• PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    18 hours ago

    *Fewer humans, and that would actually solve most of our problems, it’s just that we need to be more specific about which humans we get rid of. Specifically billionaires/unchecked capitalists.

    • lmmarsano@group.lt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Specifically billionaires/unchecked capitalists

      The easy scapegoat oversimplifies the problem, which goes beyond & predates capitalism. Though exterminating all of humanity is one way to achieve sustainability, it doesn’t necessarily require it. So far, however, humanity has reached living standards beyond subsistence only by consuming resources at unsustainable levels faster than the planet can replenish, and that has been true regardless of economic system. Even when living at subsistence levels, humanity has likely caused mass extinction events.

      From a comment to a similar post

      People here tend to fixate on their pet theories that scapegoat capitalism for everything including that humanity’s drain on ecological resources exceeds Earth’s rate of regeneration without acknowledging that their alternatives don’t address the problem, either.

      Although governments are far more able than individuals and firms acting singly to take action to protect the environment, they often fail to do so. The centrally planned economies of Eastern Europe, where governments controlled production, had a particularly poor record on pollution control. Per capita mortality from air pollution in Eastern Europe (outside the EU) and China remains high relative to the EU and North America.

      In particular, the Soviet economy—with constitutional guarantees to continuously improve living standards & steadily grow productive forces—caused disproportionately worse ecological damage than the US’s. All economic systems have the same capacity to degrade the environment & deplete stocks of natural resources. Without adequate policies to protect the environment, improving & maintaining living standards with the continuous economic growth necessary to do that threatens the environment.

      Moreover, human activity before capitalism has led to extinctions of megafauna, plants, & animals dependent on those plants. The quaternary megafauna extinction was likely driven by overhunting by humans. Those extinctions & increased fires coinciding with the arrival of humanity to Australia transformed the ecosystem from mixed rainforest to drier landscapes. Aboriginal landscape burning

      may have caused the extinction of some fire-sensitive species of plants and animals dependent upon infrequently burnt habitats

      More recently, they killed off the elephant bird likely due to major environmental alterations & overconsumption of their eggs.

      Until humanity starts living sustainably, they are the problem.

    • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      There were fewer humans a century ago. and there were no human caused ecological crisis back then.

      it isn’t the number of people really, but the exploitative economic system they use.

      /s!!! /s!!!

      btw, humans managed the extinction of megafauna when where were around a million humans 10 thousand years ago.

      • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        No human caused ecological crises during the height of industrialization? Sure bud.

        Go check on the Aral Sea to get an idea of what a non-exploitative economic system can do.

        • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          sorry. I’ll take all the responsibility of forgetting the “/s”.

          thought it was clearly sarcasm, because duh.

          carry on.

          was trying to make it a clearly obvious point against that argument.