So here we are, over four decades after the modern environmental movement got off the ground and it seems the ruling class is oblivious or indifferent to the fact at its present trajectory it will bring about another dark age.
Also the environmental movement itself is still stuck in the individual responsibility it offered in the 1970's which has done nothing, consumption has exponentially grown over that time as has waste.
This coupled with capitalists not willing to invest in space means we are likely to expend all of Earth resources before building enough fixed capital in space to take resources from the rest of our solar system.

Attached: CongealingNiagaraFalls.webm (640x356, 3.91M)

Other urls found in this thread:


I think about this often, I think what is needed is a 'new environmentalism' movement that builds on what was achieved previously but is evidence-based and logical unlike modern Greenpeace et al, pro nuclear and pro GMO, vaccines, technology and geoengineering, the fact that the modern Green movement is steeped in new age ideology is why it can't achieve anything IMO.

Google Bookchin

Attached: 14264105_143302916123882_728993539593802303_n.jpg (960x960, 101.27K)


Good read on this subject.

Attached: What It Will Take.jpg (333x500, 37.6K)

Any realistic step to stop climate change will destroy the stock market (Exxon's stock price is based on all the oil they own being burned)

The revolution won't happen in time, get away from the coasts, move out of the tropics and buckle up for the collapse!


Bookchin never said any of these things when he was a Communalist.

Bookchin was an ecologist. Ecology is one of the main tenents in Rojava.

Nuclear power sucks. The plants are ridiculously expensive and the waste is around forever. It requires large scale regulation to run and when something goes wrong entire cities have to be evacuated indefinitely.

Its better than oil and gas of course but small scale energy sources like solar and wind are way more preferable. Solar efficiency sucks right now but its been booming, as has battery technology which will make solar power reasonable in temperate and polar areas.

Unless fusion power ends up working out there's no reason to invest so much in unecological time bombs.

Working on the consumption side isn't a bad idea either. The rise in consumption in the US is usually involuntary (having to drive to work for instance) or due to massive advertising campaigns encouraging mcmansions and European vacations. Building cities for people instead of cars, ending unnecessary work and ending the tremendous effort corporations are doing to create demand will go a long way. It doesn't take much energy to keep the lights on, keep your reasonably sized home at a comfortable temperature and keep the fridge and your gadgets running.

Also Fukushima killed the "nuclear power is fine if we keep the tankies out of power" argument

Space is a meme.
Nuclear (thorium too) is a meme.
Geoengineering is a meme.

If your solution involves extremely complex, expensive, global investments then it isn't going to happen. And if it does, it will be done for a small capitalist elite, not some totalizing socialist milieu.

The Right already has a real simple solution to 'environmental' problems: kill off the surplus population, and keep killing until it's not a problem anymore. Wall off populations that are still rich and sustainable, leave the rest to die and shoot them if they challenge you. It's an old and familiar logic that can be seen working right now in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America.

So what it’s a very tiny amount of stuff?

Fake News

Because it produced TREMENDOUS amounts of power.

Those were designs from the 60s. Besides Climate Change will destroy many more cities.

Except that Solar and Wind only provide power during certain times of the day. And Industry requires power 24/7

Your retarted

>>>Zig Forums

For space nuclear power is not that bad given the sun is a giant natural fusion reaction with no shielding. Having space colonies run on nuclear reactors would only be risk if their radiation makes it inside the hull of the colony, since radiating the space outside the hull wouldn't be much of an issue if you are talking about space stations beyond the protection of Earth's magnetic field. This is partly why moving into space is a good solution as it allows to have production far away from the fragile ecosystem of Earth, while being within easy reach of all the untapped resources of our solar system.

The optional solution would be to reduce Earth to noting but a nature preserve with the vast production and human population in space, beyond the limitation of Earth based industry.

Attached: TekhnikaMolodezh1977.jpg (615x800, 114.58K)



Actual ecologist here, stop abusing words. Bookchin was an environmentalist. Ecologists are biologists who actually study the connections between and among populations of organisms.

choose one you utter brainlet. i implore you to look at third world vs first world consumption per capita right now


Master Asia was ahead of his time.

Attached: mpv-shot0062.jpg (576x432, 41.84K)

We need ecoterrorism now! Environmental radicalism is the only true path

Attached: earth-first-classic-fist-patch.png (434x467, 373.14K)

This was always a weird dichotomy to me. The anti-nuclear movement is so heavily supported but they promoted shifting to fossil fuel power sources to shut down nuclear plants


Nick Land should go first in the hole

They scared the FBI enough to murder Judi Bari, so clearly they were doing something right.

They've been calling EF ecoterrorists since forever. But as you know, "terrorists" get to disappear without any so called due process of law.
Just saying.

The anti-nuclear movement is the worst thing about the contemporary green movement, it's straight up absurd.

Attached: Strawberry Switchblade girn.jpg (564x540, 67.31K)

Said every scientist ever.

Meanwhile every eco-feminist:

Congrats on proving my point. When we all die to Zuccbots in the climate wars it'll be the fault of people like you, so thanks.

The OG environmental movement has it's roots in the anti-nuclear weapons movement, which dedicated itself to eliminating all forms of nuclear energy because it was perceived as being a direct subsidy of the arms industry and as the most destructive. At the time (70s and 80s) this made some sense considering the SL-1, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters but instead of aggressively promoting an alternative utilities largely returned to fossil fuels as nuke plants were closed as subsidies were discontinued. This can be most easily seen in Humboldt, CA whose nuclear power plant was replaced with a gas one. The only surviving NPP project was the government owned TVA Watts Bar 2.

These people are now legislators, bureaucrats and lobbyists who only now start aggressively promoting an alternative (usually solar) because they can get subsidies for it and because they can make money off it. It's clearly bourgeoisie activity, which is why all their attempts to promote clean energy will end up in landfills doing more harm than good. Which is another point: at no point did anyone ever want to take electronics recycling seriously or bother figuring out where their raw materials came from, environmentalists failed because they did not link resistance to global climate change to resistance to global capitalism.

Additionally, the older ones failed in their duty to protect America's mass transit networks most of which were ripped out in the 50s and 60s. This was a huge failure on their part, and one which we're still dealing with today. And we know it was a failure because when the rot spread to the intercity system everyone pissed themselves and jumped over backwards to save it. which was done successfully.

In short it comes down to three things:

That said they did wrestle two things out of the US: a lead gas ban and preservation of America's national rail network, so not all was lost. But it's also not enough.

Attached: la-ol-tunnel-under-sepulveda-pass-20140401-001.jpg (1851x1292 281.65 KB, 605.08K)

Bae af tbh
Ecology and organismal bio were my favorite science classes

Most of the people against nuclear are well meaning, but they refuse to believe nuclear power could plausibly be safe when a private company is operating it. There's merit to this argument but it falls flat considering that the government could just run the plant, as is the case in Tennessee. In essence they confuse distrust of capitalist enterprise with nuclear energy, although I suspect this happens because most environmentalists would rather prefer to live under capitalism than live with nuclear power.

For every 1 "pure" anti-nuclear environmentalist that wants gov't-run solar fields made out of domestic materials and with proper end-of-life disposal, there's 10 that simply oppose it because nuclear power = bombs to them. One also notices how few environmentalists are willing to discuss safe electronics disposal but get extremely upset when the government tries to build a nuclear waste repository outside Las Vegas.

It's a matter of class consciousness. People get uppity and bitchy when their power company suggests a new NPP in their area but have no problems refinancing their house to put solar on their roof, in effect trading dependency on a utility company to further dependency on a bank. To idiots this is "liberation", they're turning down the power company using their own credit - without realizing that the basic dynamic (their money -> capitalist profit -> raping the world) does not change.

