sweetpotato

My “attitude” in no way excuses the very offensive remarks on your part, but I guess that’s what happens when you try to defend undefendable claims. You jump from claim to claim, when you are proven wrong, like how you edited out the part where you claim the European trend can be extrapolated to the entire world and you personally attack me with the excuse that I was taken aback by the ignorance on a straightforward Google search.

From what you remember (from where? That’s a good question I guess no one will ever answer us apparently)that does not make up for the overall downwards trend of consumption and emissions. Ok let’s deconstruct that quickly. Consumption has not been decreasing, it has been increasing, proven by the ever rising GDP, which measures exactly that, the total output of goods and services and considering the imports and exports are roughly equal for Europe and that material consumption is coupled to gdp, that’s the consumption.

When I say that Europe has outsourced its heavy industry to third world countries, I wasn’t talking just about “importing goods”. I was talking about their entire production. And the fact that fossil fuel consumption is still ever growing in Europe as well as in the entire West, coupled to the GDP growth is proven in Hickel(2019) “Is green growth possible”, where the domestic material consumption index is proven not to be accounting for the outsourced fossil fuels and materials consumed in third world countries to produce the goods imported, vital for Europe. The actual material footprint(which is the fossil fuel consumption and materials combined) is growing along with the GDP. And when you understand this, you realize it is all an illusion of accounting.

These are your two tragically false claims. For the third paragraph I don’t have much to say besides that third world countries need to increase their GDP to be living comfortably since they are destitute and the first world countries need to degrow like we said. Scientists have been saying this for so many years. There is a space between planetary boundaries and the decent living conditions that all people can and should be living in. The west exceeds the planetary limits(per capita), the economic south is below decent living conditions. That’s what degrowth preaches. It refers to the west, not the world in general.

Why would you assume I am talking about Europe which accounts for 1/10 of the global energy consumption and why would I be talking the continent that has mostly outsourced its heavy industry to third world countries? Why would you assume this?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy?time=2000..latest

Here’s your source. Here’s your total energy consumption. It couldn’t have been that hard to look at our world in data right? How can you be so absolutely wrong about data in plain sight while being confident about it? Do you have an agenda?

Wasn’t expecting this under a random unrelated post. A very welcome comment nonetheless.

Never forget that the exponential boom of renewable energy tech the last 20 years has entirely served as additional energy, not as replacement of fossil fuels.

Here’s your citation:

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=D

Democrat Senators are funded more by the military than the republican ones, and that’s only the above the table money. And before you say I’m cherry picking, I know I am. I’m not trying to argue that republicans are better, they are not. I’m just giving perspective on how little they differ.

I don’t care if Stein is an oligarch, she very well could be, but I never advocated for her. In only advocate for not voting the two systemic, imperial, neoliberal parties. Also I never talked about Harris or Trump’s personal wealth. Having a couple millions in the bank doesn’t make you an oligarch. Oligarchs are the actually super rich people that these parties necessarily serve, like I’ve explained. It has to do with their actions and their party’s ties and actions. That’s not a serious argument. But I don’t know about Stein’s history and what she has done. If you think she checks the boxes above, don’t vote for her either. I’m not deifying anyone.

As for the last part, which is the actually important one, no matter how much you try to make it about feelings and repeat it, you unfortunately will never make anyone believe this. If I thought it would help Palestinians to vote for Harris, my feelings would tell me to vote for her, it’s as simple as that. But you are so deeply fried in the oligarchy propaganda that you can’t understand what I already pointed out. That you blatantly assume that the democrats made any non-negligible concession on that matter that the republicans wouldn’t and so we should vote for them. This is 100% wrong.

I am not complicit with this oligarchy system we are living in, not only in regards to the genocide. So I’m not voting for them, I am not giving my approval. They can’t produce any meaningful change, they are both far right neoliberal parties.

And if you want to vote for Hitler, I don’t really care, I am assuming you say this now because it strengthens your argument, but the difference would be so negligible (as is now) that the fact that there is one more vote on them signifying approval has to be more detrimental than the bad Hitler coming to power. There are limits to the harm the lesser evil is allowed to cause, and you willing to vote for Hitler doesn’t change that.

It’s so funny that you think the democrats aren’t the genocidal maniacs that have unconditionally supported and armed Israel. It doesn’t get much worse than this, Israel has got literally everything it has asked for lmao. The problem is you thinking they are in any way holding back, but go off. As Joe said, no president has supported Israel as much as I did.

Tell us how not so evil the democrats, which are funded by the military industrial complex more than the republicans, are. Tell us how they work for our interests, not the oligarchs, please.

I’ve said this a million times, if the two candidates were Hitler and Hitler again, but he funded a little bit more the healthcare system who would you vote for? None is the answer. When the dilemma consists of ideologies and political/social trajectories that are 100% opposite to your ideal ones, the lesser evil doesn’t exist.

Don’t blame the dead on the people who have done more than the 99% for the cause, I can’t take you seriously that way. You can blame the oligarchs and the fascists/liberals who don’t care.

So dnc candidates are not puppets, got it. Also the comment was made taking the survey findings for granted, so no spoiler candidates for you people, but you didn’t see that either.

