• irmoz@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why? Production would be drastically lower, because there’s no need to flood the market. Democracy would dictate what gets produced, so an educated population would object to polluting industries, and thus not support them, leading to their demise.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because people love to not die, and suddenly ending our use of fossil fuels would kill a fuckload of people.

      Dude think for half a minute

      • irmoz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t need to end fucking immediately, because of that very reason.

        Think for just a second, friendo.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Weird that you’d want economic conditions that don’t contribute to new tech rather than economic conditions that do contribute to new tech, then.

          Also I’m not your friend.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Source? Do people just not go to school or have ambitions to improve the world, simply because their basic needs are met? You think no one dreams of tech in communism? That a social order based on cooperation and mutual aid would not engender exactly that?

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              A source on socialism having less incentive to fund new technologies and more barriers in the way of such progress?

              It’s called “economic incentives” and you are more than capable of giving it a Google.

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I tried to find a scholarly article titled “economic incentives” that proves that socialism doesn’t heavily invest in technology, but found none. I ended up discovering great leaps in technology in the USSR and China, though.

                Also, those economic incentives are driving climate change. I googled it and found that capitalist states pay fucking billions into fossil fuels.

      • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        First off, I disagree with that assessment. But secondly, are you implying climate change won’t kill people?

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No I’m responding to the idea that communists won’t use fossil fuels, which they did, and would.

          How do you think Venezuela affords their socialism?

          This is just the dumbest take possible.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No one said communism “doesn’t use fossil fuels”, so I’m not sure why you’re trying to disprove that

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The argument is that climate change is a result of capitalism which is demonstrably false.

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                So demonstrate it. The vast majority of pollution is caused by extremely profitable capitalist industries, supported by neoliberal capitalist states. And democratic will continues to swing towards reduction, yet states, bought off by fossil fuel companies, refuse to take action.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Those capitalist industries are either transportation or fossil fuels companies, and if they weren’t capitalist, they’d still exist, and they’d still make the same shit.

                  • irmoz@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    And they’d also have to bend to the will of the people, unlike now. Currently, they are allowed to continue with absolutely no pushback.

                    Under a democratic market, they’d be forced to scale back fossil fuel production in favour of green energy. Because that’s what the people want.

                    You also still haven’t demonstrated your claim.

          • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Where did I say communists don’t use fossil fuels? I do maintain they use objectively less though. There just less need less production all around.

            Hell, your knowledge about. Venezuela is even incorrect. Its categorically a failed socialist state, not a communist one.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Neither of those things are capitalist, so my statement holds.

              If people need to consume fossil fuels, socialists or communists will produce fossil fuels. This isnt rocket science.

              • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                “People” are not responsible for the majority of our emissions. Businesses are, as well as the military to an inordinate extent.

                Again, I never once mentioned a zero fossil fuel society. You are putting words in my mouth.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  People cause there to be demand for fossil fuels, not corporations. Businesses don’t burn oil for funsies.

                  People are absolutely the cause of all carbon emissions. Businesses only exist because there is demand

                  This is why a carbon tax is an effective means of fighting climate change. It disincentivizes consumption of fossil fuels and thus lowers demand

                  • irmoz@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    It’s not as simple as that, bro. There’s demand for fossil fuels because our entire society was built around it, before we knew it was a problem. Now we do know there’s a problem, but our industries and lives are still dependent on energy, with the majority of the energy required to be from fossil fuels. For consumer demand to stop, we’d have to literally stop using energy altogether.

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                People don’t need to consume fossil fuels, though, so… 🤷‍♂️

                Defeated by your own argument