• DessertStorms@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Lol ok, that’s still entirely down to and in service of capitalism, not some inevitability sent down from above or “human nature”, despite what they might have you believing… 🙄

      • Eheran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        “Lol”

        Do people in capitalism need more resources? Why? How much more?

          • Eheran@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            So of we just keep people poor… issue solved. Like someone in Africa or North Korea, they are not going to need more resources than what can be regenerated. Simply because they lack the means to do so.

            If we assume a communism with the same level of technology, comfort, … how would we avoid the exact same issue? Why would people suddenly not drive their own car mostly alone? Heat their homes in winter, causing a big portion of global CO2 emissions by doing so?

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              So of we just keep people poor… issue solved. Like someone in Africa or North Korea, they are not going to need more resources than what can be regenerated. Simply because they lack the means to do so.

              You’re missing the mark, here. I am specifically referring to things like fast-fashion, trinkets, new phones every year, and other goods pushed on consumers not for their convenience, but to satisfy Capitalists.

              If we assume a communism with the same level of technology, comfort, … how would we avoid the exact same issue? Why would people suddenly not drive their own car mostly alone? Heat their homes in winter, causing a big portion of global CO2 emissions by doing so?

              Socialism and Communism would be more focused on public transit and urbanized environments.

              • Eheran@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                So you want to focus on some niche stuff? Leave out the stuff that would not change and currently causes most of the issues?

                Why should this type of fashion, for example, even change in communism? People want to look different than others, better, prestige, blablabla many reasons that would not change.

                I ask again, how would communism make us sustainable? I do not see it. Some niche stuff is replaced by something else in communism, not worth mentioning. A new phone every year is bad, but not the big problem. People drive 13’500 miles per year on average in the USA, burning 10’000 barrels daily or 1 billion m³ each year, 3 m³ per person each year. Add to that all the fuel for heating homes and making electricity. That is our big problem.

                Look at where the CO2 comes from. Heating, electricity, transport and agriculture alone are more than 50 %. Compare that to aviation and shipping, next to nothing. Even an of industry is nothing compared to that. How much are these 4 things supposed to be reduced with communism? And why?

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  So you want to focus on some niche stuff? Leave out the stuff that would not change and currently causes most of the issues?

                  I gave examples, not the entire list, lol.

                  Why should this type of fashion, for example, even change in communism? People want to look different than others, better, prestige, blablabla many reasons that would not change.

                  Fast fashion isn’t fashion, it’s incredibly cheaply made garments made with environmentally dangerous methods for the cheapest possible clothing. When you have a society driven around profit, this begins to take hold, when you have a society driven around fulfilling needs, there isn’t an endless drive for more new clothes.

                  I ask again, how would communism make us sustainable? I do not see it. Some niche stuff is replaced by something else in communism, not worth mentioning. A new phone every year is bad, but not the big problem. People drive 13’500 miles per year on average in the USA, burning 10’000 barrels daily or 1 billion m³ each year, 3 m³ per person each year. Add to that all the fuel for heating homes and making electricity. That is our big problem.

                  Look at where the CO2 comes from. Heating, electricity, transport and agriculture alone are more than 50 %. Compare that to aviation and shipping, next to nothing. Even an of industry is nothing compared to that. How much are these 4 things supposed to be reduced with communism? And why?

                  I already said public transit and more efficient, ubanized housing. This is silly.

        • Rawrx3@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Remember when restaurants set police up to protect their dumpsters containing perfectly good and edible foods? Or was that grocery stores? Probably both.