Friend of mine is a hardcore eco-anarchist...

Well it can be untrue, I'm just looking for arguments why it might be wrong.

But anarchist would mean even less regulations for corporations. Lack of regulation via an intact state is what enables Nestle, Glencore and consorts to rape Africa in the first place.

>first capitalism does not exist
wut

does she mean u.s. style capitalism and u.s. style consumption? because i can't see that being sustainable for all 7 billion.

Well this isn't a support group to help with your idiocy. Read and form arguments by yourself and then discuss it with Veeky Forums, not ask for arguments to be spoon fed like a filthy beggar.

>Anarchism is ancapistan
Corporations won't exist in her ideal world.

if the world actually gets warmer, we will survive

This post is so fucking funny lmao.

Nature is Heraclitean beast, a blind force of perpetual change that extincts species daily, rains meteors, erupts volcanos and floods continents, all on a little rock of a swirl that circles a black hole like a cosmic drain.

The idea of stability in nature is merely an illusion caused by the brevity of human life. It’s actually a gigantic slow motion explosion with a blip of conciousness during a fraction of the process, ending in vast dead

In other words, sustaining the ‘natural world’ is an arrogant meme.

John Gray mixed with evolutionary biology; your friend will soon realize that the system doesn't really matter; it is in our genes.

>tell me how it is sustainable?
We don't "destroy" natural laws for example; life can definitely carry on after we're gone, even if it's a nuclear holocaust and bottleneck only Deinococcus radiodurans and a few Archaea can go through; the Holocene extinction is an ongoing process since we showed up on the planet, itself part of some 6 great mass extinction events that were never successful in eliminating all life, etc.

There is no natural world disappearing, the universe is far bigger and older than any current year's anthropocentric Weltanschauung.

I wish ideologues had the ability to be honest about making our cities less inhospitable to humans, instead of hiding behind harp seal pups, then again had they ever been honest they wouldn't be so economically successful with their campaigns.

Needless to say, it has to be capitalism's fault, even when you have commies in charge of Чopнóбиль. Always capitalism.

>muh free market will solve the environmental crisis
i'm not commie nor a marxist befero you star throwing names, kike lover

>autistic turbonerds who think the argument of sustainability is devoid of humans in the equation.

no one really gives a fuck about anything separated from humanity. amazed at how this is considered a neo-marxist theory when even nick land pushes the same notion repackaged as accelerationism

OP here, can you explain the part on ideologies?

first world capitalism leads to more efficient use of resources people not fucking
third worlders cant be bothered to use a condom or learn something else than slash and burn

Capitalism means that owners of capital and labor are compensated for the value of their capital and labor in markets of free and voluntary exchange. It doesn't mean that there shall be no regulation of production or consumption. Almost all liberals (believers in property rights and liberty) think that there should be limitations on the use of the commons.

>leads to more efficient use of resources

debatable. half of the food in the us - no exaggeration - gets thrown away, planned obsolescence is a thing, american cars are highly wasteful because petrol is relatively cheap

>no one really gives a fuck about anything separated from humanity
Then what's the propaganda for? You ideologue. Liar.

>amazed at how this is considered a neo-marxist theory
I would be less amazed had they the ability to stop scapegoating capitalism for natural phenomena that our puny CO2 laws can never affect meaningfully, or human behavior extraneous to capitalist societies and economic systems.

>even nick land
How many times must he quote Das Kapital before you see any similarity between this neo-marxist and the other neo-marxists? He's even a bigger marxian than them as his idiocies are closer to the 19th century's and earlier.

Just compare the number of times you heard: "Won't somebody think of the humans?" to: "Humans are evil/overpopulated/not natural/etc who bully Nature" as an argument in favor of environmental policies of any sort.

Ask yourself: "If people think themselves to be on the right side of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, science, reason, truth, justice, as well as the good of humankind, what is this unceasing pathologic drive to lie coming from? Can't they simply behave in an honest manner and tell people whose animals' environment are we destroying again? Why be wrong when all they had to do was being right, as advertised? Was it too easy? Needed a challenge?"

