Wait until you hear about cow farts
has anybody seen breaking amish? that show is amazing
We’ve gone too far. We can’t stop this, we can only stop making it worse and learn to adapt to a changing world climate. The natural global processes of the planet have been altered and they are in the process and chaos of shifting into new normals. How long will it take to stabilize? No one knows. This kinda thing has happened to the planet before, but it happens to be quite catastrophic to the life living on it when it does. The jet stream is collapsing and major ocean currents are shifting. We have absolutely no control over these things and it’s already started. Everything on the planet is connected to these natural processes. It’s why things were the way they were, climate wise. Not anymore!
We have absolutely no control
We absolutely do, that’s a doomer narrative that is extremely useful for those invested in making it worse.
Science suggests we face a reversible issue.
You can control the jet stream? Dope!! I thought it had to do with ocean temperatures and how the ocean is mostly fucked in that sense and hence everything has gone haywire. We can’t control major air currents dude, they just do what they do because they do. I’m not dooming anything. We have been at idle too long, the goals are no longer reachable that would stop this, it needed to be done decades ago and not sure it was ever even possible then.
What science suggests it’s reversible? We can’t cool the ocean, we can’t take chemicals out of the ozone layer. We can slowly reverse it back to something, or allow it to stabilize by not drive the causes further into the red, but there is no going back. Sorry. Ship has sailed. That parrot is past tense!
idk if joining an oppressive religious cult where women have less rights than men do is the answer to global warming.
Also it’s not a way of life that scales well to 8 billion people. Wood fires produce way more exhaust at the cost of many trees, while electric heat can be powered by the sun or a flowing river.
Livestock produce tons of CO2, and farming takes a lot of land. We can’t all be Amish, and it certainly wouldn’t solve climate change.
We could be vegetarian Amish. Vegetariamish.
Okay but the Seventh Day Adventists are RIGHT THERE. Would be a much better solution to climate.
It might not be the answer, but it certainly is one, if everyone does it.
fair enough
At 4:30 in the morning I’m milkin’ cows
Jebediah feeds the chickens and Jacob plows, fool
And I’ve been milkin’ and plowin’ so long that
Even Ezekiel thinks that my mind is gone!
We been spending most our lives
Livin’ in an Amish paradise! Ooh Oh Ooooh!
I churned butter once or twice
Livin’ in an Amish paradise! Ooh Oh Ooooh!Hitchin’ up the buggy,
Churnin’ lots of butter,
Raised a barn on Monday,
Soon I’ll raise another!
Think you’re really righteous?
Think you’re pure of heart?
Well I know I’m a million times as humble as thou art!I’m the pious’t guy the little amish wanna be,
Like on my knees day and night,
Scorin’ points for the afterlife!So don’t be vain! And don’t be whiney!
Or else I might have to get medieval on your hiney!Close, but how could you leave out “Amlettes”?
Yeah, I think it’s “more humble”, too.
That one was right (“as humble”).
(Although I still had to look it up even though I just saw him perform it live on Friday)
That would have been an awesome show!
It was!
He’s an amazing performer. Roughly as many costume changes as songs, including mid-medley
Remember if you click that no more porn…
I have a neighbour willing to show me her ankles so I still support this.
It won’t take the CO2 out of the air, and as they produce just enough food for their own use, a few billion people will starve. Never mind.
Removed by mod
And there’s also the incest part.
But that part comes with extra fingers!
But no guarantee of arms…
Humans would rapidly organize right back into cities and make up whatever rules or interpretations of Amish law/religion that allowed them to. People gonna be people and ignore or twist religion to do whatever they want.
Humans would rapidly organize right back into cities
The Amish already live in townships. Congregations of humans are generally better for the environment than far-flung rural enclaves with low-efficiency infrastructure.
People seem to forget how much ecological destruction occurred at or prior to an Amish standard of living. Case in point, the deforestation of Europe
the bulk of which was completed before the 16th century.
“Primitive” does not mean “ecologically sustainable”. Quite a bit of our animal husbandry, agricultural, and pre-industrial economic activity were horrifyingly bad. We just weren’t operating at the scale of eight billion humans while we were living like that.
Yep. Coal and wood as the main energy sources are absolutely awful. Global warming would be gone because people would be dead from the pollution. There’s a reason that there were tons of maids cleaning old mansions constantly.
maybe inspired by this comment? https://lemmy.ca/comment/18397539
I’ve seen so much degrowth spam/trolling yesterday. This is organized hopelessness in favour of a hopeless failure of a solution. The only degrowth that will ever occur is through mass war/murder. It is a massive resource/diesel investment to conduct the mass destruction/murder. It takes a very dark soul to support degrowth, because it simply has no implementation path based on everyone voluntarily internalizing BP’s carbon footprint presonal responsibility.
