this post was submitted on 12 May 2025
66 points (98.5% liked)
Casual Conversation
3259 readers
309 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You receive criticism because you are wrong. Automation is just using technology to make things with less effort. I'm very happy letting a machine weave my clothes, rather than having to sit down and twist the threads to weave my clothes with my fingers. Eschewing automation wouldn't just result in less environmental waste - it would send us back to the dark ages, except worse, because we could not possibly feed and clothes the world's population without automated systems. Humans, desperate for food and shelter, would constantly be at war with each other and would chop down every forest and slaughter every animal in a desperate attempt at survival.
Meanwhile, there is no reason it must be awful for the environment or people. If single use plastics are a problem because they are cheaper than the alternative, then the solution is obvious: make plastics more expensive. This is called a Pigouvian Tax, and it is very effective. Any time we notice something which has a negative impact on the world, but which has no negative impact for its user, we just tax it until its use has been decreased to an acceptable level.
Dust and oils in a work environment are solveable by wearing PPE.
The unpleasantness of a job is solveable by making life affordable for workers so they can just quit if they don't like it.
These are all solveable problems, and I see no need to make the whole world way shittier to solve them.
I've spent time over the years wondering why I receive hostile or angry criticism. A few ideas float to my mind. Judging by the responses I do receive, many seem to be uncomfortable giving up any current personal comfort in order to address deeper questions about health, safety, how we work with the environment around us and who actually benefits from our current technology.
I've made no attempts to suggest solutions. The automation industry is far too complex for me to even try. The covid lockdowns showed me just how vulnerable the automation industry is to disruptions. Something that's vulnerable to disruptions should be questioned. Especially when so many lives are dependent on it.
Those deeper questions may just lead us in a completely different direction. That is nothing to fear. In the process of that, we may just find a comfort zone between technology, nature and human creativity where it can all exist with minimal pain for us and everything around us.
Decreasing our dependence on technology will allow us, the ones who do not hoard wealth as a means of power over other people, to gain control and independence in our personal lives and our immediate communities. When we can be independent, we can become more resistent to disruptions in our communities.
All this requires us to be open, honest and to have the the will to attempt change. From my personal experiences and perspective, doing more of the same only enables to current situation.