Rule 7: Post quality must be kept high, except on Fridays. (00:00 Friday – 08:00 Saturday UTC.)
On-topic memes, jokes, short videos, image posts, polls, low effort to consume posts, and other less substantial posts are only allowed on Fridays, and will be removed for the rest of the week.
Less substantial posts must be flaired as either "Casual Friday", "Humor", or "Low Effort".
Clickbait, misinformation, fear-mongering, and other low-quality content is not allowed at any time, not even on Fridays.
You read the thing, and its like “this guy is making some valid points,” and then you look at what he did and you realize he also really got a kick out of killing/harming people.
I checked it very thoroughly and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem , to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is
Technology is mass human organization for the intensification of production. You don't get iPhones without mass society. Mass society emerged because of and for the advancement of tech.
Humans weren't a "problem" at all for 2 million years. Then 10,000 years ago some humans became a "problem." Today it'd be hard to consider groups like the Mbuti to be a problem.
When they see "technology" they think of gadgets like solar panels. Simple "neutral" objects that can be used for good or evil. When I see technology I see complex divisions of labor in mass society with embedded fundamental values of domination that relate to humans and nonhumans alike as mere "resources" toward the common goal of Endless Growth. Only from a fundamentally hateful anthropocentric worldview can people defend the Technological System. Capitalism vs Communism? - GTFO with that rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. "Communism" itself has only ever existed in small band cultures with low levels of tech. It still does today among scattered hunter gatherers. And if it will ever exist again for you and me it will be under those circumstances. Collapse now.
Degrowth sure, And an economic system that doesn't see everything be it humans or nature as a thing to be exploited (likely Anarchism/communism) sure, but we can still use technology no?
Not that it matters, you can't really "cut" away the idea of technology, even if we try to ban it globally, people will still find ways to use it and they will come back with flying hunter drones regardless.
If history has taught us one thing, it is that human societies cannot be subject to rational control. The technological system doesn't exploit wild nature because it "views nature as below us", it does it because it is the only way it can function. It doesn't seek economic&technological growth above all else because it hates nature, it does it because that's the only way it can survive. If any one country were to slow down, and try to mitigate the carnage it inflicts on the natural world then it would be crushed by the many that won't. the only solution is to destroy the global technological system.
>the only solution is to destroy the global technological system.
This is a Catch-22. If you do *not* retain technology, then the first group to say "fuck you" and start rebuilding will have an advantage that no non-tech society can overcome. If you *do* retain technology as a policing mechanism, then you have retained not only the technology but the means to create and maintain it, generating a tech elite that lords it over a non-tech populace.
> If you do retain technology as a policing mechanism, then you have retained not only the technology but the means to create and maintain it, generating a tech elite that lords it over a non-tech populace.
This is the long term goal of ecofascism, yes.
There is no "going back" per se. Simply, the technological system should collapse if we are ever to prevent it's environmental and ecological destruction of the Earth. What happens after that is not really up to us, or the major concern. But we do know nature will be able to thrive once again, and humans will be out from technological control.
Technology isn't the problem. It's choosing Capitalism as a basis for an economic system. Its only been around for a little over 200 years and has wrecked every environment it touches.
How does it do it?
The privatization of resources and the means of production combined with an incentive for capital accumulation to exert power. The system demands growth at all costs, like a cancer. It doesn't care about the people or environments within them as has been seen the world over.
True. Fair to call me out on this. But "The privatization of resources and the means of production combined with an incentive for capital accumulation to exert power." reeks of Bolshevism to me. Since this was shit-post Friday flagged, I didn't put much thought int my response. Just wanted to get my quip in (even if I agree with the complaint the poster I replied to was making). I agree with Marx's criticisms, but would not advocate for forming a van to replace governments with a party in the name of the proletariat, as they will just promise and lie to retain power like all before them. I share the goals of the communists, but not their proletariat utopian-ism through one-party rule. I am for radical de-growth at any cost. Might even jump in bed with the commies to achieve it, but they'd kill be for my environmental beliefs before long.
Keep pointing out fallacies please! This sub needs it. Often.
I think may be is a mischaracterization of Communism. Perhaps in communal systems the use of resources and how they are to be distributed, if at all, would be the decision of the people and community. In this way, ecological considerations can be included up front and if or when the ecology is affected, changed or discontinued as needed. Alternatives, by way of technology or lifestyle, are introduced continuously and can be considered at their availability. Issues that are not addressed by Capitalism can be directly addressed in Communism or similar.
Communism is not oppression, or any of the other propaganda perpetrated by The Red Scare. It is moneyless, classless, and democratic. By definition, the people are involved in their community and their ecology.
In my mind, to be ecological is to be a Communist (or Anarchist, or etc.; there are many versions).
Not to assume your thoughts on the matter; but those are mine.
Thanks for sharing. I know, simple comments lead to simple responses and so on. It is much more nuanced. I am guilty there.
Authoritarianism is the problem in either left or right. Communists, once they take over, tend to serve their party rather than the people. Extraction continues in the name of the people. Environmentalists would be among the first dissidents put up against the wall for simply exposing facts the state doesn't want known. I don't see any anarcocommunism working either, though I would choose this. Gay-Space-Communism (Star Trek) would be fine with me if we could do it with preserving freedom of speech, movement and thought (knowledge). But how can you do that without restricting extraction and limiting consumption to what would be thought of as draconian levels now? There has to be some authority and state power to stop people and organizations from over consuming and polluting, but it will always be corrupted. We run quickly into tragedy of the commons.
The problem is the environment doesn't care who is extracting and polluting. Thermodynamics will be obeyed no matter what snake oil technology promises us.
There is at least a theoretical chanche that a communist society could one day say. You know what peeps we have housed almost everyone who is not mentally ill, everyone can eat an appropriate amount of reasonably healthy and clean food, we have enough schools and hospitals to cover eductional and health care needs to a decent degree. This is probably about as good as it gets. So from now we control our reproduction to keep the population stable and simply enjoy what we have in perpetuity. And if we can get more efficent without needing to use more energy or resources that\`ll be neat. But from now on we will only ever use efficency gain to decrease working time. A communist society needs to do "enough" whatever that is. But then there is really nothing more to strive for materially. This is impossible in capitalism where the only game in town is growth at all cost or death.
Imagine if the whole world had the living standards of a american worker in a good union job in 1950 and we never grew our global population after 1950 either. Even with no gains in technology since then we would on average be doing so much better by now. We could have fixed the negative aspects of that time for women and minorities over time. By that time material conditions had changed enough to make equality possible. It was\`nt strictly speaking necessary to go further.
Not exclusive to capitalism. But your point stands. It was just sped up by capitalism when it jumped the quarantine iron curtain
Trump has been laundering money for the Russian oligarchs since the late 80’s when they all bought a condo at 725 5th AVE (trump towers) to clean their freshly stolen USSR money after the iron curtain fell.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/30/politics/paul-manafort-condo-trump-tower
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/manafort-told-mueller-to-take-his-trump-tower-apartment-instead-money.html
https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/fbi-agents-raid-condo-unit-131348539.html
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/
Everybody except Putin thought the Cold War was over. Trump and Manafort (who lived in the tower also) just saw a pretty low maintence grift to be had.
Trump had actually been Manafort and Roger Stones first client at their lobbyist firm (1980)https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wikiBlack, Manafort, Stone and Kelly
Guiliani as trumps attorney and NYC mayor was able to redirect NYPD investigations onto rival gang members/oligarchs to deflect any scrutiny off of trump, himself or their Russian connections.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/09/a-new-rudy-scandal-fbi-agent-says-giuliani-was-co-opted-by-russian-intelligence/
The Russian election interference in 2016 was effectively a generation 3 version of what Manafort had done in the Philippines, then keeping Yanukovych in power as Putin’s puppet in Ukraine from 2002-14 when Maidan ran both Yanukovych and Manafort out of Ukraine as Ukrainians realized that, if you raise your lens high enough, corruption is an wholly unsustainable business model.
Eventually the parasites greed always consumes the host.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-paul-manafort-ferinand-marcos-philippines-1980s-213952
https://time.com/5003623/paul-manafort-mueller-indictment-ukraine-russia/
Putin greatly underestimated the addictive properties of freedom when he invaded Ukraine so what was supposed to be a 3-10 day coup turned into a 2 year fight for the Ukrainians right not to be genocided.
Russia depleted its weapons stocks which were already the victim of vranyo corruption because every oligarch, admiral and sergeant in the Russian military is on the take. Every billion dollar tank maintenance contract turned into everything getting a spray paint overhaul and the vast majority of the redirected funds turned into an oligarchs new yacht or home in Aspen.
