Anonymous #1 1d

Go virtue signal to someone who gaf boring

-1

Anonymous #2 1d

I agree that’s why I would call for government regulation. Capitalist are incentivized to make things more productive with less inputs. Theres this common myth that it’s impossible to have infinite growth on a finite planet but that doesn’t mean endless resource extraction.

-2

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

yes, we all know you don’t give the slightest fuck, as you consistently ensure to remind us all. you’re never beating those blue maga allegations btw

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

“common myth” here we go with the anti-intellectualism in favor of his beliefs like you said, you don’t give a fuck, about learning, about growing, about anything ;)

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Like I said boring it’s just virtue signaling and name calling.

0

Anonymous #1 1d

What did I say that was incorrect?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

you are just arrogant pookie, and you’re the democrat version of those magats you love to criticize.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Actually your super epic maga and you’ll never beat the allegations that your not 🤓☝️

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

the statement of yours that I quoted? it is a documented fact that there is a limit to the amount of resources we can extract, in order for the planet to be able to sustain itself over time and gain those resources back. We have been extracting over that limit for decades. we will strip this planet bare if we do not stop, unless the biosphere collapses beforehand (which it does indeed look like we’re heading towards biosphere collapse eventually)

6

Anonymous #1 1d

(also, the biosphere collapsing means all life on the planet dies. just so we’re clear)

8

Anonymous #1 1d

Like I would obviously be down with the name calling and virtue signaling if there was any engagement with anything that I’m actually saying. You’re just typing “lol wrong” in a way that makes you sound intellectual.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

it’s “you’re”* just so you’re aware, but hey you’re totally always right ;)

1

Anonymous #1 1d

What are you referencing for this just give me a source.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Capitalists are not incentivized to be more productive. they’re incentivized to participate in the enrichment of themselves and their colleagues through inherent exploitation of the working class. that’s literally what we’ve been watching happen for your entire life, but most especially now. capitalism prefers NO regulations; that’s why all climate action policies from Obama-era to Biden’s policies have basically all been knee-capped by this admin except for one that’s actively being targeted.

8

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

I’ll go ahead and assume this response was before my actual explanation of why what you said was wrong.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

lol the amount of resentment. I never said I’m always right I’m just trying to have an actual convo lol

0

Anonymous #3 1d

Yeah I know any environmental protection in a liberal country is bad bc maybe someone can undo it or something. But we are becoming more productive why do you think computers no longer are the size of a room? We do use the same amount of inputs to make things.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Sorry I thought you were gonna signal more my bad

0

Anonymous #3 1d

*we dont*

0

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

links don’t work but I’ll add for confirmation https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/05/260526022021.htm

8

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

https://www.unep.org/resources/Global-Resource-Outlook-2024

4

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

apologies about the delay, I had to look them up again as I didn’t have the original sources I were citing, I initially learned about this back in a sociology class on humanity’s relationship with the environment I took two years ago; these aren’t exactly what I was referring to but they both discuss what I mentioned (the sustainable limit for extraction vs our rising levels) the topic is immensely interesting, and worth taking some time out to look into.

4

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Have you seen how the production of those computers occurs though? How that entire production industry impacts the environment through the lens of it being an isolated sector? From beginning to end: unstable minerals, mining, exploited labor force [to varied degrees], anthropogenic impacts, unstable storage, shipping infrastructure, shoreline impact, marine pollution, etc. The increased productivity could even be argued to be MORE harmful due to increasing demand on our natural resources…

8

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

The thing is, it isn’t virtue signaling. the topic of anthropogenic climate change is so much more severe and vast than most people expect, or are even willing to recognize.

6

Anonymous #1 1d

Ok maybe I need to clarify what I’m claiming I agree that again it’s a serious issue and I would even call for some heavy regulation (serious can mean existential just so we can skip the semantics debate) I thought you were implying something else what do you think our disagreement is?

1

Anonymous #1 1d

like it’s commonly referred to as an existential threat for an abundance of reasons.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

i should mention my undergrad degree was in biology and particularly focused on freshwater conservation and ecology but granted, the land use and climate affected my lab and my work soooo much so it’s a fun conversation. particularly when involving capitalism and freshwater conservation since i grew up collected bottled water for Flint kids.

5

Anonymous #1 1d

Ok I’m not saying you can’t call it existential I just rather talk about the substance of a policy or ideology rather than talk about how we can use the most fitting semantics I don’t care about that convo. The vast majority of people on here are very left wing and already agree environment policy is serious.

0

Anonymous #1 1d

Also the implication of it is that I don’t care about environmental policy bc I’m not a socialist which is annoying.

0

Anonymous #3 1d

Yes that’s how production works that’s not a new thing. My point is we’re using less inputs meaning less resource extraction is needed that doesn’t mean I’m saying all resource extraction is good or is environmentally good.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Again idk what you think disagreement is?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Increased economic demand and ease of access now would exponentially increase the resource use because, in this same example, we still need those minerals but for WAAAAYYYY more appliances than just a single major computing server room for a community college in 1971. the goddamn vacuums and fridges need computer chips, and they’re WAY less reliable than non-computerized appliances so we need MORE overstock of those natural resources to replace them too. it’s a nightmare when you get into it.

1

Anonymous #3 1d

It can lead to more demand but the current trend is that we use emit co2 than we have in the past, We use less steel, renewable energy is becoming a larger share of our electricity. I agree we have large issue and need heavier regulation but the trend isn’t negative.

0

Anonymous #3 1d

I would even make the claim that our productively has outpaced demand in terms of us using less raw materials. This has been called dematerialization.

-1

Anonymous #3 1d

But to my understanding this heavily debated still.

0

Anonymous #3 1d

Regardless I would still be more interested in looking into solutions through a liberal capitalist framework, bc there are signs that we can move in a positive direction. I rather do that than go to a completely different economic model that doesn’t have any of these results.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 20h

the results we have from the current economic model have been devastating so what makes you think more regulations could work when it hasn’t for our ENTIRE lives 😐

5

Anonymous #3 11h

Bc it’s moving in a positive direction for the reasons I already stated. But if the comparison is a made up fantasy ideology there’s no way for me to win that argument.

1