How Socialism is still Destroying the Planet and Us

You cannot have infinite welfare on a planet with finite resources. It is simply impossible, and that is the default position of Socialism.

The USSR

EDIT: (Yes, the USSR was an implementation of socialism. You can stamp your feet all you like.)

The USSR, as an example of Socialism, produced an absolute ecocide during its time: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ecocide-USSR-Health-Nature-Under/dp/0465017819.

* Entire rivers and lakes dried up (Aral Sea)

* Those that didn't dry up would have floating fatbergs with waste on them. You were warned not to throw matches overboard boats so as not to set the entire river on fire.

* The air was so polluted in some USSR-conquered countries that doctors set up offices underground.

* The soil for agriculture was so infertile that it took US scientists 3-5 years to get its nutrients back.

Not to mention that (due to lack of the profit motive that focuses on eliminating waste and inefficiencies), in the 1920-40s, the USSR needed x16 more iron ore to make one tractor compared to the US.

What would Capitalism do?

Capitalism solved CO2-related warming issues already in the 1950s: it is called nuclear. If nuclear, as the energy source destined to replace fossil fuels, was allowed to continue to be developed, all our grids would have been decarbonised by the 1990s, and we would be moving on to nuclear-powered ships and trucks like we have nuclear-powered submarines today.

What happened? Chernobyl happened, which scared the entire planet till today not to try nuclear. Again, the socialists destroyed the earth for everyone.

A study calculates that because of the USSR, 318 million expected life years have been lost, due to continued coal and petrol usage and its effects on air pollution. https://conference.nber.org/conf_papers/f205791.pdf

Degrowth and Eco-Socialism

As a result, we needed to use renewables, which are far less energy-abundant than nuclear. This means our industries need to slow down so as to not use too much electricity (either because we still use coal or renewables do not produce enough). Less industry means less economic growth - which is what socialist wanted anyway because their claim is that the resources of this planet are finite. (despite Capitalism proving them wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich\_wager)

The Rise of Illiberalism

So now we have a situation where the government has to step in and regulate industry. Not only can we no longer trust individuals to start a business, because by doing so, they may "hurt the entire planet". So we fundamentally can no longer allow individuals to use their own reason and abilities to improve their lives and the lives of others, as per the idea of liberalism.

Lack of Economic Growth

People were happy in Western countries as long as there was economic growth. "Inequality" was not much of an issue, as everyone was doing more or less okay, and government services were well funded. But when there is no economic growth (just like there hasn't been in Europe since 2008-10, roughly) then the economy becomes a fixed pie. How do you get resources when the economy is a fixed pie? The same way our ancestors did for 10s of thousands of years: You join a tribe, and that tribe protects those resources from other tribes or other people.

Welcome to the age of tribalism, where we are seeing the rise of identity politics, Socialism, Fascism, Christian nationalists, Arab nationalists, Islamic theocracies .. etc. With liberalism as a fundamentally flawed ideology, the floodgates have been opened.

Conclusion

Socialism is so utterly destructive and hazardous to the planet and the people, that we are still feeling its consequences today.

If it was up to Capitalism, we can have x10 more people on the planet and the resources and energy to sustain them, before affecting the planet negatively in a significant way. Not to mention, we are already considering populating other planets. https://x.com/elon_docs/status/1816340603954737347