Then ask yourself: "Do I like being deceived?", and: "Are the people who deceive me deserving of my trust?"

Saving the best for the last, ask yourself the million dollar question: "Why are organizations so scared of building a relationship of trust, and go out of their way to disseminate easily disproven claims, the kind that the first kid on /pol/ can effortlessly refute them and "red pill" people into joining his fight? Can't they stop this suicidal retardation already?"

...

You may be right that the "natural world" is not going to be destroyed by climate change/pollution, but you're missing the point. Do you want a world where only protozoa exist?

>corporations wont exist
how would they not? is she gonna ask them to stop? is she going to invade them? Her ideal doesnt exist it would become a Corporative Oligarchal faux Anarchy. Obviously being worse for the environment than the current system

>quoting marx makes you a neo-marxist
>nick land is a neo-marxist
>recognizing that capital is the hegemonic force supreme to all things in our time is ideology

you even fundamentally misunderstand what i mean when i say "no one really gives a fuck about anything separated from humanity." you again repeat your autistic Veeky Forums notions and then reveal you're an uneducated pol fag

go back to your containment board you fucking peabrain

Post more lewd women

Sounds to me like you have a lot to learn from your friend. Instead of listening to your gut, why not listen to your friend?

>Veeky Forums please defend my views for me because I can't do it myself

yes its debateable, more so often true in the inefficient case, but a First world country is 6 hours of retooling away from unfucking itself, shitty 3rd world countries are not, and the only people not shitting on the environment in these areas are pre-civilized hunter gatherers who have somebody from the first world telling them how many animals are left in the area and when they can and cant hunt them

>debatable. half of the food in the us - no exaggeration - gets thrown away, planned obsolescence is a thing, american cars are highly wasteful because petrol is relatively cheap

those things happen because the price sets them to be abundant. sure you could use the abundance that is generated hyper efficiently, but compared to other systems it does a good job with the raw materials.

_D
Or even better, neck yourself you illiterate faggot. All you've done in this retarded thread is spam buzzwords you don't understand, and ask to be spoonfed. Hang yourself.

>how would they not? is she gonna ask them to stop?
What she wants as an anarchist and how she is going to get it are two very different things. I don't know what the latter would be but it will involve a lot of smashing.

>Her ideal doesnt exist it would become a Corporative Oligarchal faux Anarchy.
>presupposing corporations has to exist in any political ideal
Ah so it was pure ideology after all. Mein Gott!

>second the natural world or environment is a spook
lmao you should write a whole essay like this

>How many times must he quote Das Kapital before you see any similarity between this neo-marxist and the other neo-marxists?

the capitalist economic theory, as well as hundreds of other theories, draw heavily from marx as well, you illiterate fucktard.

Let's say me and my buddy BurnStuff McDrillsALot both really have a hankering for some oil, and we convince a team of five or six friends to punch a big 'ol hole in the desert to extract oil. Then, we burn it, just 'cause. None of us do it for the money or for power over anyone else, so we're in the clear, as far as basic Anarchist theory goes. In fact, the only way to stop us from doing this would be to form a violent organization which would oppress me and BurnStuff McDrillsALot and our five or six friends.

Anarchism =/= environmentalism. They're definitionally at odds.

If you actually want to save the environment, or prevent starvation, or do anything besides let a bunch of morons fuck about and ruin everything, you need a hierarchical power structure of some kind.

This seems like something OPs friend would agree with.
Stupid picture, nooses (neese?) don't work on penguins' heads.
>I would be less amazed had they the ability to stop scapegoating capitalism for natural phenomena that our puny CO2 laws can never affect meaningfully
CO2 laws are an exponent of capitalism, dummy.
>Saving the best for the last, ask yourself the million dollar question: "Why are organizations so scared of building a relationship of trust, and go out of their way to disseminate easily disproven claims, the kind that the first kid on /pol/ can effortlessly refute them and "red pill" people into joining his fight? Can't they stop this suicidal retardation already?"
Literally what the heck are you talking about?
>american cars are highly wasteful because petrol is relatively cheap
Therefore it would be a waste (of engineering man-hours, materials, maintenance) to make engines more efficient.
I'll give you planned obsolescence though, that shit sucks.

engines dont require a lot of engineering to make more eficient

>Help me win an argument

The worst threads on Veeky Forums

Thankfully this thread went quite nicely since OP failed to actually state his opponent's case.

Then she's a well-meaning idiot.
Environmental protection and reservation stars with more regulations, not less.

Capitalism, as bad as it is to the environment, is still controlled to some degree. Even in the US, land of the money home of the sheep, politicians must keep the crowd in mind when it comes to regulation. A company might pay for less regulation and governmental control over their use of natural resources, but if it causes political turmoil it might not be worth it to the corrupt politicians.

this.

the actual damage to the environment happens in underdeveloped countries, not here. precisely because we do not have anarchy, we have institutions.

>the actual damage to the environment happens in underdeveloped countries, not here, because we shift it there
fixed

partly, but it is also partly their own fault. the deforestation in haiti, for example, would be preventable with better local politics.

>you even fundamentally misunderstand what i mean when i say "no one really gives a fuck about anything separated from humanity."
Why do you lie?

>nick land is a neo-marxist
Yes, he is. It's not like neo-marxists are leftists.

>recognizing that capital is the hegemonic force supreme to all things in our time is ideology
Who are you quoting?

>Then what's the propaganda for?
Propaganda is almost by definition dishonest.

>7 billion people free-wheeling waste and ressources management with no state structure to organize it will be good for the panet

lel, sounds like a plan.

There are none
All of that is also capitalism or a reaction to capitalism. Try again.
>human rights
Spook

i know this is bait, but no, east germany was neither capitalism nor a reaction to capitalism, it was a satellite of the soviet union.

>Implying she is wrong
Reminder that Malthus was always correct. Infinite growth can't occur with a finite amount of sustainability and resources.

Anarchism would mean no corporations you illiterate
Eco-anarchism doesn't meme stability you illiterate.
There is no nature, there is only nature in capitalism
Go be a nihilist somewhere else.

Anclap spotted

Good job, you don't understand green anarchism or anarchism at all.
Wrong. The majority of damage is caused by industrial agriculture and the like. That does not exist in developing countries to the same degree.
Come back when you know what you're fucking talking about, anclap
>anything i dont like is bait
Communism is a reaction to capitalism. Try again, illiterate.

>Let's abolish the state and liberate much wildlife
>Don't worry life is post scarcity now/don't worry fuck technology luddites dindu nuffin
>Read Unibomber Manifesto
Hang yourself , you and your ideology are garbage

if they're a hardcore eco-anarchist, they should believe the natural world is not sustainable. it doesn't matter if we get rid of capitalism, we're about as immortal as giant dragonflies.

damage from agriculture in the first world isnt permanent you fucking moron

Not an argument.
The necessary conclusion of green anarchism is anarcho-primitivism with hand tools.
It basically is you fucking moron.
Stop spewing the shit they taught you in business ethics.

yes, the dust bowl was permanent, america is a barren wasteland with no wildlife

he might mean the sahara which has been expanding since at least roman times

which is the 3rd world

The dust bowl was before the fossil fuel based fertiliser gmo huge scale monoculture we practice now. Soil is being depleted much more aggressively.

on a nutritional scale their depleted, things are still growing as high yield as theyve ever been

>Anarcho primitivism is the only logical conclusion
T. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

Which leads to malnourished fatty mandem aka seppos.

that aint environmental damage now is it?

The soil not being able to grow nutritious plants any more is.

theres this thing called soil rejuvenation

it's still human deforestation and land erosion on a massive scale.

start with the sahara pls

>thinking anarchy would be anything but the oppression of the weak by the strong
>thinking the instinct to aggregate influence via favors to build power is a product of capitalism rather than human nature
> "Important contemporary currents (some of which may be mutually exclusive) include anarcho-primitivism, which offers a critique of technology and argues that anarchism is best suited to pre-"civilised" ways of life; veganarchism, which argues that human liberation and animal liberation are inseparable;[7] and social ecology, which argues that the hierarchical domination of nature by human stems from the hierarchical domination of human by human.[8]"
>there are people who think this isn't a meme

any form of anarchism only works if everybody plays by the rules. If 99% played by the rules they would be incapable of protecting themselves from predatory behaviour from the 1%.

Tell her that women spend 85% of all used money.

Your friend is right though.

White Capitalists won't stop destroying the atmosphere until they realize their actions are turning them black in the scorching heat.

Ozone hole is the smallest it's been in like 30 years. We're here to stay and don't worry, it's okay to be white.

>Reminder that Malthus was always correct. Infinite growth can't occur with a finite amount of sustainability and resources.

good thing we are constantly hitting the bounds of infinite growth, or ever could.

if you are ready to measure human accomplishment against infinity, you may aswell insert whatever bullshit scenario you want into your mind.

>Eco-anarchism doesn't meme stability you illiterate.
Then what else do you want, my child?

I'm looking at the OP to quintuple check and appreciating how God told you it was a girl instead of a forty year old small town philosophy teacher.

>feeling a motherly sense of protection for an abstraction like the 'natural world'
>not solely the domain of the gender that would call an inanimate object like a house 'cute'

>one event represents all event
You do realize that once the fertility is gone, it cannot be returned without ridiculous labor?
It's a damn ecosystem. You kill that and you make the soil inert.
The 'third world' isn't detached from the '1st world' you stupid dualist.
And it takes hundreds of years of labor.
Fucking industrialists.

>being this deluded
>citing wikipedia
Back to plebbit please
I'm older than you. Eat a dick.

you cant dump toxic waste willy nilly in the 1st world, here you get sued by a regulatory agency, the 3rd world you just pay off the government, you dont even need to hire a lobbyist
>hundreds of years of labor.
it takes a less than half a decade actually
micro organisms do all the "Labor" of breaking down organic matter

Max Weber's "Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism"

Your friend needs to understand that Capitalism is paradoxically a disenchanted spiritual state.
All "movements" against Capitalism will simply be subsumed and made a commodity until "the last ton of fossilised coal is burned"

His essay "religious rejections..." can also bring some of this to light re: the various spheres of value one can turn to while stuck in the "Iron cage of modernity"

Except we are functionally dumping toxic waste. It's pathetic how ignorant you are.
>it takes a less than half a decade actually
Wrong.

laissez-faire capitalism is not environmentally sustainable anymore, but you don't need to go full commie\anarchist (whatever that means) to fix the issue. keybesian capitalism is a much better alternative

>hardcore eco-anarchist
you can be one or the other, the only way to preserve the environment in the long term is through brutal, extremely unpopular measures, which would require authoritarian governments

maybe if youd stop buying the new iphone every 6 months like a vapid moron

oh yes I forgot, compost takes 500 years to make

this

>compost
You do realize that it needs to be distributed
Right
And that it isn't nearly that simple.
I have never owned an iPhone. Stop projecting fashy.

Have her read ISAIF. Her anarchism is probably just reactionary BS.

>commie thinks simple work is completely impossible
if you think growing microbiomes and spreading dirt is hard, why dont you just kill yourself so the world doesnt have to waste resources on people like you when the weather finally changes

Answer my question, kid.

>I'm older than you.
I'm 71

How has this pic not been deleted yet?

only thing wrong with that pic is your dirty interpretation

>commie
Not an argument

But I'm sure you know more about the process than somebody involved in land regeneration.
Business-school faggot
You haven't asked anything that isn't more loaded than your mother's cunt you cunt

You can't answer loaded questions, hippie boy?

Unironically, this