[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / baaa / baphomet / builders / chemo / choroy / pol3 / randamu ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 78th Attention-Hungry Games
/bimbo/ - Plastic and Fantastic!

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: bc27d7dfad5ed51⋯.jpg (362.48 KB, 1705x1135, 341:227, Screenshot_2019-05-06 Scie….jpg)

 No.2884072

Scientist to politicians: End oil, farm subsidies to save planet

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-environment-biodiversity-scientist/scientist-to-politicians-end-oil-farm-subsidies-to-save-planet-idUSKCN1SC1TI

This guy wants to remove subsidies for farming, mining, fishing and fossil fuel sectors but doesn't really elaborate. Mining and fossil fuel, alright, but what about mining? Cut back on mineral extraction (unlikely) or artificially synthesize materials (seems hard) or what? And fishing – what is to be done with this industry? Have people move to different diets and stop eating fish? How else could the farming, mining, fishing and fossil fuel industries be improved to be environmentally-conscious?

 No.2884075

What's really needed is to stem the articifial demand for crap consumer goods. We don't need to consume nearly as many resources as we do today, if we just rationalized production and got rid of planned obsolesence. This is why capitalism is a threat to humanity and must be abolished.


 No.2884082

>>2884075

What are some consumer "goods" that can be done without?


 No.2884089

>>2884082

Fidget spinners and other fads, useless acessories and gimmicks that nobody knew they 'wanted' until they saw some viral advertisement video on Instagram or whatever. Basically all the pastic toys and shit that you've never given the thought of day ever since you played with them one year back in the 90's.

Thing is, the worst part is planned obsolesence. One thing is creating a whole host of useless crap that you manipulate people into buying through mass-advertising; another thing is producing 5 times the necessary amount because you've designed your products to break so that you don't saturate your own, artificial market. The whole arrangement is inefficient in the extreme, from a purely socio-economic viewpoint.

No liberal can convince me that the market is rational.


 No.2884112

File: a826e236a3dd173⋯.png (135.47 KB, 378x396, 21:22, Death to fascists.png)

Going vegan is pretty easy, or at least going vegetarian lol


 No.2884114

>>2884072

>end farm subsidies

because famine is greate


 No.2884119

>>2884072

>The reports’ 145 expert authors urged governments to use money saved by cutting subsidies for habitat-razing industrial farming to incentivize agricultural techniques that could regenerate local ecosystems.

Without industrial farming we would not be able to feed the ten billion people the population is projected to be at by 2,100. Obviously industrial farming should be made more sustainable and carbon neutral, however industrial farming is superior to traditional agricultural methods in both output and labor usage.


 No.2884126

>>2884119

Is pork still the best food source in terms of resource input:output ratio?


 No.2884129

>>2884114

A better plan is to instead demand shift your grain production overseas, especially to a place like Ukraine, and then whenever you need food just demand they pay you directly in crops.


 No.2884139

File: 14922cec8f403ad⋯.jpg (80.53 KB, 600x450, 4:3, 14765707730510.jpg)

>>2884119

>Oh no, how are we going to save the planet and have 10 bajillion people running around at the same time?


 No.2884147

>>2884139

>hurr durr we have to many people to fulfill my reactionary primitivist fantasy

People’s lives are more important than your dreams


 No.2884149

>>2884139

We could save the planet without killing billions if we just rid ourselves of capitalism. This would also be more politically feasible. The overpopulation meme is a dumb substitute for actual analysis and solutions


 No.2884153

File: 207c8bd976dad56⋯.jpg (49.09 KB, 971x546, 971:546, Dmx4MA0UYAER5Ea.jpg)

>>2884129

Genocide bad

Human race good


 No.2884158

>>2884119

Without capitalism 50% of food in supermarkets whouldn´t go to waste.


 No.2884165

>>2884153

>Genocide bad

>Human race good

those statements fundamental self evident truths

>>2884158

How does this change the point that without Industrial agriculture we couldn’t support the current population? In feudal societies the population never rose above one billion.


 No.2884176

File: eedae948cf46826⋯.jpg (122.24 KB, 725x923, 725:923, 73ee658e9c3d5bcca3579ef50f….jpg)

We need to end factory farming and go back to permacultural ways farming


 No.2884179

>>2884165

>those statements fundamental self evident truths

Lots of people have different interpretations of "self evident truths". Why is your right, in your opinion?


 No.2884180

>people ITT arguing for a return to the stone age with agricultural technology

You guys do realize how much effort the Soviets put into building tractors and mechanizing agriculture?

>>2884176

>let’s go back to the time where scarcity had to be endured

I’d prefer not to

>>2884179

>genocide is bad

>people are good

How is this not self evident?


 No.2884186

>>2884180

>>let’s go back to the time where scarcity had to be endured

>I’d prefer not to

Modern agriculture isn't sustainable


 No.2884187

>>2884180

>How is this not self evident?

A Christian might say also, "How is God not self-evident?" "He does not need proof for his existence." Why do you believe in genocide being bad, and people being good, for example, and not the other way around?


 No.2884197

File: ac152900402af8c⋯.jpg (158.52 KB, 900x1246, 450:623, IMG_20181021_094327.jpg)

>>2884180

>>genocide is bad

>>people are good

>How is this not self evident?

How is good and bad not a spook if it does not pertain to me or my property?


 No.2884200

>>2884186

>Modern agriculture isn't sustainable

Not right now, but it can be reformed

>>2884187

>>2884197

If you thing “genocide is good” is wrong your pro-genocide.


 No.2884204

>>2884179

would you like to die? no? then you agree with him


 No.2884205

>>2884200

>Not right now, but it can be reformed

the best way for it to be reformed is to increase permacultural gardens, have people be able to grow their own food at a sustainable level


 No.2884206

>>2884200

>If you thing “genocide is good” is wrong your pro-genocide.

but this isn't what anyone is saying.


 No.2884207

File: cfe1e187cd5703d⋯.jpg (54.77 KB, 479x361, 479:361, laughevenharder.jpg)

>>2884072

It's too late. There simply isn't enough time left to migrate the planetary infrastructure away from fossil fuels. The time for that passed about a decade ago. There isn't the political will to turn off the power stations and chemical plants. The global population will refuse to surrender their automobiles and air conditioning. The climate is fucked and civilization is living on borrowed time.


 No.2884210

>>2884204

would you the bourgeoisie to die? yes? then you disagree with him


 No.2884211

>>2884205

People don't have the time or the energy to run a vegetable garden for themselves dude


 No.2884213

>>2884211

>People can't put a couple of vegetables in the ground but they can marathon Netflix series and spend hours at a time playing video games


 No.2884214

>>2884205

>the best way for it to be reformed is to increase permacultural gardens

which require huge labor inputs

>>2884206

but it’s true


 No.2884215

>>2884213

>permaculture is a couple of vegetables

you have a meme tier understanding of botany


 No.2884219

>>2884211

>People don't have the time or the energy to run a vegetable garden for themselves dude

Yes they do

Also the whole point of permaculture is that you don't have to maintain it at the level you would a farm


 No.2884220

>>2884214

>but it’s true

No one cares no one is making that argument


 No.2884221

>>2884213

Gardens require care and motivation, ordinary people binge Netflix because it's essentially passive


 No.2884225

>>2884221

>Gardens require care and motivation, ordinary people binge Netflix because it's essentially passive

Ok and?


 No.2884226

>>2884220

genocide is something you are either in favor of or against, their is no middle ground

>>2884219

Your talking about a hobby garden, hobby gardens produce some fruits or vegetable, but they will never produce enough cereals to be meaningful. Especially if you live in a city.


 No.2884227

>>2884225

You're not going to get people who already work for 8+ hours to start a vegetable garden


 No.2884228

>>2884226

>genocide is something you are either in favor of or against, their is no middle ground

Hardly anyone has an opinion of genocide. On the surface no one is for it however unless it effects a demographic a person cares about they generally will ignore it.


 No.2884229

>>2884227

>You're not going to get people who already work for 8+ hours to start a vegetable garden

They will if there is no food at the grocery store


 No.2884230

>>2884226

>genocide is something you are either in favor of or against, their is no middle ground

<Genocide of half the population is good

<I don't care if genocide happens

<We need a genocide not of humans but of certain species

All middle grounds


 No.2884235

File: 1ba82db411bc032⋯.jpg (244.17 KB, 1242x1484, 621:742, 1555957593519.jpg)

Primmies are reactionary. You're not gonna win any hearts and minds cutting food supplies and telling them to go farm like their forefathers did. Just distribute smarter, waste less than the shitton we do now, and run it greener. It's going to take concentrated political effort to undertake these changes though, but it's a lot better than anprim with cambodian characteristics


 No.2884238

>>2884235

>Primmies are reactionary

False.

>You're not gonna win any hearts and minds cutting food supplies and telling them to go farm like their forefathers did.

You think this is a programe or a policy proposal or something?

It a survival strategy seeing that modern agriculture is unsustainable


 No.2884241

>>2884238

You can reduce emissions plenty by just rationalising production and consumption. We don't need to abolish modern agriculture entirely just because its run inefficiently by the capitalists.


 No.2884249

>>2884235

Your post is precisely why we're all dead.


 No.2884253

>>2884241

>You can reduce emissions plenty by just rationalising production and consumption.

There are more problems than just emissions. Like losing farmland as a result of climate change

>We don't need to abolish modern agriculture entirely just because its run inefficiently by the capitalists.

Why wouldn't we though? A permaculture lifestyle is sustainable and healthier


 No.2884254

File: b2dd532dc6570f1⋯.jpg (168.3 KB, 750x751, 750:751, 1555982579357.jpg)

>>2884249

>Expecting us to trust a skeleton


 No.2884284

>>2884253

>Like losing farmland as a result of climate change

Which can be dealt with through genetic modification and improvements in soil fertility.

>>2884253

>Why wouldn't we though? A permaculture lifestyle is sustainable and healthier

The labor to food output ration is crap. It’s fine as a hobby, but most people don’t want to spend four hours a day in a garden.


 No.2884287

the only way to stop climate disaster is to

move out into high orbit

enough of terrestrial, nothing can be solved by still thinking in earthside terms

< powitewee asking a powatician if dey would pwetty pwease stop da destwuction of da pwanet uwu

kys fucking scientist pussy!!.!


