I don’t think anyone is claiming that removing capitalism would magically make environmentally friendly choices effortless or eliminate human preferences for convenience. The point is that the system determines what gets treated as the “easy” and “cheap” option in the first place. If an economic system rewards short-term returns while externalizing long-term environmental costs, then of course the dirty option tends to win. That’s a structural issue, not a question of whether individual capitalists are cartoon villains. Physical constraints are real, but they’re not an argument for treating the current economic incentives as inevitable.
I think you may be extrapolating in the wrong direction from my comments.
My main point isn’t that the status quo is inevitable or anything like that. I’m trying to keep people focused on the whole problem, not just “eat the rich” type sloganeering. It’s going to be a multiple generation endeavor to fix the environment, even if we magically started doing all the right things now. If we keep keep presenting it as something that can be solved by just getting rid of the rich, we’re going to run into a whole new batch of problems when that doesn’t work.
Yeah, I think we’re mostly on the same page about it not being as simple as “get rid of the rich and problem solved.”
Where I think we differ is that I see capitalism itself as probably the biggest hurdle. Not because people in capitalism are inherently bad but because the system’s incentives are fundamentally at odds with living sustainably. I don’t think changing that magically solves everything but I do think it’s a prerequisite for solving the problem in the long run.
I don’t think anyone is claiming that removing capitalism would magically make environmentally friendly choices effortless or eliminate human preferences for convenience. The point is that the system determines what gets treated as the “easy” and “cheap” option in the first place. If an economic system rewards short-term returns while externalizing long-term environmental costs, then of course the dirty option tends to win. That’s a structural issue, not a question of whether individual capitalists are cartoon villains. Physical constraints are real, but they’re not an argument for treating the current economic incentives as inevitable.
I think you may be extrapolating in the wrong direction from my comments.
My main point isn’t that the status quo is inevitable or anything like that. I’m trying to keep people focused on the whole problem, not just “eat the rich” type sloganeering. It’s going to be a multiple generation endeavor to fix the environment, even if we magically started doing all the right things now. If we keep keep presenting it as something that can be solved by just getting rid of the rich, we’re going to run into a whole new batch of problems when that doesn’t work.
Yeah, I think we’re mostly on the same page about it not being as simple as “get rid of the rich and problem solved.”
Where I think we differ is that I see capitalism itself as probably the biggest hurdle. Not because people in capitalism are inherently bad but because the system’s incentives are fundamentally at odds with living sustainably. I don’t think changing that magically solves everything but I do think it’s a prerequisite for solving the problem in the long run.