The soviet union wasn't exactly great environmental stewards either. Perhaps the problem is a technological gap between industrilization and sustainability.
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2026
987 points (97.4% liked)
Work Reform
17765 readers
1580 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
China also pollutes significantly more than India, even if the Chinese per person emission is lower than some other developed nations.
Plus, Capitalists invented the newer green power used by China and instead China invented bigger coal power plants.
India remains heavily underdeveloped domestically. And the cultural gap - most remarkably, India's enormous vegetarian community - plays a bigger role than it's economic model in curbing gross emissions.
It should also be noted that India has had and continues to have one of the largest active Communist Parties in history. In fact, the 34 years of the Left Front rule in West Bengal is the longest-serving democratically elected communist-led government in the world.
So you can't really use India as a pure capitalist counterexample, unless you only want to discuss the corners of the county under decisive BJP rule (itself a relatively new political turn for India).
Many developing nations like India, Vietnam and Ethiopia are going to leapfrog the fossil fuel detour and go straight to renewables which will also help.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think that's a bit reductive. Firstly, I wouldn't describe China as non-capatalist. Secondly, China has a nuanced relationship with environmentalism and green energy as one would expect from a nation that large.
load more comments
(2 replies)
China is the manufacturing hub of the entire world. Of course it's going to pollute significantly more than India, its energy consumption is 5 times of what India consumes.
And I don't get this insinuation that China invests in coal power. China invests the most into renewable energy than anyone else in the world, almost 40% of global renewable investments come from China. And last I checked almost half of the energy China produces comes from renewables.
And the reason China had use fossil fuels in the first place is because renewable tech didn't exist when they needed the energy. Why didn't it exist? Because capitalists refused to invest into green energy even though the oil companies did the research and knew that fossil fuels are a dead end (that research was done back in the 70s and Exxon decided to bury it instead of acting on it). We see in Africa that countries are skipping fossil fuels and are going straight to renewable because the tech exists, so it's reasonable assume the same would've happened in China had the tech existed.
If you want to shit on China, there are legitimate points to criticize. Renewable energy is not one of those points.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Why you bring that up
Sort of a famous counter-example.
A seventy year long break from capitalist economic practices over half of Europe and most of Asia seems like it should have produced a noticeably different set of ecological outcomes.
But industrialization appears to take the same ecological toll from Beijing to Belgrade.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Because I believe ecological sustainability is achivable under any economic system!
Capitalism requires continuous and unlimited economic growth. Economic growth requires accelerated resource extraction. Capitalism is not ecologically sustainable in nature.
edit: replaced "by design" with "in nature"
Capitalism, like socialism, means many things to many different people. At it's core capitalism is simply a philosophy built around the idea of the free exchange of goods and services between individuals. I don't think most people would that infinite growth is an essential part of that equation as there are real examples of capitalistic economys that shrink every year.
Where are those capitalist "economies" that don't require growth? Are they decoupled, and not relying on the growth of the global economy? Does their pension system not explode if economic growth would come to a halt? If so, what makes them capitalist?
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
One of the reasons why capitalism seems to work so well in Western democracies is because it's short-sighted.
Capitalism focuses on the immediate future - the next year or a few years, and any material gains that can be made in that time frame. Businesses rarely plan for 10+ years into the future, because their products or services may no longer be financially feasible by then.
Just like our democratic governments focus on the next 4 years or less, because afterwards the government will likely change. No point making plans that your political opponents will benefit from. Which is also why the West can't get anything substantial done.
short-sighted
years
You need to think shorter. No one above me talks in anything except the next quarter. That is the next 89 days. Nothing else matters.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Meh. I'm no fan of capitalism, but I'd say the problem is humanity itself, or maybe an evolutionary system that favors short sighted local advantage at the expense of eventual extinction.
I already posted the great filter today, so...
Yeah, the AI are the bad guys in that movie. But it's the humans that blot out the sun.
Yes but some systems push the bad side of human and other the good side
The systems that can feed the most bodies and enslave the most minds conquer, Borg-like, the ones the feed & enslave less. Wars grow bigger as their opponents grow bigger. Eventually we are all engulfed in one fragile system that has to fail but once.
Ackshuuully there's no such thing as overpopulation or overconsumption or carrying capacity overshoot. Those are myths made up by ecofascists, a very real and very scary right-wing political movement. The obvious true solution is for the whole world to come together and agree to follow my preferred system of government (or absence thereof) and then there will be plenty of resources to go around for everybody and billions of humans can live sustainably ever after.
And if you say that's unrealistic and won't happen, it must be because you are a literal exterminist Nazi who hates life and wants to do eugenics by genociding everybody- especially the brown ones and the poor ones- even though you didn't say that- but come on, we all know you were thinking it.
So be ashamed of yourself, you Nazi, and go away now so I can win this argument by default- before I'm forced to post the well supported counterargument which I totally have.
Evolution only cares about passing on genes. It's rare in the animal kingdom for menopause to exist. For the most part there's no point in an animal living if it's unable to mate. Scientists have the "grandmother hypothesis" for why this happens in a few whales, humans and some chimps: in a species where the grandmother might help care for a baby that has some of her genes, the grandmother can be useful to the mechanism of passing on genes even if she's no longer able to pass on her own.
That means that a creature might care about how the world looks maybe 25 years past the point where it can have offspring. Caring about environmental degradation that takes place on a multi-century scale is just not something that evolution prepared us for. Why would it? No creature in history has ever been able to modify its environment the way humans can.
Viruses are actually a good analogy. A virus depends on a living host. But, viruses often kill their hosts. Like humans, it can actually modify its environment in a way that that environment becomes toxic to the virus's existence. That seems bad. For any individual virus though, its "life" is so short compared to the life of the host that any mechanism that made it try to avoid killing the host would just be a useless genetic trait that would not be optimal.
Humans have these immense brains, and they allow us to do things that aren't simply the result of evolutionary drives. But, we're still animals. Those drives really structure everything we do.
Altruism can actually be evolutionarily advantageous. For example, vampire bats share food with hungry individuals, and this can be reciprocated later. Insects like ants and bees have workers that give up their own reproduction to help raise relatives, thereby still passing on shared genes. Even among unrelated animals, repeated cooperation can favour altruistic behaviour.
I don't know why you need to go farther than humanity itself to clearly demonstrate the benefits of an altruistic survival model.
Modern human health care is predicated on individuals dedicating decades of their lives to education and research before dedicating decades more to the grueling physical labor of providing health care. And yet, our 8 billion person population size is wholely predicated on the massive bump in the human survival rate where professional medical services exist.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
COVID-19 has drawn much of this discussion into the public sphere. Whereas it’s generally seen as poor taste to refer to groups of people as infections, diseases, and plagues – for good reason – this seems to be forgiven when the group being referred to is non-specific. Hand waving at humanity in general, as if being vague is ethical bulletproofing, gets a pass. It is relatively common today to find another viral tweet with tens of thousands of likes gesturing towards the clearing waters of Venetian canals, or the wandering deer of Japan navigating neon-lit city centres and declaring that the Earth is healing itself; the smog-cleared skies of California receive a probing enquiry – perhaps we were the real virus all along?
Strange as though it may seem, musings of this kind have become more and more common as the weeks have gone by and the evidence of nature ‘reclaiming’ previously populated areas has begun to accumulate. Suffice it to say, there is more than a little of the eco-fascist ideology floating around in the assumptions of that question; when somebody asks if humanity is the ‘real virus’, they set up a system in which the Earth is a being and humanity a problem that needs to be solved. The solution being proposed is rarely stated outright, but it doesn’t have to be because it’s implicit in the question; you cure a virus by getting rid of it. Beneath the surface level wonder at seeing a wild boar shuffle across Italian cobblestones, there is a lurking belief that maybe the world would be better off without us. Or, more commonly, the world would be better off without some of us, with who that some is being left as a blank to be filled in by the subconscious of the questioner. Unquestionably, whoever that somebody is, will be someone else.
[...]
The language of the eco-fascist claims that human beings are the problem, and that with their self-isolation – that is, their removal from the system – has come ecological recovery. Such individualised and atomised analysis prevents the ever-important systematic approach; the real problem is capitalism, and it is with the interruptions and staggerings of capitalism that recovery has come along. Deeply embedded in the language of the right wing, the misattribution of the worst elements of capitalism to the mere existence of human beings exists as a dual weapon.
Firstly, it allows them to turn their vitriol upon individuals... Secondly, it allows them to imply a connection between the two; to link the existence of capitalism to the existence of individuals and bind them together ideologically; to present capitalism as human and therefore inevitable and inescapable.
Fraser, J. (2020). Eco-Fascism: The Rhetoric of the Virus. Organise Magazine. Archived at https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jay-fraser-eco-fascism-the-rhetoric-of-the-virus.
Humans have beenaaround a lot longer than capitalism, and we didn't destroy the planet until recently.
The problem is not humans, as many small groups of people across the globe have proven they can live with the environment, and take care of it.
Power not derived from the movement of animals is very new. The industrial revolution is what greatly changed the damage humans can do to the environment. The industrial revolution led to capitalism, not the other way around.
