Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

2

sudo wrote

Again, what's your point? Primitivists are not against nature. We must kill things or gather things to eat. That's quite obvious. We are against disrupting a natural equilibrium and dominating the food cycle

Already been done. You want to go back? That'll require large amounts of the population to die, because 7 billion people won't be able to get by on gathering (plus, suddenly switching to gathering for 7 billion people would be very disruptive to the current natural equilibrium).

Does burning gasoline put the entire planet at risk? It may not seem so while driving a single car, but the accumulated action certaintly puts the whole planet at risk, and doing so less hurts only slower than it would have otherwise

Granted, but we're talking about agriculture. Does the sum total of all current agriculture put the planet at risk? No.

Hunting, gathering. Doing what puts us on the level of a sustainable environment. I can't believe I have to explain how to get food from the wilderness. Even right-wingers know that hunting is a thing, although they use technology which puts them at incredible advantages when they do it

That's not feasible or sustainable for 7 billion people. Plus, the entire reason why we moved away from hunting and gathering in the first place is because it's far too unpredictable. There's a drought, and plants aren't growing as much in the forest? Not as much of a problem with agriculture - use irrigation. The species you're hunting is dying off, so there's not enough food? Well, now your tribe will start dying off, too. To make an analogy, the reason why agriculture is superior to hunting and gathering is the same reason why planned economies are superior to the free market - because humans have some level of control over what's produced (and when we're talking about food, that's the most important thing to get control of). It's too late to say that we shouldn't develop agriculture, because it would destroy ecosystems - we've been doing it for several thousand years now. The damage has already been done. The problem, really, is overpopulation. The solutions to that are to implement birth control measures, and to research how to set up a sustainable society on other worlds in the solar system.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

sudo wrote

Correct

Then let's try to avoid that. The deaths from climate change will be bad enough.

It absolutely does. It creates water shortages, envelops land which was lived in by animals, kills countless insects with pesticides, corrupts the soil, is potentially invasive, etc.

So, like I said before, it can destroy a local ecosystem. But not the entire planet.

Using up Earth as a burner, huh? Interesting and predictable plan. What birth control measures do you have in mind?

If socialism wins, we wouldn't be using it as a burner (it has already been "burned"). A socialist government wouldn't allow a planet to be destroyed for profit. If we achieve global communism before colonizing other planets, then there wouldn't be any reason to recklessly pollute other planets, as we have done Earth. And how could we? All other planets in the solar system are extremely hostile to Earth life as it is - we could hardly make them worse. Whether or not we can make them better remains to be seen.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

sudo wrote

Why? I would prefer freedom sooner than later

...Because we don't have to mostly die off. Just don't dismantle agriculture, and we stay alive.

Local ecosystems effect their surrounding ones, and those effect their surrounding ones, and so forth. The agriculture you are purporting is a global one, not a local one. Not that it matters

Then the world would have ended by now, since we've destroyed more than one ecosystem already. You're over-estimating the impact it would have.

Government; what a romantic ideal which will never come to fruition. Follow your leader towards the money, because that's what government is, the hierarchy that upholds money and profit

So, you don't understand socialism, then.