Well, for me the problem is that I don't see a path from point A to point B for some things. Like, climate change. You say "for the profits of a handful of people" but it's not like you could kill twenty people and then it would be easy to fix industry. Instead there's a whole system, and most people involved with it have just made it slightly worse for not a lot of personal gain to end in this situation where if I want to go to a job interview I have to flood the atmosphere with exhaust. Fixing or at least lessening climate change probably entails reorienting huge portions of the economy, which would disrupt people's lives (and they would be Our lives, rather than the lives of people in the Maldives), even if it is better long term.
Something like refugees is comparatively easier. My solution: Europe should be less racist, and set up infrastructure for refugees. Lo, refugees are not compoelled to light themselves on fire and Erdogan has less absurd power. But this solution isn't really something that is implementable, and I certainly can't do it.
i care about some specific things. genocides, those are bad, we should stop doing those. letting trans people use the bathroom seems nice; i know i only have that opinion because i know people online, oh no monkeysphere or something. patent law is screwy. it's a lot of small issues that doesn't really add up into a cohesive political philosophy, and i don't really have any motivation to do that adding.
i think this kinda gets more at what i was trying to say: i feel like it's expected on the internet to have a Grand Utopian Plan Of The Way Things Should Be which is some sort of radical overhaul of the status quo
whereas im more like "the bad things should stop, and we should do more good things"
which i know doesnt address Systemic Issues or whatever but honestly
it's harder to feel that way when you yourself feel at odds with the state of society
i feel this way a lot but like
i wouldnt want to impose the way i want things to be onto the world
Democratic compromise is an option, especially where it can be backed up by objective data.
People have their preferences, but I think it's safe to say that a reasonable person will modify their views as they encounter reliable data and new information. So moving away from a culture of inflexible ideology and towards discourse will be important, but the reward would be the mitigation of many systemic issues.
Well, for me the problem is that I don't see a path from point A to point B for some things. Like, climate change. You say "for the profits of a handful of people" but it's not like you could kill twenty people and then it would be easy to fix industry. Instead there's a whole system, and most people involved with it have just made it slightly worse for not a lot of personal gain to end in this situation where if I want to go to a job interview I have to flood the atmosphere with exhaust. Fixing or at least lessening climate change probably entails reorienting huge portions of the economy, which would disrupt people's lives (and they would be Our lives, rather than the lives of people in the Maldives), even if it is better long term.
Something like refugees is comparatively easier. My solution: Europe should be less racist, and set up infrastructure for refugees. Lo, refugees are not compoelled to light themselves on fire and Erdogan has less absurd power. But this solution isn't really something that is implementable, and I certainly can't do it.
ive watched this 3 times in a row now it's too real
Dungeons & Dragons Online used to have a bug where using your diplomacy skill on a chest would convince it to give you better loot - during Beta testing. It got fixed before release, but some players still tried to do it anyway. Since then, the system was changed so that diplomacy is a passive skill.
Well, for me the problem is that I don't see a path from point A to point B for some things. Like, climate change. You say "for the profits of a handful of people" but it's not like you could kill twenty people and then it would be easy to fix industry. Instead there's a whole system, and most people involved with it have just made it slightly worse for not a lot of personal gain to end in this situation where if I want to go to a job interview I have to flood the atmosphere with exhaust. Fixing or at least lessening climate change probably entails reorienting huge portions of the economy, which would disrupt people's lives (and they would be Our lives, rather than the lives of people in the Maldives), even if it is better long term.
Something like refugees is comparatively easier. My solution: Europe should be less racist, and set up infrastructure for refugees. Lo, refugees are not compoelled to light themselves on fire and Erdogan has less absurd power. But this solution isn't really something that is implementable, and I certainly can't do it.
The largest contributor to climate change is by far energy production. This is why renewable energies are the closest thing we have to a silver bullet, or would be if we hadn't already passed a number of irreversible climate thresholds. Even so, they remain our best hope of limiting further climate impacts and providing a platform for technologies that might help us adapt to a more hostile environment. Additionally, while a transition to renewables does entail some shifts in economic considerations, they pretty much all for the better, because renewable energy represents our species' first steps towards a post-scarcity economy. There isn't even that much disruption, necessarily; consider that renewable energies represent more and more of energy production each year. And despite this increase in renewable energy production, the biggest economic disruptions are being caused by the likes of climate change and profit shifting (wherein trillions of dollars get sucked out of the global economy and become phantom currency).
While Europe could be much more helpful by being even marginally less racist, refugee situations are always sparked by something and ideally should never have happened in the first place. In the case of Syria's situation, it's thought that reduced crop yields due to warming weather patterns, causing rising food prices, placed enough strain on the Assad regime that rebellion was kindled. Naturally, there are other factors (such as Syria being home to very different cultural and language groups with very different ideas on what constitutes right and proper governance), but once again, it's ultimately climate change that created a situation this brutal and severe.
Global civilisation is kind of on the ropes here, but we can pull it together, and the cost of doing so is much less than the cost of not doing that.
Well, for me the problem is that I don't see a path from point A to point B for some things. Like, climate change. You say "for the profits of a handful of people" but it's not like you could kill twenty people and then it would be easy to fix industry. Instead there's a whole system, and most people involved with it have just made it slightly worse for not a lot of personal gain to end in this situation where if I want to go to a job interview I have to flood the atmosphere with exhaust. Fixing or at least lessening climate change probably entails reorienting huge portions of the economy, which would disrupt people's lives (and they would be Our lives, rather than the lives of people in the Maldives), even if it is better long term.
Something like refugees is comparatively easier. My solution: Europe should be less racist, and set up infrastructure for refugees. Lo, refugees are not compoelled to light themselves on fire and Erdogan has less absurd power. But this solution isn't really something that is implementable, and I certainly can't do it.
The largest contributor to climate change is by far energy production. This is why renewable energies are the closest thing we have to a silver bullet, or would be if we hadn't already passed a number of irreversible climate thresholds. Even so, they remain our best hope of limiting further climate impacts and providing a platform for technologies that might help us adapt to a more hostile environment. Additionally, while a transition to renewables does entail some shifts in economic considerations, they pretty much all for the better, because renewable energy represents our species' first steps towards a post-scarcity economy. There isn't even that much disruption, necessarily; consider that renewable energies represent more and more of energy production each year. And despite this increase in renewable energy production, the biggest economic disruptions are being caused by the likes of climate change and profit shifting (wherein trillions of dollars get sucked out of the global economy and become phantom currency).
While Europe could be much more helpful by being even marginally less racist, refugee situations are always sparked by something and ideally should never have happened in the first place. In the case of Syria's situation, it's thought that reduced crop yields due to warming weather patterns, causing rising food prices, placed enough strain on the Assad regime that rebellion was kindled. Naturally, there are other factors (such as Syria being home to very different cultural and language groups with very different ideas on what constitutes right and proper governance), but once again, it's ultimately climate change that created a situation this brutal and severe.
Global civilisation is kind of on the ropes here, but we can pull it together, and the cost of doing so is much less than the cost of not doing that.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're going for. Cos like, more renewable energy, great, good idea, let's keep doing that. But (A) a lot of people are still fucked, and (B) that's not a solution to the systemic short-sightedness that leads to these things in the first place. It's not even a solution per se to the present situation, since we got into solar farms too late for a lot of people. And I thought that that's what you meant by ways things should be, but maybe not?
I mean I doubt you think climate change is the prime mover for people dying, even if it is a significant usually-indirect cause. I know you know medieval nightmares better than I do, and you very probably know plenty about other wars and the chaos cornucopia of casus belli involved, and... I mean... do you think that it all goes back go agriculture? I guess I don't know.
A way things should be, for me, would be some system of systems of systems that somehow doesn't periodically result in local extinction events. A way of dealing with systemic problems, of which climate change is only one. And uh, the best I got for that is democracy, and that's sort of been doing mediocrely.
oh joy someone made a movie length video about why fallout 3 sux and is lame on sa, i am going to go stick ym head in a vise
Still on about this
Exterminate the goons!!!
