Environmentalism is the way to go

Depends on what you mean. If you mean people who don't scream "lol muh man-made climate change, muh science against drumpf xDDD" everytime sometime slightly criticizes the mainstream narrative of what's usually propagated as "climate change" - well count me in.

Environmentalism, as in an outlook that catalogues the biosphere as a collection of resources to be exploited responsibly, is an unecological view.

What we need is radical ecology, not environmentalism.

honestly eat a bullet

Mostly just the tankies because muh factories and industry

This

Recommended reading:
penttilinkola.com/
penttilinkola.com/pentti_linkola/ecofascism_writings/

Hi Holla Forums

I'd say that I'm not even white and live in a 3rd world shithole, but that would seem rather "moot" I guess.

Your ID pol twaddle is irrelevant.

Humans irrespective of race are product of nature, cut down a billion and in time more will take their place.

Guess I'll show my self out

Bookchin is fucking stupid. Anarchism didn't conserve our natural resources before civilization and it won't after capitalism.

Pol Pot was misguided in that he ended up killing Cambodia's best and brightest.
But is that country really better off with millions of additional people? Think of all the land and resources the average cambodian could have had if they'd stopped growing from the middle of the last century.

With some added land distribution they would have had comparatively much better living standards per capita.

Bookchin was wrong on this hough. Infinite population growth and billions of people living western lifestyles isn't compatible with ecology.
No matter how cruel that seems.

our local green anarchist yet again has been mistaken for an anprim

Bookchin realized that population is a social issue, and that social issues and ecological issues are intertwined. So, issues of overpopulation are dealt with in the social realm. Simply observe the birth rates in highly developed nations compared to that of the least developed

...

And yet people in developed nations consume up to six times more resources than those in developing countries.

The resources consumption of the US alone is greater than that Africa, South America and India combined.

How does this even come close to being a solution? People in developing countries continue to reproduce, end up moving to western countries due to unemployment/poverty/war/exploitation/oppression, and then take up the consumption pattern of the native population?

The reality is that the planet's ecosystem won't survive another billion or so American-style consumers. And yes. That means refusing refugees who will surely suffer and die without a safe haven. That means millions starving in developing countries.

This cannot be prevented. And it's but a taste for things to come if we do not cease population growth and the pace at which we consume resources.
The idea that we can be saved if we all just adopt western lifestyles is a neoliberal myth designed to put more money in the pockets of the ultrarich.

To take Africa as an example:
Western food aid, economic exploitation and the hoarding of resources by international corporations has disrupted African economies, produced unsustainable populations, created immense pressure on local services, fostered civil wars, caused tremendous environmental damage, and condemned millions of people to poverty and wage slavery.
Bleeding-hearts are an absolute fucking cancer to this world no matter how much they try and tell themselves they're "doing the right thing".

Resource consumption doesn't matter (either we can get more of it, or we can't and we may as well deal with that now rather than later). Externalities matter, it's not the same thing.

The problem is porky refuses to fucking pay for his externalities (even the freaking libtards can comprehend he should, but it never happens) which creates an immediate market failure pushing everything to high externality processes because the cost is buried and has to be paid by other people later, not that low externality processes are impossible.

When it comes to otherwise renewable resources it definitely matters. And not running out right now means we have more time to prepare.
What do you think would be more disruptive: If today we find out oil will run out tomorrow, or if we find out reserves will be depleted in 20 years?

And immigration or developing world population growth doesn't stop this. For every immigrant that comes to the west and wants to enjoy the same consumerist lifestyle as the rest, you need another group of life-time impoverished workers to sustain them.
Immigration feeds the vicious cycle. And unless you want to label over 90% of westerners porkies, it's not just them that aren't paying for externalities.

We need to cull the growth, stop the population explosion that's been going on since the last century, and step away from our current path before resource scarcity causes civilization to extinguish itself in nuclear war.

Wrong on this point alone. Just because a resource is not infinite doesn't mean we must either not use it or use it until it runs out. Even if it is finite and cannot be renewed, central planning would use it where it was most needed only and otherwise conserve it. ie. helium, which is needed for cutting edge industrial applications, and also for children's party balloons that last a day before the gas escapes, and is currently running out (it has tripled in price in the last few years but this is really too little too late)

In no way is actual planning for the future involved under the current system if oil stops being extracted in 20 years, rather, it will get more and more expensive (in a cost to extract sense, not a mere supply/demand sense) and alternatives will phase in eventually you hit a point where there are actually huge amounts of oil in the ground but tis not worth the money to get it out because the alternatives are cheaper. because of the way resource depletion works, your hypothetical just doesn't have the ability to exist.

