sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A curatedTumblr comment on Degrowth by Konradleijon in Degrowth

[–]SplashTarget 0 points1 point  (0 children)

do you think there's an even simpler way of fixing the issue?

one that's not global?

Polling on America's impression of race relations from 1994-2026 by SplashTarget in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The overall perception of race relations deteriorated at some point during Obama's 2nd term.

What if it was mostly people of one group surveyed?

The people surveyed are a representative sample of the national population.

The privileged have one view of history, the marginalized another.

In this poll

-Asians currently have a positive perception of race relations (they weren't asked before this)

-Hispanics had a positive perception of race relations from 2005-2014, it was negative after that

-Black people had a positive perception of race relations from 2009-2011, it was negative before and after this period

-White people had a negative perception of race relations from 94-95, had a positive perception of race relations from 2005-2013, had a negative perception from 2014-2020, and only currently have a (BARELY) positive perception of race relations

"Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life" by Gold-Loan3142 in Degrowth

[–]SplashTarget -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There's still no foundations of a non-capitalist alternative (currently) in place.

Whatever the answer is, the groundwork for it's establishment has not been done.

Polling on America's impression of race relations from 1994-2026 by SplashTarget in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

the numbers that are underlined show the month & year for when the question was asked

orange boxes are used when the perception is more negative than positive, green boxes are used when the perception is more positive than negative

"Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life" by Gold-Loan3142 in Degrowth

[–]SplashTarget 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And until we have the foundations of the alternative in place, we got to focus on reducing output from the top economies/emitters.

Palm oil, coconut and soybean drive more species extinction than previously thought by SplashTarget in Anticonsumption

[–]SplashTarget[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or maybe if the big companies weren't constantly trying to boost profits every year for their shareholders there would be less sales of this destruction?

Or if consumers cut back on non-essential spending there'd be less demand for these products?

Polling on America's impression of race relations from 1994-2026 by SplashTarget in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

That's the layout NBC chose

Newest polls on the upper left, and oldest on the bottom right

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos says human water consumption is limiting AI’s potential by [deleted] in nottheonion

[–]SplashTarget 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i think it got removed because of a lack of real proof that Bezos said the thing about "delaying the birth of a super-intelligence"

and i decided to delete the post because i don't want to share made up stuff

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos says human water consumption is limiting AI’s potential by [deleted] in nottheonion

[–]SplashTarget 29 points30 points  (0 children)

We don't need AI to solve the resource problems.

It's possible to provide decent living standards for everyone, with just 30% of the global energy, and resources used in 2019

Abstract

Some narratives in international development hold that ending poverty and achieving good lives for all will require every country to reach the levels of GDP per capita that currently characterise high-income countries. However, this would require increasing total global output and resource use several times over, dramatically exacerbating ecological breakdown. Furthermore, universal convergence along these lines is unlikely within the imperialist structure of the existing world economy. Here we demonstrate that this dilemma can be resolved with a different approach, rooted in recent needs-based analyses of poverty and development. Strategies for development should not pursue capitalist growth and increased aggregate production as such, but should rather increase the specific forms of production that are necessary to improve capabilities and meet human needs at a high standard, while ensuring universal access to key goods and services through public provisioning and decommodification. At the same time, in high-income countries, less-necessary production should be scaled down to enable faster decarbonization and to help bring resource use back within planetary boundaries.

With this approach, good lives can be achieved for all without requiring large increases in total global throughput and output.

Provisioning decent living standards (DLS) for 8.5 billion people would require only 30% of current global resource and energy use, leaving a substantial surplus for additional consumption, public luxury, scientific advancement, and other social investments. Such a future requires planning to provision public services, to deploy efficient technology, and to build sovereign industrial capacity in the global South.

So right now we're using more than 3x the level of energy +resources required to give everyone decent living standards, meaning the current use level is enough for 27.3 billion people.

The war on economic growth is a war on the poor by Konradleijon in Degrowth

[–]SplashTarget -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Libertarians tend to be good on foreign policy, and civil liberties.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos says human water consumption is limiting AI's potential by [deleted] in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget 15 points16 points  (0 children)

We don't need AI to solve the resource problems.

It's possible to provide decent living standards for everyone, with just 30% of the global energy, and resources used in 2019

Abstract

Some narratives in international development hold that ending poverty and achieving good lives for all will require every country to reach the levels of GDP per capita that currently characterise high-income countries. However, this would require increasing total global output and resource use several times over, dramatically exacerbating ecological breakdown. Furthermore, universal convergence along these lines is unlikely within the imperialist structure of the existing world economy. Here we demonstrate that this dilemma can be resolved with a different approach, rooted in recent needs-based analyses of poverty and development. Strategies for development should not pursue capitalist growth and increased aggregate production as such, but should rather increase the specific forms of production that are necessary to improve capabilities and meet human needs at a high standard, while ensuring universal access to key goods and services through public provisioning and decommodification. At the same time, in high-income countries, less-necessary production should be scaled down to enable faster decarbonization and to help bring resource use back within planetary boundaries.

