Humans are driven based on vice and self-interest, or as Baudrillard calls it, the principle of evil. Capitalism has been a global phenomenon because of it, and laws should be in place to prevent the excesses, like billionaires and dark triad personalities from reaching leadership positions. That doesn’t mean people are inherently violent, but it can lead to violence, and does.

It sounds like you are agreeing to my original point in a round about adversarial way. Any ideology that presupposes humans as rational actors is destined for failure.

Opening your comment with an ad hominem doesn’t inspire any serious response from me. Open borders is a neoliberal capitalist invention to drive profit margins and endless growth. I assume you are using fascist as an empty signifier rather than any concise definition. You’ll also need to cite your own sources for the claim about politicians, I’m not going to search for it.

Is your community transitioning away from global industrial agriculture to a more localized sustainable model? Populist sentiments and emotive statements don’t really solve problems.

The nordic countries benefit from a small population and homogenous culture. It’s not a feasible model for large and diverse countries like the US.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nordic-countries-cooperate-more-returning-migrants-countries-origin-2023-10-31/

That said, it is still an unsustainable model.

https://www.sustainabledevelopmentindex.org/

If you dig into the data, even with their high sdg ratings, they are in the red on many metrics and rank poorly in « spillover ».

https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/rankings/

And regardless, does not change the trajectory of human-induced mass extinction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

The nordic models don’t have ubi, and the subsidized welfare/paid parental are only possible because of their small populations, cultural consensus (homogeneity), high taxes and high gdp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_in_the_Nordic_countries

It’s a global system, the world goes with it, and in the past collapses people had a place to escape to, a system to fall back on. We have no where to go this time.

Despite the possibility of avoiding collapse, Kemp remains pessimistic about our prospects. “I think it’s unlikely,” he says. “We’re dealing with a 5,000-year process that is going to be incredibly difficult to reverse, as we have increasing levels of inequality and of elite capture of our politics.

I’ve read the book. The analysis is great, it proposes some interesting ideas to possibly prevent collapse, but like the article states at the end, it’s unlikely. I would argue impossible, and communities should be organizing towards localization of production and self-sufficiency if they are to even survive.

What does that change exactly? The Machine consumes all.

That would be endless growth. It is the culture now.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod