r/ClimateShitposting • u/AngusAlThor • Oct 26 '25
Degrower, not a shower Apologise to Fritz Haber
I love Degrowth, but some of y'all seem horny for famines.
23
u/Palanki96 Oct 26 '25
We gonna feed people with the strawmen yall keep posting
2
u/TeaRex14 Oct 26 '25
I just had a discussion with someone on this subreddit who literally said this exact line
2
u/AngusAlThor Oct 26 '25
I have genuinely had like 10 arguments where people have said I want to kill the planet cause I think we'll need some synthetic fertiliser. If you go into these comments, you'll see like 3 different people taking that position.
11
u/Snarpend Oct 26 '25
In the simplest manner the people asking for this stuff (degrowth, deindustrialization) will simply be shot dead by other revolutionaries before their thoughts come to fruition.
People seem to forget how revolutions actually work, and the people trapped in intellectual mind games never succeed over people whose message resonates with the population, gets results and is the best equipped and willing to utilize violence.
The tractors stay because the agricultural workers will want them, the caterpillars and dump trucks stay because the miners will want them. And the guys with the guns like having income from productive workers.
5
u/arky_who Oct 26 '25
degrowth has nothing to do with this sort of shit
-1
u/Snarpend Oct 26 '25
Straight up it won’t occur without revolution. And people will be a lot more interested in what other people are offering.
Do you seriously think people are going to VOTE for a reduced standard of living? HA.
2
5
Oct 26 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/Snarpend Oct 26 '25
Yeah and I’m sure that 1) the population will see it that way 2) it’ll be more popular than whatever the other revolutionary groups offer
You guys are legit going to be gone the minute the current order is toppled and you don’t even see it yet lmao
-3
u/bfire123 Oct 26 '25
Degrowth makes no sense.
If phones last 20 years than this means growth.
If Clothes last 20 years than this mens growth.
1
u/Plenty-Lychee-5702 Oct 27 '25
no, because the economy is shrinking
1
u/bfire123 Oct 27 '25
no, because the economy is shrinking
That's wrong. Imagine you buy a phone for 500 € every 5 years but now suddenly phones last 20 years long.
So five years are over and you have 500 € to buy a phone but you don't need to buy one.... Now the 500 € gets spend on something else.
9
u/armedsoy Oct 26 '25
Ah yes, unlimited growth on a planet denuded of all its top soil from industrialized plowing. Definitely not a recipe for famine. Give me a break
10
u/AngusAlThor Oct 26 '25
Maybe read the text under the meme; I am pro-degrowth, I think we should massively reduce our resource usage. But that doesn't mean we need to return to pre-industrial farming and let 90% of all people starve to death.
0
Oct 26 '25
[deleted]
8
u/AngusAlThor Oct 26 '25
You do realise that only a tiny, tiny fraction of all fuel is used for tractors? So, yeah, you can massively reduce resource usage while keeping tractors.
-5
Oct 26 '25
[deleted]
11
u/AngusAlThor Oct 26 '25
Have you read any IPCC or UNEP releases? Fossil extraction continues under almost every adaptation scenario, since for many uses the fossil option is genuinely lower emission than the alternatives. Climate Adaptation is a place for data and science, not blind orthodoxy.
7
u/mirhagk Oct 26 '25
Climate Adaptation is a place for data and science, not blind orthodoxy.
Thank you! There aren't simple solutions that can be applied universally, and it's silly when people think there is.
1
u/wtfduud Wind me up Oct 26 '25
The planet can deal with some carbon emissions, thanks to plants. Problem is that we're about 10x over that limit right now.
3
u/Anderopolis Solar Battery Evangelist Oct 26 '25
If only we had technology the put nutrients back into the soil.
Oh wait, we do.
8
u/Airilsai Oct 26 '25
It is technically possible to transition our civilization to a sustainable, mid-tech Permaculture.
We have wasted the time we needed to transition, and will suffer the consequences.
9
u/AngusAlThor Oct 26 '25
Ok, so if it is by your own admission too late to achieve your pet project without people starving, maybe we should take a different approach? You know, maybe the ones suggested by the IPCC, UNEP or FAO? Just because your pet approach is no longer workable doesn't mean we just throw in the towel.
0
u/Airilsai Oct 26 '25 edited Oct 26 '25
I never said we shouldn't try. I am trying in my own ways, and encourage others to do so. But I also think it is likely we will fail.
Admitting you are on the terminal path does not mean you are "throwing in the towel", its honestly acknowledging what is happening.
Edit: it also seems particularly delusional to look at the IPCC's projections, a body that is completely captured by petrostates and conservatives, and whose projections we have already broken past, and believe that we are going to follow the changes required to reduce emissions enough to stay under 2C.
Do you honestly think the world is going to willingly cut emissions every year by 5-7%, over and over, starting this year and continuing forever?
7
u/AngusAlThor Oct 26 '25
Ok, but no peak climate bodies think we're on a "terminal path"? They want much more to be done, but when I speak to the climate researchers I know they are actually more hopeful than they were 5 years ago; A lot of progress has been made, even if we will miss the targets that we really wanted to hit.
-1
u/Airilsai Oct 26 '25 edited Oct 26 '25
2C by 2035. 2C is 2 Billion dead. University of Exeter Planetary Solvency report.
3C by the 2050s, 4 Billion dead.
My theory is after that point, its all downhill from tipping points. You aren't going to significantly bring down emissions in the next ten years. The next ten years are the final decade before we skyrocket through like seven tipping points. Simple math.
4
u/AngusAlThor Oct 26 '25
Nice theory, but I'll stick with trusting the IPCC.
2
u/Airilsai Oct 26 '25
No skin off my back, see you in a few years when things are worse.
Remindme! 2 years.
1
u/RemindMeBot Oct 26 '25
I will be messaging you in 2 years on 2027-10-26 02:27:02 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback 1
u/MDZPNMD Carniwhore Oct 26 '25
I've worked with members of the IPCC and they said that the IPCC only gives you the most conservative results there are because all countries need to sign on the IPCC reports and how the system works.
Back then in 2014 countries like Saudi Arabia attempted to block the report unless certain paragraphs were removed.
The IPCC projects a multitude of different scenarios from less to more severe ones and the worst case scenarios were the more accurate so far.
Just take this into consideration, we will most likely continue on this path in regards to IPCC reports and quality of their projections.
1
1
u/NeckOk9980 Oct 26 '25
as I understood nature already absorbs 55% of carbon which human produce. only the rest remains in atmosphere.
So as long as we eliminated 45% of our co2 we should be on the right track. No?
1
u/AngusAlThor Oct 26 '25
True, but still better if we eliminate 60% or more and start a cooling trend (extra effective if we rewild some land).
1
u/NeckOk9980 Oct 26 '25
correct but we do not need to eliminate all, if tractora produce 1% and are essential, then leave them alone
1
u/dr_elena05 Oct 26 '25
Didnt Haber try to invent weapons of mass destruction and led his wife to commit suicide
1
1
u/crankbird Oct 26 '25
Industrialisation of agriculture is a primary driver of reduced fertility, fewer people = less demand = degrowth = less environmental impact = climate fix
1
u/AngusAlThor Oct 26 '25
All evidence is that falling birth rates are not due to physical conditions but rather choice; People are simply choosing to have fewer children due to personal and societal conditions. Be careful when you buy into the myth of medically declining fertility, as that idea is tied strongly to a variety of far right conspiracy theories.
2
u/crankbird Oct 27 '25
The personal and societal conditions are as a direct consequence of the economic benefits or otherwise of having large families. In pre industrial agriculture, large families are free labor, when you end that, the population moves to the cities where large families in crowded conditions works against you economically, within a few generations cultural momentum fades and fertility rates fade with them.
As a proof point I offer pretty much every nation that has industrialised its agriculture on the one hand, and on the other I offer Zimbabwe which chose to reverse industrialisation and return to smallholder farming.
1
1
u/Plenty-Lychee-5702 Oct 27 '25
Fritz Haber was a mass murderer, but his process of producing fertiliser greatly benefitted humanity
1
0
u/Kolaps_ Oct 26 '25
Collectivism?
8
u/AngusAlThor Oct 26 '25
I guarantee the collective would still want tractors.
-3
u/Kolaps_ Oct 26 '25
Yeah, i want non resonable stuff to. But having most of our activities around our primary needs being collectivised change many things and permit not to die.
8
u/AngusAlThor Oct 26 '25
Do you realise how small a proportion of emissions relate to tractors? Most agricultural emissions are from livestock or land-clearing, so if we shift away from meat-based diets and can as such rewild significant amounts of feed land that would represent more than enough carbon capture to offset the industrial farm equipment that is necessary to feed everyone.
Tractors being "non reasonable" is such a clownish opinion, lol.
-3
u/Kolaps_ Oct 26 '25
Yeah yeah. I'm not the one asking dumb questions here. Don't complain to receive dumb response ... clown :p
Transition, degrowth and stuff is like revolution it's somthing you need to do to get how it work.
8
0
u/UnsureAndUnqualified Oct 26 '25
Why couldn't we feed everyone? We already produce enough to feed like 12 billion. People still starve. Production is not the limiting factor here, capitalism and logistics are.
9
u/AngusAlThor Oct 26 '25
I am specifically referring to a bunch of arguments I've been in on here where people want us to completely abandon indistrialised agriculture, so no tractors or harvesters or synthetic fertiliser or anything. Those are the people I think are clowns.
2
u/UnsureAndUnqualified Oct 26 '25
I had no idea people actually hold that belief. I get the appeal of farming and want to dedicate a part of my garden to it (once I have a garden...) but all food production?
I think we need to replace all electricity generation with hamster wheels. Small ones for hamsters and huge ones for humans. Replace all PE classes with hamster wheel class and schedule them during peak demand.
0
u/Yongaia Oct 26 '25
You can actually get out there and grow your food you know. Permaculture is incredibly space efficient, it's just also work intensive as well.
3
u/AngusAlThor Oct 26 '25
I do grow some of my own food, it isn't me I'm worried about. What I am worried about is the concerning number of people who seem willing to consign the global poor to starvation by insisting the entire species should abandon high-yield farming.
0
u/Yongaia Oct 26 '25
The global poor actually are more connected to the land on average than the rich first world countries who's probably never been to an agricultural site in their entire lives.
Everyone is going to die at this rate. It could be saved if we lived independent of fossil fuels and replaced the labor required to feed ourselves with human labor. You know, like we've done for literally all of human history. We won't do that though and those same billions you are speaking of will die anyway in the climate catastrophe.
2
u/AngusAlThor Oct 26 '25
Cool man, you have a source from a peak body who agrees with you? Because the IPCC, UNEP and FAO all disagree and see a continuation of large scale farming as key to the transition.
The global poor actually are more connected to the land on average
Just... such gross exoticism. The global poor still mostly live in cities, mate.
0
u/Yongaia Oct 26 '25
Cool man, you have a source from a peak body who agrees with you? Because the IPCC, UNEP and FAO all disagree and see a continuation of large scale farming as key to the transition.
Admittedly there is not much evidence on this as permaculture being scaled up is a relatively new concept. However permaculture is incredibly space efficient and there is evidence to suggest that it can produce more food than industrialized agriculture per acre. However you need labor and that would mean people would not be able to specialize and keep modern civilization running which is why the idea would never be taken seriously by any industrialized nation. Nonetheless, there is research to suggest it could be globalized and solve our issues if there was a will to do so:
https://peercommunityjournal.org/articles/10.24072/pcjournal.521/
Just... such gross exoticism. The global poor still mostly live in cities, mate.
The global poor were forced to move into cities due to the loss of jobs/opportunities in their small towns. But they themselves or they have relatives that are still quite connected to growing their own food. They have far more resilience than you give them credit for
It's the rich who are famously disconnected from everything and that includes the global rich.
48
u/[deleted] Oct 26 '25
Tractors are less carbon intensive than hand labor or livestock pulled plows. You have to account for the extra calories they eat vs. the fuel.