I'm raising a kid right now and he has some really bad takes, but I make it a point to talk through his choices with him. Definitely still feel like I have a lot to learn.
I agree we likely need to downsize a lot of our daily conveniences (yeah fuck cars!) But I'd urge against trying to envision the solution before working on solving the problem. Saying we need to resort to subsistence farming in communities - why? We create food on a massive scale currently, and tons of it go to waste. Additionally so much of agriculture is lost to inefficiency through the meat industry.
Surely it would make more sense to focus on those two levers first before resorting to what sounds like feudal society.
Not looking to debate details, just urging a rational and realistic approach through steps that are achievable.
I'd strongly recommend the book "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch for a wider perspective on what you've stated. Humanity has always had problems and been in some ways on the verge of extinction perpetually, but we as a species find ways to solve these problems.
It's weird how many users resort to instant doom and gloom (like not having kids?) when its another problem that will take hard work to solve. Just a quote from his book -
"It is inevitable that we face problems, but no particular problem is inevitable. We survive, and thrive, by solving each problem as it comes up. And, since the human ability to transform nature is limited only by the laws of physics, none of the endless stream of problems will ever constitute an impassable barrier. So a complementary and equally important truth about people and the physical world is that problems are soluble. By ‘soluble’ I mean that the right knowledge would solve them."
Yeah you're right, didn't mean to say that doesn't already happen. Even Amazon has made it an option to have your delivery be delayed to be more "green" while they pocket the cost savings themselves.
Yep. Taxing is the logical solution that fits within capitalism, and yet corporations are so vested in the machine they realize it's cheaper to spend money to lobby and advertise against it.
It's a busted system that needed correcting decades ago, and here we are.
It's so strange to see all the comments here defending CNN of all things.
Imagine a game where you can buy sustainable, ethically sourced resources for $5 and unethically sourced resources for $3. The manual tells you it's nice of you to buy ethically sourced but there's no governmentally enforced consequences. Which ones are you going to buy as a consumer?
Now worse, which ones are you going to buy as a downstream corp CEO? Your shareholders demand maximum profit and you are required to give them maximum profit. Justifying that you're "doing your part" for the environment gets you thrown out as CEO.
At the end of this game, it's cheaper, and necessary, to buy the shit that kills us all.
People unironically saying we're all to blame. No shit, the system is designed so we are all complicit. It takes authoritative intervention to prevent corps from using and selling unethical and unsustainable products. You could also tax it for things like carbon emissions
He'd probably have to work on more patients, since demand would surely shoot up.