• CableMonster@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    9 months ago

    Its a trade off at best. You would need to make everyone poorer and accumulate more power in the government to make it happen. And the biggest issue is if its even doable.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      “Poorer”.

      “Everyone”.

      You mean the wealthy wouldn’t be as wealthy and everyone else would be subject to strict controls on energy, transportation, and meat consumption. Which describes the lives of our recent ancestors. Air conditioning and heating would be for survival, not comfort. Most people will depend on mass transit and not own cars. And meat becomes a treat you get every now and then. But dairy products and eggs will still be plentiful.

      It’s not like we’re going to be eating peanut butter sandwiches and starving while working 3 part time jobs. Unless that’s already your reality. Then it will likely still be your reality because capitalism.

      The vast majority of humans could live a perfectly fine, alternative, lifestyle and the planet would be okay.

      • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah fair enough analysis other than blaming capitalism for everything. A thing that you missed was that when people in poor countries get poorer, they can die of starvation or other things. Why do you believe that is worth it?

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          You missed the point entirely. We don’t need to cut calories produced. The new arable land from not raising cattle and the turn of farm land from live stock feed to human feed will provide more than enough food.

          This isn’t a situation where we have to live in some dystopia, as long as we act now.

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Sure, in the developed richer countries, but not in the poor countries. Millions to hundrends of millions of people in poor countries would die.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Why? Why would going green mean they can’t grow food suddenly? What about coal power and cow farts means you can’t grow corn?

              • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                It doesnt mean you cant, it means that everything is more expensive, and means people in foreign countries cant afford things they need even more. If something like a billion people in the world are food insecure, a mild drought could make them starve.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Meat would get more expensive yes. But energy production is perfectly capable of switching over without a bump. And non meat farm products would actually become cheaper as supply increases. We’re not magically causing a drought with such a changeover, at least not any extra ones.

                  • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Think of the people in the world that are just getting by with just enough food to surive. If there were artificially made more expensive by world requirements on emissions and energy usage, this would make the things the poorest need too expensive for them to get and a simple drought would push them into starvation.

        • ceiphas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          You mean aiming for perfection ist worse than fucking the Planet a little less?

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            The more that you do with repect to climate change, the more it will harm the economies and the people in them. If you make it harder to get gas, poor people wont have access to it, and all the various costs will go up and crush them.

            • ceiphas@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              People are dying because of the climate Change, and increasingly so, but please Somebody think about the economy… Really?

              Gas will be accessible to them in need, If those who don’t need to use it step back.

              No sane Person needs a 3t heavy pick up truck wit 600hp for their groceries…

              • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                You are thinking of this a western problem. What happens to the more than a billion people around the world the are food insecure, and it gets harder to get food?

    • schnokobaer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      And the biggest issue is if its even doable.

      Right we all didn’t think of that, in that case let’s just keep on overexploiting our finite resources and generate as much short term shareholder value as possible, because we don’t know whether a sustainable approach would even fix some things that are possibly already beyond fixing due to overexploitation and generating short term value in the past.

      • pizzazz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        The sustainable approach at this point would be eco-dictatorship, not sure if it’s so easily achievable

      • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I also want a clean world where everything is renewable and such, the problem is that I dont think it is achievable with our current technology. Take for instance the “Green New Deal” that came out a few years back, it was literally impossible. So personally I dont want to damage people that are doing the work that will get us to the tech we need in order to pretend we are solving the problem.