Is it actually possible to maintain a technological civilization that isn't destructive to the environment and human...

Is it actually possible to maintain a technological civilization that isn't destructive to the environment and human health? The modern economy, where the environment pays a big chunk of the cost of most goods, and it's easier (and more profitable) to dump and waste things to encourage consumption rather than repair and reuse clearly can't manage this in any meaningful capacity. Could we manage this with a mode of production that aims to minimize energy use and environmental impact, and societal change that draws people away from consumerism, or are global supply chains too complex and interdependent for technology to coexist with an ethical and sustainable world?

I see some mention of environmental issues here but for the most part I either get this guy's stuff (which I basically consider Anprim) which I consider a complete write-off because:
a) Humans don't need lots of technology to fuck up the environment, slash and burn would still be a thing and hunter gatherers had no difficulty decimating megafauna and other animals.
b) An Anprim revolution is probably the least likely form of revolution considering the absolute state of the average prole, as soon as the internet went down the masses would descend on the Anprim vanguard and tear them apart.
c) Unless you somehow orchestrated some incredible feat of social engineering that would leave humans cultish luddites thousands of years onwards technological society would probably develop again anyway.
d) I generally believe organization is more conducive to environmentalism than anarchy.

Alternatively I've seen screenshots of Rafiq that basically said that people only like nature because it's an escape from alienating human societies, and in a Communist utopia the complete destruction of nature to benefit humanity would be cool. To which I say Rafiq is a faggot who should fuck off.

So yeah basically leftism/environmentalism thread.

Attached: ted.jpg (220x220, 9.23K)

Other urls found in this thread:

nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/the-unabomber-ted-kaczynski-new-generation-of-acolytes.html?utm_source=tw
youtube.com/watch?v=3_pYBkW7qgI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalf_sniper_attack
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-against-his-story-against-leviathan
maldicionecoextremista.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/bayaq-1.pdf
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wild-reaction-the-communiques-of-wild-reaction
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/los-hijos-del-mencho-against-the-world-builders-eco-extremists-respond-to-critics
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-society-and-its-future
derrickjensen.org/endgame/premises/
youtube.com/watch?v=lvH5KFS8kfA
medium.com/@Cliffhanger1983/the-collapse-of-civilization-manifesto-2039c6a5327
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism
vegansociety.com/go-vegan/environment
timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/231823e.pdf
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant-based_diet
nutritionstudies.org/the-china-study/
who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110615094514.htm
scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-is-methane/
apps.sepa.org.uk/spripa/pages/substanceinformation.aspx?pid=8
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19562864/
vegnews.com/2018/9/vegan-food-sales-spike-to-37-billion-in-12-months
nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/the-unabomber-ted-kaczynski-new-generation-of-acolytes.html
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism
sentientmedia.org/how-many-animals-are-killed-for-food-every-day/
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/subversive-energy-beyond-animal-liberation
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

All animals were destructive to the environment until the ecosystem evolved to deal with them. The ones it didn't learn to deal with died out because the ecosystem collapsed.
Wildfires were purely destructive to forests until some trees evolved that relied on them to reproduce, and now we think they are "neccecary".

What I'm getting at is that nature as a stable system only exists in our fantasy. Even if we become cavemen we would still be just as destructive to the native wildlife as all other invasive predators were, but they prey they hunted to extinction died out long ago so we can't see them.

That doesn't mean we should pump the oceans full of plastic and turn this planet into Venus of course. But the idea of "non destructive life" is a fucking meme. Herbivores destroy plant life. Predators decimate prey species. Plants destroy other plants. The stability that we see is just the place where the destructive forces and fight for survival happened to end up at a temporary peace.

Oh and the megafauna didn't just get hunted to extinction, they also died out because of a changing climate. Mammoths don't dwell well in modern day european climates.

Technology is bad because it's man destroying man, not man destroying nature.

That's only because you are an illiterate. It means the destruction of nature as a category, not a physical destruction of all the objects we today class as nature. It is the full realization of human power to act on the material world. You could have nature preserves under communism, or even a complete rewilding of most of the planet (if the polity so decides of course) - yet it would be under the understanding that it all happens under collective total human control.

There was a recent article about modern day kacysnkieits and this growing tendency due to climate change. Anyways, the journalist writing it actually wrote to ted and there was a part of the article where ted said he is actually positive about the future because everythings going to fall apart. Also if you wanted to destroy modern civilization according to ted it would be very easy, you would just have to sabotage one or two things, sort of like unplugging a few cords. Like destroying the electrical grid. or destroying the place that processes all the oil in america, apperantly its all located in some place in new orleans

nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/the-unabomber-ted-kaczynski-new-generation-of-acolytes.html?utm_source=tw

No.
This is actually one of my big problems with the left. I don't give a toss who owns the means of destruction if it's going to burn our environment away and destroy all green space.


Attack the grid! Like the metcalf attack in the US.

Uncle Ted is old news though, pic related.

Attached: ReactionSavage.png (1024x697, 410.25K)

What does that even mean? Is that another word for changing the environment? But even bees are doing that. When you built shelter, you are changing the environment.
Medieval people had longer lives than bronze age people and we have longer lives than medieval people.

Im honestly surprised how there hasn't been anyone in the usa bold enough to cross the country in a truck sniping down major power lines at random deserted spots just to spread mayhem. the simplicity of the act, low risk and huge conssequances, would probably encourage other attacks by themselves.

Attached: download.jpg (268x188, 5.17K)

Don't even got a use a gun for the power lines, Chris Rock's defcon talk a few years ago he shows a video of a drone he made to cut lines. youtube.com/watch?v=3_pYBkW7qgI

Also, what i was originally referring to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalf_sniper_attack

Attached: ITSARGENTINIA.jpg (854x480, 65.08K)

And human health declined significantly following the agricultural revolution and didn't recover until recently.

yeah there are hundreds of ways to go about this, but since guns are so common in the usa, it's probably easier to get away with one, in case you get investigated. Besides,there are more gun owners than heavy drone owners, so if you want other people to join it's better to keep it simpler.

Still, it's so fucking easy. i am puzzled how terrorist dont do this all around. Where i live (third world), if i had a gun, i could keep taking down cities for months without ever getting caught considering how shitty the police is and how easy it is to hide.

Nice. Generally this isn't possible in many western countries. If you tried i think you'd be rounded up in a heartbeat and never see the light of day again. It'd be nice if the Eco-Extreemists started attacking infrastructure though, for sure.