The end of the Cold War likely plays into this, because with the Soviets' end also came the end to socialism as a serious political movement and not raping the environment as a serious going concern. At least for now.

post-scarcity is idealistic at worst

and completely practical at best


Is on the money. There just is no escape and it's important to recognize this. Even something as small as this thread is good evidence of why nothing will be done to stop this train to hell.

If you go to any eco-activist meeting it will almost always be hijacked such as meaningless poisonous academic nonsense which has no relevance to the actual danger we are facing. We can see it now in the most recent manifestation, the so-called "Extinction Rebellion" which is yet another occupy movement with very very little difference. Young people poisoned with bourgeois ideas such as race-thinking and LGBTQI/homo "liberation" (i.e. idpol as it has been known lately) will completely derail the primary purpose of the movement. We are on a sinking ship and instead of banding together and killing the psychopath captain, these cunts are arguing about how they can "better represent minorities" or some other complete garbage. Nobody can even agree on anything and because all the weapons have been taken away from civilians in most countries except the USA (the last bastion of this particular freedom), the days of storming government buildings are long gone. The military is too far into the pockets of the elites in western countries also so there is no swaying them either.

The best we can hope for is global war, the death of hundreds of millions/billions and the eventual establishment of world government. There is no other hope. Nations alone cannot deal with this and won't deal with this and a bunch of academic narcissists sitting around discussing and creating facebook groups in order to ORGANIZE and MOBILIZE will lead to nothing.

The game is up and the only way forward is to cope. Be with your friends and people you love, hopefully find a community and begin to stockpile preserves and so on. Do not have children. Chaos probably won't be unleashed for a decade or so, so you've got time but just accept that all of your shitty academic works on the nature of things mean jack and there will be no revolution and you'll never get to be some fag political commissar or whatever.

I would also like to add that anything that would stop this impending nightmare like replacement of all coal power with nuclear power would be preferable despite the downsides of nuclear power (waste, etc.) but it's not the point. The point is human beings NEED to overcome fossil fuel ALTOGETHER to survive over the next century regardless of the alternative. But again, it's not going to happen and it's delusion to believe it will

US rail system is a fucking joke compared to other first world countries and organizations.

go back to your radlib shithole Daniel

Full retard

Attached: earth_from_space_at_night.jpeg (275x183, 10.44K)

Kill yourself, nazifur Cypriot

Google Bookchin dumbass

Not to mention he was a self-described "social ecologist"

Attached: puush-linux (2018-11-11 at 09.28.54).png (500x568, 109.96K)

This tbh. Sabotaging is the most (only?) effective form of direct action against corporations destroying the living planet. Keep targeting their projects for sabotage until it's no longer profitable to destroy ecosystems.

I don't disagree with your assessment at all. We're probably in the middle of the "point of no return" decade(s), and even though I'm a huge fan of Epicurus, I cannot advocate that everyone just give up and retire to their gardens and bomb shelters. None of us here may have any kids, but we will come in contact with plenty of them throughout our lives and we have to be able to teach them not to give up. We can't offer surrender to them, not while we're alive.

Attached: Terminator 2 - No fate.jpg (947x641 33.03 KB, 1.07M)

I wasn't saying to be pessimistic or nihilistic, and I definitely believe in the power of hope and so forth. However, we must be realistic at the same time and acknowledge that there is no escape anymore. Global capitalism is on the road to hell and because it's such a vast and complex system, a bunch of people manifesting in the streets in one western country will do absolutely nothing. Even if they got the attention of their government, they will never be able to force the radical change that is required on a GLOBAL scale. One or two nations "going sustainable" won't even put a dent in the beast that faces us. Even so, can anyone even imagine Chinese or Indians forcing their governments to abandon their rapid development and restructure their economies around sustainable non-CO2 emitting practices? I doubt anybody can.

Regardless, hope is powerful and we must grasp it for our lives and try to inspire others to fight even though it may seem hopeless. You're absolutely right that it can only be a positive thing to inspire them not to surrender. But it's also important to shun those motherfuckers who spout bourgeois identity garbage with no relevance to the biggest problem we face. They are just as bad as nationalists and patriots in terms of their contribution to the death of the human race.

