I think I hold the same position as Graeber, I was just keeping it simple.

For example that’s partially why I said “all” tribes. I agree that it didn’t happen linearly, and agriculture wasn’t adopted by all groups at the same time. As Marx pointed out late in his life, many tribes had instead adopted a proto-communism that didn’t derive from a local implosion of the capitalist order. However the exploitative form of material relations has nonetheless become dominant over the course of millennia. It is obsessed with subjugation and highly normalized. Therefore I think preventing its instances of origination would have led to the development of very different civilizations.

At the advent of agriculture and the transition away from pastoralism and nomadism, I wish that all tribes had enforced a collectivist mentality regarding possessions instead of allowing chains of inequality that have lashed out for millennia.

I think inequality is one of those things that is really difficult to erase once it has already been normalized. It allows for accumulation of power, and then uses that power to fight against the fragmented opposition to itself. I think there would have been so much less suffering if that issue had been nipped in the bud back at the start of “civilization.”

Now if only we valued nature itself, or our continued ability to appreciate either.

Culture is not a static system. Elements may be destined to be counter-rational for now, but a better of awareness could also destine us for a more fair and effective system in the future. Just because something hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean that determinism dictates it never will.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

third world

literally not possible lol

Not everything is the worst. Just the important things.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

That’s not what the paper says is the problem.

Right.

As the argument of population control is one I think not at all worth having for many of reasons, such as, you just can’t do much about it!

I’ve often argued a similar line. This topic is notorious for bringing out bad-faith posters trying to shape the narrative. Sometimes it seems hardly worth discussing to me as well. Especially among redditors which is what I was used to for many years. But to not be able to discuss it at all is too much for me as a mod, especially when those who would take advantage of us discuss it freely.

And it will become reality easy enough if it becomes mandatory and that’s sad enough.

My concern is that there are still different ways that this can all go down, and that we aren’t charting towards handling the crisis in a wise and humane manner. We’re basically blindly following capitalists into the void. And acting “naively” (following systemic biases) is not moral or ethical in our position. People are already dying of exposure today, in our local communities and around the world. It is the most disadvantaged that suffers most and it will continue to be that way unless something is changed.

But I guess if we find ourselves truly not welcome here anymore than it seems we would just have to move with you guys.

Whatever works best for everyone involved.

Okay then, what do you propose we do if you believe we’ve overshot our carrying capacity?

You mean what to do to improve the average quality of life?

Anti-colonial, anti-hegemonic action. Which I am always happy to discuss. It will just have to occur in a different space.

We need to start distributing resources more effectively, not culling people.

This is exactly what I argue and the removed study supports it as well imo.

Let me ask you this: if you believe the earth has exceeded its carrying capacity, wouldn’t your conclusion be to start getting rid of people or halting their reproduction? That’s textbook eugenics…

No. First you look at where the strains are. You see that people with exceptional privilege in developed countries create extremely disproportionate strain, and that the capitalists support the increased reproduction of that group - even without their consent - to keep their ponzi scheme running. You would then seek to divert resources from the over-privileged group to reduce their disproportionate strain, and a proven way to reduce resource demands among them is to prioritize family planning measures and bodily autonomy in the hegemonic states. This reproductive care and agency is, of course, only one piece of the puzzle that is deconstructing colonialism and emissions inequity.

The removed study gives a nod to this by acknowledging that otherwise viable solutions are not politically viable. The consequences of the politically viable (Business-As-Usual) solutions is at least as much of a humanitarian nightmare. And yet, the limits exist. What does this indicate? That politically nonviable solutions (such as degrowth in developed nations, and/or revolution and a new economic framework) need to be re-examined. That we’re between a rock and a hard place, and that the default trajectory does lead to ecofascist solutions.

Requesting a reduction of resource demands even if it means the lowered reproduction of the most privileged socioeconomic classes is no more eugenics than creating an inhospitable planet and accepting the consequential deaths of the billions of people who are not able to support themselves under such conditions. Plenty of studies demonstrate that humans are able to naturally adapt their reproductive rates based on their environments, and other studies show that this is happening right now in over-developed states where people manage to retain reproductive agency. What is disastrous for us as a collective whole is how capital circumvents our natural tendencies in order to augment industrial productivity and the retention of the control of power structures within a select ethnonationalist ingroup.

A different but related issue at present is that reproductive rates are driven through the roof by capitalists looking to exploit weakly organized labor, which drives unnaturally high birth rates in some developing nations exploited by foreign corporations. However, the reality is that the inflated populations in developing countries are still less destructive than the declining (not including immigration) populations of the developed nations. Which then brings us back again to more agency and more equitable distribution of resources, and the natural balance of reproductive adaptations that follow reversing colonialism.

I would agree. With Capitalist Realism as well. I’ve argued both many times.