You must log in or # to comment.
I really dislike equating talking of ”overpopulation” with fascism.
The problem of building sustainable societies is a problem of scale. Inevitably, what a sustainable society looks like will depend on how many people that society has to provide finite resources for without causing too much environmental harm. Assuming we could agree on a lowest acceptable standard of living for everyone and a hard cap on emissions and other environmental harms of resource extraction, any population growth exceeding the rate of efficiency gains in resource extraction and resource utilization/distribution would drive a decline in that acceptable standard. And the reality is that efficiency gains are not guaranteed.
As land is finite, bigger populations by default means higher population density, requires higher extraction efficiency and scaling the average standard of living – allotment of resources and space – in line with keeping environment impact below sustainability thresholds. When using indigenous people as an example, we can note that they are often, conversely, characterized by low population density and low extraction efficiency. Despite low impact living standards, the world would not be able to accommodate a very large population relying on that as a model for sustainability.
The point is not to say that indigenous people living in traditional ways are inferior or less sustainable than people living wastefully in the global north. The point is that population/scale is a huge part in the equation, whether you’re making that point because you’re a fascist who wants to exterminate parts of the population or not.
Obviously, what is a good society with an acceptable living standard for all is hard to agree on. And so is at what point the human population exceeds the world’s capacity. But baring the invention of Star Trek like replicators, inter-planetary expansion or similar technological step-changes for humanity, every ideology infers a point of population overshoot where Earth cannot provide enough resources to offer an acceptable standard of living for its inhabitants.
The issue isn’t population, it’s consumption.
We don’t need a dozen different plastic tchotchkes delivered to our doorstep the day after we order them. We don’t need 64 GB of RAM for 10,000 steam games we’ll never play in 4k at 60fps. We don’t need to be able to order greasy piles of fast food whenever we want.
To me, blaming overpopulation for the world’s problems always comes across as saying “I don’t want to change my lifestyle, and if there’s 6 billion fewer people, I won’t have to”
Agreed, if we all cut out meat from our diet, land the size of both of the America’s and China are returned to us while still providing the same amount of food. 20% of the entire planets GHG emissions are instantly removed. Humans aren’t a virus, people who refuse to change their lifestyles are.
Thank you for this thoughtful and nuanced take on the subject. It’s sad that constructive discussion around population is often shut down due to the link between eugenics and population control. It’s often assumed that anyone advocating for lowered population is in support of similarly dystopian/authoritarian policies, when increasing access to birth control and education has the same effect while increasing personal agency.
I would also note that the theory of evolution has been used to justify all kinds of absurd ideologies, yet we don’t have a problem accepting its basic tenets.
If we accept the fact that humanity is in a state of ecological overshoot, and that overshoot is a function of population x consumption, then it’s entirely reasonable to want to address both sides of the equation.
Also “living in traditional ways” is at best misleading. There is already more than enough to go around when we consider actual physical resources. Using market mechanisms to determine how things are distributed works very poorly in terms of meeting everyones needs, and blinds us to actual solutions.
The idea of overshooting earths capacity is firmly rooted in extractive ideology (which is a cornerstone of capitalist economies) and doesn’t even begin to consider how an adjustment in economic output to meet real demand and not whatever is the most profitable, would result in massive changes in the way we do things.
Food production could become more regenerative because we need to feed people not make money.
Clothing industries would cut gigantic amounts of waste simply by ceasing the destruction of clothing to maintain high prices.
And these 2 ideas alone could revolutionize nearly every aspect of our existence.
Indigenous ways of doing is not extractive. It is better described as a collaboration with nature. Managing natural resources to meet our needs, and the needs of (often specifically) the next 7 generations. It means managing forests to make more forests, with all the flora and fauna that entails. Among other things
The fascist part is:
Ohh humans are the problem Okay, which humans? Who decides who gets what? Who lives and who dies? Is there any consideration for the power dynamics in our society (spoiler, no there is not)
In short the quote who ever said it:
Environmentalism without class struggle is just gardening.
The fascist part is: Ohh humans are the problem Okay, which humans? Who decides who gets what? Who lives and who dies? Is there any consideration for the power dynamics in our society (spoiler, no there is not)
That’s the part that always gets me. When I hear that argument it usually goes like this:
“There’s too many humans, we’re killing our planet :(”
“Yeah good thing you’re not one of those! Oh wait you are so…Okay, are you gonna be first in line to sacrifice yourself for the alleged Greater Good or. . .?”
“. . .”
“. . .well?”
Thanks for the good vibes, they’d also love this over on [email protected]
Feel free to crosspost!
Ima need yall to not crush a good imeperionstion that I do. I can do a great Hugo Weaving (as mr smith), and the main line that i start off with, or use in my head while saying other things, is the humans are cancer speech.
Also just… Missssster Anderson
Sounds like shrinking the population would solve the problem, as long as it’s a very specific 10% that was shrunk.
Just a little off the top.
Humans10% are a virus to the planetFTFY
This reeks of the “noble savage” stereotype. I would be willing to bet 80% of biodiversity being in native lands has more to do with how brutally they’ve been repressed than how “in tune” with the environment they are.
They’re people too, and I see little reason to believe they wouldn’t fall to the same human flaws as the rest of us if given the chance.
It’s called Indigenous TEK and it’s pretty well established.
https://www.firstnations.org/our-programs/stewarding-native-lands/
https://e360.yale.edu/features/native-knowledge-what-ecologists-are-learning-from-indigenous-people
https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/docs/support/sila_video/tek.pdf
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/tek/description.htm
https://www.bia.gov/service/fuels-management/traditional-knowledge
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TEK-Fact-Sheet.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_ecological_knowledge
Thank you for providing sources.
Except the fact we have lots of evidence that native population (which also includes pre-industrial European culture) built sustainable systems which includes altering the environment. Throughout North America there tons of evidence of the use of fire was used. The classic prairie environment of the Oak Savana is only possible through burns and supports a large buffalo population. There’s tons of evidence of strategic cultivation of trees and other plants within the Amazon rainforest that allow people to get food and medicine close by that to the untrained eye looks identical to the rest of the forest.
That being said some of those same people them destroy the same forest via slash and burn agriculture in order to earn a living for cash crops and more traditional agriculture. So profits is a main driver
So profits is a main driver
This is exactly what I’m getting at. If these groups of humans were placed in the same scenarios that Europeans or other westerners were placed in, would they not be susceptible to the same greed that motivated them?
I do not deny that many native societies appear to live in more harmony with the environment than your average westerner. There is certainly a lot to learn there, and I believe we would do better if we emulated some of those characteristics. However, I think that we’re all susceptible to the same flaws, as we are all human.
Ultimately what I’m saying is I don’t think that natives have some superpower where they have figured out how to escape the flaws that have plagued humanity for thousands of years.
So, there were indigenous societies that were highly class stratified, or did bad things to the environment. No one is denying that.
But generally speaking, indigenous peoples in say, the Americas, developed methods of agriculture and other forms of production that were more ecologically sustainable for their respective continent, than the European methods that settlers brought, and then revised to be more extractive.
The dust bowl, for example, didn’t just happen. It was a product of Colonialism. A region which was relatively recently colonized, had its forests and grasslands ripped up, in favor of shallow rooted monocultures that couldn’t sustain drought conditions.
There weren’t dustbowls for the millennia prior to colonization, but a sudden shift in the mode of production, to a highly extractive one, artificially produced an ecological disaster
I mean, the main sustainable feature of indigenous food systems is their small population size relative to the environment’s carrying capacity. Trying to feed a large city on hunted game would be far less sustainable than modern agriculture…
Sure, in some instances that was the case, but it’s wrong to assume that indigenous north Americans didn’t have cities or large scale agriculture.
Agricultural practices in Cahokia for instance, wasn’t a European style monocrop. Rather, “Farming at Cahokia was biologically diverse and, as such, less prone to risk than was maize-dominated agriculture” ^(see link above)^
And Cahokia was, for a time, the political and economic center of much of indigenous north American, with the city itself being of comparable size to many European cities in the same period.
While I agree that people are fundamentally the same the cultural values can alter their behavior. A culture that says Human are separate and above nature who should submit to it’s will acts differently than one who thinks humans are the youngest sibling to plants and animals who have lots to teach us. So by understanding cultural values, mindsets and techniques we can alter how we interact with the rest of the world.
95% of people can sing kumbaya in their little eco friendly circle jerk but if that 5% is over it and ready to fight over that belief the 95% better buck the fuck up and rise to the obvious existential threat in front of their fucking face or else they lose.
Oh look, that’s what happened.
What do you consider pre-industrial?
