We only have one planet as for now

Care to provide some counter-arguments, or is it going to end on posting smug anime faces?

Attached: smug.jpg (800x697, 105.79K)

that's ok, we should die. 5,000 years from now a new humanoid race will inhabit the earth and probably treat it better.

Environmentalism used to be Fascist and Reactionary. go ahead. be mad.

Attached: wut.png (262x289, 64.05K)

This is the only mitigation.

Attached: EcoStalinism.png (1244x524, 316.45K)

I am no ☭TANKIE☭ but I am feeling this tbh

Environmentalism can only be acheived by further accelerating technological progress

Google isn't environmentally friendly.
Take their captchas on 4chan, for example. They are obviously used to train their machine learning algorithms for self-driving cars. To solve their captchas, you therefore need to execute some bloated Javascript on your browser, which mean that the CPU of your computer will have to execute more instructions than needed in contrast to a plain-HTML text captcha like the one on Zig Forums, which basically mean that your machine will use more power than it should be.
It may seem like a small thing, but when you think of the volume of posts 4chan get in one day, and multiply it by months or years, you lost a shitton of power to execute some bloated Javascript, all of that to help Google developing a proprietary technology, and it's sad.

Use Duckduckgo instead, they admittedly don't track users, so you won't execute some bloated Java/C++ shit on Google servers to make a psychological profile of you and so on.

Attached: zizek-captcha.png (500x774, 174.35K)

Not the person you were replying to, but I'm curious if you'll flesh this thought out a little more.

Is this to say that you believe that the damage done to the environment/ecology is already so bad that without multiple kinds of technological miracles/breakthroughs like fusion-powered atmospheric CO2 scrubbers deployed by the tens of thousands to give us collective negative carbon emissions, that without these leaps forward in science and engineering to build what we might call environmental technology that the very prospect of being an environmentalist is pointless?

Attached: 1523740913469.jpg (1024x576, 81.62K)

This is why VARGBOL is the only way

Attached: vargbolprimitivist.jpg (275x183, 10.54K)

It'll be another major siphon before the century is out
agricultural and water damage alone will lead to billions dying and likely another world war at the same time

The water wars have already begun in Africa and to a somewhat lesser degree in the middle east. It only gets worse from here.

Attached: climate-change-33.gif (1808x4544 2.55 MB, 1.64M)

...

Does anything make a better case for the immediate need for leftist policies towards a global reform of contemporary consumer/industrial culture better than extreme ecological devastation and near-term human extinction?

I think a lot of people, regardless of politics, try to avoid thinking about these things because they're disquieted by the notion that humanity drove itself off a cliff decades ago and that there is going to be no soft landing, for themselves or anyone else. To me, that's all the more reason to push for collectivist social structures focused on local sustainability and resilience, which is directly counter to capitalism.

Attached: Thatcher_GlobalWarming.png (494x704, 239.51K)

essentially, yes.

Augmentation allows for true equality

You even type like that doomer in the screenshot.

Environmentalism in the early days of industrialization was much different from today, a spooked ideological phenomenon among people who felt that a modern and productive society lacked their meaningless feefee "virtues".

Isn't that only true if augmentation is equally distributed?

Attached: 1460449613382.jpg (384x288, 19.11K)

better some chance than none at all

Does anything make a better case for the immediate need for leftist policies towards a global reform of contemporary consumer/industrial culture better than extreme ecological devastation and near-term human extinction?

What brings you to this thread, user? Why are you here?

Attached: slavoj_zzyz.jpg (550x1252, 78.76K)

My assumption would be that porky would be the only ones able to receive the augmentations you're talking about, which would put everyone else at a disadvantage - which, by the way, what exactly does that look like to you? How would augmentations help humanity in a future of scarcer resources, stronger storms, droughts and crop disruptions, mass migrations and regional conflicts, etc.?

