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.
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.
I mentioned even more than 3 of those…