 No.2884303

>>2884287

and how are we gonna do that smartass


 No.2884316

>>2884284

>Which can be dealt with through genetic modification and improvements in soil fertility.

Which would largely improve any permacultural gardens

>The labor to food output ration is crap. It’s fine as a hobby, but most people don’t want to spend four hours a day in a garden.

lol how is this a problem. If it is a necessity it wouldn't matter


 No.2884320

>>2884303

take LSD in a float tank and look a picture of Earth from space, the rest will be obvious


 No.2884324


 No.2884325

>>2884284

Lots of people are self-sustaining with their own gardens, look it up. They don't spend all that much time maintaining it either.


 No.2884326

>>2884316

>If it is a necessity it wouldn't matter

it isn’t


 No.2884328

>>2884326

>it isn’t

it will be once climate changes does enough damage


 No.2884345

>>2884328

Likely that you'll get rampant cannibalism before we reach that point.


 No.2884352

there's a lot of discussion here about the extent to which humanity will need to scale back it's industry to address the environmental future. that's a worthy discussion to have, but we need to overthrow capital first to really have this discussion, to really plan the world economy in relation to the environmental axis. i know this is an obvious, self evident statement, but it is important to remember the necessary prerequisite before getting too bogged down in the what ifs that will go unsatisfied if the current elite continue to rule society.


 No.2884353

>>2884345

>Likely that you'll get rampant cannibalism before we reach that point.

unlikely considering humans have lived as permaculturalists for most of our history not as cannibals


 No.2884361

File: 4e14531f4ffc6fd⋯.jpg (99.88 KB, 960x814, 480:407, airpollution.jpg)

File: a9ecc0fd9addc7f⋯.jpg (40.27 KB, 822x617, 822:617, pollution4.jpg)

File: d9cc265ea04c747⋯.jpg (56.74 KB, 645x289, 645:289, pollution2.jpg)

File: aec83f9047fddee⋯.jpg (56.92 KB, 634x546, 317:273, pollution3.jpg)

File: e47dbfb8ca3fa04⋯.jpg (115.64 KB, 720x960, 3:4, CarbonSinks.jpg)

Solution to climate change 101:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAWN2Qg92qQ

Economic warfare amongst Europe/the West/Japan/South Korera VS the entire world is the only true solution

Here’s a seemingly simple question: Is Canada a net carbon dioxide emitter? You would think so from reading news headlines. We’ve earned the scorn of environmentalists, NGOs, and media outlets galore, labelled with such juvenile epithets as “fossil of the year” or “corrupt petro-state.”

Sadly, lost in all the hyperbole is the actual science. There is nothing quantitative about the vague idea that, as a “progressive nation,” Canada should be expected to “do more” to fight climate change.

But therein lies the rub; Canada is poised to immediately do more to combat climate change than almost every other country in the world. How, you ask? Well, by doing more of the same. If that sounds ludicrous, let me explain.

Most Canadians would agree that our response to climate change needs to be scientifically sound, environmentally sustainable and financially realistic, as well as global, comprehensive, and holistic. Right now, our approach is none of those things; the public discourse is driven by a myopic, ideological obsession with carbon emissions alone. What else is there, you ask?

The answer comes from the most recent report (2014) of the Global Carbon Project, which states that global human-induced CO2 emissions were 36 billion tonnes. Of that, 36 per cent stayed in the atmosphere, 27 per cent was absorbed by water, and 37 per cent was absorbed by land.

That’s right — absorbed by land! Not all CO2 emitted by people stays in the atmosphere. Much of it returns to the earth, mainly through the carbon absorption and sequestration power of plants, soil, and trees.


 No.2884363

>>2884361

A conservative estimate of Canada’s existing carbon-absorption capacity, based on land area and the global carbon-absorption average, indicates that Canada could already be absorbing 20 to 30 per cent more CO2 than we emit. Using the same calculation, the “Big Four” polluters of China, the U.S., the European Union, and India, which together are responsible for a whopping 60 per cent of global CO2 emissions, release 10 times more CO2 than their combined land area absorbs. Canada doesn’t seem very dirty now, do we?

So when was the last time you heard a Canadian political leader, let alone the media, talk about our carbon-absorption capacity? Probably never, because we are currently ignoring that side of the equation, for a couple reasons.

First, there is insufficient political will. The government’s top experts need a mandate to pursue in-depth measurement of CO2 absorption. Recently, Canada’s federal and provincial auditors general announced a joint audit of the country’s carbon emissions. But what credible audit would examine only half a balance sheet? There’s no reason why they shouldn’t audit our absorption capacity, too. How much CO2 did our forests and land absorb? Do some trees and topographies perform better than others? In short, what is Canada’s carbon balance?

Second, it’s contrary to the interests of urbanized, overpopulated, deforested places in Europe, Asia & the Middle East to allow vast, sparsely populated, forested countries like Canada to set the climate change agenda. It doesn’t help them whatsoever for Canada to claim our fair share of the world’s carbon absorption capacity, and emerge as one of the planet’s climate leaders.

If Europe and our other traditional “Western Allies” won’t acknowledge the free ride that we are providing them by protecting our forests and thus subsidizing their emissions, it’s time for Canada to find climate allies who understand us and share our needs. It’s time for some Green Realpolitik.

We should seek out new alliances with other large, forested countries, starting with Russia, Brazil, Democratic Republic of Congo, Argentina, Indonesia, and Peru. These countries, and many others, will all benefit from a new approach that rewards carbon absorption, and would bring diverse cultural voices and political interests together around this important climate issue.

Many people in these countries have to choose between their forests and their livelihoods, as they scramble to survive the day. Some of them still clear-cut or burn their forests for the sake of agriculture or industry. But what if they no longer had to choose between planet and profit?

Imagine the kind of eco-friendly economy that DRC Congo, Peru, or any other forested country could build by generating carbon credits to sell to Dubai, Singapore, or Luxembourg. Countries on the receiving end of cap-and-trade credits could build entire green economies around conservation, not consumption. Financial pressure to deforest would subside, replaced with incentives to manage our forests and preserve their attendant ecosystems. As a bonus, Canada and its new, green allies could label all our exports as “proudly carbon neutral.”


 No.2884365

>>2884363

>>2884361

Imagine, too, the possibilities for indigenous people all over the world to leverage their traditional role as protectors of the environment into a feasible economic opportunity. We are constantly looking for ways to bridge gaps between modern society and native cultures, so why not empower indigenous people to take on a leadership role as stewards of the world’s precious forests?

Canada must successfully lobby for a world market on carbon-offset credits, where CO2 absorption is part of the equation. The potential impact is huge. Based on the aforementioned estimates of our absorption capacity, and a conservative CO2 price of $40/tonne, Canada stands to gain $10 billion per year. Think about it; we might currently be giving away $10 billion to the rest of the world, including the Big Four polluters, every year, for free.

$10 billion dollars in our coffers could go a long way toward balancing the budget, investing in sustainable energy, providing social programs, incentivizing innovation, renewing infrastructure, and generally improving Canada’s fortunes. So when Prime Minister Trudeau meets with provincial, territorial, and indigenous leaders, he owes it to Canadians to put this issue on the agenda. The only thing we’re really asking is for our leaders to consider the entire carbon cycle, from emission to absorption, in order to get the “balance sheet” right. Then, and only then, can our best minds get to work on making a climate plan that is fair for all Canadians, and that reflects our true contribution to the world’s climate solution.

It would be nice to end on that hopeful note, but the realistic future looks rather bleak. The prime minister thus far seems content to position himself as a goodwill ambassador to the UN and Europe, not someone who will go toe to toe with them to defend Canadian interests. Meanwhile, our other leaders are falling victim to their own political ideologies. Rachel Notley wants to kick Albertans while they’re down with a new tax, Manitoba’s Greg Sellinger thinks he can magically reverse flooding via taxation, and Ontario’s recent climate initiative is a case study in the myopic, emissions-only approach to cap-and-trade. Quebec mayors like Montreal’s Coderre blindly oppose the Energy East pipeline, forsaking the memory of those who died in Lac Mégantic due to the dangers of transporting oil by train.

Taxing Canadians to try to make planet Earth greener is futile policy based on a half-blind approach that only considers emissions from our resources, not absorption from our land and forests. Unless we change that perspective, the inevitable result is a drag on our economy with job casualties, increased costs, and lost business opportunities, ultimately weakening Canada’s ability to compete on the international stage. And for what do we sell out our future? To let the Big Four polluters off the hook? To be popular with delegates in Copenhagen or Paris?

By taking credit for absorption, we win. By negotiating a robust cap-and-trade deal between nations, we win. By working with countries that share our interests, we win. By getting the credit we deserve, and ensuring that the planet’s real polluters pay their fair share, we win. So, the question is, why do we let our leaders set Canada up to fail?

With a simple mandate from government to factor in the entire carbon cycle, our best scientific minds can get to work assembling the evidence to create an appropriate, progressive climate policy for Canada.


 No.2884388

>>2884363

>Second, it’s contrary to the interests of urbanized, overpopulated, deforested places in Europe, Asia & the Middle East to allow vast, sparsely populated, forested countries like Canada to set the climate change agenda. It doesn’t help them whatsoever for Canada to claim our fair share of the world’s carbon absorption capacity, and emerge as one of the planet’s climate leaders.

They will be the leaders because they are where economic activity takes place. Canada has a very tiny amount of people compared to the rest of the world. This is a weakness.

>>2884365

>Imagine, too, the possibilities for indigenous people all over the world to leverage their traditional role as protectors of the environment into a feasible economic opportunity. We are constantly looking for ways to bridge gaps between modern society and native cultures, so why not empower indigenous people to take on a leadership role as stewards of the world’s precious forests?

Indigenous societies are a relic of a feudal past. They won’t be leading shit.

>>2884365

>It would be nice to end on that hopeful note, but the realistic future looks rather bleak. The prime minister thus far seems content to position himself as a goodwill ambassador to the UN and Europe, not someone who will go toe to toe with them to defend Canadian interests.

Canada gets all the benefits of US Imperialism without having to send it’s children to the Middle East to die. This is why Trudoe sucks the US’s dick.

>>2884365

>ultimately weakening Canada’s ability to compete on the international stage. And for what do we sell out our future? To let the Big Four polluters off the hook? To be popular with delegates in Copenhagen or Paris?

