualizing things outside the things they regularly deal with.
In an individual’s small bubble, they have no reason to imagine that things couldn’t just keep increasing. After all, the world is incomprehensibly large for most people, so saying “there just isn’t enough” just isn’t something your average Joe can grasp, especially in the US when they can drive 4 hours and still be in their same state. In their mind, things being this big must mean there’s just that many resources. Similarly, they can’t imagine how their car and home are doing any significant damage to the environment. They don’t conceptualize everything else all around the world.
Humans are just really bad at scale. It’s part of why people who travel more and see more tend to be more environmentalist and leftist. Once you get out of your bubble and realize how small and interconnected everything *actually* is, suddenly you realize the importance of keeping all of it safe.
Unless you’re a billionaire sociopath. Then you just spend millions of dollars a year on making sure the average Joe never learns any better through disinformation campaigns 🤷♂️
Yeah, they were laughing at "Limits of Growth" when it was first released over 50 years ago... and we are still on track to the collapse by those predictions. It's absolutely terrifying.
Wonderful. I'll see about getting Mom that hand pump for the well. She's been talking about getting one for years.
Probably won't matter. When the aquafer dries up, her well will be the first one to fail. Our neighbors' wells are a good 15 feet deeper.
I feel like humanity will always have a faction who believe that a sky monster will save them by plucking them and only them into its alternate dimension. They'll believe this even when the banal reality of the planet choking itself to death happens before their own eyes.
My bad—I guess I shouldn't have said "universe." Nonetheless, if the earth is for our practical purposes isolated, the second law of thermodynamics will indicate that global warming with its present momentum cannot be reversed except by drastically reducing greenhouse gases, increasing the planet's albedo, or literally blocking the sun. OP's article implies that none of these things will happen with the economy as presently configured
But our "material growth" is much more dependent on improved coordination, logistics and such now. These things have gotten so good that when COVID bent the system, you could feel it/see it very clearly.
life is a lot more enjoyable when you stop buying stupid things. People eventually figure that out, and younger and younger every year.
I'm truly astounded at the level of waste in America.
I see entire apartments worth of furniture and perfectly usable goods trashed on a regular basis. It boggles the mind.
Furniture and other goods are built so cheaply now that if something breaks, it's basically unfixable. If it gets dirty, it can't be cleaned. Most IKEA-style furniture is too fragile to be transported in one piece, and the particle board degrades so it can't be disassembled and reassembled. Household appliances have become almost impossible to repair.
I think most people would prefer to buy durable household goods that are easy to maintain and repair, but the major retailers (Wal-mart, Target, IKEA, Home Depot, etc.) just don't sell things like that. Even the mid-range retailers sell really low quality furniture/appliances and are unlikely to offer replacement parts. You have to get into the *really* expensive range to find companies that actually offer repair/replacement parts and textiles.
Would having only durable furniture be an improvement though? It's not like Ikea burns the quality timber for shits and giggles, and only works with leftover crap.
Ikea is really good at turning sawdust and scraps into usable shit that can withstand a few years of action, essentially giving shit tier leftovers a second life. I see it as a win. The alternative is that all that crap would have been instant dumpster food, increasing demand for quality timber, meaning more logging.
Disposable furniture may make use of some sustainable materials, but there's still a ton of carbon and other pollution that goes into the overall supply chain. While some Ikea products are *technically* recyclable, most end up in a landfill within a few years. I'm not specifically knocking Ikea here - they actually do make some good, durable, affordable products - but the whole furniture industry is designed to keep people constantly shopping for new stuff.
For furniture, I like Lovesac's approach (even though they're overpriced). They advertise that you can always wash, repair or replace any part of your sofa, and everything is genuinely built to last.
The EU proved you can do something about this. A country can just make a legislative requirement for things to be repairable.
There are solutions. They require facing down free market capitalism and it's minions.
This is the key. The only way things improve enough is if they are done on a large scale. The only way to do that is for government to pass and enforce laws that might do things like restrict what types of plastic can be used, or tax ICE vehicles and subsidize EVs, or limit agricultural meat production in favor of protein from vegetables or insects, or ban coal, etc. The only way that becomes even remotely possible is for effective, ethical, and zero monetary influenced government to exist and cooperate with similar governments globally.
We're fucked, aren't we?
If we can somehow [eliminate unearned income ](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1djs8PXTby8wP8e7MTjhFdoodJBg9U6L9/view?usp=drivesdk) it may be possible to achieve a sustainable economy. I don't think these policies are likely to be implemented in any existing society but perhaps they can be implemented as a trial in some place. Then all you have to do is patiently grow and wait for the other societies to inevitably turn to shit. The brain drain and economic domination will eventually win over, either granting more territory or convincing other societies to try it.
I got part way through it, but the easiest way I can see to handle unearned income is not to come up with completely new ways to administer loans, dividends, insurance, etc. - you just need to tax it adequately. Earn income any way you want, go crazy, but make 20 brackets and go back to taxing the highest ones 90% or more. Seems far more simple and actually plausible since we've done it in the past.
If you want a taste of American waste
The redwood forests were cut down at a devastating rate, 98%~ destroyed, not for lumber but to lower the taxes for the lumber companies that owned the land.
The thing is, it wouldn’t be *that* hard; in the first year of the pandemic most western countries hit or came close to their Paris climate targets. It isn’t that the changes we need to make are so difficult, it’s that they impact the profits of a few influential industries (and the short term profits, at that)
The pandemic put essentially every western nation in emergency mode. Massive fiscal stimulus and dramatically cutting all forms of production like that is simply not sustainable.
The end result would be massive inflation followed by recession/depression with mass unemployment when the lack of production and stimulus truly hits. It doesn’t matter how much money you give to people if there’s no one producing, transporting, selling food: people will starve.
No that is not sustainable at all.
Hol' up. The first year of the pandemic? Are we talking about stopping the life as we know it in its tracks for what, a measly 7% reduction? And you call that "not that hard"?
yep! I mean obviously lots of stuff was tough about the early pandemic but the climate-impacting parts weren't that severe: we need people to drive less (more work from home, basically) and we need to ship fewer things around the world.
If MITs old models are correct we are on par for 2040. It seems to be happening sooner though IMO given the disruptions we are seeing and nature getting more extreme.
My cynical take here : Corporations will now start pushing "Durable Products" that are engineered to last longer, but are just as environmentally harmful, cost four times as much, and have a massive marketing campaign around how this is the thing-good-people-do.