Yes if we stop having capitalism we won't have capitalism's problems any more, who knew.

Though you're quite off on the helium thing. The Helium we already have in tanks is running out, but we've been blowing through those tanks for longer than it took to fill them in the first place, it's just a matter of deciding we want more Helium (whether that's central planning or the price going up more).

Moving the goalposts ahoy. You said resource depletion wasn't an issue, it is.

...

You just demonstrated how its not actually, except in the concept of capitalism.

Your argument about externalities only applies under capitalism too. Go home, you're drunk.

Biocentrism is the way to go!

Oh, come on. Individual decisions are independent of "collective" ones, i.e. the sum total of decisions made minus your own. That's the point of the Tragedy of the Commons. Your personal decision not to exploit the commons has no impact on anyone else's choice because the material incentives are unchanged and one choice is strictly advantageous regardless. The whole fucking point is to change the conditions themselves and not to change "a bunch of" individual choices.
Go shorten your shower by two minutes or something you giant faggot

...

Once the third world has been communalized, given a rational economy, and had their women liberated, then there is no insentive to overbreed, and it is impossible to use women as breeding-stock.
Therefore population-rates will hit a ntural growth rate in the third world once we liberate their women and give them democracy.

...

...

Regardless it's pretty apparent that the climate change debate in the US has been assimilated into tribalist red-team blue-team culture warring

And how many more unique forms of life will need to be wiped out of existence before we can attain that?

Environmentalism really needs to get past the Global Warming rut they've dug themselves into. There are real issues that should get more attention, but they're neglected in favour of the goofy Doomsday meme

Cute Evo! Cute!

All fun and games untill i mouthfuck you greenie

I agree

THORIUM REACTORS WHEN

You are braindead beyond salvation, no group of people is so selfish and uncaring when it comes to the envoirment as the socialists. USSR used nuclear warheads to dig irrigation channels and stop gas well blowouts for fucks sake

lets just generalize shall we

Women are actually the very core of the problem.

fona.com/resource-center/blog/purchasing-power-women

Females are natural born hoarders, they live to consume the products men(who on the other hand are actually very low maintaince. Ever seen a flat of average bachelor?) create or/and buy in order to attract females. Females are also the one who spawn new people making the situation even worse. Conclusion: If you care for the envoirment your goal should be to cull 90% of women as they literally are the devourers of worlds

bump

yeah men never conspicuously consume right?

same shit different venue

read marx, nazi

I would fap so hard fams

Triggered.

t. bartender

go drink an old fashion you faggot

I think i know you

really? alright describe me

Bookchin did not deny that over population was a possible ecological problem that would would have to address. In fact, they explicitly state this in their debate with EarthFirst!'s Dave Foreman:

"I also agree that we need to promote a rational solution to the human population problem. The world’s human population needs to be brought into a workable equilibrium with the “carrying capacity” of the planet. Sooner or later, the mindless proliferation of human beings will have to be dealt with. It is absolutely essential, however, that we first clearly identify what we mean by terms like “overpopulation” and “carrying capacity.”" - theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-and-dave-foreman-defending-the-earth-a-debate

See, Bookchin did not deny that over population would need to be dealt with at all. But what Bookchin's position was, was that overpopulation is an issue that is socially rooted, not innate in our species. Human beings are not like fruit flies that mindlessly reproduce until they reach the carrying capacity of their environment. Give people access to an education, a decent quality of life, access to birth control and abortions, and stop treating women like baby machines and overpopulation can be handled.

really really hope you ain't a tall skinny dude with a kid's face that majors in history and used to work as an intern for a very large city's culture department.
(please don't be you)

Men surround themselves with luxurious, expensive items in order to impress and attract females. Houses, cars, yachts, watches and other commodities men supposedly desire are gathered in a desperate attempt to be noticed and appreciated. Obviously it'd be easier to be born a hot 10/10, 190 cm tall chad with a cock the size of a baseball bat but unfortunately not all men are granted by nature with such gifts. It all really boils down to "The Pussy & How To Get It" question which is as ancient as the life itself. The whole system and the way things work, you folks here complain about would cease to exist the very first moment women stopped being hypergamous cunts who expect the man to prove himself and his worth, but of course it'll never be adressed and solved since it's the basic law of biology

literally what Capitalism has been to doing for the past century and a half