A degrowth can be in consumption rather than population. We could use less plastic, less gas,…a lot less
Clean energy can replace oligarchist climate terrorist energy without degrowth. Plastic is not a climate problem, and much of it recyclable. Ocean pollution is primarily fishing nets, which seems easily solvable with cotton or other biodegradable materials.
Degrowth, other than voluntarily choosing veganism or carbon footprint responsibility, as global or national policy, means intentional permanent recession, strengthening oligarchist supremacist opposition to degrowth. It gives an appealing side benefit to genocide.
There won’t be enough voluntary uptake to make a dent, even if degrowth becomes a political coalition to pander to. Clean growth with carbon/GHG taxes partially funding freedom dividends globally, is a recipe for utopian global harmony and happiness. Degrowth, a divisive recipe for supporting genocidal warmonging, that contributes to coalition inclusive of degrowth not gaining power due to the economic stupidity of including their platform. Portraying leftist ideology as fascist bureacratic economic destruction and warmongering is an oligarchist supremacist ploy.
Deindustrialization of the US has resulted in political scapegoating straw grasping, that won last election: Immigration, and bipartisan war on China path. Global or national degrowth will fuel more hatred, and passion for war, because we are well below the democratic capacity of Idiocracy, already.
My fight with degrowth trolls yesterday was in response to milestone in clean H2 achievement out of China. Because the US has climate terrorist oligarch energy protections, it ensures it loses AI race with China. Oligarchist media would rather you promote Amishness degrowth (btw needs more acres per people than current), than adopt Chinese clean energy to permit technology and manufacturing growth. ie. If we lost at solar dominance, and will lose at AI dominance, pretend we never should have tried.
I think you have a point. Although i dont have the knowledge to see for sure that there really is a viable path alternative to economic degrowth.
i agree that directly supporting degrowth would be unpopular, lead to conflict and maybe would benefit a movement towards genocide. Correct me if thats not what you meant.
The crack i see in this argument is that it seems to assume that economic growth and quality of life are correlated and that people see it this way. A movement towards improving quality of life in general would entail, i assume, a reduction of our working hours, a reduction in industrial production (as we produce a lot of useless objects just as an excuse to redistribute means of survival without changing the dynamic of the economic system). So a move towards better quality of life would naturally lead to a healthy economic degrowth (in some areas) that could be well seen by people. Maybe im fantasizing too much, but i hope not.
economic growth and quality of life are correlated and that people see it this way.
They are, before corruption factors. Economic growth = wealth = more options to improve quality of life.
Financial insecurity corrupts the mind towards hate. Greed from powerful will manipulate populist insecurity towards either direct support of oligarchist/zionist supremacism platform, or towards hateful stupidity that sabotages democratic process towards oligarchism. Technological progress keeps enabling an alternative to slavery from increases in total prosperity. Oligarchist supremacist rule can choose increased oppression instead, followed by “lets genocide the uppity slave class instead of subsidizing their demand”. Degrowth stupidity as an anti-Oligarchist political platform, strengthens oligarchist genocide solution arguments.
UBI/freedom dividends is a solution to everything. Opposing UBI is only rational if you need oppression and oppressive power hierarchy to enjoy life. UBI redistributes power away from political discretion, it makes labour markets fair, it makes everyone who wants to work much richer, while increasing overall consumption. Disruption, including clean energy transition, is net job creating in addition to enhancing current and future standard of living. Oligarchist campaigns to protect their evil can be told to shut their climate terrorist fuckfaces, or their fuckfaces will be shut for them. $300/ton co2 carbon tax ($3/gallon gasoline) can contribute $4000-$7000 in UBI funding for Americans. It provides market driven clean growth transition.
The demonic evil of degrowth advocacy is that it is rooted in derailing clean growth policy. I’ve seen it accompanying the most vile and absurd US empire propaganda points, that cannot possibly come from an organically gullible but an honest idiocracy. It is with 100% certainty that the push for degrowth comes from CIA/Oligarchist sources in order to divide and disinform those concerned with climate and human sustainability. “See how all of those climate alarmists hate your job and want to destroy the economy!!!”
By economic growth i mean more production. This production can be marketable but not represent an actual wealth gain. If i produce a shitty headphone that breaks in a week of use, the world would be better off without it, but it did contribute to the growth of the economy when i sold it to some unfortunate soul. In this sense, a reduction in production may not really represent a reduction in wealth globally. A better production can have a way smaller volume than the current global production while still giving us more actual wealth to live with. Thats why i say economic growth is not quality of life. Of course theres a correlation in the actual data today, but my point is that this correlation is not necessary, its an empirical correlation, not a logical one, and it is something that may change in the future.
