Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. CONTEXT

CONTEXT

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
petromafiaconsumerism
131 Indlæg 39 Posters 1 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • tuban_muzuru@beige.partyT tuban_muzuru@beige.party

    @benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

    Is it fair to say you're both right, in a way? Ben, please don't wax so vehement, we all know and respect you.

    benroyce@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
    benroyce@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
    benroyce@mastodon.social
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #49

    @tuban_muzuru @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

    no

    oppose stupidity that only helps the fossil fuel industry

    we don't respect stupidity. toxic idealism is our enemy as surely as MAGA. the effect of this idiocy is the same as MAGA: support for the fossil fuel industry. because the whiny useless perfectionist doesn't understand that doesn't mean we respect that

    respecting stupidity is part of what got us into this current mess

    tuban_muzuru@beige.partyT 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai

      @epistomai @benroyce @blogdiva

      I think you would agree with the assertion that the cheapest most efficient and most ecological energy is the stuff we never dig out of the ground or burn.

      Ultimately, the more we live locally the more we never rely on those global supply chains. You have to look at the supply chain and all the ecological consequences, including GHG and ecocide as a consequence

      epistomai@mastodon.socialE This user is from outside of this forum
      epistomai@mastodon.socialE This user is from outside of this forum
      epistomai@mastodon.social
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #50

      @GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @blogdiva unfortunately, we can live without global economy but it's a better progressive world with it, not just economics, production, and industry.

      Sure being a local consumer helps with economy and other stuff. I'm living in 🇨🇦 as a 🇲🇽 and rarely I eat avocados and tortillas (corn, flour is mostly American). Being responsible with the community you're living is first, secondary are the global stuff

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • benroyce@mastodon.socialB benroyce@mastodon.social

        @GhostOnTheHalfShell @anthropy @blogdiva

        you're a toxic idealist

        a whiny useless perfectionist

        of course mining for solar and batteries sucks

        *and* a smaller footprint than fossil fuel extraction

        *and* far better for climate change

        you fucking purists are an enemy of the real left as bad as MAGA

        ALL YOU GET IN THIS WORLD IS BETTER

        PERFECT IS NOT ON THE MENU

        are you shilling for the fossil fuel industry or are you just that fucking stupid and blind?

        stop following me, you stupid asshole

        ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
        ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
        ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #51

        @benroyce @anthropy @blogdiva

        I’m not gonna let you slide on this idea that I am being a perfectionist. I’m telling you that you have to revisit what you’ve been told effectively by the worst polluting industries in the most destructive industries on the planet, the mining sector, and to bring the same level of realism to their own statements that you bring to big oil or big tobacco

        benroyce@mastodon.socialB 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • benroyce@mastodon.socialB benroyce@mastodon.social

          @GhostOnTheHalfShell @anthropy @blogdiva

          you're a toxic idealist

          a whiny useless perfectionist

          of course mining for solar and batteries sucks

          *and* a smaller footprint than fossil fuel extraction

          *and* far better for climate change

          you fucking purists are an enemy of the real left as bad as MAGA

          ALL YOU GET IN THIS WORLD IS BETTER

          PERFECT IS NOT ON THE MENU

          are you shilling for the fossil fuel industry or are you just that fucking stupid and blind?

          stop following me, you stupid asshole

          paneerakbari@mas.toP This user is from outside of this forum
          paneerakbari@mas.toP This user is from outside of this forum
          paneerakbari@mas.to
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #52

          @benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @anthropy @blogdiva completely absent from the discussion is that the PV panels and batteries are - with existing technology - nearly entirely recyclable back into service as improved-efficiency versions of the same general products. Fossil fuels, hydroelectric, nuclear... no one's making any new uranium or petroleum, but the sun will keep shining for another couple billion years

          ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG chuckmcmanis@chaos.socialC 2 Replies Last reply
          0
          • ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai

            @anthropy @benroyce @blogdiva

            You’re arguing that because I am pointing out the ecological consequences of what’s called renewables that I’m being a Nihilist?

            How exactly are you squaring that circle?

            anthropy@mastodon.derg.nzA This user is from outside of this forum
            anthropy@mastodon.derg.nzA This user is from outside of this forum
            anthropy@mastodon.derg.nz
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #53

            @GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @blogdiva .... you're saying "we just need less", which is not possible with a growing population. Even the logistics of food and shelter are unattainable in our current methods.

            Again, by all means; reuse, reduce, recycle. That's a great start. But you're not going to triple-R yourself towards a healthy planet. And by dissing renewables you're arguing for the current methods, for consumables, for fossil fuels, etc.

