Now, you’re trying to say that’s what would happen should there be this massive shortage (there is, but typically people online don’t explore the failsafes and contingencies that are at our disposal), or are you straight up trying to naturalize an ecofascist futurity here?
I don’t fully understand your question, but I did not consider mitigating actions and stated a possible worst case. Fossil fuel based fertilizer is not the only game in town, but it is the cheapest. EVs are already starting to replace ICE cars in many places. Renewable energy production grows every year, even of it is impacted by a drop in hydro. It does not have to be a bleak future.
I am not sure how the lack of fresh water can be avoided, but there many be some new processes for desalination I don’t know about.
I was asking if you understood that this narrative is harmful if accepted uncritically. That you considered technology solutions exclusively is a great indicator that this may be the case. We have technology solutions to this now, that isn’t why it isn’t fixed. Your comment reproduces a narrative that suffering in the global south is inevitable because of climate change, and not another avoidable, unnecessary act of genocide by this colonial, capitalist system. It is the social and material relations of this system that perpetrates that violence, not technological deficiencies.
When we just accept that there is no avoiding or mitigating events like, “a lot of people” starving in colonized spaces, and then promote technological utopianism as a solution (even if inadvertently by only imagining tech as a solution), we are naturalizing the root cause of this violence, which is colonialism. Doesn’t seem like you intended it, but this is also a markedly ecofascist narrative in the way that the inevitability of that death also means that it is a prescribed trajectory for this system to take to “improvement,” much in the same way that fascists precribe the removal (genocide) of an arbitrary group of people in the metropole (US or EU) as a solution to inequities there.
Edit: and of course, Lemmy libs get mad if I tell them they don’t have to subscribe to fascist ideas if they don’t want to.
I’m not doing either of those things (I’m not even sure what I could be gatekeeping here, political philosophy?). Your words carried this meaning whether you wanted them to or not, which is why I carefully explained how that meaning relates to the specific ideas you promoted. If you do not want them to carry this meaning, just take the time to interrogate how you arrived at this understanding and how it relates to your understanding of other things in the future.
You clearly took their prediction of the likely outcome (given the world we do live in and the obviously shitty priorities of the powers that be) as an endorsement or acceptance of that outcome, when they did not say anything to indicate that they found it at all acceptable. While your overall points about the options that we as humans have are valid, your positioning of this poster’s values in opposition to your own is baseless and unwarranted. Pessimism about humanity’s ability to successfully mitigate or overcome the problems of our own making is not the same as saying we shouldn’t try. For example, even the most ardent advocates of ending fossil fuel usage understand that in the past 50 years we have done far more to exacerbate climate change than to mitigate its effects, let alone reverse the damage already done. Predicting the most likely outcome of a situation is not at all the same as saying that nothing better than that outcome is possible.
“When we just accept that there is no avoiding or mitigating events like, “a lot of people” starving in colonized spaces, and then promote technological utopianism as a solution (even if inadvertently by only imagining tech as a solution), we are naturalizing the root cause of this violence, which is colonialism. Doesn’t seem like you intended it, but this is also a markedly ecofascist narrative in the way that the inevitability of that death also means that it is a prescribed trajectory for this system to take to “improvement,” much in the same way that fascists precribe the removal (genocide) of an arbitrary group of people in the metropole (US or EU) as a solution to inequities there.”
Right, could you point out where I said OP holds these values or endorsed them?
Even more, it is very difficult to read this as something other than purposefully distortive. In what way is criticizing ecofascist narratives a refusal to recognize the material conditions of climate change? You have a name about killing fascists, and yet cannot seperate socially constructed values from material relations, or individuals’ desired moral values? You’ll note that my first comment asked the commenter to also clarify if they did indeed mean to say that this is what they think would happen in a hypothetical where, despite reality, all gasoline and fertilizer disappeared. I did that to avoid exactly this kind of reading, since liberals so often subscribe to fascist values without realizing it due exactly to their refusal to interrogate their own understanding of things without fear that internalized values reflect their quality of character or, “moral purity.”
As always, scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.
Quoting yourself and bolding the few phrases you used to acknowledge that Simulation6 might not be a moustache-twirling, colonial techno-fascist does not adequately offset the aggressiveness and assumption of ill-intent that pervades your comments.
You also seem to be much more interested in what you have to say than in the actual content of the comments you respond to. For example, I did not say anything about criticizing ecofascist narratives being a denial of climate change, and I don’t even see how what I wrote could be read as such. I pointed out that though the public has been aware of climate change for half a century, in that time we have not only collectively failed to reverse its course, we have only continued to accelerate the process. Factual acceptance of that reality is not equivalent to moral acceptance of climate change, its causes, or its effects.