Attached: e06224c033e8d2a9084def40ea9bff03fa244b26f16244e51e5596d686c355f9.jpg (1280x1621, 482.32K)

environmental catastrophe is a scientifically verified possibility, not some schizo illuminati conspiracy
the point of the pic is that rightists have to jam their heads in the sand about the environment because they know it's an extremely persuasive selling point for their political enemies. it contradicts their idealistic retard ideology, therefore it must be wrong.

Augmentations allow for more efficient usage of resources, for example, you could hypothetically recreate the taste of fine food even though your just eating

Additionally not every country is america: In countries like china all tech is controlled by the state, and will be distributed by the state to improve the lives of citizens

businesstimes.com.sg/technology/in-china-tech-is-now-all-but-state-owned

Augmentations are only the tip of the iceberg: this is not including thorium reactors, algae fuel, etc.

Thanks for letting me know I don't have to take you seriously

When you've done the research it is pretty clear what's going to happen.

If you don't want an essay, have a video presentation from a guy way smarter than either of us.

youtube.com/watch?v=2DpfsqjQbP0

From WEP2018: Energy, Money and Technology - From the Lens of the Superorganism [1:20:00]
This is a talk by Dr. Nate Hagens. It's pretty straight forward and covers a lot of topics related to climate and resource usage.

If you don't like hearing about science from professors, just listen to Zizek. You might be able to find a copy of Living in the End Times online, or just listen to enough of his lectures on the anthropocene to get his general take on the situation.

Seriously, look into the subject.
cbc.ca/news/technology/15000-scientists-warning-to-humanity-1.4395767

15,000 scientists didn't just come together to issue a warning to humanity because there's nothing to worry about. Check out some of their lectures. It isn't secret information that we're in the 6th great extinction event in our planet's history right now (they call this the anthropocene era for a reason) directly because of humanity's increased presence on the planet. Only a fool would believe that we can continue on forever like this.

Attached: RCP_8.5.PNG (1357x783, 308.74K)

>you could hypothetically recreate the taste of fine food even though your just eating

That's pretty cyber, any you'd better not let Debord hear you talking about technology-induced spectacle shit, though it would likely be more efficient to simply have a much smaller population consuming less energy-intensive foods than to try to game the system by increasing technological complexity. All that requires is killing your people (overtly or covertly), which governments are already pretty good at.

I think Zizek has talked about how China is essentially endeavoring to create a genetic caste system with the use of tech like CRISPR, with genetic modification being implemented in such a way as to create a more obedient population. Implanting the government's control hardware/software into the brains of its polity is pretty similar to that, though I think this too leads itself to a pretty troubling kind of dystopia, where there is a class without control-implants and everyone else who is functionally at their mercy.

There's better examples of Zizek talking about this, but this is the first one I found that covers the talking points I'm referring to-

youtube.com/watch?v=kZJSmUExU6M

Attached: 335E8B8D00000578-3550033-image-m-18_1461165537968.jpg (634x469, 44.92K)

either china does it or america, and one actively intervenes in all nations.

red pill: support financial assistance to 3rd world shitholes for economic growth to accelerate pollution and resource depletion, since 1st world population birth rate too low

Will my sub-100 character reply give me a free essay too?

Take the vargpill if you can. I can't handle it, but he's right about almost everything.

Attached: 44c1471ce4bf3a5bf2234cd8b6cf399c.png (800x1312, 759.24K)

Only if you say something bright or dim enough to warrant it ;)

Attached: db91de01ce7cb03c9964498598f98473e59f6fe7880d847029a0f3ff42414ef4.png (274x276, 46.13K)

Tbh varg's lifestyle is becoming more and more appealing to me. As a nature lover I can picture myself living in a small hut somewhere in the countryside.

I'd say that's mostly accurate. The world is to some degree trapped within a sort of prisoner's dilemma between the world's governments, where any attempt to reduce 'growth' by one nation, which is to say tech development, urban expansion, imperialism to guarantee access to resources, etc. is seen as an invitation from other nation-state powers to seize these things for themselves.

Here, let me find you some information on the Maximum Power Principle-

forces x flows = work rate + entropy produced.