I was watching a podcast (not a typo) today and one of the people (MathasGames) was talking about how he doesn't really like the Bethesda Fallouts, and I thought of you.
Well, for me the problem is that I don't see a path from point A to point B for some things. Like, climate change. You say "for the profits of a handful of people" but it's not like you could kill twenty people and then it would be easy to fix industry. Instead there's a whole system, and most people involved with it have just made it slightly worse for not a lot of personal gain to end in this situation where if I want to go to a job interview I have to flood the atmosphere with exhaust. Fixing or at least lessening climate change probably entails reorienting huge portions of the economy, which would disrupt people's lives (and they would be Our lives, rather than the lives of people in the Maldives), even if it is better long term.
Something like refugees is comparatively easier. My solution: Europe should be less racist, and set up infrastructure for refugees. Lo, refugees are not compoelled to light themselves on fire and Erdogan has less absurd power. But this solution isn't really something that is implementable, and I certainly can't do it.
The largest contributor to climate change is by far energy production. This is why renewable energies are the closest thing we have to a silver bullet, or would be if we hadn't already passed a number of irreversible climate thresholds. Even so, they remain our best hope of limiting further climate impacts and providing a platform for technologies that might help us adapt to a more hostile environment. Additionally, while a transition to renewables does entail some shifts in economic considerations, they pretty much all for the better, because renewable energy represents our species' first steps towards a post-scarcity economy. There isn't even that much disruption, necessarily; consider that renewable energies represent more and more of energy production each year. And despite this increase in renewable energy production, the biggest economic disruptions are being caused by the likes of climate change and profit shifting (wherein trillions of dollars get sucked out of the global economy and become phantom currency).
While Europe could be much more helpful by being even marginally less racist, refugee situations are always sparked by something and ideally should never have happened in the first place. In the case of Syria's situation, it's thought that reduced crop yields due to warming weather patterns, causing rising food prices, placed enough strain on the Assad regime that rebellion was kindled. Naturally, there are other factors (such as Syria being home to very different cultural and language groups with very different ideas on what constitutes right and proper governance), but once again, it's ultimately climate change that created a situation this brutal and severe.
Global civilisation is kind of on the ropes here, but we can pull it together, and the cost of doing so is much less than the cost of not doing that.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're going for. Cos like, more renewable energy, great, good idea, let's keep doing that. But (A) a lot of people are still fucked, and (B) that's not a solution to the systemic short-sightedness that leads to these things in the first place. It's not even a solution per se to the present situation, since we got into solar farms too late for a lot of people. And I thought that that's what you meant by ways things should be, but maybe not?
I mean I doubt you think climate change is the prime mover for people dying, even if it is a significant usually-indirect cause. I know you know medieval nightmares better than I do, and you very probably know plenty about other wars and the chaos cornucopia of casus belli involved, and... I mean... do you think that it all goes back go agriculture? I guess I don't know.
A way things should be, for me, would be some system of systems of systems that somehow doesn't periodically result in local extinction events. A way of dealing with systemic problems, of which climate change is only one. And uh, the best I got for that is democracy, and that's sort of been doing mediocrely.
Right so, there's a lot of suffering that is going to happen either way, we agree on that much.
The thing about renewable energies, though, is that they have a function aside from keeping this planet habitable for lots of life forms. As they generate infinite energy (ignoring that our sun will eventually expand and that entropy will render life as we know it impossible), they also generate value equal to energy consumption. This means that renewable energies can contribute to much more stable economic systems than our current scarcity-based system. If a substantial amount of renewable energy generation could become publicly owned, then it means that something like a basic income system could be at least partially funded. So the population of a nation state could be paying other citizens for their energy while simultaneously receiving income from their share of energy production.