Agriculture directly led to the destruction of native biomes in any country that practiced it.
More people = more agriculture = more land cleared.
So long as most people who live die from avoidable famines, war and disease, then yes, it’s sustainable. But “in check” is probably the better term.
Altered doesn’t have to mean destruction. A human touched ecosystem can be different but doesn’t have to be a monoculture. There are a huge number of human specific plants, most of which we call weeds now, that only exist around people that can provide food and medicine to us. Looking at how modern permaculture farming works there’s a huge amount of diversity within their food forests which are directly human touched while leaving more wild sections. These wild sections are more native specific and their value is acknowledged instead of called wasted space. Humans are part of an ecosystem so we alter it but don’t have to destroy it
Many indigineous peoples uphold sustainability as crucial to their culture.
It is actually a common logical failing of Western thinking to assume that everyone sees the world and interacts with it the same way (like them). An unfortunate legacy of Eurocentrism during the colonial era.
The noble savage archetype itself came from Western schools of thought, and though it’s now accepted as overly reductive, that doesn’t mean that many Indigineous cultures do not live lives closer to nature and therefore put more thought into their ecological impact.
Indigineous cultures are layered and sophisticated. Some argue that principles of egalitarianism and self governance were introduced to englightenment thinkers through contact with Indigineous peoples in the Americas. Unfortunately a Eurocentric world view meant that crediting non European cultures for anything over most of the past 500 years has been discouraged.
Many indigineous peoples uphold sustainability as crucial to their culture.
Many of every other nation, race, culture and creed do too.
It is actually a common logical failing of Western thinking to assume that everyone sees the world and interacts with it the same way (like them).
See how the sentence describes the crime you just committed? Philosopher, heal thyself.
Many of every other nation, race, culture and creed do too.
Not in the way that Indigineous cultures actively do today. See the sources listed by fossilesque above. Indigineous peoples often find themselves in a position where they have to protect the environment from Western corporate interests (which are an extension of Western culture).
No, there is value in sperating out the West here. Let’s refer to the past 500 years of human history. You can claim that my approach is binary ie. western by seperating them out as an entity but the reality is it was their binary view of the world (ie. white people being superior) that has led us to this point. They developed the economic and technologic leverage to make that binary our lived reality. Ignoring that would be naive at best, disingenuous at worst.
It was less than 100 years ago that the average Westerner felt that white countries / cultures were moral, sophisticated, trustworthy and non-white counterparts were immoral, simple, suspicious. The noble savage is a rare stereotype that went off the beaten path, but it was still an example of yet another binary (they’re simple, we’re sophisticated) Western stereotype / worldview.
Coming back to the present day, was it not the Canadian government that signed a memorandum of understanding to build an oil pipeline to its west coast without consulting the Indigineous community there? I recall multiple Indigineous leaders stating they would take the government to court. That sounds to me like the Indigineous community in Canada (as one example) takes environmental sustainability more seriously.
There you go doing it again, despite being shown. Your error is deliberate, purposeful. Dangerous, disingenuous and dishonest. You only see what you want and think your blinders fashionable.
Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. As we are seeing, in real time, with the flourishing of the far right in the West. Thank you for the opportunity to contextualize my argument for you in my post above. Wish you the best on your personal journey to better understand our world.
Although I dont disagree, the argument doesn’t make sense. Do you think our worlds population would be the same if we all lived like indigenous people?
I watched a documentary in New Zealand about fish stocks. It was talking about how the fish around New Zealand are overfished and numbers are low. Had experts talking about issues with boats and how they need no fishing areas. They had Maori on there talking about how much abundance of fish there was before the white people came. They talked about how in tune the Maori were with the land and had ways to manage stock.
The documentary finished saying the issue is still ongoing and not enough has been done. Didn’t really go into why.
Well I looked it up after the majority of fishing companies are owned by the Maori and the reason the scientifically justified areas were not set as a sanctuary was because the Maori didnt agree and wanted to do things there own way that would allow them to fish at levels higher than what the science was saying is possible. On this matter New Zealand cared more about what Maori incorrectly believed over what the scientific evidence was saying to them.
