God intended nothing other than survival, maintenance, and contingent harms along the way. You’re on your own for entertainment.

But the real question is why there isn't wide spread awareness and powerful movements, or then why the movements that do exist have so far failed. The denialist industry was and still is well funded, but it's not really a given they would win, and they've only really "won" in the US; here in Europe there's not really much climate denialism, but the policies are weak sauce; the "concerned" politicians of Europe never get together and do anything of significance.

I'm honestly not sure; it's not like the information is in secret books that an institution will systematically burn both the books and anyone possessing them. "Truth" seems to have gotten out far worse obstacles. — boethius

1) I blame the media.

The journalists pick up the most damning forecast (from a variety) and run with the worst possible early outcome. Some scientists are perfectly fine to go with this in order to "wake up" the people, so they go with the worst earliest hypothetical outcome. And once that worst hypothetical outcome didn't happen twenty years ago, people can come skeptical about the alarmists.

Just to name a few, in the 1960's it was the population explosion that would lead to severe famines even in the West. Then the possible torching of the Kuwaiti oil fields would lead to something like the nuclear winter. And the list of these alarmist forecasts with dates that have long gone are there. I know that referring to them will make many people extremely angry. That the forecast didn't hold seems to be totally irrelevant, as the cause is beneficial.

2) Then I blame that some issues have been overcome. DDT has been banned. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer has been working: Since the ban on halocarbons, the ozone layer has slowly been recovering and the data shows a trend in decreasing area of the ozone hole – subject to annual variations. It has even closed sometime. We have already hit peak conventional oil production and oil production hasn't grown for some time.

3) And finally, I think that the society can cope with even more problems. We can have this economy limping with the pandemic limitations for years. We can not travel as much as before. Tens of millions of jobs have been lost in the tourism sector and flights have basically halved. We can change our behavior and never ever shake each others hands. Who needs so much travel? The fact is that our societies can endure radical changes. Thanks to the pandemic, carbon emissions have fallen at the most rapid rate since WW2. Primary energy consumption fell by 4.5% in 2020, the largest decline since 1945, yet solar Wind, solar and hydroelectricity all grew despite of this plummeting demand.

Above all, in 2020 we saw the lowest population growth in the World since at least 1950 with 1,05%. Just in 2012 the growth rate was 1,2%. It may be that some of us (those younger) will witness peak human population.

Part of the problem is that externalities that are difficult to calculate for differing countries of the world are already hard to calculate, and only the EU has taken steps to internalize these externalities with carbon tax credits.

It's not a vague solution; technical detail is lacking, but it's a specific idea, likely adequate to the problem, and if so, the least disruptive solution, with maximum benefit at least cost. — counterpunch

It's vague idea. You have no clue about its technical or economic viability. You don't even have a proof of concept at this point.

God intended nothing other than survival, maintenance, and contingent harms along the way. — schopenhauer1

Then I suspect God, as Woody Allen once said, is an underachiever.

It's vague idea. You have no clue about its technical or economic viability. You don't even have a proof of concept at this point. — Benkei

Very well, I accept your characterisation of my state of knowledge. You're right, but nonetheless, those were not my approaches to these conclusions. I don't pretend to be a geophysical engineer, or an economist. I am a philosopher addressing the question of whether a sustainable future is possible; and if so, how.

I have identified a series of technologies that would reasonably provide for sustainability in order to answer that question, and this raised the question of our current approach; the ubiquitous left wing limits to resources presumption that sustainability requires sacrifice via regulation and taxation. Scientifically and technologically speaking, that's not only untrue, but fatal. Resources are a function of the energy available to create them, and so we need more energy; not less - to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability in our favour. This in turn suggests a supply side approach that preserves freedom, by internalising the externalities of capitalism with a virtually limitless source of energy, rather than internalising them to the economy.

With regard to proof of concept, I can't help thinking of the Wright Brother's plane - because if that plane constitutes proof of concept, and I think, quintessentially, it does - then there's sufficient proof there's large amounts of energy underground we can harness for our benefit. I'm betting it could be done better.

