How do we get people interested in not destroying the environment? Easy stuff like not littering, cutting back on waste...

How do we get people interested in not destroying the environment? Easy stuff like not littering, cutting back on waste, recycling, cutting back on meat consumption (or even quitting it entirely), etc?

Making fewer humans is the only meaningful way of preventing the destruction of environment, deal with it.

Zizek has pointed out that modern capitalism has internalized some guilt, and tries to assuage it a bit by offering "redemption" as part of the commodity. "Profit goes to 3rd world peasants", "this wrapping biodegrades in 2 weeks" etc.

Obviously, its impact in the grand scheme of things will be null, it's virtue-signalling-cum-marketing (implying there was ever a difference between these things). In fact, it may actually be detrimental to the environment, as it makes consumers think they are indeed "redeemed" and their consumerism is fully sustainable.

I think there is no real way outside of which I don't think will transpire anyway
(btw I like Zerzan and Perlman)

for burgerfats, in current conditions, I think it could be crudely done in the manner of marketers and cyberneticians, control information unilaterally and saturate the media with pro-environment messages. Semiotic bombardment. Commercials, radio, imagery. but that doesn't really build the communist society where people are enlightened and do things 'for themselves'.

If only we could cut down on consumerism.

b-b-but m-muh fully automated luxury communism

We could try not going extinct until replicator technology is invented.

Mandatory ecology class from primary to high school.

exactly. I, , have a beef with the gibsmedat/FALC socialists. They are the people Nietzsche hated.

Think about it, life used to be just about getting enough to survive. Now that that jig is up, we have to deal with existential problems. And look where that got us, civ has some good things, like music and philosophy, but we're all in a meaningless frenzy towards death. Speed and efficiency haven't bettered our lives.

Civilization doesn't make sense because it means hoarding and privatizing food (means of life) while not 'privatizing' breeding (and meme-ing spooks about women being nothing but birth machines, no contraception allowed, etc).

People who are wealthy enough wish to purchase environmentalism wherever they feel empowered to seek it. Traditionally then the method of ensuring a clean environment was to vastly empower a few individuals of vast wealth. Modern capitalism does at least somewhat better by moderately empowering many individuals of moderate wealth. To provide an alternative, it may perhaps be as easy as to replicate capitalism's achievement, and to provide for people certain channels whereby those who have conquered other problems in their life may be effective in cleaning their environment as well.

You seem to be assuming that such things are incapable of bettering our lives, whereas the leftist position is that this hasn't happened so far because they have never been put to that end in the first place.

But this implies scarcity, whereas FALC is post-scarcity. By your definity, FALC is post-civilization.


I fear that environmentalism, in the sense of reducing or negating the environmental cost of some product or event, will never reach its goal. It would require far too advanced a command of matter and energy manipulation in order to negate environmental impact of anything meaningful. Despite this alternative being appealing to capitalism (after all, creating counter-pollution would be another industry), I think the only feasible form of environmentalism is to just plain alter social behavior as to reduce consumption and waste, and capitalism most definitely ain't down with that.

Make heavy fines for littering/not recycling. Increase community service to take care of the environment. And develop more efficient/less environmentally harmful technology such as nuclear fusion.

You have to frame environmentalism not as a personal moral duty, but a societal need that our institutions are failing with. A person littering or not recycling or whatever does a negligible amount of harm to the environment, the real damage is done by corporations in the search for profit. Corporations can easily cut out on their waste, but they don't because it would hurt their profits.

Consider for example that before the 70s, pretty much all bottles (glass) could be returned back to the company and they would wash them and re-use them. But they found out that it was cheaper to shift the burden to recycling and duty the consumer. Really, the modern liberal-environmentalist culture is a spook.

Speed and efficiency only make things faster and more efficient. I'm talking pure quantity. They can only help in the survival or animal aspect of human existence. A bigger human population doesn't necessarily entail happy humans either.

I guess we could say FALC is post-civ since 'civ' is what we've had till now and FALC or communism is radically different.

We agree that altering social behavior is necessary. A post-rev scenario is the only meaningful one for the deployment of the semiotic measures I mentioned before.

See my diatribe in the other thread:


tl;dr higher efficiency both enables us to solve the problem, and offers an incentive that will cause people to do it. As for consumerism versus NEETdom, that is mostly a separate issue.

I'm not reading that shit
Hurr fucking durr. You should get a Nobel prize.

My point is that this isn't hypothetical efficiency, it's efficiency based on affordable, proven technologies, with far greater capacity than we need, and little or no impact on quality of life.

One obvious solution is to provide them with economic incentives: make packaging expensive, provide rebates for cans and plastic bottles, make meat much, much more expensive, and so on. Carbon taxes, plastic taxes, outright bans of plastic bags. The state has at its fingertips a whole array of brute force measures it can take, we don't have to rely on individual morality or a change in culture at first.
The problem is to have a democratically legitimate government willing to implement all that - people like their wasteful lifestyles atm. That can only be changed through propaganda in the media, classrooms, and so on.

I think Candlejack ran on a similar platform in 2016. You could just declare a green state of emergency, a green new deal, and have there be a middle class by having them in jobs which aid The Planet instead of doing shit which is absolutely frivolus and indecent like business and marketing.

Instead we get exxon in charge, EPA totally bunk, burn more coal for the honkies. Wait, it was Jill Stein who wanted t

You can't get the idiot masses involved with environmentalism, it's too inconvenient for their lifestyles. The only solution is an eco-technocracy that forces environmental behavior at gun point.

Now that's a recycled meme, havn't seen it in yea

By organizing production and governance to reduce waste? Guilt tripping people into changing consumption habits isn't gonna do shit. The DDR was really good in recycling, might wanna look into that.

the idiot masses are only the sympton, but not the illnes
the real problem is the industrial lobbyism that prevents any real change
take for example the aftermath of the diesel scandal: here in germany, many cities under a green mayor tried to ban diesel cars, but were threatend to be sued into oblivion
and right wing conservatist like the csu tries to get voters by saying stuff like "don´t let these green fuckers take your 400 ps bmw away from you"

whoops forgot that ps is called hp in english

Same thing in California. The state government mandated that some single-digit percentage of government fleet vehicles had to be zero-emission, car companies screeched and moaned about how impossible it was, pretended to drag their feet, but even letting that tiny sliver of profit through was too much, so they made the cheesiest electric cars they were allowed to right on schedule, only allowed the general public to get them on leases, and destroyed every single one after they managed to get the mandate repealed.

Of course, by then, the cat was out of the bag that such a thing was doable, so years later they begrudgingly spat out some gas-electric hybrids, until Tesla started bullying them, and now there are plug-in hybrids and full electrics from every manufacturer.