In countries where guns aren't common this might be a problem, but if you are in the usa and move around during hunting seasons and keep your attacks erratic, with some reasonably timed intervals using a common caliber, picking up spent shells etc. it might get quite hard to tell you apart from the rednecks hunting deer.

Yea, America is very unusual for a western country though in that it just has a huge landmass and lots of actual wild spaces. I sadly do not think it'd be possible in europe.

Attached: Da8M_gbWAAAWOch.jpg (591x464, 39.29K)

That is the error and that is the beast. The Leviathan or for Heidegger the self-guarantee of the will to will

Can we also get an anti-civilization reading list? Seems as good a thread as any for it:
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-against-his-story-against-leviathan

maldicionecoextremista.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/bayaq-1.pdf

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wild-reaction-the-communiques-of-wild-reaction

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/los-hijos-del-mencho-against-the-world-builders-eco-extremists-respond-to-critics

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-society-and-its-future

Attached: DnTV9ZnWwAA2qUp.jpg (1855x2048, 900.16K)

Citation needed. The greater food security alone should have a significant positive impact on health. Besides,
This fact alone shows that a lesser health is not an unavoidable consequence of a technological society. Regardless of the additional issues that such a society introduces, it has the potential to far surpass a primitive society in terms of human, and perhaps even environmental, well-being. And in many ways it already has.

You should read Endgame by Derricek Jensen. You can read it here-

derrickjensen.org/endgame/premises/

and I'll post as much as I can from the first page for anyone interested.

That's a whole lot of premises that need to be proven before the argument even begins.

The rest of the book is basically him proving, or attempting to prove, the premises.

It's a bit of a strange way to build an argument, sort of an axiomatic approach, but the rest of the book does a pretty decent job fleshing them out.

Attached: 3da164767ea04eb23d532e9001b02ad66189728650c68ba727a57891b273f609.png (960x641, 267.83K)

That's an okay book but in general DJ is a crazy person that appeals to middle class socer mums and probably worked with the feds in the past. Still worth reading, imho but the rest of his stuff not so much.

Heres a movie he made with the Stimulator that's worth watching if ppl don't want to buy Endgame.

youtube.com/watch?v=lvH5KFS8kfA


I'd say that it is important to be honest with ourselves in that if civ collapsed many of us would die precisely because of food scarcity (for the vast majority of us 80%+ of our food will be imported from far and wide). Most an-prims, etc are yanks and the Americans seem to have a really warped view of our planet and how much of it's wildness has been destroyed. Even in places like the US that do still have a lot of wild spaces would be decimated in mere years if the state and civilization collapsed tomorrow.

Attached: Visualize.jpg (256x197, 12.83K)

...

Yes. The problem is capitalism. Production is organized around profit rather than people's interests. Being healthy and having a functional environment is pretty fucking high on the list of people's interests.

It clearly isn't. We've been sounding off that the enviroment is fucked since the 70's and basically nobody gives a shit.

Indeed. Caring for the environment is not near-term profitable, even if having a survivable ecosystem for humanity is necessary for long-term profitability. This was supposedly the mechanism in capitalism that could/should/would prevent ecological collapse, yet it is clearly failing and has indeed terminally failed in this regard.

This might be an interesting, holistic read for someone who's seeing more and more talk/articles about environmental and economic collapse.

medium.com/@Cliffhanger1983/the-collapse-of-civilization-manifesto-2039c6a5327

It's a looooooooooooong-ass article that's comprised mostly of links to other articles to try to make the points the guy is trying to make, but there's a wealth of information in there for anyone looking to dig deeper into individual issues.

Attached: 0_Yj0BtCE97prWMUHh.png (1400x616 70.77 KB, 243.52K)

I know this seems like I'm just repeating myself from my other thread , but going vegan is the most impactful way to benefit your health and the environment.

Here are the environmental reasons for veganism.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism
vegansociety.com/go-vegan/environment
timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/231823e.pdf

Here is the information on the positive health impact of veganism.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant-based_diet
nutritionstudies.org/the-china-study/
who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

I'm of the opinion that all Leftists must be vegan.

Attached: apples-634572_1280-0041.jpg (853x1280, 862.49K)

Get that shit out of here. Climate change cannot be solved by consumer choice, and relying on it is gonna do nothing but give you a sense of moral superiority while the world falls straight to hell. Any viable solution to climate change must be political (appeals to consumer choice being inherently apolitical), and it must directly target the producers that actually cause climate change, not consumers. Even if we all went vegan today, it would not solve climate change since it leaves the largest and most reliable contributor to it, energy, completely untouched.

It's entirely possible yes. There's literally no reason we can't have both sustainable technology and a stable ecosystem. The problem isn't that people don't care, the problem is that they either don't know what to do or what has to be done is out of their reach.

Fuck that mate. Let's not go around pretending that changing our consumer choices and stoping eating animals is gonna do shit like 15 year old impressionable kids first turned to anarchy, it's just not helpful.

If ppl want to fuck the meat and other animal exploitation industries then start burning that shit down, actually hit them in the pockets.

fgot image.

Attached: ALF.jpg (284x177, 11.57K)

Well we are pretty blinded by our commodity fetishism and the terrible incentives that go with it (bias for speeding up circulation of commodities for example is why we have planned obsolescence and the attendant waste). We can clearly see that our current trajectory will be harmful, and if this is made transparent and we give ourselves the power to act by collectively assuming total control over our total productive power, we will do the right thing.

Attached: e80df66f4468f11cf22f2c154bba321435b7cbedc10d68e591ef00de56cad404.png (600x750, 400.42K)

Vegan or even vegetarian or any kind of less animal products-based diets do lower your environmental impact, but by itself it is pointless. Capitalism's inherent wastefulness and tendency/requirement to grow will fill up whatever space you create in no time at all. Only the control over your productive forces and ability to plan in the long term you get with communism give us the tools to shape our environment (or avoid shaping it inadvertently).

Veganism can be a lifestyle if desired, but that's not the point.

You are wrong, and you should reexamine your argument. Please go through some of the resources I presented in regards towards animal agriculture and the environment.


Your reasoning why we shouldn't turn towards veganism makes zero sense. If you can make a positive change now (going vegan) as an individual, why do you not do so? Why continue to make the inherently wrong choice if you know there is a better alternative?

Only a small fraction of emissions are directly due to agriculture. The majority of emissions are due to fossil fuels.
Comparing different types of food by weight is also disingenuous. Meat does not just taste better, it is exponentially more calorie dense than plant products. Animal products are not simply a luxury for fat Americans that subsist mainly on fried beef sandwiches.
Lying liberal hippie faggot.

