Nope, since the industrial revolution we had capitalism, communism, feudalism and a bunch of others, and they all destroyed the environment. Norilsk was a nightmare well before the wall went up. London had unbreathable air a century before that.
I’m really trying to read a coherent argument into your comments which you’re not making easy. You said that “all economic systems we tried so far destroy the environment” which is demonstrably false as you kind of acknowledged by now. All economic systems that grew out of the industrial revolution did, which is a very different statement. Or is your point that economy started at that point? Which is kind of true because seeing economy as a separate sphere outside of social life and ethics is relatively new. I think Adam Smith popularized that idea in his book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” in 1776.
And I’m still not sure what your conclusion is. You don’t seem to blame the industrial revolution but see it as a given not even worth mentioning. Neither do you see it worth interrogating, how and why each system does what it does. The industrial revolution is about two centuries ago. We know about climate change for less than one century. Pollution is a different story but at least its long term consequences were not obvious 200 years ago. This is nothing in historical scales. Money exists in one shape or another for 5000 years. Even feudalism existed much longer (than the industrial revolution). Yet, you are sure we tried everything and there is no alternative. Nothing we can do. There is no hope.
Let me end with a quote of a very great author:
“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”
I had an implicit point, which is “we are not going to de-invent the steam engine or anything that came afterwards, so discussing Neolithic societies and economic systems is kind of moot”. I guess there you have it spelled out for you.
This still doesn’t address much of what I was saying but it shows that you are dealing in absolutes. There is a lot of time between the Neolithic and the steam engine. The steam engine is about two centuries old. A small fraction of this already short period is environmentalism a priority for anybody. What makes you so sure we’ve seen it all?
Also, to again reiterate, why not interrogate each system separately? Capitalism is about infinite growth which is ad odds with nature. The steam engine doesn’t necessarily led to that. Bolshevism had other reasons. Other movements which try to make it right, fail because of the global hegemony of systems that don’t. But for you, there are only two options and one isn’t even an option.
Again not my point: all economic systems since the invention of modern industry have destroyed the environment, singling one out is naive at best,biased more probably.
I even mentioned three different ones, no idea why you accuse me of only accepting two…
I didn’t accuse you of only accepting two systems but that you lack imagination and have a lot more implicit assumption that you are willing to acknowledge and therefore only see the two options of destroying the environment or going back to the Neolithic. I could repeat myself by pointing out how little time has passed since we even see environmental issues as a problem and how unsurprising it is that people didn’t find a solution before looking for one and how people today try to make it right (like Rojava, the Zapatista, Landless Workers’ Movement, …) but I can’t force you to think outside the box.
For some people, history ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall which is already laughable. For you, history started with its building.
Nope, since the industrial revolution we had capitalism, communism, feudalism and a bunch of others, and they all destroyed the environment. Norilsk was a nightmare well before the wall went up. London had unbreathable air a century before that.
So history started with the industrial revolution, I see.
Environment destruction did at scale.
I’m really trying to read a coherent argument into your comments which you’re not making easy. You said that “all economic systems we tried so far destroy the environment” which is demonstrably false as you kind of acknowledged by now. All economic systems that grew out of the industrial revolution did, which is a very different statement. Or is your point that economy started at that point? Which is kind of true because seeing economy as a separate sphere outside of social life and ethics is relatively new. I think Adam Smith popularized that idea in his book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” in 1776.
And I’m still not sure what your conclusion is. You don’t seem to blame the industrial revolution but see it as a given not even worth mentioning. Neither do you see it worth interrogating, how and why each system does what it does. The industrial revolution is about two centuries ago. We know about climate change for less than one century. Pollution is a different story but at least its long term consequences were not obvious 200 years ago. This is nothing in historical scales. Money exists in one shape or another for 5000 years. Even feudalism existed much longer (than the industrial revolution). Yet, you are sure we tried everything and there is no alternative. Nothing we can do. There is no hope.
Let me end with a quote of a very great author:
― Ursula K. Le Guin
I had an implicit point, which is “we are not going to de-invent the steam engine or anything that came afterwards, so discussing Neolithic societies and economic systems is kind of moot”. I guess there you have it spelled out for you.
This still doesn’t address much of what I was saying but it shows that you are dealing in absolutes. There is a lot of time between the Neolithic and the steam engine. The steam engine is about two centuries old. A small fraction of this already short period is environmentalism a priority for anybody. What makes you so sure we’ve seen it all?
Also, to again reiterate, why not interrogate each system separately? Capitalism is about infinite growth which is ad odds with nature. The steam engine doesn’t necessarily led to that. Bolshevism had other reasons. Other movements which try to make it right, fail because of the global hegemony of systems that don’t. But for you, there are only two options and one isn’t even an option.
Again not my point: all economic systems since the invention of modern industry have destroyed the environment, singling one out is naive at best,biased more probably.
I even mentioned three different ones, no idea why you accuse me of only accepting two…
I didn’t accuse you of only accepting two systems but that you lack imagination and have a lot more implicit assumption that you are willing to acknowledge and therefore only see the two options of destroying the environment or going back to the Neolithic. I could repeat myself by pointing out how little time has passed since we even see environmental issues as a problem and how unsurprising it is that people didn’t find a solution before looking for one and how people today try to make it right (like Rojava, the Zapatista, Landless Workers’ Movement, …) but I can’t force you to think outside the box.