Too many monkeys in the zoo

[Narz]

But—in a perfect world, using Esri’s estimate, along with estimates7th of food waste from the UN and others—we could supply 9 billion metric tons of food a year, or 2.4 times as much as we’d need to feed every person on the planet.

Good news! Now all we need is a perfect world!

 

[Narz]

Because there is a huge world of possibilities

Like??

Marxism will not solve any global hunger, shelter or infrastructure issues

Bro just play nicely w the others & you're get your three acres & a donkey, central planning cares about your needs.

except malthus was wrong

He was right, just didn't anticipate the technology that would keep thr party going a few centuries longer (and make the desturction caused by it unfathomably worse)

 

[Narz]

OK. If that's what doesn't work, what does work and what will work?

The 21st century will be about disaster management, stopping the holocene is not going to happen.

 

[Gorbles]

I picked this example because I hoped it would be internationally recognizable.

Right. And does this sound like "because the price of gasoline rose one cent on the dollar":

The movement was initially motivated by rising crude oil and fuel prices, a high cost of living, and economic inequality.

Or could you possibly be downplaying peoples' reasons for protesting? And if so, why are you?

 

[Yeekim]

Right. And does this sound like "because the price of gasoline rose one cent on the dollar":

Yes.

Or could you possibly be downplaying peoples' reasons for protesting? And if so, why are you?

No.

We all would have to reduce our consumption magnitudes more than would have been required to adapt to this gas price hike. But even this was apparently too much for a lot of folks.

 

[Senethro]

The 21st century will be about disaster management, stopping the holocene is not going to happen.

Why though?

 

[Akka]

I bristle when someone says we should not mention something not because it isn't true but because where the conclusions might lead.

That's been the bane of any meaningful discussion on most serious subjects these past few years here. Ideology is important, truth only relevant as a tool when it's useful.

 

[Gorbles]

Yes.

Well, then you're demonstrably wrong. Not only did the fuel prices rise significantly more than that, there were a bunch of other compounding factors.

We all would have to reduce our consumption magnitudes more than would have been required to adapt to this gas price hike. But even this was apparently too much for a lot of folks.

You're misdiagnosing the problem.

Referring to protests back in 2018 that occurred for a bunch of reasons including general cost of living isn't the same as theorising on what humanity would perhaps have to do in order to handle something like global warming, or apparently gas prices, or whatever.

I said "change needs to come from the top-down", and you said "the bottom needs to recognise the need for change". It kinda read like a gotcha, but I assumed the best of it and moved on. But now, given your "protests are bad because people don't understand they need to consume less" just seems out of touch with reality when protests like this happen from people being unduly impacted by capitalist profitmaking. Nothing about the gas situation in France, or the cost of living, or whatever, was because Macron was pushing some futureproofing reduction of consumption.

The "bottom" will "recognise" a need for "change" if it is communicated to them. Simply taking things away from people and saying they need to suffer to survive rings hollow when governments are doing nothing to stop the larger factors contributing (like businesses, and so on). Individual change is a placebo when the damage is coming from giant corporations that nobody deigns to hold to account.

 

[Narz]

Why though?

Do you see evidence that we're curbing our consumption, destruction of nature or short term thinking?

A boulder rolling down a hill doesn't just stop, it must be stopped.

 

[Senethro]

That's been the bane of any meaningful discussion on most serious subjects these past few years here. Ideology is important, truth only relevant as a tool when it's useful.

Does the Truth have an army or are you very lonely? Do you at least have a Silent Majority?

 

[Senethro]

Do you see evidence that we're curbing our consumption, destruction of nature or short term thinking?

A boulder rolling down a hill doesn't just stop, it must be stopped.

I see you saying in this thread that it's the fault of people, which I read as individual consumers. That might be wrong of me.

But like, why is it even legal to sell burgers and cause the damage that burger creation involves? Why are individuals even able to make extremely damaging choices?

It's an extremely rigged game to have a bad system with coerced participation and blame the individual.

 

[Narz]

I see you saying in this thread that it's the fault of people, which I read as individual consumers. That might be wrong of me.

But like, why is it even legal to sell burgers and cause the damage that burger creation involves? Why are individuals even able to make extremely damaging choices?

It's an extremely rigged game to have a bad system with coerced participation and blame the individual.

These are good questions.

We could have a thread "what is choice?"

I acknowledge the game is rigged, or @ Terrance McKenna once said "culture is not your friend"

So while that's all true there's really no choice but to take radical self responsibility. We cannot really afford to wait for external forces to evolve.

Also if you read what I've written I've never said the individual is solely @ fault. There are malevolent actors. But a passive approach is basically suicide.

 

[AmazonQueen]

These are good questions.

We could have a thread "what is choice?"

I acknowledge the game is rigged, or @ Terrance McKenna once said "culture is not your friend"

So while that's all true there's really no choice but to take radical self responsibility. We cannot really afford to wait for external forces to evolve.

Also if you read what I've written I've never said the individual is solely @ fault. There are malevolent actors. But a passive approach is basically suicide.

Taking radical self-responsibility sounds great, but you doing so is a drop in the ocean.
It needs collective action to deal with our current crisis.

 

[Narz]

Taking radical self-responsibility sounds great, but you doing so is a drop in the ocean.
It needs collective action to deal with our current crisis.

I agree its a drop in the ocean but it's better for people's mental health to do what they can

 

[Yeekim]

Well, then you're demonstrably wrong. Not only did the fuel prices rise significantly more than that, there were a bunch of other compounding factors.

You're misdiagnosing the problem.

Referring to protests back in 2018 that occurred for a bunch of reasons including general cost of living isn't the same as theorising on what humanity would perhaps have to do in order to handle something like global warming, or apparently gas prices, or whatever.

I said "change needs to come from the top-down", and you said "the bottom needs to recognise the need for change". It kinda read like a gotcha, but I assumed the best of it and moved on. But now, given your "protests are bad because people don't understand they need to consume less" just seems out of touch with reality when protests like this happen from people being unduly impacted by capitalist profitmaking. Nothing about the gas situation in France, or the cost of living, or whatever, was because Macron was pushing some futureproofing reduction of consumption.

The "bottom" will "recognise" a need for "change" if it is communicated to them. Simply taking things away from people and saying they need to suffer to survive rings hollow when governments are doing nothing to stop the larger factors contributing (like businesses, and so on). Individual change is a placebo when the damage is coming from giant corporations that nobody deigns to hold to account.

I'll bring a personal example.
I don't have a car, so I can't talk of gas prices, but I've recognized for some time that eating meat is both immoral and unsustainable.
Yet I continue to eat meat, because it is tasty and my personal abstinence would help exactly no-one. If I don't pick up that piece of meat from store today, they'll sell it at a discount tomorrow, so I'll end up simply subsidizing someone else's love for meat.
I would, however, support higher taxes on meat, or even a ban on industrialized cattle-farming. Basically, I am willing to limit my consumption, if others shall also limit theirs.
That's the only way we can ever achieve desired effect.

Now, how do you think it would play out IRL, if a government proposed a prohibitive consumption tax on meat?
I bet we would get riots with people shouting "why does the little guy have to cut back, the big corporations are to blame!"

 

[Gorbles]

I'll bring a personal example.
I don't have a car, so I can't talk of gas prices, but I've recognized for some time that eating meat is both immoral and unsustainable.
Yet I continue to eat meat, because it is tasty and my personal abstinence would help exactly no-one. If I don't pick up that piece of meat from store today, they'll sell it at a discount tomorrow, so I'll end up simply subsidizing someone else's love for meat.
I would, however, support higher taxes on meat, or even a ban on industrialized cattle-farming. Basically, I am willing to limit my consumption, if others shall also limit theirs.
That's the only way we can ever achieve desired effect.

Now, how do you think it would play out IRL, if a government proposed a prohibitive consumption tax on meat?
I bet we would get riots with people shouting "why does the little guy have to cut back, the big corporations are to blame!"

Because big corporations are to blame? Like, you can't suggest government intervention only on consumers, that's never going to work. They need to do something to rake in corporate profiteering. If they did that as well, you may find things work out differently.

I agree consumption would need to change, but the reason riots happen successfully (more often than not) is because of the targeting of people when corporate actions are to blame. Similar to (hypothetically) firing employees when they don't account for the overall expenditure while raising senior leadership wages by X%. That kind of thing. If they let a bunch of people go, but cut everyone in senior management's wages by 50% or something, you'd see a lot more muted reaction. For a historical example, look at Nintendo.

 

[Yeekim]

Because big corporations are to blame? Like, you can't suggest government intervention only on consumers, that's never going to work. They need to do something to rake in corporate profiteering.

Allow me to point out that my hypothetical - a prohibitive tax on meat - would also impact corporations/meat industry. It would kill demand for their products, so most would be forced to close down.

 

[Farm Boy]

If yall actually want to know what the productive cost of carrying that's been being done, rather than the theoretical, you could start looking up soil fertility tests and fertilizer requirements yearly for the major productive belts, then did into fertilizer production and availability. Everything gets mathed out to economic thresholds in tolerating year after year loss on the margins. There's a pretty solid economic argument for vast monoculture.

 

[Gorbles]

lso impact corporations/meat industry. It would kill demand for their products, so most would be forced to close down.

I mean direct intervention. Not something upstream from a reduced consumer ability to buy the product. They would be forced to close down because of operating for-profit. Try imagining something more radical.

 

[Lexicus]

Those two are not mutually exclusive, are they?

They are indeed