I'm not worried about over-use of resources as much as I'm worried about the resulting pollution. More efficient energy-use is great, but placing your trust in market-driven innovations that might make a positive impact 5 or 10 years from now when we need to act NOW to have a chance in hell is just peak madness.
Unfortunately, some liberals will likely deny capitalism's incompatibility with long-term sustainable living even while suffocating in a forest fire
sure, but pollution isn't inherent only to capitalism, given how the USSR also had many cases, most famous of which involved dumping radioactive waste and Chernobyl.
I think pollution isn't an invariability, because simply put, there is geopolitical weight if you can become a country that can deal with these problems globally, China for example will gain great clout and influence in india if they somehow managed to carry out a full restoration of the river ghanges.
plus, in a way the world is acting now, only concern being america closing her ears to the problem due to trump
Overproduction is. Aggregate demand is heavily inflated in capitalist systems due to the compounded effects of aggressive advertising and planned obsolesence. Take fidget spinners, for example. How you can ignore this is beyond me.
DOUBT. China and India are great power rivals and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. Any chinese influence in India will be met with stiff resistance from the Indian state.
If climate change is real (and can be as extreme as some say), I don't see how it can be mitigated. How can you convinced all countries to agree to stop putting their faith in growth and trying to please corporations and the masses? Because it is a competition and if you take your foot off the pedal, you lose.
Placing responsibilities on the individual level and asking people to live like monks which seems to be the answer for many many people is complete bullshit, studies show that all the measures you can take like stop eating meat, taking the plane and so on (which I find OK from an ethical pov) are cancelled 50 times when you have a kid. Overpopulation is the real problem here and let's be honest, there's nothing we can do about it unless you want to implement very authoritharian policies.
My only hopes are that scientists are wrong or that people finally realize that they deserve better than this hellish ideology.
Apply everything I learnt from zombie movies. Or I'll find a survalist farm, kill its occupants and take advantage of what they have built. Or maybe just wait and starve because the post-apocalypse life looks pretty dull.
Thinking about this is bleak and kinda useless tbh, noone knows what it will look like, so until then I'll pretend nothing's happening.
ehh, india is a democracy, things can change far quicker than you think they will, especially if the indian government fails to deliver it's promises by itself.
again, planned obsolescence allows for development cycles and new innovations to reach the masses, a very big reason why for example computing eventually emerged a field the USSR gave up developing itself, and instead opted to copy the existing American/British systems.
So as long as recycling is done, it is not inherently 'capitalism killing'
Renewable energy is an interesting case as once it is installed it requires almost no labour power to operate, meaning the value of electricity produced by it is very low. This should lead to a low rate of profit for the energy industry in the long term once it has displaced traditional forms of power production (assuming Cockshott is right about varying RoP between industries). The switch to renewables may cause a short term boom, but it's likely to crash hard once the process is complete.
Yeah, hindunationalism is on the rise. Not especially conducive to bettering ties with China, considering China's ties to Pakistan.
If by "new innovations" you mean a new generation of smartphones each year that is only marginally better than the last, then yes. If you mean printers being programmed to stop working for no reason after 10 000 pages printed, then yes. What innovation! At this point, you're just coming across as a crypto-porky.
Planned obsolesence has two main goals:
1) For the business, to avoid over-saturating the markets (which is a retarded concern socio-economically, because if you've actually saturated the market it just means that you've produced enough to cover all actual demand or need. Rectifying this by creating artificial demand makes perfect economic sense FOR THE BUSINESS, but socio-economically, it's downright insanity).
2) For the politicians, to reduce unemployment. Again, makes perfect sense within the current framework, but to all rational observers it should rather make it perfectly clear that the current framework is just a RETARDED MESS OF PERVERSE INCENTIVES FROM A SOCIO-ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT. And especially when we're on the brink of a climate catastrophe.
Recycling also takes energy, you retard.
well, not exactly, maintenance is still a thing, and will require replacement if better developments come, like more efficient solar cells, turbines etc.
plus the extra electricity (without the pollution) will save countless untold amounts of external costs, such as less diseases due to overall lower pollution, etc.
india is not only filled with hindus, and modi most importantly so far has not really created the kind of india he promised in 2014 lol
recycling, with more sustainable energy sources will likely be less of a problem
as for smartphones and tech, these are problems already being acknowledged, production being curtailed for the expected stagnation of demmand etc.
and clearly, there is an important part when i talk about new innovations, even something like a cheap raspberry pi equals or crushes pentiums merely a year ago, and all this using smartphone levels of energy, how much energy has been saved by the uptick of ARM-based systems over power hungry x86s?
pentiums a decade ago my bad*
No idea. You're the only one whe keeps talking about it in relation to the climate issue. If your only defense of capitalism amounts to "better technology lol", when most climate scientists seem to agree that we need far-reaching systemic changes (i.e. economic and political) to avoid a runaway greenhouse effect, then I'll throw my lot in with the scientists instead of with your idealistic ass.