I saw everything I needed when you moved right past the genocide part though, I don’t expect someone like you to understand regardless.

I’m not voting for the “lesser evil” when the “lesser evil” commits a genocide. There is no dilemma when we are counting genocides. When do you start realising that both are serving the 1% interests? When does this end - if the dems commit 3 genocides and the republicans 4? If the dems commit 10 and the republicans 11? The red line is long crossed.

Don’t tell us what to do lmfao.

Why? What’s the excuse this time? You guys are too comfortable supporting genocide perpetrators

These mfs will use literally anything except for open source, decentralised social meda

What in the world do you mean “you expect our energy demands to stay the same or decrease?”. What does expect mean??? I don’t expect anything, I’m stating what needs to be done if we want our planet to remain habitable…have you heard about climate change or…? Also how do you keep ignoring the fact that our wealth has increased by 500% in the last 30 years and the 1% gets all the profit? We don’t need to increase our economic activities for all the people to be able to live comfortably, we need distribute wealth fairly and when we get to a point where everyone can live well, (in the West we are way past that point) then we need to scale down unnecessary economic activities, if we want to meet the scientific guidelines to avoid the 3 degrees by the end of the century, which would spell absolute irreversible disaster.

I never said it’s a US problem, and I didn’t make it sound like so, I was only using some data from the US for convenience. It’s a worldwide problem, but the US dictates the trajectory and policies of a very big part of the world including Europe, Canada, Australia and the gulf countries, all of which are essentially controlled by them. Also the US has by far the most CO2 emissions historically, making that country the single biggest contributor to climate change, again, by far. So it bears the biggest responsibility of any country. But you are right, it’s a worldwide problem.

You have to understand that GDP and energy demands are intrinsically tied. That’s a fact, both theoretically and empirically verified with historical data. When the GDP rises, energy demands rise. And the reason why energy demands rise is not to meet people’s needs but because the 1% seek to increase GDP (through individual corporation stock values) which in turn increases their profits, since like I said they absorb all of it. That is why it is relevant, because it’s a matter of wealth accumulation by the 1%, not because people need more energy. That is backed both by the fact that the common people don’t get anything out of the increase in economic production(the bottom 80% like I’ve said have had a stagnant wealth since the 1990s in the US, although the global GDP has risen 5-fold, even though the population has risen and hence the people in that 80% has risen as well) and by the fact that the population increase has been just 50% and the increase in wealth ten times that.

It’s almost like you have no clue what you are talking about lol. The global population growth for the last 30 years is 50%, while the global GDP growth is 500%. Not only that but the wealth inequality in the world has been steadily rising for the last 60 years. In the US alone (that we have data on) the wealth of the bottom 80% has been roughly stagnant since the 1990s while that of the top 1% has skyrocketed - it’s basically them that have absorbed this economic growth profit.

So yeah, you got a lot of confidence in things you clearly don’t know about.

Yes it’s obviously better than using fossil fuels, nobody’s arguing that. What I’m talking about is the direction the global economy and the people making the decisions are taking.

No matter how much nuclear energy you use, you are still putting a lot of additional strain on the environment. It’s not just the CO2 emissions that matter, that’s just one of the problems. It’s the increase in extracted materials for data centers, reactors and nuclear fuel, which causes the destruction of multiple ecosystems and the contamination of waters and soil from the pollutants produced(even radioactive waste in the uranium case).

It’s also that Google could have been taxed more(I’m sure they can take it) and the money the government gained could be directed to investments on nuclear plants that would actually replace fossil fuels instead of adding energy demands on top of them. Because the fact of the matter is that in 2024 we categorically cannot be talking about not increasing fossil fuel consumption, we have to be talking about how to reduce emissions drastically every single year and why we are already tragically behind on that regard.

So not replacing current energy, but adding onto it. Just like how we didn’t replace fossil fuels with the solar and wind unprecedented advancements the last 30 years but only added more energy consumption on top of that…cool

Yeah totally, they give too little, it’s always performative, to distract and to use as talking points, they never roll back republican legislation (Clinton for example) and they always have the same line with republicans for the core capitalist matters, like foreign policy, military, police budget etc. It’s a made up dilemma 100%.

I just have to somehow approach people who disagree, I can’t be so absolute, that’s all lol

The dems are not slightly left, they are right wingers, just not far right. You are voting for the right wing, for the billionaires, the weapon manufacturers, the oligarchs.

You don’t seem willing to listen to a counterargument, but just in case, you might need to consider where you would draw your red line for the lesser evil party. Cause there is necessarily for everyone a red line beyond which both parties would be indistinguishable (think of Hitler and the other party being again Hitler but if he funded the healthcare system a little more - these two alternatives gotta be universally indistinguishable). And since we established that, you should probably realize that for a lot of people that red line has been crossed long ago.

To make myself feel morally superior is an absolutely wild thing to say for a genocide.

On one hand I think it’s very positive that everyone starts using decentralised platforms that don’t run on profit, that work for their users and not their shareholders, but on the other hand having a space mostly without conservatives is great.

It’s almost as if oligopolies can manipulate prices regardless of availability

Well, considering the election results in Europe and the US, they are scaring a whole lot of people.