Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   David Ho (davidho@mastodon.world)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 00:54:20 JST David Ho

   Some people say, "Alongside rapid and drastic decarbonization, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will be needed to meet climate goals."

   I say no! Unless we decarbonize drastically, CDR will be useless.

   So we say, "AFTER rapid and drastic decarbonization, CDR will be needed to meet climate goals."

2. Embed this notice
   erin (erin@social.xenofem.me)'s status on Sunday, 10-Dec-2023 07:59:30 JST erin

   The greatest criticism I have of anarchism is that everything in the world on a molecular level is and can only ever be comprised of control systems. Objectively (mechanically) there is no difference between, say, an organism breathing to maintain its coherence and a state employing the use of armed forces to suppress dissent. Of course I personally would be more likely to take the inconsistent position here (for the organism and against the state) but I see this more as an individual human desire than a solid framework. I reject morality as an exercise as painting a subjective thing as objective.

   Escape from control systems is a literally unimaginable thing. The best we can do is imagine a world where they’re softened up a little in proximity to us. For instance looking at heaven and hell (and utopian/dystopian futures) we see a faraway mythological land that cannot affect our reality, and within which no individual or collective could ever impose their will. Whether these places promise eternal suffering, eternal bliss, or anything in between doesn’t really matter–what matters is that your suffering or bliss does not matter. The fantasy of death is to be irrelevant and useless.

   So ultimately I would say anarchism has led to some pretty interesting places, but it has a really long way to go. We may never develop the tools to truly confront cybernetics, but I think progress is possible on some fronts.