fantoozie

Yeah this article rightly points out Eisenhower’s foresight and the ways intelligent leaders saw the writing on the wall throughout the last century. 2016 was certainly an inflection point, but in hindsight 2020 seemed to be the tipping point.

American voters in both major parties consistently vote against their own collective interests in order to maximize individual gain. It’s irrational, but also so essentially American.

For example, consider that the historical self-narrative and cultural lexicon for young American students is essentially:

“We are the greatest country on Earth. Our ideals are universal and should be impressed upon all of Earth’s peoples. We deserve all the wealth we have, but are not responsible for the consequences. Any criticism against us is a direct attack on our way of life.”

It should be no shock that without intentional efforts to maintain civic society, integraye immigrants and other minorities, and foster social cohesion through rural-urban exchange; this type of culture quickly erodes into the ‘fuck you, got mine’ mentality rampant on social media, perpetuated by corporate interests, and exploited by malicious political agents.

They’re evil; not biologically different. You too could be an evil rich fuck, but instead you’re just a stupid poor fuck.

Bring back the Commons; fertilize with rich bodies.

Actually the report that came out recently (the one that found institutional real estate investors buying something like 27% of all available homes) made an important note: most of the companies buying these homes are so-called “mom n pop” landlords who own < 5 houses

So it’s actually corporations AND fucking boomers.

Honestly, better than being rich. I mean it.

when rates go down

My sweet summer child, how dense and naive you are.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I’d argue we’re already in overshoot as far as carrying capacity, if we’re using current standards of living in the West as the baseline. In that sense, population decline is inevitable.

Its impossible for me to answer the question you’re asking, but I posit this: at this point, what is the alternative? Can we keep affording to slow-walk actionable solutions to climate change? What are the wealthy nations of the world willing to sacrifice to sustain Earth’s future as our home? How will we decide who and what to preserve, and who and what is worth losing?

I also agree with you that it’s unraveling. But that’s why’d I’d rather try to adapt now and face the reality than pretend I can have Amazon Prime and not participate in killing life on Earth.

I think your argument is sound if the goal is to sustain current living standards in developed nations

But perhaps we should be evaluating whether, if those living standards require such an oppressive system, it may be better for us in these wealthy nations to learn how to do without

Not easy, not even likely, but necessary if we want to have a planet for future generations

Propping up an unsustainable system through resource extraction and technological innovation without contextual relativism doesn’t just magically make it sustainable.

It comes down to climate resilience, deglobalization of produce markets, and creating the political will to build localized, worker-owned food production and distribution systems. Yes that will mean paying out the ass for bananas, but it’s better than watching children choke on smoke while they ask you why it has to be like this.

Lot of assumptions there.