Eco-fasch:

Climate change is real, but if we just exterminate enough of the brutes, we won't have to stop building new coal plants to power the entropy machine!

Neoliberalism has been the dominant political ideology of the western world for decades, would you rather us blame todays problems on people who haven't been in power?

Maybe if liberals stopped doing and apologizing for heinous shit all the time they'd be hated less.

What else is the Fediverse but Lib-bashing and red-bashing?

No, kill people who "they" think don't contribute to get the population level well down to 'save the environment'

To be fair we deliberately kill people in their millions now, 9 million a year from starvation, another 9 million from air pollution.etc

An example of an eco fascist ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

Linkola blamed humans for the continuous degradation of the environment. He promoted rapid population decline to combat the problems commonly attributed to overpopulation. Linkola also defended an end to immigration, the reversion to pre-industrial life ways, and authoritarian measures to keep human life within strict limits.

On the 101st anniversary of Finland's independence, Linkola was announced as the winner of a poll conducted by the national broadcaster Yle to determine who had done the most to preserve Finland's natural heritage.[19]

I do think his book "Will life Prevail" is worth a read and I do agree with him that the worst human invention ever is the road.

No, no, see we don't have to stop building new coal plants to power the entropy machine if we just exterminate the brutes/ngmi's

I think the problem is more that yes, the earth can only sustain so many people, but we have not nearly hit that limit yet. And in my opinion a better worldview is 'lets take care of the planet better and have more efficient organization of labor and food and such, so that the earth can take care of us in return and support more people.'

The population won't grow infinitely. People have in average two surviving children when mortality rate is high. If mortality decreases thanks to higher living standards, there is a population boom because more than two children survive. Birth rate then decrease to about two children per woman and population stabilizes. You can argue on why this happens, but this is just observation from Europe to Africa, from the Americas to Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition?wprov=sfla1

A lot of climate adaptations would increase health and quality of life. Living near major carways is really fucking bad for you. Red meat is bad for you. Suburbs are bad for you. Going into the office every single fucking day in your car and eating trash because you're strapped for time then going home to your shitty suburban house is bad for you. It wouldn't all be steps down.

An eco authoritarian accepts these two premises:

1. The current consumption patterns of humans, especially in the first world, are unsustainable in regards to meat, travel via cars, home sizes for heating and cooling, etc.

2. Any reduction in that consumption will be extremely unpopular and thus politically impossible under any democratic regime, whether that regime be under capitalism or communism.

Therefore to achieve sustainability and save the planet and countless human lives we will need a top down authoritarian government to force the populace into sustainability similar to how fascists would force there populace to war despite its inherent unpopularity.

The liberal take on the ecosystem is that the carbon footprint of individuals is too high, and therefore we must as INDIVIDUALS all choose to use less carbon of our own free will. And as liberals see that the individual will not choose to do that, instead of changing our entire system to something better that would improve the environmental impact en mass, they’d prefer that we keep capitalism, even if that means large parts of the global population must suffer and die. Thats what hes talking about here.

I was around someone with this same hot take, who called Sir David Attenborough an Eco-fascist for acknowledging that the endless destruction of wild habitat at the hands of humans expanding their own habitats and resource extraction, was responsible for the beginnings of a mass extinction event for wildlife.

I’ll say it loud and proud. Industrialism is not natural. Industrialism is the only way we can support a population of 8 billion humans, the only thing that allowed them to exist in the first place. Industrialism is inherently destructive and exploitative.

Tankie dweebs seem to think that if we just give everyone an equal cut, that we would suddenly have a utopia, that we would somehow bring back the massive swaths of insect populations we’ve decimated, that we could magically make degraded land arable again. Nah.

Industrial civilization isn’t infinite. It has a start and an end. When it ends, so will most of us. Recognizing this doesn’t make one an “eco fascist”

What makes someone an eco fascist is if they want to genocide populations they deem undesirable for ecological purposes. Pretty simple.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9315181/

Abstract:

As anthropogenic climate change threatens human existence on Earth, historians have begun to explore the scientific antecedents of environmental Malthusianism, the idea that human population growth is a major driver of ecosystem degradation and that environmental protection requires a reduction in human numbers. These accounts, however, neglect the antagonistic relationship between environmental Malthusianism and demography, thereby creating an illusion of scientific consensus. This article details the entwined histories of environmental Malthusianism and demography, revealing points of disagreement – initially over methods of analyzing and predicting population growth and later over the role of population growth in ecosystem degradation – and moments of strategic collaboration that benefited both groups of scientists. It contends that the image of scientific consensus in existing histories has lent support to ongoing calls for population control, detracting attention from more proximate causes of environmental devastation, such as polluting modes of production, extractive business practices and government subsidies for fossil fuel development.

Abridged conclusion:

Since the end of World War II, environmental Malthusians have pointed to ecosystem degradation as supposedly obvious evidence that the Earth is already overpopulated and have called for population control as an alternative to environmental regulation and economic redistribution. Despite their scientific opposition, demographers collaborated with environmental Malthusians just long enough in the 1950s and 1960s to create a global population movement that advanced the agendas of both groups. The harms caused by that movement – both by governments that explicitly limited childbearing, such as China, and by supposedly voluntary programs that nonetheless imposed contraception where it was not desired – have been well documented (Connelly, 2008; Greenhalgh, 2008; Hartmann, 1995). However, even the most critical histories of the population control movement largely fail to recognize the illusory nature of the scientific consensus that claimed to undergird it.

Good questions and I'm curious about this too. Conservatives like to tie liberal support of abortion rights to Malthusianism, but that's a hella reactionary take.

A made-up boogie man that basically no one believes in.