Scientifically and technologically speaking, that's not only untrue, but fatal. — counterpunch

Wild, unfounded assumption that's just necessary to prop up your capitalist ideology. I don't share it nor the idea capitalism is a good system.

Anyhoo, back to your idea. If you're convinced, stop trying to convince people here and do the leg work to answer those questions and start a company or something. I did once and even though it failed, it was a fun ride and I learned a lot.

Wild, unfounded assumption that's just necessary to prop up your capitalist ideology. I don't share it nor the idea capitalism is a good system. — Benkei

Really? How astonishing! I would have thought it were obvious capitalism is a good system, and the question therefore, is how it can be sustained? Would you rather be forced backward down a bottleneck of equalitarian poverty - because that's what a green windmill powered future looks like to me, based on the presumption of limits to resources. It's just not true. Look at Malthus, and how the invention of tractors and fertilizers allowed food production to far outpace population growth. Malthus was demonstrably wrong, and yet his argument continues to inform a left wing narrative, and it is so ubiquitous an assumption I fear it is leading to a further, and fatal misapplication of technology, in that a left wing approach to climate change will undermine capitalism such as to forgoe the opportunity that exists in the knowledge skills and industrial capacities capitalism currently commands - to transcend limits to growth via the application of technology.

It's vague idea. You have no clue about its technical or economic viability. You don't even have a proof of concept at this point. — Benkei

But he, and he alone, has the solution. No clue about what he's talking about, or about pesky technical details, but he's got the solution. A solution overlooked by the thousands of actually qualified people working on this important issue.

Talk about delusions of grandeur. Leave the little crackpot to his illusions.

I am a philosopher addressing the question of whether a sustainable future is possible — counterpunch

:rofl:

Cringe-inducing. No self-awareness whatsoever.

I would have thought it were obvious capitalism is a good system — counterpunch

That's because you're an embarrassingly simpleminded individual who is too busy with his own delusions to hear a word anyone else says.

in that a left wing approach to climate change will undermine capitalism — counterpunch

Since capitalism is the cause of this mess, one would hope it's not only undermined but destroyed completely.

A solution overlooked by the thousands of actually qualified people working on this important issue. — Xtrix

This happens. I've been in this situation and it ended up stranding on investment negotiations and it being a very complex market where most players were banking on lobbying for another solution.

It could be a solution but he doesn't have one yet and appears to be not interested in actually doing the leg work to prove it. In the time he's been talking about it here and the years he claims he's spend on it I had attracted two partners, wrote a patent, and spoken with five different potential investors and 7 potential clients in three different countries. I think he actually knows what he has is a shit idea, good ideas generate money.

People tend to be myopic, it's hard motivate them with something that is gradual and in the longterm. If some accident happens they typically do want to jump into action. — ChatteringMonkey

True in a sense, and, in a general sense as well the fundamental cause of the problem of climate change (or any human caused problem) is "human weaknesses" of one sort or another.

At the same time, it's not inevitable. People can be lazy, but can also be disciplined; society's as well. Indeed, in a longer view, many societies seem to be very far sighted, building large defensive structures that might see use in the next centuries.

It's easy to link social problems to social vices, just as for the individual, but this simply begs the question of why such vices developed in the first place.

There's the denialists definitely, but not so much in Europe indeed. I also do think green parties, and the left in general, have been bad strategically in selling their ideas to the public... to much finger pointing blame game, and to little constructive motivating vision put forward. — ChatteringMonkey

I completely agree here. Why the movement doesn't have "more and better people" is one question (that may not have any definitive answer, just more and more historical context further and further back in time). However, what is clear is that the movement that does exist makes terrible decisions and is ineffective, even with the resources they have.

Though I agree with you point here in one sense, I think the fundamental (at least intellectual) problem is the exact opposite and not enough "finger pointing" to avoid (uncomfortable) critical debate around ethical and political theory questions.