            You need triple-R AND renewables, for start.

            anthropy@mastodon.derg.nzA ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG 2 Replies Last reply
            0
            • ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai

              @benroyce @anthropy @blogdiva

              I’m not gonna let you slide on this idea that I am being a perfectionist. I’m telling you that you have to revisit what you’ve been told effectively by the worst polluting industries in the most destructive industries on the planet, the mining sector, and to bring the same level of realism to their own statements that you bring to big oil or big tobacco

              benroyce@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
              benroyce@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
              benroyce@mastodon.social
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #54

              @GhostOnTheHalfShell @anthropy @blogdiva

              unread

              uninterested

              all you do is help the fossil fuel industry

              i will force you to unfollow me now

              and fuck you and your stupid fucking toxic idealism that only helps fossil fuels

              you're either an agent provocateur shill or too stupid to see the only real effect of your perfectionist bullshit

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • benroyce@mastodon.socialB benroyce@mastodon.social

                @GhostOnTheHalfShell @brad @blogdiva

                so go do that

                i support your agenda

                why must you attack another agenda that is also good?

                applaud efforts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels

                *and* work on your agenda

                you can do both, because both are good things

                positing one as the enemy of the other is a lie

                brad@1040ste.netB This user is from outside of this forum
                brad@1040ste.netB This user is from outside of this forum
                brad@1040ste.net
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #55

                @benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva That's the nub of it. Applauding improvement needn't imply endorsement of the worst excesses being promoted.

                And the Norwegians are showing the way in terms of long-term investment strategies to benefit their citizens, just as Hidalgo and others are showing the way in terms of city-reshaping initiatives (physical investments) to benefit their citizens.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • anthropy@mastodon.derg.nzA anthropy@mastodon.derg.nz

                  @GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @blogdiva .... you're saying "we just need less", which is not possible with a growing population. Even the logistics of food and shelter are unattainable in our current methods.

                  Again, by all means; reuse, reduce, recycle. That's a great start. But you're not going to triple-R yourself towards a healthy planet. And by dissing renewables you're arguing for the current methods, for consumables, for fossil fuels, etc.

                  You need triple-R AND renewables, for start.

                  anthropy@mastodon.derg.nzA This user is from outside of this forum
                  anthropy@mastodon.derg.nzA This user is from outside of this forum
                  anthropy@mastodon.derg.nz
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #56

                  @GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @blogdiva and if your instinct here is "we need to shrink the population" you're starting to understand exactly what I mean by nihilism.

                  Again, no offense. I get the idealism that's behind all this. But the version you picked up is the one that came from the fossil industry, that argues we just need to e.g recycle plastic or whatever. But you're not going to recycle towards sustainable systems. Renewables however, are, and are also recycle-able on top of that.

                  ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG mark@mastodon.fixermark.comM 2 Replies Last reply
                  0
                  • anthropy@mastodon.derg.nzA anthropy@mastodon.derg.nz

                    @GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @blogdiva .... you're saying "we just need less", which is not possible with a growing population. Even the logistics of food and shelter are unattainable in our current methods.

                    Again, by all means; reuse, reduce, recycle. That's a great start. But you're not going to triple-R yourself towards a healthy planet. And by dissing renewables you're arguing for the current methods, for consumables, for fossil fuels, etc.

                    You need triple-R AND renewables, for start.

                    ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
                    ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
                    ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #57

                    @anthropy @benroyce @blogdiva

                    Industrial agriculture that costs 3-10x fossil fuel calories vs calorie brought to table.

                    You should understand that I am extremely well research in terms of the actual energy costs of industrial agriculture vs permaculture/agroforestry.

                    The hidden nugget in looking through the research is that permaculture/agroforestry, produce more food per unit more calories per unit land than industrial agriculture, ignoring industrial ag's fossil fuel footprint.

                    anthropy@mastodon.derg.nzA 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • benroyce@mastodon.socialB benroyce@mastodon.social

                      @tuban_muzuru @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

                      no

                      oppose stupidity that only helps the fossil fuel industry

                      we don't respect stupidity. toxic idealism is our enemy as surely as MAGA. the effect of this idiocy is the same as MAGA: support for the fossil fuel industry. because the whiny useless perfectionist doesn't understand that doesn't mean we respect that

                      respecting stupidity is part of what got us into this current mess

                      tuban_muzuru@beige.partyT This user is from outside of this forum
                      tuban_muzuru@beige.partyT This user is from outside of this forum
                      tuban_muzuru@beige.party
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #58

                      @benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

                      The fossil fuel addiction will be solved like the coal addiction before it. Solar and wind have come into their own, now cometh the better battery.

