Like the development of global industry would have still emmited more greenhouse gases than the earth's ecosystem could handle.
But instead of 50 years of denying it and 10+ years of doing nothing about it it'd have been started on earlier.
Plus instead of having all the labor going into putting roller coasters on cruise ships it'd be going towards not destroying the globe for profit.
I know this is low hanging fruit for hexbear but I saw a commercial for a cruise and it really hit me.
Wish you would have been here to tell me that this morning.
there's definitely a parallel universe where socialism wins globally by 1950, we get the first indications that we may be causing climate change in the 1960s, and then there's a massive global effort to develop new renewable technologies and switch to nuclear which would be finishing up by now. still some climatic disasters and maybe not totally carbon zero yet but much lower emissions and disasters are adequately prepared for and the victims properly cared for.
Socialism is necessary to solve the climate crisis, to the extent it still can be. We can't do it within the capitalist framework, that's for sure.
I wouldn't say it's sufficient, though. There will still be struggles under socialism and placing focus in something not immediately tangible would require a serious, coordinated campaign working against various parties' short-term interests.
I don't want to start a struggle session here, especially because my brain is dry from working on my dissertation and work; apologies if I donìt make sense or sound too confrontational.
I have been studying the history of sustainability thought for the better part of a year, and while i think socialism would have been much more fertile ground for a reckoning with our way of relating to the biosphere, it would've required an important level of commitment and openness to the dialectical pickle that is required to reject anthropocentric thought and moved onto more sustainable modes of production and consumption. I don't know if a young socialism would've been ready for that kind of conversation, especially when the living standards of billions of people needed immediate improvement for a good while.
This is all word salad, but what i'm trying to say, is that any philosophical movement that didn't question the anthropocentic and positivist assumptions of modernity (including marxism), would have had trouble coming to terms with a less predatory way of biospheric conviviality.
Of course but the reckoning would have been able to occur at a time where changes were starting to be noticed (ie 60 years ago) and productive forces would have been able to be moved towards more sustainable production methods instead of at the best of eternal growth and capital.
Yea, global luxury space communism would have.
theoretically global warming could even be a good thing if it was just balanced with global-scale water infrastructure. Because Greenland could theoretically have a forest covering it, and if there was enough desalination infrastructure present, you could literally green the Sahara and the ocean salinity wouldn't even budge
I unironically want to see the deserts genocided, except for a few patches to showcase the tiny amount of biodiversity they have
