I’m far, far more concerned with the regular fascism going on then someone crashing out about why people wont just stop being terrible to each other.

Fascists typically believe in strongman leadership, but you don’t have to swear allegiance to a specific strongman to be a fascist.

Eco-fascists, in particular, want a Pol Pot-style dictator, someone who will ignore laws, human rights, and common decency, in order to drastically reduce the human population and force the survivors into low-tech subsistence farming. Last I checked, no one like that is anywhere near power anywhere in the world, but that doesn’t make eco-fascists any less fascist for it.

No it wouldn’t but do you know the biggest contributor to CO2 emissions isn’t agriculture it’s just plain old energy usage.

Communism can most definitely help in curbing the use and extraction of fossil fuels while coordinating their replacement with renewables on a time scale that won’t doom humanity.

True, however there are different ways to do it, I think its Denmark? that gets more than double the yield/acre than the world average utilizing a lot of greenhouses and what amounts to pretty much hydroponics lite. If half of agriculture land suddenly didn’t need to be used that way it would be huge.

Nah, other animals have performed transactions since before humans existed. The fact that we do it in marble halls and fancy suits doesn’t make us the originators.

And it’s not like it was all utopian paradise before capitalism was invented.

We can also be the solution.

There are more options than just capitalism (and especially the weird kind of klepto-capitalism that we’re falling into globally now).

Humans also invented slavery, torture devices, nuclear weapons, and totalitarian regimes but we don’t argue these things are “natural” or inevitable.

Just because humans created capitalism doesn’t mean it’s an expression of some essential or universal human trait.

Such a western view: a capitalist society. We have the choice to participate in that or in a different system. Most just don’t want to give up the “I have” for “what can be”.

Right but then it’s a matter of reference. Anything can be a virus. The specific issue with unlimited capitalism is that it is a virus to ourselves as well as pretty much everything else on Earth except a handful of people that benefit from it. As if they were immune.

Capitalism no doubt sucks, but our other inventions suck even more unfortunately.

Capitalism is genetically baked in, to a certain degree. But so is egalitarianism, war, schadenfreude, empathy, looking at people but if they look back at you then you turn away because you’re really not trying to give them vibes but they’re still looking at you for an uncomfortably long time so you have to turn back to them to understand why they’re doing this but your perception was wrong and they had long since looked away.

hasn’t the earth already gone through several mass extinctions even before capitalism was invented?

Yeah, it is not Capitalism alone, but a Promethean Worldview. Authoritarian communist countries hat that one embedded as well.

This is why we need not only a change of economic system, but a shift in perception of nature as well.

Aye, but free market capitalism is against two important tools: Rationing and regulations.
Since most people want more stuff than they need and will not vote for less consumption, the most effective form of government would be an enlightened dictatorship.

Few fascists call themselves fascists. But ecofascism is mostly used as a descriptor for policies and policy priorities that are genocidal in the name of ecology, even though the proponents may be non-fascist in other areas.

For example, a neoliberal legislator may cut foreign aid because it’s going to industries that emit carbon, while simultaneously cutting public transit funding to promote driving. Or a neoconservative may increase the funding for border police by a massive amount because climate change will lead to an increasing number of climate refugees.

It’s a cool-sounding buzzword to use against people concerned about the environment so you can sound like a leftist while protecting overconsumption.

I don’t think they advertise much irl, but you can certainly find them in the darker corners of the web. If I recall correctly, it started as an academic term to describe the emerging ideology. Some of them view the term negatively, others have embraced it.

have you ever heard of the tragedy of the commons? because it was coined by an ecofascist and has inserted itself deep into economic theory. ecofascists are few, just like all fascists, but their ability to ply power allows them to influence world decisions by seeming reasonable while they murder, kill, and disrupt

Captain Capital.

You’re doing the thing

Its a great movie quote, but I always found it a bit grating used outside that context, because, well, other animals dont instinctively develop some natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment.

Its not like a wolf will realize that they’ve been reproducing too much for the local population of prey animals and decide to have fewer cubs, or actively avoid certain prey species that have declining numbers compared to the rest, if theres too many to support the excess ones will simply starve, or wander off in search of prey. The rabbits wont decide to reproduce less if something happens to the local predator population, they simply overeat their food supply until their numbers collapse back down or their abundance causes the number of predators to rise.

The equilibrium is a product of every species acting in a way that would upset that balance if they were not all in competition with eachother, and it is only stable over relatively short periods of time, in the long run it changes under pressure from geological and climactic shifts, evolutionary adaptation, etc. All humans have done, is evolve an adaptation that is too disruptive for this process to look the way it normally does. (namely enough intelligence and aptitude for tool use to effectively adapt to different conditions much faster than the time it would take for anything slower breeding than perhaps a single celled organism to evolve a counter for).

Id be willing to bet that, if you gave any other animal a set of traits that effectively allowed them to adapt to things much faster than the pace of natural evolution, you would get similar disruption.

What’s more, such an equilibrium will eventually come back. If humans manage to destroy our natural life support system enough to go extinct? Then it will return as whatever survives our mass-extinction event fills empty niches and carries on as it has. If humans do survive but manage to make large scale civilization impossible and must revert to low tech subsistence hunter-gathering? Then they would be subject to the same growth constraints and competition as other large omnivores. If humans develop technology and infrastructure that allows for high tech industrial civilization to exist with a generally sustainable resource cycle, that doesnt disrupt the surrounding ecosystem anymore? Then that surrounding ecosystem is no longer subject to our disruption. If humans develop technology and infrastructure that just replaces by brute force the natural systems that we rely on, so as to no longer need them to survive, and continue on until the whole natural ecosystem is gone? Then as humans and their pets, crops, livestock, parasites etc would represent the whole of life remaining on earth, that built environment would be the environment, and as it would have to have been made generally self-sufficient and stable to get to that point, it would still represent a stable ecological state, if a very different and less diverse one than what exists now.

That doesnt mean that things wont change anymore once a stable state is reached, even stable environments in nature are not permanent, but humans cant logically continue to diminish a finite natural environment forever. Eventually humans will stop doing that, there wont be any humans to do it, or there wont be a natural environment left to do it to. In that sense, we can be viewed the same as any other disruption caused by any other organism, we’ve just created a much bigger shock than usual and the process of finding a stable state is still ongoing.

A stupid quote. Most viruses also reach an “equilibrium”. Not with a single person, but with the population as a whole. Each species is doing its best to expand its reach, most reach the limit of their expansion when they meet another species or an environment that they can’t conquer. Humans just haven’t reached that limit yet. Maybe that limit will be climate change, maybe humans are able to work past climate change and will never reach their limit. Either way, the distinction between viruses and other life is frivolous.

Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not.

Rodents and house cats are famous for wiping out native species when introduced to new areas.