People need to get off their high horse. People suck all over the world. Yea shock the people that live in mountains which remain untouched because it is shit farmland is going to have the most nature. But go to other countries and you see it’s the same, well worse than white countries. Places like UK has had protected land for hundreds of years. They set up protected land in the new places they went. Areas they left like Malaysia and India are full of rubbish and monoculture. They didn’t get better. Go to Indonesia and look at their beautiful islands. The tour guide said to us “look no littering sign. Only in Indonesian. Westerners don’t litter but the locals do”.
no littering sign. Only in Indonesian
Not really related, but in Japan, I came across a monolingual sign that said: “In Japanese culture, it is considered impolite to piss in public”.
Westerners don’t litter but the locals do
Have you not seen how westerners behave on vacation? Maybe you got lucky, but there’s a reason the tourist part of nearly every city has the most litter
The Japanese are better than the westerners I’m not denying that.
Probably because thats where the most people are.
When you go to Asia most people are locals. Even driving through areas buses and trains don’t stop the amount of trash is monumental.
Probably because thats where the most people are.
No, they’re often less dense and smaller than residential areas, and more walkable, but they attract people who don’t give a shit because they’re in a mindset where they don’t give a shit. They require a lot more cleaning too.
When you go to Asia
Already there. Also you should be more specific, EA and even Central Asian countries are reasonably clean. When you’re talking about places with monumental amounts of trash, you mean SEA and India, and even there, lots of places aren’t like that.
Places that are a bit more affluent tend to have the resources to dedicate to keeping the streets clean. Westerners on vacation don’t have an excuse.
The Japanese are better than the westerners
Maybe, in cities, but there’s a bit of a littering problem in more rural areas and in rivers. Also in the poorer areas of cities.
It’s not cultural, it’s moral and intelligence-related
As with all good vs bad discussions…
There’s another layer of complexity here that you’re glossing over, I think, and that’s class dynamics within the Maori population.
It could both be true that traditional Maori lifeways were more sustainable, and that modern, Maori owned fishing companies are over fishing. Let’s assume all of that is correct for a minute
The coming of the white man didn’t ruin the sustainability of fishing, because of something ontologically bad with white people, but because they enforced an extractive, capitalist, economic system onto the region.
Colonialism pulled the Maori into a broader world system which generated a group of Maori with enough capital to, say, found fishing companies, and a wide swathe of Maori who can’t.
And paradoxically, that capital generation from unsustainable, capitalist, fishing practices is probably one of the things that allows Maori communities to have a degree of sovereignty, all the while said fishing practices are undermining their ability to continue to sustain themselves.
That documentary is embarrassingly wrong, the overwhelming majority of companies fishing in NZ waters are huge multinationals, not owned by Māori.
Well I can’t see how thats the case when you can easily look up catch right and special areas where only Maori can fish.
They must be selling off their rights or not using it then because the internet says otherwise. Or you are just making things up.
So the Wikipedia article claims that Māori control about 30% of fisheries, with many citations, do you have real evidence which contradicts this? This includes things like Sealord which is one of the biggest quota owners, but is only half owned by iwi, so a genuine number would be quite a lot lower than that 30%. That’s not to say that there aren’t problems with the management, we agree about that.
“Altogether, Māori enterprises account for 40 percent of New Zealand’s forestry, 50 percent of the country’s fishing quota,”
They are also allowed to fish in ways white people aren’t and in place they aren’t.
If you google iwi veto sanctuary I’m sure would will find that easy enough. So I’m done with the back and forth now.
India is full of monoculture
India has 120 languages
I assume they mean crops not cultures
Well that’s silly. England is full of monoculture fields too, and India has plenty of wild areas. I bet they only looked at the touristy areas and assumed the whole country is like that.
Your meme has too many words and the four block structure makes no sense.
And the bottom 2 panels should maybe be reversed?
Tldr White people bad
It’s actually “TL;DR rich people bad” but sure, pop off I guess.
The final panel is, yes.
Look, I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the message. But if you can’t see how that is what it looks like it’s saying, I can’t help you.
Hey, if the shoe fits
White people do be bad tho.
Anne Hathaway, Emma Watson, Cate Blanchette…
Absolute baddies 🥵
Dude, there is a memes that are mutliple paragraphs that some people can recite by heart.
Just mention eliter snipers or vaporeon and watch the people go.
Come on, copy pasta is an entirely different form and they work due to being identical, or near, every time.
Theres a very subtle line where youve adapted them to the specific situation that they no longer work.
I distinctly remember being taught in 2002 in upstate New York that humans were outside of the ecosystem and not bound by the same rules and things as animals were. The teacher said that’s what made us so special.
