The west consumes so much more than the global south, it needs to stop if we wish not to kill ourselves through climate change, or run out of natural resources essential to run a complex society. The right wing’s answer to this problem is ecofascism. They simply wish to kill the “useless eaters” so their consumption levels don’t have to change. Obviously we shouldn’t do genocide so the best option is communism. An equitable distribution of wealth would solve the issue of malthusianism, but to do that would require us westerners and even people in the global south to a lesser extent to give up their treats.

Personally I can live without cars or animal products, I don’t use those things simply because I don’t like them. But if I could no longer buy funko pops, or craft beers at the local brick walled barcade, or yikes, even get the new Nintendo video game product, is that really a life worth living? Truth is I need my useless plastic shit to live a fulfilling life and I can’t live simply without consuming like an adult going to disneyworld alone. I’m sure everyone owning a tv, smartphone, and computer is unsustainable but we are obviously still gonna produce those things right? Luxury production has to decline significantly but we aren’t gonna completely stop it. Everyone is entitled to a certain amount of treats. But who hands out the treats? I think we should conspire to be the treatkeepers so we don’t have to give up our own treats.

  • Erika3sis [she/her, xe/xem]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wait, so when people on Hexbear mention "treats"... I was supposed to interpret that as meaning, like, "luxury goods post-capitalism", the whole time? Because I'd honestly always assumed that "treat" was just some sort of slang shortening of "treatise", like it was just a silly in-group synonym of "write-up".

    ...I feel a bit foolish now, because the actual meaning seems obvious in hindsight.