this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
32 points (97.1% liked)
askchapo
22717 readers
1 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 !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
scammers, speculators, rentiers, consultants, crypto, ai, marketing, propagandists, surveillance, weapons development... i feel like we could go on for an hour
ooth 'email jobs' just describe an environment work takes place in, some people in cubicle email jobs are involved in pro-social work, i assume.
My concern is that this kind of labor doesn't generate huge carbon emissions (sans ML, weapons, and commutes) and the majority of jobs that need to go are industrialized or logistics jobs that are critical. I didn't think getting rid of marketing would save much carbon.
on the contrary, liquidating marketers would net the largest decrease in hot air ever seen
emissions are half the equation tho, GDP counts these things and decoupling the idea GDP & the per capita to actual living standards is important for a degrowth conversation. no humans would hurt from the billions lost in 'value' in marketing
Eliminating completely useless sectors frees those people to do things that are actually beneficial to society
Western labor rarely has large emissions because most emission heavy industries have been dumped in other countries
Yeah so how do you deindustrialize those without too much harm? The vast majority of socialism in practice has involved mass industrialization to benefit the working class so how do you keep the benefits without the industry in countries like China?
You would still have industry, just not wholly reliant on fossil fuels and perpetual growth. And you'd need considerably more industry at first
That's my concern. Industry, even when electricity is clean, generates a ton of carbon.
This is a diagram of current US manufacturing production emissions
Just addressing combustion would radically reduce industrial carbon output without needing to address carbon capture for cement or green hydrogen for steel
Jesus, I thought steel and concrete were significantly worse than they are. That is a really good graph. What is most chemical production for?
Ammonia and methanol (ammonia is like, half of non-combustion emissions even though we can readily produce 'green' ammonia)