Results 1 to 5 of 5
Ecology
I know that to philosophise about "what would a communist society look like" is in most cases fruitless. Thats why for this point i mean if you could implement changes now, which would it be.
For me i would implement measures to end world hunger, make world peace, end all hierarchy etc etc. However i would also implement measures to save ecology, for example stop polution as much as practicable without lowering standards of living. I found that a lot of people who claim to me "communist" find this to be of secondary, or none, importance. What do you all think we should do about ecology in a communist society?
What do you mean by "ecology"? The term usually refers to a science. Do you mean "Ecosystem"? In that case, it would make sense to ensure that our ecosystems are sustainable, however we should not fetishize preserving a holistic ecosystem as it exists in the moment. Malaria is a part of the ecosystem - there is nothing wrong with purging it from the system, however.
Socialist Party of Outer Space
How is an ecosystem and the biosphere not exclusively holistic? There could be a lot wrong with purging something from an ecosystem. I'd think the first thing to address before adventuring into rambo-science would be the living conditions and lack of medical support that greatly contribute to it being a problem. That involves medical science, probably engineering, etc.. plenty of science.
i mean to preserve the conditions needed for human life, and not blatantly ignore any ecologica/environmental concerns.
"I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."
"It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
Ecosystems change all the time through natural means, we should not fetishize some notion of them as static where all of their parts are equally significant and necessary. Wiping out malaria is not "rambo science". Getting rid of smallpox was one human caused extinction nobody regrets. Keeping rats and roaches out of human habitations makes sense, too.
Nobody in their right mind would suggest not preserving the most basic necessary conditions of human life, but the question is what we define as parts of the good life - or what might we define as parts of a good life in a future society. Still not sure exactly what you're getting at