I think the seeds were there long before the industrial revolution, like for example when you've got large segments of the population devoted to being agricultural workers on land they don't own.
But obviously yeah I don't think you can get capitalism of the form and scale as we recognize it today without the industrial revolution and then the financialization of most lifeways available to workers
the great filter
The problem with "Great Filter" Theory is that we have yet to identify even non-intelligent life outside of Earth.
It's one thing to say intelligence is self-terminating. Or, at least, incapable of sustained extra-terrestrial expansion. It's quite another to say every other observable planet in the galaxy must have already experienced intelligent life and wiped itself out before we started looking.
Far more likely that we're in a Dark Forest than a Great Filter. Or, at a minimum, that we are unable to identify extraterrestrial life because we haven't figured out how to spot it at such a large distance.
load more comments
(7 replies)
I wouldn't say human beings are a virus, but parasitism is a survival strategy for about 65% of life. In the case of human beings, we have complex social structures which allows for parasitism of ourselves.
The owner class behaves like a parasite, and we've seen this in feudal ages, in which the warrior castes dominate agricultural castes.
In capitalism, the ownership class behaves very much like a cancer. Resources consolidate at the very top with those who are in the owner class getting smaller and smaller. Currently, in the US, the difference of wealth between the 0.1%, the 0.01% and the 0.001% are stark, not to mention between them and the rest of us.
Multiple economists, including Nobel laureates are saying the ultra-wealthy are too rich, and have more wealth (total or percentage of the whole) than any other time in history, and the only way out of this mess is to redistribute it all. If we don't then the oligarchs dominating the US will soon turn their eyes and power to the rest of the developed world.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
We've had a few extinction events, and I suspect even the Holocene extinction event (which is already in progress) will not be as bad as the Permian–Triassic.
Right now, three possibilities are in the running to kill off humans:
~ Climate-change induced famine and drought
~ Nuclear escalation (The US is looking at broader options... using low-yield nuclear weapons in a regional conflict)
~ AI takeover, which will likely look like the owner class developing armies of murderbots to annex the world before the AI accidentally determines they are a target as well. (And less so the Yudkowsky and Soares scenario.)
But humans are more likely to do what Homo Erectus did and go through a low population phase. They had a population less than 10,000 for millennia for a while before expanding again, only to get wiped out by competition with their cousins.
But even if humans die, life on earth will regrow across millions of years, and may even evolve intelligence and technology.
A "low population phase" is a nice way to say "post apocalypse".
I really enjoy this genre of fiction, but I don't think I would enjoy it IRL.
Yeah, I don't think you would. Many post-apocalyptic stories "forget" that most technology requires global supply lines that shouldn't exist anymore. Even just food, water and electricity would be non-trivial depending on the scenario. Definitely not exciting
Hmm... No most post apoc fiction is mindful of these issues.
My main concern is that most novels have a token nerdy / accountant type who's role is to demonstrate how useless our skills are in a post apocalyptic wasteland. That's me really. An accountant.
I'd say even a techie would quickly end up with useless skills. Today's devices rarely allow tinkering and damage is often permanent. In SciFi robots can be fixed or manipulated simply with changing some cables in their back. Anyone who's been working in robotics knows this is almost impossible. Same with hacking into computer systems. There are some exceptions of course.
I was thinking of the Mad Max universe that still has gasoline even though it goes stale within 6 months in reality. Doesn't make these universes and stories bad, but also not realistic. Real apocalypse sucks.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I keep repeating this to people. In less then 200 years we destroyed a balance that took millions of years to build itself.
While not denying it is one of the main factors, let's not forget the massive, continuous and egregious ecological disregard the directed economies had, and have.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Glad I live now then 100 years from now, I’ll be dead before the earth implodes
Yeah, turns out we experienced the peak of civilization. Someday, people will be begging to party like it's 1999.
load more comments
(1 replies)
You should measure by existence of society, not earth's age. Same conclusion though.
load more comments
(2 replies)
So true. All fed by greed.
capitalism needs systems to internalize the negative externalities certian processes create
I don't think any working class citizen should want to keep capitalism in any form. But I really don't understand how we've decided democracy in government is necessary but not in our workplaces/economy. Somehow the objectively flawed system needs just a few more regulations? Its insanity to me.
Co-ops offer a path towards democratic control of the economy and it is more than just idealistic.
Greater job stability than traditional businesses
Higher productivity
Higher profits
More resiliant during economic downturn
Decrease in inequality
Greater job satisfaction
Its just a start but what's not to want?
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›