Parts I like:
- How to have hope even if I believe in the worst possible case for the future
- Anti accelerationism
- Critical of magical scientism FALGSC falls into
- I 100% agree with the analysis on the closed possibility of WORLDWIDE anarchist revolution
- Beautiful work on the divide between developing/developed hot/cold climates. I was particularly slammed in the face by the recognition that some cold countries benefit from global heating.
Parts I dislike:
- Malthusianism
- It relies on the same premises that capitalist and imperialist realism does: that people are greedy, desire religious authoritarianism and fascinatingly, love destruction. Even the cynical readings of the consensus on the biological nature of people cannot lead you to the conclusions in this. I’m surprised by the wholesale rejection of the work done by Kropotkin et al in this. The view of humanity in this book seem dominated by the honestly, fascist view of people.
- Too much reliance of Lovelock - a scientist who feels, idk largely contrarian. This might be because desert is dated.
From wiki: He admits he was wrong. Additionally:
In a follow up interview Lovelock stated his support for natural gas; he now favors fracking as a low-polluting alternative to coal. He opposes the concept of "sustainable development", where modern economies might be powered by wind turbines, calling it meaningless drivel. He keeps a poster of a wind turbine to remind himself how much he detests them. In Novacene (2019) Lovelock proposes that benevolent superintelligence may take over and save the ecosystem, and states that the machines will need to keep organic life around to keep the planet's temperature habitable for electronic life
Thank you to @Speaker for posting it somewhere in main yesterday
I'm a non denominational communist because I am stupid, I promise I am not trying to be a debate me bro
What is the point of freedoms that end humanity in the long term?
Well, you're talking to the wrong person for that argument: I'm an anti-natalist. Humanity is kinda overrated, tbh.
I'm a big fan of not having children, and I'm also a big fan of not forcing other people to follow my worldview. But the 2nd value is a lot more important than the 1st value, to me. So I'm gonna not have children, and I'm gonna advocate that other people do the same, but I certainly won't force anyone to not have children.
Anyway, this all seems kinda unrelated to materialism. Could you help me understand how materialism ties into this conversation?
From my limited understanding, materialism would require us to confront the natural consequences of permitting people to have children. Confront that cause and effect of things in the material world . Humans like having children and since having children would do in the desert view: irreparable damage to themselves, the ecosystem, other species etc.
Your position of not caring about humanity ending also has to extend to not caring about all of those other things ending. You can't just go oh humans suck. Additionally all of the suffering that will lead to it, it won't be a magic process like Thanos snapping his fingers and people disappearing. It will be famine, disease, war, species extinctions. Pretty sure we should agree these things are bad, and we should confront them. What use is your freedom if it is effectively complicit in that? It is anti materialist because it places an ideal (freedom) over the horrifying material conditions it purports will result from that ideal.
Based on that understanding of materialism, I guess I just don't value materialism.
Thanks for helping me understand, I always appreciate some honest conversation.