35
They are not limiting their foot print to 1/4 acre. They are using bikes, using glass and forge the forest.
It's like offloading your aluminum production to another country and claiming you are living 100% on renewable.
Last sentence:
"Forage for food and materials from their local forest."
Talk about burying the lede. They can only function on a quarter acre by "stealing" from the public forests.
If everyone did that there would be no public forests. There's not enough wood and food for everyone.
I really don't understand why you're nitpicking someone who is trying to drastically reduce their impact. What would you recommend they do?
That guy is exactly who people point to when they say climate change activists are insufferable twats. Lmao like sure bud keep eating your own, that's historically worked well.
The real answer to your question what would you recommend they do? Not listen to that guy.
LoL "stealing". Are you "stealing" the air you're breathing right now? That's a weird choice of word. Anyway.
But you're right. If everyone started to live like this, it would be devastating. But when you think about it, think about how many forests were cut down and how much land was taken and transformed just for agriculture around the world just to feed us humans. It's insane.
I put it in quotes because I didn't have a better word. If it's a public park and I walk in with turf cutter, and take all the grass for my own yard, that's clearly stealing from everyone.
How much can I take from a public forest without it being stealing? Can I cut down 1 tree for firewood? 10? How much foraging can I do before local wildlife is affected?
I don't expect that one single family to be foraging that much to a point where the local wildlife is affected.
Which is why I specifically said if everyone did it it would be a problem.
And I agreed with you.
Yes. Stealing. From the taxpayers that maintain that forest. From the public who owns the property.
Stealing is exactly right. Because while everyone can breathe air, there isn't enough of that forest to go around if everyone lived like this.
Welcome everyone to the concept of the commons (and by extension the tragedy of the commons)
The tragedy of the commons is, literally, privatization.
No it's not.
The tragedy of the commons is when too many people use a public resource in a way that is unsustainable. For example, air is not privatized but air pollution impacts everyone who checks notes uses air.
That's not to say there aren't solutions to the Tragedy of the Commons problem and resources cannot be made publicly available, but systems need to be created to manage common resources.
The tragedy of the commons is when too many people use a public resource in a way that is unsustainable.
Close, but not.
The "overuse" is an aspect of mismanagement of the commons, it's not simply about overuse, it's about the management. The understanding that "someone just used up all that nice stuff" is poor, even in accordance with the author of this theory.
The tragedy is that the its so mismanaged that it allows an asshole to ruin it for everyone. That's not some default, that's what happens when you have poor management. Plenty of commons have good management and it's a known field and theory. If you want to go by this view, you can read Ostrom who actually researched the issue of management:
https://aeon.co/essays/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false-and-dangerous-myth
https://tn.boell.org/en/2023/04/19/5-elinor-ostrom-et-les-huit-principes-de-gestion-des-communs (look for YouTube lectures too).
In practice, however, what you describe as the asshole greedily and selfishly taking from the commons is literally the act of privatization. Which is why the usual capitalist "solution" to this problem - official privatization - is a failure.
Here's also a humorous podcast explaining what's wrong with it: https://player.fm/series/srsly-wrong/ep-235-the-imaginary-tragedy-of-the-hypothetical-commons in case you like to listen.
Oh! Great reply! That's interesting.
The thing about the tragedy of the commons is that it’s basically bullshit. It’s been debunked as long as it’s been around. It’s privatization propaganda, nothing more.
People have been equitably maintaining commons for literally all of human history, and they are good at doing so within their communities. Social structures to maintain commons without official regulation have been in place for generations without major issues.
https://aeon.co/essays/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false-and-dangerous-myth
Yes. Stealing. From the taxpayers that maintain that forest. From the public who owns the property.
And from the indigenous people who originally lived there - these people are very clearly not Aboriginal Australians.
I've heard Native American activists argue that white influencer style permaculture is inherently racist when performed on American soil, because it's modeled on a romanticized ideal of white settler lifeways and has nothing to do with how permaculture was actually practiced in North America before the genocides. I'm not sure how I feel about that argument. But having a family of white Australian permaculturists literally stealing from public land to maintain their settler lifestyle... it's a little too on the nose.
Pretty sure they don't grow their bicycles either!
He talked about community trade so I'll give him that. I don't want to give the impression that his lifestyle of living with less is wrong or bad.
I only question his sustainability claims when he is clearing the forest to heat his house.
They explicitly said this wasn't the solution for everyone 😊
I carefully reread the transcript. They don't say that anywhere.
He talks about sustainability. But if everyone lived sustainably like him the forest would be gone in a few years for firewood.
There are too many people.
there are too many people
This is the root cause of most of our problems.
Climate change is just a symptom of overshoot.
If we want to have a stable livable climate we need to.live with the emissions of the average Cuban (Professor Kevin Anderson) That allows the worlds poorest to have more emissions per capita and the worlds richest to come down a lot, and by a lot I mean a metric shit load.
How we do that and what that looks like is up to us but if we don't soon, we'll likely collapse. civilisation anyway and none if it will matter and we won't be talking about it on here.
Everyone should be poor, great!
100s of millions are already doing this, it’s called poverty.
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
35 points (84.3% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
4664 readers
1030 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS