Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.