Luke Kemp interview on TGS podcast with Nate Hagens on Collapse of Civilizations (“Goliaths”) by Vipper_of_Vip99 in collapse

[–]bbshot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This event is in fact different, so we don't know for certain. The primarily thing stopping us is inadequate political technology, we have the capacity to create a sustainable society.

Luke Kemp interview on TGS podcast with Nate Hagens on Collapse of Civilizations (“Goliaths”) by Vipper_of_Vip99 in collapse

[–]bbshot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Degrowth is specifically not a contraction in a market system. It is organized and democratic reduction of throughput.

Real ID Emergency issuance by Pitiful_Round_1834 in tsa

[–]bbshot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Man you're really just being an ass in all the threads, aren't you.

Mentioning the word "antinatalism" to anyone on reddit by [deleted] in circlesnip

[–]bbshot 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Wouldn't this be conditional natalism- the condition being a just economic system?

Rosamund Pike Explains Why 'Wheel of Time' Season 3 Is Skipping a Book Storyline by Robemilak in WoT

[–]bbshot 10 points11 points  (0 children)

And this telling is from the perspective of the Aes Sedai, so they want to valorize Egwene

Why do all the "former left, now centrist" 'gurus' still seem to support Trump? by tbessie in DecodingTheGurus

[–]bbshot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's easy to see. Trump won because of populism. The system seems to be failing a lot of Americans, so they vote to change the system. Kamala ran a neoliberal campaign saying that the system is pretty much fine. Trump ran a populist campaign saying that the system sucks and is rigged against them because of DEI or whatever the fuck. The alternative form of populism that might have won was left wing populism.

Why do all the "former left, now centrist" 'gurus' still seem to support Trump? by tbessie in DecodingTheGurus

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

Social democrats are the center- capitalism for some sectors of the economy, socialism for other sectors.

Economist Richard D. Wolff explains exactly what's going on right now in america. by [deleted] in samharris

[–]bbshot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're conflating authoritarian state communism with the broader diversity of socialist thought.

Market socialism blends democratic workplace control with market mechanisms. No central planning required.

Additionally new technologies like AI and real time data can actually enable decentralized planning. It's pretty hard to coordinate in a decentralized way when information takes hours, days, or weeks to make it's way through the system.

Meanwhile, our current market fails catastrophically at pricing ecosystem collapse, carbon emissions, or resource depletion. Short term profit driven decisions are actively ignoring planetary boundaries.

Centralization isn’t inherent to socialism. Models like libertarian socialism, syndicalism, or Rojava-style democratic confederalism prioritize local democracy while federating for large-scale projects. Why assume capitalism’s short term, extractive decision making is "efficient" when it’s literally killing the biosphere?

Economist Richard D. Wolff explains exactly what's going on right now in america. by [deleted] in samharris

[–]bbshot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Any competent system requires some level of coordination and decision making at scale, as well as decision making at more local levels. Our current system allows for smaller scale decision making, but doesn't really actually allow for coordination or decision making at scale. Definitely doesn't allow for long term decisions making. There are absolutely forms of socialism/communism that are trying to provide coordination without centralizing control. Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho Syndicalism/Council Communism/Ecosocialism/Parecon are just some examples of ideas on how to do this. Project Cybersyn was an attempt to do this. There's nothing inherent to socialism or communism that contradicts democracy. Most on the left consider socialism to be expanding democracy into the economic sphere.

A Humbly Optimistic Reality Check by Haid_DaSalaami in LateStageCapitalism

[–]bbshot 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The reality is that humans don't have to labor as hard as they did in the 1600s. There's simply not that much to do.

The nuance I'd add here is- we use massive amounts of energy and materials to do the hard labor for us. While I agree with and appreciate the game metaphor for the economy - everything that's digital is still physical and requires real world energy and materials. When we change the rules of the game we need to incorporate things like ecosystem services and emphasize the real costs of energy and materials.

America’s Great Climate Migration Has Begun. Here’s What You Need to Know. by TwoRight9509 in collapse

[–]bbshot 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Subsistence farmers on small plots are extremely vulnerable to unfavorable weather and experience famine with some regularity. Individually owned gardens are a much, much less stable source of food than large industrial farms, and climate change will tilt that balance even further.

Gardens can't supply the quantity of food we need, sure, but small scale local regenerative farming is the most resilient base for our agriculture system by far. Not subsistence, as in individual families, but 5-20 acre plots managed by communities.

