Your entire world structure is built on a finite resource. The infrastructure that uses this resource and everything that comes out of it are generating ecological consequences down the line. If your political ideology doesn't take this into account it's not a serious thing.
-
-
We don’t need a radical solution because there isn’t a real problem. Fossil fuels are super abundant with current technology. Alternatives to fossil fuels are on the rise to, but they wouldn’t need to be to ensure the continuation of the current economic system.
-
The continuation of the current system is itself a huge problem, even if there was no resource or pollution problem. Industrial technocapital itself IS liberalism, insulation from nature and selection pressure is systemic fragilization, enslavement, modernity.
-
Technology and freedom are inversely related.
-
Yes absolutely.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hey, I want an apocalypse as much as the next person, but I really doubt it will be caused by scarcity of resources.
-
Really the biggest candidate for an environmental event of apocalyptic proportions is ocean degradation > phytoplankton die off > 80% drop in oxygen generation planet wide.
-
I don’t know the truth, but am super skeptical of such claims. Environmental apocalypses have the worst track record.
-
I'm extrapolating from current oceanic conditions/trend numbers and relating that to where our oxygen comes from. Looking like about 48 years at current acidification/plastic proliferation rates until entropic cascade. Reversion is possible.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.