Attached: Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector[1].png (650x603, 33K)

If I am wrong, and if any of those links you posted would prove that, then you should be able to provide an argument for why I am wrong (you having read all the links you've posted, of course).

I have been both vegan and vegetarian for 7 and 4 years respectively. I do not believe that becoming vegan as an individual would make a positive choice. I proposed a better choice. be active and hit them where it hurts. At least in that way you will be actually resisting.

This, that namefag is verbatum reproducing energy porky propaganda

I'm at work right now so I can't link you any pdfs (I'll try to remember when I get home) but here's a little article. This is a broadly accepted in anthropology.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110615094514.htm

I agree with most of what you have to say, except, that like most others on this board, you're taking the approach of "When the Revolution comes, that's when we'll take care of X."

Not everything can be waited on, especially since the largest source of environmental destruction comes from animal agriculture.


You should reexamine the graph you just posted. You're literally supporting my case as well as you being factually wrong.

scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-is-methane/

apps.sepa.org.uk/spripa/pages/substanceinformation.aspx?pid=8

Also, your knowledge on the nutritional necessity and efficiency of meat is wrong.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19562864/


See above links. Please read just a few of them at least and come with real knowledge before entering this discussion. Sitting on our hands doing nothing until the Revolution is anti-Revolutionist.

You are watching our world slowly die from poison, fires, and exploitation and making the arguement that "It's Capitalism's fault I eat meat, and I won't stop until we overthrow the current system. Until then anyone who discusses doing something now, like becoming vegan, is just wasting their time because the individual impact is small and I said so."


You save thousands of animals a year by being vegan. By not eating meat, you reduce the demand and potential breeding of thousands of sentient beings to be harvested for slaughter. You also save an enormous amount of resources. You may be surprised to know that the animal agriculture industry is called a black hole, because almost every resource used does not return.

Interesting, though I would point out that they admit in the article that the results are not conclusive. They specifically mention a lack of food diversity, increased population density, and a more sedentary lifestyle as possible causes, and as I pointed out these things are not necessarily unavoidable in a technological society, though this is more responding to the OP than to your post.

Why should I? You haven't addressed any of my arguments, and unless you want to admit that you haven't read the shit you insist I read, those links won't either. I don't care what they have to say about my health, and I already know that veggies pollute less. But none of this addresses the fact that my individual, depoliticised actions are meaningless, and that appealing to consumer choice is a terrible strategy for stopping climate change. If I have to "go vegan", then I want it to be as a consequence of a drastic ecological reform made through political action, not because it makes me feel morally superior, which is all this lifestylism does.

Lmao no you don't. Industrial meat production isn't impacted in the slightest because you choose not to eat meat. I actually agree with most of what you're expressing but this tendency for vegans or any lifestylist really to inflate the impact that their personal consumer choices have is annoying.

As someone whose actually read Uncle Ted and unironically takes him seriously, I encourage you to be a critical thinker about this and read some of his work before writing him off, he makes some good points, some are not that good. The important thing is to read, learn, and evaluate. You don't have to accept everything, and he misses the mark of capitalism being the culprit and instead blames technology, but he has something to say, so I decided to listen, and I agree with most of his criticisms, but not his conclusions.
Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? Not really. Will it last? Doubtful. As Ted explains, even if we had a communist revolution by tommorrow, that damage that capitalism has already wrought has had severe irreversible consequences that will last forever, such as the change in global climate, polar ice caps melting, crops dying and food shortages and keystone species wreaking havoc on the biosphere. The things we know to be bad are, of, course, bad. But the things we don't know will happen are even worse because we don't know what will truly happen. You know the biggest criticism Marxists have of the banking system is that the bankers don't actually understand how banking works; the ecologists today whose job it is to maintain and report on ecological security under a capitalist system don't actually understand how ecology works either. This is exacerbated by the fact that most are green-coating the whole thing and function as paid mouthpieces for corporations to assure us that "everything is fine." No, it's not fine. Not because we know there's something wrong and that bad things are happening, but because we don't fully understand what bad things will happen. And we won't know how to adjust, if it's even possible, before it's too late. But at least take comfort, if you can, in knowing you'll be dead before you have to face the consequences of all this.
Green energy is more sustainable but it's inefficient and too costly in the interests of capitalists. It's easier to slap up a "Go Green! :DDDDDD" slogan on your disposable consumer trash and then fund/vote for your party of choice:
Deny global warming
Affirm global warming is real, but the effects are understated or written off: "It's like having a longer summer! :DDD Who likes winter, anyway?" Besides, they wouldn't do anything about it, anyway, regardless of how serious a threat it is.
Also deny global warming, but this time write off anyone claiming it's real as a "communist."
Affirm global warming as a threat, but nobody realizes this so no one cares or takes you seriously. Furthermore a party based solely on ecology doesn't take into account the day to day lives of people and so doesn't have a solid foundation of economic or social issues. It will be decades before we actually feel the effects of global warming, whatever they are, so why care now? Gotta buy that new hummer that gets 3 miles to the gallon to impress all your retarded suburban neighbors.

Attached: cat.jpg (1280x720, 92.62K)

Part of the problem also seems to be that you can't seem to get past the idea that this doesn't have to be a lifestyle. I just don't consume meat or animal products because I don't need to. That's it. The environmental benefits, the health benefits, the social benefits, the economic benefits, the ethical benefits, are also major bonuses in the eventual goal to end capitalism.

Also, your individual actions are political. By spending money on meat, that's as political as it gets. Your actions are not meaningless, and trying to make the argument that altering consumer habits under capitalism as a "terrible strategy" shows a complete lack of understanding consumption habits in the 21st century under capitalism. It's great that you know that you can reduce pollution by not eating meat, but by continuing to do so, it's essentially the same as saying that driving drunk is irresponsible, but you always have 5 shots of vodka before driving anywhere.

I can't hold your hand on everything. Part of being educated is for you to use the resources I provided, as it gives some understanding towards some of the base of my knowledge, and show why I am wrong or right. You asserting incorrect ideas and ideologies and expecting every user to essentially wipe your mental ass is reductive and not helping the Revolution. Stop being lazy and inform yourself by spending a few minutes per link and reading.


Your consumer choices have an enormous amount of power.
vegnews.com/2018/9/vegan-food-sales-spike-to-37-billion-in-12-months

The only solution is more technology, which could then eventually be used for geoengineering and repairing the environment.
Stopping industrial civilization now would result in mass famine, disease and war for the rest of human existence.

