• 132 Posts
  • 88 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: April 24th, 2023

help-circle

  • Love to hear how you think digital currencies aren’t digital currencies.

    Not all digital currencies are cryptocurrencies. CBDCs are digital implementations of government-backed fiat currencies. If you don’t understand the difference I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry.

    by your flawed metrics, solar power is “hype”.

    Solar power produces energy. Cryptocurrency produces nothing and wastes energy doing it.







  • Yep. I think it’s Roundup. Used to be people used chemical herbicides with more discretion to avoid harming crops, so bugs could live on weeds in patches or at the edges of fields.

    Nowadays you just plant a strain of corn or soybeans that’s immune to Roundup and soak your entire field in glyphosate multiple times a year. So the only insects that have food or shelter anywhere near you are ones that can live on your crop - and then you spray pesticides to kill those.

    Result: millions and millions of acres of essentially sterile agricultural monocrop.

    And more and more land is being turned into agricultural monocrop - not because a growing population needs more food, but because of bad laws and subsidies. Almost 100 million acres in the US - 40% of the American corn crop - is used to produce fucking ethanol, which burns more fossil fuel to produce than it replaces and is only profitable because of massive government subsidies procured by energy and agricultural lobbyists.

    We are wiping hundreds of square miles of land clean of life in order to turn one fossil fuel into another less efficient fossil fuel. It’s species wide insanity.

    And that being said: even though agriculture is a much bigger contributor to the ongoing insect omnicide than suburban pest spraying, when you keep the chemicals off your lawn and allow native plants and flowers to grow, it does help your local bugs, and you are making an impact.



  • Preach.

    Housing is a human right.

    Private land ownership violates that human right.

    All land should be held in trust for the people as a whole and managed by the government for the benefit of the people. Including the houses and apartments on that land.

    We should not have private homeowners. We should not have private landlords. We should have socialized housing, just like we should have socialized medicine. Apartment buildings and neighborhoods should be managed by tenant associations, with strict legal limits on their authority over individual tenants, and government facilitators to provide expert advice on building management and keep meetings running smoothly.

    But we are a long way from implementing that.






  • I think this is more directed to conservatives who claim people are inherently selfish and self-serving, which is why only capitalism works (because it starts from the assumption that people are inherently selfish and will always do what profits than the most) and communism / socialism / anarchism can’t possibly work (because they require people to cooperate instead of exploiting each other for personal profit)

    Besides, the idea that “we should all be forced to pay” for anything presumes a capitalist system where money is exchanged for goods and services. The point is to get rid of that.



  • This is why you talk to people - ordinary people - and convince them to (1) buy less plastic garbage (2) vote for restrictions on plastic garbage.

    And then the people you talk to talk to other people and convince them.

    And then those other people talk to still other people.

    And eventually you have a critical mass. And politicians listen to them when they demand changes in the laws. And corporations have less money because enough people are boycotting their products so it’s harder for them to hire lobbyists and bribe politicians.

    And all this starts with you talking to people.


  • If you want change, you need a critical mass of people to demand change.

    If you want a critical mass of people to demand change, you have to recruit people to that critical mass.

    And you recruit people by talking to them.

    You do not have zero control. You vote with your dollars. You vote with your actual vote. And most importantly you talk to people to get them to vote with their dollars and their ballots. When you commit to a cause and you live the values of that cause, you can convince other people to commit to the cause, and they convince other people to commit to the cause, and so on and so forth. That’s how collective action works. That’s how all political change works. This is how you force billionaires to stop polluting and get laws passed that actually help the climate - by getting enough people to support climate action that politicians and businesses have no choice but to yield.

    And you do this by talking to people.

    Christ, the same people who insist get out the vote efforts work will tell you talking about climate change is useless, when it’s the exact same phenomenon - individual action inspiring more individual action and ultimately becoming collective action.


  • See, this is why art appreciation classes are not a waste of class time. It teaches you that artists use metaphor and symbology to refer to complicated ideas in simple images, and that political cartoons especially are rife with simplified symbology because of the limited space artists have and the complexity of many political ideas.

    If you understood art and symbology, you’d recognize the treeless wasteland on the right represents the devastation of climate change, the lack of trees symbolizes environmental destruction, and nitpicking how many trees would actually be left is missing the point entirely.

    But the average American has the reading comprehension of a fifth grader, so how can I expect them to comprehend a fucking artistic metaphor?

    (Also: at about 116° f, leaves can no longer photosynthesize. So it doesn’t matter how much CO2 is in the air - if summers get hot enough that leaves can’t photosynthesize during the day, it’s going to kill forests, and we are pretty close to that point in a lot of places already. But that’s completely beside the point.)






  • A lot of people in this thread are deliberately missing the point because they don’t want to hear it.

    They want to live in independent suburban homes, in isolated subdivisions where you can only get to jobs or groceries or social events by car, with big yards soaked in pesticides so they don’t have bugs in their houses, etc, etc.

    They want to live high consumption lifestyles. They don’t want to live in resource efficient, high density housing because they imagine it will reduce their standard of living.

    So they nitpick the image and make up reasons why it’s unrealistic because they don’t want to admit the kinds of homes seen on the left are unsustainable and unrealistic in the long term.