Post #2805037
2026-05-23 01:18 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@Dialectical_Specialist@quokk.au 2026-05-24 02:23
You are treating advancement like it is a neutral force of nature, but it is really just driven by the need to keep growing. You say we can be efficient without excess, but that ignores how efficiency actually works in the real world. When we figure out how to use a resource more efficiently, we do not use less of it overall. We just consume more because it becomes cheaper. Making green tech more efficient does not hit the brakes on the machine. It just gives the system a cheaper, greener excuse to expand mining and infrastructure. You assume a socialist state will just choose to stop producing once it is efficient enough, but the whole logic of advancement requires endless expansion. If the socialist state keeps up the project of endless industrial growth just with a red flag over the factories, the planet still burns. The relentless drive for more production caused the ecological crisis in the first place. Doing it faster and greener is not the cure. You cannot run an infinite growth engine on a finite planet and expect it to voluntarily stop. The climate does not care if the bulldozer destroying the forest is owned by a billionaire or a workers’ collective. Believing that efficiency will magically solve overconsumption without us fundamentally changing our relationship to consumption is just wishful thinking.
-
@Count042@lemmy.ml 2026-05-25 15:59
Sorry to necro this a little bit. I’m curious how this view deals with waste heat. Right now, with the current waste heat our cumalitive technology usage as it stands today, without factoring in global climate change, wool be enough to boil the oceans in 200 years or so. Given that, it seems likely that any progress that is required to not have us suffer an ecological based Apocalypse would necessarily require degrowth, right