Unfortunately, as long as we leave political offices to be filled by the worst of us this will continue. Voting is only half the battle.

They turned their fishing nets into ancient fishnet hosiery.

Funny, I’ve mentally annotated mormons my whole life as likely to commit sexual violence and child abuse.

The job of CEO seems the far easier to replace with AI. A fairly basic algorithm with weighted goals and parameters (chosen by the board) + LLM + character avatar would probably perform better than most CEOs. Leave out the LLM if you want it to spout nonsense like this Amazon Cloud CEO.

Miracle Workers with Daniel Radcliffe, Steve Buscemi, and a great cast. Each season is a different setting, it’s so good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymOWZkY1b5Y

For carbon sequestration, which also needs to happen.

Agree, but I think virtually all methods typically talked about are nonsense. Using massive fossil resources to design, build, and maintain giant machines or many smaller machines will ultimately do little to slow ecological collapse even if it does reduce carbon somewhat after some years needed to break even on production. The only sequestration method I’ve ever heard about that makes any sense to me is neighborhood scale production and use of biochar (and avoiding buying any sort of purpose made biochar device that required fossil resources to produce and ship to you). I make biochar in my backyard fire pit (which is a low smoke design) with used coffee tins (i.e. trash) and use the resulting biochar and ash in my compost.

Harm reduction is valid.

Agree, Any and all scientifically backed methods to allow us time for degrowth should be considered. I’m not convinced nuclear energy should be a significant part of this though, too many downsides and risks.

So either we get to some near global agreement on how to get out of this situation, or we just keep doing far too little since… what’s the point of trying to improve things if it just means you get annihilated by those that don’t, and things will remain the same despite your best efforts…

I feel like the way out is global and cultural in nature, and I think it’s in progress now, in fact we’re doing it now, talking about this on Lemmy. This wasn’t practical, wasn’t being done outside of “elite circles” before a decade or so ago. This global conversation is going to take some time and have bumps, but it’s happening, this is novel on this planet.

What I hope comes of this, and seems to be happening, perhaps slower than I’d like, is a paradigm shift in the way we think about ourselves, others, our communities, our situation, and our goals. We need a new “mythology” that allows us to live on this planet sustainably, and it only needs to be true enough and could even be done transparently and with purpose.

I feel like our species is in a existential battle and almost nobody (at least on the left-ish) is talking strategy. As if any valid strategy (e.g. “capitalism”, “communism”, “competition”, “religion”, “growth” “zero sum” etc) has been identified by the 1960s and we’re all just battling amongst 20th century ideas for domination.

I’m thinkiing stuff like this (sorry for the poor organization of my thoughts, to lazy to cleanup)

Define some axioms/statements that are mostly true and fairly agreeable, not based in faith, not limited by materialism.

• Most people would be happy to just live and thrive and don’t feel a need to dominate others or hoard resources
• There is a tiny number of people who do feel a need to dominate and/or hoard
• We are all vulnerable to propaganda
• Nobody is inherently better or more deserving than anyone else
• Nobody is entitled to the time or labor of anyone (except a child being entitled to their parents)
• Nobody actually knows the meaning of life or the nature of reality (not even materialists).
• Our own conscious experience is all we can be certain of, nobody knows any absolute truths
• The most logical assumption is that others’ experience is similar to my own
• I don’t want to suffer or be coerced, I don’t feel others are entitled to cause me to suffer or coerce my behavior
• It’s ok to defend myself against those trying to harm or coerce my behavior, dominate or hoard at my or my community’s expense
• If I cause another to suffer or coerce their behavior I should expect a response

–> The goal of these axioms is not to get everyone to agree to them, it’s to blaze a new path that can evolve into the way, to plant a seed that can inspire moving in new directions.

A set of explicit stated axioms allows taking the next steps and figure out how to evolve into a sustainable culture. Clear eyed strategy and goals are why the Heritage Foundation is making progress and the left is not.

Strategy like this could allow a better understanding of who and what the actual threats are and identify appropriate responses to them.

–> The “global agreement” will not be a formal inter-governmental thing, it will be loosely coupled set of cultural evolutions spurred by global conversations happening now.

nuclear energy we would be able to successfully power the majority of the species using that technology

But that energy will be used for what? To mine for more minerals, create more waste, destroy more land, and make more species extinct? Our problem is not a shortage of energy nor is it even a problem of the efficiency or cleanliness of the energy. It’s a problem of our species living far beyond the sustainable bounds of the planet.

I mean, they’re on FB, so ya, they probably thought something like that, if their thoughts even went beyond the words themselves.

