I’m not an ecofascist. But if I were an ecofascist, I’d be applying some social darwinist population analysis to this whole overpopulation problem. I mean, let’s look at the facts: white people consume way more resources per capita than black, new world indigenous, asian, and middle eastern people. It’s not even close. If you’re committing a genocide to save the environment, you have to kill like ten congonese people to get the same benefit as killing one white american. So purely as a matter of efficiency, if we’re doing ecofascism I really think we should kill all white people.
But again, I am not an ecofascist, and I think we can solve all of this with no genocide if we simply ban cars and planes outside of emergencies.
Banning cars and planes will help a bit, but it’s really everything. Concrete emits carbon dioxide. Raising animals emits carbon dioxide. Moving goods around emits carbon dioxide. And so on…
But in principle you are right that we don’t need genocide!
You’re right, we do have to get more radical than just banning cars and planes. I think we should also ban animal agriculture. That’ll fix the animal problem. We can eliminate 40% of concrete emissions with electric furnaces if we invest hard in renewable energy. Obviously, our efforts to create a renewable grid will be aided by banning cryptocurrency, NFTs, and LLMs. And finally, most transport emissions are already eliminated if we consider trucks as a type of car, and use trains instead.
Now, some people may be concerned about a degradation in the quality of life if cars and meat are banned. And for a bunch of so-called capitalists, that’s a startling lack of faith in the invisible hand of the free market! However, I agree that capitalism will not solve all our problems, and I have suggestions for some governmental policies to restore and even exceed our former quality of life!
Bring back trams. Protected bicycle lanes. More trains. 20 hour workweek. It’s not 1910 anymore! We have twice as many people working, so they should work half as long! Government programs to domesticate and improve drought-resistant indigenous crops. Government-run Mastodon, PieFed, Friendica, Loops, and PixelFed servers. You’ve heard of the government cheese caves, now get ready for government vegan cheese. Free dental. Free school lunches. Free fiber internet. Free HRT.
And how are we paying for all of this? Tax the fucking rich!
I’d ban animal agriculture only in places where the land can be used to grow crops, but not in places where only grass grows and you can’t really produce enough food without animals. This would also focus on banning factory farming, since now many animals are just fed with feed that’s grown elsewhere and transported into places, which allows to sustain massive populations that wouldn’t be possible without it. But mountain range with sheep and goats? Northern nomads with their reindeer? Homesteading with couple pigs and cows? I see no problem as long as those are sustained by the land (and kept lovingly).
I also would absolutely not ban stuff like keeping chickens (except the factory farming situations of course) since having them on your backyard is good - it produces cheap animal protein that doesn’t really require much killing (eggs) and chickens can eat a lot of food waste that would just be tossed
Most people in “civilized” nations might also have forgot it, but cows for example can be incredibly important in places with bad conditions for growing food. You get two years of bad crop yields and everyone is dying of hunger, unless you have that cow that can eat the grass that still grows, and gives you milk that keeps you and your family alive until you get a better yield
As I said above, I’m not an ecofascist. I don’t support mass killing of vulnerable groups on the grounds of ecological efficiency. I don’t believe in the superiority of one lineage or genetic population over another. And because I believe in Mister Darwin’s good theory on the origin of species, I extend this lack of belief in genetic superiority to our cousins in the animal kingdom. I do not think humans have the right to declare themselves superior to their cousins on the basis of some idea of better genes or superior lineage.
Animal husbandry is not an unique thing to humans only. I think it’s incredibly arrogant to think we’re so above nature we aren’t part of it just like ants, rodents, deer or tigers or whatever are. We should strive for eating as few animal products we can since we’re killing the planet with our over-consumption - and factory farming is a grotesque crime against nature. But some random siberian nomad with their reindeer is living way more sustainably than any vegan that’s sitting on a computer and writing here is.
Farming always requires killing, even if it’s just growing crops. Just controlling the rodent populations alone means either poison or cats. And the bigger the operations, the more you need to kill
I wouldn’t, but I wouldn’t farm and eat whales, apes, crows, parrots or elephants for example either. Where’s the threshold for what’s intelligent enough not to eat? I don’t know, but it’s not a cuteness factor, I would farm and eat rabbits and I’ve kept pet rabbits and love them. Or I would eat a beloved horse that had to be put down, that’s just the respectful thing to do. Would you require that the random siberian nomad leaves their lifestyle and gives up their culture, just because you’d deem them keeping and eating their reindeer worse than you eating crops that are killing millions of birds, insects and rodents? Considering all animals equal, they’re still killing way less than we are
Though I also wouldn’t eat humans because it increases the risk for prion diseases. Especially the brains should not be eaten
I’d eat humans. I’ll gladly grill up some billionaires and have them with barbecue sauce. I think people with terminal diseases should have the option of signing a consent waiver to be eaten, with a strict prohibition on any sort of monetary transaction surrounding the meat. I was also really looking forward to Bite Labs’ celebrity eats. I wanted a taste of some famous people’s cloned meat.
But I wouldn’t support farming of humans. If money is involved in the ending of people’s lives, I’m not. And I think it’s horrific to raise humans for eating. Same for any animal. The only form of animal agriculture I’m okay with is Aboriginal Australian animal agriculture. Before colonisation, the First Australians would use cold fire to terraform the ecosystem into an ideal habitat for grazing and eating. That’s a form I’m okay with. The animals are free to go where they like, and live how they please until they’re killed. There’s no imprisonment or forced labour, no slavery. And the totem system ensures respect and sustainability.
I won’t pass judgement on groups I haven’t studied, but I’ll say this: I’m dead sure there’s no white tradition of farming animals for meat that I’m okay with. And I have yet to be told any tales of a culture whose animal agriculture can compare to the ethical standards set by the Australians. There are only two non-Aboriginal ways of using animals I’ve decided I’m okay with: Beekeeping, because bees can just fly away if the queen’s wings aren’t clipped. And hunting wild kangaroos, because they need to be hunted or culled or they’ll overpopulate.
If you’re committing a genocide to save the environment
This is what I don’t get about the issue. I’m sure there are plenty of racists out there using “the environment” as a justification for spreading genocidal ideas, but why is it being brought up in leftist circles like any of us is taking about doing murder or restricting birthing rights? Who is calling for these things?
I think overpopulation is a problem, and it’s solved by abolishing capitalism. Billionaires need us to keep producing ever more workers for their infinite growth. They oppress anyone with a womb as breeding machines and enact policies and propaganda that encourage large families. If we abolish capitalism our per capita impact will decrease due to the removal of constant growth and overconsumption. If we provide people with education and healthcare the global birth rate will decline of its own accord. It has nothing to do with fascism.
Instead of calling anyone who mentions overpopulation a fascist, why not direct them to an actual solution that’s good for everyone?
I’m not an ecofascist. But if I were an ecofascist, I’d be applying some social darwinist population analysis to this whole overpopulation problem. I mean, let’s look at the facts: white people consume way more resources per capita than black, new world indigenous, asian, and middle eastern people. It’s not even close. If you’re committing a genocide to save the environment, you have to kill like ten congonese people to get the same benefit as killing one white american. So purely as a matter of efficiency, if we’re doing ecofascism I really think we should kill all white people.
But again, I am not an ecofascist, and I think we can solve all of this with no genocide if we simply ban cars and planes outside of emergencies.
Banning cars and planes will help a bit, but it’s really everything. Concrete emits carbon dioxide. Raising animals emits carbon dioxide. Moving goods around emits carbon dioxide. And so on…
But in principle you are right that we don’t need genocide!
You’re right, we do have to get more radical than just banning cars and planes. I think we should also ban animal agriculture. That’ll fix the animal problem. We can eliminate 40% of concrete emissions with electric furnaces if we invest hard in renewable energy. Obviously, our efforts to create a renewable grid will be aided by banning cryptocurrency, NFTs, and LLMs. And finally, most transport emissions are already eliminated if we consider trucks as a type of car, and use trains instead.
Now, some people may be concerned about a degradation in the quality of life if cars and meat are banned. And for a bunch of so-called capitalists, that’s a startling lack of faith in the invisible hand of the free market! However, I agree that capitalism will not solve all our problems, and I have suggestions for some governmental policies to restore and even exceed our former quality of life!
Bring back trams. Protected bicycle lanes. More trains. 20 hour workweek. It’s not 1910 anymore! We have twice as many people working, so they should work half as long! Government programs to domesticate and improve drought-resistant indigenous crops. Government-run Mastodon, PieFed, Friendica, Loops, and PixelFed servers. You’ve heard of the government cheese caves, now get ready for government vegan cheese. Free dental. Free school lunches. Free fiber internet. Free HRT.
And how are we paying for all of this? Tax the fucking rich!
I’d ban animal agriculture only in places where the land can be used to grow crops, but not in places where only grass grows and you can’t really produce enough food without animals. This would also focus on banning factory farming, since now many animals are just fed with feed that’s grown elsewhere and transported into places, which allows to sustain massive populations that wouldn’t be possible without it. But mountain range with sheep and goats? Northern nomads with their reindeer? Homesteading with couple pigs and cows? I see no problem as long as those are sustained by the land (and kept lovingly).