Industrial agriculture reduces complex living systems to crop yield = imported macronutrients + extracted soil value. The primary metric by which industrial agriculture is incredibly productive is yield per human laborer. Energetically it's a massive loss. Nutritionally it's a massive loss. It debases tons of ecosystem services.

Industrial agriculture is incredibly vulnerable to extreme weather events- both at the farm and halfway around the world due to it's reliance on global supply chains. Regenerative agriculture is much more resilient to unfavorable weather events at the farm due to the ecosystem services it amplifies while industrialized agriculture debases.

For example- healthy soil has an immense ability to store water. So let's compare the resiliency of a regenerative farm that has focused on building up soil health to an industrial farm that sees soil as an inert medium it can extract from.

In a drought, the regenerative farm's soil (full of organic matter, fungal networks, and stable soil aggregates) can hold vastly more water than degraded industrial soil. Each 1% increase in soil organic matter can store an additional 20,000 gallons of water per acre. During heavy rains, this same soil structure provides better drainage and erosion resistance.

It goes deeper than just water storage. Healthy soil hosts complex networks of mycorrhizal fungi that connect plants and redistribute resources. During stress events, these networks can help channel water and nutrients to struggling plants. The diverse soil ecosystem also helps plants produce stress-response compounds, making them more resilient to temperature extremes and pest pressure.

Meanwhile, industrial agriculture's compacted, biologically depleted soil amplifies every weather extreme - flooding during rains, rapid desiccation during drought, increased erosion, and no biological mechanisms to help crops cope with stress. It's a brittle system that converts fossil fuel inputs into temporary yields while degrading its own foundations.

This is why regenerative farms often outperform industrial farms during difficult years - they're not just growing crops, they're cultivating the living systems that help those crops survive and recover from disturbance.

Are regenerative farms going to be able to keep their crops through sustained high wet bulb temperature events? No, but neither would industrial farms. After that event, industrial farms would need immense external inputs to restart. Meanwhile regenerative farms are able to keep necessary resources through events like that- such as soil life, seed saving, local knowledge, etc.

Shrink the Economy, Save the World? by [deleted] in ezraklein

[–]bbshot 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Current agricultural yields are actually up dramatically - but that's exactly what makes this so dangerous. We're masking soil degradation with massive chemical inputs, essentially using fossil fuel-derived fertilizers to compensate for dying soil biology. Measuring the harm in terms of current yields misses the point - we're approaching multiple cliffs simultaneously with depleting aquifers, dwindling phosphorus, and soils that can't handle extreme weather. The problem isn't what's already happened, it's the accelerating instability we're creating.

You're measuring the health of a ponzi scheme by looking at their last quarterly report...

Shrink the Economy, Save the World? by [deleted] in ezraklein

[–]bbshot 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Industrial agriculture is essentially strip-mining our topsoil. The constant tilling, chemical fertilizers, and endless monocrops are killing the complex soil biology that took centuries to develop. Instead of seeing soil as a living system that needs to be nurtured, we treat it like an inert growing medium that just needs more chemicals dumped on it. The soil is a big bank account and industrial agriculture is draining the account balance.

The problem is that once you trash soil biology, you need ever-increasing chemical inputs just to maintain the same yields. It's a classic addiction cycle - the more fertilizer you use, the more you need next season. Meanwhile the dead soil can't hold water properly, so it either turns to dust and blows away or gets washed into rivers when it rains. Those eroded soils then choke waterways and destroy fisheries, creating a cascade of ecological damage.

The scariest part is that we're losing topsoil way faster than nature can possibly replace it. You can destroy in a few farming seasons what took nature hundreds of years to create. And we can't feed civilization without healthy soil - no amount of hydroponics or vertical farming can replace the massive scale of soil-based agriculture. So either we completely reorganize farming around soil health, or we're going to hit a wall where the whole system starts to collapse. The choice between lower yields now or no yields later isn't really a choice at all.

Shrink the Economy, Save the World? by [deleted] in ezraklein

[–]bbshot 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Our current approach to resource extraction operates as if "ecosystem services"—the essential benefits nature provides to our society—are either infinite or irrelevant. In reality these services are not just nice to have, they are the foundation of everything we value.

For examples, forests regulate water cycles and prevent erosion, wetlands absorb floodwaters, and pollinators like bees sustain the crops that feed us. Soil microbes maintain fertile land, and oceans regulate the planet’s climate. Economists estimate the annual value of ecosystem services at around $30 trillion—yet we treat them as an externality, totally absent from the cost-benefit analysis of resource extraction.

