Do you mean communism?
Now.... We may disagree on letting it go as it goes. Ice ages would overtake a ton of countries in glaciers entirely, so we may agree that that should be stopped? But........ Doing that would be directly trying to challenge the solar system and earth on their natural cycles. There would likely be massive unforeseen repercussions.
So your argument is that the planet will be fine is great, except some of us would like humanity to survive indefinitely. For that, we should do everything we can to protect the planet and it’s current occupants.
I don't think they were implying communism. Which is good, because IME people on this forum can't have honest discussion or apply critical thinking in the vicinity of the subject. They start rhetoric-dumping and posturing and repeating tired arguments as if preventing thoughts about communism is their ticket to heaven. Sprinkle in a few posts positive-to-neutral on Marx to fuel the fire, and that's the recipe.
I think a CENTRALISED management of the world's natural resources would require communism.
Decentralised management is what we have now.
But then, there are many ways to organize a society while keeping it commerce-based... Or maybe we manage to finally crack that nut some day and make a post-scarcity society. But on the short term "manage resources globally" heavily implies an anti-humane dictatorship.