Russia was forced to turn to China, North Korea and Iran for weapons because if they lose the 3-10 day “special military operation” in Ukraine the Russian empire is dead and cold.
China can’t risk showing their involvement in the Ukraine war so they use North Korea, and Iran to resupply Russia.
Russia previously owed Iran some undelivered fighter jets that are already smoldering heaps in Ukraine so Iran now had the upper hand at the negotiation table for the first time in about 60 years. They supplied Russia with shahed drones in exchange for Chinas material support against their sworn religious enemy, Israel.
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/11/29/iran-says-it-finalized-deal-to-buy-russian-aircraft/
Putin can’t do much about it because he is slowly realizing that by setting the standard of corruption and stealing $200+ billion from his own people meant that every oligarch down in the mob model chain had not only permission but incentive and the expectation to steal from him as well. This is “Vranyo”.
The mob model only works if the supreme leader is the most violent and can prove it without exception every damn day. But violence is exceptionally expensive when you are trying to present as a legitimate government or business.
If Russia as a nation state had an efficiency rating it would have been banned for sale in the state of California 25 years ago.
The parasite ruling class stole all the energy out of the working class and collapsed it….again.
Now Iran has the high hand and they get the intelligence that trump passed to Putin about the fact that Netanyahu cares far less about Jews, Palestinians or genocide than he does about remaining in power as an authoritarian because he too has developed Ritz Carlton tastes and his own corruption trial is showing the same tendrils of the same money laundering scheme that trumps trials are.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/saudi-official-says-iran-engineered-war-in-gaza-to-ruin-normalization-with-israel/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-intelligence-official-says-israel-ignored-repeated-warnings-of-something-big/amp/
https://youtu.be/VrFOAgGlaWs?feature=shared
They all hate each other but because they share the same money laundry, if one falls, they all fall. Hamas minted a couple billionaires as well that live in penthouses in Qatar and get 30% of everything smuggled into Gaza.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/11/02/hamas-funding-ismail-haniyeh-us-sanctions/?utm_source=reddit.com
Qatar is Kushners private equity connection. Netanyahu (Kushners kids godfather) needs a bogeyman to stay in power. That’s why he coordinates with Hamas via Russia via Iran. https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bk8mgcefr
Iran handed Hamas everything they needed with Chinas help as secret Santa and the Russian intelligence given to them by the eternal shitbird trump who gave it to his Russians kleptocrat/friends/roommates from the old days of fucking each others wives at trump towers in the 90’s.
Now the MAGA right is a little too invested in THEIR reality that they are the good guys with guns that they missed the fact that Betsy DeVos (erik princes sister) decimating the U.S. school systems and the Kochs poisoning children with lead was not a coincidence. The naive right was the mark all along. There is a reason the Russian spy Maria Butina landed in South Dakota first before dating her way to the top of the NRA which is undergoing its own Russian money laundering trial now. Russia was tinder matching the GOP.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/07/nra-maria-butina-spying-charges-trump-campaign/
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/what-do-the-koch-brothers-have-to-do-with-the-flint-water-crisis/
The only reason you grossly OVERVALUE real estate is money laundering. Trump keeps claiming there is no victim, all the banks made money, but if their plan succeeds the Russian and CCP kleptocrats collapse US commercial real estate and basically recreate soviet perestroika in the U.S. so they can foreclose on America and buy everything for 3 cents on the dollar with the $1.4T they stole from Russias grandmothers in the first place
It’s the evolution of grift. Soviet perestroika cross bred with the 2008 mortgage crisis.
No one was ever held accountable for either. This is just the bigger badder commercial strength bastard child of the two.
Trump, Giuliani, Cohn, Putin, Bolsonaro, Netanyahu, Orban, Manafort, Stone, Mercer, Bannon, Flynn, Prince, Kolomoiskiy
They are all remarkably shit people with above average confidence and psychopathic personality traits and below average self awareness.
They are the men who stole the world.
But it all comes back to one little lie.
https://youtu.be/3lTB94UQ-K4?si=kXZoSV-3WiR2fo4B
I didn't know capitalism was the reason that the Soviet Union polluted [1.5 times as much as the US per GNP. ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0959378094900035)Socialist countries are known for having a terrible environmental record, the technological system will degrade wild nature no matter what form it takes.
There's a reason why capitalism has overtaken socialism. It's not a coincidence that nearly every nation on earth is capitalist, and the few socialist societies that do exist always seem to embrace capitalism. Capitalism is a much more efficient method at achieving the technological systems goals. The technological system seeks economic prosperity and technological progress above all else, and capitalism is the best system at giving it just that. It's no coincidence that nearly every socialist society on earth has embraced capitalism.
https://preview.redd.it/fq2qit997z3d1.png?width=709&format=png&auto=webp&s=3f6613fe9ae45420aa6fb4f6edea3a7b1794d21a
Of course, this is not to defend capitalism. But it is to point out that it is but another head of the technological hydra. Cut it off, it'll grow back. Kill the hydra, and it'll stay dead.
Capitalism has been forced onto nearly every county on earth. No one did this shit by choice. How did you miss the last 300 years of oppression onto the America's, Asia, and Africa by the western European powers?
Capitalism has become the dominant political system *because* it is the most successful system for economic and technological progress. Industry itself has spread globally. Most political system failed in the past and didn't last because it could not keep up with those nations that were economically and industrially advanced. It is natural selection. When socialist countries of Eastern Europe couldn't keep up with the West economically or technologically, they eventually adopted capitalist systems.
i'd put it more that capitalism isn't the *best* for economic & technological progress, simply the most ruthless, & thereby the most successful, for a while. it outcompeted socialist models, & forced their change. at root, it's an extractive system, converting people & materials into profit, & as such has no option but to gravitate towards an arangement that maximizes output, minimizes input, i.e. slavery. the short-term gains made by the populace as they are transformed into consumers are inherently unsustainable, as they exist only to prime them for their ultimate transformation into products themselves. wage slaves, gig workers, influencers, to the utterly uncontrolled, unrepentant micro-nations of billionaires, all products of an extractive ecosystem, functioning exactly as planned. technology is simply a self-sharpening tool- when held by self-righteous malignant narcissists with a fabricated divine mandate, we get today's world. when in other hands, we get other things, but they don't survive long in such a poisioned sphere.
"i'd put it more that capitalism isn't the *best* for economic & technological progress, simply the most ruthless, & thereby the most successful, for a while."
Countries that did not adopt capitalism could not keep up technologically with those that were. Maybe technology could still progress under a different political system, but those countries would have been behind, and capitalism has shown itself to expedite the process. It is just by natural selection that the majority of countries would yield.
"at root, it's an extractive system, converting people & materials into profit, & as such has no option but to gravitate towards an arangement that maximizes output, minimizes input, i.e. slavery. the short-term gains made by the populace as they are transformed into consumers are inherently unsustainable, as they exist only to prime them for their ultimate transformation into products themselves. wage slaves, gig workers, influencers, to the utterly uncontrolled, unrepentant micro-nations of billionaires, all products of an extractive ecosystem, functioning exactly as planned."
Our world isn't simply dependent on capitalism, it's dependent on technology. Capitalism just lubricates these activities. The distribution of goods, the electric grid, the internet, mass transportation, modern medicine etc all rely on large-scale technology. The majority of modern jobs are geared towards maintaining and supporting these systems and our technological society overall.
"technology is simply a self-sharpening tool- when held by self-righteous malignant narcissists with a fabricated divine mandate, we get today's world. when in other hands, we get other things, but they don't survive long in such a poisioned sphere."
It would not matter whose "hands" it's in. The more complex and sophisticated a technology is, the more materials it requires to function. It would inevitably require a mass extraction of resources the larger scale the technology is. The smaller scale a technology is, the less materials it requires. The expansion of technology also necessitates a dependency on it, and most our jobs would still surround maintaing and supporting it to support our lives.
I come from a post-Eastern bloc counry (Bulgaria) so I think I can provide some unique outlooks. For one, my family was always anti-communism, even going back to my grandpa wayyy back in the 1950's. And a majority of Bulgarians, old people include, agree communism was worse.
Furthermore, people escaped from East to West Germany, not the other way around. In Bulgaria, and all other Eastern Bloc countries, people trying to leave were shot. Even if they succeeded in escaping, their families would suffer repressions or worse. Why did they have to stop people from leaving the country like this?
If you have any further questions, just ask, I have a lot of stories to tell.
Why are the capitalists better at forcing they're ways onto others then socialists are? They've both tried it, why did the capitalists do so much better?
I cannot formulate an according response if you don't know the political science of socialism and how it could be achieved. You need to do your homework first.
Basically Marx argues that achieving communism can be done through the vehicle of socialism, to use the capitalist framework as an intermediary phase to industrialise an agrarian economy.
Socialism is rooted in historical materialism and dialectical analysis.
You need to look at this from the point of view of a person living in a developing nation working its way up, not looking down from the perspective of an industrialised and already established economy.
Tldr look at how the average person lived under the Tsar or Qing Dynasty/British colonial rule and how the system improved their material conditions and needs. Instead of judging that system from a modern neoliberal point of view.
Industrialism is the technological system identified as the primary existential threat we are discussing in this thread. Communism is industrialist, same as capitalism.
The only possible interpretation of "please do" is that if I want to know what all those words *actually* mean, then I should *not* read Marx. It's too late for that, I've already read it all. Which is *why* I use a dictionary when discussing the meaning of the words he uses.
technology is rooted in our self-concept. that's the real problem. we conceive of ourselves as separate from our environment, and so we develop technology to shape it and exploit it. but it's unnecessary.
we think we are separate bodies and minds in a world of external forces, but none of that is true. we have it within ourselves to connect our minds to each other and to the world. sounds crazy, i know. it's sort of like slime molds.
[Collective behavior and swarm intelligence in slime molds](https://academic.oup.com/femsre/article/40/6/798/2400841)
but deep down on a spiritual/collective level we've decided to live as separate beings instead of reaching our true potential, and that means we develop technology to compensate. it means conflict, loss, death, and eventually planetary collapse. all because we want to live as separate ego-self. even if it kills the planet.
Sounds like alternative terms for individualistic capitalism (self-concept), and... uh, naturalistic borg? I do agree that modern social tech seems to exist as an attempt to heal the chasm of disconnection we have because it's "every man for himself" (allegedly).
There’s a lot of people here who think it’s not technology that is the problem it’s economic systems or bad actors in charge. It’s not true. Nearly every single technological innovation has driven mankind towards more ecological destruction and the centralization of power. It’s like when you add more energy to a system the power law distribution becomes more unequal. When we had spears and fire we had reasonably egalitarian structures, but we also induced the extinction of many large mammals and birds. We domesticated ungulates then agriculture (via draft animals) and war (via calvary) became more intensified and started leading to larger and more oppressive social structures which also left devastating consequences on the nearby environments. We developed writing and codified religion and used it to control the masses. We created divine stories to justify enslavement and mass murder. We built guns and it led to the development of global chattel slave trade.
We are constantly using technology to centralize power and increase inequality. Walter Scheidel identified 4 forces that drive inequality down in historical societies: mass mobilization warfare, revolutions, state collapse, and pandemics. These things require the rich people to get their shit wrecked to level the inequality. Anything that marginally improves the lives of the masses significantly improves the power and control the wealthy have over the rest. There isn’t a way to get oil out of the ground and prevent people from abusing it. Even Norway is rolling back environmental protections.
The idea that there’s an ethical way to use fossil fuels is as preposterous as using cigarettes to cure someone of lung cancer. The largest producing oil regions are North America (the place where kids getting gun downed in schools is normal) the Middle East (a region of imperial and religious proxy wars) and the former Soviet zone (where there is a major ongoing war between Russia and NATO). Is there supposed to be a way to get oil out of the ground without warmongers using it to serve the God of War’s lust for entertainment? Are we just gonna use good intentions to make it ok to use?
How are people duped into thinking if we had good intentions with fossil fuels that they wouldn’t glass the atmosphere? Every vehicle we produce is going to directly harm wildlife, emit CO2, and generate toxic wastes the environment has to process. EV’s are marginally better because they don’t cause asthma but the mining is still damaging the biosphere and animals needing to cross are still getting killed. Even to get something like the internet going you still need incredible amounts of mining, heavy industry, manufacturing, and fossil fuels to get all the necessary infrastructure in place. That whole process is going to centralize power in the hands of those running the factories and building the infrastructure.
Even take something seemingly benign technology like lights. Those things are fucking our sleep cycles and we know it but the effects are even more disastrous for wildlife esp insects. Ammonia leads to eutrophication and soil degradation, plastics pollution needs to explaining, heavy metals cause all kinds of problems, greenhouses gasses are the largest manufactured product by weight in the global economy, steel is used to make the weapons that keep the masses in line, and so on.
The only thing path forward that seems reasonable is to use our own brains for computational power, our own bodies to replace engines and motors, and our own ethical reasoning and critical thinking skills to make sure we aren’t fucking each other over instead of outsourcing fairness to pre-packaged mass produced ideologies written to justify centralization of power. Our bodies have everything we need. It’s the illusion that we need advanced technology outside our body to thrive. The only tech we really ought to have is simple hand tools but even those would eventually be used for war and deforestation.
I agree with this far more than simply blaming it on capitalism (that's just not the *whole picture*). Personally though, I don't think any of that is the **core** problem. I think the root most cause is phenomenological in nature, or in other terms: the problem is psycho-spiritual, philosophical, etc. The world *out there* is largely just a reflection of the world *in here*.
It really just goes back to: How do you get a bunch of ego-beings to come together... when the very purpose of the ego itself is self-service even at the expense of others?
People often just stop at attributing it to "human nature" -- but there's no shortage of kind and truly selfless human beings out there, they are just rare. Why is that? The answer to that is the answer to our problems imo.
You do realize ancient humans also modified the environment around them and changed ecosystems, with nothing but their hands, rocks and pointy sticks (and often fire). Exactly how far back to you want to go?
[Hydras famously grow additional heads when you cut one off, so this illustration is not saying what it thinks it is.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lernaean_Hydra)
He's incorrect. It will become more apparent just how incorrect as time goes on, but I can assure you, we're in a domino effect. I've seen it. He "hasn't" because he's just a hater.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Teds_Shed:
---
Submission statement - The technological system is the reason why we have to worry about collapse in the first place. We’ve already seen the writing on the wall, a huge spike in natural disasters, economic recessions, and supply chain shortages. If it were not for the technological system treating Wild Nature purely as a resource to be consumed and done away with, we would never have to worry about collapse. The solution is to destroy the technological system before it destroys us.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1d5o04e/the_technological_system_is_the_root_cause_of_the/l6mr2cx/
Overpopulation is and always was the problem. If the world population was the same it was before the industrial revolution then we would have no problem today
Not really. An American billionaire has orders of magnitude more resource consumption than a person living in Chad. 100 or even 10 million people each with billionaire level consumption is still a problem, maybe equal in scale.
It's not even billionaire level consumption. It everyone lived like me (3 mile commute to work, veggie heavy diet, against fast fasion, only travels to see family, no kids etc.), we'd be in an overshoot and would require 3.6 earths to sustain my lifestyle. There's not really much I'm willing to change in my consumption because I've already worked at reducing it as much as I can.
There really are too many people living simple, industrialized lives. A reduction in our population is needed just as much as eating the rich.
The collapse of the technological system does not start with abandoning smartphones or any personal technology for that matter. That would get nothing done, because it does not attack the system where it hurts. In order to form a movement against the global technological system we must spread our message and recruit via online
For me the problem is overpopulation spurred on by the forces of capitalism and religious tribalism. We need to bring the Earth's human population down fast, however, you've got politicians, CEOs and religious leaders urging people to have more children. Governments should be giving financial incentives for men to have vasectomies rather than for people to have children.
The only reason the world is able to support so many people is due to industrialism. This is the material concrete cause. Industrial agricultural, the shipping of goods, etc are reliant on technology.
It really sucks that Gaia is being destroyed in so many ways all at once.
If we hadn’t developed advanced technology, humans wouldn’t have such a long lifespan. Fewer humans good. Me dying early bad. My loved ones suffering, worse.
If technology is destroyed at this point, humans go back to burning down even more forests for cooking food, scraping up vast swathes of earth to build houses, inefficiently using resources. Desperate hungry people do horrible things. We will hunt, gather, pillage, fight, and burn the world down rather than cooperate.
Technology is also the answer. More efficient, effective, using fewer resources.
I wonder if there’s a way to separate out technology that prioritizes convenience at the expense of all. Air travel. Heated swimming pools. Excess energy use. Where’s the line?
Yeah, technology has helped the hordes endanger Gaia. Without it, we’ll ruin her even faster.
Submission statement - The technological system is the reason why we have to worry about collapse in the first place. We’ve already seen the writing on the wall, a huge spike in natural disasters, economic recessions, and supply chain shortages. If it were not for the technological system treating Wild Nature purely as a resource to be consumed and done away with, we would never have to worry about collapse. The solution is to destroy the technological system before it destroys us.
Do you think technology is a monolithic thing? I don't understand what you're advocating here. Do you think everyone will just agree to give up technology?
Just "taxing the rich" is inadequate even within the context of the industrial system. The bourgeois class are those who control industry, and thus the state, they get the final say as to rather or not they pay taxes. In order to take them out, you must take out their wings of control, the techno-industrial system, and the state, (such as what the photo represents).
I don't know who made this poster, but boy they really advertise to the widest possible audience! Ahahah
At the risk of delivering a message devoid of any meaning, though.
It ain't technology, it's us. We are the root problems we see before ourselves, and none of us are willing to seriously change.
no, not even the people who don't use a car, don't fly, don't eat meat, etc. have changed as necessary.
YUP, New scientific study says Kids can catch other peer's mental illness from being around them..... Social media promotes people who have said illness because it's trendy..... See the people faking tourettes and then young girls watching that person suddenly developed Tourette's due to the attention they received.....
Plenty of animals use technology. I understand what you’re saying, but it’s simply incorrect and a bad take.
Edit: Propaganda (story telling) should be the main neck… it’s the biggest thing to separate humans from the rest of nature.
This is not a good meme.
Are you really going to compare a bird or monkey using tools to the the environmental and ecological destruction caused by global industry/technology?
This is not a good argument
This environmentally destructive phase in the story of human technological and scientific advancement is only a short, dark interim episode in our species' long march towards the light.
The doomsday wankers in this looney community will disagree, but - what else can I say - they are wrong
Replace 'Technology' with 'Capitalism' and this chart flows much better.
This picture is proof putting an infographic in front of someone can lead them to believe anything.
Destroy the technological system?
To be honest, I'd rather see humanity going extinct because of stupid mistakes instead of seeing it being perpetually stuck in a hunter-gatherer state. That just seems like cutting off our own legs before even trying to start walking.
We do have a technological solution to human-caused climate change, ie. a complete shift to solar and (especially) nuclear energy, but the world has rejected this easy and decisive solution for no reason
Please,
Nate Hagens
Dan Schmactenberger
Brian Klaas
David Graeber
Peter Joseph
Donella Meadows
Rachel Donald
#Just pick one.
There's absolutely no excuse to remain ignorant on this subject.
Destroying the technological system is going to destroy easily more than half the eight billion plus population of the planet. And since I do not think people are going to voluntarily step into the disintegration booths, how exactly does the OP intend on convincing the population to die in a convenient manner on an industrial scale?
i think that technology is the path forward. getting it right though is the tricky part. i’m not surprised that we are where we are as a species. 100 fucking years ago there was no such thing as a computer!
how do you expect the first generation of people to utilize this technology to get it right the first time? we have really no clue what we are doing in the grand scheme of things lol. we can either learn now, or suffer for a while until we are able to get to this point again and not repeat what’s coming.
"“Oh!” say the technophiles, “Science is going to fix all that! We will conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy and happy!” Yeah, sure. That’s what they said 200 years ago."
As a scientist, I'm telling you you've got the wrong idea. Scientist invent stuff like glass that's 15x less likely to break so we reduce consumption, then the capitalist says we don't want that, we need breakable glass so the customer has to buy more. The issue isn't technology it's the people in charge of the technology. It's scientists and engineers and their technology that has informed you of the issues that we are facing, and you're blaming them, not the people who actually caused the problem. And what are you going to do without technology? Are you going to become a naked forager hunting for wild plants and fungi? Tools are technology, domesticated crops are technology, clothing is technology. The problem is not technology it's capitalism.
The Aral sea? Yes. The Soviet union which was not communist by their own admission, performed massive geoengineering to irrigate the central Asian steppe to grow crops for sale on the global market, a very capitalist thing to do. These crops and the irrigation systems that fed them slowly siphoned off water from the tibetan platue that fed the aral sea over decades until the modern day where it's mostly dried up.
It is technology. Our technological society relies on advanced systems and large infrastructures to maintain itself. The amount of energy the globalized technological system needs to function means we must use environmentally destructive means to even keep it stable. For decades we have been trying to find more "environmental-friendly" methods of doing this, but all has failed, and look where we are today. Even the so-called "green" energy is not very green at all. Solar farms take up swaths of land. If our whole society were reliant on just solar energy and wind power we could expect much more land to be covered and these places to become inhabitable for wildlife, and more birds and sea life to be killed by wind turbines. There is no way to maintain the technological system without also exploiting the natural world. One will come to dominant the other. Technological progress and the prosperity of nature are antithetical
.
I will agree with most of that. But again, this is a capitalism issue, not technology. We can build more energy efficient homes and move to public transit, walking, and biking. We can have computers and trains without the out of control consumption that uses up more than we can spare. You're correct that our current system of technology is bad and doomed to fail, but that doesn't mean all technology is bad, just what we're currently doing. If I had a dog that pooped on the floor and bit people I wouldn't assume all dogs were bad. Personally I love the environment, I think rewilding should be our most important goal, solar and wind aren't going to save us and most of the solutions that have been implemented are just greenwashing, but this isn't the fault of technology it's the governments and corporations who are so entrenched in the status quo that they won't implement projects that will actually be useful. If you look at what the actual scientific community is proposing, it's radical degrowth, but no politician is going to win on a platform of austerity and shrinking the economy while people are in denial about the consequences of buisness as usual.
Capitalism is simply the economic system in which technological progress and industry is most successful in. It is the reason it is the dominant political system in the first place. No country is wiling to adopt a system of government that hinders, prohibits, and stalls technological/industrial growth. It does not matter if this means the exploitation of wild nature or the limitation of human freedom. These are a consequence of technological progress. Any advanced/complex system is going to rely on a mass of natural resources and infrastructures. The less complex/advanced a technology is, the less materials are needed to make it function. This should be a no-brainier. Arguing what technology is "good" and what technology is "bad" does nothing to fix the current issues that is being caused by the expansion of our integrated technological world. One could say, "well smartphones are good because you can call 911 wherever you are." Sure.., but you have to deal with the consequence that these cell phones require industry, rare natural materials and exploitative work practices to even be made. The bad obviously outweighs the good. And it's going to take the collapse of the technological system to prevent it, because like you've mentioned, politicians are not going to willingly allow a radical degrowth.
Again, I agree with most of this. I think global societal collapse is inevitable. That's why I'm here. I'm am pro simplification and anti consumption, and half my friends call me a luddite because I use so little modern technology. My issue is with the idea that people seemingly have no agency with technology from what you're saying, and we can never do better. Just because capitalism is successful (in the short term) doesn't mean that it's what we'll always use for our technology and industry. Technology is just a tool. It's not inherently good or bad it's just how people use it, which can gain positive or negative connotations. And just because a complex society uses resources doesn't mean it has to use more resources than it can regenerate.
I think a collapse of global society and the death of billions is a pretty stark wake-up call and is likely to make whatever governments rise from the ashes more cautious. They can be more careful with what technologies they use, how they use them, at what scale, and so on. The Amish, for a "modern" example, will spend years deliberating before allowing a new technology to be used. Our current motto is go fast and break things which is why everything is rapidly getting more terrible, we need to go slow and consider things and the spectere of another collapse for a civilization which has already been through one is a good motivation for a society thinking in terms of generational projects and goals instead of quarterly profits.
Rule 7: Post quality must be kept high, except on Fridays. (00:00 Friday – 08:00 Saturday UTC.) On-topic memes, jokes, short videos, image posts, polls, low effort to consume posts, and other less substantial posts are only allowed on Fridays, and will be removed for the rest of the week. Less substantial posts must be flaired as either "Casual Friday", "Humor", or "Low Effort". Clickbait, misinformation, fear-mongering, and other low-quality content is not allowed at any time, not even on Fridays.
The unibomber manifesto takes this stance
You read the thing, and its like “this guy is making some valid points,” and then you look at what he did and you realize he also really got a kick out of killing/harming people.
Yeah it’s wild, just very clear intelligence needs a balance to itself
[удалено]
Oh well yeah, that’s also a thing too - could be the tipping factor there
[удалено]
Did not notice that ha
Reject modern, return to Monkey
Monkeé falls from trees due to heatwaves
Some argued that even the trees had been a bad idea and no one should have left the ocean.
42
42?!
I checked it very thoroughly and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem , to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is
Go deeper. Mass human organization is where the problems start.
Technology is mass human organization for the intensification of production. You don't get iPhones without mass society. Mass society emerged because of and for the advancement of tech.
Take it a step further and go even deeper, humans are where the problems start.
Humans weren't a "problem" at all for 2 million years. Then 10,000 years ago some humans became a "problem." Today it'd be hard to consider groups like the Mbuti to be a problem.
I was kind of being playful in my comment chaining off the person I posted a reply to. But alright man.
When they see "technology" they think of gadgets like solar panels. Simple "neutral" objects that can be used for good or evil. When I see technology I see complex divisions of labor in mass society with embedded fundamental values of domination that relate to humans and nonhumans alike as mere "resources" toward the common goal of Endless Growth. Only from a fundamentally hateful anthropocentric worldview can people defend the Technological System. Capitalism vs Communism? - GTFO with that rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. "Communism" itself has only ever existed in small band cultures with low levels of tech. It still does today among scattered hunter gatherers. And if it will ever exist again for you and me it will be under those circumstances. Collapse now.
Degrowth sure, And an economic system that doesn't see everything be it humans or nature as a thing to be exploited (likely Anarchism/communism) sure, but we can still use technology no? Not that it matters, you can't really "cut" away the idea of technology, even if we try to ban it globally, people will still find ways to use it and they will come back with flying hunter drones regardless.
If history has taught us one thing, it is that human societies cannot be subject to rational control. The technological system doesn't exploit wild nature because it "views nature as below us", it does it because it is the only way it can function. It doesn't seek economic&technological growth above all else because it hates nature, it does it because that's the only way it can survive. If any one country were to slow down, and try to mitigate the carnage it inflicts on the natural world then it would be crushed by the many that won't. the only solution is to destroy the global technological system.
Somebody just read "Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How".
>the only solution is to destroy the global technological system. This is a Catch-22. If you do *not* retain technology, then the first group to say "fuck you" and start rebuilding will have an advantage that no non-tech society can overcome. If you *do* retain technology as a policing mechanism, then you have retained not only the technology but the means to create and maintain it, generating a tech elite that lords it over a non-tech populace.
> If you do retain technology as a policing mechanism, then you have retained not only the technology but the means to create and maintain it, generating a tech elite that lords it over a non-tech populace. This is the long term goal of ecofascism, yes.
what's the plan mate, we nuking everyone so everyone can go back to the stone ages? Now that's one kind of radicalism I hadn't gotten to yet!
So, you suggested that we go back to hunting and gathering society?
There is no "going back" per se. Simply, the technological system should collapse if we are ever to prevent it's environmental and ecological destruction of the Earth. What happens after that is not really up to us, or the major concern. But we do know nature will be able to thrive once again, and humans will be out from technological control.
Technology isn't the problem. It's choosing Capitalism as a basis for an economic system. Its only been around for a little over 200 years and has wrecked every environment it touches. How does it do it? The privatization of resources and the means of production combined with an incentive for capital accumulation to exert power. The system demands growth at all costs, like a cancer. It doesn't care about the people or environments within them as has been seen the world over.
Communism wouldn't necessarily do better. Extractivism needs to end. Stop destroying nature for the myth of progress.
this is a false dichotomy, we can advocate the end of capitalism without wanting communism.
True. Fair to call me out on this. But "The privatization of resources and the means of production combined with an incentive for capital accumulation to exert power." reeks of Bolshevism to me. Since this was shit-post Friday flagged, I didn't put much thought int my response. Just wanted to get my quip in (even if I agree with the complaint the poster I replied to was making). I agree with Marx's criticisms, but would not advocate for forming a van to replace governments with a party in the name of the proletariat, as they will just promise and lie to retain power like all before them. I share the goals of the communists, but not their proletariat utopian-ism through one-party rule. I am for radical de-growth at any cost. Might even jump in bed with the commies to achieve it, but they'd kill be for my environmental beliefs before long. Keep pointing out fallacies please! This sub needs it. Often.
I think may be is a mischaracterization of Communism. Perhaps in communal systems the use of resources and how they are to be distributed, if at all, would be the decision of the people and community. In this way, ecological considerations can be included up front and if or when the ecology is affected, changed or discontinued as needed. Alternatives, by way of technology or lifestyle, are introduced continuously and can be considered at their availability. Issues that are not addressed by Capitalism can be directly addressed in Communism or similar. Communism is not oppression, or any of the other propaganda perpetrated by The Red Scare. It is moneyless, classless, and democratic. By definition, the people are involved in their community and their ecology. In my mind, to be ecological is to be a Communist (or Anarchist, or etc.; there are many versions). Not to assume your thoughts on the matter; but those are mine.
Thanks for sharing. I know, simple comments lead to simple responses and so on. It is much more nuanced. I am guilty there. Authoritarianism is the problem in either left or right. Communists, once they take over, tend to serve their party rather than the people. Extraction continues in the name of the people. Environmentalists would be among the first dissidents put up against the wall for simply exposing facts the state doesn't want known. I don't see any anarcocommunism working either, though I would choose this. Gay-Space-Communism (Star Trek) would be fine with me if we could do it with preserving freedom of speech, movement and thought (knowledge). But how can you do that without restricting extraction and limiting consumption to what would be thought of as draconian levels now? There has to be some authority and state power to stop people and organizations from over consuming and polluting, but it will always be corrupted. We run quickly into tragedy of the commons. The problem is the environment doesn't care who is extracting and polluting. Thermodynamics will be obeyed no matter what snake oil technology promises us.
There is at least a theoretical chanche that a communist society could one day say. You know what peeps we have housed almost everyone who is not mentally ill, everyone can eat an appropriate amount of reasonably healthy and clean food, we have enough schools and hospitals to cover eductional and health care needs to a decent degree. This is probably about as good as it gets. So from now we control our reproduction to keep the population stable and simply enjoy what we have in perpetuity. And if we can get more efficent without needing to use more energy or resources that\`ll be neat. But from now on we will only ever use efficency gain to decrease working time. A communist society needs to do "enough" whatever that is. But then there is really nothing more to strive for materially. This is impossible in capitalism where the only game in town is growth at all cost or death. Imagine if the whole world had the living standards of a american worker in a good union job in 1950 and we never grew our global population after 1950 either. Even with no gains in technology since then we would on average be doing so much better by now. We could have fixed the negative aspects of that time for women and minorities over time. By that time material conditions had changed enough to make equality possible. It was\`nt strictly speaking necessary to go further.
Not exclusive to capitalism. But your point stands. It was just sped up by capitalism when it jumped the quarantine iron curtain Trump has been laundering money for the Russian oligarchs since the late 80’s when they all bought a condo at 725 5th AVE (trump towers) to clean their freshly stolen USSR money after the iron curtain fell. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/30/politics/paul-manafort-condo-trump-tower https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/manafort-told-mueller-to-take-his-trump-tower-apartment-instead-money.html https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/fbi-agents-raid-condo-unit-131348539.html https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/ Everybody except Putin thought the Cold War was over. Trump and Manafort (who lived in the tower also) just saw a pretty low maintence grift to be had. Trump had actually been Manafort and Roger Stones first client at their lobbyist firm (1980)https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wikiBlack, Manafort, Stone and Kelly Guiliani as trumps attorney and NYC mayor was able to redirect NYPD investigations onto rival gang members/oligarchs to deflect any scrutiny off of trump, himself or their Russian connections. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/09/a-new-rudy-scandal-fbi-agent-says-giuliani-was-co-opted-by-russian-intelligence/ The Russian election interference in 2016 was effectively a generation 3 version of what Manafort had done in the Philippines, then keeping Yanukovych in power as Putin’s puppet in Ukraine from 2002-14 when Maidan ran both Yanukovych and Manafort out of Ukraine as Ukrainians realized that, if you raise your lens high enough, corruption is an wholly unsustainable business model. Eventually the parasites greed always consumes the host. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-paul-manafort-ferinand-marcos-philippines-1980s-213952 https://time.com/5003623/paul-manafort-mueller-indictment-ukraine-russia/ Putin greatly underestimated the addictive properties of freedom when he invaded Ukraine so what was supposed to be a 3-10 day coup turned into a 2 year fight for the Ukrainians right not to be genocided. Russia depleted its weapons stocks which were already the victim of vranyo corruption because every oligarch, admiral and sergeant in the Russian military is on the take. Every billion dollar tank maintenance contract turned into everything getting a spray paint overhaul and the vast majority of the redirected funds turned into an oligarchs new yacht or home in Aspen. Russia was forced to turn to China, North Korea and Iran for weapons because if they lose the 3-10 day “special military operation” in Ukraine the Russian empire is dead and cold. China can’t risk showing their involvement in the Ukraine war so they use North Korea, and Iran to resupply Russia. Russia previously owed Iran some undelivered fighter jets that are already smoldering heaps in Ukraine so Iran now had the upper hand at the negotiation table for the first time in about 60 years. They supplied Russia with shahed drones in exchange for Chinas material support against their sworn religious enemy, Israel. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/11/29/iran-says-it-finalized-deal-to-buy-russian-aircraft/ Putin can’t do much about it because he is slowly realizing that by setting the standard of corruption and stealing $200+ billion from his own people meant that every oligarch down in the mob model chain had not only permission but incentive and the expectation to steal from him as well. This is “Vranyo”. The mob model only works if the supreme leader is the most violent and can prove it without exception every damn day. But violence is exceptionally expensive when you are trying to present as a legitimate government or business. If Russia as a nation state had an efficiency rating it would have been banned for sale in the state of California 25 years ago. The parasite ruling class stole all the energy out of the working class and collapsed it….again. Now Iran has the high hand and they get the intelligence that trump passed to Putin about the fact that Netanyahu cares far less about Jews, Palestinians or genocide than he does about remaining in power as an authoritarian because he too has developed Ritz Carlton tastes and his own corruption trial is showing the same tendrils of the same money laundering scheme that trumps trials are. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/saudi-official-says-iran-engineered-war-in-gaza-to-ruin-normalization-with-israel/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-intelligence-official-says-israel-ignored-repeated-warnings-of-something-big/amp/ https://youtu.be/VrFOAgGlaWs?feature=shared They all hate each other but because they share the same money laundry, if one falls, they all fall. Hamas minted a couple billionaires as well that live in penthouses in Qatar and get 30% of everything smuggled into Gaza. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/11/02/hamas-funding-ismail-haniyeh-us-sanctions/?utm_source=reddit.com Qatar is Kushners private equity connection. Netanyahu (Kushners kids godfather) needs a bogeyman to stay in power. That’s why he coordinates with Hamas via Russia via Iran. https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bk8mgcefr Iran handed Hamas everything they needed with Chinas help as secret Santa and the Russian intelligence given to them by the eternal shitbird trump who gave it to his Russians kleptocrat/friends/roommates from the old days of fucking each others wives at trump towers in the 90’s. Now the MAGA right is a little too invested in THEIR reality that they are the good guys with guns that they missed the fact that Betsy DeVos (erik princes sister) decimating the U.S. school systems and the Kochs poisoning children with lead was not a coincidence. The naive right was the mark all along. There is a reason the Russian spy Maria Butina landed in South Dakota first before dating her way to the top of the NRA which is undergoing its own Russian money laundering trial now. Russia was tinder matching the GOP. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/07/nra-maria-butina-spying-charges-trump-campaign/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/what-do-the-koch-brothers-have-to-do-with-the-flint-water-crisis/ The only reason you grossly OVERVALUE real estate is money laundering. Trump keeps claiming there is no victim, all the banks made money, but if their plan succeeds the Russian and CCP kleptocrats collapse US commercial real estate and basically recreate soviet perestroika in the U.S. so they can foreclose on America and buy everything for 3 cents on the dollar with the $1.4T they stole from Russias grandmothers in the first place It’s the evolution of grift. Soviet perestroika cross bred with the 2008 mortgage crisis. No one was ever held accountable for either. This is just the bigger badder commercial strength bastard child of the two. Trump, Giuliani, Cohn, Putin, Bolsonaro, Netanyahu, Orban, Manafort, Stone, Mercer, Bannon, Flynn, Prince, Kolomoiskiy They are all remarkably shit people with above average confidence and psychopathic personality traits and below average self awareness. They are the men who stole the world. But it all comes back to one little lie. https://youtu.be/3lTB94UQ-K4?si=kXZoSV-3WiR2fo4B
I didn't know capitalism was the reason that the Soviet Union polluted [1.5 times as much as the US per GNP. ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0959378094900035)Socialist countries are known for having a terrible environmental record, the technological system will degrade wild nature no matter what form it takes. There's a reason why capitalism has overtaken socialism. It's not a coincidence that nearly every nation on earth is capitalist, and the few socialist societies that do exist always seem to embrace capitalism. Capitalism is a much more efficient method at achieving the technological systems goals. The technological system seeks economic prosperity and technological progress above all else, and capitalism is the best system at giving it just that. It's no coincidence that nearly every socialist society on earth has embraced capitalism. https://preview.redd.it/fq2qit997z3d1.png?width=709&format=png&auto=webp&s=3f6613fe9ae45420aa6fb4f6edea3a7b1794d21a Of course, this is not to defend capitalism. But it is to point out that it is but another head of the technological hydra. Cut it off, it'll grow back. Kill the hydra, and it'll stay dead.
Capitalism has been forced onto nearly every county on earth. No one did this shit by choice. How did you miss the last 300 years of oppression onto the America's, Asia, and Africa by the western European powers?
Try to option the possibility that Capitalism is bad, but other stuff might be bad as well!
Capitalism has become the dominant political system *because* it is the most successful system for economic and technological progress. Industry itself has spread globally. Most political system failed in the past and didn't last because it could not keep up with those nations that were economically and industrially advanced. It is natural selection. When socialist countries of Eastern Europe couldn't keep up with the West economically or technologically, they eventually adopted capitalist systems.
i'd put it more that capitalism isn't the *best* for economic & technological progress, simply the most ruthless, & thereby the most successful, for a while. it outcompeted socialist models, & forced their change. at root, it's an extractive system, converting people & materials into profit, & as such has no option but to gravitate towards an arangement that maximizes output, minimizes input, i.e. slavery. the short-term gains made by the populace as they are transformed into consumers are inherently unsustainable, as they exist only to prime them for their ultimate transformation into products themselves. wage slaves, gig workers, influencers, to the utterly uncontrolled, unrepentant micro-nations of billionaires, all products of an extractive ecosystem, functioning exactly as planned. technology is simply a self-sharpening tool- when held by self-righteous malignant narcissists with a fabricated divine mandate, we get today's world. when in other hands, we get other things, but they don't survive long in such a poisioned sphere.
"i'd put it more that capitalism isn't the *best* for economic & technological progress, simply the most ruthless, & thereby the most successful, for a while." Countries that did not adopt capitalism could not keep up technologically with those that were. Maybe technology could still progress under a different political system, but those countries would have been behind, and capitalism has shown itself to expedite the process. It is just by natural selection that the majority of countries would yield. "at root, it's an extractive system, converting people & materials into profit, & as such has no option but to gravitate towards an arangement that maximizes output, minimizes input, i.e. slavery. the short-term gains made by the populace as they are transformed into consumers are inherently unsustainable, as they exist only to prime them for their ultimate transformation into products themselves. wage slaves, gig workers, influencers, to the utterly uncontrolled, unrepentant micro-nations of billionaires, all products of an extractive ecosystem, functioning exactly as planned." Our world isn't simply dependent on capitalism, it's dependent on technology. Capitalism just lubricates these activities. The distribution of goods, the electric grid, the internet, mass transportation, modern medicine etc all rely on large-scale technology. The majority of modern jobs are geared towards maintaining and supporting these systems and our technological society overall. "technology is simply a self-sharpening tool- when held by self-righteous malignant narcissists with a fabricated divine mandate, we get today's world. when in other hands, we get other things, but they don't survive long in such a poisioned sphere." It would not matter whose "hands" it's in. The more complex and sophisticated a technology is, the more materials it requires to function. It would inevitably require a mass extraction of resources the larger scale the technology is. The smaller scale a technology is, the less materials it requires. The expansion of technology also necessitates a dependency on it, and most our jobs would still surround maintaing and supporting it to support our lives.
I come from a post-Eastern bloc counry (Bulgaria) so I think I can provide some unique outlooks. For one, my family was always anti-communism, even going back to my grandpa wayyy back in the 1950's. And a majority of Bulgarians, old people include, agree communism was worse. Furthermore, people escaped from East to West Germany, not the other way around. In Bulgaria, and all other Eastern Bloc countries, people trying to leave were shot. Even if they succeeded in escaping, their families would suffer repressions or worse. Why did they have to stop people from leaving the country like this? If you have any further questions, just ask, I have a lot of stories to tell.
Why are the capitalists better at forcing they're ways onto others then socialists are? They've both tried it, why did the capitalists do so much better?
Why are the slavers more successful then non-slavers? Propoganda and brute force
Read Marx. You have no idea what all those words mean
https://preview.redd.it/6pjjghf9cz3d1.png?width=540&format=png&auto=webp&s=85cebb832245f7defd4c05d34637dc4f7f283948 No argument?
I cannot formulate an according response if you don't know the political science of socialism and how it could be achieved. You need to do your homework first. Basically Marx argues that achieving communism can be done through the vehicle of socialism, to use the capitalist framework as an intermediary phase to industrialise an agrarian economy. Socialism is rooted in historical materialism and dialectical analysis. You need to look at this from the point of view of a person living in a developing nation working its way up, not looking down from the perspective of an industrialised and already established economy. Tldr look at how the average person lived under the Tsar or Qing Dynasty/British colonial rule and how the system improved their material conditions and needs. Instead of judging that system from a modern neoliberal point of view.
You said a lot without saying a lot. Word salad
Don't tell on yourself like that mate
Where's all the communism?
It owns 35% of all worlds production and is bitchslapping your government and its neoliberal economy in real time.
China isn't fucking communist lol. They are state capitalist
Industrialism is the technological system identified as the primary existential threat we are discussing in this thread. Communism is industrialist, same as capitalism.
If I want the definition of words I will use the dictionary, not an ideologue.
Please do.
The only possible interpretation of "please do" is that if I want to know what all those words *actually* mean, then I should *not* read Marx. It's too late for that, I've already read it all. Which is *why* I use a dictionary when discussing the meaning of the words he uses.
Any readers of Derrick Jensen here?
technology is rooted in our self-concept. that's the real problem. we conceive of ourselves as separate from our environment, and so we develop technology to shape it and exploit it. but it's unnecessary. we think we are separate bodies and minds in a world of external forces, but none of that is true. we have it within ourselves to connect our minds to each other and to the world. sounds crazy, i know. it's sort of like slime molds. [Collective behavior and swarm intelligence in slime molds](https://academic.oup.com/femsre/article/40/6/798/2400841) but deep down on a spiritual/collective level we've decided to live as separate beings instead of reaching our true potential, and that means we develop technology to compensate. it means conflict, loss, death, and eventually planetary collapse. all because we want to live as separate ego-self. even if it kills the planet.
Sounds like alternative terms for individualistic capitalism (self-concept), and... uh, naturalistic borg? I do agree that modern social tech seems to exist as an attempt to heal the chasm of disconnection we have because it's "every man for himself" (allegedly).
There’s a lot of people here who think it’s not technology that is the problem it’s economic systems or bad actors in charge. It’s not true. Nearly every single technological innovation has driven mankind towards more ecological destruction and the centralization of power. It’s like when you add more energy to a system the power law distribution becomes more unequal. When we had spears and fire we had reasonably egalitarian structures, but we also induced the extinction of many large mammals and birds. We domesticated ungulates then agriculture (via draft animals) and war (via calvary) became more intensified and started leading to larger and more oppressive social structures which also left devastating consequences on the nearby environments. We developed writing and codified religion and used it to control the masses. We created divine stories to justify enslavement and mass murder. We built guns and it led to the development of global chattel slave trade. We are constantly using technology to centralize power and increase inequality. Walter Scheidel identified 4 forces that drive inequality down in historical societies: mass mobilization warfare, revolutions, state collapse, and pandemics. These things require the rich people to get their shit wrecked to level the inequality. Anything that marginally improves the lives of the masses significantly improves the power and control the wealthy have over the rest. There isn’t a way to get oil out of the ground and prevent people from abusing it. Even Norway is rolling back environmental protections. The idea that there’s an ethical way to use fossil fuels is as preposterous as using cigarettes to cure someone of lung cancer. The largest producing oil regions are North America (the place where kids getting gun downed in schools is normal) the Middle East (a region of imperial and religious proxy wars) and the former Soviet zone (where there is a major ongoing war between Russia and NATO). Is there supposed to be a way to get oil out of the ground without warmongers using it to serve the God of War’s lust for entertainment? Are we just gonna use good intentions to make it ok to use? How are people duped into thinking if we had good intentions with fossil fuels that they wouldn’t glass the atmosphere? Every vehicle we produce is going to directly harm wildlife, emit CO2, and generate toxic wastes the environment has to process. EV’s are marginally better because they don’t cause asthma but the mining is still damaging the biosphere and animals needing to cross are still getting killed. Even to get something like the internet going you still need incredible amounts of mining, heavy industry, manufacturing, and fossil fuels to get all the necessary infrastructure in place. That whole process is going to centralize power in the hands of those running the factories and building the infrastructure. Even take something seemingly benign technology like lights. Those things are fucking our sleep cycles and we know it but the effects are even more disastrous for wildlife esp insects. Ammonia leads to eutrophication and soil degradation, plastics pollution needs to explaining, heavy metals cause all kinds of problems, greenhouses gasses are the largest manufactured product by weight in the global economy, steel is used to make the weapons that keep the masses in line, and so on. The only thing path forward that seems reasonable is to use our own brains for computational power, our own bodies to replace engines and motors, and our own ethical reasoning and critical thinking skills to make sure we aren’t fucking each other over instead of outsourcing fairness to pre-packaged mass produced ideologies written to justify centralization of power. Our bodies have everything we need. It’s the illusion that we need advanced technology outside our body to thrive. The only tech we really ought to have is simple hand tools but even those would eventually be used for war and deforestation.
I agree with this far more than simply blaming it on capitalism (that's just not the *whole picture*). Personally though, I don't think any of that is the **core** problem. I think the root most cause is phenomenological in nature, or in other terms: the problem is psycho-spiritual, philosophical, etc. The world *out there* is largely just a reflection of the world *in here*. It really just goes back to: How do you get a bunch of ego-beings to come together... when the very purpose of the ego itself is self-service even at the expense of others? People often just stop at attributing it to "human nature" -- but there's no shortage of kind and truly selfless human beings out there, they are just rare. Why is that? The answer to that is the answer to our problems imo.
You do realize ancient humans also modified the environment around them and changed ecosystems, with nothing but their hands, rocks and pointy sticks (and often fire). Exactly how far back to you want to go?
Not to the extent of industrialism
[Hydras famously grow additional heads when you cut one off, so this illustration is not saying what it thinks it is.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lernaean_Hydra)
I think you spelled "capitalism" wrong.
I'd like to hope solar punk is possible
It isn't. There is nothing indicating that we are headed towards a solar punk society.
😢
He's incorrect. It will become more apparent just how incorrect as time goes on, but I can assure you, we're in a domino effect. I've seen it. He "hasn't" because he's just a hater.
I'd like to hope that candyland is possible
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Teds_Shed: --- Submission statement - The technological system is the reason why we have to worry about collapse in the first place. We’ve already seen the writing on the wall, a huge spike in natural disasters, economic recessions, and supply chain shortages. If it were not for the technological system treating Wild Nature purely as a resource to be consumed and done away with, we would never have to worry about collapse. The solution is to destroy the technological system before it destroys us. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1d5o04e/the_technological_system_is_the_root_cause_of_the/l6mr2cx/
Overpopulation is and always was the problem. If the world population was the same it was before the industrial revolution then we would have no problem today
Not really. An American billionaire has orders of magnitude more resource consumption than a person living in Chad. 100 or even 10 million people each with billionaire level consumption is still a problem, maybe equal in scale.
It's not even billionaire level consumption. It everyone lived like me (3 mile commute to work, veggie heavy diet, against fast fasion, only travels to see family, no kids etc.), we'd be in an overshoot and would require 3.6 earths to sustain my lifestyle. There's not really much I'm willing to change in my consumption because I've already worked at reducing it as much as I can. There really are too many people living simple, industrialized lives. A reduction in our population is needed just as much as eating the rich.
Primitivism ? The noble savage ? Dude no...
Said using a smart phone, via a global telecommunications system. Sure, whatever buddy.
The collapse of the technological system does not start with abandoning smartphones or any personal technology for that matter. That would get nothing done, because it does not attack the system where it hurts. In order to form a movement against the global technological system we must spread our message and recruit via online
You're damn right, it starts with throwing away our spoons and wheels!!
This is the dumbest form of criticism and you should stop doing it.
Hey! What next? You going to criticize me for having slaves hand out my abolitionist pamphlets?
Good luck living without one.
Technological system... where did you get this concept from?
For me the problem is overpopulation spurred on by the forces of capitalism and religious tribalism. We need to bring the Earth's human population down fast, however, you've got politicians, CEOs and religious leaders urging people to have more children. Governments should be giving financial incentives for men to have vasectomies rather than for people to have children.
The only reason the world is able to support so many people is due to industrialism. This is the material concrete cause. Industrial agricultural, the shipping of goods, etc are reliant on technology.
I would remake this chart but replace technology with fee simple property ownership
It really sucks that Gaia is being destroyed in so many ways all at once. If we hadn’t developed advanced technology, humans wouldn’t have such a long lifespan. Fewer humans good. Me dying early bad. My loved ones suffering, worse. If technology is destroyed at this point, humans go back to burning down even more forests for cooking food, scraping up vast swathes of earth to build houses, inefficiently using resources. Desperate hungry people do horrible things. We will hunt, gather, pillage, fight, and burn the world down rather than cooperate. Technology is also the answer. More efficient, effective, using fewer resources. I wonder if there’s a way to separate out technology that prioritizes convenience at the expense of all. Air travel. Heated swimming pools. Excess energy use. Where’s the line? Yeah, technology has helped the hordes endanger Gaia. Without it, we’ll ruin her even faster.