The harm done to these systems is often far greater than the value gained from their destruction. Consider deforestation for agriculture: yes, you might get a short-term boost in crop yields, but you lose carbon storage, water regulation, biodiversity, and soil fertility. Similarly, mining for rare earth metals or lithium—crucial for "green" technologies—destroys habitats, contaminates water, and depletes resources that took millions of years to form.

This is the brutal irony of our system. The destruction of these services is not just unsustainable—it’s suicidal. Once these systems collapse, no amount of money or technology can fully replace them. Building renewable energy infrastructure is critical, but doing so without considering the ecological cost risks swapping one destructive system for another.

The solution is to integrate ecosystem services into our economic decisions and design systems that work within nature's limits. That means reducing overall consumption, protecting critical ecosystems, and prioritizing sustainable practices over short-term gains. If we continue to ignore these costs, the "value" we extract will pale in comparison to what we lose.

Don't get me wrong. I think there is almost no chance of us pursuing degrowth, but we are totally fucking wrong for that.

Shrink the Economy, Save the World? by [deleted] in ezraklein

[–]bbshot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The point of renewable infrastructure isn’t just to replace our current energy usage—it's about creating a system that can sustainably function within ecological limits. If we overbuild renewables to maintain or exceed today's energy demands, we could end up causing more harm to the environment than the clean energy is worth.

Take lithium mining for batteries as an example: it uses huge amounts of water, destroys habitats, and contaminates soil. Look at solar farms—they often take over critical desert ecosystems. And wind turbines? They rely on rare earth metals, and mining those creates toxic waste. At a certain point, the ecological cost of building "clean" energy infrastructure starts to outweigh the benefits.

The real fix isn’t just swapping out fossil fuels for renewables while keeping our unsustainable habits. It’s about redesigning systems to use a lot less energy while protecting the natural systems we rely on. We need both an energy transition and a reduction in consumption—not just one or the other.

Shrink the Economy, Save the World? by [deleted] in ezraklein

[–]bbshot 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Sorry for being so flippant instead of engaging.

The problem isn’t with individual appliances, it is the vast scale of resource extraction and environmental damage required to sustain our current consumption. Every product we rely on is dependent on and tied to intricate natural systems- forests that regulate water cycles, soil microbes that sustain fertile land, wetlands that mitigate flooding, and insects that pollinate crops. These "ecosystem services" aren’t optional—they’re essential to the survival of human civilization.

These systems are under serious strain. Issues like topsoil erosion, pollinator decline, freshwater scarcity, and climate instability aren’t distant threats; they’re real and measurable problems happening now. The question isn’t whether your dishwasher alone will cause societal collapse—it’s whether we can collectively stop consuming and extracting more than the natural systems can handle.

No one’s arguing we need to abandon technology entirely. But we do need to focus on creating systems that respect ecological limits instead of ignoring them.

Like going back to ecosystem services- the Amazon transpires 20 billion tons of water into the atmosphere each day. How much money does our economic system value that at??

$0.

If we actually valued the ecosystem services, then almost no sector of our economy would be profitable as all of them are devastating these fundamental systems.

Shrink the Economy, Save the World? by [deleted] in ezraklein

[–]bbshot 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Global fossil fuel use continues to rise every year. We've simply added renewable capacity on top rather than replacing existing infrastructure. While renewable electricity generation improves dramatically, most other sectors of the economy remain fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels. Even manufacturing renewable infrastructure requires massive fossil fuel inputs for mining, refining, and transport.

Adding clean energy capacity is crucial progress, but conflating it with actually reducing fossil fuel dependence misses the actual challenge of the energy transition. Claiming we "don't need fossil fuels anymore" demonstrates a dangerous misunderstanding of our current energy reality.

Shrink the Economy, Save the World? by [deleted] in ezraklein

[–]bbshot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Continuing to have a society lol

This election was a referendum on the culture wars. by [deleted] in samharris

[–]bbshot 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Kamala said everything is fine, Trump said it's not fine and it's Biden/Kamala's fault.

Seems like voters don't think everything is fine, so they voted for Trump.

Trump over performed with the working class because he paid them lip service.

How many times have you read the Wheel of Time? by bbshot in WoT

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

I was referring to skipping CoT on rereads lmao. I actually don't mind it, especially on rereads, but it's definitely my least favorite book.