You have not answered my question, Steven. You have not even understood it. Long before World Socialism will even have managed to save a single deposit in a British general election, we are likely to have run into multiple environmental calamities. Whether you look at the disappearing Arctic ice cap, the mass extinctions of all sorts of species large and small, the degradation of the soil, the destruction of the Amazon rainforests, climate change, pollution, population growth... all these things are developing at an accelerating tempo. This year we have seen the speed with which a pandemic can spread in the modern world. All this brings out in sharp relief something ignored by the ideologists of progress of the 19th century - that human exploitation of the planet comes at a cost, and that cost is the destruction of the very things that we need for our survival.

Of course, capitalism accelerates, and deepens that process, but the kind of 'socialism' you advocate, by rejecting any mechanism for constraining consumption, would necessarily share many of the same environmentally destructive defects. If you were consistent in your claims about the nature of any future socialist society being unknowable, you would extend your agnosticism to the fetish of 'free access'. Why not? That shouldn't be too difficult for you, since you have just cited with approval Engels' suggestion that socialist society might even limit people's 'free access' to their own reproductive capacities. A society which can regulate that should hardly balk at regulating people's material consumption, surely?

As for the links, the distinction here is between using them to illustrate a point and citing them as authorities. The piece on declining insect numbers was an illustration of the point I was making.