138
The Fatal Flaws of the Futureless Left | The rise in antinatalist sentiments signals a collective loss of faith in the future (jacobin.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/solarpunk@slrpnk.net
66 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The rise of doomers, preppers, and antinatalists on the Left reveals something deeper than the hollow posture of rebellion: a collapse of belief in tomorrow. A Left that chants “No future” isn’t just demoralized — it’s unserious, misanthropic, and bound to lose.

Tldr: How do you inspire people to work for a better tomorrow if you don't believe tomorrow can be better? Trump and the American right have a vision of a future America that they claim will be great and glorious. The American left - and the global left - have lost sight of the future entirely. Instead of promising a bright future, they merely seek to endure the crises of the present - and some on the left have given up even that.

The article speaks to the desperate need for hope - for a clear, compelling, leftist vision of the future to serve as a guiding light for left-wing activists and politicians.

And hey, what political slash environmental slash aesthetic movement focused on a hopeful future just got its instance back up?

(Welcome back, everybody!)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

There is plenty of resources to support humanity.

I cannot say I agree, and I think I recall that some indicators currently suggest we'd need about 3 planets to keep going at the same pace.

I think we shouldn't use up every atom on Earth to churn out more humans. Our species has experienced a massive population explosion and is at peak numbers.

Usually this kind of events are followed by a hurtful population crash. It seems considerably better if growth ends due to a (subconscious?) decision to stop expanding, rather than a war for remaining resources.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 year ago

    I cannot say I agree, and I think I recall that some indicators currently suggest we'd need about 3 planets to keep going at the same pace.

    The back of the envelope calculation says if everybody on Earth lived like an average American we'd need the resources of about four Earths to cover it:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712

    That being said, from the same source, if everyone on Earth lived like an average Indian we'd only use half the Earth's resources and could support twice as many people.

    So it's not about the number of people - it's about the standard of living those people have and the resources they use.

    I think the most effective way forward is more efficient and sustainable lifeways - if the richest countries learn to consume less, if people around the world get access to better technology and better institutions to raise their standard of living without raising their resource consumption.

    And it's interesting to note, the better off people are, the fewer children they tend to have. If we improve people's lives worldwide, a steadily declining population will be a natural side effect.

    An incredibly difficult goal, of course, but worth pursuing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I think we shouldn't use up every atom on Earth to churn out more humans.

    Good thing no one said to do this. I don't appreciate bad faith reframing of my argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •