China launches world’s fastest internet with 1.2 terabit per second link, years ahead of forecasts
Yeah! Well done China, however, a faster interest won't protect your people from the #ClimateCrisis
@scientist @zleap maybe if everyone took transition off fossil fuels as seriously as China, we wouldn't be facing a climate crisis https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/
Whilst many folk point a "finger" at China for being one of the top greenhouse gas emitters, and arguably a lot of their lower carbon infrastructure is in addition too, not replacing fossil fuels, China does of course export many products to Europe, etc.
However, the USA is the top greenhouse gas emitter per person.
It's going to require a cultural evolution to develop enough people that have the primary premise of developing an ecologically sustainable society.
@scientist @zleap right, it's important to consider emissions per capita, but the more important point you're making is that we really need to think of reducing emissions in systemic terms.
As long as we have a society built around consumerism, and growth that makes it very difficult to reduce emissions in a meaningful way.
In my view, capitalist economic system has to be abandoned if we are to become a sustainable civilization going forward.
I completely agree with the first two paragraphs.
I sort of agree with the third paragraph, although, I'd use the term 'improve' rather than 'abandon'.
For example, in theory, a government could develop regulations that protect capitalism from itself. In practice, capitalism tends to cause a 'rule by the rich outcome' that undermines democracy.
Having written that l find it odd that people simply accept working for non-democratic social organisations as normal.
@scientist @zleap I'd argue that the fundamental mechanics of capitalism are fundamentally incompatible with democracy and lead to an economic system that works in the interest of the capital owning minority.
A truly democratic system cannot be based on capitalism because democracy necessitates collective ownership of resources and the means of production.
bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@yogthos @scientist @zleap i suppose you just shoot the people who don't want to participate in your collectivism? or good old vernichtung durch arbeit?
@yogthos @scientist @zleap aaand commie brainfart blocked me.
of course murder is sometimes done by capitalists. it always is done by collectivists.
What do you think a "commie" refers to?
@scientist @yogthos @zleap someone who wants to take things owned by others by violence to "redistribute" and "collectivize" them. either for personal gain or out of stupidity that it will fix social problems. i try to not blame ill intend if plain stupidity will do.
see, i subscribed to the collectivist bs when i was younger. i now see that it always will end in violent oppression, no matter how sophisticated the theories might get. you just can't collectivize if there are people who don't want to participate.
there are some sane collective models like genossenschaften - haven't found a proper translation, it's a coop where people can exit and do _own_ their share - which are good. those only properly function in a market economy though.
"someone who wants to take things owned by others by violence"
Or force, just as colonial capitalism did, does.
You're mistaking ethics with the idea of an economic system.
For example, if a majority vote, votes for a communist 'lite' policy of, for example, turning private corporations into worker-owned cooperatives, then, strictly speaking, the majority are forcing the minority to give up some power.
And not a moment too soon.
@scientist @yogthos @zleap
> Or force, just as colonial capitalism did, does.
still isn't inherent to capitalism. you even required the qualifier "colonial" :)
> You're mistaking ethics with the idea of an economic system.
no.
> For example, if a majority vote, votes for a communist 'lite' policy of, for example, turning private corporations into worker-owned cooperatives, then, strictly speaking, the majority are forcing the minority to give up some power.
and how are they going to turn them into the "worker-owned cooperatives"? by asking pretty please? you can try to veil it in nice words, in the end collectivism will always have to use violence. the previous owners are robbed of what was theirs and are probably lynched if it is done like history has shown it will be.
> And not a moment too soon.
guess you'll volunteer for the death squads hunting down dissidents, eh?