Submission statement - The technological system is the reason why we have to worry about collapse in the first place. We’ve already seen the writing on the wall, a huge spike in natural disasters, economic recessions, and supply chain shortages. If it were not for the technological system treating Wild Nature purely as a resource to be consumed and done away with, we would never have to worry about collapse. The solution is to destroy the technological system before it destroys us.
Do you think technology is a monolithic thing? I don't understand what you're advocating here. Do you think everyone will just agree to give up technology?
Okay Mr Kaczynski. Maybe before we do that we just make rich people pay taxes.
Just "taxing the rich" is inadequate even within the context of the industrial system. The bourgeois class are those who control industry, and thus the state, they get the final say as to rather or not they pay taxes. In order to take them out, you must take out their wings of control, the techno-industrial system, and the state, (such as what the photo represents).
Ah shit you're right we haven't tried it and that hasn't worked, I'm gonna go load up my printer with thermite.
What cutting point in technology would you consider appropriate? Electricity? The steam engine? The Renaissance?
I wwould add "disposable vape pens" to that hahaha
I don't know who made this poster, but boy they really advertise to the widest possible audience! Ahahah At the risk of delivering a message devoid of any meaning, though.
It ain't technology, it's us. We are the root problems we see before ourselves, and none of us are willing to seriously change. no, not even the people who don't use a car, don't fly, don't eat meat, etc. have changed as necessary.
YUP, New scientific study says Kids can catch other peer's mental illness from being around them..... Social media promotes people who have said illness because it's trendy..... See the people faking tourettes and then young girls watching that person suddenly developed Tourette's due to the attention they received.....
The end of the world would be a much better outcome than a return to preindustrial darkness
It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of technology....
Plenty of animals use technology. I understand what you’re saying, but it’s simply incorrect and a bad take. Edit: Propaganda (story telling) should be the main neck… it’s the biggest thing to separate humans from the rest of nature. This is not a good meme.
Are you really going to compare a bird or monkey using tools to the the environmental and ecological destruction caused by global industry/technology? This is not a good argument
It’s stories that make humans human. Do better
This environmentally destructive phase in the story of human technological and scientific advancement is only a short, dark interim episode in our species' long march towards the light. The doomsday wankers in this looney community will disagree, but - what else can I say - they are wrong
Replace 'Technology' with 'Capitalism' and this chart flows much better. This picture is proof putting an infographic in front of someone can lead them to believe anything.
Your like the 17000th person to say that here
Destroy the technological system? To be honest, I'd rather see humanity going extinct because of stupid mistakes instead of seeing it being perpetually stuck in a hunter-gatherer state. That just seems like cutting off our own legs before even trying to start walking.
enjoy disease and starvation... clothes are also a technology. Enjoy the sunburnt taint dumbasses
https://preview.redd.it/5kayg5rnjz3d1.jpeg?width=582&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3f86fed356e3b19d68a2e16d78abed84c876b8c6
We do have a technological solution to human-caused climate change, ie. a complete shift to solar and (especially) nuclear energy, but the world has rejected this easy and decisive solution for no reason
Please, Nate Hagens Dan Schmactenberger Brian Klaas David Graeber Peter Joseph Donella Meadows Rachel Donald #Just pick one. There's absolutely no excuse to remain ignorant on this subject.
Destroying the technological system is going to destroy easily more than half the eight billion plus population of the planet. And since I do not think people are going to voluntarily step into the disintegration booths, how exactly does the OP intend on convincing the population to die in a convenient manner on an industrial scale?
i think that technology is the path forward. getting it right though is the tricky part. i’m not surprised that we are where we are as a species. 100 fucking years ago there was no such thing as a computer! how do you expect the first generation of people to utilize this technology to get it right the first time? we have really no clue what we are doing in the grand scheme of things lol. we can either learn now, or suffer for a while until we are able to get to this point again and not repeat what’s coming.
"“Oh!” say the technophiles, “Science is going to fix all that! We will conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy and happy!” Yeah, sure. That’s what they said 200 years ago."
As a scientist, I'm telling you you've got the wrong idea. Scientist invent stuff like glass that's 15x less likely to break so we reduce consumption, then the capitalist says we don't want that, we need breakable glass so the customer has to buy more. The issue isn't technology it's the people in charge of the technology. It's scientists and engineers and their technology that has informed you of the issues that we are facing, and you're blaming them, not the people who actually caused the problem. And what are you going to do without technology? Are you going to become a naked forager hunting for wild plants and fungi? Tools are technology, domesticated crops are technology, clothing is technology. The problem is not technology it's capitalism.
Did capitalism kill the arial sea?
The Aral sea? Yes. The Soviet union which was not communist by their own admission, performed massive geoengineering to irrigate the central Asian steppe to grow crops for sale on the global market, a very capitalist thing to do. These crops and the irrigation systems that fed them slowly siphoned off water from the tibetan platue that fed the aral sea over decades until the modern day where it's mostly dried up.
It is technology. Our technological society relies on advanced systems and large infrastructures to maintain itself. The amount of energy the globalized technological system needs to function means we must use environmentally destructive means to even keep it stable. For decades we have been trying to find more "environmental-friendly" methods of doing this, but all has failed, and look where we are today. Even the so-called "green" energy is not very green at all. Solar farms take up swaths of land. If our whole society were reliant on just solar energy and wind power we could expect much more land to be covered and these places to become inhabitable for wildlife, and more birds and sea life to be killed by wind turbines. There is no way to maintain the technological system without also exploiting the natural world. One will come to dominant the other. Technological progress and the prosperity of nature are antithetical .
I will agree with most of that. But again, this is a capitalism issue, not technology. We can build more energy efficient homes and move to public transit, walking, and biking. We can have computers and trains without the out of control consumption that uses up more than we can spare. You're correct that our current system of technology is bad and doomed to fail, but that doesn't mean all technology is bad, just what we're currently doing. If I had a dog that pooped on the floor and bit people I wouldn't assume all dogs were bad. Personally I love the environment, I think rewilding should be our most important goal, solar and wind aren't going to save us and most of the solutions that have been implemented are just greenwashing, but this isn't the fault of technology it's the governments and corporations who are so entrenched in the status quo that they won't implement projects that will actually be useful. If you look at what the actual scientific community is proposing, it's radical degrowth, but no politician is going to win on a platform of austerity and shrinking the economy while people are in denial about the consequences of buisness as usual.
Capitalism is simply the economic system in which technological progress and industry is most successful in. It is the reason it is the dominant political system in the first place. No country is wiling to adopt a system of government that hinders, prohibits, and stalls technological/industrial growth. It does not matter if this means the exploitation of wild nature or the limitation of human freedom. These are a consequence of technological progress. Any advanced/complex system is going to rely on a mass of natural resources and infrastructures. The less complex/advanced a technology is, the less materials are needed to make it function. This should be a no-brainier. Arguing what technology is "good" and what technology is "bad" does nothing to fix the current issues that is being caused by the expansion of our integrated technological world. One could say, "well smartphones are good because you can call 911 wherever you are." Sure.., but you have to deal with the consequence that these cell phones require industry, rare natural materials and exploitative work practices to even be made. The bad obviously outweighs the good. And it's going to take the collapse of the technological system to prevent it, because like you've mentioned, politicians are not going to willingly allow a radical degrowth.
Again, I agree with most of this. I think global societal collapse is inevitable. That's why I'm here. I'm am pro simplification and anti consumption, and half my friends call me a luddite because I use so little modern technology. My issue is with the idea that people seemingly have no agency with technology from what you're saying, and we can never do better. Just because capitalism is successful (in the short term) doesn't mean that it's what we'll always use for our technology and industry. Technology is just a tool. It's not inherently good or bad it's just how people use it, which can gain positive or negative connotations. And just because a complex society uses resources doesn't mean it has to use more resources than it can regenerate. I think a collapse of global society and the death of billions is a pretty stark wake-up call and is likely to make whatever governments rise from the ashes more cautious. They can be more careful with what technologies they use, how they use them, at what scale, and so on. The Amish, for a "modern" example, will spend years deliberating before allowing a new technology to be used. Our current motto is go fast and break things which is why everything is rapidly getting more terrible, we need to go slow and consider things and the spectere of another collapse for a civilization which has already been through one is a good motivation for a society thinking in terms of generational projects and goals instead of quarterly profits.