It’s like imagining what a lizard thinks about you, it’s easy and fun to project your intelligence on it, this is what you’re doing here. You’re projecting your intelligence and logic on others apparently without that capacity. Those FB people didn’t think about what their words meant any more than a lizard wonders about your nature.

Maybe they were talking about Gaza? He seems to be crushing them.

Bummer, I haven’t felt this sad since learning about thermodynamics.

Without ambition and drive people would still be living in caves.

And we’d have a planet to live on indefinitely rather than letting a few thousand rich people destroy our world causing massive suffering. But really, there’s a world between living in caves with zero progress and letting capitalists destroy our world while we praise them, I’m not suggesting we live in caves, I’m suggesting we don’t let ambitious assholes kill us all while blaming us for the problems they create.

I don’t need some jabbering moron with an agenda to tell me how I should feel about things I can observe with my own eyes.

And you don’t have an agenda of driving civilization in the direction you want? Are you that blind to your own behavior? You’re engaging in a conversation about it and pushing a point, that’s an agenda.

It’s always a situation where the few are carrying the many

That’s very likely due to different people having different tolerance for exploitation. Just because you don’t mind being exploited try to be a good boot licker doesn’t mean others are bad because they don’t want to be exploited. Maybe in a different situation you’d be viewed as the lazy one. It’s not selfish to not work harder for another’s gain.

I say ambition, drive, greed, etc are personality issues that cause harm to others and the environment.

While I’m sure there are a few individuals that would rather sit and die than go get some food, this is not something to actually be concerned with. You watch too much right wing TV telling you there’s a whole class of people that just want to take from you, but what’s actually happening is that this group is being stolen from and what you see as laziness is often just an unwillingness to facilitate being stolen from.

Good thing people like me exist that will not only feed the “freeloaders”, but take care of you too when you break your leg.

Our society already produces far more than we need, it’s just sucked up by the owner class. If we removed the owner class and their hoarding, we could all work less and still have more than enough to provide for those unwilling or unable to completely provide for themselves.

I personally would be happy to do a bit of work to help ensure people aren’t starving or freezing to death because they’re going through a depressive episode or even if they’re just “lazy fucks”. Pretty sure every one I’d consider a friend thinks the same.

You know, it’s people with an attitude like yours, unwilling to help out without direct benefit, who I consider lazy, not the person with low ambition.

My thoughts about this

Anarcho-communism (and similar ideologies) isn’t really about everyone being equal, that’s a silly goal that would take enforcement and calculations, it’s not practical. Instead, anarcho-communism is a different way of living based on cooperation rather than exploitation and doing what is needed for people rather than what a few rich owners want.

You and a “lazy” person won’t necessarily have the same outcome. A person unwilling to even pick up after themselves or contribute would still be guaranteed housing, food, and health care, but that’s about it. You on the other hand could work to have a nicer place or acquire things, so long as you aren’t getting them exploiting others or common resources. If you build a nice chair the anarcho-fuzz isn’t gonna come and take it to split it amongst the community.

The thinking around “laziness” needs to change. A person unwilling to do even the absolute minimum might be called lazy, but A person unwilling to trade their time for money isn’t a bad thing. It’s not the “lazy” people that wipe out species, start wars, and cause climate change.

Ya, this is the response I always get from tankies.

I was speaking of the general authoritarian vs libertarian divide in the left. It’s not about power excercised, it’s about the power some on the left feel entitled to exercise to achieve their goals.

Everyone on the left wants to make the world a better place, eliminate hunger and homelessness, all that good stuff.

–> The terminology is confusing though as different groups use different words or definitions.

On the one side you have your (authoritarian) “socialists”, and “communists” those who believe that order must be imposed from above by a powerful government and this government. Good social behavior is coerced by implied threat of force. This government of course is supposed to be and remain benevolent and always controlled by well-meaning socialists to ensure a functional socialist system. The DSA fits in here on the lighter side, “tankies” fit here on the extreme authoritarian end.

On the other side you have your anarchist types (who are also typically non-authoritarian communists), those who feel that any entity powerful enough to control society will inevitably end up controlled by the worst type of people (because this is what’s happened in every state/government that has ever existed) and the we should look to non-state and non-coercive solutions.

Ya, I wish they were more effective. I’d also like to see more from the less authoritarian side of the left.

Yep, to move the Overton Window to the right. The left should do this as well. If a group of real leftist put out a political platform it would make Biden look like a Republican.

• Completly ban lobbying
• Free healthcare for all
• Free college for all
• Housing guarantee - homelessness not acceptable
• Billionaires fortunes taken and redistributed
• Ban fossil fuel subsidies
• Military exit from all countries except as part of multi-lateral peace keeping forces

Stuff like that