@wion it's not as bad as it's made out to be, but it's clearly made over a decade ago, and it shows. It's also quite fatalist in its conclusions.


I'll try to find time for it today. What struck me from the background article was the notion of wealthy, neoliberal 'environmentalists' in the West (the established CEO types running their so-called 'green' organizations with an air of saviourism) in bed with Democrats, having their cake and eating it too. The movie might be a decade old, but nothing has changed in that respect; nor will it, even now when it matters more than ever for 'society as we know it'.

@wion of course. Government budgets are tight (and dominated by entrenched interests). Capital owned by the middle class is mostly used for survival and comfort.
If you want anything to change, and this required large amounts of capital, you need to charm a billionaire into paying for it.


Change is coming, and billionaires are causing it, certainly. But the environment (that being the forces of planetary ecology that we can't really control after a point) will take over where the billionaires fail(ed) and the change won't be what billionaires promised.

By the way, fatalism to some is is realism to others. They're just different perspectives along a time scale, or perhaps different abilities to see the actual future. Reality usually kicks-in later, when it's too late.

@wion I actually think the most likely future is one where we return to a pre-industrialized state through wars and massive famines sparked by climate change.

I prefer the positivist techno-ecologist vision not because I find it convincing, but because it's one that avoids billions of deaths. It's a bit like voting Hillary to avoid something much worse.


I agree with your outlook, and signs suggest we're in the beginnings of it. So perhaps not only likely, but necessary as well, to secure any future human existence. (Mars isn't the answer.)

Island population models (one example of many equilibrium mechanisms in nature) are one analogy: cycles of mass growth and die-off, but necessary to avoid species extinction over long term. Technological separation from nature makes it hard for humans to see/accept such balances.


It occurs to me that Moore predicted Trump's 2016 election win months before elections happened. He's got a blog post somewhere showing it. Nobody believed it was possible. Everybody was Clinton! Clinton! First woman! and then bam. Reality. So, I'm inclined to at least listen to what Moore has to say at this point. He's not often wrong, even if not often liked.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Writing Exchange

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!