Here, I have a couple examples to kind of, illustrate why, despite the common sentiment, antinatalism, and malthusianism, inherently, like, just straight up, don't make any sense. This is all based on back of the napkin math that I did a while ago, and I don't want to redo the numbers, so take it with a grain of salt maybe, but, yeah.

Okay, so, not really taking into account consumption or supply chain, which are major factors, you could fit the entire population of earth in one city the size of about one and a quarter rhode islands, if you had the population density of kowloon. Now, kowloon has retroactively been shat on as having a low quality standard of living, which is partially true, there were leaks everywhere, it was run by the mob, yadda yadda, but there's nothing inherently problematic with that level of density, there. You could easily expand that to, say, two rhode islands, or three, right, and that would cover an insanely small portion of the earth's surface while also being more than enough for everyone to live.

On the other hand, if you divided up the earth based on only habitable zones and arable land, you'd get about 2.5 acres per person, which I think also accounts for the elderly and children. To me, that sounds like probably 2.5x more than I would ever need in a lifetime, especially once we kind of tally up all the savings that we can get at scale, at mass production, and then maybe take costs for transportation.

We also, never, never ever take into account the amount of land management which was being done by the various natives of all their lands before colonialism kind of came in and fucked everything up. We have this conception of nature as being some kind of like, inherent good entity that humans can only ever destroy with their presence. A kind of untouched garden of eden that we should basically never touch. As being like, inherently sacred, or having some inherent value, even, to the point where we anthropomorphize it. "Mother nature". We have this view of humans as also being completely separate from nature, as being an aberration, rather than being a part of it. I think these are both mistakes. We have to view humans as being a part of nature, and we have to start viewing nature as existing everywhere, rather than just being something that you minorly interface with when you go for a hike. Our built environment is part of nature, our decision to plant exclusively male trees that will give off a shit ton of pollen which covers all the windows and makes everything super shitty all spring so we don't have fruit, that's a part of nature. So are the raccoons and possums and stray cats and dogs and pigeons and weeds and other things which we see as being invasive but also simultaneously as having no real habitat anymore.

The real solution, I think, is only going to come about when humans collectively start to conceptualize and take accountability for what they go around and do, rather than just sort of, pawning off all responsibility for everything, and cooking up some apocalyptic reality where it'd just be better off if we didn't exist at all. The genie is out of the bottle. Even to conceptualize of us as being "the problem", as though there is a singular kind of problem, is a kind of anthropocentrism, and a kind of anthropomorphizing of nature.

I also assume I don't need to really discuss how like, the idea that we're currently doing everything in the most efficient way, is a little bit overconfident, and takes everything at a kind of, unchanging face value. As though we exist in the long arc of history with a kind of inevitability, rather than a random happenstance.

Excellent and much needed context, compared to just seeing images of contextually devoid book vandalism, and being trusted to assume a kind of naive, perhaps bad faith idiocy.

I legitimately wonder if there's really any level of protest that people will tolerate. If you throw soup on the protective glass that covers a painting, prepare to get slammed with a 20 minute protracted conversation about whether or not soup can leak between the gaps in the fixtures that secure a painting to the wall, and whether or not that amount of soup can do damage, and how much money we're all paying for it to be cleaned up, and how seeing a painting is a once in a lifetime thing which is now ruined for the people who went and so on and so on. If you block traffic, well, now I've had to spend 2 or 3 hours in delays, and there's no cause that's really worth a minor inconvenience. The protesting crowd should all get gunned down for that. At the very least, they all deserve to know that nothing they're doing can every really matter or change anything ever.

Then of course, none of that's actually related to the issue we really want to discuss, there, that's all just tangential, complicated political issues, that we're primed to bellyache and whine about. We can only show how much we care by donating to some nonprofit, while we go about our lives ideally uninterrupted an uninconvinienced by the protesters. I feel like I must've stumbled on this thread dozens of times already, and it never really gets any better.

