My main account is solo@slrpnk.net. I’m also using the one here because I really like the feed feature.
Btw I’m a non-binary trans person [they/she/he].
I don’t see effective regulations being put into place to restrict capitalist exploitation. On the contrary, the regulations are in favor of capitalism, and capitalism is ferosiously distructive.
So, what I mean by saying organise is that due to the fact that neoliberalism has bought off politicians (political systems I should say) worldwide, it is important to organise ourselves in order to get rid of its eternal growth model, which is destroying life on this planet.
The Rojava example is one of my favorite approaches.
I have only lived in europe and these are the conclusions I’ve made so far.
Ok, you say the following
Regulation is just how we make that choice as a collective.
For me, the answer is
Organize.
I suppose it depends on one’s perspective.
To dislike (or worse) an article and its author, it’s one thing. From that to draw conclusions about all americans seems like a stretch to me.
Nevertheless, I would appreciate some clarification on the following statement, if you don’t mind.
Americans being unable to understand the public space as a concept
What do you believe you understand about public space as a concept that americans don’t?
Edit: Looks like the author is Bolivian, not american
Edit2: Sorry my bad. That’s another Ana Flores. This one is
Ana Karen Flores is a first-generation Latina communications strategist who commands the narrative and drives real political change. She’s a Public Voices fellow with The OpEd Project and works alongside the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice and the Every Page Foundation.
For me, there are to many “ifs” and assumptions in this hypothesis.
Copy-pasting here my comment to this article from another community:
Carbon Capture and Storage/Sequestration (CCS) is a topic I changed my mind about, not that long ago, including its subsets like Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), Direct Air Capture (DAC), etc. Up to last year or something, I was thinking that it’s important for these kind of tech to be researched.
Now I see things differently:
To my understanding, the only CCS tech that makes sense is the one that catches emissions at the source, the factory chimneys.
The others that claim to suck up GHG and store them “out of sight out of mind” are highly problematic for so many reasons. They are distractions from the real issue which is phasing out fossil fuel.
A few relevant links:
Fact or fantasy? Can carbon dioxide removal save the climate?
For fossil fuel corporations, keeping CDR on the agenda as a credible climate change solution is a Get Out of Jail Free card. Instead of stopping emissions, they promise to capture and bury them. Not now, but someday. As the CEO of Occidental Petroleum told a conference of her peers in 2023, “We believe that our direct capture technology is going to be the technology that helps to preserve our industry over time. This gives our industry a license to continue to operate for the 60, 70, 80 years that I think it’s going to be very much needed.”[
Climeworks’ capture fails to cover its own emissions
The carbon capture company Climeworks only captures a fraction of the CO2 it promises its machines can capture. The company is failing to carbon offset the emissions resulting from its operations – which have grown rapidly in recent years.
More articles in the relevant community:
cdr@slrpnk.net
Your comment reminded me of a recent article from Carbon Brief:
Experts: Which climate tipping point is the most concerning?
I tend to agree with what you say but I feel like mentionning a couple of things I see perhaps differently.
I believe saying marine mammals are a myth has nothing to do with claiming alpha males don’t exist. The first is about a biological classification, the latter is about observed (or projected) social behaviors within one species.
Apart from that, and to my understanding, the manosphere has taken a hold of the alpha male narrative and expanded it far beyond the scientifically debunked myth. I do not imply that the fact that the alpha male myth has been debunked means that there are no hierarchical structures in species, just that when they are present, they are misrepresented in order to promote competitive narratives. This is why primatologist Frans de Waal inadvertently popularized the term ‘alpha male.’ Now, he’s debunking common stereotypes to explain what an ‘alpha male’ really is – empathetic and protective.
Just to clarify, not family dynamics, but wolves in captivity.
Edit: What we call “wolf packs” are just families. They are loving and take care of each other. In the unnatural environment of captivity, wolfs demonstrate different and aggressive behaviors, and studying these behaviors lead to the alpha-male myth
For socialism in the context of the so-called communist countries, I agree with you.
For socialism in the context of the nordic model, I am not sure because I am not well informed about how they have handled nuclear power.
Edit: Regardless of the past, it’s capitalism that has prevailed globally for now, so currently this is what we have to deal with.
The way I see things, the unsafe part is more related to how capitalism works, more than anything else. Capitalism is not a safe system.
Super-briefly, time and money related to: planning, maintenance, decommissioning, and last but not least, nuclear waste.
Imo and due to climate emergency, we’d be better putting the money that would go for nuclear towards renewables. Let’s keep in mind that numerous nuclear projects were funded with enormous amounts of money for 10-20 years, to be abandoned before producing any electricity.
Just a few relevant links:
It’s a buy your right to pollute scheme.
To my understanding, the overwhelmingly vast majority of carbon offsets and carbon credits are at best ineffective or at worst just scams. Consequently, they lead to more emissions and are used to delay the phasing out of fossil fuels.
I don’t think I understand why you say that the author is assuming 5% of GDP goes towards making guns, since they talk throughout the article about military expenditure and military spending, which are much broader terms.
Of course, it’s not normal for such high temperatures so early in the summer, or for them to occur more and more often. I’m not implying we are used to climate change, just that we are used to much hotter weather than other people.
I could say it depends on what one is used to. For example, yesterday the temperature here was 37°C, and the app was saying Real feel 40.6°C. We get 29°C only at night and it feels almost like a breeze. And the tough part of the summer isn’t here yet.
If you look into the article, when this is mentioned, there is a relevant link. I think it is worth taking a look at it, because it gives perspective on this topic. Actually, a few, not only one.
The countries with the biggest skews in favour of boys in sex ratios at birth have seen a reversion towards the natural rate.
In a handful of places, the overall birth statistics appear to reflect a preference for girls over boys.
But in most countries, any preference for girls expressed in polls is not strong enough to show in the overall sex ratio at birth. Most parents-to-be seem to balk at sex-selective abortions, in other words.
The assumption that daughters will be more nurturing whereas sons will grow distant is ingrained even in the most egalitarian societies.
Edit: I rewrote the comment, when I realised there are a few links in the article that clarify things
[…] boys will be aborted and neglected in favour of girls
It’s the first time I hear about this. Any relevant links you could share that corroborate this take?
This article is not really about mathematical talent. It mentions that stereotypes might be reproduced by attributing success in girls to diligence and in boys to talent, but it’s about mathematical ability.
At the start of the first school year (when children are five or six years old), there are no differences, on average, between boys and girls in mathematical ability. But after just four months, boys have pulled ahead. The gap widens throughout the year.
In that case, adding /s at the end of the comment helps a lot to clarify its tone
Farmer suicides have a long history in India
Dammit, very long indeed. It seems thatnearly 4,00,000 farmers committed suicide in India between 1995 and 2018. This translates into approximately 48 suicides every day..
I’m afraid you’re totally right.Edit: The strikethrought. Now that I think about it, all this destruction is part of the ethnic cleansing. It’s a way to forcefully displace Palestinians. By making Gaza unlivable, it’s also a way to prevent them to return there.