-dieoff.org/

Attached: Neighborhoods Santosh Park and Uttam Nagar.jpg (634x623 744.67 KB, 154.72K)

I mean, in the end it may not matter, whatever superAI that appears in the future will correctly recognise history is a burden to mankind, and would rightly wipe history out of our minds, fill it with something more unifying and say all these scientific discoveries fell out of the sky.

I would say that this is less the problem of history and more the problem of biology, i.e. that all forms of life behave this way, not just humans.

Additionally, superAI may be something that never comes to pass in the way that we tend to think about it. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, though I'd say it's ultimately a safer bet to assume that civilization will be forced to de-industrialize due to climate change and resource scarcity than to believe that we'll be physically able to keep improving technology to the point where it becomes nearly omniscient. To put that differently, I'd say it is more likely that people in 100 years will be living a lot more like people in the 1700s, than to believe that they'll be living similar to the universe depicted in Star Trek Enterprise (which is something like 2150).

Attached: 48b929d103743f3c475173af452cee0bed604282a213c244a8176a5d35dc6e8a.jpg (1920x1131, 161.79K)

humanity is unique in that it is shaped by history, whatever controls the past controls the future.

The key question on wether de-industrialization will happen or not depends on how far we are willing to go, if we fully embrace metal over flesh, then the answer is obvious

readdesert.org

Attached: 1522861370278.png (731x611, 875.54K)

This book made me really depressed and hopeless, so if you have any hopes for humanity left- don't read it.

:-(

New forms-of-life will likely arise in the desert and some of them might even be conductive to human freedom so there's that, don't be so depressed, here have a kirb, it does cheer me up.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 5.36K)

thank you, comrade!

...

Isn't this kinda' what happened in Catalonia though? Did every Spanish peasant have a firm grasp of anarchist theory, or were some of them just going along with the social tide around them?

-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_anarchism

You haven't really made any coherent argument here. Just lobbing ad homs and being kind of a dick. I haven't read all of the link yet but your idiotic screed of a post makes me think they might be on to something.

I do wonder, how does one know the difference between what you call misanthropy and reality when the reality is a bleak one? If one is falling from a cliff, is it not rational to believe that they will hit the ground? Is it not unreasonable to believe that one will sprout wings, or be saved by a flying superman figure, or simply bounce like a ball when they hit the ground, emerging unharmed?

It seems like this writing is more focused towards those who have realized the reality of the situation, not those who still cling to false hopes.

Attached: spanish-anarchists-civil-war.jpg (550x404, 43.14K)

...

Read Limits to Growth, they nailed this shit fifty years ago.

Don't mind me though, just flaunting my crystal balls. Rest assured, not being able to grow crops in your country has no relevance to your life. The ongoing water wars couldn't possibly spread. The Syrian civil war had nothing to do with a half-decade of drought. that proceeded it. The oil will never run out. Go back to bed.

Attached: FeedbackLoop_BasicChart.png (1000x1000 4.79 MB, 3.14M)

Your meme book is shit btw

Attached: limits.png (892x622, 83.99K)

-theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse

-ecsim.org/Vista/archivos/TURNER G - TLG 30 years comparison to reality.pdf

-psmag.com/magazine/fallacy-of-endless-growth

-smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/looking-back-on-the-limits-of-growth-125269840/

It was 50 years ago, plugging data into room-sized mainframe computers at MIT, and they yielded remarkably accurate results. Sorry that bums you out, but it's true.

Attached: Futurism-Got-Corn-graph-1.jpg (573x1020 44.03 KB, 33.12K)

...

Feed me more uneducated opinions first.

Attached: FRcXfqg.jpg (1500x1307, 316.15K)

My opinion is that your worldview is 100% correct.

get out bookchinite

Wtf after reading this thread I've been thinking about moving to Siberia

Google Ted Kaczynski.