@scientist @yogthos @zleap
> By a majority vote! Also known as a democracy!
say it, how are the owners stripped of their things? what happens to the owner? what happens if the owner doesn't comply with being robbed? what if the owner takes something like the coca-cola recipe and just burns it?
probably some stooges will come to kidnap him for harming exactly _no one_. nobody hurt. sure, ruin a life just because of some worker owned coop pipe dream. very fair!
you know who also was the "majority"? the nazis & the communists :)
> [NHS rant]
note that the NHS isn't owned by the people. the "neoliberal capitalists" couldn't meddle with it if the people really would own it. they only can "privatize" it because the state is absolutely corrupt and the people have no say over what happens with the money they are forced to pay. that's a peek of what happens with collectivism. the state as well could decide that from tomorrow all NHS funds go to yet another war and you couldn't do jack shit about it without getting jailed.
"say it, how are the owners stripped of their things? what happens to the owner? "
You're being melodramatic about this idea.
There are various ways that the "owner" can be compensated. In some cases, a cooperative of people could buy the shares of a private corporation & transition it into a cooperative business model.
But, if many people thought that the capitalist system was corrupted by rich "owners" of capital, a revolution may not be so civil.
@scientist @yogthos @zleap i'm not being melodramatic, i'm asking for honesty.
just be honest to yourself that it's unjust and violent. the way you talk about it you already know this, but for the sake of the cause you can't admit it.
threatening the communist revolution which in history lead to more deaths than the nazis is quite dishonest for someone who thinks so highly of his own deeds.
Now, you're accusing me dishonesty. More melodrama (the memodrama, that you then deny)
Whilst some people do regularly lie, they also tend to be gas lighters in that they accuse others of lying to deflect attention from their own lies.
However, l haven't accused you of lying because I'm sincere enough to know, or perhaps intelligent enough to understand, that accusing liars of lying, only triggers them to fabricate more nonsense to try & defend their honour.
@scientist @yogthos @zleap where did i lie? :)
Where you said "I'm asking for honesty"
That was a lie. Because I'm being honest.
To be clear, sometimes lies can be the misunderstanding that exists between two honest people.
Do you accept the evidence on evolutionary biology? Evidence develops what can be termed a more truthful theory
@scientist @yogthos @zleap i asked you because i know that you know forcing others is wrong but argue that forcing others is good.
i have no idea what evolutionary biology has to do with this.
That's a child's way of thinking. You should be aware by now that l am advocating for democracy. But, sure, civilian laws do force people to, for example, stay in prison
In the context of establishing a cooperative democratic business, that means more people have more choice (by definition)
But, whether you're aware of it or not, you're gaslighting the narrative & trying to make it appear as if I'm the dictator. When obviously, I'm advocating for more democracy
@scientist @yogthos @zleap
by all means, call me childish! children are usually much better at understanding the concept of "not forcing others". until it's beaten out of them by institutionalized child care, they need children to be good future bailiffs.
you argue as if democracy isn't coercion people into submission. it's the ruling of a majority imposing their will upon a minority. it is in no perceivable way just, even if it is hammered into us that it's the solution to end all problems.
i'll just quote the writings of lysander spooner who in the 19th century put into eloquent words what still is valid in the 21th century:
> One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support. And one certain proof that a government is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will. All governments, the worst on earth, and the most tyrannical on earth, are free governments to that portion of the people who voluntarily support them. And all governments though the best on earth in other respects — are nevertheless tyrannies to that portion of the people — whether few or many — who are compelled to support them against their will. A government is like a church, or any other institution, in these respects. There is no other criterion whatever, by which to determine whether a government is a free one, or not, than the single one of its depending, or not depending, solely on voluntary support.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lysander-spooner-no-treason#toc13
> What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lysander-spooner-natural-law-or-the-science-of-justice#toc20
so, yes, by arguing for «more democracy» you are advocating for less freedom. forcing people for "the common good" is always the reasoning of totalitarian regimes.
note that, like spooner wrote, if people decide out of free will to organize it's perfectly fine. as long as they can later choose to not partake any longer.
it really isn't complicated.
Forced justice.
Do you agree that civilisations should use some form of force, for example, police arresting an abusive adult, to prevent child abuse?
Forced justice.