It has been dragging for a long time, and for someone invested in the topic as long as you have been I get that this doesn't exactly fill you with optimism, but I think once things start moving, they might move a lot faster than one thinks. I don't think the conversion to renewables is a linear process. — ChatteringMonkey

I also had this theory while starting 20 years ago, and I do still believe the transition can be very rapid. However, it's too late to prevent catastrophe's, which are already happening.

For instance, 20 years ago, mass coral bleaching of, in particular, the great barrier reef but also reefs in general, was one of those unthinkable, terrible "apocalyptic signs" that we want to work hard to avoid.

The apocalypse comes and goes.

So yes, for exactly the reasons you describe, that were true 20 years ago in the 90s, and, as @Benkei points out, obviously true even for a 7 year old in the 80s, and also true in the 70s and 60s to all those dirty hippies, we can avoid "worse outcomes". However, the current outcome is already pretty bad, the climate catastrophe is already triggered, it's simply a question of how bad it will get.

Since effects are baked in 20 years (overcoming the ocean thermal buffer) after actually getting to 0 emissions, the affects are already bad now, we are no where close to zero emissions, therefore, the effects are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

And even the IPPC now concludes climate change is irreversible. So we are going "somewhere" new, and the nature of a system as complex as the whole world is that no one can know exactly where.

That the effects could be extremely bad -- that hitting a tipping point in arctic ocean ice, which may trigger tipping points with permafrost, forest ecocystems, land-based ice, and the system can accelerate and dominate human emissions (i.e. further human emissions become irrelevant) etc. -- is the reason to not run this experiment in the first place.

That maybe things aren't so bad, or then we should do our best for the survivors anyways (preserve as many seeds, and knowledge, and minimize our damage on the way out; i.e. clean up a bit when our party ends, before leaving unceremoniously), are all reasons to do what is morally justified, regardless of one's level of optimism or pessimism on the eventual outcome. That there is a chance of extinction means, by definition, there is also a chance of not-extinction.

1) I blame the media.

The journalists pick up the most damning forecast (from a variety) and run with the worst possible early outcome. — ssu

I wouldn't say this is true. Also, if we're blaming the journalists, journalist in turn blame the collapse of paid journalism due to the internet (and no policies put in place for value-extraction of search engines and aggregators to pay for what they're using to make profits).

In the 90s, before the media collapse, I think communication was pretty good, and there was lot's of discussion and "in depth" reporting, denialists existed but were easily defeated (as they new forms of media entirely dedicated to propaganda, such as Fox News, didn't exist yet), and all this culminated in the Kyoto Protocol, which was supposed to be the "Montreal Protocol" protocol moment for the climate, and was sold as such.

2) Then I blame that some issues have been overcome. DDT has been banned. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer has been working: Since the ban on halocarbons, the ozone layer has slowly been recovering and the data shows a trend in decreasing area of the ozone hole – subject to annual variations. It has even closed sometime. We have already hit peak conventional oil production and oil production hasn't grown for some time. — ssu

As mentioned above, Kyoto Protocol could have actually worked (been made better to begin with, or then actually followed), but it wasn't. So, although I agree we definitely can make these international agreements that effectively deal with pollution, so far we haven't for green house gases.

Yes, we've peaked in conventional "sweet" crude, but we've gone all in for things like tar sands and fracking and haven't even phased out coal globally. The Amazon turning from a sink to a source of greenhouse gas emissions also means that we need to cut the difference to be at the same "spot" of net-emission when the Amazon was still a sink.

We are starting to saturate other buffers as well (a cold ocean can dissolve CO2 pretty well, but a warmer ocean may start to emit the CO2 it previously absorbed).