The Syrian civil war had nothing to do with a half-decade of drought
what sort of retard thinks that it did

As Zizek said, environmentalism is a new wave of spiritual thinking, the idea that there is a perfect natural world out there and we would life an happily ever after life if we realize this.
The truth is that we cannot go back, we cannot "heal" the planet, we cannot fix our environment. The only solution is to become more artificial, more detached from nature, there is no other way.

capitalism is the cause for your described ills
class struggle thus comes first to make essential changes for environmental protection

it is certainly too important of an issue to be in the hands of hippies.

Environmentalism is the trump card for socialism > fully automated communism

Attached: 132dc39e74ffeab5f11a8714133a57d02763cdb188b31e0112d7946515899439.png (1145x1133, 885.9K)

he's a fucking zionist

I dond ged id :DD are we gonna get benised in anus at around 2020-2030 mark :DDD

Attached: deeblygoncerned.jpg (600x500, 33.17K)

judging by that map western europe will become a desert too.

If anything that big strip of green in africa seems like the place to live

We'll all live in Siberia

Absent a largely planned economy that responds to the material needs of people and not the directive of capital accumulation, environmentalism will be stillborn. Individual virtue will not save us, and neither will "smarter" and more sustainable capitalism. Socialism or barbarism has never been a more apt slogan.

Attached: e445a1a102a7022295a9cafa7b3055e88a0c87825b0d111908d2c8663e42e7b5.png (750x366, 290.94K)

wat de fugg

Attached: Read A Book.webm (490x360, 4.48M)

duh? when we currently exist for about 6000 years the next humans god will create will progress much faster

environmentalism can only be an issue of socialism, but not the other way around

would love to see an edit of this with communist literature covers for the books
even just making it mao pamphlets would be fine

Attached: read a book edit.webm (640x360, 3.24M)

well that's just making it worse with e-celeb scum all over it
but you tried, i appreciate that

nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-syria-conflict-to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html

pnas.org/content/112/11/3241

news.vice.com/article/the-drought-that-preceded-syrias-civil-war-was-likely-the-worst-in-900-years

smithsonianmag.com/innovation/is-a-lack-of-water-to-blame-for-the-conflict-in-syria-72513729/

Go to your favorite search engine and type in 'Syria Drought' without the quote marks. This is generally how people learn things.

Attached: DroughtSyria.jpg (1600x1132, 292.4K)

Is it a lost cause?

There'll always be psychopathic individuals with no sense of restraint or morality, and there'll always be hordes of stupid people for them to manipulate.

Will the communist left ever move beyond vulgar economism and moralizing and integrate the material realities of climate change and resource/energy depletion in their visions for the future?
Will the green/ecologist left ever move beyond reactionary primitivism and individualist anarchism and embrace a realistic proposal for preserving large, complex, egalitarian societies on Earth?
Only time will tell…

Environmentalism is fascist.
The world is definitely changing, but the proposed solutions are not going to work on their own merits, are not compatible with the survival of the vast majority of the population, and often miss the mark of the real resource shortages and issues that are going to affect humanity the most. I'm far more worried about water shortages and soil depletion than trying to keep the world exactly as it was. Shit changes, humans affect the environment and going to keep affecting the environment because that's how humans have survived as long as they have.

The Limits to Growth was fascist propaganda pushing for mass depopulation. The envirofascists of the world will not accept any other solution than depopulation, it is their first and only resort, and they will distort reality and use all of their power to enforce ignorance of any path other than depopulation.

reminder that ☭TANKIE☭s would kill us with AGW faster than porky would, and god knows the bourgs are trying their damnedest

It's called overshoot for a reason. Billions of humans living even in shitty conditions consume a fuckton of resources and pollute/destroy their habitat rather quickly. Population reduction is necessary, though it's far from the only thing that needs to happen in order to make humanity's presence, if not sustainable, than at least significantly less detrimental to all other forms of life on the planet.

Attached: Pop_with_overshoot.png (967x439, 195.81K)

And how, praytell, do you calculate carrying capacity? If the world can only support 2 billion people, why are 7 billion plus alive today? Obviously conditions are horrid for most of them, but that is largely a matter of distribution at the moment, not an inherent difficulty in growing crops. Shit, we throw away enough food to feed half the planet at least, and probably a lot more than that if I could make some rough estimates based on what I see at the supermarket and with my own consumption patterns (low-income burger here).

Not to be alarmist, but a lot of that current 7 billion depends on methods of agriculture that are rapidly depleting mechanism and resources needed to continue to feed them. The destruction of rainforest, the melting away of glaciers, the over-exploiting of aquifers, and the using up of resources needed for artificial fertilizer will make it so that we cannot maintain even current food production for long, let alone add on a few billion more. Maybe we will come up with a few solutions (Cuba and the DPRK show you can do wonders on a tight budget so to speak), but it is not a given, and the transition will likely be violent.

This short comic provides an example that I think we can somewhat extrapolate to human population growth.

stuartmcmillen.com/comic/st-matthew-island/#page-1

(the rest of that guys' comics are really good too - I'd highly recommend Energy Slaves as well to buttress the points about population growth being entirely dependent on cheap energy)
-stuartmcmillen.com/comic/energy-slaves/#page-1

-worldpopulationhistory.org/carrying-capacity/

The key thing to understand about carrying capacity is that it is intended to be the maximum population that can be supported indefinitely, that is to say that whatever resources the population consume (in the case of most animals, food, water, and protective structures like trees, etc) are able to regrow and replenish themselves at a rate that is equal to or exceeds that of the population growth of its inhabiting species that rely on these resources.

This is obviously a difficult thing to calculate for such a dynamic and spread-out species as man, however, it is undeniable that several key inventions/technologies/resources have attributed immensely to our population growth over the last 150 years or so. Industrial agriculture, which is necessary to sustain human populations in the billions, is impossible without (or at least has never been done without) oil (both in terms of running the machinery but also for building the machinery and transporting the end product to its final destinations), pesticides, and fertilizers, as well as a bit of genetic engineering to keep things a bit fresher a bit longer, and to grow the produce larger, as well as refrigeration, which requires another form of energy input (mostly from burning coal, though this could be done in many instances with solar/hydro/other - however all of that technology is also dependent on continued manufacture, mining, processing and transportation, of which oil is still, and likely will forever be, king).

So for most of humanity our food production sources are dependent on an extremely complex mixture of technologies and energies and requires massive industrialization and continued energy input from a handful of finite source sto keep chugging along. This would be unsustainable on its own, however we have to understand the reality of climate change to, in my opinion, grasp the scope of the fragility of this system.

Remember, carrying capacity is about indefinite survival (obviously this discounts, like, the sun going supernova and that kind of thing, not 'eternal' but about as sustainable as one can be on a finite planet). We now live in a world where our arable land is shrinking. Water is becoming more scarce. Soil, over time, erodes - it's mineral content depleted, it is no longer suitable to grow food. Phosphorous, the main ingredient in most industrial fertilizers, is not something that will always be available, indeed the larger our population grows the faster we use up all of the things which make our continued growth possible. There are a multitude of ultimately finite factors which make us able to produce SO MUCH food, but they don't regrow/regenerate anywhere near as quickly as we are using them, and the damage we are causing to the ecosystems that we depend on further accelerates this imbalance. That is how we understand carrying capacity and overshoot.

Attached: ResourceDepletion.jpg (495x700 398.04 KB, 47.34K)

Hi :DD Imagine you have a 100L tank…no, because you are a burger imagine a 20-gallon tank filled with water :DD Whenever you pour out some water from this tank, it automatically replenishes itself at a rate of 2 gallons per hour :DDD
Now imagine you have two burgers consuming 2 gallons of water per hour :DD Then the volume stays about constant because the rate at which you consume equals the rate at which the tank replenishes itself :—DDDD
Now suppose you have 7 burgers (oh fugg :DD) They consume 7 gallons per hour. So the amount of water in the tank decreases by 5 gallons every hour :D The tank isn't drained off gompletely right away, but after 4 hours of consumption it will become empty X—-DDDDD

Attached: 447087.jpg (1280x800, 78.39K)

I know what the definition of carrying capacity is. I'm asking how do you calculate that this capacity is for 2 billion people? What is the methodology to arrive at a number which just happens to be the world population at the time?