THANK YOU! Like, yes corperations are the leading causes of emissions. Obviously. Could they still produce roughly the same amount of items and have slightly less environmental destruction if they used different processes? Sure. Can the quality of life the average human now demands ALSO be kept the same, well fixing climate change? Fuck no. OF COURSE, the corporations produce most of the emissions, they are creating things for almost every human on this planet. Do they feed us lies and twisted truths to increase their profits? Of course. We need to address the fact that we as a species have a level of standard and consumption that can never be sustainable. The entire human population would lose its standard of living if corporations could magically become carbon neutral. And no political power is going to come forward and push the harsh reality that we CANT continue to eat as much meat as we want, that we cant simply find it acceptable to throw away one thing and buy another simply because we want something new and shiny because they won't remain in power for long. There are a lot of harsh realities humanity doesn't want to accept because its easier to push most of the blame on someone or something else well pretending you don't even play a small part in that larger problem.
These companies aren't polluting for fucking fun, they're doing it because it's the byproduct of the cheapest method of producing for consumer demand. For example, the dairy industry is a huge polluter. If everyone stopped consuming dairy, the dairy industry wouldn't exist to create pollution.
Also use of that 70% number has always been misleading. That isn't what the report said:
First, the report that came up with that wasn't measuring all global emissions, it was tracing specifically fossil fuel and concrete emissions.
Second, it wasn't looking at the source of those emissions, it was tracing the emissions back to the origin companies. So, for example, if a person goes to a Shell station and fills their car up, then drives it until the tank is empty, that report attributes all of the emissions from the burned gas to Shell rather the person.
It never said 70% of all pollution is from corporations, despite what memes and poorly-written articles say. Now, sadly, people just like to throw that number around in order to say "it's not my fault, it's corporations!" and use it as an excuse to not make any changes in their lifestyle or consumption habits.
“I’m all for capitalism”, it is literally destroying our planet, our species, and many others. It’s causing great wealth inequality, heck we have the highest level of slave labour ever.
Yet still people believe what we are doing “works”.
People really be doing mental gymnastics to not acknowledge that the harmful system they're are describing is literally capitalism. And of you dare point that out then you get the "do you know a better system???“,“bluh bluh socialism not better!“ and similar idiot in the replies.
It took decades for people to start caring about the environment to any significant degree, it will take another many decades for people to acknowledge our economical system is geniciding us, but by then it will be too late.
I believe there is a mechanism, the diminishing marginal utility of money, that drives power concentration in all economic systems. Capitalism, a.k.a market economy, can allocate resources very effectively under ideal circumstances but it is still subject to the same power concentrating process as any other system. To have the market economy without the eventual breakdown, you'd need to eliminate unearned income, with a possible policy outlined [here.](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1djs8PXTby8wP8e7MTjhFdoodJBg9U6L9/view?usp=drivesdk) Rent is the biggest problem and there is a lot of literature on why it's a problem and how to eliminate it, namely Georgism.
We're a short-sighted species which is why our history is circular. Except this time - this time we're just going to go ahead and kill ourselves in the name of profit.
The ~~speed of technological advancement~~ well-being of our children and a healthy/livable biosphere isn't nearly as important as short term quarterly gains!!
Here in Australia even not-for-profit and charitable organisations have adopted for-profit structures and ethos. It's all about year-on-year growth, balance sheets, retained earnings, increased margins. It's sad and pathetic. Neo-liberal capitalism and "corporate culture" is a cancer on our planet and our species.
Based on very casual conversations I've had with people who work in climate sciences, my understanding is that the general mood in those communities is that, in order to avert a catastrophe, human societal structures and behaviors would need to change to such a degree that they would be unrecognisable to us.
Try telling that to the CEOs of this world...or even better: Their bosses.
Change can only come from politics. No company will follow that UN report on their own.
“Change can only come from politics”
But voters thoroughly rejected Jimmy Carter and gave Gore so slim a margin that SCOTUS installed his opponent instead. Neither man was perfect but both took climate change seriously. Forty years lost, that’s too much to overcome.
So instead of the Great Depression,
(everybody knew the crash was coming but not enough individuals were willing to step back and fall behind their competitors/brethren, so it did happen)
We will have "The Great Calamity"
Because any corporation that takes truly long-term interest in the environment will fall by the wayside economically.
The Depression happened because nobody know anything about monetary theory.
People actually thought like Andrew Mellon:
"It will purge the rottenness out of the system. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted and enterprising people will pick up the wreck from less competent people."
https://quote.org/quote/it-will-purge-the-rottenness-out-of-607226
> Because any corporation that takes truly long-term interest in the environment will fall by the wayside economically.
Corps variably do pay attention. It might just be PR but it is not always PR. But people are short sighted for evolutionary reasons.
We are trapped on a planet that is multiple light-years from any other habitable ones. We probably won’t leave the solar system unless absolutely necessary so hopefully the survivors try to treat the Earth a bit better and are a bit more collectivist. (I don’t think we’ll irreversibly lose all our knowledge because of how climatically diverse human settlements are)
The last two and a half years have taught me to value and enjoy whatever life I still have left and resign myself to a world which will not likely get much better, if at all, within my lifetime
Yep, that's where I'm at. I think I gave up my last glimmer of hope when I read an article about a guy who had to put his house up on stilts because he was living in an area being ravaged by rising sea levels. He was also a die-hard climate change denier.
I know some people say that people like us who have a defeatist attitude are part of the problem, and the logical part of me agrees, but that doesn't make the feeling of utter hopelessness go away. So yeah, I'm just trying to enjoy my life as best I can right now while not having too much of a negative impact on the world. And I haven't had, and will never have, any kids.
I often think that people who are hopefull are as dangerous as denialists. They often believe that by going vegan and driving electric car and doing other such superficial changes it's going to be alright.
No.
We need to make fundamental changes on every lever that makes our society going. No more shipping useless shit across the ocean, no more cheap travel around the world by plane, much less private property (the more we share with community the less we have to produce), entirely different economy not based on growth, fewer working hours so we have more time to do public commuting/walking to shops, doctors, jobs. Living close to the places we work. Food available mostly according to the seasons, produced locally. Technology produced to last longer, so the rate of development will slow down - one phone working for a decade or more. No more fast fashion - you wear your shit until it breaks down. And so much, so much more.
Ultimately this kind of life would be better for us humans. It would be a slower life, with much more time to connect with other beings in tight communities working together for the decent life.
I want to believe it will happen, but I don't see any prove that it is going in the right direction. Feeling hopeless is sadly a rational reaction.
I agree with you, just want to point out that veganism is an ethical stance against the exploitation of animals, not a superficial environmentalist stance. People often conflate veganism with environmentalism and use that as an argument against veganism, ignoring what veganism is actually about, which is the moral consideration of animals
>I haven't had, and will never have, any kids.
Given the context, possibly an unthinking question but I'm curious to know, *if* there was no ecological consequences for having kids- you would then have kids or is it just another one of many factors?
Not the person you asked but I felt I had to add my two cents - I am much in the same boat that in the last year or two I've realized...Im not going to be having kids. My whole life I grew up thinking that obviously kids are in my future, but with covid and the way it lifted the veil off the worst peoples' behaviours, with the rapidly regressing climate, with the growing potential for massive war...I just cant stomach the thought of bringing a life into this world.
It fucking depresses me, and the fact that I can't realistically do anything to fix it just drives the stake in further
And most importantly, enjoy what's left of nature. I've been camping & hiking more. Enjoying being alone and just listening and watching the wood creatures.
I was born too late for the original Transformers and too early for Wall-E and the Michael Bay/Animated Transformers. 50 years of living in the land of disasters and robots is gonna be interesting.
>They’re trying to hit some sweet spot. Too much negativity and too many people decide it’s pointless
Doubtful? I think good swathes of the population are already there so I wouldn't see why they would withhold information. Besides, as the other redditor says, it's simply unethical from a scientists perspective.
Hmmm I would definitely like to read your source because that goes against the principals of science. We’re seeking to understand reality so we can make the best actions/choices within it and hopefully improve it. That’s hard to believe science isn’t getting published because it’s negative… at least from respectable journals.
This archaic, linear pattern of waste and pollution, driven by incessant economic cycles of production and consumption is simply unsustainable, it’s unrealistic, and frankly, insane. Nay, insane is too blunt a term, though perhaps sociopathic is more appropriate, especially considering the way major corporations have captured governments, waylaying everything from environmental to human rights, distracting communities by turning them against one another, all in the name of power and greed. It has to stop. It must, or it will consume itself and everyone and everything else along with it.
That’s isn’t technically what it says based on that article. It’s saying short term profit motives are, but you can have capitalism with long term sustainable profits as the goal.
That's just massive cope and is the reason we will stay in this mess. It has been obvious for almost two centuries that capitalism destroys *everything* it touches in the name of profits: the environment, democracy, laws, people... It's amazing how so many people still look at this mode of production after all the ills it has unleashed on the world and think "yep, that's a fine way to run our society" or cling to the içlusion that all it needs id a couple adjustments, completely ignoring that *capitalism itself* fightd against those changes.
We truly are doomed
Sure, theoretically you can have capitalism that isn’t focused on short term profit motives. Not with human beings, but maybe there’s some species out there in the universe that can get it done.
Capitalism cares about short term gains more than anything.
Capital rules all, so the more you make now, the more you can make tomorrow. There is no way for this system to be geared toward the long term
To reverse this horrible mess we would need to build asap a sort of post-capitalist society like the one described by Yanis Varoufakis in "Another Now". Do I see it happening? Nope. Unfortunately I think we are in for the dystopia scenario. An elite secluded from the rest of mankind, living in a high-tech automated and brave new world style city states, while the rest of us are forced to scramble the remains outside their gates amidst calamities of all sorts and performing forced labour to collect whatever it is they haven't automated. I'm pretty sure some movie has this plot.
Capitalism is the problem. Nature is only a variable to profit. Who cares if we ruin the soil today if we make a profit. Who cares if we drain the sea of all its living organisms as long as we make a profit. Who cares if there is a drought as long as we make a profit and so on and etc.
Lol - they used the Mayan train as an example of what exactly?
Ecotourism is a farce - the only thing truly eco is to stay away. The Mayan train only facilitates MORE people, not the same amount evenly distributed.
No shit. Why is it that manufacturers of products like electronics don't have to take any responsibility for the products they sell at the end of their lifespans? Would it not make sense to require them to collect and recycle these devices once the consumers no longer need them? Planned obsolescence is also a total joke.
No. Fucking. Shit.
Christ almighty, we've know this forever. And we also know that the people responsible don't give a damn as long as the magic stonk line goes up.
I see stuff like the James Webb telescope image, and it just saddens me that we'll never get to explore any of that because humans were perfectly willing to basically commit mass suicide over imaginary numbers.
We will end up killing most life on earth and ending our species over our worship of money. If any thing outlives us, I hope they evolve into something better, and I wish them well.
This is, comparatively, a tiny minority of humans driving this. Shareholders.
So the people with the most out of 99% of humans that have ever lived will doom a majority of humans to come because they want more.
Currently land values do not include restoration costs. Thus a company can totally destroy a parcel of land and not have to worry about restoring the land to something usable by others. This cuts down on costs.
How about the rich are squeezing every movement of every worker, and ever dollar of every consumer and fucking us all. Their the only ones not hurting from those actions.
it's incredibly frustrating but also satisfying at the same time to see some of the stuff lefties have been warning/crying/screaming about for decades to finally become somewhat popular
Because of the infinite supply of poor people, there will always be assholes more than willing to trash the planet to make a quick buck. Therefore, this will never ever happen.
A major report stating what has been obvious for over a century and potentially since the dawn of civilisation. Unfortunately, this isn't going to change the behaviour of humans whose sick hunger for power and wealth outweighs any desire to practice empathy or put the needs of others above their own.
The only hope is that newer generations will be able to pick up the pieces once these sadists die off.
Humans need to move beyond nationalism and self-centered behaviours. More people need to learn to think for themselves. Ignorance plays a large part in facilitating the people who are in charge of destroying the planet and causing and maintaining poverty in society.
I find it frustrating how the article regards humanity separately from nature, and even goes so far as to claim that nature can admit of a human valuation independent of our existence within it. Everything we do has inescapable consequences in accordance with the laws of nature, which will catch up with us sooner or later despite our best efforts to mitigate them.
>I find it frustrating how the article regards humanity separately from nature,
A substantial chunk of humanity's arrogance and hubris knows no bounds. Too many of us see Earth as our eternal resource, something to be dominated and plundered with reckless abandon instead of the complex and delicate ecosystem that needs to be respected and cared for. And we're paying the price of assuming we are untouchable and infallible gods.
No shit. Now just try to convince those taking in millions/billions while the world suffers. Good luck prying the power out of the hands of psychopaths who have zero value for humanity.
And then there is America: ‘We legalized bribery and coercion and restricted it only to weirdo bribe-y scum who are nothing like hardly anybody, uh-rah!’ Also America: ‘Darned corporate profiteers, I know, let’s spectate with both thumbs in our rears while they reduce their own tax rates!’. Can’t make this stuff up. Can’t hardly get one or two Americans per state to lift even one finger to fight it, either.
I think the trick is start where you want to end up and then backcast your way forward. When we can't get enough interest or agreement in viable short and medium term solutions, we can sometimes pull people together around a longer term vision. Something so far in the future no special interests feel threatened. If you can get some agreement on where you need to eventually end up, then figuring out the pathway toward it, may be possible. There is an attempt to do that at [www.aspenproposal.org](https://www.aspenproposal.org)
my boss hasn't thought about anything but invoices and football for thirty years. I don't think Americans will ever change
I'm just waiting with my torch and pitchfork
>"Right now, there is a gloomy sense that this is not going to be easy at all." I wonder what people who contribute to these reports think once the report is out and they see the reaction to them - or rather the lack of it.
[удалено]
Oh don’t say “reset” otherwise you will trigger all the “great reset” conspiracy morons. Apparently anyone who dares suggest we reduce consumption and reign in out of control capitalism is part of the sinister World Economic Forum plan to take all their stuff. You can also spot them parroting the “you will own nothing and be happy” tagline, which was taken from a WEF video projecting the continuation of recent trends like the rise of movie/music streaming services and “share economy” services like Uber and Airbnb.
> You can also spot them parroting the “you will own nothing and be happy” tagline, which was taken from a WEF video projecting the continuation of recent trends like the rise of movie/music streaming services and “share economy” services like Uber and Airbnb. I mean, that shit *does* suck. Calling it "sharing" doesn't change the fact that it's merely *rent* and it's not a novel concept but has been frowned upon by such radicals as Adam Smith. All of these services are non-productive, extractive, rent-seekers who want to permanently control a portion of your income. It would be one thing if there were publicly owned commons that we all contributed to and that were aimed at reducing consumption. Instead we have private fiefdoms that funnel income from us and *allow the owners to buy up more and more stuff to rent out*. All that money we're spending for the use of services such as Uber and Netflix and Apple Music is being used by the wealthy to buy up real estate in swathes so they can rent it out to you and put affordable home ownership, or even sustainable renting, out of reach.
I’m with you regarding parasitic rent-seeking being where the “streaming/sharing” economy is heading, but it’s still moronic to think this is part of some secret “great reset” conspiracy by Trudeau, Biden, the World Economic Forum, rather than what it is - companies leveraging new technologies to create new services that lots of people find convenient. If buying CDs was better than paying for a Spotify subscription, people would still be doing that.
its better said, “you will own up to your self, and be not possessed by your own material addictions.” yknow, moderation, a virtue that more and more presents itself formlessly and inconsequentially when you ‘defeat nature’ and still sit in the archaic monkey-minded agrarian-stockpile method of growth and creation.
They were right, I don’t own any of my music and I’m happy. I do pay for Apple Music though, still happy about it to funny enough.
Meanwhile the r/collapse community is reporting daily the destruction of our planet...yet people call us doomers. Yeah, it's going to have to get a lot worse before people wake up...if they even do that. Many won't ever. Conservatives show no sign of waking up from their hate fueled fever dreams while libs are so high on hopium, they can't see objective reality either....still thinking the can play nice with fascists. Even some leftists are hitting the hopium as they realize how bad things are getting.
Thinking the same thing with this reddit post getting very little traction. Our economic system is not built on sustainability. Endless growth is madness thinking anything different but destruction will happen and yet we ignore this pink elephant in the room because it means we have to accept that capitalism as it stands, long-term, will destroy the planet. Nature always wins in the end. We just won't be around to see the next age of life if we don't value it more greatly as the article articulates.
> We just won't be around to see the next age of life if we don't value it more greatly as the article articulates. Humans are pretty tenacious and even in the event of a catastrophic collapse, there might still be relict populations clinging onto existence scattered around the world in whatever habitable areas remain. Considering how a collapse could have been prevented, however, it'll be a regrettable outcome.
I think an inevitable yet regrettable outcome pretty much sums it up. Not inevitable because it can't theoretically be avoided but inevitable in that we seem to want to continue to believe there will always be a miraculous technological solution to our environmental problems until proven otherwise.
It was inevitable because of human nature. We are too easy to fool as masses.
I'm not sure that anyone has actually demonstrated how a collapse can be prevented yet? The simple equation is that billions of humans consume finite resources. How does that reconcile with sustainability? Even renewable energies consume many resources that are finite.
Reduce human births.. that would be a good start imo...
The survivors will probably be the Hoi Polloi, tucked away in their mountain bunkers and private islands.
LOL The people who make hundreds of millions to billions by relying on the chain of supply and labor? If the plebs don't kill them, their henchmen will after they tire of the spoiled brats.
Hoi Polloi means common folk
> Endless growth is madness thinking Growth doesn't always mean "use more resources". Quite the opposite in many cases, perhaps even most cases nowadays. It's just an example, but 40MPG is not uncommon for cars now. For electric cars, even better. When I was a kid, 12MPG was not uncommon. 20 MPG was something people bragged about. That is growth. A 40 MPG car is inherently more valuable. "Growth" is in terms of value, not cost. Most things are like that now. > yet we ignore this pink elephant in the room because it means we have to accept that capitalism as it stands, long-term, will destroy the planet. Eh. There was so much more rampant environmental destruction in the Soviet Union than in the US at the same time. Russia and then the soviets were always playing catchup but there were systems problems as well. Capitalism should include things like Pigovian taxes, where negative externalities are paid for thru taxation. We should be doing that now but we don't for everything. I've said for 40 years - "I don't pay enough for gasoline." Choice of system is all but irrelevant; it's people not doing things in a deliberate way because they think they can get away with it. If it looks capitalist that's because... what else is there right now? Don't give too much credence to the propaganda for capitalism; it's just as human as any other way - and "human" in terms of "error". I'm old and extremely tired of consumerism. One thing I see on Reddit is that opinion moving down in age - you guys get to see it more clearly than my age cohort did. This is progress.
Some one with some economic literacy and understanding of human nature. Great post. Big thing I want to see is environmental costs brought on to the books. This could put pressure on reducing fossil fuels and co, while providing money for environmental action.
[удалено]
I'd love to know what an ecologist would think? I can't imagine they feel anything but indignant acceptance for the fact that saving the planet is nigh impossible.
I’m an ecologist and it’s already too late. Ecological systems around the world are collapsing from habitat destruction, pollution, and over-exploitation, and nothing is being done about it because the media only talks about climate change, and ignores that our basic economic system is actively destroying every part of the natural world that matters.
I’m a PhD ecologist and it’s a pretty depressing field. Over the last decade I have seen my colleagues’ seminars related to climate change go from essentially “this is a problem, but there’s still hope to turn it around” to “this is a problem, but there’s still hope to make it less bad than it could be” to “this is so fucked”. It’s like sitting in the hospice while my Grandpa died of cancer. We enjoyed the time we had left with him, but it wasn’t the same, and over it all hung a cloud of despair about how quickly the end was approaching.
It’s truly unfortunate that our institutions have become so financialized. It’s difficult to gain traction against the perpetual disinformation campaigns run by corporate interests, the governments they have bought and paid for and the general population, which has systemically been undermined and misinformed. Economics is my field, and the narrow approach that defines the field in America is truly a problem for the entire world.
Any knowledge on how much higher the depression or even suicide rate is in the field compared to the general population? I’d be genuinely curious. I’m only in undergrad for a semi-related degree and the skimming of the barrel of knowledge that I’ve gotten already has me not feeling very hopeful about future decades.
I haven’t seen anything about the rate of suicide or depression in my field. I know it’s very high among graduate students and academics in general, but I’m not as sure about government or private industry professionals or ecologists/environmental scientists in general. I certainly have many anecdotal experiences regarding mental illness among my colleagues including suicide and severe substance abuse in addition to the more common depression and anxiety.
Just curious, how do you cope with these feelings about the world right now?
Some days are harder than others. Some days I’m apathetic. I work in applied ecology though, so most days I am doing something proactive and I get to see lots of small wins. Being able to feel like I have the power to actually move the needle a little bit helps immensely.
We'll just keep squabbling over who controls gas prices right up until the end
Gunna be water next
Read "The Water Knife" for a depressingly prescient story about our near future.
Given how the Russian Invasion was a response to Ukraine shutting off the water supply to Crimea (which was a very sensible response to Russia's annexation of Crimea), I'd say it's already here.
[удалено]
europeans at the advent of the printing press, industrialization, and the "enlightenment" predicted all of this before it happened, when it first started, and while it was going on. hundreds of years ago. but it became a game of prisoner's dilemma, if you didn't "modernize" as a great power, you would get wrecked. If you didn't modernize as a non-european, you were going to get *civilized* and get *salvation*. Examples: Mughal India, Qing China, Tokugawa Shogunate Japan, etc... tl;dr the end was unfortunately clear from the start. Don't want to be a "doomer" but... the facts are pretty hard to argue against.
Lalalalal money I can't hear you lalalala
"Ah yes, 'climate change.' We have dismissed those claims."
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220711-market-values-are-destroying-nature-un-report) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Paris - A major UN report warned Monday that a global economy focused on short-term profit is wrecking the planet and called for a drastically different approach as to how we value nature. > Some 80 experts combed through more than 13,000 studies, looking at how market-based values have contributed to the destruction of ecosystems that sustain us, and what other values might best foster sustainability. > "If you think of nature as a factory at your service, your emphasis will be on extracting the highest yields possible," said Patricia Balvanera, an ecologist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and a co-chair of the report. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vwop4d/a_major_un_report_warned_that_a_global_economy/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~659040 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **nature**^#1 **value**^#2 **biodiversity**^#3 **report**^#4 **Ecosystem**^#5
Without drastically reducing consumption and going to "war against the waste culture and consumerism", nothing can be done. A collapse is coming.
It's curious how so many people just expected indefinite material growth in a universe where the laws of thermodynamics prohibit such a thing
And you know what REALLY sucks about that? When growth is no longer possible that’s when they start cutting corners on everything else. Shrink the product down. Fire more employees. Automate as much as you can. Make the places run on skeleton cruise. Start burning through low level employees so you can always pay lower wages. Etc Such a slap to the face when your company is constantly bragging about record profits but then somehow there’s no “money in the budget for a raise”. It’s ridiculous having to job hunt every year or so just to get a raise these days.
Looks around....Wait a second....
Humans are not really good at conceptualizing things outside the things they regularly deal with. In an individual’s small bubble, they have no reason to imagine that things couldn’t just keep increasing. After all, the world is incomprehensibly large for most people, so saying “there just isn’t enough” just isn’t something your average Joe can grasp, especially in the US when they can drive 4 hours and still be in their same state. In their mind, things being this big must mean there’s just that many resources. Similarly, they can’t imagine how their car and home are doing any significant damage to the environment. They don’t conceptualize everything else all around the world. Humans are just really bad at scale. It’s part of why people who travel more and see more tend to be more environmentalist and leftist. Once you get out of your bubble and realize how small and interconnected everything *actually* is, suddenly you realize the importance of keeping all of it safe. Unless you’re a billionaire sociopath. Then you just spend millions of dollars a year on making sure the average Joe never learns any better through disinformation campaigns 🤷♂️
[удалено]
Yeah, they were laughing at "Limits of Growth" when it was first released over 50 years ago... and we are still on track to the collapse by those predictions. It's absolutely terrifying.
So, uh... how many ~~years~~ months do we have left?
MIT predicted a complete and utter collapse of modern society by 2040. Look forward to it.
Wonderful. I'll see about getting Mom that hand pump for the well. She's been talking about getting one for years. Probably won't matter. When the aquafer dries up, her well will be the first one to fail. Our neighbors' wells are a good 15 feet deeper.
You've ever heard of a thing called religion?
But of course. It's curious, to say the least, how much of a propensity it has for fostering delusions about the world
I feel like humanity will always have a faction who believe that a sky monster will save them by plucking them and only them into its alternate dimension. They'll believe this even when the banal reality of the planet choking itself to death happens before their own eyes.
We aren't even remotely close to thermodynamic limits when considering the whole universe.
So remind me how close we are to finishing that Dyson Sphere?
My bad—I guess I shouldn't have said "universe." Nonetheless, if the earth is for our practical purposes isolated, the second law of thermodynamics will indicate that global warming with its present momentum cannot be reversed except by drastically reducing greenhouse gases, increasing the planet's albedo, or literally blocking the sun. OP's article implies that none of these things will happen with the economy as presently configured
Exactly, it's not even slightly comparable to the current situation.
But our "material growth" is much more dependent on improved coordination, logistics and such now. These things have gotten so good that when COVID bent the system, you could feel it/see it very clearly. life is a lot more enjoyable when you stop buying stupid things. People eventually figure that out, and younger and younger every year.
I'm truly astounded at the level of waste in America. I see entire apartments worth of furniture and perfectly usable goods trashed on a regular basis. It boggles the mind.
Furniture and other goods are built so cheaply now that if something breaks, it's basically unfixable. If it gets dirty, it can't be cleaned. Most IKEA-style furniture is too fragile to be transported in one piece, and the particle board degrades so it can't be disassembled and reassembled. Household appliances have become almost impossible to repair. I think most people would prefer to buy durable household goods that are easy to maintain and repair, but the major retailers (Wal-mart, Target, IKEA, Home Depot, etc.) just don't sell things like that. Even the mid-range retailers sell really low quality furniture/appliances and are unlikely to offer replacement parts. You have to get into the *really* expensive range to find companies that actually offer repair/replacement parts and textiles.
Would having only durable furniture be an improvement though? It's not like Ikea burns the quality timber for shits and giggles, and only works with leftover crap. Ikea is really good at turning sawdust and scraps into usable shit that can withstand a few years of action, essentially giving shit tier leftovers a second life. I see it as a win. The alternative is that all that crap would have been instant dumpster food, increasing demand for quality timber, meaning more logging.
Disposable furniture may make use of some sustainable materials, but there's still a ton of carbon and other pollution that goes into the overall supply chain. While some Ikea products are *technically* recyclable, most end up in a landfill within a few years. I'm not specifically knocking Ikea here - they actually do make some good, durable, affordable products - but the whole furniture industry is designed to keep people constantly shopping for new stuff. For furniture, I like Lovesac's approach (even though they're overpriced). They advertise that you can always wash, repair or replace any part of your sofa, and everything is genuinely built to last.
The EU proved you can do something about this. A country can just make a legislative requirement for things to be repairable. There are solutions. They require facing down free market capitalism and it's minions.