No.
A. If i stop eating that makes no dent in production. If you don't believe me go to the skip around the back of any supermarket at night and see how much meat they throw away.
B. I have serious doubts about those numbers anyway. You think i eat thousands of animals a year? How did you come to that number?
C. As i'm sure you know, these arguments we have had again and again within the radical milieu and generally in a far more meaningful way.. Are there any new arguments or points you can bring to the table? Or are you just going to repeat the same 'i just discovered veganism' talking points?


Pick one.


People have been spinning this line since at least the industrial revolution. Imho, It's a naivety to keep swallowing it.

Attached: JohnJacobiRekt.png (700x466, 595.55K)

This is what productivist techno-fetishists actually believe. We're so fucked.

Attached: 6e684d001a894fcbcdde4dc36a8c00082907e77845c7b881bd412c7cfd153ff4(1).png (368x367, 322.61K)

(you)
Quote is from:
nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/the-unabomber-ted-kaczynski-new-generation-of-acolytes.html

Die from the pest, fucking anprims.
Your gaia worship is the height of human stupidity.

Let's take a moment to reconsider this notion: Ted Kaczynski derided anprims:
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism
In short, whereas the anprim angle is "we will live in anti-industrial harmony in nature", Ted's stance is "an anti-industrial society will suck, people will die early and life will be hard, but we should still strive for it." This isn't what I would call anprim. I think he's just a regular primitivist.
A legitimate critique, I agree.
Of course, and with it, capitalism would probably develop again, too.
But user, Anarchy is organized. Classical anarchists talked about it, mainly Bakunin and Kropotkin. Remember the circle A symbol? It stands for "Anarchy is Order": The A is inside an O.

Furthermore, I think you are unfortunately missing Teddy's main point: primitivism is not about sustaining the environment. Indeed, even Ted espouses how primitive societies have a harmful impact on the land and animals. The point Ted makes is that technology is bad for the human species. His whole thesis can be traced back to 2 main points:
We are all interconnected in this society, and we all depend on eachother. Agriculture depends on industry (Indeed, even Karl Marx mentions how agriculture begets developing industrial progress) industry needs electricity, which needs power plants, which needs building materials, which needs trucks and truck factories and the workers, etc. and as such since we all rely on eachother for survival; this means we are left un-self-sufficient. The average American, if you dropped them into the wilderness, would die. They have no survival skills. They don't know how to hunt, trap, build shelter, or purify water. I actually admire Ted for being self-sufficient, he caught his own food, built his own cabin, and foraged, while deriding mainstream TV stars who try to do the same and are obviously cheating. Primitive life was more self-sufficient, you could build your own shelter and hunt your own food and live completely on your own, not a slave to the "technoindustrial complex" (as Ted puts it).
To some extent I have to agree, at least in the exacerbation of issues, after all, we're not face to face right now, we're not having a real interaction. You and I are but words to eachother, and this isn't a real relationship, though I admire your curiosity, and actually do care about you, whoever you are. Modern tech I agree makes mental illness worse, at least if untreated, by subsitiuting real life interactions with fake ones, increasing social isolation and alienation. Though I agree with Ted's criticism, I disagree with the conclusion, since I want anarchism, not primitivism, which I see can be used to end social isolation and prevent mental health from deteriorating. However, Ted's criticism goes further than that, in which he claims all mental illness is a byproduct of technology, to which I raise serious doubts, I dismiss this criticism, modern evolutionary psychology has shown that most forms of mental illness, as we know it, are of certain adaptions to certain conditions of life which have unfortunately lost their adaptive strategy in the current capitalist system and are now harmful. Diagnosis of bipolar, autism, sociopathy, etc. evolved as an adaption to meet certain requirements of the environment to better allow the organism to reproduce, however not all of these are adaptions, for example, schiziophrenia (caused by retroviral DNA) is maladaptive and wasn't evolved to suit the environment.

Attached: kitty.jpg (1280x720, 100.14K)

I think part of the problem is that you're a patronizing asshole who thinks people only disagree with you because there's something wrong with them, or that they're just not "educated" enough. The fact that you think you know better than me just because you've read a wikipedia article is fucking hilarious.
You literally say in the first post that "going vegan is the most impactful way to benefit your health and the environment". This is peak lifestylism. You do not tackle climate change as a systematic issue and instead you use it as an opportunity to proselytize your own lifestyle choices. My objection is that "going vegan" is not the most impactful way of benefiting the environment, and in fact focusing on lifestyle choices and putting the blame for climate change on other people is completely counterproductive. You have done nothing to show how my individual, depoliticized actions have any meaningful impact, you just tacitly accept the neoliberal ideology that the consumer is all-powerful and that consumer choices are an alternative to politics. You even admit this:
This is pure ideology. If you had even the slightest idea of socialist theory or even just plain common sense you would see how farcical it is. It is a neoliberal construct, meant to discourage people from engaging in meaningful political action. "Consumer politics" can only operate within the bounds set by the ruling class, you can only choose between one product or another, and unlike real politics it is both completely anonymized, anti-social, and of no consequence to anything what-so-ever. Regardless of whether or not you eat vegan, the meat industry will still exist. Regardless of whether or not you drive a car, the car industry will still exist. You rely on this idea that "if everyone made the same choice as me, everything would be perfect", but this is fantastical. No one will ever make the same choice as you, and not everyone can make the same choices as you, and it doesn't matter how much you proselytize. The hopelessness of "consumer politics" is only made more evident by its "successes". An industry profiting off your lifestyle has seen massive growth, but emissions are still increasing. Meat consumption is still increasing. Your "actions" have been completely inconsequential.
I find it very amusing that you accuse me of being lazy, when your entire politics reeks of laziness. There is no better way to pretend to be doing something good while doing absolutely nothing than "going vegan".

(You) (you)

Quote is from:

nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/the-unabomber-ted-kaczynski-new-generation-of-acolytes.html


Yes we are user, this is why i respect the Eco-extremist and nihilist tenancies when it comes to anti-civilization theory and practice. ITS heavily and extensively critiqued Uncle Ted as they moved away from basically being a kacynskist group to a more nihilist and for some a misanthropic stance, this being a very important point to them.


Quote me where you interpreted that from this thread. Bet you can't.

Attached: challanger.jpeg (808x1212, 811.54K)

I'm not an anprim. I'm just highly skeptical of the productivist myth of progress and growth that we've been telling ourselves for the last few centuries and of technology's ability to get us out of this jam.

Ted is basically sociopath, suffering from social anxiety, who can't stand being dependent on other people. Thus why he thinks freedumb means being independent from other humans.

