The amount of excess food will go way down and the price will go up, which will mostly affect third world countries. A lot of people will starve at the beginning.
Couple this with clean water scarcity that will exasperate diseases and the human population will drop toward sustainable numbers.
Then Sally Struthers will ask you to donate “the price of a daily cup of coffee” and 1/1000 people will start giving $2000 per year to feed the hungry…
Now, you’re trying to say that’s what would happen should there be this massive shortage (there is, but typically people online don’t explore the failsafes and contingencies that are at our disposal), or are you straight up trying to naturalize an ecofascist futurity here?
I don’t fully understand your question, but I did not consider mitigating actions and stated a possible worst case. Fossil fuel based fertilizer is not the only game in town, but it is the cheapest. EVs are already starting to replace ICE cars in many places. Renewable energy production grows every year, even of it is impacted by a drop in hydro. It does not have to be a bleak future.
I am not sure how the lack of fresh water can be avoided, but there many be some new processes for desalination I don’t know about.
I was asking if you understood that this narrative is harmful if accepted uncritically. That you considered technology solutions exclusively is a great indicator that this may be the case. We have technology solutions to this now, that isn’t why it isn’t fixed. Your comment reproduces a narrative that suffering in the global south is inevitable because of climate change, and not another avoidable, unnecessary act of genocide by this colonial, capitalist system. It is the social and material relations of this system that perpetrates that violence, not technological deficiencies.
When we just accept that there is no avoiding or mitigating events like, “a lot of people” starving in colonized spaces, and then promote technological utopianism as a solution (even if inadvertently by only imagining tech as a solution), we are naturalizing the root cause of this violence, which is colonialism. Doesn’t seem like you intended it, but this is also a markedly ecofascist narrative in the way that the inevitability of that death also means that it is a prescribed trajectory for this system to take to “improvement,” much in the same way that fascists precribe the removal (genocide) of an arbitrary group of people in the metropole (US or EU) as a solution to inequities there.
Edit: and of course, Lemmy libs get mad if I tell them they don’t have to subscribe to fascist ideas if they don’t want to.
I’m not doing either of those things (I’m not even sure what I could be gatekeeping here, political philosophy?). Your words carried this meaning whether you wanted them to or not, which is why I carefully explained how that meaning relates to the specific ideas you promoted. If you do not want them to carry this meaning, just take the time to interrogate how you arrived at this understanding and how it relates to your understanding of other things in the future.
The amount of excess food will go way down and the price will go up, which will mostly affect third world countries. A lot of people will starve at the beginning.
Couple this with clean water scarcity that will exasperate diseases and the human population will drop toward sustainable numbers.
Then Sally Struthers will ask you to donate “the price of a daily cup of coffee” and 1/1000 people will start giving $2000 per year to feed the hungry…
Now, you’re trying to say that’s what would happen should there be this massive shortage (there is, but typically people online don’t explore the failsafes and contingencies that are at our disposal), or are you straight up trying to naturalize an ecofascist futurity here?
I don’t fully understand your question, but I did not consider mitigating actions and stated a possible worst case. Fossil fuel based fertilizer is not the only game in town, but it is the cheapest. EVs are already starting to replace ICE cars in many places. Renewable energy production grows every year, even of it is impacted by a drop in hydro. It does not have to be a bleak future.
I am not sure how the lack of fresh water can be avoided, but there many be some new processes for desalination I don’t know about.
I was asking if you understood that this narrative is harmful if accepted uncritically. That you considered technology solutions exclusively is a great indicator that this may be the case. We have technology solutions to this now, that isn’t why it isn’t fixed. Your comment reproduces a narrative that suffering in the global south is inevitable because of climate change, and not another avoidable, unnecessary act of genocide by this colonial, capitalist system. It is the social and material relations of this system that perpetrates that violence, not technological deficiencies.
When we just accept that there is no avoiding or mitigating events like, “a lot of people” starving in colonized spaces, and then promote technological utopianism as a solution (even if inadvertently by only imagining tech as a solution), we are naturalizing the root cause of this violence, which is colonialism. Doesn’t seem like you intended it, but this is also a markedly ecofascist narrative in the way that the inevitability of that death also means that it is a prescribed trajectory for this system to take to “improvement,” much in the same way that fascists precribe the removal (genocide) of an arbitrary group of people in the metropole (US or EU) as a solution to inequities there.
Edit: and of course, Lemmy libs get mad if I tell them they don’t have to subscribe to fascist ideas if they don’t want to.
Please stop gatekeeping and putting words in my mouth
I’m not doing either of those things (I’m not even sure what I could be gatekeeping here, political philosophy?). Your words carried this meaning whether you wanted them to or not, which is why I carefully explained how that meaning relates to the specific ideas you promoted. If you do not want them to carry this meaning, just take the time to interrogate how you arrived at this understanding and how it relates to your understanding of other things in the future.