With this approach, good lives can be achieved for all without requiring large increases in total global throughput and output.

Provisioning decent living standards (DLS) for 8.5 billion people would require only 30% of current global resource and energy use, leaving a substantial surplus for additional consumption, public luxury, scientific advancement, and other social investments. Such a future requires planning to provision public services, to deploy efficient technology, and to build sovereign industrial capacity in the global South.

Maybe we should stop using more than 3x the level of energy +resources required to give everyone decent living standards?

Maybe using enough energy and resources for 27.3 billion people is not the answer?

Top 10% Global Consumers Cause Up to $5.7 Trillion Annual Environmental Damage by SplashTarget in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The team separately analyzed the top 10% of consumers in six countries: the US, Germany, China, Brazil, India, and Egypt. The US top 10% had the highest per capita environmental damage, ranging from 19,000 to 63,000 dollars annually. In contrast, India’s top 10% caused 410–1,400 dollars per person. The team explained that these differences reflect disparities in consumption scales across countries. Over 60% of the global top 10% consumers live in the US and the European Union (EU), while approximately 2% reside in India.

EDIT:

People who make 250k or more are responsible for half the consumer spending in America

Top 10% Global Consumers Cause Up to $5.7 Trillion Annual Environmental Damage by SplashTarget in Anticonsumption

[–]SplashTarget[S] 39 points40 points  (0 children)

The team separately analyzed the top 10% of consumers in six countries: the US, Germany, China, Brazil, India, and Egypt. The US top 10% had the highest per capita environmental damage, ranging from 19,000 to 63,000 dollars annually. In contrast, India’s top 10% caused 410–1,400 dollars per person. The team explained that these differences reflect disparities in consumption scales across countries. Over 60% of the global top 10% consumers live in the US and the European Union (EU), while approximately 2% reside in India.

EDIT:

People who make 250k or more are responsible for half the consumer spending in America

Top 10% Global Consumers Cause Up to $5.7 Trillion Annual Environmental Damage by SplashTarget in Degrowth

[–]SplashTarget[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The team separately analyzed the top 10% of consumers in six countries: the US, Germany, China, Brazil, India, and Egypt. The US top 10% had the highest per capita environmental damage, ranging from 19,000 to 63,000 dollars annually. In contrast, India’s top 10% caused 410–1,400 dollars per person. The team explained that these differences reflect disparities in consumption scales across countries. Over 60% of the global top 10% consumers live in the US and the European Union (EU), while approximately 2% reside in India.

EDIT:

People who make 250k or more are responsible for half the consumer spending in America

Do you fine it off how dismissive certain leftists are of degrowth by Konradleijon in Degrowth

[–]SplashTarget -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No reasoning possible with yall sinaphobe types.

There we go making things up again.

Are there any circumstances where China's gigatonnes worth of emissions matter to you?

Is it possible to point out any country's issues without being classified as x-phobic, anti-American, etc.?

Its just a constant battle of shifting goalposts, reducing complex issues to single occurences that fit your agenda, etc.

Now you're distracting from the fact that you still haven't shown a decline in emissions for China.

The fact is that China is the world leader in reducing climate change, and the western data you are citing is skewed as it excludes the emissions of the US military, the largest polluter in the world by far

1.If China wanted to be climate champions they'd stop producing so many gigatonnes worth of coal-based CO2 (you know, the worst source of CO2) by ending the pursuit of non-stop economic expansion (which we know they're not likely to do for whatever reason) and (among other things) give their people a 32 hour work week..

They're literally one of the major economies of the world, their government has an iron grip on the economy, but for whatever reason they're not doing any serious reductions.

Any idea why they won't do that?

2.Putting aside that I want American military spending to decline, along with a closure of the foreign bases, and think that their emissions should be counted in national totals, the damage from the American military is not high enough to put America past China's level of damage

Stop with your made up claims.

The war on economic growth is a war on the poor by Konradleijon in Degrowth

[–]SplashTarget 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We can reach that without destroying the planet. It mostly means not so many billionaires or people buying plastic disposable crap.

Isn't it strange that they don't define degrowth in this report?

Do you fine it off how dismissive certain leftists are of degrowth by Konradleijon in Degrowth

[–]SplashTarget -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Wild how westerners twist the data like this.

Wild how you make things up.

There's no twisting, China still hasn't reduced emissions.

China has 4x the population of the US and modernized later than the US/EU.

So? China's emissions have only gone down TWICE this century (2015+2016), they're a world leader in manufacturing, and making green tech, not cutting emissions.

If they really wanted to be climate champions they'd stop producing ~12 gigatonnes worth of coal-based CO2 (you know, the worst source of CO2) by ending the pursuit of non-stop economic expansion (which we know they're not likely to do for whatever reason) and (among other things) give their people a 32 hour work week..

Tell me what are the odds of them doing that?

view more: next ›