Canada’s tiny influence on the world come’s from it being a NATO member. Canada is a small country that would have no influence on the world on it’s own.


 No.2884395

>>2884353

When you live in a capitalist society you are, in fact, trained to resort to cannibalism


 No.2884417

>>2884226

I'm in favor of classicide


 No.2884428

File: 3d77b45d1d5e00d⋯.png (2.51 KB, 331x294, 331:294, it's a big one.png)

>>2884200

>If you thing “genocide is good” is wrong your pro-genocide.

What did he mean by this?


 No.2884430

>>2884395

>When you live in a capitalist society you are, in fact, trained to resort to cannibalism

No you are trained to exploit each other which is worse


 No.2884434

File: 16a2bf738de8661⋯.png (103.28 KB, 1250x1250, 1:1, 1514075521750.png)

>>2884428

>be me

>be pro-genocide

>thing it's a good

>but anon say no

>mfw


 No.2884438

File: 4f34274e16d4cd7⋯.jpg (351.09 KB, 1025x764, 1025:764, 20190506_193800.jpg)

>>2884434

>be me

>thing "genocide is good" is wrong

>thing genocide is wrong

>be pro-genocide

>mfw


 No.2884443

>>2884353

There are 7-8 billion humans on the planet. We already subsections of the global population who struggle to find enough to eat. Any sort of large scale permaculture project is going to take at least several months to start producing any appreciable amount of food. Any large scale permaculture project is going to produce a fraction of the food currently output by our industrialized food production system. Governments seem largely disinterested in taking any action to change our food production systems, likely because hunger is a consistent method of producing disorder and revolt.

Ergo: The move to permaculture will likely be made too late. Regardless, there will not be enough food to feed everyone on the planet. There will be some starvation, the question is only in regards severity. Given the likely sharp reduction in crop yields, this is likely to be quite a lot of starvation. There are going to be lots of people left with nothing to eat but their neighbour.


 No.2884450

>>2884388

>They will be the leaders because they are where economic activity takes place. Canada has a very tiny amount of people compared to the rest of the world. This is a weakness.

Canadians should not be leaders because (as you said) we have a very tiny amount of people. Taxing our citizens to be a "role model" for the world will do nothing but hurt the lowest earning citizens as food, gas, etc prices rise. Meanwhile the upper class will still be living comfortably

>Indigenous societies are a relic of a feudal past. They won’t be leading shit.

They aren't a relic of the feudal past, if that was the case the native communities (or nations, as they call themselves) would have no say in anything whatsoever. Ideally we should be trying to preserve the indigenous communities and their beliefs, culture, traditions, values, religions, etc throughout the globe. Whether it be in the Americas, Oceania, Asia, Africa, Europe, etc

>Canada gets all the benefits of US Imperialism without having to send it’s children to the Middle East to die. This is why Trudoe sucks the US’s dick.

Canadians benefit greatly from US imperialism to the point where the elderly who have lived in Canada and paid taxes for decades cannot retire or find elderly/retirement homes they can afford meanwhile we give refugees from Iraq and Syria, etc free housing, dental/healthcare benefits, etc.

There are also tens of thousands "Canadians" who are homeless and could use this money for housing, rehab, medicine, etc.

Also lets not forget the fact that "minorities" have more rights and freedoms than the average Canadian.

>Amongst the highest carbon footprint per capita, yet irrelevant on the global scale because small population and mass carbon sinks

>criticize jews or zionism? antisemite

>criticize mass migration when our leaders and media and constantly telling us about how many jobs will be irrelevant in coming years due to automation, AI, etc? xenophobe

>mention that islam is not only a religion but also a FASCIST political doctrine with a goal of conquering the world? Islamophobic

>mention that if fundamental islamists had their way our members of the LGBT+ community would be thrown off rooftops (whilst providing statistics for this)? Islamophobic

>Literally lowering our education standards (when we should be increasing them) and supporting affirmative action/diversity quotas thus giving "minorities" more rights than the "majority" despite being less educated and less qualified for job opportunities and university programs

>Canada’s tiny influence on the world come’s from it being a NATO member. Canada is a small country that would have no influence on the world on it’s own.

Not only is this contradicting towards what you said previously (They will be the leaders because they are where economic activity takes place. Canada has a very tiny amount of people compared to the rest of the world.) but it also is completely insignificant and dare I say, incorrect. Canada's influence stems from many factors, Global leaders in science, technology, engineering, economics, etc. Canada is ranked 10th in the world in terms of prolific publications in scientific research (yes, even with its *small* population). If you dare to say Canada's global influence is due to being a NATO member (which many g7 and g20 countries are not) then please explain why countries with much larger populations (and even larger economies from a non per capita perspective) are not members.


 No.2884455

>>2884443

>There are 7-8 billion humans on the planet. We already subsections of the global population who struggle to find enough to eat

And it will only get worse with modern agriculture.

>Any sort of large scale permaculture project is going to take at least several months to start producing any appreciable amount of food.

thats how growing anything works it takes time that is why it is important to start.

>Any large scale permaculture project is going to produce a fraction of the food currently output by our industrialized food production system.

this is debatable seeing that there is a lot of shit pumped to consumers that don't do anything for them. An efficient permaculture system producing what people need rather than what tastes good is preferable to what we have now.

>Governments seem largely disinterested in taking any action to change our food production systems, likely because hunger is a consistent method of producing disorder and revolt.

If you haven't realized government don't go against the status quo until it is necessary to then go for the easiest option that offers short term appeal. The governments will not spearhead anything that isn't immediately a problem.

>Ergo: The move to permaculture will likely be made too late.

I agree but this isn't a reason NOT to move to permaculture it is only a foreshadow of what is to come.

>Regardless, there will not be enough food to feed everyone on the planet. There will be some starvation, the question is only in regards severity. Given the likely sharp reduction in crop yields, this is likely to be quite a lot of starvation. There are going to be lots of people left with nothing to eat but their neighbour.

There won't be enough food for everyone if current trends continue. Of course the urbanites will resort to cannibalism before the cities become sinkholes. However people who move to permaculture will be able to weather the storm


 No.2884461

Remove bourgeoisie

Establish production for use/absolute fucking necessities

Prevent intelligentsia and bureaucrats from giving themselves the cushy life

Make restoration and preservation the number one priority.


 No.2884462

You have to an idiot to believe the climate alarmist narrative. CO2 concentration is a function of the temp, not the cause. When the cold water of the ocean warms, it absorbs less CO2 from the atmosphere which leads to a build up of CO2 concentration that correlates with warming. Cause and effect has been flipped by the alarmist narrative

Stop being an idiot and check out the science for yourself.

The feedback equation in climate models have mistakenly attributed the warming response of the entire atmosphere to the tiny contribution of the anthropogenic portion. Humans account for about 1/3 of the increase, but since the models assume 100%, the model predict much more warming that the record affirms. Like 60% more warming according to CO2 concentration.


 No.2884467

>>2884462

>CO2 concentration is a function of the temp, not the cause. When the cold water of the ocean warms, it absorbs less CO2 from the atmosphere which leads to a build up of CO2 concentration that correlates with warming.

Explain Venus.

CO2 and CH2 gather energy around the infered spectum which warms the planet just enough so that there's more water vapor which causes a positive feedback loop of more and more water vapor in the atmosphere causing the earth to warm up.

Two atom noble gases don't have this problem.


 No.2884471

>>2884455

No, you're going to die.


 No.2884478

The same game theory calculations that led us to build 30,000 nuclear bombs and a bunch of concrete shelters is what has informed our national policy on the threat of ecological collapse from overpopulation and pollution. We've been locked into a path of inaction, because the task of making the sort of transformative, global changes that would be necessary to control the population of 3rd worlders and global industry would be nearly impossible to do, and might well not work even if we could wrest total control of the globe.

So the plan is to do nothing to save everyone, but to do some extraordinary things to save some people. It's the most likely plan to assure a reasonable outcome. They just need to keep people from freaking out too much and then wait for the collapse to run its course. It's why we don't give a shit about our crumbling infrastructure or our idiot school children. It's why any effort to extract wealth from the masses is downplayed and everyone is pardoned. Essentially, you and me have been written off as a loss. Can't say I wouldn't have done the same.

I mean 100% chance of "the best of humanity" surviving is better than a 0.001% chance of society continuing forward in it's current corpulent form.


 No.2884507

>>2884082

A new TV every 2 years. A new fridge every 4 years. A new [thing] every less than 5 years. No more personal individual cars.


 No.2884544


 No.2884546

>>2884544

It's a great video. I don't see any government doing what it suggests, however.


 No.2884565

>>2884546

>>2884544

After re-watching the video, I realized that I posted the wrong one. Here is the right one for all the return to nature wankers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8hnAB43O4g


 No.2884566

>>2884443

>>2884455

The food output of Industrial agriculture has increased tremendously over the past few decades. With new technologies their is no reason to think this won’t continue.

>>2884467

>Explain Venus.

Their is not even 1% of the oil in the world that you would have to burn to make Earth like Venus.


 No.2884596

isn't ending subsides a lolbert thing?


 No.2884600

>>2884478

and anyone honest who is well informed in these things knows there is nothing wrong with these calculations. Saving everyone from consumerism is an illogical idea.


 No.2884604


 No.2884606

>>2884566

>The food output of Industrial agriculture has increased tremendously over the past few decades. With new technologies their is no reason to think this won’t continue.

Yes there is its called climate change


 No.2884725

>>2884229

Then we are doomed to fail. Socialism’s appeal to the working class was that it limited working hours, increased living standards, etc. and right now with a resurgence of the term “socialism” at least, that is the association. Bernie says socialism is cheaper healthcare, being able to see any doctor, having an increasing wage, etc. and that appeals to people because you are offering them something. Telling them that socialism means having to start farming after you get home from work (MORE work for less) isn’t endearing anyone but environmentalists who enthusiastically self-flagellate for their industrial sins.

Socialism as the resolution to capitalist contradictions that heightened class conflict was a prediction based on the notion that socialism was better for the working class, it was them re-claiming their own surplus value for a society of greater overall means. It’s the appeal to their material needs. Telling them they have to start farming or else there will be mass extinction will just not work, even if it were true. We’ve already told everyone to start biking to work and going vegan and it’s not working, nobody starts denying themselves consumption on a mass scale even when they’re fully aware that the apocalypse is approaching as a result. They can barely stop using plastic straws, and furthermore you also get the entirely predictable result of consumerist ideology, people rendering climate change a conspiracy and having not insignificant portions of the population just proudly proclaim they’d rather burn a barrel of oil spitefully in their backyard than be told by a liberal that they can’t drive their pickup truck.

The only way you’ll get them to work more time in the day to produce their own food is if you threaten them with jail (eco-Stalinism).


 No.2884735

>>2884455

I thought the thread was about getting ahead of catastrophe. Sure, falling into pre-industrial farming in the total collapse of industrial society seems to be a given. But it’s not ideal. It will probably also correspond to a degree of re-territorialized production. People will once again be stuck to plots of land and given the socialist revolution didn’t have to occur, very likely didn’t occur during the apocalypse, there could easily be a ruling class that just transitioned back into something more semi-feudal. Hierarchies consisting of the ruling elite at the top, security forces and religious leaders underneath, and workers at the bottom, and vast territories of farmland with some big urban centers sprinkled in. Everybody is spread out in the countryside again, with less ability to organize successful revolts.

Note that I don’t even think this would happen. There’d be mass starvation and a reorganizing of industrial production around even smaller populations in smaller areas of the developed world before a return to pre-industrial agricultural society. Maybe in some areas it would re-emerge as desperate people try to scrape by, but those places will DEFINITELY be largely impoverished hellholes controlled by petty tyrants.


 No.2884742

>>2884566

1% of Venus is already too hellish on earth. And the point that anon was making is that the greenhouse gas effect is so potent in Venus that its temperature is similar to Mercury (462 Celsius vs -173 to 427 Celsius).

>>2884462

>it absorbs less CO2 from the atmosphere which leads to a build up of CO2 concentration that correlates with warming.

No dumbass, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water increases, but that doesn't mean what you think it means.

What is more likely (and fucking is) to happen is that carbon dioxide will react with water to form carbonic acid in a reversible reaction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid

What this means is that the more CO2 there is in the water, the more carbonic acid there will be in the water due to Le Chatlier's Principle. And this process is proven by decreasing pH in the ocean that is fucking coral reefs' shit up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification


 No.2884749

>>2884210

No. We don't want the bourgeoisie to die. Ideally they give up their position peacefully. Probably won't happen that way, but murdering people isn't our objective.


 No.2884750

>>2884725

>Then we are doomed to fail. Socialism’s appeal to the working class was that it limited working hours, increased living standards, etc. and right now with a resurgence of the term “socialism” at least, that is the association. Bernie says socialism is cheaper healthcare, being able to see any doctor, having an increasing wage, etc. and that appeals to people because you are offering them something

But that isn't socialism that is social democracy

Thinngs you mentioned (universal healthcare, lower working hours) while would exist in socialism aren't inherently socialist unto themselves. In this day and age they are used as a capitalist tool to prevent the proletariat from revolting.

>Telling them that socialism means having to start farming after you get home from work (MORE work for less) isn’t endearing anyone but environmentalists who enthusiastically self-flagellate for their industrial sins.

I don't think anyone is under the impression that socialism will have worse conditions than capitalism however capitalism is exhausting resources that make our lives easy.

If current trends continue the need to grow your own food won't become some policy proposal like you're making it out to be it will become a need.

>

Socialism as the resolution to capitalist contradictions that heightened class conflict was a prediction based on the notion that socialism was better for the working class, it was them re-claiming their own surplus value for a society of greater overall means. It’s the appeal to their material needs. Telling them they have to start farming or else there will be mass extinction will just not work, even if it were true.

Like i said this isn't some sort of policy proposal capitalist exploitation of the environment is leading to an eventual food crisis. People who are not reliant of fragile capitalist structures out side of their control for food have a better chance of survival than those who don't. I am saying those people should be the working class.

>We’ve already told everyone to start biking to work and going vegan and it’s not working,

Going vegan is just a spook. And plenty of people bike to work however it is only the people with no other option.

>nobody starts denying themselves consumption on a mass scale even when they’re fully aware that the apocalypse is approaching as a result. They can barely stop using plastic straws, and furthermore you also get the entirely predictable result of consumerist ideology, people rendering climate change a conspiracy and having not insignificant portions of the population just proudly proclaim they’d rather burn a barrel of oil spitefully in their backyard than be told by a liberal that they can’t drive their pickup truck.

Do you think I'm advocating for some liberal utopianism?

>

The only way you’ll get them to work more time in the day to produce their own food is if you threaten them with jail (eco-Stalinism)

Like I said people will start to grow their own food if they can no longer get it at the grocery store.

The point isn't weather or not this will happen but how to structure our agriculture seeing that right now our system is unsustainable


 No.2884753

>>2884478

The elites aren't anywhere near smart enough to do anything like that. You're a conspiracy nut and a fascist.


 No.2885019

>>2884742

>1% of Venus is already too hellish on earth. And the point that anon was making is that the greenhouse gas effect is so potent in Venus that its temperature is similar to Mercury (462 Celsius vs -173 to 427 Celsius).

Talking about Venus in regards to climate change is like talking about a zombie virus in regards to AIDS. One is fantasy one is reality.

>>2884750

>If current trends continue the need to grow your own food won't become some policy proposal like you're making it out to be it will become a need.

No it won't, Industrial agriculture is much more efficient than pre-Industrial agriculture.

>Industrial agriculture is unsustainable

In what way? Most of the time where it’s talked about as being unsustainable their are sustainable substitutes.


 No.2885081

>>2885019

>No it won't, Industrial agriculture is much more efficient than pre-Industrial agriculture. I already answered this

>In what way?

Soil degradation, climate change increased population, any financial crisis will just make that worse

>Most of the time where it’s talke d about as being unstainable their are sustainable substitutes

Yes growing your own food in a sustainable way not like these factory farms we have now


 No.2885112

>>2885081

>Soil degradation

This is a complex topic, soil restoration can be fixed in areas that were original fertile by crop rotation, and changing the pesticides that are used. In addition fertilizer can increase soil fertility, or plants can be modifies to require less resources.

>>2885081

>climate change

How would this not effect small scale agriculture?

>>2885081

>increased population

same as above

>>2885081

>any financial crisis will just make that worse

No it wouldn’t, a finical crisis wouldn’t make production materially harder, it might make production less profitable, but this has nothing to do with the actual production process it’s self.


 No.2885171

>>2885112

>This is a complex topic, soil restoration can be fixed in areas that were original fertile by crop rotation

This is a lot more resource intensive and time consuming compared to permaculture. Not optimal.

>How would this not effect small scale agriculture?

Less land would be needed compared to the amount of land for modern agriculture.

>No it wouldn’t, a finical crisis wouldn’t make production materially harder, it might make production less profitable, but this has nothing to do with the actual production process it’s self.

A financial crisis would likely cause price fluctuation in all markets including food


 No.2885277

>>2885171

>This is a lot more resource intensive and time consuming compared to permaculture.

Not when you consider labor a factor.

>>2885171

>Less land would be needed compared to the amount of land for modern agriculture.

Not for stuff like cereals which is what the mass majority of fields are for.


 No.2885285

>>2885277

>Not when you consider labor a factor.

the whole point of permaculure is to reduce the amount of labor than typical farmering, you're wrong.

>Not for stuff like cereals which is what the mass majority of fields are for.

so?


 No.2885324

>>2885285

>the whole point of permaculure is to reduce the amount of labor than typical farmering, you're wrong.

Permaculture will never be anywhere near as efficient as industrial agriculture in regards to production. Take the US, highly mechanized agriculture, around 1-2% of people work in agriculture, yet it’s the world’s biggest food exporter. This is why Industrialization and Mechanization of Agriculture is so useful.

>>2885285

>so?

Without cereals there would be no flower. So no cereals means no bread, pasta, or noodles. It also means no cakes, or pies. Want a backed good, no flower means it can’t exist. In addition corn, the biggest cereal produced in the US, is used for ethanol production, in a post-oil world, no ethanol means no plastics, or synthetic fibers. No medical plastics means life expectancy will dramatically reduce. No synthetic fibers means that more land for cotton production will be needed, and more land for sheep grazing. Cereal crops are extremely important for civilization, both as we know it, and as we don’t know it.


 No.2885336

>>2885324

>Permaculture will never be anywhere near as efficient as industrial agriculture in regards to production

Modern agriculture is unsustainable

>Without cereals there would be no flower. So no cereals means no bread, pasta, or noodles. It also means no cakes, or pies

So in other words no more poisons whats the problem here?

>In addition corn, the biggest cereal produced in the US, is used for ethanol production, in a post-oil world, no ethanol means no plastics, or synthetic fibers. No medical plastics means life expectancy will dramatically reduce. No synthetic fibers means that more land for cotton production will be needed, and more land for sheep grazing. Cereal crops are extremely important for civilization, both as we know it, and as we don’t know it.

are you under the impression cord cannot be grown in your backyard or something?


 No.2885337

>>2885336

>Modern agriculture is unsustainable

see >>2885112

>>2885336

>So in other words no more poisons whats the problem here?

Flower isn’t a poison, it’s an essential ingredient in many foods.

>>2885336

>are you under the impression cord cannot be grown in your backyard or something?

Not in the quantities nessicary for Industrial use.


 No.2885338

>>2885337

>>Modern agriculture is unsustainable

>

>see >>2885112

yeah i replied to that see >>2885171

>Flower isn’t a poison, it’s an essential ingredient in many foods.

yeah foods that are not optimal for humans to eat.

bread, pasta, or noodles cakes, and pies

>Not in the quantities nessicary for Industrial use.

then it will just be reduced


 No.2885355

>>2885338

>yeah i replied to that see

your reply was pretty bad, you argued it would take a lot of effort to make Industrial agriculture sustainable, which is true, however thier really is no other option, that allows for the sustaning of the current population.

>>2885338

>yeah foods that are not optimal for humans to eat.

>bread, pasta, or noodles cakes, and pies

Their perfectly fine in a balanced diet. grains aren’t what causes Obesity, that’ Soda and laziness.

>>2885338

>then it will just be reduced

If only plants produced by permaculture were used for ethanol production their would be a shortage of medical plastics. This would be a disaster.