The more I research into the matter, the more I realize that numbers are just being pulled out to justify depopulation, and anything that doesn't end with depopulation is immediately dismissed. It's an old game and one that has been played since Malthus.

Should we consider long-term sustainability? Of course we should, and if that means we need to ration resources then so be it. The depopulation backers aren't interested in that, though. If they were, we would have seen rationing from 1970 onward, because it would have been a dire necessity. The plan of action is not for rationing resources or promoting a healthier society; the only plan is depopulation and control, and that is literally the only solution on the table for these people, even when there are many obvious ways to counteract environmental degradation. Nor is it enough to simply reduce the birth rate - the purpose of the population control agenda is not because of necessity, but to exert ideological pressure on the living to conform to a hierchical society and promote belief in the fundamental inequality of man versus man, and to intrude on the lives of those subjected to population control policy. It is never even suggested that, maybe, the elites don't get to keep their weapons of mass destruction and huge police forces, that maybe the elites are fucking it up big time since they control, in one way or another, the very resources we are supposed to preserve. Sacrifice is not for the self-proclaimed philosopher-kings; only the lower orders are to sacrifice.

Now people do bring up valid points that industrial agriculture cannot be sustained as it is, but that isn't what Limits to Growth argues. They are arguing for depopulation because, quite literally, the lower orders are taking too many resources, demanding too much, and keep insisting on things like basic human dignity. Not once is the question of the lavish consumption of the higher orders called into question, and the greed and vanity of the middle class is deliberately harnessed because they don't want to lose their precious status. It is always the lower orders of whom sacrifice is demanded, for whom compulsory population control is demanded, even though their personal share of the world's resources is not great. Great care is taken to appeal to the middle class's sensibilities, and especially to make sure the middle class blames the poor above all for their problems.

I think that this is the case, though not because of some explicitly depopulist agenda, but rather because, for one, the rich don't want to stop being rich (and their concept of 'rich' is lavish and extremely resource intensive), and for two, because the 'middle class' will never vote away more of its own resource share (this is partly to do with the culture of consumerism that the modern world inflicts on everyone). Combine those two factors with how the poor are typically politically powerless (unless organized, and the rich tend to keep them from organizing by any means necessary) and you can see why this kind of universal action is supremely unlikely to ever evolve out of a even a functional democracy, much less an oligarchy. It is much easier for the middle class and the rich to just say, 'let's just kill the poor to balance it out or something, just don't bother me about it', but that's really nothing more than an expression of their culturally vampiric tendencies, and ultimately futile towards the goal of actually having a sustainable human civilization.

You are correct that when this subject comes up that population becomes a highlighted factor, but only foolish folk would believe that modern living is sustainable for a significant amount of people for an extended length of time, but that's a political nonstarter for the ruling class.

It might not be the perfect example, but Jimmy Carter actually said something to this effect in the 70s, not about depopulation but about limiting our collective energy consumption - let me try to find it.

You can read the rest of it here if you're curious-
presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7369

In short, the plan of action WAS for rationing resources or promoting a healthier society, but what was the citizenry's reaction to this? Overwhelmingly negative. The American people voted in Reagan after this, and like Trump has done to Obama, Reagan attempted to pretty much undo all of the energy work that Carter had put forward, ripping the solar panels off the white house is the often-cited example of this though in policy it went much further, and it made him incredibly popular in the business community. The American people (and their elite owners) wanted someone who would 'make America great again'. No one wants an 'unpleasant talk about a problem that is unprecedented in our history', they want $1 cheeseburgers in their minivan with the AC cranked to MAX. They want a bigger house, with a greener lawn than their neighbors. They want, and they want, and they want, because they have been born into the apex of consumerism. They will not change, and thus I find that society is unlikely to change until the disasters make those changes for us, which is usually the messiest way to go about things.