What a fucking crime.
Humans are beyond the environment
Are we counting the world’s industry into “the world’s richest 10%”? Because, last I checked, random dudes in mom-and-pop shops also ordered cheap items from China or India.
Who is reading this without being part of the 10%?
According to this study, an income of $38,000/year puts you in the top 10% of carbon emitters. This study puts it at €42,980, or about $50K USD. That’s a little higher than the median income in N. America, Europe, and Australia.
That said, carbon emissions are just one way humans impact the environment; other facets are far less variable (we all produce about the same amount of human waste per day, for example).
Why does this matter?
We have to know if we have to change our lives or those of the 1,000 billionaires.
It would be easy to change our lives but it becomes difficult if we wait for the billionaires to change instead.
what’s the cutoff to be in the 90%?
Wealth distribution pyramid has $100,000 as limit to top 7.7%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
So $90,000 could be the cutoff.
Of course students don’t have that. However I would include anybody into the top 10% who will own $100,000 at one point in their life which should be anybody with real estate or a private pension plan in the West.
I’m not sure this person is aware what indigenous means. Unless, of course this meme is a 100% America-centric meme and largely ignores the entire rest of the world.
Also pretty funny that “eco fascism” is placed underneath what I assume are native Americans.
This is echoed across the globe, aboriginal people on Australia and others in the pacific islands. No, it’s not America only indigenous.
Switch the bottom panels in your head. They’re not meant to be associated with the up row. Oop poor design choice.
I get the intent, but I still think it’s funny that you placed eco fascist underneath the group the native Americans.
Btw, I still don’t think you know what indigenous means.
amazon, many rainforests(both amazon and mega-biodiversity of indonesia, south eas asia) is being decimated and untold species both undiscovered and rares are fast disappearing.
Ecofascism isn’t a real ideology I don’t know why people keep insisting it is. Almost seems like a deliberate psy-op to create divisions among environmentalists. But more likely people are just stupid and afraid and angry.
What do you mean? It certainly is. It has been, for example, an influence in several right extreme terror attacks (notably the Christchurch, NZ mass shooting in 2019 comes to mind, where the murderer explicitly described himself as such in his manifesto). Not to mention that crunchy, back-to-the land ideas are a really important part of contemporary far right propaganda.
I’d also argue that this doesn’t really sow division amongst environmentalists; just because it has ‘eco’ in the name doesn’t mean these people actually care about the environment, it’s all aesthetics.
Yes, surprised at these comments considering how much this stuff is some of the current hot topics in research.
Sorted by date:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&scisbd=1&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=ecofascism
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q="indigenous+stewardship"&scisbd=1
Biodiversity is one of my areas, chat.
Your post really called out all the “smart” people who have decided on a form of fascism to appeal to their idea of how to fix the world.
They won’t change their mind cause they want less people and they want to think it fixes stuff without having to read a study about it. They liked it during covid when there were less people to interact with I think and had comfort in wealth to not have to suffer the consequences and now just aim for it.
Good post. Love the resources.
Some people have just “never seen” fascism. Shrug.
The problem is Discrediting by Association. Any meaningful, impactful movement that challenges the growth paradigm and threatens profiteers is disingenuously categorized as ecofascist.
Reddit/r/collapse wouldn’t talk about population at all for years because of the knee-jerk reaction to lump it in with eugenics and genocide. They grew up and now it is carefully moderated and discussed well. It seems Lemmy ain’t there yet.
If you are an ecology dude like me you remember I=PAT. How can we discuss solutions when we self censor ethical and moral discussions around the P pillar?
Well first was this guy’s ideology really distinct or is he just a fascist who talks about environmental issues as a post-hoc justification to make his objectively deranged actions seem more reasonable? And if he’s just a fascist I don’t think he need to take his justifications seriously by giving him a newly named ideology.
But I didn’t mean there are no singular eco-fascists anywhere on earth. There are 8 billion people on the planet so I could make up a mad lib ideology and chances are it’s similar to what someone somewhere believes. But I’ve never met one to my knowledge, not even online. There’s no organized push for this or political power behind it. The vast majority of fascists don’t give a shit about the environment and the vast majority of environmentalists oppose fascism. So the only time I see it mentioned is when people get criticized for discussing the impacts of human population.
I understand why it’s a touchy subject. Past racist policies used overpopulation as a justification for crimes against humanity. But that the human impact on the earth is proportional to our population is just a fact, and it doesn’t make you a fascist to acknowledge that. You’re only a fascist if you think that fact gives you a right to brutalize people, and, as I’ve said, I just don’t hear this from any organized or popular thinkers.
And if he’s just a fascist I don’t think he need to take his justifications seriously by giving him a newly named ideology.
Giving an important branch of fascist ideas a name doesn’t “take his justifications seriously” in any sense of condoning them. It’s also not newly named, but been discussed in academic studies of far right tendencies for decades, at least since the 60s. It’s a useful category for describing a set of ideas which have substantial influence.
But I’ve never met one to my knowledge, not even online.
There are probably lots of ideologies you don’t hear about all the time. Instead of just rejecting their existence with a total lack of curiosity you could instead read about them. At least start with the Wikipedia page…
It has been, for example, an influence in several right extreme terror attacks (notably the Christchurch, NZ mass shooting in 2019 comes to mind, where the murderer explicitly described himself as such in his manifesto).
“Michelle Chan, vice president of programs for Friends of the Earth, said, “The key thing to understand here is that ecofascism is more an expression of white supremacy than it is an expression of environmentalism.””
just because it has ‘eco’ in the name doesn’t mean these people actually care about the environment, it’s all aesthetics.
In other words, it isn’t an ideology.
Something doesn’t have to be correct or honest to be an ideology. It’s a shared doctrine among a significant part of the far right that “protection of the environment” is their purported motivation for exterminating undesirables. That’s absolutely an ideology, even if they’re wrong about its effects or even dishonest about it. I don’t believe it’s all said cynically and knowingly either, and I don’t think that Michelle Chan, in that quite accurate quote, is saying that they never believe in the stories they’re telling themselves about it. Just that the deeper cause for their actions is actually white supremacy. It would be like saying a religious ideology wasn’t an ideology just because it’s motivations are not the actual existence of some supernatural entity but instead cultural forces, bonding, the comfort of rituals etc., and I don’t think that makes much sense.
White supremacy is the ideology.
Sure, that’s the overarching category. It is a subtype of that.
How is it a subtype? It has nothing unique to environmentalism and all to do with ethnic supremacy. They’re simply using racism to wedge themselves into actual world problems.
White supremacy also has nothing to do with white people actually being supreme, it’s about the narratives that shape the worldview of the people subscribing to the ideology.
I’m tired of people pretending they are smart and problem solving by by mass murdering most humans on the planet and stopping procreation.
You don’t solve a jigsaw puzzle by putting 10 pieces together and burning the rest so you dont have to deal with them.
Absoluetely no one is promoting this. I hear this bullshit argument every time degrowth comes up, but this has NOTHING to do with degrowth and is a bad faith argument full of too many fallacies to mention.
Then you should doublecheck who you have arguing on your side and who you stand with. You can pump your chest you do not personally stand for this but the practice attracts those that are more physically minded than you.
Degrowth sides with eugenics, racists, and psychopaths. Just cause you think it would save the world to make less lives does not leave it without those that will find horrible ways to make it reality as there is not other practical way to make it happen.
Degrowth sides with eugenics, racists, and psychopaths.
Nope. That just a deliberate mischaracterization driven by those who have a stake in growth and consumption.
You could be called a nazi for no reason too, it doesn’t discredit the ideas, its just meaningless noise. “Discredit by association” is what you are doing and it’s a popular trick by disinformation agents. Are you the agent or the useful idiot who fell for it?
Degrowth is very clearly and unequivocally a moral and ethical plan to right size humanity to where its ecological footprint can be carried sustainably by the earth. No technological miracle hail marys required. No deaths, no racism, no deprivation or suffering or state sponsored goonsquad progroms. Just shrink until you fits where you sits.
a deliberate mischaracterization driven by those who have a stake in growth and consumption.
Yeah thats what I thought.
So excited by who “degrowth” hurts that you dont care about reality.
And trump supporters aren’t racist or fascist they just want cheap oil.Good luck getting everyone to shrink without the reality of how that would be enforced. Enjoy your dreams that absolve you of reality because they make you feel better. I won’t sit at this table any longer.
I don’t know who taught you critical thinking or degrowth, but they failed. This is hard bigot nonsense.
You dont know what bigot means, just like you dont consider what you want will require. I disagree with you and what you think is right.
Removed by mod
