You must log in or register to comment.

tubers wrote

The perfect path is already unavailable: we can’t transition away from our current state of affairs without any war, violence, or chaos, because so much war, violence, and chaos has already happened. At the same time, the worst possible path is also unavailable, because there are already people who are doing permaculture and regenerative agriculture, there are already people tending the wild, and there are already people trying to ease that transition however they can. So the future will lie somewhere between those two extremes of perfectly gradual and easy transition versus apocalyptic hellscape. That means that every single thing we do will push the outcome closer to one side or the other. Since neither extreme is possible, there is no “win” or “loss” condition. There is only how much you push it towards a gentler, more gradual, less violent outcome.

I had to read this a few times to understand. Seems he is just stating that violence/suffering is inevitable, but outright extinction is not.

If you’re alive today, then this is the calling of your life. At no point in the history of our species or any other have there been people who faced a mass extinction and were in a position to do anything about it. No creature has ever faced a calling like ours, because no creature has ever had the capacity to answer it that we now possess.

Why is he stating what my motives are or should be? Didn't he establish early in the work that humans are self interested and will put their own well being above the greater good? Is he explicitly suggesting that we set aside our needs/wants for the greater good of the world?

There are an awful lot of us right now. If we can acknowledge the crisis we’re in, a few billion brilliant imaginations just might be able to save the world.

Seems like he is contradicting himself from two paragraphs back. How can a world be saved if he already established that there is no total "win" or "loss"? Does he mean " partially saved"? And who is to say what saved even means, isn't that subjective?


Epicalyx OP wrote

While racists, eugenicists, and eco-fascists certainly manipulatively use the reality of overpopulation to further their agendas, ecological carrying capacity is very real, and we're beyond it (artificially and temporarily). This trend in the left of attempting to brush off any and all discourse regarding overpopulation or ecological carrying capacity as racist Malthusianism is misguided and extremely dangerous.
The point is that overpopulation is a symptom, not a root cause, and focusing on birth rates inappropriately targets and burdens those who already have the lowest carbon footprints (the so-called "developing world"), and is thus classist and racist. consumption rates and associated ecological footprint are the proper places to focus our efforts, not population and birth rates. With this in mind, the impetus to change lies squarely with the "developed" world, and our over-consumptive, exploitation-based standard of living.
It’s like these "we have more than enough resources for everyone, just a distribution problem" arguments have completely forgotten the fact that in producing (extracting) those resources, we've irreparably damaged the planetary ecosystem and created runaway climate change. Not to mention the devastation of human life it required.


CivilizationsEnd wrote

“This guy was a classist jerk, therefore basic ecology doesn’t apply to humans bc we’re special” uwu