I also would absolutely not ban stuff like keeping chickens (except the factory farming situations of course) since having them on your backyard is good - it produces cheap animal protein that doesn’t really require much killing (eggs) and chickens can eat a lot of food waste that would just be tossed
Most people in “civilized” nations might also have forgot it, but cows for example can be incredibly important in places with bad conditions for growing food. You get two years of bad crop yields and everyone is dying of hunger, unless you have that cow that can eat the grass that still grows, and gives you milk that keeps you and your family alive until you get a better yield
As I said above, I’m not an ecofascist. I don’t support mass killing of vulnerable groups on the grounds of ecological efficiency. I don’t believe in the superiority of one lineage or genetic population over another. And because I believe in Mister Darwin’s good theory on the origin of species, I extend this lack of belief in genetic superiority to our cousins in the animal kingdom. I do not think humans have the right to declare themselves superior to their cousins on the basis of some idea of better genes or superior lineage.
Animal husbandry is not an unique thing to humans only. I think it’s incredibly arrogant to think we’re so above nature we aren’t part of it just like ants, rodents, deer or tigers or whatever are. We should strive for eating as few animal products we can since we’re killing the planet with our over-consumption - and factory farming is a grotesque crime against nature. But some random siberian nomad with their reindeer is living way more sustainably than any vegan that’s sitting on a computer and writing here is.
Farming always requires killing, even if it’s just growing crops. Just controlling the rodent populations alone means either poison or cats. And the bigger the operations, the more you need to kill
Would you eat a human? Would you farm humans? Breed and raise them so you can eat them?
I wouldn’t, but I wouldn’t farm and eat whales, apes, crows, parrots or elephants for example either. Where’s the threshold for what’s intelligent enough not to eat? I don’t know, but it’s not a cuteness factor, I would farm and eat rabbits and I’ve kept pet rabbits and love them. Or I would eat a beloved horse that had to be put down, that’s just the respectful thing to do. Would you require that the random siberian nomad leaves their lifestyle and gives up their culture, just because you’d deem them keeping and eating their reindeer worse than you eating crops that are killing millions of birds, insects and rodents? Considering all animals equal, they’re still killing way less than we are
Though I also wouldn’t eat humans because it increases the risk for prion diseases. Especially the brains should not be eaten
I’d eat humans. I’ll gladly grill up some billionaires and have them with barbecue sauce. I think people with terminal diseases should have the option of signing a consent waiver to be eaten, with a strict prohibition on any sort of monetary transaction surrounding the meat. I was also really looking forward to Bite Labs’ celebrity eats. I wanted a taste of some famous people’s cloned meat.
But I wouldn’t support farming of humans. If money is involved in the ending of people’s lives, I’m not. And I think it’s horrific to raise humans for eating. Same for any animal. The only form of animal agriculture I’m okay with is Aboriginal Australian animal agriculture. Before colonisation, the First Australians would use cold fire to terraform the ecosystem into an ideal habitat for grazing and eating. That’s a form I’m okay with. The animals are free to go where they like, and live how they please until they’re killed. There’s no imprisonment or forced labour, no slavery. And the totem system ensures respect and sustainability.
I won’t pass judgement on groups I haven’t studied, but I’ll say this: I’m dead sure there’s no white tradition of farming animals for meat that I’m okay with. And I have yet to be told any tales of a culture whose animal agriculture can compare to the ethical standards set by the Australians. There are only two non-Aboriginal ways of using animals I’ve decided I’m okay with: Beekeeping, because bees can just fly away if the queen’s wings aren’t clipped. And hunting wild kangaroos, because they need to be hunted or culled or they’ll overpopulate.
This is what I don’t get about the issue. I’m sure there are plenty of racists out there using “the environment” as a justification for spreading genocidal ideas, but why is it being brought up in leftist circles like any of us is taking about doing murder or restricting birthing rights? Who is calling for these things?
I think overpopulation is a problem, and it’s solved by abolishing capitalism. Billionaires need us to keep producing ever more workers for their infinite growth. They oppress anyone with a womb as breeding machines and enact policies and propaganda that encourage large families. If we abolish capitalism our per capita impact will decrease due to the removal of constant growth and overconsumption. If we provide people with education and healthcare the global birth rate will decline of its own accord. It has nothing to do with fascism.
Instead of calling anyone who mentions overpopulation a fascist, why not direct them to an actual solution that’s good for everyone?