We might not be fine, but we should definitely put a lot of resources into at least developing the technology and practices. We are very much already at the "all of the above" point in time: agriculture has to be supplemented by self-reliance methods like practiced in Cuba and the DPRK (if only as a resilience measure), all the while nuclear energy and all kinds of renewable energies are developed, transportation and airplane tourism will have to be curtailed and retooled to move away from a reliance on fossil fuels, durability in consumer goods will have to be re-established, network and smart appliance efficiencies have to be realised, and so on and so on. And we have to prepare and do at least small scale experiments in geoengineering.

But user, i want civilization and humanity to crash back into the trees like Ryan Dunn after a night out.

Attached: RyanDunnCar2.jpg (540x400, 72.65K)

too soon, man. too soon.

Attached: b7f3417c424aeeaef9e9e369a9391effa0801de47cf41b9d4d00ab12f9924986.jpg (728x640, 462.24K)

No, we are not slaves to any technology. For all the technology we build is being maintained by humans in a big process of division of labour that no single individual human understands. That doesn't make us dependent on technology, but rather on division of labour, i.e. on other humans who maintain and keep developing all that technology.

This is an interesting point. The issue for primitivists is not so much the reliance on technology but the reliance on other people. Primitivism is at its core individualist to the point of being anti-social, and implicit in its ideology is a rejection of the power of social organisation and mass movements. This is perhaps one of the reasons why it remains so fringe (and why it would probably never amount to anything).

I disagree, in his essays he states very clearly that he would like humans to get along and that he considers women equals and also derided racism. While his methods were extreme, his endgame was to liberate people from what he saw as a threat. Sociopaths are self-serving, not self-sacrificing. The whole reason he got into primitivism was because he saw technology as destroying the environment, later his primary reason was that it was destroying human mental health. Caring for other people is not sociopathic, lack of empathy is. Ted just tried to do what he thought was right, he did the wrong thing for the right reasons.
Not necessarily, primitivism just aims for the individual to be self-sufficient but that doesn't mean to be completely cut off from all human contact. You can choose to join a tribe, if you want to.

Yes, exactly. It might also be a desire to be in control and understand everything for yourself. Our techno-industrial civilization is mega-complex. No single individual has the oversight over everything. No one knows how it all works . This can also create a sort of anxiety that the whole thing might come collapsing down, since no one is really "in charge".

Do you really? I'm quite fond of all my creature comforts. If I am thirsty I open a tap and drinkable water comes out at most affordable prices. If I take a shit the excrement is tidily removed. If I'm cold all I have to do is open the tap to the radiator. These are all marvelous things, and it should not be too much to ask we can all at least enjoy that.

You make it sound like tribal society is some sort of union of egoists, but the fact of the matter is that living alone and being "self-reliant" is not conducive to survival, let alone reproduction, and never is this more the case than in a primitive society. Today you can read various survival guides, buy some basic tools and go homesteading somewhere in the wilderness, pretending that you are self-sufficient, but always with the possible escape back to modernity if things go wrong. In a primitive society there is no such safety, and the dangers - which had been either culled or pacified by our modern society - are far more numerous. It is then that the fact which is the basis for our entire society becomes very clear: you can't live alone. And with society comes all the things that it brings: technology, the division of labour, modernity. While I won't try to judge Kaczynski's character, I think he was misguided, and I think his ideas are ultimately self-defeating.

Yes, but why would you want to be self-sufficient? It doesn't really make you more free in the sense of being able to choose the life you want to live from a large range of possible options, but instead it narrows your options to merely those things that you can do alone with being reliant upon other people. in the most extreme case, where you are the only person left on the planet, those options will be minimal, because you don't have access to any of the products that other people produce nor the companionship of other people. So what's the psychological motivation behind self-sufficiency and is it a "healthy" one?

I think there might be two points to this that should be considered, because these are indeed nice things and it would be a nicer world where everyone could enjoy them.

The first point is that these things we enjoy require the expenditure of resources to build, transport, distribute, maintain - all that good stuff. Take for example air conditioning. Feels friggin' great on an oppressively hot summer day to be somewhere with air conditioning. However, putting air conditioning into every home and business, having millions, perhaps billions of people all running air conditioning units at the same time, to temporarily cool off a small area (while permanently warming the planet), has a rather large ecological footprint. The vast majority of the power for city systems around the globe still comes from coal and other fossil fuels, whose use is both finite and damaging to the rest of the planet.

Most people, at least as far as I've talked to, don't know where their poop goes when they flush it. They don't know how the infrastructure to get them tap water works. We can agree that these things are marvelous, but is there no sensible limit to their use and utilization? How many generations can keep expanding their numbers and resource consumption before we begin to reign things in? That's the second point I'd like to bring up - we agree that these things are great, but that they consume resources that cannot be replaced, and encourage a process that makes our ecology less habitable, which in turn spurs the demand for more creature comforts, for an ever increasing number of people. It seems that under this kind of a system that populations should attempt to limit their overall number so that they can provide the best services to the people they have.

I got a bit rambly here - I apologize for that - but we do need to realize that our creature comforts come with an ecological pricetag, and its one that we're often unaware of. There will be a time when humanity will have to decide how it distributes what remains of these creature comforts, and I just hope that society is a bit more egalitarian by then.

Attached: 4cWarmerMap.jpg (2500x2137, 676.43K)

A. Meat is pre-prepared for consumption. There is an expectation that due to your prior spending habits, you will come to Walmart and buy steaks because you bought some last month. Because you eat meat, you still maintain the demand. This is basic.

B. If you're not going to make the effort to think about how many animals are affected by your actions, why even make this point? How many animals in past 6 months were involved in the production of your cheese? Your eggs? How many times did you put bacon on a turkey sandwich? Or mayo? Extra cheese? When's the last time you had some milk? A milk product or derivative? How many chickens died for your wings? How many shrimp died for that cocktail?

sentientmedia.org/how-many-animals-are-killed-for-food-every-day/

C. There's really nothing to argue. If you know all these facts and continue to consume animal products, it shows that you don't actually care about the Revolution, planet, or species. I present evidence that meat consumption is unnecessary and damaging, you say there is still something to argue, but still do not present anything. I have given you resources and facts, and still you cling to your feelings and opinions.

Your attitude indicates that you have not made any effort to examine the impact of veganism and animal agriculture. If you have not made any effort to correct your behavior or make different choices in your commodity consumption, it shows your apathy and lack of seriousness about this situation or true Leftist politics.


Once again, just because there is a beneficial lifestyle to accompany plant based diets or veganism, doesn't mean you need to. Also, I'll reiterate, a plant based diet is the single greatest impact an average individual can have on climate change at this moment.

Also, what's this concern against this "lifestyle" meme? Why does everyone keep using this as some kind of defense? I agree that a political consumer base is inefficient and wasteful, yet at this very moment, mean consumption is down in the US and Europe, and plant based foods and diets are on the rise. If you live a wasteful lifestyle and your defense for it is because everyone else is living one, that doesn't protect you.

Essentially, and I hope I'm not strawmanning you too much, you are saying that any attempts at making changes now don't matter until we overthrow capitalism? We shouldn't make any attempt to fix all other systems in society until the workers time comes? Trying to work within a capitalist system as a consumer is meaningless, so we shouldn't bother?

This is my problem with individuals who claim to be Leftists or that they "understand" the problems, you won't get off your ass and make even the slightest effort of trying to change anything. You await a Revolution and sit.

Stop being lazy and embody the values of the Revolution or don't and continue to post on Zig Forums about how you are defensive at your "depoliticized" choices being criticized. They are political. Stop blinding yourself and being offended when I offer you facts and well written Wikipedia pages on this point. When your posts reflect that you appear not to care about any short term goals for our species, it indicates that you fail to grasp the importance of our modern global problems, especially of one's that can be fixed within a capitalist system, and ones that need to solved sooner, rather than later.

It all essentially requires energy.
There is a lot of available energy, because according to Einstein mass and energy are the same, i.e. can be transformed into each other. All that is required to keep civilization going for a loooong time is to find more efficient procedures to transform differen forms of energ into each other.
Currently we are too reliant on energy from fossil fuels, but the technology to get our energy from renewable sources is already available. It's merely a matter of political will to make the effort to transition from fossil energy to renewable energy. Though it is already happening in many parts of the world, merely not fast enough.

When did we pick up a bunch of radlib vegans?

Untrue. Anarcho-Primitivizts often believe in living communally with the tribe being basically proto-communism. Pretty sure Zerzan writes a lot about this. But on the broader point of:

If you 'reject the power of social organization and mass movements' (A stance whilst generally not taken by @-primitivists, it is taken by many other anarchists) why would you think it follows that 'amounting to anything' in the eyes of others is of any consequence or necessarily desirable?


If we are going in at the level of aesthetic then i would say that i absolutely find more joy in the trees to the taps, the smell of burning wood and taste of food fire-cooked to the toilet, the knowledge and intimate relationship to your biome to the comfort of central heating. I'm personally not going to make a judgement on your aesthetic preferences.


I'm sorry burger, but i'm really not interested in getting the basic-bitch 'veganism and ethical consumerism 101' from an arrogant yank on the internet that i doubt has even been at it longer than a year. Especially not when you literally just assume a ton of shit about me. Kindly an hero or at least read something and get a more interesting perspective. Example: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/subversive-energy-beyond-animal-liberation .

Attached: GlobalWarming.jpg (620x229, 34.34K)

The problem is that renewables are not a 1:1 substitution for fossil fuels and aren't going to be in the foreseeable future. Switching to renewables is great but it's still going to require scaling back the post-industrial lifestyle to such a degree that you might as well be advocating for a primitivism because people won't even get behind a rational degrowth movement. Degrowth is going to have to be forced upon people by the harsh realities of climate change and overshoot before any meaningful systemic change will happen and by then the whole thing might be OBE.

Well to be completely brutal this is a thing a communist government could simply manage mechanically by instituting a one child policy for a while.

As to things like air conditioning, even that is not an all or nothing thing. It might be unrealistic in the short term to put an AC in every home, but not to make being in an aircoinditioned area available to all people in crisis situations, government buildings, sports arenas, etc. Think of it as bomb shelters but for extreme weather - areas like South Asia and the Persian Gulf area will need it in our lifetimes. These are the things we are looking at if we want to at least prevent unthinkable things.

This.
Many people posit renewables as though we could run this same system, or even continue expanding it year over year with them.
We can't. Fossil fuels are absolutely the backbone of modern civilization, and while deploying renewables where possible isn't a bad thing it is not a solution to the massive amount of overshoot that fossil fuels allowed for.

Attached: limits_to_growth_chart.png (500x464, 106.39K)

If it's degrowth then it's degrowth. It will still be better to manage it in the context of a planned economy than to leave it in the hands of the market. It is likely the only choice.

It might be more wise to evacuate and resettle these people now as opposed to building thousands of cooling centers for them to periodically escape to as the climate in their homeland becomes increasingly uninhabitable.

Imagine finding thousands of massive metal and concrete domes in a desert where there is no longer arable land or a water supply.

Attached: ArcticSeaIce.mp4 (1000x1000, 3.14M)

What does this even mean? Veganism is a lifestyle.
Repeating your conclusion does not constitute an argument. You might be correct if you solely look at what would most impact my own personal emissions - however you want to define that, and good luck - but that is not what you said. You said that it would be the greatest impact overall, that this action would trump all other actions I could possibly do. The fact is that even if I were to do it "my" emissions would still far outweigh that of a farmer in the third world, and the impact of that choice would be miniscule compared to if I, say, killed myself. You could say, using the exact same argumentation, that I am morally obligated to kill myself, but this just highlights the futility. Even the greatest sacrifice I could possibly make, my own life, would mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. It would not even register. I would die and nothing would change. But, if I, through my political action, help push through a reform that drastically reduces carbon emissions, I would have an impact that is near-infinitely greater than whatever depoliticized, individual sacrifice I could inflict on myself.
You ask why we are concerned about this "lifestyle meme", and this is exactly why. Lifestylism disempowers us, it reduces us to atomized individuals and ignores what we could achieve through collective action. Not like "everyone individually decides not to eat meat" but actual politics that allow us to shape society. Even as you say that meat consumption is going down in the US and Europe, global meat production and meat consumption per capita is still rising. It hasn't even had a dent. Why? Because for every person who becomes a vegan there are dozens of people in the third world who can now afford to eat meat. Are you gonna convince them to stop? How will you do so before it is too late?
You couldn't be more mistaken. I am saying you focus far too much on the individual and individual choices, and not nearly enough on collective, political action. I do not advocate "waiting for the revolution", quite the contrary. I am advocating for political action, and furthermore I am saying that the only solution to climate change is through political action, targeting producers especially. The problem is not that people, say, use oil, it is that the oil is pumped out of the ground in the first place. The impact I would have from fighting against fracking, among other things, would far outweigh any lifestyle choice I made. My lifestyle choices affect only myself, and perhaps the few I can convince to join, but my political actions affect the whole society. In fact, if there is any position I would call "waiting for the revolution" it would be yours. By focusing on these individualised choices you have already conceded defeat. You have already accepted that no political action is possible, that the only thing you can affect is you yourself, so your only recourse is to wait and hope that everyone does as yourself, that "the revolution comes". It is, as I said in the previous post, laziness.
As for why I don't become a vegan, even if, as you say, that it is better than nothing: Frankly, it is because it might as well be nothing. Like I said earlier, no sacrifice I could possibly make, if it is not done with the aim to change the society, will ever have an impact. The only reason why I would ever become a vegan is if I came to prefer it or simply for the sense of moral superiority - the former I highly doubt and the latter I find contemptible. So rather than make this performative, yet meaningless sacrifice that liberals are so wont to do, I would rather focus on the things that really matter, and to hell with the other stuff.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (850x600, 39.98K)

