/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20165398]

Toward the end of that book, I literally threw it across the room and never picked it back up. When he shifts from retrospective to prospective issues facing humanity and the planet, he casts some lazy and dangerous ideas around, that are contrary to academic understanding in the discipline of global sustainability studies (master of Env. here).

He asserts that despite ballooning human population growth and resource consumption rates greater than earth's capacity to provide/ regenerate, and externalities such as waste and carbon exponentially increasing, that humankind have such great ingenuity (increasing efficiency/ new tech / pivoting to new resource types), that we will likely overcome it all in our inevitable strides to advancement, and everything will be ok.

This a blatantly ignorant mis-characterisation of what our species and planet are facing right now. What he has drawn on, knowingly or not, is known as the environmental Kuznets curve (the notion that advances in efficiency are channeled into tempering resource use, rather than applied for more outputs, which is obviously a flawed notion in a capitalist market & species with a blistering population growth), an economic argument wielded frequently and heavily by the far-right governments as an excuse not to act on climate change. A claim that is widely discredited in environmental academic studies.

I'd say he should stick to history, but it seems perhaps he hasn't won friends in that department either.

[Anonymous No.20165414]

The end up the book is profoundly different from the heart of the book. I don't consider it to really have to do with the book's 'message', it's just his personal interpretation of the general principles he has outlined and you are more than welcome to reject it.

It's basically just an advertisement for his next book, which is declaredly about those things.

[Anonymous No.20165427]

>>20165398
how about you study something actually useful instead of your gender studies tier shit. also the human population is on the decline thanks to globohomo, literally. i guess turning everyone trans and gay is one way to stop the population from growing kek

[Anonymous No.20165432]

>>20165398
I can't even tell if a book is propaganda or just facts anymore.

[Anonymous No.20165433]

>>20165427
The human population is growing. We're about to hit 8 billion.

[Anonymous No.20165552]

>>20165427
he contributes more to society than you do, Anon.

[Anonymous No.20165570]

>>20165398
I didn't like it much either. I found his thesis that wheat "domesticated" humans to be extremely suspect, though I lack the expertise to refute it. I am instinctively wary of anyone who idealizes pre-civilization humanity as a sort of Edenic utopia, and he was clearly trying to push that thesis in the beginning of his book.

[Anonymous No.20165576]

>>20165432
>litbro
>bro

[Anonymous No.20165594]

>>20165432
Source on this girl

[Anonymous No.20165619]

>>20165398
Why do you think Bill Gates name appears on the cover before that of the author?

[Anonymous No.20165624]

>>20165576
who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.20165625]

>>20165619
meds.

[Anonymous No.20165632]

>>20165398
Lol interesting that that's what got you, I though it started sucking once it left prehistory, antiquity at the latest.

Development of ntersubjectivity as the analytic focal point of a history of humanity is a good idea right up until we know enough about the content of those intersubjective matters that analyzing those becomes a science in itself. From then any further point you make is necessarily an oversimplifaction and very quickly entirely devoid of any value.

[Anonymous No.20165676]

>>20165398
>This a blatantly ignorant mis-characterisation of what our species and planet are facing right now. What he has drawn on, knowingly or not, is known as the environmental Kuznets curve - an economic argument wielded frequently and heavily by the far-right governments as an excuse not to act on climate change. A claim that is widely discredited in environmental academic studies.
I don't know what environmental studies say, but environmental 'action' has taken just that course anyway. It's adopted the position (or rather steered in this direction by propaganda) that further 'progress' in science and technology can help us decrease pollution and emissions, while at the same time allowing us to maintain our current lifestyle and economic activity.
That's why the instructions generally recommend "avoid consuming X and replace it with newer, more efficient Y" instead of coming to terms with the fact that we may have to regress to a condition where we simply abolish 90% of our consumerist habits and economic activities altogether.
There's no 'moving forward', either economically, scientifically or technologically without polluting and destabilizing our natural surroundings further. The idea that human ingenuity and goodwill to 'save the environment' (and also mend it) can keep up with newly arising consumer needs and market trends is simply a sham.

[Anonymous No.20165677]

>Toward the end of that book, I literally threw it across the room and never picked it back up.
#metoo
i want my money back

[Anonymous No.20165790]

>>20165398
Harari is a godsend. He saved me so much time. Someone I just met mentions his books and I know I can move right the fuck on and find somebody else to talk to.

[Anonymous No.20165845]

>>20165790
you pretentious fagget youre not better than the person bragging about reading Harari

[Anonymous No.20165883]

>>20165594
Spanish model called Blanca Soler. Insanely pretty.

[Anonymous No.20165887]

>>20165845
Maybe not, but I sure as fuck read better books.

[Anonymous No.20165890]

>>20165427
Africa hasn't received that memo yet

[Anonymous No.20165896]

>He now specializes in world history and macro-historical processes.
Read: he's not an actual historian

[Anonymous No.20165897]

>>20165398
It's a decent book and it's well written. You might disagree with him but you can't prove that he is wrong, its just a different theoretical model he's using to predict the future than your own. I don't get why people sperg out so much about this book. It's not worth taking that seriously, it's just a fun, entertaining book. It's not a serious work.

[Anonymous No.20165919]

>>20165625
They both agree that there are “too many” human beings

[Anonymous No.20165967]

>>20165676
ENVIRONMENTALISM REALISING THE ANTI-CONSUMERIST DREAM BABYYYYY

[Anonymous No.20166044]

>>20165790
This.

[Anonymous No.20166085]

>>20165845
Hes totally better than someone praising harari. Harari is literal jew poison. Anon is nudging the world towards sanity with this take.

[Anonymous No.20166109]

>>20165398
hey op, if you truly have a master of Env, would you mind sharing some sage advice: i am deciding between agriculture and environmental studies OR medicine and neuropathology (perhaps specializing in pharmacology/nutrition). I dont mean to derail your thread, I plan on reading this book once i finish freud and before i start Jung. But i wanted to know if you enjoy your work? do you find it rewarding and self-satisfying? I've read a lot on the anthropocene and I think it's absolutely fascinating. also what lit would you recommend that gives some more ethical and approachable solution to the climate issues?

[Anonymous No.20166159]

>>20166109
gif has me loling

[Anonymous No.20166227]

>>20165398
>far-right governments as an excuse not to act on climate change
You had be untill here.
Left wing goverments don't do shit either besides scraping the surface and putting up some cheap facade. With full on communism often all environmental regulations are ignored and massive disasters happen and with the current left wing ''environmetalists'' it is nothing more than a fashion item. Things like blocking that pipeline getting rid of all those jobs and instead they choose to just get more shale oil which is actually even worse for the environment and releases methane. They are also all for solar and wind (totally ignoring rare earth metal shortages) but are the ones who fearmonger most about nuclear power. The problem is not just le capitalism and le right-wing bad (also many far-right groups are far more extremely environmentalist than the left-wing). This problem is intrinsic in any system that allows for such large populations.

[Anonymous No.20166263]

>>20165432
>facts
Maybe stick to fiction

[Anonymous No.20166271]

>>20165398
nice b8.

[Anonymous No.20166414]

>>20165398
>contrary to academic understanding in the discipline of global sustainability studies
He’s Mossad. Special Intelligence. He’s trying to sculpt narrative and inform ideology of the rich NYT best seller huffers to whom this otherwise unremarkable world-systems thinking crap is marketed.

[Anonymous No.20166448]

>>20165570
I thought he was more trying to contrast pre-civilization humanity with early agricultural communities where violence flourished. I took it as a rejection of traditional liberal historicism, saying that actually life got worse before it got better (as reductive as that is).
>I found his thesis that wheat "domesticated" humans to be extremely suspect
Yea a lot of his arguments came off as hasty and lacking rigor but interesting all the same

[Anonymous No.20166456]

>>20165398
/x/chizo Chad here
This guy is the official historian of the Davos agenda. He basically wants to characterize our species as no more than material beings in a material universe, thus we must object against metaphysical concepts such as "freedom" in order to perpetuate our material existence.
This agenda is more visible in Homo Deus.

Meanwhile, the overlords very aware of their metaphysical existence and the comprehension that the whole universe is actually a small spec of light from the heavenly kingdom will be able to rule in their Luciferian order where they will rule this spec of light as their own.
Their goal is to submit mankind to this new reality within a reality, a virtual underworld crafted by the lower demiurges (human beings who decodified Luciferian arts into tech)

Do not read such propaganda. Resist the Antichrist and be saved, walk towards the
other end of the ultralight beam

[Anonymous No.20166466]

>>20165398
Yes, Harrari is a literal demon

[Anonymous No.20166555]

>>20165919
Too many first worlders as things stand, really.

[Anonymous No.20166648]

>>20165398
faggot carbon induced climate change is a joke compared to tectonic shifting and celestial bombardments

[Anonymous No.20166663]

>>20166648
More than enough to wipe the floor with us. And galactic bursts or the sun going nova are both even worse, yet don't yammer about them.

[Anonymous No.20166676]

>>20166663
the money being shilled for le carbon emissions meme needs to go to asteroid deflection, that is what will end humanity

[Anonymous No.20166690]

>>20166676
You're not big on scientific consensus, are you? And asteroids are actually being tracked.

[Anonymous No.20166692]

>>20165398
I agree the last half was exceedingly cringe

[Anonymous No.20166720]

>>20166690
you fucking retard they are only tracking asteroids 1 kilometer and larger. Muh scientific consensus is invalidated after climategate when they were discussing suppressing the cooling peroid from the 1940 to 1970 and the hockey stick models using two differing data samples

[Anonymous No.20166724]

>>20165427
unironically touch grass

[Anonymous No.20166745]

>>20166720
>you fucking retard they are only tracking asteroids 1 kilometer and larger.
https://www.livescience.com/asteroid-2007-ff1-misses-earth
I'm pretty sure 200m is smaller than 1km, but it seems to be tracked since 2007.
From the same article:
>NASA and other space agencies monitor these near-Earth objects closely. In November 2021, NASA launched an asteroid-deflecting spacecraft called the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART), which will slam head-on into the 530-foot-wide (160 m) Dimorphos asteroid in autumn 2022.
I'm also pretty sure that 160m is also smaller than 1km, but maybe my "fucking retard" brain is just that bad at math. Anyways, you can stop your soft climate denial shtick. It only works on certain people, of which I am not part.
>Muh scientific consensus is invalidated
No, it wasn't. You wish it was, though, clearly. But it was just another climate denial tactic. Meanwhile, Exxon and BP and Total and really, most of the oil producers knew all the facts from 1971 at the earliest. They have good scientists. But probably better marketing, given your outbursts.

[Anonymous No.20166792]

>>20166745
Anyways, you can stop your soft climate alarmist shtick. It only works on certain people, of which I am not part.
>Muh scientific consensus isn't invalidated
Yes, it was. You wish it wasn't, though, clearly. But it was just another climate alarmist tactic. Meanwhile, Tesla and Solar City and really, most renewable producers knew all the facts from their inception. They have good scientists. But probably better marketing, given your outbursts.

[Anonymous No.20166808]

>>20166745
https://www.livescience.com/surprise-asteroid-flyby
https://www.cnet.com/science/surprise-asteroid-whizzed-by-earth-and-we-didnt-even-blink/
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2022/march/unexpected-asteroid-smacks-into-earth-with-little-warning-should-we-be-concerned
https://globalnews.ca/news/7067086/asteroid-near-miss-earth/

>oil companies
these people benefit the most from the climate change propaganda because it puts coal and natural gas out of business while the alternatives demand diesel backups

[Anonymous No.20166814]

Many people have this weird fear of a reduction in the global population as a likely future; and it largely comes from those super entrenched in the consumerist ethos.

Just because the population decreases doesn't mean the world becomes worse.

[Anonymous No.20166858]

>>20166456
Well put. Thanks schizo!

[Anonymous No.20166863]

>>20166808
Doesn't seem like any of these would actually kill human civilisation. And neither natural gas nor coal are viable alternatives to oil GHG wise, nor vice versa. You should maybe do some more research on the subject so you can tackle it better next time. A hint, people who are more intelligent than you on the climate denial stuff are now using geo-engineering, such as increasing the atmosphere's albedo, or the notion of developmental overshoot, to boost their messaging about how everything's fine and don't worry about it. Don't thank me. But stop listening to Alex Jones. Or if you do, don't try to argue on /lit/.
>>20166792
Good job on demonstrating how stupid your climate denial shtick is. Please, take my advice.

[Anonymous No.20166865]

>>20166814
Good point. There's just a lot of connotation around population being "reduced" by violence. Less people would be good for everybody.

[Anonymous No.20166878]

>>20166863
i dont think you realize how stable the climate has been. Plus every period higher that was warmer than it is currently were the most prosperous peroid in history. Also carbon is only 410 ppm how much should it actually be? *hint* its not less than this

[Anonymous No.20166883]

>>20166878
(correction)
i dont think you realize how stable the climate has been. Plus every period that was warmer than it is currently were the most prosperous periods in history. Also carbon dioxide is only 410 ppm how much should it actually be? *hint* its not less than this

[Anonymous No.20166901]

>>20166863
also nobody serious is denying the climate has warmed since the mini ice age which was the largest glaciation since the holocene started

[Anonymous No.20166912]

>>20166878
>>20166883
>>20166901
Again, please take my advice.

[Anonymous No.20166931]

>>20166912
why? your advice is retarded. If you unironically believe that carbon dioxide levels are the gravest threat to humanity you are a fucking retard. A single asteroid impact or large volcano eruption could cause actual disastrous climate change. Telsas arent gonna fix that

[Anonymous No.20166995]

>>20166456
I was with you until the antichrist luciferian mumbo jumbo. But yeah, fuck him he’s just another corporate shill trying to put an academic veneer on the shady ass status quo

[Anonymous No.20167148]

Throwing the book across the room because it disagrees with your professors is pretty immature OP, maybe you should be a bit more humble and not presume to know everything just because you've done a masters.. sounds like there are other more personal issues at play here.

[Anonymous No.20167168]

>>20166931
>It doesn't matter because some freak event would be way worse
>You shouldn't exercise because you could get hit by a car tomorrow
Your argument is a bad one, and I suspect deeply disingenuous

[Anonymous No.20167241]

>>20167168
That's not even remotely comparable because exercise has been proven to aid ones well being. Carbon dioxide is a vital life producing molecule that our atmosphere needs. Reducing the amount of carbon would be like smoking crack and saying it's healthy

[Anonymous No.20167274]

>>20167241
>Reducing the amount of carbon would be like smoking crack and saying it's healthy
Dumb. That was a dumb statement. You, yes you Anon, are dumb.

[Anonymous No.20167289]

>>20166912
>gets btfo'd
>continues to post like a smug, childish redditor
People more intelligent than you are talking, OP. Stop blindly clinging to your indoctrination and listen to them.

[Anonymous No.20167309]

>>20167274
Anon you do realize plants will not grow below 180 ppm for the last million years we've been in an ice age and those increases have been what has saved plants and land animals during this period

[Anonymous No.20167326]

>>20167309
And you realize we are well over twice that and still exponentially increasing? And that there's an optimal window of CO2 ppmv that we are exceeding?

>CO2 is good for plants so even more CO2 is even more good
That's you. That's literally your argument. And it's really, really dumb.

[Anonymous No.20167369]

Does it terrify anyone else how widespread this climate change conspiracy theory has become? You have conspiracy theorists like OP who are somehow convinced that every aspect of modern life is controlled by oil companies and who have convinced zoomers of this to the point where they're becoming suicidally depressed. It's no different from "da joos" or Qanon, except for the part where it's being pushed by people who have actual power (academics, billionaires and media assets) which ironically makes it more right wing than either of those theories. Add to that the part where the biggest bag holders in every climate-change prevention bill are the workers, and I really don't see how anyone who believes in the climate change conspiracy theory can call themselves 'left-wing' with a straight face.
OP, take your meds.

[Anonymous No.20167448]

>>20167326
Lol talk to me when we get to 1000 ppm and if it is such a concern you can always hold your breath

[Anonymous No.20167455]

>>20167326
Have you ever been inside a greenhouse?

[Anonymous No.20167523]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

[Anonymous No.20167542]

>>20166814
>Just because the population decreases doesn't mean the world becomes worse.
Historically, your children were your social security.
Who is there to take care of the old nowadays? Unaffiliated younger people ever smaller in number supported by a pyramid scheme?

[Anonymous No.20167615]

>>20165398
It's not meant to educate or inform, this is the chicken soup for the soul for globalist, neoliberal, pop-culture slaves to pat themselves on the back and feel that always tuning in to rachael maddow, wanting what they're told to want, and signaling in social media bios are what make them good people.

Jason Hickel is the foil to this, has written extensively on the exact opposite side of what was described in the OP, though from more of a leftist, green imperative perspective. Which should be fine since the leftists hate him too, strangely.

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

[Anonymous No.20167748]

>>20165398
Is there any good reason I should read globohomo fodder like this instead of Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.20167749]

>>20167289
Btfo'ed by whom exactly? The Alex Jones conspiracy theorist? Please.

[Anonymous No.20168495]

>>20167749
> believing in literal doomsday propaganda
> calls others Alex Jones conspiracy theorists