I think what drives the root cause of this is some kind of nihilism, some sense that nothing can ever get any better, and if you think otherwise, you're naive. That we really just exist to keep everything in a permanent deadlock. If you were to take more extreme action than this, well, no, that's morally abhorrent, whomever will just get replaced by the institutional successor, and oh, you're causing X amount of property destruction, which is X amount of economic value, thus, X amount of time, and thus, X amount of lifespan for someone. Then you've basically committed murder, if not mass murder, by wasting so many lifetimes. The many, sometimes literal, murders of the status quo otherwise need not apply, or else are assumed to be inevitable. Even if your actions here were somehow directly materially related to the conflict, right, it would be all too easy to just dismiss it out of hand as being not really effective, or as being adventurism or a waste of everyone's time. Can't I just get back to the perennial Big Game? I just wanna grill for God's sake!

I mean I feel like I've seen him get smeared since way way before covid was happening, like, since the 2010's at least he's been getting heat for no reason, I feel like

No yeah for real. I've never seen him doing anything I would really consider to be annoying, or at least, more annoying than any other science communicator, and he constantly gets shit on for being like, too cocky, but then when you push back I never get any examples of things he's actually fucked up on, just that he has bad vibes.

You know this kinda makes me think that it would've been funnier if they connected two cities that hate each other more than just like, dublin and new york, which I can't really think of as ever having had beef. Maybe NYC and chicago, or something. You can't really put something like this in texas or LA because nobody fuckin walks anywhere, unless maybe you put it in like long beach or like some random part of Austin or something. Seattle? Does Seattle have beef with anywhere? On the other side, could we connect Dublin with like, London or something? Maybe some city in northern Ireland?

The fuck aren't we growing these kinds of bananas everywhere in overly exploited republics and then importing them into the US? Fuck the gros michel, fuck these petty banana snack foods, I want a banana that I can eat as a meal.

Yeah we're probably totally cooked. I wasn't even alive in the 90's, so I wouldn't know firsthand, but you can listen to nature recordings around certain locations and what was once many birds is now not very many birds.

I dunno. I think everyone looks at climate change and the destruction of ecosystems and habitats as a kind of, instantly apocalyptic issue, like that's just a turning point and then suddenly everyone dies. I don't think it's so simple. I don't really know if corn or many of the crops we rely on can weather 2 degrees celsius global warming or whatever, but I think it's probably pretty likely that humanity, or more likely, some well-meaning asshole, ends up terraforming a bunch of shit before that really happens, which will probably kill a bunch of other animals and decrease overall biodiversity to an even greater extent. I think probably humanity at large would rather kill almost every other lifeform on the planet for survival before we allow ourselves to be threatened. Or, before we allow our structures to threaten dissolution, so probably "other lifeforms" also includes like, people in third world countries who rely on more local ecology and depend on local ecosystems for their foodstuffs. More interdependent.

So I dunno, we're probably totally cooked.

I dunno I wonder how much of this thread believes in rehabilitative justice when it's convenient for them to do so, but will then turn around and advocate for extreme eye for an eye style punitive, retributive justice whenever it strikes their moral fancy. If it was seen as socially acceptable to go to the coliseum and see people thrown off of large wooden towers, or to go and look at the gallows, I can guarantee we'd still probably do it.

I also don't think this act requires psychopathy, or else you'd probably have to classify like, every teenage boy who kicks over an anthill or tries to shoot a squirrel with a bb gun as a psychopath. No, I think probably the fact that he paraded it through the town and bragged about it is the biggest indication that, much like the people in this thread, he thought he was doing something morally justified and cool.

Maybe finally I'd just like to ask the question of, if you don't actually want this guy to be horribly tortured and killed, or become some sort of adverse strain on the medical industry, become disabled, dependant on medical care (really revealing of your opinions of the elderly and disabled there, guys), then why are you calling for these things? These things which you do not actually believe should happen? Probably it's because your brain's been rotted by social media which I can appreciate, but still, I must chastize you for it, because when I do it, it's morally justified and cool. While I don't think that "death threats" from random people usually carry with them the same kind of weight as when political pundits call for the deaths of a given population or even a single person, and it's unlikely that this guy actually gets tortured with all the fixin's and trappin's of a cut off your toes style collections agency, I still think it's pretty morally repugnant and obviously unproductive to send this guy hate mail. At least package some ricin in it or something, if you really care, c'mon.

I don't actually care if you go scoop out this guy's eyes with pomegranate spoons or take your toenail clippers to his teeth or whatever, or maybe like. Leave him in the unrefrigerated milk and honey bath for several weeks. You know, lest I be accused of being an animal torturer, or complicit in animal torture, which, really beating the witch hunt allegations there, Simone. No, I don't really care about that shit, what I do mostly care about is that it's fucking annoying to see a bunch of presumably men but also women who are unable to experience emotional distress without wanting to call for an eye gougathon. It's okay to be sad and kind of mad that this shitlord is basically going to get away with this, as it would seem. I don't think it's healthy or productive to vent your emotions at this random person, though.

I could also maybe call out the "well, are you guys vegan?" hypocrisy that everyone else has already done, but I'm not a vegan and I don't care because I don't have morals, so I'll leave that to them.

Thank you for your time.

It's basically just because he's like, a moronic ape. He is able to kind of, wear the aesthetics of your everyday college dorm bro, who thinks the dark knight is the greatest movie ever made. Or at least, wear the aesthetics of their middling 30 year old, balding, divorced versions, because that movie came out in like 2008, or whatever. You can basically put him in any context, and he's able to function as the same idiot self-insert character. He's the vessel through which they can imagine themselves talking to famous celebrities, academics, comedians, and right wing conspiracy nuts.

Whoever keeps throwing in the shit about law enforcement in these stories, which I think was actually a security officer for the embassy, drawing a gun, is doing a pretty good job of distracting from the main issue of what this guy lit himself on fire and died for. Doing a much better job than all the whinging about how he was mentally ill, and how this won't change anything, and how there's no clear cause, that mainstream news outlets are doing when they cover this type of stuff, if they cover it at all.

I would also like to kind of point out here, that "this won't change anything, this guy was mentally ill, he killed himself for nothing", is really only true if you decide it to be true. We get to decide whether or not this motivates us to do something or not. We get to decide whether or not we let this affect us. Whether or not we do something, to make sure this doesn't happen again, you know? And that's mostly, in my mind, the purpose of this kind of protest.

Maybe it makes the institutions think about what they're doing, probably not, since, if they were gonna think that, they should've probably thought that about the 20,000 or so palestinians that have been killed. This protest is mostly engineered to get you mad, and sad, and to make you, the viewer, think about why this is happening, and think about what you can do to stop it. Not just deflecting immediately to whether or not it was effective, because by doing so, you let it not be as effective.

Brings to mind the discourse against, really any form of protest that I've seen. You could take the george floyd protests, for example. So, sure, the government throws in agent provocateurs, in order to turn what would otherwise be peaceful protests, which would shut down any traffic into and out of the city, and would choke off any economic activity (puts pressure on businesses, utilities, puts pressure on local government, which needs to please these people who don't really care about the protest but want things to go back to normal).

But by doing so, right, by causing those passive forms of damage, but also by causing active forms of damage, say, burning a big box store down, right, the public showcases that, if a certain legal decision to, say, let derek chauvin off, occurs, then there will be potentially more protests and more destruction, which provides great incentive against that decision occurring.

Now, in this case, there's not as clear of a process, because there's not as clear of repercussions if they decide to do nothing. About the only thing that might happen is that this might happen again, which, might, by some process of media coverage, put enough pressure on politicians to cause this to stop, if it becomes a political issue. The same thing is happening with mass shootings, which aren't a greatly impacting issue, by the numbers, right, they're much less than that of road deaths, heart disease, other forms of gun violence.

But they are so horrifying to the american public and to really anyone of moral conscience, that they should serve as a clear marker that something is wrong, and something needs to change. Serial killers create a similar effect. It's almost like a kind of terrorism, using that word without judgement, here. That's the power of these protests. We've already seen it spread across a bunch of news media, even though it's being reported about as poorly as you'd expect.

I'm not particularly sure that repeat incidents would do any good, and I think I'd generally be opposed to that, as should anyone, but, an instance of self-immolation is what caused the arab spring. This sort of thing isn't ineffective, I think it does a disservice to aaron bushnell to say otherwise.

If you want to stop this sort of thing from occurring in the first place, you should really try to understand why it was happening, instead of brushing it aside.

Damn, I thought lemmy would be better than easily swallowed obvious ragebait, but, I suppose, such is the modern internet.

I would like to believe in calendar reform as a goal. At the same time, I think calendars are one of the only pretty decent somewhat universal standards we have going for us, and if we changed it at all, you KNOW we would just be using two competing standards, not everyone would want to switch because people are stupid, so unless you forced it from the top down through technology, like a really advanced, shitty version of y2k, which would make people super pissed, I dunno if any of it would work.