u/TheToledoMan

Hot take: ecological crisis will force a systemic change and societal reboot (still means collapse)

I'm not a doomer, not anywhere close. However, I still see ecological crisis as imminent as its roots are very deep into capitalism itself, but still see the "doomsday" narrative as exaggerated. Still, *modern* society is doomed.

See, ecological doomsday is very linked to capitalist realism. The system is the thing harming the environment, but the system can't be changed, there's no outside and people won't do nothing. It basically relies on those 3, and the idea that the system won't collapse before.

Here's the thing: ecological collapse is ALREADY ruining capitalism, the system itself is already collapsing, a lot of countries are at pre-revolutionary conditions, and ecological overshoot is not new historically, the new thing is the scale, which makes it way worse. Now, with this as an axiom, if we see capitalism outside capitalist realism and as a system with beginning and potential end, we see this crisis is both an existential threat and a problem it can't fix. So, what could that mean? Exactly: collapse.

Now, my point of view: there are already a lot of signs that the system can't hold on for much longer, and also academic development of alt systems and in-development practice of alternative infrastructure. MIT itself forecasted collapse by 2040 and not only due to ecological crisis, I personally can see it happening in some decades, let's say \~40-60 years. For that same reason, I think rather than extinction we would face a collapse kind of like the Late Bronze Age or the late Roman Empire ones but way faster and worldwide, be forced to build a new system over generations, and then basically have a global Dark Ages.

This is not made to relax, no, it's made to rethink and move the fear: not doomsday but reboot. At least in the doomsday you don't have to wake up, make choices, organize things, survive; is, in some senses, better than the reboot.

It's the unique thing I have left to degoogle at this point. It was there for me practically from the beginning, it means too much for me, and currently I'm still there just for the actual good content rather than the platform itself.

So, trans girl here. For a lot of time I kept out of radical feminism because TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) have ruined my perception of it for a long time, only going to liberal feminism, but when I started to actually see radical feminism, without the bias of the TERF trauma, my perception changed a lot, heck I discovered that TIRFs exists, TERFs aren't the majority, and that radical feminism itself evolved a lot. Yeah, there are branches and figures who are or were bio-essentialist and some readings of noticeable authors, but from that to "radical feminism itself is trans-exclusionary" there's a big leap. I'm letting me be more radical, heck I defy both bio-essentialism AND gender roles at the same time.
While I already have an opinion about the claim, I wanted to see what other people with more experience than me think about it.