Well considering we live in global capitalism (very few countries qualify as semi-feudal semi-colonial anymore), it only makes sense that global ecological collapse would force a global change in the mode of production.
Eco-Socialism
Levi Ward
Liam Gomez
Supply chains and globalization can be reversed in large resource rich nations. (US, China, Russia) or groups of nations like the EU. Capitalism is global, but their is no global capitalist order.
Xavier Martinez
stop being retarded user
Thomas Baker
I don't think we've ever had what you would call a global capitalist order, since the onset of imperialism there's always been imperial competition, even in the post cold war era.
Jacob Evans
Due to socialism's inherent anti-consumerist nature that already is a massive positive impact on nature. Add to this the fact that planned economies make it easier to regulate and alleviate ecological issues, something that is very notable in the USSR in terms of hunting/poaching, since they allowed regulated limited hunting as well as strict guarding of the wilderness to prevent poaching and thus lowered biodiversity.
No. While hydroponics and Aquaculture is efficient in providing alternative food soruces with fewer resources, meat and organic products like milk and eggs are very useful to our biology. Almost NO proper cake, home-made or not, is created without eggs and milk for example. What should be expected is simply more efficient production.
Unsurprising, see pic 2
In the 1960s, Soviet researchers predicted the complete evaporation of the body of water, and a river used to irrigate farmland had the excess water siphoned into the lake. This was, however, expensive, and during the privitisations (and subsequent economic catastrophe) of the 1980s, the plan was abandoned. After Kazakhstan seceded, ultra-intensive cotton farming practices and infrastructure mismanagement (most water running through irrigation to the farms evaporated on the way there) accelerated the shrinkage. Most of the former Aral Sea is a desert.
Colton Jones
Stalin literally had entire forests planted to replace the trees he had cut down or where lost in WW-2. Today these forests are not being restored even as Russian oligarchs make millions selling the timber to China.
Environment matters, and an utterly unnatural environment affects humans. There is a reason why many people who are tired of the city move into the country-side or will plant flowers or tend to a garden or have pets. They are not utilitarian but they serve the purpose of providing something that people enjoy. For example my parrot. He's no factory worker or some other material object, but having him sitting in my room or flying about my house and making noise provides me happiness and I love to care for him as best I can, and he shows affection for it back. Your bullshit ideological crap simply does not hold.
A similar question was brought up in the Soviet Film The Communist, about a communist in the days right after the Revolution when the war was coming to a close and the building of electrical stations and literary education was spreading across Russia. One of the dilemmas of the film is that the communist main character falls in love with a married woman, and he asks his senior "What does marx say about loving another woman, what is right?" And he is answered that there is NOTHING said about his situation, simply because it has nothing to do with dialectics, it is simply a personal thing between 2 people, however the senior also states that generally it is not good to simply steal away someone elses wife, which he says from his own human perspective.
Sebastian Parker
What caused the Aril Sea to evaporate (redirecting river water to farms) started under the USSR and just continued when the USSR collapsed. That said it was a good thing. Producing food is more important that saving a few animals.
Parker Richardson
No, it was rapidly accelerated under capitalism, and they were already drafting plans to stop it under socialism.
Adam Davis
You are so utterly retarded I want to introduce your face to a nice heavy BOOK.
1) The redirecting of rivers to irrigation in farms WAS done but was regulated, especially after the 60s, allowing for irrigation to continue along with the giant lake and its ecosystem.
2) The Aral Sea is important as a resource of water for people, a source of fish and a place where people could rest in vacation.
3) Saving a few animals is putting it mildly considering the sheer SIZE of the ecosystem that has been wiped out. This is like if Lake Erie dried out, the ecological effects through the rest of the Mid-Western and Southern areas of the United States as well as a section of lower Canada would be devastated. Ecological areas are interconnected and rely on one another. Remove one and you can devastate another.
Thus the removal of the Aral sea was a ecological disaster and economic disaster, all caused by capitalist de-regulation.
Read what is posted carefully Trot instead of trying to post some thinly veiled anti-soviet jab and then trying to justify yourself when caught.
Adam Brooks
You do realize the shoreline started retreating in the 70s.