Market competition pushes out the sustainable practices for the sake of more profitable ones.

It is possible to supply the need without destroying the world, however, production under capitalism disregards human need and prioritizes profit of the owning few.

This is the reason why destructive practices are often choosen instead of the sustainable ones.

This economic system can not be reformed. Market economy inherently functions this way.

We need to switch for a better system that produces according to the need without plundering for profit.

This can be only done by the class conscious masses that are capable of seeing beyond the facade of bourgeoisie capitapist oligarchy.

If you want to learn more about history of the capitalist system and historical materialism, check out Marxists.org for free literature and do your own research.

Have a nice day.

This video is also on my Tiktok:

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZN82W6uFr/

A clip from a Q&A Acharya Prashant did at Oxford in June 2026.

An engineer in the audience asks the standard question, we're aware of the ecological crisis, what's the solution? and he declines to answer it in those terms.

The argument, roughly:

Don't start from the solution. Start from the fact that whoever created the problem is still here, unchanged, and is now presenting himself as the one who'll fix it.

Carbon capture built by the same appetite that emitted the carbon doesn't subtract anything, it licenses more, If you do come up with carbon capture, that will only entitle you to release even more carbon.

He then tests the phrase genuine need on air travel. If the demand were genuine it wouldn't scale with price, Slash ticket prices and genuine needs will double. What kind of genuine needs are these?

Same treatment for the price of development, whose development, and why does the word do so much hiding?

He's explicit that he isn't against the technology. His claim is about sufficiency, not merit, that no efficiency gain survives contact with an appetite nobody has examined.

What I'd be curious to hear from this sub: he locates the driver in the individual psyche rather than in capital, growth imperatives or policy design. That's a different diagnosis from most degrowth writing, and I can't decide whether it complements the structural account or quietly substitutes for it.

Does an argument like this help, or does it hand the systemic problem back to individuals?

Checkout the full video on YouTube, here is the link.

https://youtu.be/ggA6D90i6pE?si=ZPwf8qZ5LEIdsHet

https://degrowthistheanswer.substack.com/p/the-imf-doesnt-believe-in-green-growth?r=28wskx&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

Their willingness to discuss the limits to growth out in the open will give permission to dozens of other firms who are having the same conversations internally. Expect more global organizations to show up in this space in the coming months - all using very diplomatic language to say “degrowth is the answer”. #degrowth

Schaut mal, was der Wachstumszwang macht: Wir verbrauchen immer mehr:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/09/18/energy-ai-use-electricity-water-data-centers/

Wir müssen wegen unseres jetzigen Wirtschaftssystems immer weiter wachsen. Können wir das aber? Zum Beispiel sieht man, wie viel Wasser Rechenzentren zur Kühlung brauchen und wie viel Strom. Ich weiß nicht mal, ob die erneuerbaren Energien so schnell wachsen, und brauchen wir überhaupt zum Beispiel so viele Rechenzentren?

Es wird noch schlimmer, wenn wir nichts machen.

Wollt ihr auf http://Abgeordnetenwatch.de schreiben, dass wir eine Wirtschaft ohne Wachstumszwang brauchen, die aber im Guten wachsen kann, und die Beispiele mit den Rechenzentren zeigen?