Reading Beyond Animal Liberation addressed literally none of the points that I made earlier and has no bearing on our conversation. I avoided discussing animal liberation, I avoided the ethical nightmare of the the systemic slaughter of sentient beings, I avoided bringing in Brian Dominick and his post liberation ideals. Stop trying to derail, because while the ethics and morality of animal liberation can always be up for discussion, the facts remain that animal consumption is one of the largest causes, if not the largest cause of environmental destruction and climate change.

I make assumptions because the information you have presented indicates a lack knowledge, or apathy. If you choose to continue to eat meat, and know that it has a major negative effect overall towards the species, no amount of Stirner fedora tipping will excuse the fact that you are wrong and that your lifestyle and/or choices are wrong. You are being a hypocrite and if you want to be a Revolutionary, we must live with as few contradictions and hypocrisies as possible.

Leftist principles to start being embraced, in lifestyle and in personal choice, otherwise it's just a bunch of nerdy philosophy kids on anonymous internet forums talking about things that will never advance beyond an ideal. We must either embody the spirit of Revolution or slink back towards the chains your oppressors in the health and food industry.

As I said all of the above. The one buys you a few more years or decades to prepare for the latter.

Unless we insist on nuking it out before that of course, which is also likely. If we keep on doing as we are that is in fact most likely.

The graph is unsourced, and moreover not correctly formulated. For example, there isn't any such thing as "food per capita" measured in the data. Nor "services per capita."

I wasn't attempting to address your points, to be clear. I was telling you to be more interesting and move beyond this 101 shit because as far as any conversation about animals and ethics/liberation then this is just profoundly uninteresting and as i said before have all been played out by many of us a million times before..


So go have these conversations in real life with real people in the context of real action instead of playing moral superiority on the internet. You will thank me for it.

It's the original Limits to Growth chart.

Here's an 8 page article that can explain it a bit better than I can right now. In any case, here's the sourcing the article has for the chart.

growing population to resources and pollution, but did not include a timescale between 1900
and 2100. If a halfway mark of 2000 is added, the projections up to the current time are largely
accurate, although the future will tell about the wild oscillations predicted for upcoming years.

Ah, I just realized the image was also titled 'limits_to_growth_chart.png'.

Not exactly a citation, but if you've studied these subjects you've probably seen this chart at least a handful of times before.

If you're measuring sentience in terms of most humans, animals are not sentient. If you're measuring sentience in terms of Davids, I suppose most animals are at least 0.9 Davids.

The article is even less accurate. For example:
This was shortly before the massive boom in US oil production. One can't fault the authors for not being able to predict that, yet the model cannot be fully trusted when the information used is not accurate.

Did they even consider offshore?

If you want to be as reductionist as possible about individual action and play the "lol death is the only way to REALLY reduce environmental impact", sure, go ahead. The alternative to this is the route you take, "Well, since I can't REALLY reduce my impact, I shouldn't make any effort at all."

Do you really think that everything must be collective action? That you simply cannot stop eating meat until the masses agree? You keep making excuses to make any personal change and instead think that policy is the only way to make change in your own personal life. As a quick question, if there were no littering laws, would you throw your trash outside due to it being slightly easier to dispose of, even if you knew the negative effects it had on the environment, whereas throwing it in the trash, while still overall negative and requires taking out, is less so?

I understand the concern about lifestylism now, and I honestly don't care. If your lifestyle has an overall negative effect on the species, and you choose not to reduce needless consumption and waste because you think it "might as well be nothing" shows a defeatist negative attitude that probably would see you shot by any Revolutionary in the 20th century.

I also work towards overthrowing the system and installing a worker state. I also discuss veganism and plant based diets with other like minded Leftists, and made many reducitarians and vegetarians. Through my actions, I have created other like minded individuals and introduced more than a dozen other people towards issues that will persist after we overthrow capitalism, like food production and resource management. We can start tackling these problems now, and you, my Revolutionary, can help the millions of other vegans seeking collective action by simply not eating meat. Your abstention from doing so will take money from the animal agriculture industry, and reduce, however minutely, their lobbying power and social control and ultimately result in a weaker .

I do vegan activism when necessary, but I spend most of my time advocating political and social reform. Don't think I only focus on a single thing.


I do have these conversations in public as well.

The singular question remains, are you still going to eat meat? If you choose to do so, it's a strong indicator that your taste preferences are more important than making an effort to help with climate change, food and fresh water security, public health, combating animal exploitation (if you care about that sort of thing), etc. The position of eating meat against all science and reason is in the same position, to me, as climate change deniers and flat earthers.


en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

You are using sentience incorrectly. You may be thinking of consciousness, since sentience can't really be quantified in any meaningful way at this time.

Also, I acknowledge that capitalism as a whole is a problem, but your attempt at comparing this to Nazism shows a real lack of effort. You can call it moralism, but if someone is needlessly doing something that affects the species in a severely negative way, then you have a responsibility towards making some effort towards correcting the problem, especially if you're the one doing it.

Theoretically we can be, all the theoretical foundation exists, now its just a matter of constructing infrastructure based on new technology that has been demonstrated, and investing heavy resources into realizing technology that hasn't been demonstrated but has a solid theoretical basis. Our environmental destruction is terrible, but its important to understand that we are not the first organism to completely fuck with ecosystems and the atmosphere. Plants, algae, and microorganisms are responsible for at least three mass extinctions in Earth's geological history. I'm not trying to provide some naturalistic justification or imply what we're doing is inevitable or unsolvable, but singling out humans as an unprecedented phenomenon is contradicted by the facts.


Bascially this, the natural-unnatural dichotomy is one of the dumbest memes is human history. It is an inherently mystical anthropocentric concept that is contradicted by everything we know about biology, ecology, chemistry, and thermodynamics.