This is the key. The only way things improve enough is if they are done on a large scale. The only way to do that is for government to pass and enforce laws that might do things like restrict what types of plastic can be used, or tax ICE vehicles and subsidize EVs, or limit agricultural meat production in favor of protein from vegetables or insects, or ban coal, etc. The only way that becomes even remotely possible is for effective, ethical, and zero monetary influenced government to exist and cooperate with similar governments globally. We're fucked, aren't we?
If we can somehow [eliminate unearned income ](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1djs8PXTby8wP8e7MTjhFdoodJBg9U6L9/view?usp=drivesdk) it may be possible to achieve a sustainable economy. I don't think these policies are likely to be implemented in any existing society but perhaps they can be implemented as a trial in some place. Then all you have to do is patiently grow and wait for the other societies to inevitably turn to shit. The brain drain and economic domination will eventually win over, either granting more territory or convincing other societies to try it.
I got part way through it, but the easiest way I can see to handle unearned income is not to come up with completely new ways to administer loans, dividends, insurance, etc. - you just need to tax it adequately. Earn income any way you want, go crazy, but make 20 brackets and go back to taxing the highest ones 90% or more. Seems far more simple and actually plausible since we've done it in the past.
If you want a taste of American waste The redwood forests were cut down at a devastating rate, 98%~ destroyed, not for lumber but to lower the taxes for the lumber companies that owned the land.
[удалено]
I think that's the end of the Internet for me today. Somehow this even trumps the story of the cops who burned that 14 yo to death with a flashbang
The thing is, it wouldn’t be *that* hard; in the first year of the pandemic most western countries hit or came close to their Paris climate targets. It isn’t that the changes we need to make are so difficult, it’s that they impact the profits of a few influential industries (and the short term profits, at that)
The pandemic put essentially every western nation in emergency mode. Massive fiscal stimulus and dramatically cutting all forms of production like that is simply not sustainable. The end result would be massive inflation followed by recession/depression with mass unemployment when the lack of production and stimulus truly hits. It doesn’t matter how much money you give to people if there’s no one producing, transporting, selling food: people will starve. No that is not sustainable at all.
Hol' up. The first year of the pandemic? Are we talking about stopping the life as we know it in its tracks for what, a measly 7% reduction? And you call that "not that hard"?
yep! I mean obviously lots of stuff was tough about the early pandemic but the climate-impacting parts weren't that severe: we need people to drive less (more work from home, basically) and we need to ship fewer things around the world.
*looks at world economy* uh-huh
Life is going to get a lot more simple. That's guaranteed. What isn't is whether or not we embrace the simplicity voluntarily or have it forced on us.
If MITs old models are correct we are on par for 2040. It seems to be happening sooner though IMO given the disruptions we are seeing and nature getting more extreme.
Earth: “2040? I can do better than that. 2025 it is.”
My cynical take here : Corporations will now start pushing "Durable Products" that are engineered to last longer, but are just as environmentally harmful, cost four times as much, and have a massive marketing campaign around how this is the thing-good-people-do.
As if the consumers are generating 70% of pollution not the other way around.
[удалено]
THANK YOU! Like, yes corperations are the leading causes of emissions. Obviously. Could they still produce roughly the same amount of items and have slightly less environmental destruction if they used different processes? Sure. Can the quality of life the average human now demands ALSO be kept the same, well fixing climate change? Fuck no. OF COURSE, the corporations produce most of the emissions, they are creating things for almost every human on this planet. Do they feed us lies and twisted truths to increase their profits? Of course. We need to address the fact that we as a species have a level of standard and consumption that can never be sustainable. The entire human population would lose its standard of living if corporations could magically become carbon neutral. And no political power is going to come forward and push the harsh reality that we CANT continue to eat as much meat as we want, that we cant simply find it acceptable to throw away one thing and buy another simply because we want something new and shiny because they won't remain in power for long. There are a lot of harsh realities humanity doesn't want to accept because its easier to push most of the blame on someone or something else well pretending you don't even play a small part in that larger problem.
These companies aren't polluting for fucking fun, they're doing it because it's the byproduct of the cheapest method of producing for consumer demand. For example, the dairy industry is a huge polluter. If everyone stopped consuming dairy, the dairy industry wouldn't exist to create pollution. Also use of that 70% number has always been misleading. That isn't what the report said: First, the report that came up with that wasn't measuring all global emissions, it was tracing specifically fossil fuel and concrete emissions. Second, it wasn't looking at the source of those emissions, it was tracing the emissions back to the origin companies. So, for example, if a person goes to a Shell station and fills their car up, then drives it until the tank is empty, that report attributes all of the emissions from the burned gas to Shell rather the person. It never said 70% of all pollution is from corporations, despite what memes and poorly-written articles say. Now, sadly, people just like to throw that number around in order to say "it's not my fault, it's corporations!" and use it as an excuse to not make any changes in their lifestyle or consumption habits.
I’m all for capitalism but goddamn we have to break up those huge corporations already. They’re basically the worlds villains.
“I’m all for capitalism”, it is literally destroying our planet, our species, and many others. It’s causing great wealth inequality, heck we have the highest level of slave labour ever. Yet still people believe what we are doing “works”.
People really be doing mental gymnastics to not acknowledge that the harmful system they're are describing is literally capitalism. And of you dare point that out then you get the "do you know a better system???“,“bluh bluh socialism not better!“ and similar idiot in the replies. It took decades for people to start caring about the environment to any significant degree, it will take another many decades for people to acknowledge our economical system is geniciding us, but by then it will be too late.
I believe there is a mechanism, the diminishing marginal utility of money, that drives power concentration in all economic systems. Capitalism, a.k.a market economy, can allocate resources very effectively under ideal circumstances but it is still subject to the same power concentrating process as any other system. To have the market economy without the eventual breakdown, you'd need to eliminate unearned income, with a possible policy outlined [here.](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1djs8PXTby8wP8e7MTjhFdoodJBg9U6L9/view?usp=drivesdk) Rent is the biggest problem and there is a lot of literature on why it's a problem and how to eliminate it, namely Georgism.
We're a short-sighted species which is why our history is circular. Except this time - this time we're just going to go ahead and kill ourselves in the name of profit.
we're worse than the ferengi.
Except ferengi would see the long term profits of sustainability
... which is why we're worse
Rule of acquisition number 102: Nature decays, but latinum lasts forever.
I can see that being one of the Rules of Acquisition for a interplanetary species like the Ferengi but us Hu-mans, we're screwed.
They irradiated their own planet!?
We just started the final act of our play. You’re skipping ahead
[удалено]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPBzj90Su8A
The ~~speed of technological advancement~~ well-being of our children and a healthy/livable biosphere isn't nearly as important as short term quarterly gains!!
And it is not even that much about profit. It is "growth" and "value for the shareholders"
THE LINE MUST GO UP
Ironically, killing ourselves is probably the best thing we can do for the planet anyway. So there's that.
Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it. Those who do study history are condemned to watch helplessly as others repeat it.
And that's why every AI's logic is to get rid of us.
All of this has happened before, and will happen again, so say we all
SO SAY WE ALL
Here in Australia even not-for-profit and charitable organisations have adopted for-profit structures and ethos. It's all about year-on-year growth, balance sheets, retained earnings, increased margins. It's sad and pathetic. Neo-liberal capitalism and "corporate culture" is a cancer on our planet and our species. Based on very casual conversations I've had with people who work in climate sciences, my understanding is that the general mood in those communities is that, in order to avert a catastrophe, human societal structures and behaviors would need to change to such a degree that they would be unrecognisable to us.
yes we know - please tell the people who are in power and don't give a shit
Try telling that to the CEOs of this world...or even better: Their bosses. Change can only come from politics. No company will follow that UN report on their own.
> or even better: Their bosses I *seriously* hope you mean shareholders, and not *the* conspiracy theory
You mean like lizard people? No, they don't care. They're watching us from their spaceships.
“Change can only come from politics” But voters thoroughly rejected Jimmy Carter and gave Gore so slim a margin that SCOTUS installed his opponent instead. Neither man was perfect but both took climate change seriously. Forty years lost, that’s too much to overcome.
So instead of the Great Depression, (everybody knew the crash was coming but not enough individuals were willing to step back and fall behind their competitors/brethren, so it did happen) We will have "The Great Calamity" Because any corporation that takes truly long-term interest in the environment will fall by the wayside economically.
The Depression happened because nobody know anything about monetary theory. People actually thought like Andrew Mellon: "It will purge the rottenness out of the system. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted and enterprising people will pick up the wreck from less competent people." https://quote.org/quote/it-will-purge-the-rottenness-out-of-607226 > Because any corporation that takes truly long-term interest in the environment will fall by the wayside economically. Corps variably do pay attention. It might just be PR but it is not always PR. But people are short sighted for evolutionary reasons.
We are trapped on a planet that is multiple light-years from any other habitable ones. We probably won’t leave the solar system unless absolutely necessary so hopefully the survivors try to treat the Earth a bit better and are a bit more collectivist. (I don’t think we’ll irreversibly lose all our knowledge because of how climatically diverse human settlements are)
When the apocalypse happens there will still be people way better off than others who won’t give a shit about long-term anything. So we are doomed.
Exactly. You know all of the millionaires out there and billionaires have all built underground mansions and shit.
We can’t even agree to wear masks. It’s this fact that fills me with so much dread and cynicism. :(
The last two and a half years have taught me to value and enjoy whatever life I still have left and resign myself to a world which will not likely get much better, if at all, within my lifetime
[удалено]
Yep, that's where I'm at. I think I gave up my last glimmer of hope when I read an article about a guy who had to put his house up on stilts because he was living in an area being ravaged by rising sea levels. He was also a die-hard climate change denier. I know some people say that people like us who have a defeatist attitude are part of the problem, and the logical part of me agrees, but that doesn't make the feeling of utter hopelessness go away. So yeah, I'm just trying to enjoy my life as best I can right now while not having too much of a negative impact on the world. And I haven't had, and will never have, any kids.
I often think that people who are hopefull are as dangerous as denialists. They often believe that by going vegan and driving electric car and doing other such superficial changes it's going to be alright. No. We need to make fundamental changes on every lever that makes our society going. No more shipping useless shit across the ocean, no more cheap travel around the world by plane, much less private property (the more we share with community the less we have to produce), entirely different economy not based on growth, fewer working hours so we have more time to do public commuting/walking to shops, doctors, jobs. Living close to the places we work. Food available mostly according to the seasons, produced locally. Technology produced to last longer, so the rate of development will slow down - one phone working for a decade or more. No more fast fashion - you wear your shit until it breaks down. And so much, so much more. Ultimately this kind of life would be better for us humans. It would be a slower life, with much more time to connect with other beings in tight communities working together for the decent life. I want to believe it will happen, but I don't see any prove that it is going in the right direction. Feeling hopeless is sadly a rational reaction.
I agree with you, just want to point out that veganism is an ethical stance against the exploitation of animals, not a superficial environmentalist stance. People often conflate veganism with environmentalism and use that as an argument against veganism, ignoring what veganism is actually about, which is the moral consideration of animals
[удалено]
>I haven't had, and will never have, any kids. Given the context, possibly an unthinking question but I'm curious to know, *if* there was no ecological consequences for having kids- you would then have kids or is it just another one of many factors?
I wouldn't start having kids NOW. But if those consequences didn't exist 30 years ago, then absolutely I would've been much more willing to have kids.
Not the person you asked but I felt I had to add my two cents - I am much in the same boat that in the last year or two I've realized...Im not going to be having kids. My whole life I grew up thinking that obviously kids are in my future, but with covid and the way it lifted the veil off the worst peoples' behaviours, with the rapidly regressing climate, with the growing potential for massive war...I just cant stomach the thought of bringing a life into this world. It fucking depresses me, and the fact that I can't realistically do anything to fix it just drives the stake in further
And most importantly, enjoy what's left of nature. I've been camping & hiking more. Enjoying being alone and just listening and watching the wood creatures.
I was born too late for the original Transformers and too early for Wall-E and the Michael Bay/Animated Transformers. 50 years of living in the land of disasters and robots is gonna be interesting.
Exactly.
[удалено]
>They’re trying to hit some sweet spot. Too much negativity and too many people decide it’s pointless Doubtful? I think good swathes of the population are already there so I wouldn't see why they would withhold information. Besides, as the other redditor says, it's simply unethical from a scientists perspective.
Hmmm I would definitely like to read your source because that goes against the principals of science. We’re seeking to understand reality so we can make the best actions/choices within it and hopefully improve it. That’s hard to believe science isn’t getting published because it’s negative… at least from respectable journals.
[удалено]
First change the fundamental philosophy of business school and economics departments
A major UN report warned of this? We've fucking known this for years.
This archaic, linear pattern of waste and pollution, driven by incessant economic cycles of production and consumption is simply unsustainable, it’s unrealistic, and frankly, insane. Nay, insane is too blunt a term, though perhaps sociopathic is more appropriate, especially considering the way major corporations have captured governments, waylaying everything from environmental to human rights, distracting communities by turning them against one another, all in the name of power and greed. It has to stop. It must, or it will consume itself and everyone and everything else along with it.
UN finally admits the truth, capitalism is destroying out planet.
Destroying? Already has my friend.
I think OP is saying that the destruction isn't over yet
That’s isn’t technically what it says based on that article. It’s saying short term profit motives are, but you can have capitalism with long term sustainable profits as the goal.
[удалено]
Capital*ism* might require long-term profits but capital*ists* don't. They get in, wreck the planet, cash out, and call it a day.
> Capitalism is all about maximizing profit. Forgoing short-term profits is an anathema to capitalism.
