this is the type of comment i want to leave any time someone praises a scandinavian country for almost anything.

the image of the nordics most people outside of them have is from 40 years ago.

We produce 1000 times the food we need.

no, we don’t.

You’ve taken a roundabout way to tell me that mass adoption of veganism […] has nothing to do with our economic system.

no, i didn’t.

(literally the only way to save this planet)

no, it isn’t.

The only […] solution that can support our absurd population is […] tech advancements bordering on magic

no, it isn’t.

Lying is ugly. […] It is trivial to prove. Open Google.

says the person who cannot read, ignores sources, puts words in other people’s mouths, and makes simplistic, baseless, harmful assertions.

To feed the billions of sentient animals that are tortured to death each year in factory farms. Do you have any idea how sustainable that is?

i — a vegan — and the two sources i provided advocate for sustainable plant-based diets, and point to the systemic economic obstacles: agribusiness lobbying; little to no farmer control; subsidised incentives and poor farmers’ dependence on these subsidies; and severe economic and political inequality.

to quote another vegan in this thread who you’ve insulted:

for every animal I don’t eat, a billionaire throws a meat party and goes hunting for exotic animals. Again, why are you blaming me? Even if I ate meat every meal I wouldn’t come close in a year to doing as much damage as a billionaire does in a day. So again, stop telling me about it and go after them.

you’re arguing for a vote-with-your-wallet approach, which ignores conspicuous consumption, ignores the plight of the lower classes, and greatly favours the wealthy elite and the state (who can always outbid you). this is not to say we shoudn’t change (our) individual behaviour, but that it cannot be the sole solution, and that there are systemic changes which would boost mass adoption of sustainable choices.

i once again point you to my book suggestion, the concept of superstructures, and to the responses to your last malthusian tangents.

if you have anything else to say: tell it to a mirror.

Given that the environmental depredation of this planet is driven by […] can people explain why they believe that without capitalism

capitalist industry and commerce have been the driving force of the mass extinction of the last 500 years[0][1][2]. climate change didn’t begin until the late 1800s with the rise of tycoons, and accelerated with mass production in the mid-1900s.

for a current example: datacentres are wasting entire regional electricity and water supplies on investment grifter bullshit. because it makes money. it doesn’t even turn a real profit, and it’s not everyday people paying for it.

can people explain why they believe that without capitalism everyone would be […]

could be, not necessarily would. because a humanistic, socialised means of production would: allow for truly ‘democratic’ control over what is produced; remove nested interests and subsidies to overgrown polluting industries[3]; and make alternatives viable without the need to bend or break to top-down market pressures and monetary policy dictated by dragons.

I also assume they’re wearing hemp and have no interest in fashion.

capitalism has existed for less than 300 years. consumerism has existed for less than 100 years. when you have an economic system which emphasises the independent individual — simultaneously a motivator and a mere cog in the machine — and posits that the mere potential to own things is the source of value: buying wasteful, exotic, unnecessary shit is a way to define yourself and your status. it’s called conspicuous consumption, and it happens from the micro to the macro in the lower and the upper classes, and there’s top-down pressure to do so to keep currency current.

i recommend the documentary The Century of the Self for an overview of the commodification of identity and culture.

Keep in mind there are 8 billion people on this planet, so presumably they wouldn’t be having children either.

we are already producing enough food to sufficiently feed 1.5x the world population[4], and could continue to do so even within planetary boundaries[5] with changes to economic policy and the adoption of less profitable methods of agriculture.

i didn’t cover everything here, because i recommend:

1. the book Less Is More.
2. familiarising yourself with the concept of the superstructure; it’s a very helpful analytical tool.
3. going back to the last time you were on your malthusian debatebro bullshit and really trying to engage your imagination with much of the same arguments made there.

La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.

— Anatole France, Le Lys rouge

as Cowbee wrote: the ‘free market’ narrative assumes the market is participatory, and that you can simply opt out (‘go live in the woods’).

but capitalism doesn’t work without a labour market, and the labour market isn’t stable without a buffer of un[der]employment. so living outside the market — and general ‘propertylessness’ — is criminalised or made so inconvenient/unsustainable that you’re left with ‘the choice’ between peonage or starvation. the people who fall into homelessness and houselessness serve as a warning to anyone who might consider ‘opting out’.

i don’t think anyone genuinely believes this is a real choice, but i’ve experienced this narrative being used to dismiss critiques of capitalism and wage slavery.

what does this have to do with houseless people?

All the time spent thinking how to solve a problem is also work.

try telling that to every manager i’ve ever had.

ˈsɪmpl̩ ɛks

you can hear this pronunciation in this talk from Evgeny Poberezkin, the author of the whitepaper.

i think it would be more symbolic to extend the rainbow peace flag over it.