Now, you’re trying to say that’s what would happen should there be this massive shortage (there is, but typically people online don’t explore the failsafes and contingencies that are at our disposal), or are you straight up trying to naturalize an ecofascist futurity here?
I don’t fully understand your question, but I did not consider mitigating actions and stated a possible worst case. Fossil fuel based fertilizer is not the only game in town, but it is the cheapest. EVs are already starting to replace ICE cars in many places. Renewable energy production grows every year, even of it is impacted by a drop in hydro. It does not have to be a bleak future.
I am not sure how the lack of fresh water can be avoided, but there many be some new processes for desalination I don’t know about.
I was asking if you understood that this narrative is harmful if accepted uncritically. That you considered technology solutions exclusively is a great indicator that this may be the case. We have technology solutions to this now, that isn’t why it isn’t fixed. Your comment reproduces a narrative that suffering in the global south is inevitable because of climate change, and not another avoidable, unnecessary act of genocide by this colonial, capitalist system. It is the social and material relations of this system that perpetrates that violence, not technological deficiencies.
When we just accept that there is no avoiding or mitigating events like, “a lot of people” starving in colonized spaces, and then promote technological utopianism as a solution (even if inadvertently by only imagining tech as a solution), we are naturalizing the root cause of this violence, which is colonialism. Doesn’t seem like you intended it, but this is also a markedly ecofascist narrative in the way that the inevitability of that death also means that it is a prescribed trajectory for this system to take to “improvement,” much in the same way that fascists precribe the removal (genocide) of an arbitrary group of people in the metropole (US or EU) as a solution to inequities there.
I’m not doing either of those things (I’m not even sure what I could be gatekeeping here, political philosophy?). Your words carried this meaning whether you wanted them to or not, which is why I carefully explained how that meaning relates to the specific ideas you promoted. If you do not want them to carry this meaning, just take the time to interrogate how you arrived at this understanding and how it relates to your understanding of other things in the future.
You clearly took their prediction of the likely outcome (given the world we do live in and the obviously shitty priorities of the powers that be) as an endorsement or acceptance of that outcome, when they did not say anything to indicate that they found it at all acceptable. While your overall points about the options that we as humans have are valid, your positioning of this poster’s values in opposition to your own is baseless and unwarranted. Pessimism about humanity’s ability to successfully mitigate or overcome the problems of our own making is not the same as saying we shouldn’t try. For example, even the most ardent advocates of ending fossil fuel usage understand that in the past 50 years we have done far more to exacerbate climate change than to mitigate its effects, let alone reverse the damage already done. Predicting the most likely outcome of a situation is not at all the same as saying that nothing better than that outcome is possible.
Now, you’re trying to say that’s what would happen should there be this massive shortage (there is, but typically people online don’t explore the failsafes and contingencies that are at our disposal), or are you straight up trying to naturalize an ecofascist futurity here?
I don’t fully understand your question, but I did not consider mitigating actions and stated a possible worst case. Fossil fuel based fertilizer is not the only game in town, but it is the cheapest. EVs are already starting to replace ICE cars in many places. Renewable energy production grows every year, even of it is impacted by a drop in hydro. It does not have to be a bleak future.
I am not sure how the lack of fresh water can be avoided, but there many be some new processes for desalination I don’t know about.
I was asking if you understood that this narrative is harmful if accepted uncritically. That you considered technology solutions exclusively is a great indicator that this may be the case. We have technology solutions to this now, that isn’t why it isn’t fixed. Your comment reproduces a narrative that suffering in the global south is inevitable because of climate change, and not another avoidable, unnecessary act of genocide by this colonial, capitalist system. It is the social and material relations of this system that perpetrates that violence, not technological deficiencies.
When we just accept that there is no avoiding or mitigating events like, “a lot of people” starving in colonized spaces, and then promote technological utopianism as a solution (even if inadvertently by only imagining tech as a solution), we are naturalizing the root cause of this violence, which is colonialism. Doesn’t seem like you intended it, but this is also a markedly ecofascist narrative in the way that the inevitability of that death also means that it is a prescribed trajectory for this system to take to “improvement,” much in the same way that fascists precribe the removal (genocide) of an arbitrary group of people in the metropole (US or EU) as a solution to inequities there.
Please stop gatekeeping and putting words in my mouth
I’m not doing either of those things (I’m not even sure what I could be gatekeeping here, political philosophy?). Your words carried this meaning whether you wanted them to or not, which is why I carefully explained how that meaning relates to the specific ideas you promoted. If you do not want them to carry this meaning, just take the time to interrogate how you arrived at this understanding and how it relates to your understanding of other things in the future.
You clearly took their prediction of the likely outcome (given the world we do live in and the obviously shitty priorities of the powers that be) as an endorsement or acceptance of that outcome, when they did not say anything to indicate that they found it at all acceptable. While your overall points about the options that we as humans have are valid, your positioning of this poster’s values in opposition to your own is baseless and unwarranted. Pessimism about humanity’s ability to successfully mitigate or overcome the problems of our own making is not the same as saying we shouldn’t try. For example, even the most ardent advocates of ending fossil fuel usage understand that in the past 50 years we have done far more to exacerbate climate change than to mitigate its effects, let alone reverse the damage already done. Predicting the most likely outcome of a situation is not at all the same as saying that nothing better than that outcome is possible.