Ok, ngl–haven’t read the article itself. But this blog is extremely interesting. I used to have an intimate family connection to the world of physics through someone who was planning to throw their lot in with them for life (hence, I got to see up close several people attempting the same, and each of them had unique struggles and reservations and approaches). It is very meaningful to see someone coming out of the opposite side.
Reminder that degrowth does not mean austerity, and its conflation is eco-fascism.
This article just reeks of “just because white people can’t live sustainably that means all of humanity needs to revert to its most basic form” complete and utter garbage. This is what happens when you don’t factor in the prospective of people outside of the oppressor circlejerk.
Please do not use the term eco-fascism indiscriminately. You also haven’t read the blog post until the end. Orelse your post makes just no sense.
“Degrowth = austerity is eco-fascism” is a statement of fact.
Sounds more like you have a problem with me using the term at all, which is extremely suspicious. What’s going on, here?
“Degrowth = austerity is eco-fascism” is a statement of fact.
It is not just a category error but conflating three independent concepts.
Ecofascism is prescription ethics. “It is morally good to kill all people so that the planetary ecosystem can return to its natural state, hence we should strive to kill all people”. I guess there are such people who adhere to such a value system. Not many of them, though.
Descriptive term would be “We are in deep overshoot, so excess deaths of billions are unavoidable within about a century”. You will notice complete absence of a moral value statement here.
Degrowth and austerity sound like the planetary system Earth can have considerable degrees of freedom in that respect. It has not, but you might think that sustained existance 8.1 billion people and a decline in net energy per capita availability while crashing the planetary ecosystem are compatible.
Do you think that that 8.1 billion people and fast decline in net energy per capita availability while crashing the planetary ecosystem are compatible? If yes, please cite your references.
Sounds more like you have a problem with me using the term at all, which is extremely suspicious. What’s going on, here?
I am giving you an opportunity to explain what you mean.
