James Cameron is just a PMC pod person liberal. He built a bunker in New zealand and then made a movie about the Maori and how much he loves them (but he owns his land there, and don’t you forget it!).
James Cameron is just a PMC pod person liberal. He built a bunker in New zealand and then made a movie about the Maori and how much he loves them (but he owns his land there, and don’t you forget it!).
Interesting points about resources, to be sure - I do think the various resource scares are generally mostly hysteria as well. However, that isn't what climate change science is actually all about, though it may feature heavily in that Limits to Growth book. Full disclosure, I haven't read that book, so all I can do here is make some assumptions regarding its contents based on your word. To me, the problem of climate change is not one of resources, and I think framing it that way is fundamentally misguided - exactly because it is so easily co-opted by malthusian thought, or maybe even a product of it to begin with. Doesn't make much of a difference in this case for sure.
I do think climate change is fundamentally a problem of waste, not resource. And as far as 'incentives to recycle' go, carbon is extremely common on this planet, so getting to a 'space race of thought' to capture the -at that point supposedly- scarce resource carbon, would mean depleting all sources of solid carbon first... which I don't think is feasible, not a scientist tho
Also yea, the German green party is bad, so are all the other political parties in Germany. They are also all war hawks, with some scarce exceptions here and there, now and then. It's not like the SPD or the CDU or the FDP was against any of the recent investments in tanks, jets and LNG terminals. [Edit:] Also, to equivocate here 'the climate change movement' with the green party is overly simplifying it imo, as the party wasn't even founded as a climate party, it was originally more of a classically ecological party, concerning itself more with local environmental protections and such. Their pivot to climate change is at least in parts just opportunistic triangulation and their internal contradiction stemming from that originally different focus is predictably tearing at the party still. The actual climate change movements in Germany are generally also criticizing the Green party for a variety of reasons (albeit some rather timidly), it's not like the party and the movements are in lockstep. [end of edit] Still, to claim that any and all movements arising in imperialist society are fundamentally inorganic is... an extremely grand claim, that seems, even if somehow proven true for you through high-level anti-imperialist theory, fundamentally unproductive. I believe this line of thinking will only lead you to another armchair, leaving you resentful towards the people that dare to change the world anyway, without you. To pronounce 'inorganic' by way of physical location that whole great mass of people, The People, because they reside within 'imperialist society' is to pronounce away any and all agency of the masses, is to give in to the worst kind of defeatism. And I don't think it's true to begin with, even if it's maybe a convenient explanation for the general malaise we find ourselves in on hellworld.
Comm read the book Ultimate Resource 2, the eugenics movement in the 50s/60s was about Limits. That's why their publications were predominantly about Limiting growth (they are still about limiting growth but now not for resource scarcity but co2) or scaremongering about famines
It was later that the Club of Rome settled on:
-The First Global Revolution: A Report By The Council Of The Club of Rome
As I said, I have no doubt malthusians are willing and able to instrumentalize climate change science for their political goals, it is known. But you haven't done anything but vaguely gesturing at that possibility and the club of rome, which apparently did just that - coming to spectacular conclusions about climate change and climate change science in general, which just aren't supported by any of the specifics of your arguments, like at all. Not trying to debate bro here, I'm just genuinely puzzled how you could get to these conclusions from your information, it seems very irrational and borne from wishful thinking more than anything.
I'm currently reading Capital Order by Mattei, but I'll chuck it on the reading list. Maybe I'll get to it, but as I said; not too concerned with resources to begin with, myself.
Removed by mod
:data-laughing: yea, I'm sure buddy, very science that is. Also, not sure who is claiming that a catastrophe is imminent, people are more like, worried about long-term trends in the coming decades, lol. One of the main problems is exactly that, that there is no 'singular point of catastrophe' on the horizon, but that it's a very slow, practically invisible process that very slowly diminishes the (human) habitat, especially around coasts and the equator.
The dude's a retired nuclear physicist, Zharkova is an astrophysicist - do you, per chance, also read some climate change science papers written by actual climate scientists, or no?
To me, it isn't a consolation to know that some thousand years ago there was a geological warming period, or that during the Jurassic period there was more CO2 in the atmosphere for a little bit, or that there's supposedly some unspecified correlation between sun spots and volcanic activity - I have heard all of these, literally every single one, of these talking points in the past from climate change denialists, and it comes as no surprise to me, that the people you apparently laud as authorities are platformed by such revolutionary proletarian institutions like the Epoch Times and Ian Miles Cheong lmao
You realise up until very recently even the concept of "climate science" was a spurious concept. There were just scientists who branched into different spheres of science because you can't study climate science purely on "it's own" without studying how solar flares heat the world and how solar maximum versus solar minimum cycles work.
Well i mean you can trivially specialise like this but then you are no longer a "scientist" in any sense of the word but a weird pidgeon holed idiot only capable of giving your definitive opinions on "the wingspan of the blue spottled West-African pelican"
The socalled "climate deniers" are financed (in the West) by the industrial bourgeoisie that still want to see industrial growth (ie. capitalists still attached to the nation and it's people/culture etc and want to see industrial growth in their country)
The ENTIRE Green Agenda is financed by the FINANCIAL bourgeoisie (ie. cosmopolitan imperialists who's power long ago rose above the nation and is based in transnational organiations/hold multiple passports etc that won't to stop growth at all costs, removed technical development and technique to maintain American monopolies).
So you have a problem with small fry capitalists like I don't know the Koch brothers (and the people they're financing) but the Rockefellers (who created the United Nations) you have institutional trust and are very sure the IPCC (created by the UN) is a very trustworthy org despite the Climate Gate emails where they had to admit they falsified information for the famous hockey stick
https://web.archive.org/web/20100217190215/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
The entire point of communism is developing the productive forces as rapidly as possible to smash the mode of production. Here's the communist manifesto.