                      I'm driving a Pacifica hybrid. We have solar panels on the house roof. When the Better Battery arrives, we can make long trips without gas at all, but that day ain't here yet

                      benroyce@mastodon.socialB 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD dnkboston@apobangpo.space

                        @GhostOnTheHalfShell I also cringe at greenwashing, and roll my eyes at increased renewable percentages. Show me the absolute numbers (spoiler: fossil fuel emissions are still going up, even or especially in China--that's how they're powering the electric grid).

                        BUT it is not feasible to take cars away in the US unless you put in alternatives like public transportation. That's not happening right now. For those who must drive, an EV is a good solution IF you can afford it.

                        @benroyce @blogdiva

                        benroyce@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                        benroyce@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                        benroyce@mastodon.social
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #59

                        @dnkboston @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

                        using EVs instead of fossil fuels is not "greenwashing"

                        it obviously results in less fossil fuel use

                        it is without a doubt a good thing

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • benroyce@mastodon.socialB benroyce@mastodon.social

                          @Morgawr @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

                          but you support transitioning to EV from fossil fuels right?

                          because you know that's a good thing, right?

                          you're not going to oppose it because in the real world, rather than the castles in the sky of the mind of the toxic perfectionist, you know that that only helps the fossil fuel industry, right?

                          because you're not stupid like that, like our dear friend GhostOnTheHalfShell

                          morgawr@bookstodon.comM This user is from outside of this forum
                          morgawr@bookstodon.comM This user is from outside of this forum
                          morgawr@bookstodon.com
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #60

                          @benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva I believe anything demonstrably better than old modes are better. What's really needed is a revolution of thinking, which is beyond the ken of Hoi Polloi. I'm in favor of solar, wind, tidal, packing Co2 in cement, & using it for roads, developing plastics which naturally break down, I'm in favour of humanity conquering restlessness, & covetousness, which, alas, will never happen. Perhaps science can ride in on a pale horse, and save us, despite ourselves.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai

                            @anthropy @benroyce @blogdiva

                            You’re arguing that because I am pointing out the ecological consequences of what’s called renewables that I’m being a Nihilist?

                            How exactly are you squaring that circle?

                            adriano@lile.clA This user is from outside of this forum
                            adriano@lile.clA This user is from outside of this forum
                            adriano@lile.cl
                            wrote sidst redigeret af
                            #61

                            @GhostOnTheHalfShell I think they're calling you a nihilist because you keep saying "the only solution is "reduction"" which btw is a pretty nice word in isolation, but in the current state of things means basically a lot of people dying. What do you intend by it? Because "The only solution is reduction" is a very easy thing to type, but pretty much ten times more impossible than the alternatives proposed here. @anthropy @benroyce @blogdiva

                            benroyce@mastodon.socialB 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai

                              @anthropy @benroyce @blogdiva

                              Industrial agriculture that costs 3-10x fossil fuel calories vs calorie brought to table.

                              You should understand that I am extremely well research in terms of the actual energy costs of industrial agriculture vs permaculture/agroforestry.

                              The hidden nugget in looking through the research is that permaculture/agroforestry, produce more food per unit more calories per unit land than industrial agriculture, ignoring industrial ag's fossil fuel footprint.

                              anthropy@mastodon.derg.nzA This user is from outside of this forum
                              anthropy@mastodon.derg.nzA This user is from outside of this forum
                              anthropy@mastodon.derg.nz
                              wrote sidst redigeret af
                              #62

                              @GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @blogdiva I love permaculture and agroforestry. But you're not going to permaculture homes, schools, let alone the transport between these, never even mind the energy to fuel these.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • paneerakbari@mas.toP paneerakbari@mas.to

                                @benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @anthropy @blogdiva completely absent from the discussion is that the PV panels and batteries are - with existing technology - nearly entirely recyclable back into service as improved-efficiency versions of the same general products. Fossil fuels, hydroelectric, nuclear... no one's making any new uranium or petroleum, but the sun will keep shining for another couple billion years

                                ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
                                ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
                                ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai
                                wrote sidst redigeret af
                                #63

                                @paneerakbari @benroyce @anthropy @blogdiva

                                If we look at the actual recycling of PV, they turned out to be about as bad as general plastic recycling.

                                Recycling is contingent on cost structure. It's cheaper to throw the stuff away and build from scratch that it is to recycle. Economically you know how that ends up.

                                But in addition to this, you can't 100% recover anything and often if you try to recover one thing, it concludes the possibility of recovering the other materials.

                                paneerakbari@mas.toP ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG 2 Replies Last reply
                                0
                                • tuban_muzuru@beige.partyT tuban_muzuru@beige.party

                                  @benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

                                  The fossil fuel addiction will be solved like the coal addiction before it. Solar and wind have come into their own, now cometh the better battery.

