There are no facts in the article to support any of their many sociological positions.
For example, that inequality of asset ownership leads to social decay. That there is even actually social decay or real instability in America.
One thing missed by in the treatise and a lot of comments, is that 'consumption' is somehow tantamount to 'resource utilisation'. Obviously, there is a correlation. But a considerable amount of what we 'consume' does not entail necessarily excessive resource consumption. Plastics, electronics doesn't eat up a lot of 'resources', though some parts perhaps more than others i.e. 'alkaline batteries'. Huge swaths of our consumption aren't even related to resources: entertainment, video games, software, social networks etc..
If they are really smart, they would take some time to decouple the 'resource intensive' aspects of consumption, with those that are not, and help industry to optimise along those lines.
>a considerable amount of what we 'consume' does not entail necessarily excessive resource consumption
If you pay for some abstract service, the money goes to pay human beings who ultimately either consume or save, don't they? You pay for something that doesn't involve using a lot of resources in itself, but the money goes to someone who uses it to buy gas or food or whatever, so ultimately consumption is pretty proportional to dollars anyway.
Yeah the ideological propaganda may sound at best superficially good but if examined in depth is so incoherent and imprecise you suspect the author is having a stroke. Capitalism is used in terms so absurdly broad that it would be like blaming the whole tri continental Eurafricasia for genocide and assuming a shared affinify between Churchill and Goebells for both being male and white. Incoherent nonsense.
Decoupling the aspects would be an honest approach- one which they have absolutely no intention of doing. You can tell because of the meaninglessly bad usage of "capitalism" along with infinite value externalities.
An alternative world where somehow planned economies won out globally would still have global warming for the same reasons - that fossil fuels are useful, easier than the alternatives, and valueable. But that would seeiously harsh their scapegoat capitalism plans.
"Propaganda" is mostly used more just as an insult than as an objective category, but the founder of this website would indeed seem to literally be a Marxist. In his Twitter feed, he advocates policies similar to those advocated by Marx, using language similar to Marx's. He also refers to Marx directly by name in approving terms:
This of course doesn't make anything claimed in the article any more or less true, but the purportedly scientific conclusions here do align nicely with his politics.
As to the article, Malthusian predictions have a long history of being incredibly wrong. It seems likely to me that global warming will continue to a point that many current agricultural practices must be abandoned for new ones, and that this transition will result in many deaths; but that's not the "collapse of civilization". Maybe scientists frustrated by the public's slow response to this serious problem have decided to try falsely portraying it as an apocalyptic problem, to see if that gets a faster response; but I doubt that it will, and it's a lie either way.
Editor opinion on Marx [0] and the 'About' section of the web site [1] where class struggle is prominently featured give some credibility to this opinion.
For example, that inequality of asset ownership leads to social decay. That there is even actually social decay or real instability in America.
One thing missed by in the treatise and a lot of comments, is that 'consumption' is somehow tantamount to 'resource utilisation'. Obviously, there is a correlation. But a considerable amount of what we 'consume' does not entail necessarily excessive resource consumption. Plastics, electronics doesn't eat up a lot of 'resources', though some parts perhaps more than others i.e. 'alkaline batteries'. Huge swaths of our consumption aren't even related to resources: entertainment, video games, software, social networks etc..
If they are really smart, they would take some time to decouple the 'resource intensive' aspects of consumption, with those that are not, and help industry to optimise along those lines.