 No.2885366

>>2885355

>your reply was pretty bad

<I can't contest your point

<your reply was bad

2/10

>you argued it would take a lot of effort to make Industrial agriculture sustainable, which is true, however thier really is no other option

there is permaculture is the optimal solution

>Their perfectly fine in a balanced diet. grains aren’t what causes Obesity, that’ Soda and laziness.

Grains turn into sugar in the body genius.

>If only plants produced by permaculture were used for ethanol production their would be a shortage of medical plastics. This would be a disaster.

source?


 No.2885372

>>2884126

Not food source, crops will always win over livestock. The most sustainable protein sources are insects and fish.


 No.2885377

>>2885019

No, both Venus and Earth have the same greenhouse effect in the same atmosphere, it is just that Venus is on a way higher level than Earth. Climate change is possible and potentially devastating to Earth since global warming fucked Venus over hard. The comparison is adequate.


 No.2885379

File: 42cb602ec907c30⋯.jpg (25.4 KB, 480x360, 4:3, net_use_corn_us.jpg)

>>2885366

>there is permaculture is the optimal solution

It is not the optional option because it is extremely inefficient in regards to the amount of labor input required.

>>2885366

>Grains turn into sugar in the body genius.

Yes, but this isn’t the sugar that makes you fat, it’s the sugar needed for cellular respiration.

>>2885366

>source?

A quarter of corn grown in America, the most common crop by far here, is used for ethanol. which is in an economy that uses oil, in a post oil economy the amount of land used for ethanol production will have to increase due to the inability of oil to be used for what ethanol is used for. Farming this land through permaculture (a highly labor intensive method of farming) will require a much larger workforce in agriculture than currently available. Sure you an grow corn in you backyard to eat, but you can’t grow enough to make plastics, or fuel.

>>2885377

It’s the same process, but the quantities involved are totally different.


 No.2885380

>>2885377

Atmospheric composition is not the same between Earth and Venus. Earth is 80% nitrogen, Venus is over 90% carbon dioxide. Venus is also closer to the sun and gets heated more.


 No.2885404

>>2884197

>My property means only things I can see right now in front of me.


 No.2885413

>>2885380

My point is that it is hotter than Mercury despite being further away from the Sun precisely coz of its extremely high carbon dioxide. It is all the proof you need that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is bad

>>2885379

>It’s the same process, but the quantities involved are totally different.

What a huge climb down from your previous post but my point still remains. The process of global warming is clear for all to see in Venus.


 No.2885426

If and when global warning happens, then do something. Why worry about something that may never come to be.


 No.2885453

>>2885426

It is happening right now retard.


 No.2885509

>>2885413

>What a huge climb down from your previous post but my point still remains. The process of global warming is clear for all to see in Venus.

Venus’s atmosphere is 97 times thicker the Earth’s. Mercury has no atmosphere. This is the difference.

>>2885426

It’s happing right now.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180329141035.htm


 No.2885511

>>2885509

>Mercury has no atmosphere. This is the difference.

And how do you think the atmosphere traps heat?


 No.2885521

>>2885379

>It is not the optional option because it is extremely inefficient in regards to the amount of labor input required.

the whole point of permaculture is that it requires less labor than modern factory farms.

>Yes, but this isn’t the sugar that makes you fat, it’s the sugar needed for cellular respiration.

yes it is.

>A quarter of corn grown in America, the most common crop by far here, is used for ethanol. which is in an economy that uses oil, in a post oil economy the amount of land used for ethanol production will have to increase due to the inability of oil to be used for what ethanol is used for. Farming this land through permaculture (a highly labor intensive method of farming) will require a much larger workforce in agriculture than currently available. Sure you an grow corn in you backyard to eat, but you can’t grow enough to make plastics, or fuel.

this doesn't your statement "If only plants produced by permaculture were used for ethanol production their would be a shortage of medical plastics. This would be a disaster."


 No.2885576

>>2885521

>the whole point of permaculture is that it requires less labor than modern factory farms.

But this isn’t true.

>>2885521

>yes it is.

No that’s soda, eating bread isn’t what makes people fat.


 No.2885584

>>2885576

>But this isn’t true.

source?

>No that’s soda,

soda is a combination of many things not one thing unto itself. What makes you fat in soda is the added sugar and corn syrup

>eating bread isn’t what makes people fat.

High starch diets cause fat gain


 No.2885656

File: 1081d8d54f4c830⋯.png (227.85 KB, 3000x2100, 10:7, ourworldindata_share-worki….png)

>>2885584

>source?

As mechanization increases the amount of labor needed in agriculture decreases.


 No.2885685

>>2885656

>As mechanization increases the amount of labor needed in agriculture decreases.

that isn't even involving permaculture gardens

do you have an actual source for your claims or no?


 No.2885772

>>2885685

permaculture gardens would require most people to do some work in agriculture. Compared to the present 2% of people, this is a major increase in labor.


 No.2885806

>>2885772

>permaculture gardens would require most people to do some work in agriculture. Compared to the present 2% of people,

and?

>this is a major increase in labor.

no permaculture gardens are less labor intensive than modern factory farms


 No.2885893

>>2885806

>permaculture gardens are less labor intensive than modern factory farms

That is so wrong that it makes me think we're all talking about two entirely different things. What makes you think that permaculture is less labor intensive per unit of caloric output than industrial agriculture?


 No.2885896

https://libcom.org/blog/climate-change-capitalism-problem-07052019

>Roosevelt's New Deal did not solve the economic problems of the US. In fact, the 1950s economic boom only happened thanks to the destruction wreaked on the planet by the Second World War, a massive devaluation of capital which restored profit rates and began a new cycle of accumulation. In 2019 we are in a similar position. Without a drastic devaluation of capital (the consequences of which would be tragic), the system is unable to produce an economic boom that would finance renewable energy and social welfare.

We either seize the means of production NOW or have a World War.


 No.2885943

>>2885893

>That is so wrong that it makes me think we're all talking about two entirely different things

the whole point of permaculture is that it is less work then regular farmss

>What makes you think that permaculture is less labor intensive per unit of caloric output than industrial agriculture?

moving the goal posts when beat now?


 No.2885947

>>2885943

How can farming without labour multiplying machinery require less labour than mechanized agriculture? How can reducing division of labour increase the efficiency of permaculture vs. current agricultural practices?


 No.2885948

>>2885806

Most people doing agricultural work involves a lot more labor than 2% of people doing agricultural work.


 No.2886006

>>2885947

>How can farming without labour multiplying machinery require less labour than mechanized agriculture? How can reducing division of labour increase the efficiency of permaculture vs. current agricultural practices

It's easier to grow some crops than others. The crops grown by modern factory farms are grown not because they are optimal but because they are profitable.

Food grows naturally and it is possible to cultivate this


 No.2886007

>>2885948

>Most people doing agricultural work involves a lot more labor than 2% of people doing agricultural work

Permaculture is less labor intensive than factory farms.


 No.2886011

>>2884566

We have more water on Earth than Venus, Water vapour is thé number one cause of the green house affect. What do you think will happen when the earth does heat up to turn that water into vapour?

Increasing CO2 is the forcing effect that causes H2O cas which causes earth to heat up. The relationship is not the other way around like you claim.


 No.2886050

>>2886007

>>2886006

Small scale kulak farms = famine.

Collectivization = no more famine.

The shift from small scale farming to collective farms and mechanized agriculture in both the USSR and China ended the centuries of famine. It also freed up farm labor to work elsewhere, advancing technology and improving the standards of living. What evidence regarding the supposed efficiency of permaculture do you have? Repeating that it is less labor intensive does not make the fact true.

You claim the major staple crops are grown because they are profitable, and that there are "easier to grow" crops. Even if what you say is true, it does not follow that permaculture will save labor or that it will produce more crops. Further more, a socialist economy would not have to produce crops for the sake of profitability, we may very well choose to produce your "easier to grow" crops under large scale industrial agriculture.

>>2886011

We have evidence showing that such feedback loops did not trigger the last few times the earth was very hot, otherwise we would not be here. The challenges posed by climate change are how to deal with food production and relocating people who's traditional homes become uninhabitable. We are not dealing with some kind of end of all life scenario, life on earth will continue, but that is not a win. Winning means preserving human civilization.


 No.2886258

>>2886050

>Small scale kulak farms = famine.

>Collectivization = no more famine.

>The shift from small scale farming to collective farms and mechanized agriculture in both the USSR and China ended the centuries of famine. It also freed up farm labor to work elsewhere, advancing technology and improving the standards of living.

The thread is about climate change and the effects it will have an agriculture not reminiscing about failed regimes

>What evidence regarding the supposed efficiency of permaculture do you have? Repeating that it is less labor intensive does not make the fact true.

Well it is that is the whole point of permaculture.

>You claim the major staple crops are grown because they are profitable, and that there are "easier to grow" crops. Even if what you say is true, it does not follow that permaculture will save labor or that it will produce more crops.

The whole point of permaculture is that you create a food producing garden/forest that is sustainable, will grow itself as they do in nature and protects against having a bad yield.

>Further more, a socialist economy would not have to produce crops for the sake of profitability, we may very well choose to produce your "easier to grow" crops under large scale industrial agriculture.

The thread isn't about imagining some utopian future. We are discussing climate change and the effect on agriculture


 No.2887523

>>2886258

>Well it is that is the whole point of permaculture.

Regardless if it’s the “point” or not don’t matter, what matters is if it’s true.

>>2886258

>will grow itself as they do in nature

When humans relied on nature for food (hunter gather societies) the population was a lot smaller.

>>2886258

>We are discussing climate change and the effect on agriculture

Yeah and regardless of climate change, Industrial agriculture will always be more efficient.


 No.2887544

File: 44708ff4791494b⋯.jpg (154.15 KB, 1080x1543, 1080:1543, 6ivvji4grax21.jpg)

>2019

>still having hope for the future

>still believing you'll ever retire or have the feeling of security

>still thinking you won't see some of the worst humanity has to offer before you perish

Quit being such dicks to eachother, form (real, not internet) communities, and become as resource independent as possible. Not only does this fuck over capital to about the greatest extent you can do as an individual/group (being self-sufficient, not being consumers), this is good advice regardless of your opinion on climate change, resource scarcity, biosphere/ecological collapse, economic collapse, social strife, etc.

Don't wait for technology to save us. It will only be used to further enslave us.