Attached: Money Is God.jpg (700x640 94.64 KB, 67.46K)

Technological progress goes in the direction of profit under capitalism. Where are the profits in environmentalism?

I think the reaction to Carter's speech just proves my point - it wasn't about resource shortages, it was always about pursuing a war against the poor, which was already underway when he gave that speech and ratcheted up explicitly under Reagan and Clinton. If there was a genuine will for resource management for long-term survivability as a society, the sacrifices would have been made, popular will or not. There wasn't, though, because the power was behind the war on the poor, for the sake of middle class vanity.

I don't even think a great disaster will change the middle class. That is just what they do, and they will insist on privilege no matter how little there is, and they will turn on each other like slavering dogs for the sake of their vanity. I have certainly seen enough of middle class stupidity, arrogance, and cruelty to know this. It is how they were educated to behave, what the education system we have was built to create.

The environmentalists, by and large, aren't for rationing for the middle class, for the educated class. It is always the uneducated and the poor who must be forced along - coercion is baked into the movement, from its origins in fascist environmentalism. The privilege of the middle class is taken as a natural reality that must be upheld. None of these middle class, educated people are going to allow themselves to be on the level of the uneducated, to be subjected to population control policies in the same way. They're not going to be sterilized against their will, lied to, violated; the educated class suggests the policies and carries them out, either within the ruling class's dictates or on their own volition. Of course they will make exceptions for themselves, or just cheat the system. The ruling class, for their part, don't necessarily need to feed the middle class's feefees to the extent that they do; the ugliness of Reaganites is that, for all the horribleness Reagan and our current ruling class have done, the educated class HATE, HATE, HATE the poor, while the ruling class just sees the poor, uneducated class as a nuisance to be controlled and kept off their lavish estates. The maniacal hatred towards the uneducated of any middle class, educated Reaganite or Clintonite illustrates this perfectly, the demand for continuous humiliations of the uneducated especially beyond any reasonable purpose.

Overall I think we're in agreement here, however, I want to tug at this bit-

I think that this is correct, but that it underlines a key facet of what I've been talking about. That there really is no will for resource management or long-term survival. That there never will be. That life consumes all resources it has access to and then either moves on to find more resources or doesn't, and perishes. Some of us may wish that these things were different, that more people cared about these issues, but we will always be the extreme minority - and indeed, likely a privileged minority at that, because shitposting about the sad state of humanity is itself somewhat resource-intensive and ultimately as wasteful as it likely is futile (but it's better than working).

However, I do think (hope?) that if groups of people come together who have realized what we are talking about that we may see a better way of living emerge, even if only in small pockets.

Attached: EarthResources.jpg (1149x968 413.09 KB, 1.31M)

Fuck off back to leftpol and take your stale memes with you.

...

This thread needs some Ted

Attached: 5a304279806942eef365d805a01766f2704a11b4b94eec777b906c0f051c67e8.jpg (352x390 164.01 KB, 359.01K)

Attached: teddy.jpg (555x414, 127.6K)

Porky knows they're going to survive any purely economic catastrophe, so for them it's not a dire matter of survival. From Porky's perspective, everything is fine and dandy, or at least everything they care about.

On some level, the middle class is going to have a place in the world. Porky needs technicians, lawyers, doctors, and courtesans of various types, like any ruling class does. Members of the middle class may not survive, may have to fight for position, but it is very uncommon for a member of this educated class to ever seriously question their class's existence; they can't not hold on to the notion that their education makes them intrinsically better, more meritorious, more worthy, then the uneducated bum, even if they can grasp class consciousness, even if they effectively work as proles. To question that, and the societal expense that makes their education and status possible, is too much. The matter is not even about the buy-in of an education so much, but about what it means for them to be human.

life has covered the earth for billions of years, complex life for millions. our ecological crisis isn't about the dynamics of life itself, it's about sociality.

Oil companies are an accelerationist plot with superb praxis

They won't care until it's their children at risk. Then, they blame "the state" and use it as justification for libertarianism.

The cycle never ends.