@FantasticalEconomics @rauder @turtle_green so what you're saying is that it's better to change from lead ammunition in the machine gun to lead-free ammunition than to just stop shouting your friends, family and neighbourhood with it?

#Capitalism is what's doing the damage. Tinkering with isn't going to stop it doing the damage; destroying the planet is intrinsic to its operation. We need to stop using it.

@simon_brooke @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green

Simon, want to point out that it is something more basic that is destroying the planet than “capitalism.”

The Soviet Union, aka communists, were terrible for the environment. China has done & is doing terrible things to the environment.

They got rid of capitalism & still mess up the planet. So I think it makes sense to focus on solving other problems than getting distracted by simply attacking #capitalism & hoping everything will be green.

@rauder @simon_brooke @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green Correct!

It's perfectly possible for people to do massive environmental damage under just about any economic system. Greed is perfectly possible with capitalism...and communism, and socialism, etc. It's perfectly possible for people under ANY of these to do environmental damage for their own enrichment. Capitalism doesn't demand it, or "perpetual growth", any more than any others do, despite common (and loud) claims to the contrary.

@AlexanderKingsbury @rauder @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green greed isn't actually possible with #communism. It's possible under state socialism, which is the system which states governed by "#communist" parties have tended to adopt. But yes, you CAN wreck the environment under any economic system, that's true. However, #capitalism requires it, which is unusual.

@simon_brooke @rauder @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green

"greed isn't actually possible with #communism"

I'll have to add that to the collection.

"But yes, you CAN wreck the environment under any economic system, that's true. However, #capitalism requires it, which is unusual."

No, it's just false. Capitalism requires no such thing.

@AlexanderKingsbury @rauder @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green so how do you achieve eternal growth without wrecking the ecosystem?
@simon_brooke @rauder @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green Well, first, capitalism doesn't demand demand "eternal growth"; that's another misconception. Second, there are many ways to expand that don't require much in the way of material resources; digital goods and IP are a thing. Third, you can trade in renewable materials and energy.
@AlexanderKingsbury @rauder @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green so how does capitalism manage limits to growth? I mean, suppose, for example, you've already burned enough carbon to render large areas of the planet uninhabitable, and people still want cheap flights. That's *demand*, and that demand can be satisfied by pumping more fossil hydrocarbon, which is *supply*...
@simon_brooke @rauder @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green Yes, that is supply and demand. You're simply asking about the question of negative externalities, which can be answered many ways. Perhaps the simplest in your scenario is a carbon tax; you pay me for the damage you do to my environment.