Start living outside of capital. Start living for the people around you.

That's the best advice I've got to give.


 No.2887594

>>2887523

>Regardless if it’s the “point” or not don’t matter, what matters is if it’s true.

<I don't like permaculture so I'm knit picking words

Not argument. Permaculture gardens require less maintenance than modern factory farms.

>When humans relied on nature for food (hunter gather societies) the population was a lot smaller.

We also didn't engineer the environment for food growth as we can with permaculture

>Yeah and regardless of climate change, Industrial agriculture will always be more efficient.

[citation needed]


 No.2887861

File: 1081d8d54f4c830⋯.png (227.85 KB, 3000x2100, 10:7, 1081d8d54f4c830b6e12f4c8fa….png)

>>2887594

>Permaculture gardens require less maintenance than modern factory farms.

citation needed


 No.2887865

>>2887861

>citation needed

https://www.familyfoodgarden.com/grow-permaculture-garden-less-work-more-yields/

I see you admitted defeat on everything else.

Trots fails once again


 No.2887914

>>2887594

He's not nitpicking, he is calling you out for making claims without evidence. Where is empirical evidence that permaculture requires less labor?

>>2887865

Amazing, suburban hobby gardening for middle age moms will feed the 10 billion people of the future. Oh and this is after climate change reduces the availability of arable land.


 No.2887938

>>2887914

>He's not nitpicking,

Actually he is.

>He is calling you out for making claims without evidence. Where is empirical evidence that permaculture requires less labor?

Because permaculture you set it up and it grows there is hardly any labor involved


 No.2887939

>>2887938

Great theory show the empirical evidence of it working.


 No.2887941

>>2887914

>Amazing, suburban hobby gardening for middle age moms will feed the 10 billion people of the future. Oh and this is after climate change reduces the availability of arable land

Modern agriculture is completely unsustainable after climate change takes hold it won't be an option


 No.2887942

>>2887939

Every permaculture project ever


 No.2888153

>>2887865

That link provided no statistics.

>>2887941

No, not really, while modern agriculture does rely on oil and in some places on mined fertilizer, the amount of labor required to make modern agriculture sustanible is peanuts compared to the amount of labor required to do permaculture.

>>2887942

>Every permaculture project ever

Does the average permaculture feed 164 people, for every person who partakes in it?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/207339/number-of-persons-fed-per-farmer-in-the-us-since-1940/


 No.2888178

>>2888153

>That link provided no statistics.

sounds like a personal problem.

>No, not really, while modern agriculture does rely on oil and in some places on mined fertilizer, the amount of labor required to make modern agriculture sustanible is peanuts compared to the amount of labor required to do permaculture.

No its actually the other way around. Once a permculture garden is set up there is very little work that needs to be done while modern argiculture(which is unsustainable) requires huge amounts of labor

>Does the average permaculture feed 164 people, for every person who partakes in it?

Depends on the size


 No.2888184

>>2888178

STATISTIC DO YOU UNDERSTAND THEM MOTHERFUCKER


 No.2888189

>>2888184

>STATISTIC DO YOU UNDERSTAND THEM MOTHERFUCKER

lol being this butthurt over gardens

wheres your statistics that modern agriculture is even possible post climate change?


 No.2888191

>>2888189

Whatever industrial production will be possible will have a higher food output/labour than some hobby project in a backyard.


 No.2888200

>>2888191

>Whatever industrial production will be possible will have a higher food output/labour than some hobby project in a backyard.

<I can accurately predict what the output of agriculture will be 50 years from now after climate change causes massive amount of farm land displacement

lol this is not at all scientific try again kid


 No.2888202

>>2888191

Nice strawman. Regardless of the state of the environment, industrial, highly organized and monopolized agriculture is guaranteed to provide a larger output of food than an primitive, anarchic and decentralized agriculture with the input of equal labour-time.


 No.2888236

>>2884082

If we just stopped making disposable shit that doesn't need to be disposable that would be huge. It would also tank the rate of profit but that's a good thing.


 No.2888327

>>2884089

So you want to get rid of home TVs and home computers


 No.2888411

>>2888327

>So you want to get rid of home TVs and home computers

this would only yield positive results


 No.2888655

>>2888178

>Depends on the size

Do you not know what averages are?

>>2888178

>Once a permculture garden is set up there is very little work that needs to be done while modern argiculture(which is unsustainable) requires huge amounts of labor

A modern farmer can provide food for 164 people, in permaculture everyone will have to farm, this is how mechanization saves labor.

>which is unsustainable

not inherently

>>2888327

no

>>2888411

ok, you have convinced me you are functionally retarted?


 No.2888664

>>2888655

>Do you not know what averages are?

What about it?

>A modern farmer can provide food for 164 people, in permaculture everyone will have to farm, this is how mechanization saves labor

A permaculture garden requires minimal work compared to a modern farm

This is how permaculture saves labor.

Also permaculture is sustainable modern farms are not.


 No.2888744

>>2884075

>What's really needed is to stem the articifial demand for crap consumer goods.

Agreed. Everybody doesn't need to own one of everything, Plus electronic goods could be made to last way longer than they do now.

>>2884082

>What are some consumer "goods" that can be done without?

Its not so much one particular good needs to be done away with so much as it is the consumerism itself. There is a reason why Samsung and Apple are constantly re-releasing the same phone over and over again year after year. The same reason why people have to go out and buy new furniture, a new car, new clothes, new mp3 players and other small electronics. And the same reason why private companies are obsessed with growth and expansion.

They're trying to sell more, they're trying to get people to buy more, they're trying to make more money, and they have no choice but to do so. They're a slave to the profit motive and they can't slow down or stop or they'll fall apart. Ever heard of a car manufacturer trying to sell fewer and fewer cars that last as long has technically possible with the best mileage? The answer is no you haven't, because that would be financial suicide.

So many things get produced in this system to respond to manufactured wants via advertising. Tons commodities produced on the market are not designed with optimal integrity, and in addition, we don't even have any large scale recycling for things that genuinely are broke down beyond repair. And we use plastic for disposing all of our trash. Fucking plastic, a material with shit loads of uses that can last for 1000 years without degrading is used for cheap packaging and bagging trash. So to help the environment, we can start by maximizing efficient use of the resources that we do harvest, while harvesting only what is necessary and respecting the habitat and regeneration rates of the land, and recycling as much as possible. Consumerist culture has to go. Its hell on the human psyche, and is actively eating the planet.

>>2884119

>however industrial farming is superior to traditional agricultural methods in both output and labor usage.

True. In addition, we do have advanced vertical crop technology and lab-grown meat around the horizon. Food production could be made so much more streamlined, efficient, cleaner and less demanding on the land if we overhauled our agriculture properly to vertical indoor hydroponics and cultured meat.


 No.2888768

>>2888744

>True. In addition, we do have advanced vertical crop technology and lab-grown meat around the horizon. Food production could be made so much more streamlined, efficient, cleaner and less demanding on the land if we overhauled our agriculture properly to vertical indoor hydroponics and cultured meat

Reducing human population as well.


 No.2888794

>>2888768

That is a very unscientific solution.


 No.2889019

>>2888768

Malthus is that you?

>>2888664

>A permaculture garden requires minimal work compared to a modern farm

citation needed


 No.2889020

>>2888794

>That is a very unscientific solution.

No its not


 No.2889021

>>2889019

>>A permaculture garden requires minimal work compared to a modern farm

>citation needed

every permaculture garden


 No.2889023

>>2889021

Do you have statistics?


 No.2889024

>>2889023

Yeah every permaculture project is a case study you can research this yourself


 No.2889025

>>2889024

Looking at one farm or garden isn’t a statistic, I’m asking you if you have imperial arguments to back up your claims?


 No.2889026

>>2889023

>primmies

>reading statistics

>reading at all

daily reminder that primmies are reactionaries


 No.2889028

>>2889025

*imperial evidence


 No.2889029

>>2889028

Empirical*, comrade trot


 No.2889035

>>2889025

>Looking at one farm or garden isn’t a statistic, I’m asking you if you have imperial arguments to back up your claims?

then look at all of them. The methods used by permaculture are less labor intensive than modern farming.


 No.2889036

>>2889035

>then look at all of them

Also called statistics. This is why we're asking you to provide statistics.

Post statistics, primmie-nigger


 No.2889037

>>2889035

Your clearly arguing in bad faith. I asked for empirical evidence, and you just avoided the question.


 No.2889038

>>2889036

>Also called statistics. This is why we're asking you to provide statistics.

>

>Post statistics, primmie-nigger

Just look at the methods utilized by permaculture its less labor intensive


 No.2889040

>>2889037

>Your clearly arguing in bad faith. I asked for empirical evidence, and you just avoided the question.

No i answered you're question and you deflect.

Also you've been moving the goal posts frequently. If anyone is arguing in bad faith it is you


 No.2889043

>>2889040

No you haven’t. You have said over and over again “permaculture is less labor intensive.” But you have not proven your claim.


 No.2889050

>>2889043

>No you haven’t. You have said over and over again “permaculture is less labor intensive.” But you have not proven your claim.

because it is. You just have to look up basic permaculture not everything has a statistic attached to it


 No.2889071

File: 4082d978acc85ac⋯.jpg (39.97 KB, 645x729, 215:243, Brainlit2.jpg)


 No.2889078

File: bdde3d81a3e88b8⋯.jpg (79.16 KB, 778x736, 389:368, jd11g37u2fo11.jpg)

>>2889071

I see you ran out of arguments.

QED


 No.2889091

>>2889078

no you have, you have no empirical evidence for you claims, therefore your claims are invalid.


 No.2889298

>>2889091

I already posted it


 No.2889442

Stop pollution.

Carbon is fine, the world isn't going to destroy itself with climate change that is absolutely downs. For almost the entire history of earth it has hard far higher co2 levels than now. High co2 means a greener earth and larger insects (after greener earth boosts oxygen content.)

As for pollution what we do in north america is almost entire irrelevant, you'll wanna look to china and india and whatnot. As for what they could do it is pretty simple, one step would be to stop pouring literal truckloads of garbage bags into rivers.

Banning plastic straws and whatnot in the west is a retarded larp though. Totally useless and deserving of scorn.


 No.2889492

You all realize that the environmentalists will not accept anything less than massive population reduction, and even after the massive population reduction will maintain an intense pressure on the survivors in order to discipline and condition the work force? Arguing about how fucked we are is irrelevant because the people in politics don't want a solution. They want an excuse. Decent people don't just say, "welp, it's time to fuck over some people, the sooner the better" and repeatedly reject every possible solution that would resolve the crisis, or even mitigate the suffering of the people. We have solutions now that would limit the suffering of the people, that wouldn't even be that much of a cost to the ruling classes or the people in general, that are quite obvious. Once in a while, they are implemented out of necessity or expedience, but the eco-Nazis will never stop screaming, even after they get what they want. It's just a perpetual race to see how awful humans can be.

The reality for poor burgers is that their carbon footprint is shrinking considerably, especially if they're in the cities and can afford to sacrifice their car (or, more likely, they just can't afford one any more). I don't have the money for a car any more. I've cut my food bill to approximately $140-150 a month and made the decision to eat meat for only 3 meals a week (part out of the cost of meat, part for health reasons). That's not enough, though. Nothing I do will be enough. I'm always expected to beg and crawl and justify my existence, while a good part of the middle class is engaged in so-called "work" that is actively harmful to people. NEETs are shamed, but people whose total work output is less than zero worth towards making anyone's life better are praised and told by the ideas in this society that they are workers with dignity.

I mean, I'm not complaining too much. I expect little out of life, and compared to a lot of other people in my social position I have it quite good. I'm fine with not having a car, or cutting meat out of my diet if I have to. But, when I see environmentalists support the grossly destructive educated class and its proclivities, and place literally all the blame for this on uneducated scum like myself who are already being pushed down into precarious work, begging for disability, and so much degradation, I'm not going to be sympathetic to any policies that cater to the former and attack ruthlessly the latter.

The fact that stores are already throwing out a substantial part of the agricultural product on their shelves should tell us all we need to know. The problem isn't production or environmental degradation, but almost all of it is distribution and the mechanisms of the market being one of the worst ways to parcel out resources one can imagine. Environmental degradation is a problem in the long term, but nothing that happens will mean "OMG CIVILIZATION IS GOING TO DIE". The rulers and upper classes set up this society such that it can tolerate 50-90% of its population being outright genocided, and ideological control and conditioning is tighter now than it has ever been, so it would be relatively easy to raise a part of the lower classes to attack decency like slavering dogs. I don't see any realistic possibility of resistance.


 No.2889521

>>2889492

It's way more fundamental than a mere distribution problem; the literal building blocks of civilization are unsustainable and ultimately choking the life out of the planet and ourselves:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-most-destructive-material-on-earth?fbclid=IwAR3NPSrJlOXVoEbksZi8lDxhVsJHhQH-8bOyWrKSK7H0QaiV9AhFAmAzGzM


 No.2889648

>>2889521

>It's way more fundamental than a mere distribution problem

No it’s not.

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/concrete-change-making-cement-carbon-negative


 No.2889722

How have people not realized that the reason Green ideology keeps tending towards genocide is because it is specifically made for it? It's Malthusianism built on a house of cards.


 No.2889729

>>2889722

Calling something Malthusian then saying it's wrong because of that is just being mad someone hurt your feelings


 No.2889763

>>2889729

At least Malthus just based his case on historical information and came to conclusions. The Greens set out to build a model of the environment which curiously arrives at their desired solution from the outset. There isn't even a pretense of intellectual honesty, and you should be able to tell from how they talk that they find this talk of population control (i.e., genocide) delightful.


 No.2889798

>>2889763

There's a Finnish Green whose in his 70's and openly advocates nuking Africa


 No.2890330

I think this is mostly against subsidized coal mining and it's not against fish entirely just the practice of depletion of fish due to over fishing.


 No.2890371

>>2884207

agreed but wat do? live the meme and sleep when we're dead?


 No.2890384

>>2890371

>agreed but wat do? live the meme and sleep when we're dead?

people only think that because they are weak and down want to live their comfy suburban lifestyle

the planet isn't "fucked" your first world lifestyle is.


 No.2890674

File: a4759585351e963⋯.gif (129.74 KB, 700x692, 175:173, ncmo01_0.gif)

We can keep civilization running as long we can figure out a way to replace the 3 cubic miles of oil we use each year. Good luck with that.


 No.2890677

>>2890384

Isn't the whole point of civilization to eventually let everyone on the planet live a first world comfy lifestyle?


 No.2890688

>>2890674

52 nuclear power plants is pretty doable. Just not under any kind of capitalist system.


 No.2890694

>>2890688

>52 nuclear power plants is pretty doable

That's 156 per year, every year, not including future electricity needs. And no it's not:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340212459124


 No.2890745

>>2890694

>you have to build new nuclear power plants every year because they stop working at the end of the year


 No.2890748

>>2890745

Yeah, no, wait a minute. Your picture is a literal lie.

At the end of the year, the cubic mile of oil is used up, expended, gone. The other sources of energy except for the coal (which probably has so many cubic miles of use per year) aren't going to be expended. You'd need to build the other energy sources at the rate at which energy consumption grows as a year over year percentage, they don't vanish like the oil or coal does.


 No.2890749

>>2884072

>How else could the farming, mining, fishing and fossil fuel industries be improved to be environmentally-conscious?

Fishing, try to use science to manually repopulate fish stocks. Farming, go back to traditional organic farming stop using phosphates and pesticides and shit. Also research agroforestry

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agroforestry

https://www.usda.gov/topics/forestry/agroforestry


 No.2890951

>>2890677

>Isn't the whole point of civilization to eventually let everyone on the planet live a first world comfy lifestyle?

why is there an inherent "point" to civilization?

Even if there was this is not true because first world is a new concept and civilization is ancient

Also the lifestyle of the first world is constantly changing


 No.2891003

>>2890951

It doesn't matter if the first world is new, it's currently the most successful and has outcompeted most of the planet for resources.


 No.2891004

>>2891003

>It doesn't matter if the first world is new, it's currently the most successful and has outcompeted most of the planet for resources.

ok what does this have to do with anything I said?


 No.2891024

>>2890748

>>2890745

>I have bad reading comprehension so it's a lie!

Yeah, they keep producing energy, but then you're supposed realize you have to build them for 50 years just to catch up with one year, and the whole thing moves into following year which means duplicating the whole process. So it's not a fixed sum, it's a cumulative one.

The author wrote the book one cubic mile of oil because it was supposed to be an easy way of visualizing our energy consumption. You can watch the author give a quick talk, before he degenerates into thorium utopianism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpXG3zyg3gk


 No.2891025

>>2891004

Then what exactly are you saying?


 No.2891038

>>2891025

why is there an inherent "point" to civilization?

Even if there was this is not true because first world is a new concept and civilization is ancient

Also the lifestyle of the first world is constantly changing


 No.2891113

>>2891024

> and the whole thing moves into following year which means duplicating the whole process.

That was exactly what I was addressing.

Let's assume we build the 2,600 nuclear plants that're required to replace an entire cubic mile of oil. That's not even that bad, that's enough to start replacing the thousands of coal and oil fired power plants across the globe (and of which you could likely use parts for the nuclear plant, as I've described in other threads about nuclear power). When you've made those 2,600 plants, you have cut oil usage down to 2 cubic miles per year, you don't have to build another 2,600 to replace the third that's been replaced by the nuclear plants themselves.


 No.2891233

>>2891113

Since we're on this.

>A conventional nuclear power plant produces hazardous radioactive waste, raises fears of radiation or nuclear proliferation, requires 4 years to construct for a 60-year lifetime, occupies about 4 km2, and may cost upwards of US$5 billion.

>produces hazardous radioactive waste

Over 90% of nuclear waste is still perfectly usable fuel, the only reason it's not reprocessed is because of legal reasons

> raises fears of radiation or nuclear proliferation

Oh noes.

>requires 4 years to construct for a 60-year lifetime

Literally longer than we'll have oil at current consumption

>occupies about 4 km2,

'kay. We can look at freeing up other sites while we do this.

>may cost upwards of US$5 billion.

Proof that capitalism dies with fossil fuels and that the future is nuclear.


 No.2891281


 No.2891323

>>2891281

>>2891233

The future is nuclear fusion reactors, for now have to concentrate on renewable energy sources.


 No.2891527


 No.2891560

>>2891527

The mechanically confined fusion reactor by General Fusion doesn't have the same problems of ITER or the tokamak and just brute forces a fusion confinement.


 No.2891576

>>2891560

>Wacko shit

Actual Fusion scientists and students literally laugh at those wacko investor scams:

https://youtu.be/loRegU0zuTY?t=4294


 No.2891587

>>2891576

Mechanically confined fusion is the least "wacko shit" version of fusion where you just build a reactor vessel that contains a small fusion explosion rather than trying to carefully maintain a steady fusion reaction over time.


 No.2891636

File: b621fdab28de091⋯.pdf (1.6 MB, IEEE_Solar_Hydrogen_Paper.pdf)

What is your opinion on this? Why aren't these energy sources more talked about?


 No.2891673

>>2884072

Step 1: Blame China and India because kneecapping the west won't save the environment


 No.2891698

>>2884147

Tell that to chinese as they walk around unconscious people in the street like ants


 No.2891739

>>2891719

I agree with you that global warming is made up by the elite, but Judaism and Israel have nothing to do with it.


 No.2891753

>>2884112

>shrinks brain mass for the sake of mother nature

Fk off.


 No.2891764

>>2891698

Fuck off you rascist retard.


 No.2891818

>>2884158

Food waste seems like a bad target. You know what doesn’t end up wasting and rottinv when people buy it? Twinkies. Let’s not all grow fat on socialist Twinkies.

>>2889442

Insect sizes are based on oxygen levels, not carbon dioxide levels. You’re wrong about the more carbonish earth.

>>2884352

Wrong way. We need a lot of metal to replace existing infrastructure. The hardest part of environmentalism right now is reindustrializing without making the problem worse.


 No.2891825

>>2891636

Interesting. Solar power plus hydrogen as a concentration, storage, and transport factor. Still has the problem of requiring massive expansions of solar power.

That paper certainly argues hard against nuclear. 80 years reserve - or 5 at total conversion. So it claims. Fate of the World (good game, btw) used similar nuke-negative estimation. The economics also look atrocious by that info. If that’s good info someone should tell NationStates they’re overly nuclear optimistic.