3) And finally, I think that the society can cope with even more problems. We can have this economy limping with the pandemic limitations for years. We can not travel as much as before. Tens of millions of jobs have been lost in the tourism sector and flights have basically halved. We can change our behavior and never ever shake each others hands. Who needs so much travel? The fact is that our societies can endure radical changes. Thanks to the pandemic, carbon emissions have fallen at the most rapid rate since WW2. Primary energy consumption fell by 4.5% in 2020, the largest decline since 1945, yet solar Wind, solar and hydroelectricity all grew despite of this plummeting demand. — ssu

Sure, if you're arguing we can do something, no objections from me. The question is are we doing something, and fast enough.

Once systems get overwhelmed, they collapse. Has happened to previous civilizations, can happen to ours.

Above all, in 2020 we saw the lowest population growth in the World since at least 1950 with 1,05%. Just in 2012 the growth rate was 1,2%. It may be that some of us (those younger) will witness peak human population. — ssu

I don't think population matters much.

Of course, it's easiest to imagine just having less people would lower our impact, than to imagine some actually sustainable system.

However, in the equation of Impact = Population x Technology x Affluence; it's the technology and affluence that can be changed significantly in relatively short periods of time (without the catastrophe we are trying to avoid).

That's because you're an embarrassingly simpleminded individual who is too busy with his own delusions to hear a word anyone else says. — Xtrix

Sorry, what's that?

Talk about delusions of grandeur. Leave the little crackpot to his illusions. — Xtrix

Yeah, that would be nice, thanks! You are dismissed!

Cringe-inducing. No self-awareness whatsoever. — Xtrix

Who you on about now?

Since capitalism is the cause of this mess, one would hope it's not only undermined but destroyed completely. — Xtrix

That's incorrect. Capitalism is not to blame. The root cause of climate change is the misapplication of technology, based in turn on a disregard for a scientific understanding of reality in favour of ideological worldviews, dating back to the trial of Galileo in 1634.

As a philosopher, I have the luxury of looking beyond our ideological borders - and that's where the solution lies, in an alternate reality in which ideally, the Church greeted Galileo with open arms - as discovering the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation. In this reality, science was pursued and integrated into politics and society on an ongoing basis, as an authoritative truth - over 400 years, and technology was applied with regard to a scientific understanding of reality.

Capitalism isn't a problem in this reality, thus capitalism isn't the fundamental nature of the problem. It's the ideological context within which capitalism operates. Capitalism could operate fine within a context of science based regulation - so long as everyone were prohibited from dumping their waste in the river, there would be no economic incentive for a race to the bottom, and given limitless clean energy, to power a logical series of technologies, no limit to resources.

I accept, that's not where we are, but thinking in these terms identifies the possibility, and given the scale and nature of the threat; an objective rationale for the application of the technologies necessary to survival is worth thinking about - if technologically speaking, it is possible to sustain capitalism, we should. I think it is. I'm over-reaching slightly on my knowledge of drilling technology, but there is sufficient energy in the interior of the earth.

Capitalism is not to blame. — counterpunch

Yes, it is. Short term profits, all else is externality. That’s the only reason we’re here right now.

You’re not a philosopher, and you have no solutions — because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Yes, it is. Short term profits, all else is externalities. That’s the only reason we’re here right now. You’re not a philosopher, and you have no solutions — because you don’t know what you’re talking about. — Xtrix

I know what I'm talking about. I accept no responsibility for the fact you still don't know what I'm talking about. I've been sufficiently clear that someone who wanted to understand my perspective, could do. Or is it that you understand it, but don't want to accept it; unable counter it - hence the abuse?

I'm sure you must be emotionally invested in making capitalism the villain of the piece, but it's just not true. It's a shallow, kneejerk, left wing analysis - proven wrong by the capitalist defeat of the Malthusian threat. Climate change is essentially the same problem; and similarly, capitalism can be sustained if politics can find an agreeable rationale for the application of the right technologies; limits to resources can be transcended via the application of technology.

