You must log in or register to comment.

ziq_postcivver wrote (edited )

Yes because collapse is the only feasible way to destroy capitalism in the neoliberal era. Otherwise we'll keep inching closer and closer to 'corporate socialism' until eventually the gap between the rich and poor is so high that the rich just exterminate the 99.999% to save 'their' planet.


IamSlavojsallergies wrote (edited )

Yes, because capitalism is going to destroy civilization anyway, and that wasteland is worse than the people's wasteland.


allhailkodos wrote

Define "civilization".


AgentW_C wrote

A good point. The definition of Civilization has been an oft-shifting idea, once that has led to the sufferings of indigenous peoples and so-called primitive peoples.

If we define civilization as having a massive system of hierarchy and city-states that consume a massive amount of resources, then most Native Americans or hunter-gatherer groups in general, don't qualify.

But, if we define civilization as a group of people who live near each other and share similar beliefs regarding life and the world in general, then nearly every group qualifies, including native groups, a fact which fills many First-Worlders with horror.

Heck, you can make a case that Native Americans or indigenous peoples are actually more civilized, since, for the most part, they had been able to live a long time where they were, without irrevocably poisoning their environment. Despite the "nasty, brutish, and short" meme people circulate about their cultures, the vast majority lived overall longer, happier lives before European cultures tried to "civilize" them. Other tribes would go to war with each other, but it was hardly on the scale of European cultures.

Sorry to keep using the phrase, European Cultures, but they have played the lion's share in the destruction of native peoples. In order to include cultures like Imperial Japan and the like, I should probably use the term "Industrial Civilization," but really, the most accurate term is "One-Size-Fits-All Civilization." At some point, we decided there was only one way people could live and that toxic meme has been destroying people ever since.


__deleted_____ wrote

I think there's a big difference between a group of disparate societies that cooperate when the situation calls for it, and a civilization; which implies big cities and industrialism.


Defasher OP wrote

And no snarky answers saying that fantastic scenarios and speculation are pointless, please.


surreal wrote

Yes but it's not the only way.


MeowZedong wrote

What are you defining as "civilisation" here?

If we're talking about living in some kind of Mad Max wasteland, then no. That would just create new ways for people to exploit others.


Defasher OP wrote (edited )

Mad Max wasteland

So mega-industrial capitalism where the land has all been covered over with concrete and asphalt, the forests have been turned into toilet paper, and wildlife only exists for bourgies to shoot at?


zer0crash wrote

Yeah, if we could rebuild the cool shit tho.


zorblax wrote

I don't think so. Getting rid of Capitalism isn't worth getting rid of everything else too.