Solar can also power air to gas, but burning recovered carbon puts it back into the air again. Burning hydrogen doesn’t have that issue. But I think overall my favorite thing about hydrogen power is also my least favorite thing about hydrogen power: I am flagrantly unsuitable to having a well-developed opinion.


 No.2891838

>>2884207

If it really comes down to that, start literally turning off the power stations with zero prep. Tell people, “Nah, your bucks is solar panels now, or you don’t get the lectric-a-trees no more. Mortgage up again and eat the pricetag, peasants.”

It’d be chaos, but it’d clear out. Whether it can actually be done depends on how much assassination tolerance the government has. Total breach scenarios would go down in the minds of paranoid hateslaves, interfering with everyone else’s adaptations. Normals wouldn’t breach, but they would sympathize. The phrase of the day is “aid and comfort.”. At the end of the day people would give up their AC, and the fossil fuel use would stay gone, but the halls of government would burn to achieve that.

Could’ve sworn I had an early post in this thread, but I can’t find it. Funny thing, that. We’re not to have too much to think.


 No.2891842

File: 63cbbc7f0467f4d⋯.png (109.44 KB, 900x795, 60:53, D5E8A949-88AC-41ED-BB21-01….png)

Since the mods have deleted at least one post in this thread, I’ve saved a copy of the thread.

Have some illegal wrongthink art and a rare threadsnipe. It’s the hypermoderated shitfest artificially manipulated discourse that keeps this place amusing enough to use.


 No.2891851

Reading again… Yeah, I’m not seeing it. This thread should have an early post (around the complaint about fidget spinners) advocating research funding for laboratory meat alongside heavy sugar taxes. Shockingly, someone else mentions meat vats, but MY post about them is gone.

Sugar and starch taxes would reduce the much-hated passivity of the population by improving their energy levels in a smooth, safe way (vs dosing everyone with meth, which would be a very dangerous energy). With less swiftly digesting carbohydrates in their diets people would feel less dreadful all the time. They wouldn’t be as inclined to spend hours in entertainment trying to forget how hopelessly disempowered their lives are. (Most people don’t have the rhetorical faculty I prod the world with.) Increased productivity and fewer health drains mean more resources for acquiring and installing solar panels, as well as whatever other mitigations are needed. Better health will also improve hardship tolerance during whatever transitional steps are needed.

I’m not sure if I mentioned it before, but I ought to mention it now: tariffs can be used for ecological purposes. Apply them proportionally to pollution loads in source nations so that goods are shifted to where they are produced most ecologically. Trump’s steel tariffs are a smart idea that could be further refined and made part of globalist ecological diplomacy; this is true because the US recycles a lot of steel.

Additionally, it may be possible to saddle the economy with founder tariffs that promise protection from external competition for novel recycling firms. This could serve as inspiration and doesn’t strictly have to protect existing industry.

(restore)

Reading again… Yeah, I’m not seeing it. This thread should have an early post (around the complaint about fidget spinners) advocating research funding for laboratory meat alongside heavy sugar taxes. Shockingly, someone else mentions meat vats, but MY post about them is gone.

Sugar and starch taxes would reduce the much-hated passivity of the population by improving their energy levels in a smooth, safe way (vs dosing everyone with meth, which would be a very dangerous energy). With less swiftly digesting carbohydrates in their diets people would feel less dreadful all the time. They wouldn’t be as inclined to spend hours in entertainment trying to forget how hopelessly disempowered their lives are. (Most people don’t have the rhetorical faculty I prod the world with.) Increased productivity and fewer health drains mean more resources for acquiring and installing solar panels, as well as whatever other mitigations are needed. Better health will also improve hardship tolerance during whatever transitional steps are needed.

I’m not sure if I mentioned it before, but I ought to mention it now: tariffs can be used for ecological purposes. Apply them proportionally to pollution loads in source nations so that goods are shifted to where they are produced most ecologically. Trump’s steel tariffs are a smart idea that could be further refined and made part of globalist ecological diplomacy; this is true because the US recycles a lot of steel.

Additionally, it may be possible to saddle the economy with founder tariffs that promise protection from external competition for novel recycling firms. This could serve as inspiration and doesn’t strictly have to protect existing industry.

(restoreposting)

If it really comes down to that, start literally turning off the power stations with zero prep. Tell people, “Nah, your bucks is solar panels now, or you don’t get the lectric-a-trees no more. Mortgage up again and eat the pricetag, peasants.”

It’d be chaos, but it’d clear out. Whether it can actually be done depends on how much assassination tolerance the government has. Total breach scenarios would go down in the minds of paranoid hateslaves, interfering with everyone else’s adaptations. Normals wouldn’t breach, but they would sympathize. The phrase of the day is “aid and comfort.”. At the end of the day people would give up their AC, and the fossil fuel use would stay gone, but the halls of government would burn to achieve that.

Could’ve sworn I had an early post in this thread, but I can’t find it. Funny thing, that. We’re not to have too much to think.

(/restore)

The moderators here are fascist slaves with no dignity, which is sad. They could be providing a useful service.


 No.2891852

The restore thing is because I got banned for that, and I’m snubbing the undignified fascist slaves who moderate this place. If we build a forum for open discourse we’ll discover our problems are not irresolvable. A sortition government would be unlikely to implement socialism, but it also wouldn’t favor billionaires.

Egalitarian capitalism is the actual species-preserving balance point.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

 No.2892035

If we end all Socialist programs, the environment will fix itself.

>Socialism causes the population to consume more natural resources.

If we implement more socialism, we will continue to lie about it being the cause of environmental desolation.

>Wealth redistribution = Environmental destructions.


 No.2892038

>>2891852

Randomness is fair, but it is stupid…


 No.2892051

>>2892035

t. FBI


 No.2892083

>>2890951

>why is there an inherent "point" to civilization?

Because working together allows us to alleviate some of the symptoms of physical existence while also leaving something for the future that, at least in some, relieves the psychological horror of our individual finitude.

>Even if there was this is not true because first world is a new concept and civilization is ancient

A modern distinction of degrees of the aforementioned alleviation.

>Also the lifestyle of the first world is constantly changing

Yes, and?


 No.2892104

File: e515a248d9314ea⋯.webm (15.95 MB, 853x480, 853:480, soil is a living organism.webm)

>>2884566

>their is no reason to think this won’t continue

>what is the soil food web


 No.2892148

>>2892104

>what is the soil food web

Something that has been replaced by fertilizer, and soon GMOs. Nature is dead.


 No.2892222

The western world is waking up, the fact that white europeans are at best 700 million world wide and are not the cause of insane population growth and polution is the giant elephant in the room, why the fuck do we have to help all those super breeders that cant even run a simple farm let alone invent ANYTHING at all of value to the human race. They pollute breed and destroy and now they are flooding into our nations because they are unable to to do anything for themselves, yet WE have to come up with ways to save them all. I hate the right left dichotomy because you morons, right and left both say stupid shit, but the left has outdone itself this time and I refuse to get taken down with all these brown people breeeders and the left who want to take us down with them. Madness.


 No.2892227

>>2892148

Nature is not dead, it's doing fine when I look outside my window. Most of the worlds billionaires are Jews, FACT. The peoole polluting and breeding are various tyoes of brown people. Sad fact is, let Jews and Niggers die out and you will save the environment. It sounds terrible but it is a gross fact. Australia for example now has a population growth rate of a third world nation, why you ask? Because instead of it's european sustainability it is now flooding the nation with a mindless immigration program. Australia can not handle this growth ratw and neither can any other western nation. America when mostly european was at a 100 million now it is set at 400!!


 No.2892237

>>2892227

>Nature is not dead, it's doing fine when I look outside my window.

>Literally repackaged Malthusianism with a racial tone

Into the trash it goes


 No.2892246

Just ban electricity generation of all kinds in India and China and everything will be fine


 No.2892331

>>2884388

>Canada gets all the benefits of US Imperialism without having to send it’s children to the Middle East to die.

Just wanted to point out that you're a typical arrogant american who doesn't know anything about what goes on outside his borders. Canada has sent it's troops into afghanistan and iraq (the first war) and kuwait. They've been involved both in combat and in peacekeeping duties. Almost anywhere the US has gone, Canada has gone. I guess americans don't really value their closest allies as much as we thought.


 No.2892359

Looks like /leftypol/ has turned into /pol/ now.


 No.2892361


 No.2892383

>>2884072

make selling climate change unprofitable and they will stop with it…

remember we have all died every 10 years sine at least the 1930s do to climate change..

remember most of the shit they predicted the fucking opposite happened

when they got data, that suggested a cooling trend over the last 100 years

they doctored their data and changed their methods and sampling to get the result they "wanted"

not the result they actually got.


 No.2892475

>>2889798

To be fair, Linkola advocates for the destruction of all cities in the world, not just Africa


 No.2892509

File: d7c8d6698091028⋯.png (35.15 KB, 598x97, 598:97, Screen Shot 2019-05-16 at ….png)

>>2892331

>send a hundred officers


 No.2892939

Step 1: End Human Rights, and Censor Everything.

Step 2: Create Massive Fallout Shelters.

Step 3: Make a list of naughty and nice.

Step 4: Send a Fall Out Shelter Representative to all approves citizens, make sure they are forced to sign a hush contract.

Step 5: Release New Weaponized Airborne Flue and watch the resulting nuclear wars from the Fall Put Shelter Movie Theaters; sleep well knowing that their deaths were quick and painless.


 No.2892946

Step 1: End Human Rights, and Censor Everything.

Step 2: Create Massive Fallout Shelters under the Colorado Airport.

Step 3: Make a list of naughty and nice.

Step 4: Send a Fall Out Shelter Representatives to all approved citizens; make sure they are forced to sign a hush contract.

Step 5: Release New Weaponized Airborne Flue. Sit back and relax as you watch the resulting wars from the Fall Out Shelter’s Movie Theater; sleep well knowing that most of the naughty list is dying a quick and painless death.


 No.2893225

I'm just doing mah part and I hope you are doing your part too


 No.2893229

File: 00f9f7ea892a20d⋯.png (233.24 KB, 500x500, 1:1, sys-bottle3.png)

>>2892331

>. I guess americans don't really value their closest allies as much as we thought

Thank you for your maple service.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / baaa / baphomet / builders / chemo / choroy / pol3 / randamu ]