As for climate change as a driver of death, the toll of climate change is already being felt and will only become more severe without greater adaption to a more hostile planet. If we look at death, injury, illness and dispossession from natural phenomena lately against 20th century averages, we can see incidences rising. Take the wildfire that just raged in Canada and literally displaced an entire community, or the amount of Pacific islander communities that are shortly going to be exiled from their homes by rising sea levels, or the opportunities new diseases will have to breed in a modified climate. While climate change is only "indirect" for all of these examples, it's a common causative element.
And ultimately, a great deal of human conflict is derived from scarcity of resources. Not entirely, of course, but many conflicts that become violent might have remained political or ideological without competition over limited resources. War between competing states usually occurs for several reasons specific to each conflict, but resource competition is an overwhelmingly common cause. It sounds weird to us today, but Hitler's drive for German expansion was partly informed by an increasing global population combined with anxiety over food and land limitations. This helped to create a survivalistic ideology where the handicapped, disabled, and sexually/gender non-normative were targeted alongside racial targets; such people were framed as a threat to survival in a world of diminishing resources, which allowed the Nazi party to view their brutality as a sort of moral imperative.
Contrary to those anxieties, more efficient means of food production were developed. The Cold War would be fought over economic and political influence rather than raw resources, but all the same, each faction saw the competing economic system as a threat. After all, while resources were more plentiful than ever before, capitalism and communism represented very different ideas about how to spend (plentiful, but still ultimately limited) resources.
We can go back further. Rome transitioned from a republic to an empire in part due to the expansionist policy required to maintain income for a standing army. The medieval states that came after tended not to use standing armies, and so were less expansionist. But the mercenary era that (probably) begins somewhere in the 14th century comes to a head in 17th century Germany and the 30 Years War, which sees an array of mostly mercenary companies competing once the various central European economies begin struggling to provide for so many professional soldiers. We even see a smaller scale version of this in the post-warring-states period of feudal Japan, where individual warriors dueled to gain renown and hopefully employment.
In any case, I don't think there's such a thing as one overwhelmingly ideal system, but I'm quite sure that sensible resource distribution is front and centre. This isn't because economic matters govern absolutely everything, but because economic (and therefore environmental) matters are the factor that does contribute to everything (positive and negative) in a way no other individual factor does.
Multiple Tumblr Marxists have gone "Yes, this angry, inarticulate, parody of a conservative comic strip character represents me and my feelings toward people who don't understand that Pacific Rim is the best movie ever and Stalin's so called "crimes" were justified by historical necessity"
i made an appointment with my school's job counseling people. it's sort of awkward having to be like, yeah, i have zero idea what i'm doing, but i guess they probably get that a lot.
anyway my multimeter came in like a week early. it's rated for hundreds of volts, which i all kinds of don't need, but it's kind of cool!
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
why the fuck am i not a cute little girl in real life
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I dunno, it's not that I think there's one monolithic girl's childhood or anything
But it would have been nice if I had identified and presented as a girl during my childhood years
Especially since I knew by the time I was 6 that I was really a girl inside
understandably! Just try not to fixate on it, I guess? It's about as productive as wasting away looking at the Mirror of Erised and it leads to a lot of your odd Moments
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
The whole moral behind the entirety of Zootopia is that the majority of the population shouldn't turn against the minority of the population over outdaded stereotypes.
Literally the whole moral of Zootopia.
Either they didn't actually watch the movie or they're intentionally trying to piss me off.
Comments
ahahaha
I mean I doubt you think climate change is the prime mover for people dying, even if it is a significant usually-indirect cause. I know you know medieval nightmares better than I do, and you very probably know plenty about other wars and the chaos cornucopia of casus belli involved, and... I mean... do you think that it all goes back go agriculture? I guess I don't know.
A way things should be, for me, would be some system of systems of systems that somehow doesn't periodically result in local extinction events. A way of dealing with systemic problems, of which climate change is only one. And uh, the best I got for that is democracy, and that's sort of been doing mediocrely.
Exterminate the goons!!!
i have a few issues with that, but nothing that would make better energy infrastructure a bad idea, so whatevs.
anyway my multimeter came in like a week early. it's rated for hundreds of volts, which i all kinds of don't need, but it's kind of cool!
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead