askchapo

22763 readers

19 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

Posts must ask a question.
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
Try [email protected] if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

what does degrowth look like? (hexbear.net)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

as an aside in the latest Trillbillies episode Terrence said that we need degrowth communism and it got me wondering what that means to everyone. to hopefully stifle any silly debates i'll clarify that i'm talking about the West, not underdeveloped/overexploited nations in the Global South.

an end to oil drilling, gas extraction, and coal mining will obviously be necessary to stop climate change. how much modern technology can we replicate without relying on those things or other ecologically violent resource extraction? what does an agriculture system that doesn't rely on petrochem-derived fertilizers and herbicides look like? how do we repair the immense damage that's already been done?

i'd really appreciate some book recommendations on this topic as well as everyone's thoughts

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

why not nuclear? it's way more space efficient, and solar panels need to be replaced every 20 years

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You run out of efficiently mine-able uranium fairly quickly when trying to scale up to the electrification energy needs of an entire planet.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

well yeah, I'm not saying the whole world should be powered by just nuclear. solar definitely has its own place as does wind, hydroelectric, and the like.

there is also alternative reactor types like thorium, and if research continues fusion (which will be more feasible under communism with a well resourced public research and energy sector)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Sure, I'm not really anti-nuclear generally. It is in the mix and will continue to be in the mix. However, I don't think it will be a linchpin.

People also talk about reactors taking a long time to build but all of this stuff will take a long time to build. We will overshoot. I have accepted this. All I can hope for is we don't double down and use solar radiation management to forever rob our children of a brilliant blue sky.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

why not nuclear?

It takes 15-20 years to build, we'll run out of fuel in a few years if you use it as the main energy source, and other renewables are already good enough.

Nuclear was a useful stop-gap when solar/wind tech wasn't developed. Nuclear as a main energy source is pretty much dead in the water today though.