Magma energy could be developed as a global public good; and used initially to sequester carbon, desalinate and irrigate - so to mitigate and adapt to climate change while building the capacity to take over from fossil fuels. It is a minimally disruptive approach to do this in support of capitalism; as capitalism is the prevailing economic paradigm, and so much nicer than slavery - to have some degree of personal and political freedom. Also, magma energy as a global good sidesteps all sorts of direct conflicts of interest in this issue, geopolitical, politics and business, politics and the consumer, environment versus human interest, so I think it's pretty well crafted. Sad you cannot appreciate it.

invested in making capitalism the villain of the piece, but it's just not true. — counterpunch

Capitalism is the reason for climate change. That’s a fact. Holding your hand to help you understand it isn’t of interest to me. When a system values short term profits, and anything else is considered an externality, this is what happens. Seen clearly in the Exxon memos.

Take your capitalist/magma wet dreams elsewhere.

. It is a minimally disruptive approach to do this in support of capitalism; as capitalism is the prevailing economic paradigm, and so much nicer than slavery - to have some degree of personal and political freedom. — counterpunch

False dichotomy.

:up:

A solution overlooked by the thousands of actually qualified people working on this important issue.
— Xtrix

This happens. — Benkei

No it doesn’t. Not on this level.

Capitalism is the reason for climate change. — Xtrix

That certainly lets the USSR and the CCP off the hook. Marxists thank you! :smile:

That certainly lets the USSR and the CCP off the hook. — jgill

They’re state capitalist systems as well.

That the effects could be extremely bad -- that hitting a tipping in arctic ocean ice, which may trigger tipping points with permafrost, forest ecocystems, land-based ice, and the system can accelerate and dominate human emissions (i.e. further human emissions become irrelevant) etc. -- is the reason to not run this experiment in the first place.

These tipping points are already breached. We’ve recently had 30+ centigrade heatwaves in all permafrost regions. They are melting rapidly, there is enough methane there to accelerate climate change beyond what we can mitigate. Even if we had zero carbon production now this methane would more than compensate for the reduction. It’s acceleration and a rollercoaster ride from now on, whatever we do.

It’s no accident that the super rich are using deregulated capitalism to extract as much wealth out of vulnerable countries as they can before economies start to collapse. They will be looking for hiding holes in remote places, like New Zealand right now for their bunkers.

These tipping points are already breached. We’ve recently had 30+ centigrade heatwaves in all permafrost regions. They are melting rapidly, there is enough methane there to accelerate climate change beyond what we can mitigate. Even if we had zero carbon production now this methane would more than compensate for the reduction. It’s acceleration and a rollercoaster ride from now on, whatever we do. — Punshhh

This is definitely being close to being the case, and maybe the tipping points are breached and a "runaway" process that is unstoppable is already underway.

However, I'm not completely certain. The scenarios I'm contrasting is zero emissions today.

Without further carbon dioxide, methane and black particles from humans, maybe the North stabilizes, and not all the permafrost melts.

Of course, zero emissions today is not happening, but the basic point I'm making is that from one tipping point to the next maybe further human emissions is required to get things "over the edge", or, then, maybe, and once we tip one (like ocean ice in the arctic) all the others will fall like dominoes.

My overall point is that we'er not certain, but we can be pretty certain that continued emissions will make things worse, ensure tipping over more dominoes and also driving the system even hotter even after all the dominoes are tipped (as there's still more green house gases at the end of the process).

If things are already dire, then we'd be working to make things "a bit less bad" for survivors.

If things aren't so dire right now (many tipping points could be avoided if we stopped emissions now), then there's even more to save in terms of people and ecosystems.

For, it does take time for ice to melt, especially Greenland and antarctic, and the thermal inertia of the oceans that buffers a bit, and there's also (if emissions are brought to zero) geo-engineering that could work in that context.

Though I'm sure you agree, a point I'd like to emphasize as much as possible, that Geoengineering only makes sense after zero emissions.

You seed some ice now, it will have a bit of a cooling effect, but if we continue to warm the planet anyways, it will just melt anyways accomplishing nothing.

Grow a bunch of forests now, it will sequester some carbon and make those ecosystems more resilient (if we're talking actual forest and not mono-crops) ... but, they'll just burn anyways, sooner or later, if we keep warming the planet releasing all that CO2 back.

Adding reflective aerosols to the atmosphere doesn't stop ocean acidification and other problems (even if it "worked no issues", which it won't, continuing business as usual we'd just consume other non-renewable resources and collapse our civilization another way, as mentions) and needs to be continuous and more and more extreme intervention the more we continue to add green house gases (making a chaotic climate changes anyways, leading to crop failures that way). And, as soon as civilization is disrupted enough to stop the program, by wars or what-have-you, then all that warming is going to happen even faster and even more disruptively.

However, if we actually stopped emissions, then growing large amount of forests wouldn't all burn, and so sequester carbon and attract rain to those areas, both things making those ecosystems more resilient.

Likewise, seeding ice or building a ship drone network to keep ice in the arctic can help stabilize or even reverse the libido losses (submersible drones that attach to icebergs and deploy sea anchors, or the attach to real anchors with chains brought relatively close to the surface for this purpose, which could be then attached horizontally to each other, forming a large chain network all the way around the arctic that drones can go around attaching ice too). A lot of ice is lost due to floating south. Of course, if we warm the arctic enough that ice doesn't stay anyways, just melts in situ, there's no point of my immensely cool drone chain network.

Maybe some very short term, localized and strategic uses of reflective aerosols could stop catastrophic melting scenarios (those 30C over Greenland days).

So, there is still uncertainty and also geoengineering options, which are total insanity as a way to compensate emissions, but we may have time to deploy, considering the inertia of the system, and in the context of getting to zero emissions, I think it stands to reason cautious geoengineering could stop those other tipping points.

Capitalism is the reason for climate change. That’s a fact. Holding your hand to help you understand it isn’t of interest to me. When a system values short term profits, and anything else is considered an externality, this is what happens. Seen clearly in the Exxon memos. Take your capitalist/magma wet dreams elsewhere. — Xtrix

The root cause of climate change is the ideological context within which capitalism operates; the overlapping religious, political and economic ideological architectures of societies, that for all sorts of historical and philosophical reasons, undervalue and exclude science as an understanding of reality.

When politics makes a law; i.e. no dumping waste in the river, and that law applies equally to everyone, there's no economic incentive to dump waste in the river. The cost of disposing of waste properly is absorbed into the costs of production and passed on to the consumer in similar proportion by all producers, so there's no competitive disadvantage. However if there's no law on dumping waste in the river, and my main competitor dumps their waste in the river, I could not unilaterally stop doing so - even if I wanted to.

So you see, it's not capitalism per se, but the ideological context within which capitalism operates. And thus, it's necessary to look beyond those ideological borders to a scientific understanding of reality, to justify the application of technology necessary to solve climate change. Queue magma energy wet dream sequence!

It is a minimally disruptive approach to do this in support of capitalism; as capitalism is the prevailing economic paradigm, and so much nicer than slavery - to have some degree of personal and political freedom.
— counterpunch

False dichotomy. — Benkei

I don't see it. A left wing approach to sustainability, based on Malthusian pessimism and limits to resources, dates back to an era when communism was still a thing. Communism is no longer a thing; yet a left wing approach to sustainability remains violently anti-capitalist.

Ostensibly concerned with sustainability, the left haven't even considered whether capitalism might be sustained, because of their political interest in promoting communism. In the 1960's and 70's maybe, that was a justifiable political position, but it's not anymore.

Perhaps I'm being slightly bullish in drawing a direct parallel between communism and slavery, but communism does not allow for the kind of personal and political freedom capitalism allows for. And it would clearly be less disruptive to sustain capitalism, than force a failed economic ideology on capitalist societies under the guise of sustainability.

Scientifically and technologically, I believe it's possible to sustain capitalism. There's limitless amounts of clean energy available in the molten interior of the earth, we could use to meet all our energy needs plus capture carbon, desalinate and irrigate, produce hydrogen fuel, and recycle. This would internalise the externalities of capitalism without internalising them to the economy.

