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).

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

                      Where I live the surplus is shipped over the border or even overseas if there isn’t enough demand here.

                      Because there is more demand there, which is influenced by individual behaviour. As you have said, the production in ones country won't just end if enough people decide to limit their consumption, but this only applies if there is enough demand elsewhere, and the demand elsewhere depends on the consumption of the people living there. Their actions will decide how much will be exported to them, and they are as responsible as anyone else. This ignores that "other markets" likely have a poorer population, because most of the consumption is happening in western countries. One person reducing their consumption in the USA has a much larger effect than 10 people in Cuba doing the same. It isn't symmetrical, and therefore can't be that easily replaced. Either way, this applies to all people where possible anyway.

                      The overwhelming majority of consumer goods are shipped in across the pacific. So it’s not like we can stop the production by not buying them, the factories will just ship them to somewhere else and sell there.

                      Your argument seems inconsistent. You say that consumer behaviour affects export and demand, but also argue that it makes no difference because it would be shipped elsewhere. If individual behaviour can lead to goods being produced for another market instead, the people there have the same power. This logic only works if people elsewhere start consuming more because you are consuming less. What would happen if everyone consumes less? Exactly! Less production. Covid has shown that just this year.

                      Now on the subject of plastics I don’t know where you’re at but it’s not possible to walk into a grocery store on a budget and not come out with a cart full of plastic containers. When people have a fridge full of plastic it’s not because they dgaf about the earth, it’s because they can’t afford to buy the expensive stuff. Or that they live in the USA and everything is packaged in plastic and there isn’t another option.

                      In all my posts I have emphasised that this only applies if people choose to do so while having other options. I have lived in the US for a bit, and you can definitely get relatively cheap produce that isn't wrapped in plastic. There are valid reasons why you wouldn't be able to cook etc., but the vast majority of Americans could certainly consume less, lol. It doesn't stop at food. This is not even debatable. There is no other nation with as much mindless consumption.

                      Production does not go down due to small fluctuations

                      What I am talking about would lead to more than a small fluctuation. "My actions don't have any impact" is just learnt and accepted helplessness to be more comfortable with your own selfish actions. Which is funny, because this comes from the people who consume as much as 50 people in poorer countries.

                      But let’s say that wasn’t true. Someone who makes the decision to only buy locally grown grass fed biodynamic beef can’t be considered a 200iq rational actor who should be shamed for their decision to participate in climate change even a little bit as a treat because they’re affected by myriad influences to normalize that consumption.

                      Of course, that behaviour is even incentivised by bullshit "environmentalism". People live within a system that not only normalises this kind of consumption but actively encourages it. Maybe even add a few symbols on the packaging that make the buyer feel good about their purchase. But people are still able to make choices. If you are aware of the situation and choose to not care and tell yourself some excuses ("my actions don't matter", "everyone does it"), as is the case with almost everyone here, then I am not going to only blame the system which they act within.

                      Also here in the USA meat trade organizations have a history of astroturfing demand to justify increased production after the fact and to whitewash safety, ecological and health concerns.

                      Yes, they are evil. I never said they aren't the worst actors.

                      it’s why we can’t rely on individual choice to change production

                      Unfortunately we can't. If we could, we wouldn't be in the current situation. My argument was never that individual choices are the driving force behind climate change, but that individuals are to blame for their (conscious) actions that drive climate, and that individual choices have an impact. They are immediate actions that have a positive effect collectively. Telling people that their consumption does not matter, especially when most people here are Americans, living in the by far most wasteful nation, the biggest contributor to climate change, is just harmful, and false. Advocating for responsible consumption is good and important. It will have to happen anyway.

                      The comment I replied to was about a kurzgesagt video btw. The user said that they were arguing that the consumers are at fault. This shows the tunnel-vision so many people here have. The video said that what anyone can do, immediately, is to be less wasteful. Afterwards the video talked about taxing emissions etc.

          • 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.