What do you think is accurate?
That we have to turn 180 degree south, meaning in this context abolish industrialisation, let some bilions starve and go back working the land with stone tools, or hunting and gathering?
That we have to turn 180 degree south, meaning in this context abolish industrialisation, let some bilions starve and go back working the land with stone tools, or hunting and gathering?
Just as you say the only response is 180 degrees and abolish industry. Then what is your current 0 degrees heading, dumping waste right in the rivers, abolish the EPA to let industry profit more? Cut all safeguards on industry?
Also, environmentalism is at most a distant secondary theme in the manifesto. The primary reasons he gives for being anti-industrialization have nothing to do with preserving the environment.
Because it can be ecology, if done right.
Garbage has to be moved anyway. So if you move all the cans (alluminium) to one place and resmelt it, than this is definitely less ressource intense, than mining new alluminium and shipping it.
It has to be reduced drastically first (buying local, avoiding plastic packaging, composting food wastes separately (what a shame to send that to an incinerator)
Aluminium cans (their paints however is toxic), or glass bottles is the best case, but most of the time it's plastic bottles (for water, which is nonsensical, people should use tap water, or soft drinks, or juices, both unhealthy products)
We in germany don't.
Otherwise sure. Reuse, reduce, recycle.
And I think it is ok, if in the process of transitioning from not caring and throwing all in the bin - towards sustainability, that there will be also lots of stupid things done in the name of ecology. (I have seen so much waste and inefficency, by people who think they do good) But it is all experimenting, on what works and what doesn't. Socially and economically. I am actually optimistic, that we get towards a sustainable society eventually, but I don't think, I will live that long.
For polluting less, what sure works is to buy less, possess less things
To all the other replies about "this or that solution" is not really helping the environment. So what. Do something. Calling out how some things have failed as a seeming argument to give up and just pollute is a failure mind set. "Oh well, recycling didn't work as well as we thought, guess I'll just dump my hamburger wrapper in the ditch", is BS. Do people really not remember how polluted the highways used to be with trash, or rivers catching on fire from chemical dumping. We have made progress, and we should try to make more progress. Not be like "well EV's still create a lot of waste, guess I'll just go de-tune my Mustang and do some dragging this weekend". I can't believe how many people split hairs on some technology-X and use it as excuse to do nothing.
Everything happens “in the environment”, of course.
What I meant was that Ted Kaczynski’s main motivation for wanting to return to primitive agriculturalism was not a concern about industrialization damaging the environment. So he would not have cared about EVs or recycling as they are still happening in a technological society.
I did actually and I miss it.
But there is a reason, I am not raising my kids there.
But a fridge, hot showers, supermarket and if needed a hospital, are kind of useful.
If all that would be suddenly missing, things would get very bloddy, as hunting cannot sustain 7+ bio people.
So I am not wishing for a collaps, even though I do understand (and sometimes feel) the hate of the savage towards the concrete people.