- cross-posted to:
- science_memes@mander.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- science_memes@mander.xyz
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/41392388
cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/45149956
Ecofascism
https://www.northampton.ac.uk/research-blogs/far-right-and-the-environment-key-themes-of-ecofascism/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism
https://www.firstnations.org/our-programs/stewarding-native-lands/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837722004963
You must log in or # to comment.
The idea that indigenous people are somehow special and in tune with nature is just noble savage nonsense pretending to be woke. It is also wrong too, in addition to being racist, look no further than the demise of North American megafauna like giant ground sloths and giant armadillos.
Eco fascism is obviously worse to be clear. Land back would be nice harm reduction too, but the real solution would have to be something new.
That’s not at all what it is saying, come on dude. Re-read it.
I read it a few times before posting to make sure I wasn’t being hostile without a good reason because I don’t like giving other leftists a hard time. If there is an interpretation of this that doesn’t have racist implications (well intentioned as they may be) then I’m afraid I’ll need help finding it.
I’m an indigenous person, but my lot dump shopping trolleys in rivers so I guess this doesn’t mean us.
Any time ecofash advocate population control as a mechanism for advancing environmental priorities, the appropriate response is “I agree, let’s start with wealthy white people to get the most bang for our buck.”
Right after “please start with yourself”
this is correct but the layout kind of implies that the indigenous group are the eco fascists and vice-versa
Despite often displaying similar levels of intelligence, humans are, in fact, part of the animal kingdom
Except… the “eco-fascists” are also not wrong.
The healthy carrying capacity of a pre-modern civ Earth has been estimated at 2 Billion humans at a totally vegan diet. Bring a Western diet into the picture, and that drops to somewhere between 1B and 500M people.
I mean, yes, you can put every arable square meter of soil under agriculture and feed many more billions than exist. But this would utterly destroy the ecosystem within a few short years, causing a subsequent collapse of humanity to zero. A healthy ecological balance has 80+% wild areas - defined as anything more than 10km from any human access - and by comparison less than 2% of CONUS meets this definition.
And having overshot the planet’s carrying capacity by more than 4×, we have also caused a corresponding decline in that carrying capacity via ecosystem degradation, pollution, soil erosion and innumerable other stressors. If humanity is to see a significant collapse that includes tech collapse (fertilizer production, etc.), we will be exceedingly lucky to come out the far side with more than a few tens of millions of people planet-wide.
And for reference, before European colonization North America was likely to have had as many as 300M natives before Western diseases emptied the continent.
But, don’t we already make way more food than even necessary? We just don’t transport it where needed. Instead we grow a shit ton of corn and make it into ethanol for fun and profit.
Source: I’m on lunch break and can’t be fucked to look again. Though yours isn’t sourced either so I don’t feel bad.
Yes. Don’t listen to them. The problem isn’t population. It is distribution. We overproduce for the sake of capitalism to such an extent that we can cut it in half tomorrow and our quality of life would not change in the slightest.
We have alternatives available. We simply do not use them because those who control the world economies would not be able to make obscene profits from it and it necessitates them giving up their ownership over the means of production in order to facilitate these collectively beneficial alternatives.
My understanding is the food production excess is “thanks” to unsustainable, damaging methods that rely heavily on synthetic fertilizer and have massive downsides like agricultural runoff and topsoil erosion (in addition to the wide-scale habitat loss required for those acres upon acres of farmland).
we could also make our food production a gazillion times more efficient if we stopped raising livestock and growing things only to turn them into cattle feed and tractor fuel/corn syrup (granted corn syrup is food, but personally i’d prefer to subsist on the actual raw corn over bottles or syrup)
So you … agree with the post that indigenous people were on the right track before colonization, according to your number goals/analysis, and that eco-fascists are wrong to call all human disease rather than pointing out capitalism ?
But moreover, i’m interested in where you get your numbers from. I’m convinced that being less would make solving problems easier, but i’m also convinced that being less alone would not solve anything and that it cannot be an ethically reliable goal/tool with so much people caring so much about having kids, and most importantly every person with knowledge on the matter told me that we have the capacity to feed all 10B people, so i’m quite intrigued by your take.
My guess is that everything lies in defining “healthy” and “pre-modern civ”. What about modern sustainable-ish agricultural practices ? From what i know, they’re not that far behind conventional production yield-wise.
You’re wrong. The issue has never been a lack of resources; it’s the distribution of those resources that’s the issue.
We currently produce more food than is required to support the current world’s population