If we cant dissociate economic growth from well being, then i take your point and agree with it.
Regarding UBI, if it is done in a way that emancipates people, instead of just enabling and maintaining conditions for enslaving people, great. And from my perspective this would probably also entail a spontaneous degrowth.
I think our views are compatible. Im not defending a forced degrowth nor hope that people do it voluntarily out of nowhere. But political measures to redistribute wealth and improve living standards, like what you envision with UBI, could lead to a natural and widely accepted degrowth, which would be positive.
If i produce a shitty headphone that breaks in a week of use, the world would be better off without it, but it did contribute to the growth of the economy when i sold it to some unfortunate soul.
The bad product possibility example is not a good argument against abundance. Abundance economics permits pluralist sharing in wealth. Scarcity, Oligarchist monopoly protectionist, economics is inherently economic oppression for power concentration that will further influence rulership to economically disenfranchise the slave class. Carbon taxes does make distant imports, especially of bad products, more expensive unless shipping options are decarbonized.
Regarding UBI, if it is done in a way that emancipates people, instead of just enabling and maintaining conditions for enslaving people, great. And from my perspective this would probably also entail a spontaneous degrowth.
Carbon taxes funding a significant portion of UBI leads to massive economic growth. Massive employment, without taxpayer funding, in much faster energy transition capital investments is a lot of jobs. UBI itself leads to massive economic growth as well. more people can afford all necessities. Better paying jobs to afford even more consumption. The rich get richer even with higher taxes as they profit from selling more stuff. The combination means clean growth. Clean growth makes everyone happier and pro peace. Legitimizing degrowth exterminates those unable to afford resistance to oligarchy.
I think you’re missing my point now. Maybe the headphone example is weak, but it illustrates the point. Abundance is not necessarily abundance of wealth. Im arguing that reducing general production and increasing wealth are compatible. Making the distribution of wealth depend on abundant production, independently of quality, only overworks people and pollute the world.
Legitimizing degrowth exterminates those unable to afford resistance to oligarchy.
This seems too general. Defending degrowth may do that if its done in the specific way you have described before, but not generally. Resistance to oligarchy and general improvements to quality of life could have degrowth as a consequence, not the other way around. What you seem to be criticizing is that “other way around” thesis.
I’ve seen Amish:
Burn chemicals and paints in a pile behind their shop
Have dumpsters full of plastic “sawdust” from a shop that makes plastic furniture
Rebrand cheap chinese electronics and batteries to sell in their communities (MillerTech)
Zip around on a one wheel
Log out relatively pristine forest to make more farms
Log land that isn’t theirs, without permission, for weeks before being discovered and confronted.
Vote down school levies repeatedly until the local schools shut down
These days the amish button isn’t nearly as great as you might think…still funny to think about how everyone would react though
100% for real. On top of the fact that the 4th panel would read:
POOF NO MORE HUMAN RIGHTS NO MORE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH NO MORE FREEDOM OF/FROM RELIGION
Agreed, humans are terrible, no matter our political or technological beliefs.
For the last time, dude. You don’t hit the Spanish button in this house, okay?
Most interesting parts of Handmaid’s Tale “Gilead” are when they’re boasting about reductions in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions their eco-christo-fascism has produced!
One of the big questions I have about our current Holocene extinction is at what point humans constrain their own polluting capacity based on their contracting biome.
Like, imagine a country like Germany or Japan or Russia or the US having a bad enough agricultural cycle that they experience a massive food shortage (or even a famine) on the scale experienced by Bangladesh or China in the 1950s (or Gaza in the modern day). What does that do to our carbon emissions?
We already saw the impact of COVID on air traffic and the sudden dramatic plunge in regional temperatures that came from not flying planes for a few weeks.
“Behold, the Amishinator!”
Don’t be silly.
The Amish don’t use buttons!
Yes they do, for clothes.
Found some interesting info here - https://amishrules.com/why-dont-the-amish-use-buttons/
Apparently some New Order Amish use buttons, and some men of more traditional orders use buttons but conceal them (only using them in places that wouldn’t be visible from the outside.) Amish women (of traditional orders) can’t use buttons at all.
A massive part of it is adhering to modesty, with fancy buttons considered “showy” and “distracting” particularly for women, as well as a way to impart individual style (which goes against their beliefs.) For men, buttons are associated with military dress, and as the Amish are pacifists, they consider buttons to be inappropriate and aggressive.
It all comes down to the individual order that people follow. Some use buttons in certain outfits, but some don’t use them at all.
I stand corrected, that is an interesting read.
Some do
I know, but couldn’t resist the joke. I have poor impulse control.
Do you see any buttons after the button was pressed? 😎
We may have a paradox on our hands…