You seem to really want both Simulation6 and myself to be colonialist liberals unwilling to look for non-tech solutions to problems (presumably because that is the argument you were prepared to have), but neither of us has said anything to indicate that that is the case. I don’t want to speak for Simulation6, but I saw nothing in their comments beyond an entirely justified cynicism that short- and medium-term material difficulties will most likely adversely effect primarily those who are least able to weather such problems. That, and apparent bewilderment as to adswhy they were seemingly being attacked by you for things they did not say.
“You clearly took their prediction of the likely outcome (given the world we do live in and the obviously shitty priorities of the powers that be) as an endorsement or acceptance of that outcome, when they did not say anything to indicate that they found it at all acceptable.”
"Predicting the most likely outcome of a situation is not at all the same as saying that nothing better than that outcome is possible. … Pessimism about humanity’s ability to successfully mitigate or overcome the problems of our own making is not the same as saying we shouldn’t try. "
Yeah, you did say those things, but whatever you’re already mad about being told that the words you say have effect beyond what you intend, so you’re already over that hurdle (hilarious for an “anti-fascist”)." Unless, of course, you meant that intentionally dissuading this pessimistic and markedly liberal reading counts as “clearly.”
You and the original commenter (along with many other users on this lib site), take offense to this form of criticism because you fundamentally believe that you’re only bad if you intend to be actively; which is obviously not the case in a system that both dominates your language and understanding of your own participation in genocide. It’s literally beyond you because you would rather maintain your own moral purity than actually behave in a moral way. If you are an “anti-fascist,” you should go look up what internalization is and how it happens, and then consider whether you have actually done that work for yourself.
My comment told the original commenter that, whether they intended to or not, their statement (not factual btw, which is the entire problem since, again, this is a social issue more than a technological issue, but whatever), presented a narrative of both the present conditions and future imagination of climate change in a way that is consistent with eco-fascism. I even said that this is apparently unintentional and then illustrated how that specific narrative relates to the ecofascism. It’s a common thing liberals resort to because they typically lack the political literacy (or fortitude) to interrogate their own values with the openness to accept when they’ve reproduced something harmful without intending to.
In five years, there’ll be a bunch of dickheads like you two talking about how you’ve known this all along, I’ve alreaady seen this a few times in the past decade; maybe you’ll be one of them. You’re not bad for being socialized to hold internalized values, you are bad for refusing to even consider if you hold them. Fuck off, chud.
Now, you’re trying to say that’s what would happen should there be this massive shortage (there is, but typically people online don’t explore the failsafes and contingencies that are at our disposal), or are you straight up trying to naturalize an ecofascist futurity here?
I don’t fully understand your question, but I did not consider mitigating actions and stated a possible worst case. Fossil fuel based fertilizer is not the only game in town, but it is the cheapest. EVs are already starting to replace ICE cars in many places. Renewable energy production grows every year, even of it is impacted by a drop in hydro. It does not have to be a bleak future.
I am not sure how the lack of fresh water can be avoided, but there many be some new processes for desalination I don’t know about.
I was asking if you understood that this narrative is harmful if accepted uncritically. That you considered technology solutions exclusively is a great indicator that this may be the case. We have technology solutions to this now, that isn’t why it isn’t fixed. Your comment reproduces a narrative that suffering in the global south is inevitable because of climate change, and not another avoidable, unnecessary act of genocide by this colonial, capitalist system. It is the social and material relations of this system that perpetrates that violence, not technological deficiencies.
When we just accept that there is no avoiding or mitigating events like, “a lot of people” starving in colonized spaces, and then promote technological utopianism as a solution (even if inadvertently by only imagining tech as a solution), we are naturalizing the root cause of this violence, which is colonialism. Doesn’t seem like you intended it, but this is also a markedly ecofascist narrative in the way that the inevitability of that death also means that it is a prescribed trajectory for this system to take to “improvement,” much in the same way that fascists precribe the removal (genocide) of an arbitrary group of people in the metropole (US or EU) as a solution to inequities there.
Edit: and of course, Lemmy libs get mad if I tell them they don’t have to subscribe to fascist ideas if they don’t want to.
Please stop gatekeeping and putting words in my mouth
I’m not doing either of those things (I’m not even sure what I could be gatekeeping here, political philosophy?). Your words carried this meaning whether you wanted them to or not, which is why I carefully explained how that meaning relates to the specific ideas you promoted. If you do not want them to carry this meaning, just take the time to interrogate how you arrived at this understanding and how it relates to your understanding of other things in the future.
You clearly took their prediction of the likely outcome (given the world we do live in and the obviously shitty priorities of the powers that be) as an endorsement or acceptance of that outcome, when they did not say anything to indicate that they found it at all acceptable. While your overall points about the options that we as humans have are valid, your positioning of this poster’s values in opposition to your own is baseless and unwarranted. Pessimism about humanity’s ability to successfully mitigate or overcome the problems of our own making is not the same as saying we shouldn’t try. For example, even the most ardent advocates of ending fossil fuel usage understand that in the past 50 years we have done far more to exacerbate climate change than to mitigate its effects, let alone reverse the damage already done. Predicting the most likely outcome of a situation is not at all the same as saying that nothing better than that outcome is possible.
“When we just accept that there is no avoiding or mitigating events like, “a lot of people” starving in colonized spaces, and then promote technological utopianism as a solution (even if inadvertently by only imagining tech as a solution), we are naturalizing the root cause of this violence, which is colonialism. Doesn’t seem like you intended it, but this is also a markedly ecofascist narrative in the way that the inevitability of that death also means that it is a prescribed trajectory for this system to take to “improvement,” much in the same way that fascists precribe the removal (genocide) of an arbitrary group of people in the metropole (US or EU) as a solution to inequities there.”
Right, could you point out where I said OP holds these values or endorsed them?
Even more, it is very difficult to read this as something other than purposefully distortive. In what way is criticizing ecofascist narratives a refusal to recognize the material conditions of climate change? You have a name about killing fascists, and yet cannot seperate socially constructed values from material relations, or individuals’ desired moral values? You’ll note that my first comment asked the commenter to also clarify if they did indeed mean to say that this is what they think would happen in a hypothetical where, despite reality, all gasoline and fertilizer disappeared. I did that to avoid exactly this kind of reading, since liberals so often subscribe to fascist values without realizing it due exactly to their refusal to interrogate their own understanding of things without fear that internalized values reflect their quality of character or, “moral purity.”
As always, scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.
Quoting yourself and bolding the few phrases you used to acknowledge that Simulation6 might not be a moustache-twirling, colonial techno-fascist does not adequately offset the aggressiveness and assumption of ill-intent that pervades your comments.
You also seem to be much more interested in what you have to say than in the actual content of the comments you respond to. For example, I did not say anything about criticizing ecofascist narratives being a denial of climate change, and I don’t even see how what I wrote could be read as such. I pointed out that though the public has been aware of climate change for half a century, in that time we have not only collectively failed to reverse its course, we have only continued to accelerate the process. Factual acceptance of that reality is not equivalent to moral acceptance of climate change, its causes, or its effects.
You seem to really want both Simulation6 and myself to be colonialist liberals unwilling to look for non-tech solutions to problems (presumably because that is the argument you were prepared to have), but neither of us has said anything to indicate that that is the case. I don’t want to speak for Simulation6, but I saw nothing in their comments beyond an entirely justified cynicism that short- and medium-term material difficulties will most likely adversely effect primarily those who are least able to weather such problems. That, and apparent bewilderment as to adswhy they were seemingly being attacked by you for things they did not say.
“You clearly took their prediction of the likely outcome (given the world we do live in and the obviously shitty priorities of the powers that be) as an endorsement or acceptance of that outcome, when they did not say anything to indicate that they found it at all acceptable.”
"Predicting the most likely outcome of a situation is not at all the same as saying that nothing better than that outcome is possible. … Pessimism about humanity’s ability to successfully mitigate or overcome the problems of our own making is not the same as saying we shouldn’t try. "
Yeah, you did say those things, but whatever you’re already mad about being told that the words you say have effect beyond what you intend, so you’re already over that hurdle (hilarious for an “anti-fascist”)." Unless, of course, you meant that intentionally dissuading this pessimistic and markedly liberal reading counts as “clearly.”
You and the original commenter (along with many other users on this lib site), take offense to this form of criticism because you fundamentally believe that you’re only bad if you intend to be actively; which is obviously not the case in a system that both dominates your language and understanding of your own participation in genocide. It’s literally beyond you because you would rather maintain your own moral purity than actually behave in a moral way. If you are an “anti-fascist,” you should go look up what internalization is and how it happens, and then consider whether you have actually done that work for yourself.
My comment told the original commenter that, whether they intended to or not, their statement (not factual btw, which is the entire problem since, again, this is a social issue more than a technological issue, but whatever), presented a narrative of both the present conditions and future imagination of climate change in a way that is consistent with eco-fascism. I even said that this is apparently unintentional and then illustrated how that specific narrative relates to the ecofascism. It’s a common thing liberals resort to because they typically lack the political literacy (or fortitude) to interrogate their own values with the openness to accept when they’ve reproduced something harmful without intending to.
In five years, there’ll be a bunch of dickheads like you two talking about how you’ve known this all along, I’ve alreaady seen this a few times in the past decade; maybe you’ll be one of them. You’re not bad for being socialized to hold internalized values, you are bad for refusing to even consider if you hold them. Fuck off, chud.