zlacker

you can put your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" all you want, it doesn't change the undeniable and objective truth.

everybody knows the solution, *you* know the solution, it's just a hard pill to swallow so mental gymnastics are preferable.

as a species we know that the overconsumption of resources is the problem. there are exactly zero valid arguments against that. anybody who claims that consuming less resources *isn't* the solution is either ignorant or lying.

>>yungpo+(OP)
> consuming less resources isn't the solution

it isn't, because no solution that require any form of altruism is an actual solution.

>>chii+a1
meh, semantics. the only correct answers to the question of "how do we prevent the suffering caused by the overconsumption of resources?" are "consume less resources." or "pull more resources out of thin air using magic". whether people are unable/unwilling to do it or not is neither here or there.

>>yungpo+(OP)
It's not overconsumption, it's waste and pollution that are the problems. Cleaner technologies and policies are the solution. We could have decarbonized part of the economy already with nuclear power.

Degrowth is not a viable alternative on a world that's still has a large number of people that need better standards of living, and will still be adding a couple billion to the population. There's no viable economic or political model that would make degrowth work.

>>goatlo+Ue
it is overconsumption. for one, it would be much easier to need our needs with renewable energy sources if we just consumed less energy and weren't so wasteful with it. more to the point, energy is only one part of the problem. all the clean, free energy in the universe doesn't stop deforestation, overfishing, and other habitat loss and environmental damage from unsustainable agriculture as a result of overconsumption. solving the emissions issue doesn't count for much if all the ecosystems we rely on collapse and we starve to death anyway.

degrowth is the only thing that could work at all, the lack of compatible economic and political models that would be compatible with is exactly my point, which is why we will ultimately not solve the problem.