If that is your conclusion from reading my post I don't know what to tell you. You have no reading comprehension. What I actually said was that not even killing myself would have any ecological impact, and thus any action which solely focuses on myself, the individual, and not the society is fruitless. You say you want to avoid strawmanning me, yet you keep misrepresenting my arguments. If this is not done with malicious intent - and if that is the case then I see no point in arguing with you further - then I can only assume that you are an idiot who can't read. Or perhaps that you are too lazy to read. As for this:
I find this phrasing quite funny. My "personal life". Why does that matter? This thread is about tackling climate change, reducing global emissions, not personal morals. My main concern isn't acting like a good person, my main concern is the environment. The actions that best protect the environment are not the actions that make me the best "environmentalist", the best person, as I have shown. In the last part you make this argument that more or less can be summed up as - and do correct me if I am wrong - 'one should strive to maximise the amount of "good" you do by any means, regardless of how miniscule'. So i should engage in political action and also become a vegan, even if only the former has any meaningful impact. I think this is a slippery slope, because there is no such thing as maximising one's impact - you can always do more. It makes sense if you confine yourself to a sort of personal accounting - counting calories, counting emissions, counting sins - but it doesn't make sense when you put it in a broader scope, because the possible actions are so vast, so numerous that they are impossible to fulfil. You can always ask "why are you not doing more" or "why are you doing this instead of that". You ask why I can't do politics and be vegan at the same time, I could just as well ask you "why aren't you doing more?". I think this is unreasonable, and it leads to nothing but lifestylism and purity politics. I do like that implicit threat you make, that me rejecting lifestylism would see me shot if I was in any revolution, which really just betrays your terrible understanding of what revolutionaries actually care about.
Again, I do not care about how I appear, I do not care about being a good person, I care about the results. I want to pursue courses of action that lead to meaningful change and avoid things that distract from it, and veganism (and any form of lifestylism) belongs to the latter category. When seen from the perspective of the greater society and not just "me and my mates", this lifestylism is not only meaningless but counterproductive. It encourages actions and attitudes that sap the life out of the movement, and tacitly accepts the narrative of the forces of the status quo who seek to stop the movement and inadvertently doom us to a climate disaster. I think it is fine that you have found a lifestyle you are happy it, but proselytising it does far more harm than good. It really is telling, how your first reaction when entering this thread is to tell us to go vegan, not push for political change but rather to join your lifestyle. An uncharitable person might conclude that when it comes down to it, you do care more about your lifestyle than about the movement.
This argument is dragging on and I think I have more than made my point. I might respond to you tomorrow if you say something interesting, but if I don't then I probably couldn't be bothered.

But having proles in control inherently means there is greater incentive for pro-environmental policy. Right now the system is run by profit, which leads the system to exploit the environment, we seek to end that.

Greater yea, i agree. But maybe not nearly great enough.

accidental sage.

This.
Trying to "preserve nature as it currently is" is basically trying to stop the wheel of history.
Now I'm not saying we should go about causing environmental collapse but instead let nature run it's course.

Having said that, we shouldn't separate ourselves from nature and should do everything we can to preserve the natural order. That and I like Solarpunk aesthetics green brutalism would be sick as fuck

I appreciate the clarity your post has provided towards your stance towards the Revolution.

I think that the two points this entire discussion is hung up on is that you think your actions are meaningless in the grand scheme of current animal agriculture, and how inclusive the Revolution's ideology is.

I mostly agree with you on the idea that we need to focus on a single issue which nearly all other problems in society stem from (capitalism). If I had to choose between the Revolution and a Vegan society, I choose Revolution. The reality, however, is that veganism is exploding in number as the fastest growing lifestyle and social justice movement, and most of these people already lean left or far left. The vegan movement is just another part of the social consciousness awakening to the problems we have currently under capitalism.

You and I both see things from the perspective of the greater society and we both only care about results. I didn't really want to talk about the ethics of systemically slaughtering sentient beings for what is generally taste pleasure, because to me, any argument about animal ethics and morals can be debated. The truth is, I see Leftism as a movement built on science, reason, and, I know this will trigger some people, compassion. I want to see a society built on these ideals so that we may have the most optimal result for overall human development.

As Revolutionaries, we shouldn't engage in acting without sufficient reason, and eating meat lacks any truly good reasoning behind it. We don't need it for nutrition, we don't need it for social interactions, it's simply not necessary for most of us. You know that even if it's miniscule in it's impact on the planet, you could prevent even that sliver of waste from causing more damage to an already damaged ecosystem. I don't understand the reasoning behind wanting to be irrational by choosing to eating meat, when you do not have to.

Science-wise, going plant based makes the most sense due to energy efficiency and conversion. Transitioning towards plant based diets also massively relieves the sustainability problem we currently see, where over half of all grown food, globally, is used to feed livestock. Not to mention my overall concern of resource management and climate change.

This isn't just for us. I feel deep concern and pain towards the people of the future, ones not even born yet, who will inherit this world which was not only damaged by mostly capitalism, but also certainly by poor individual choices made by the billions who came before them and never changed their behaviors because those billions of people had it stuck in their head that their actions meant little individually in the grand scheme of things.

The thing is, I'm not asking you to spend your time being a vegan activist or to proselytize, I'm asking you to stop choosing to eat meat because there are many reasons to stop, yet none to continue.

Anyone have a source or more information on other organisms causing mass extinctions?

The big one is the Great Oxygenation Event caused by cyanobacteria.

I don't think nature is a stable system, I think we are causing a massive plunge in biodiversity that the earth will not recover from for millions and millions of years. Additionally non-destructive doesn't imply it'd be some hippy fantasy, it implies we wouldn't be running round engaging in pig ignorant shit like slash and burn agriculture and trawling the seabed, among other things. If "non-destructive" is imprecise replace with "minimally destructive".

As for the megafauna nearly every continent had them, Moa and Haast's Eagle would have no problem living in modern New Zealand but were obliterated by the Maori. The extinction of eurasian megafauna did have climate change as a contributing factor, however it wasn't on many other continents/islands.

every living thing on earths only hope for long term survival is if we get off the planet and take them with us. Its all doomed in the end unless we spread out enough. We should try to be as minimally destructive as possible but we need industrial and technological advancement whether or not its harmful.

I believe the preferred nomenclature is 'Less Than Destructive'.

There is nothing more reactionary than rejecting technology and going back to the stone age because muh environment. Its the ultimate form of reactionarism.

...

...

The future probably looks more like the past than most people are comfortable thinking about.

Indeed, it is probably more reactionary to believe in infinite and unlimited technological progress regardless of the physical constraints of 'muh environment'.

Attached: c5sbxj8a9z611.jpg (737x708, 103.08K)