Get ready for countries like the US to "take on the responsibility" of altering the world's climate and fucking it even further.

How anyone can think that our world will not severely fuck "geoengineering" the planet is insane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSu5sXmsur4

  • PaulWall [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    when you can’t take your theory out of its individualistic pitfalls, you know you’re a liberal.

    • Corbyn [none/use name]
      26·
      4 years ago

      I am a lib because I advocate for less consumption? Ok, I guess I am a lib then.

      • CarlTheRedditor [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        You're advocating it under a liberal framework.

        That does not remove you from personal responsibility.

        Everyone on this website could go fully anprim and it would achieve fuckall in terms of fixing the problems. Thus, discussing "personal responsibility" in this context is utterly futile. The changes necessary must be systemic.

        • Corbyn [none/use name]
          19·
          4 years ago

          You’re advocating it under a liberal framework.

          That everyone has a responsibility, to do what they can, to contribute to the improvement of our current situation, is not a "liberal framework".

          Everyone on this website could go fully anprim and it would achieve fuckall in terms of fixing the problems.

          Fortunately, the world does not end here.

          Thus, discussing “personal responsibility” in this context is utterly futile.

          Personal consumption (mostly in western countries) has caused it. That there are systemic reasons for it does not change that anyone still has a responsibility, and can bring immediate improvements, which is what we need.

          The changes necessary must be systemic.

          Did I ever say that it doesn't have to be systemic? No. In theory we could solve climate change by changing our way to live tomorrow, but that won't happen. Neither is soon enough systemic change realistic. That shouldn't stop us from fighting for either. But resigning and handing over all your responsibilities to large corporations, then getting mad them, is pathetic.

            • Corbyn [none/use name]
              4·
              4 years ago

              You might not have intended it, but the structure that upholds the argument that a group of individual actors could reduce their consumption and that would reduce production is rooted in the flawed liberal analysis that individual actors (even acting in groups) have power over the machinery of the global union between states and capital.

              No, but they have control over their individual consumption and often choose to simply not care. Even if systemic issues are the driving force behind this behaviour, I don't agree with categorically relieving humans from their responsibilities. Not in any system.

              The counter to that line of reasoning is that we simply cut off the production of greenhouse gasses at its source, the producers.

              As I have said, that should be the goal and is key to having any chance of not reaching 5°C. But I also believe that not everyone is just a victim of capitalism but often choosing to participate to an unnecessary degree. They are aware of the damage they cause, yet tell themselves why it isn't so bad, why it is ok. A different mindset would have a significant impact on emissions. The capital would react to this is, if "necessary", but that also doesn't justify this kind of destructive behaviour.

              If your argument is that under a socialist state the individual must uphold their commitment to reducing consumption that would also be stupid because if u have a socialist state why not just be like “uhh yall need to waste less fucking food smdh” like chynah is doing? at that point you arent asking individual yeoman farmers to make the logical conclusion that their patriotic duty is to do something, your just telling them.

              Because this won't happen in capitalist governments, the individual actions are even more significant. That the state doesn't tell you to behave less shitty does not make shitty actions ok.

                • Corbyn [none/use name]
                  1·
                  4 years ago

                  Okay, so you say that even though people have no control of an outcome through their individual actions it’s still wrong for them to make certain choices. Whatever, I guess?

                  Of course their actions have an effect, I am just saying that I am aware that capitalism will react to less consumption. That doesn't change that your consumption has an effect on production, and that consuming less, or at least consuming less problematic goods, is always positive. If you choose to take a train over a domestic flight, that is certainly the better choice.

                  Now people would buy plastics and feel like their individual acts of recycling a yogurt container was making a difference.

                  "Avoid plastic" is quite simple and a thing that everyone I have ever met is aware of. That companies try to trick people/help them at lying to themselves does not excuse people from willingly falling for this. Keep in mind, I never said that the system isn't the biggest problem.

                  What I do take issue with there is the idea that people are making some choice to live terrible lifestyles. If you really wanna get into it then go ahead and give me an example of that choice. It’s hard to argue about a straw man this nebulous.

                  For example, I currently live in a country were pretty much everyone is aware of how problematic meat consumption is (many for emotional, not environmental reasons), yet hardly anyone will change their ways. Most people you will talk to will tell you that they have decreased their meat consumption by a lot, because they are aware of (some of) the problems, and they will try to convince themselves of it, but they never actually change their consumption. They are aware, in a position to change something, yet tell themselves, secretly, that it isn't necessary, because it wouldn't matter.

                  The same people are aware that a less wasteful car would be better, that ordering less crap would be better, but they always decide to let capitalism comfort them about making the right choices, never giving up on any luxury they are more than aware they could do without. Capitalism has created this situation, but it hasn't removed people from all autonomy over their individual actions. If I act as a selfish asshole within capitalism, my behaviour might be heavily influenced by the system I live under, but I would still be a selfish asshole. The same way I don't excuse the most evil and influential capitalist actors, even if the system has significantly shaped their behaviour, I will condemn wastefulness on an individual level (on a much smaller scale).

          • JoeySteel [comrade/them]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Read a book you fucking lib and preferably not one written by that sucdem, manhole cover collecting loser and capitulator you named your account after

            • Corbyn [none/use name]
              ·
              4 years ago

              I have bought "Fire and Fury" and try to finish it by the end of the year.

      • PaulWall [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        it’s the means by which you think less consumption will occur that makes you a lib, individual reduction of consumption isn’t going to take place when there is systemic incentivization of perpetually increasing consumption.