Technology isn't neutral, it inherently implies scarcity, damage to the environment, and most importantly, to our psyche. The pathology of civilization must be abolished.
The order of primitive communism (as defined by Marx) must be restored in order for humanity to survive. Head forward toward the original affluent society! Against His-Story, Against Leviathan!

Attached: trust_your_desires.png (714x488, 436.82K)

Technology is neutral, only its form is determined by the political-economy. Even current technology can minimize damage to the environment through prolonging equipment life, minimizing waste and moving production off world.

How can you make a neutron bomb neutral?

Attached: dojrzale-trichomy-marihuany-4.jpg (500x432, 63.13K)

By not making it or using it.

We need to apply both strategies.

Google "ecologist", dumbass. He's not a fucking ecologist, he's not a biologist, and he's not a scientist. He's a philosopher. Words matter.

Attached: Politics and the English Language.jpg (240x391, 16.92K)

Then my argument disproves the neutrality of technology.
And, frankly, we can't apply both strategies—you can't seperate the bad and good of technology, you either take it or not. If you try doing that you end up like China.

What precisely is your standard for being an ecologist/biologist/scientist? Does it have something to do with academic credentials?

Attached: 1427585136243.png (512x416, 114.86K)

No, we mean the people are the ones who make the technology good or bad. Obviously we want to stop making them.
The reason automation is bad is because of capitalism. Lift that system away and automation is freeing. Lift capitalism away and you relieve the minds of men and set him to other motivating factors, factors built on cooperation and preservation
And we're going to have to apply both.
There's technologies that help to clean/fix the environment.

It has something to do with contributing to the scientific community. Collecting data, performing experiments, producing testible hypotheses as they relate to ecology. Bookchin does none of those. Scientists working for private firms (particularly in pharmacology) frequently publish their results and even undergraduate students occasionally publish things, so it's not necessarily about being immersed in academia.

I did not say he was an unappended "ecologist". Social ecology is another field which studies

By blowing up a neutron bomb factory with one.

Next question.

Not neutral, but still, very nice answer.

It could be worse, since we still have the network itself. Price controls had to go away, but electrification did not. Where the last generation stumbled was using government power to expand clean energy, not just prevent total ruin. This much can be seen in the Milwaukee Road's bankruptcy and subsequent abandonment of over 2,000+ miles of electric hydro-powered track between Seattle and Chicago. The government refused to assume control of it, although a few years later the Penn Central bankruptcy and near-abandonment of all rail service in the northeast forced Conrail and Amtrak. Although in that case too, the former was never used to expand electrification.

It's a series of missed opportunities. The same can be said about every other aspect of clean power, at every opportunity past 1975 people said no to it. The recent surge in solar is nice, but it's not going to last so long as capitalists are behind the wheel. As with nuclear, once the end of life comes for the plants/installs no amount of "innovation" can stop people from turning back to gas. This holds true even in California, who now requires all new homes to come with solar. This sounds great on paper but if no considerations are made for the end-of-life, it just means we'll end up with lots of broken panels in landfills. Likewise the gains here are only seen by the top 20% or so of homeowners who can afford brand new houses, pre-2016 houses see no benefit. It also encourages sprawl for the same reason.

Again there's a constant thread here: capitalism keeps raping the environment. Unless capital is attacked directly, such as through public power generation, it'll continue wrecking everything.

Attached: 5106.1422882275.jpg (480x383 179.46 KB, 57.47K)

On the Origin of Species wasn't an experiment or a hypothesis so I guess it wasn't science then.

Attached: 1353466625741.jpg (303x381, 20.68K)

The whole point of the neutron bomb is to leave buildings intact while killing people with radiation.

It involved experiments/observations though.

Your talking form not tech. The tech itself is artificial nuclear reaction that can take the form of nuclear reactors. You logic is basically along the lines of ICBMs are bad therefore all rocketry is bad.

Bookchin and others like him base their work on experiments/observations too.

Not knocking Bookchin here but I imagine that inherently experiments in biology are more repeatable and sound than ones in politics.

Now you're arguing degree instead of principle though.

Although neutron bombs are commonly believed to "leave the infrastructure intact", with current designs that have explosive yields in the low kiloton range,[40] detonation in (or above) a built-up area would still cause a sizable degree of building destruction, through blast and heat effects out to a moderate radius, albeit considerably less destruction, than when compared to a standard nuclear bomb of the exact same total energy release or "yield".[41]

Then what is the value?
If neutron bombs are inherently bad, then surely the neutron bomb that prevents a thousand neutron bombs from being made is good to the tune of -999 neutron bombs worth of value, right?
I'd offer that the only coherent way to look at technology, even weaponry and war machines, is that it can't have objective value but is assigned value based on intent and context.
Destruction and complexity aren't always bad.
In fact, if you truly considered technology to be problematic, you would probably be forced to recognize employing technology as a necessary means to the end of tech.

If an experiment isn't repeatable then barring exceptional circumstances it's not valid.

It absolutely makes hypotheses and predictions based on collected data. Science is a cyclical process and some scientists are more focused on certain parts of the process than others. But we're not talking about just any science here, we're talking specifically about ecology and environmentalists' frequent abuse of the term. As a biologist it drives me crazy. It's just like when some political hack tries to use the r-K selection concept (a largely discarded and inconsistent idea) to justify anthropocentric "race realism" or whatever nonsense by lending a veneer of scientific credibility from another discipline.

I'm not knocking Bookchin either, I'm saying it's just very inappropriate to classify him as an ecologist in the vein of actual ecologists like G.E. Hutchinson, Robert MacArthur, Alfred Lotka, Vito Volterra, etc.

I agree with this. He should be called what he was, a social ecologist, not a pure-science ecologist. Environmentalist is also an unfitting term for him.

social sciences btfo long live stem ::DDD

Is it just like that though?
Genocide activists (which let's be honest is what race realists are) twisting outdated science to that end is about the harshest comparison possible here.

And Bookchin is focused on broad theorizing, coming up with ideas to be tested.
And you're saying Bookchin's work doesn't do this? Most political theory does this.

Listen here you snake in the grass. Technology doesn't imply any god damn scarcity; nature does. Yet you've deluded yourself so much into believing this absurdity called primitivism, that technology is the devil, because it makes you "unique" and "interesting." There is no way you can reason technology in general to be "bad" without finding yourself in a pool of absurdities. This is the same ridiculous "guns kill people" shit. Technology = tools just like a sharp rock or spear that human beings used to accomplish tasks for thousands of years and which even other simians use. Are you against apes sharpening rocks or birds building nests? Better stop em before they create civilization! Even Zerzan has a website, appears on radio shows, and has his books published, but I'm sure he has committed to some fantastic mental gymnastics to justify it all.

I'm so tired of cunts adopting ideologies because they make them appear unique and contrarian to everyone, but the left has been so successfully infiltrated and divided that it's no longer salvageable. What a fuckin mess.

Can you provide experimental evidence for this claim?

In fairness, social "sciences" are complete shit.

Attached: Statistics.jpg (672x372, 26.9K)

Disraeli was pretty based tbh

if there was a revival of Disraeli conservatives the world would be slightly more tolerable

If you're a communist, why don't you move to Venezuela? If you're a luxury gay space communist, why don't you move to a dyson sphere? This is exactly the "hypocrisy" argument you're using here. Criticizing doesn't mean living by it.

Hey, I'm the poster you (or someone with your flag) shriek at for bringing up how the US view of the age of consent is based on pseudoscience because of exactly this reason. Thanks for admitting that I'm right. Glad we got that out of the way. Now we can get on with discussion of other issues, such as how the human race is completely fucking doomed thanks to its absurdly irresponsible environmental policy. Nigger faggots. Observations suggest that the end of humanity will arrive much faster than predicted in the most recent IPCC report due to nonlinear climate change.

At least somebody gets it.