                                  I'm driving a Pacifica hybrid. We have solar panels on the house roof. When the Better Battery arrives, we can make long trips without gas at all, but that day ain't here yet

                                  benroyce@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                                  benroyce@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                                  benroyce@mastodon.social
                                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                                  #64

                                  @tuban_muzuru @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

                                  good

                                  and thank you

                                  and now you understand the idiocy of GhostOnTheHalfShell, arguing against that, merely out of toxic idealism

                                  this marks that account as a shill of the fossil fuel industry or just too fucking stupid to see that the only real world effect of their perfectionist bullshit is to help the fossil fuel industry

                                  tuban_muzuru@beige.partyT 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • benroyce@mastodon.socialB benroyce@mastodon.social

                                    @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

                                    unread

                                    uninterested

                                    another whiny toxic idealist

                                    fighting the real left in service of the fossil fuel industry

                                    and too fucking stupid to see it

                                    stop following me and fuck you, you pathetic loser

                                    jwcph@helvede.netJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                    jwcph@helvede.netJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                    jwcph@helvede.net
                                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                                    #65

                                    @benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva Also, "stop using energy & live off the land" is completely unrealistic and, if enforced, even worse than the technofascists.

                                    Why? Because in order to get there, literally billions of people have to die - there's no way the current Earth population can all sustain ourselves by growing a fucking veggie garden.

                                    Pre-industrial world population was less than 1bn, so who is to be condemned to starve to death, or euthanized, maybe...?

                                    archaeoiain@archaeo.socialA 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai

                                      @paneerakbari @benroyce @anthropy @blogdiva

                                      If we look at the actual recycling of PV, they turned out to be about as bad as general plastic recycling.

                                      Recycling is contingent on cost structure. It's cheaper to throw the stuff away and build from scratch that it is to recycle. Economically you know how that ends up.

                                      But in addition to this, you can't 100% recover anything and often if you try to recover one thing, it concludes the possibility of recovering the other materials.

                                      paneerakbari@mas.toP This user is from outside of this forum
                                      paneerakbari@mas.toP This user is from outside of this forum
                                      paneerakbari@mas.to
                                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                                      #66

                                      @GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @anthropy @blogdiva ok sure thing bud
                                      maybe your soapbox of "everyone needs to go without" could kick off with us being deprived of your unicorn-hunting nihilism and foreclosed doom

                                      This is just as much why we can't have nice things as the economic bogeyman

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai

                                        @paneerakbari @benroyce @anthropy @blogdiva

                                        If we look at the actual recycling of PV, they turned out to be about as bad as general plastic recycling.

                                        Recycling is contingent on cost structure. It's cheaper to throw the stuff away and build from scratch that it is to recycle. Economically you know how that ends up.

                                        But in addition to this, you can't 100% recover anything and often if you try to recover one thing, it concludes the possibility of recovering the other materials.

                                        ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
                                        ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
                                        ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai
                                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                                        #67

                                        @paneerakbari @benroyce @anthropy @blogdiva

                                        There is no magic bullet. There is no silver bullet to any of this.

                                        Consider, for a moment, the possibility that the mining sector of the world is lying to you about renewables about green aluminum about green copper about green silver or green lithium or green nickel, or hydroelectric.

                                        Or that those PV panels require chopping down and burning old growth forest for the carbon.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai

                                          @benroyce @blogdiva

                                          I repeat and will continue to repeat the only way to step off the path of destruction is the immediate reduction of all energy use, and resource use. The equation that you and I get told repeatedly is a false one..

                                          Renewables come with a permanently destructive permanently, toxic permanently, life ending legacy.

                                          In order to build it, we have to kill the planet.

                                          mark@mastodon.fixermark.comM This user is from outside of this forum
                                          mark@mastodon.fixermark.comM This user is from outside of this forum
                                          mark@mastodon.fixermark.com
                                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                                          #68

                                          @GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @blogdiva What's your source on permanent destruction and toxicity? I'm pretty sure that isn't true.

                                          Batteries can renewable capture equipment (wind and solar) can be recycled. Relatively easily, in fact; for batteries, we can grind them and re-extract the useful elements easier than we can pull them out of the ground, and for generators, we can tear them down and refurb them.

                                          I don't dispute that initial extraction costs money and lives (though I compare it to fossil fuel extraction in that regard). But we can't recapture the output of a fossil fuel reaction and turn it back into fossil fuel; we can grind a battery and make a new battery, over and over, for a very long time before the elements stop cooperating.

                                          flipper@mastodonapp.ukF 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Svar
                                          • Svar som emne
                                          Login for at svare
                                          • Ældste til nyeste
                                          • Nyeste til ældste
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Log ind

                                          • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          Graciously hosted by data.coop
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Hjem
                                          • Seneste
                                          • Etiketter
                                          • Populære
                                          • Verden
                                          • Bruger
                                          • Grupper