Thoughts on the State of Things
Jun. 9th, 2015 08:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sathorhttps://www.popularresistance.org/flipping-the-script-rethinking-working-class-resistance/
Reading the above article sparked a line of thought that I hadn't really come across before. For all the hatred of the ruling class, the hierarchy, the industrial revolution, and capitalism, I feel there's a bit of troublesome double think going on. What I mean to say is that I think (and by no means can I prove) that it's very likely much of our world today...much of the population we have today...would not exist in any capacity whatsoever if modern capitalism, fiat slavery and wealth inequality didn't exist. You probably think me mad. Maybe I am.
I guess the epicenter of the thought has something to do with this idea that we have seven billion people and growing as a direct result of westernization and industrialization (both of those include capitalism and inequality, of course - and inequality existed for a long time prior to industrialization as well.) It's uncertain whether or not large production facilities, large scale agriculture and modern logistics networks could have ever come into existence in any other way, as they never managed to persist for long in any of the poor attempts at other forms of economies, and in slightly more "ancient" history, they of course did not exist at all.
I believe that if a huge part of the mass of humans on this planet are descended from the very thing they are beginning to realize is evil, suffocating, decadent and wasteful, they are setting a course for self-destruction of the world that they know. With current technology, and current demographics (city to rural populations) I fear it would be impossible to meet the energy and consumptive needs of the population in a sustainable fashion. That means one of two things has to happen.
Either A. a lot of people have to die and not be replaced upon dying (meaning many people must choose to not have more than one child)
Or B. we have to develop far more advanced technology, and figure out an alternative to petroleum-based energy that is actually energy-efficient (if you look up research on things like solar panels, you'll find that they take quite a while to start being worth what it took to produce them - and it's worse in other cases supposedly, such as wind tubines, or even hydro-electric plants - and nuclear power has it's own share of problems outside of energy efficiency.)
Imagine a world that suddenly can't afford petroleum because of it's scarcity. So many people would not survive - even if there are no major wars or famines or plagues, people would no longer have affordable sources of heating. In the old days, wood was commonly used...but you can't sustain massive northern city populations on wood burning stoves. There'd be no forest left in a heartbeat.
The more I think about this, the more I think that there may not be real alternatives to the inequitable system that we have. Start tearing it down, and you run the risk of ridding the world of a good portion of its population, that I'm starting to think would have never existed in the first place given a more equitable, "utopian" system. Of course, if we do nothing, the world itself will be consumed in fire like that Hindu prophecy.
Food for thought.
Reading the above article sparked a line of thought that I hadn't really come across before. For all the hatred of the ruling class, the hierarchy, the industrial revolution, and capitalism, I feel there's a bit of troublesome double think going on. What I mean to say is that I think (and by no means can I prove) that it's very likely much of our world today...much of the population we have today...would not exist in any capacity whatsoever if modern capitalism, fiat slavery and wealth inequality didn't exist. You probably think me mad. Maybe I am.
I guess the epicenter of the thought has something to do with this idea that we have seven billion people and growing as a direct result of westernization and industrialization (both of those include capitalism and inequality, of course - and inequality existed for a long time prior to industrialization as well.) It's uncertain whether or not large production facilities, large scale agriculture and modern logistics networks could have ever come into existence in any other way, as they never managed to persist for long in any of the poor attempts at other forms of economies, and in slightly more "ancient" history, they of course did not exist at all.
I believe that if a huge part of the mass of humans on this planet are descended from the very thing they are beginning to realize is evil, suffocating, decadent and wasteful, they are setting a course for self-destruction of the world that they know. With current technology, and current demographics (city to rural populations) I fear it would be impossible to meet the energy and consumptive needs of the population in a sustainable fashion. That means one of two things has to happen.
Either A. a lot of people have to die and not be replaced upon dying (meaning many people must choose to not have more than one child)
Or B. we have to develop far more advanced technology, and figure out an alternative to petroleum-based energy that is actually energy-efficient (if you look up research on things like solar panels, you'll find that they take quite a while to start being worth what it took to produce them - and it's worse in other cases supposedly, such as wind tubines, or even hydro-electric plants - and nuclear power has it's own share of problems outside of energy efficiency.)
Imagine a world that suddenly can't afford petroleum because of it's scarcity. So many people would not survive - even if there are no major wars or famines or plagues, people would no longer have affordable sources of heating. In the old days, wood was commonly used...but you can't sustain massive northern city populations on wood burning stoves. There'd be no forest left in a heartbeat.
The more I think about this, the more I think that there may not be real alternatives to the inequitable system that we have. Start tearing it down, and you run the risk of ridding the world of a good portion of its population, that I'm starting to think would have never existed in the first place given a more equitable, "utopian" system. Of course, if we do nothing, the world itself will be consumed in fire like that Hindu prophecy.
Food for thought.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-06-10 05:02 am (UTC)The question this begs is whether industrialization, urbanization and over-population were a good idea for either our species or the rest of the planet. But the answer to that question is moot, since the damage is already done. The crucial challenge in front of us now is decolonization, and the question is whether we can meet it fast enough to save our species and the rest of the planet from the hideous mistakes we've made.
no subject
Date: 2015-06-13 03:46 am (UTC)Sigh.
I do wonder if we can meet it fast enough - but for me, I think what's more striking is that there are so many of us. Even if we do start reversing what's going on, I don't think those numbers can be sustained.
no subject
Date: 2015-06-15 02:33 am (UTC)The sensible thing would be to just pay people not to breed. Give a handsome cash bonus to women who opt to have their tubes tied after having their first babies. Pay everyone who comes in for a vasectomy, Essure or IUD. If this was done worldwide, I bet we could achieve zero population growth within a decade, without killing anyone or forcing anyone to do anything against their will.
The fossil fuels in the ground need to stay in the ground. The ways we use water, grow food and dispose of waste need to change pretty drastically. We need sustainable housing and transportation systems. We need an end to laissez-faire capitalism. But mostly we just need a whole lot fewer humans on this planet.