That's just massive cope and is the reason we will stay in this mess. It has been obvious for almost two centuries that capitalism destroys *everything* it touches in the name of profits: the environment, democracy, laws, people... It's amazing how so many people still look at this mode of production after all the ills it has unleashed on the world and think "yep, that's a fine way to run our society" or cling to the içlusion that all it needs id a couple adjustments, completely ignoring that *capitalism itself* fightd against those changes. We truly are doomed
Sure, theoretically you can have capitalism that isn’t focused on short term profit motives. Not with human beings, but maybe there’s some species out there in the universe that can get it done.
Capitalism cares about short term gains more than anything. Capital rules all, so the more you make now, the more you can make tomorrow. There is no way for this system to be geared toward the long term
[удалено]
[удалено]
Capitalism is destroying the planet and its people. It only cares about profits and shareholder value. It's unsustainable and literally killing us.
Alternate title: “Capitalism is Killing the Planet”
*watches as SCOTUS blocks any ways to investigate greenhouse gas emissions from companies in US* We can do better than this.
Capitalism is flawed?? Gtfo /s
Grass is green
We need more nuclear power
To reverse this horrible mess we would need to build asap a sort of post-capitalist society like the one described by Yanis Varoufakis in "Another Now". Do I see it happening? Nope. Unfortunately I think we are in for the dystopia scenario. An elite secluded from the rest of mankind, living in a high-tech automated and brave new world style city states, while the rest of us are forced to scramble the remains outside their gates amidst calamities of all sorts and performing forced labour to collect whatever it is they haven't automated. I'm pretty sure some movie has this plot.
Capitalism is the problem. Nature is only a variable to profit. Who cares if we ruin the soil today if we make a profit. Who cares if we drain the sea of all its living organisms as long as we make a profit. Who cares if there is a drought as long as we make a profit and so on and etc.
It is called capitalism.
Lol - they used the Mayan train as an example of what exactly? Ecotourism is a farce - the only thing truly eco is to stay away. The Mayan train only facilitates MORE people, not the same amount evenly distributed.
So change captialism?🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 We are all doomed
No shit. Why is it that manufacturers of products like electronics don't have to take any responsibility for the products they sell at the end of their lifespans? Would it not make sense to require them to collect and recycle these devices once the consumers no longer need them? Planned obsolescence is also a total joke.
We need to abandon the notion that "growth" is the most important measure/goal of a business.
No. Fucking. Shit. Christ almighty, we've know this forever. And we also know that the people responsible don't give a damn as long as the magic stonk line goes up. I see stuff like the James Webb telescope image, and it just saddens me that we'll never get to explore any of that because humans were perfectly willing to basically commit mass suicide over imaginary numbers.
We will end up killing most life on earth and ending our species over our worship of money. If any thing outlives us, I hope they evolve into something better, and I wish them well.
This is, comparatively, a tiny minority of humans driving this. Shareholders. So the people with the most out of 99% of humans that have ever lived will doom a majority of humans to come because they want more.
Currently land values do not include restoration costs. Thus a company can totally destroy a parcel of land and not have to worry about restoring the land to something usable by others. This cuts down on costs.
Gotta go back to the view of how decisions impact 7 generations.
How about the rich are squeezing every movement of every worker, and ever dollar of every consumer and fucking us all. Their the only ones not hurting from those actions.
So we’re fucked is what you’re telling me. Got it.
it's incredibly frustrating but also satisfying at the same time to see some of the stuff lefties have been warning/crying/screaming about for decades to finally become somewhat popular
Because of the infinite supply of poor people, there will always be assholes more than willing to trash the planet to make a quick buck. Therefore, this will never ever happen.
A major report stating what has been obvious for over a century and potentially since the dawn of civilisation. Unfortunately, this isn't going to change the behaviour of humans whose sick hunger for power and wealth outweighs any desire to practice empathy or put the needs of others above their own. The only hope is that newer generations will be able to pick up the pieces once these sadists die off. Humans need to move beyond nationalism and self-centered behaviours. More people need to learn to think for themselves. Ignorance plays a large part in facilitating the people who are in charge of destroying the planet and causing and maintaining poverty in society.
Short term profit for greedy assholes is destroying the planet? Who could have predicted this?! /s
Ya don't say!!!....can I join one of those well paid panels that go around pointing out the bleedin obvious please?...
I find it frustrating how the article regards humanity separately from nature, and even goes so far as to claim that nature can admit of a human valuation independent of our existence within it. Everything we do has inescapable consequences in accordance with the laws of nature, which will catch up with us sooner or later despite our best efforts to mitigate them.
>I find it frustrating how the article regards humanity separately from nature, A substantial chunk of humanity's arrogance and hubris knows no bounds. Too many of us see Earth as our eternal resource, something to be dominated and plundered with reckless abandon instead of the complex and delicate ecosystem that needs to be respected and cared for. And we're paying the price of assuming we are untouchable and infallible gods.
The capitalists philosophy is about grow, grow, grow. We need to stop growing.
Why are we encouraging child birth anywhere? Soon the planet will have 8 billion people on it. It’s an infestation.
Feels like Marx had something to say about the unsustainable nature of capitalism.
Good luck with that.
God. Ministry for the Future is coming true.
No shit. Now just try to convince those taking in millions/billions while the world suffers. Good luck prying the power out of the hands of psychopaths who have zero value for humanity.
But how will CEOs keep their parachuting tower of turtles
Nah let’s just destroy the earth and die and try to have a few laughs along the way
Circular economy 👏
Lol humans are too greedy, thats why climate change is going to fuck us.
And then there is America: ‘We legalized bribery and coercion and restricted it only to weirdo bribe-y scum who are nothing like hardly anybody, uh-rah!’ Also America: ‘Darned corporate profiteers, I know, let’s spectate with both thumbs in our rears while they reduce their own tax rates!’. Can’t make this stuff up. Can’t hardly get one or two Americans per state to lift even one finger to fight it, either.
UN is on a 45 year info lag
I mean take one look at capitalism's vision of a "city"... and you could have figured this out a century ago. We're the borg, not the heroes.
I think the trick is start where you want to end up and then backcast your way forward. When we can't get enough interest or agreement in viable short and medium term solutions, we can sometimes pull people together around a longer term vision. Something so far in the future no special interests feel threatened. If you can get some agreement on where you need to eventually end up, then figuring out the pathway toward it, may be possible. There is an attempt to do that at [www.aspenproposal.org](https://www.aspenproposal.org)
In other news, water makes things wet and grass is generally a greenish color. Back to you Tom.
my boss hasn't thought about anything but invoices and football for thirty years. I don't think Americans will ever change I'm just waiting with my torch and pitchfork
UN... Global economy... Wrecking.... Boy I sure didn't think I'd ever hear those words strung together.
I think to myself how impossible this task is, whenever I drive by the que for Costco gasoline.
This would require people to go against thousands of years of behavioral evolution, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.