@scientist @yogthos @zleap these immediate dangers should be handled by self-defense - or defense of others against an aggressor. freedom is intertwined with responsibility, for yourself and others.
i don't have all the answers of how things should be done in a voluntaryist way. the only principle which has to be kept is that of non-violence, what people arrive at as _their_ solution is up to them.
Forced justice.
Self-defence against an aggressor usually requires some form of force (or the threat of force which may deter some violent agency)
"freedom is intertwined with responsibility, for yourself and others"
I agree!
Generally, as far as human interactions go, informed mutual consent is the ethical standard. That's why an honest democracy is the 'gold' standard for a civilisation. Only an informed voter can know what they're voting for.
Forced justice.
"the only principle which has to be kept is that of non-violence"
If only the majority were willing and able to follow that principle. Or 🤔 perhaps the majority are, BUT, a minority make it very difficult to uphold our non-violent standards.
That 'minority' takes many forms. For example, some governments try to persuade the public that, generally, non-violent environmental activists are terrorists (a form of trying to gaslighting the public)
Forced justice.
@scientist @yogthos @zleap
> If only the majority were willing and able to follow that principle. Or 🤔 perhaps the majority are
the majority which is non-violent and does a crazy amount of unpaid work in one form or another because they believe it's the right thing.
> [...] BUT, a minority make it very difficult to uphold our non-violent standards.
> [...] For example, some governments [...]
other minorities don't have the power to beat you up and kidnap you without having to fear you or someone else exercising self-defense.
sidenote: you should maybe think about the inflationary use of the term "gaslighting" ;)
Forced justice.
Note about side note. That is a problem when using folk psychological terms with non psychologists (that typically, on the internet at least, believe they know "psychology", even, or perhaps especially, the folk that have only read about psychology in pop culture)
There are many forms of gaslighting. However, they all have lying, do as to protect status, as a common denominator
What makes most folk vulnerable " he sounded honest", etc, naivety
Forced justice.
From the recipient perspective, there is also a form of non intentional gaslighting. Or at least, the gaslighter hasn't fabricated an elaborate story, such as the fossil fuel industries, so as to intentionally gaslight their consumers
The implicit gaslighter may, for example, simply not base their sense of reality on evidence. And react neurotically when their "truth" is challenged. In this variant, the gaslighter is also the victim (of ignorance)
Forced justice.
@scientist @yogthos @zleap
i have some problems with this:
the technical one is that "gaslighting" is an absolute bullshit term in itself. it requires knowledge of some obscure play to understand.
another is that it is a direct accusation of insincerity. it immediately kills any discussion by declaring the opponent as insincere - in almost every case i witnessed because one got in an uncomfortable corner in the discussion.
yet another problem is that the concept itself is insincere: it requires the "gaslit" to be in a state on unsuspecting victimhood and elevates the accuser into something "above" it.
this either means that the accusation voids itself: you can't be gaslit if you don't believe the lie - the accused then just is lying.
alternatively it means the accuser is "better" than others: for example by saying the fossil fuel industry is "gaslighting" the consumers one place oneself above the consumers. they are too stupid to see the lies and require the enlightened accuser to save them.
lastly, the concept of "implicit gaslighting" is best described by itself :)
"I have no idea what evolutionary biology has to do with this"
Well, according to the evidence, you're an evolved organism, so, evolutionary biology has everything to do with everything (because that's our psychology. Our perception, our constructs, our beliefs, our reality)
But, non-evidence-based believers will disagree (that's OK so long as they don't get violent over that disagreement)
@bonifartius @yogthos @zleap
"and how are they going to turn them into the "worker-owned cooperatives"? by asking pretty please?"
By a majority vote! Also known as a democracy!
You do realise that governments make policies. But, the neoliberal capitalists don't ask the people if, for example, they want their National Health System (NHS) privatised, they do it sneakily (privatise it bit by bit whilst publicly saying that they support the NHS)