The root cause of climate change is the ideological context within which capitalism operates — counterpunch

exclude science as an understanding of reality. — counterpunch

Capitalism is an ideology. It’s the religious belief in the free market and the primacy of profit— all else is externality. Capitalism doesn’t exclude science at all.

I don't see it. A left wing approach to sustainability, based on Malthusian pessimism and limits to resources, dates back to an era when communism was still a thing. Communism is no longer a thing; yet a left wing approach to sustainability remains violently anti-capitalist.

Ostensibly concerned with sustainability, the left haven't even considered whether capitalism might be sustained, because of their political interest in promoting communism. In the 1960's and 70's maybe, that was a justifiable political position, but it's not anymore.

Perhaps I'm being slightly bullish in drawing a direct parallel between communism and slavery, but communism does not allow for the kind of personal and political freedom capitalism allows for. And it would clearly be less disruptive to sustain capitalism, than force a failed economic ideology on capitalist societies under the guise of sustainability.

Scientifically and technologically, I believe it's possible to sustain capitalism. There's limitless amounts of clean energy available in the molten interior of the earth, we could use to meet all our energy needs plus capture carbon, desalinate and irrigate, produce hydrogen fuel, and recycle. This would internalise the externalities of capitalism without internalising them to the economy. — counterpunch

It's not either capitalism or communism and there's a lot of different "types" of capitalism too. One of the worse developments was that of limited liability, for profit corporations and that has exactly zero to do with capitalism. So corporate capitalism is something you can be opposed to, without being a communist for instance.

So yes, false dichotomies all over the place I'm afraid. And capitalism creates its own oppression, which has been so often in the news you must've been living under a rock if you think you can maintain "capitalism = freedom". Sooner the inverse.

I also don't share your optimism where it concerns science. There have been plenty of technologies that were superior to others and failed due to political or sociological circumstances or because of a bad advertisement campaign. Lots of ideas don't see the light of day because they don't attract investors, or fail because poor, unconnected people have to pay a premium to get a loan in the first place because of worse credit ratings. The system doesn't favour smart solutions, it favours the status quo, which is why unexpected circumstances cause market shocks, recessions and depressions.

Finally, "sustaining capitalism" is an utter shit goal. It is and always has been about people, not some system or ideology. People first, system second. Whatever system creates the best world for people is the one we should implement. It isn't capitalism despite the many good things it has brought when the excesses it's been causing since the 90s wasn't a problem yet.

One of the worse developments was that of limited liability, for profit corporations and that has exactly zero to do with capitalism. — Benkei

:100: :up: It is anti-capitalism.

Capitalism is an ideology. It’s the religious belief in the free market and the primacy of profit— all else is externality. Capitalism doesn’t exclude science at all. — Xtrix

The length of the post necessary to explain your confusion would be prohibitive. I might have induced myself to write it for a willing audience, but I'm sure you couldn't be bothered to read it. I'll keep it short. You say what you see, and so insist you're right, but you don't get to the root of the problem - and that's why you cannot solve it.

The root cause of climate change is our mistaken relation to science; a disregard for science as an understanding of reality, externalised by religious and political conceptions of reality. i.e. the context within which capitalism operates. We need to look beyond the ideological battlements, to a scientific understanding of reality for a solution; i.e. magma energy - and that so, capitalism would be sustainable.

I know you belieeeve in limits to growth, but scientifically speaking, it's not a valid theory. It's a physical fact that resources are a function of the energy available to create them. We would need to look beyond our traditional ideological worldviews to apply the technology to harness that energy, but in scientific terms, the energy we need is there - and technologically, it seems quite possible to harness it.

Surely, you would concede, that's a better approach to sustainability than a slow strangling to death of capitalist enterprise, and a low energy, poverty stricken, authoritarian green commie hell forever after. We must transcend limits to growth.