Get out of my head
Cars and car infrastructure are very expensive. I see that as a growing problem, with resources (budgets) needing to be allocated to more important things.
If you keep "a few" cars, the policy transforms cars into highly desirable status signals due to being luxury products that have some large access privilege. This alone is a huge danger because people in this civilization are raised to be obsessed with chasing status and giving a small minority the huge advantage of cars and car system would probably lead to some type of mafia, political corruption, all kinds of bad shit. And it would maintain DESIRE for cars, and desire is key to creating demand.
The goal should be to eradicate the technology of cars entirely. That's going to allow for more efficient use of other systems, more efficient use of resources, less pollution, way less class conflict.
I'm not saying that it will eliminate class conflict, because we know that there's a history of "classes" in public transportation, even in buses. That's segregation by class (in the US that class system was also mirrored in "race"). That's a problem we should figure out separately.
Essentially, any time you support the production and use of a luxury, you're destabilizing society and creating dangerous racing conditions ("race to the bottom", "rat race", "arms race") which means that it's unsustainable socially and politically.
I am actually from Eastern Europe and in my country, during the "Socialist" regime, there still were cars and they were rare. It drove the people nuts, it was a huge privilege to drive on, to buy one, to fuel one. After 1989 getting cars became a free for all, if you had money, so now the place is almost literally paved with cars in the big cities and most of them are second-hand, with a large number of them being junkers that cause horrible pollution (yes, we are in the EU). I've seen it happen, this tragedy. Which is why I say that there can be no stable state of "just a few cars".
It doesn't even work industrially, these car factories and car parts factories rely on economies of scale and large production. The lower the production, the more expensive and manual it has to get. Remember, cars started out as a rich people's dangerous toys.
Similar dynamics apply to car infrastructure. That shit's expensive. Do you think you're going to have highways across the land for a fraction of the current car users?
Fuck fireworks!
Interesting. Time to get the plant-based heme iron out. :)
"Plant Chompers" had a nice documentary on iron: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOK3NS2bD3M
This reminds me of those solar cars. https://wonderfulengineering.com/family-solar-car-stella-runs-completely-on-solar-energy/
What's the "Remind Me" bot here? +2.7 ℃ looks doable by 2050.
Trump’s win shows that misinformation is here to stay.
> ## The Bottom Line > > Despite widespread consensus on the reality of climate change, misinformation about both the causes and solutions for climate change took hold during the 2024 presidential election. As this type of misinformation continues to impact public discourse, the need for greater media literacy becomes crucial, particularly to counteract the influence of political leaders and foreign-backed campaigns on voter behavior.
The last time Trump was in power, the liberal #Resistance was a joke. This time, we have to mount a real one.
It's even worse. The places that sell carbon offsets are often poorer parts of the world. The selling is essentially a privatization of carbon sinks. As is tradition, these privatizations are very under-priced. Worse still, as they're selling carbon sinks, they will not have those carbon sinks for themselves in the future if they choose to "develop" and emit more GHGs... they'll have to buy carbon credits from some other fools and the prices are not likely to be lower.
It's all very silly.
it's safe
but is there time?
Wasn't she a huge disappointment when she unilaterally suspended/deferred congestion pricing supposedly after divine interventionmeeting an angel some random person in a restaurant? What a piece of shit.
The article is paywalled, so good luck with it. Isn't "Lemon de" on the conservative carbrain side?
And, yes, speed limits need to be enforced somehow for all motorized vehicles within their contexts. Sidewalks are not for riding fast and bike paths aren't for riding fast either. Speed limiters are most definitely needed, as is a lot of education. Civilization is 100% not ready for "sharable" scooters either.
Wait till you hear about grazing.
They're probably doing that rich hunter shit where they have someone release the birds and they shoot them soon after they get into the air.
The great filter is here. Time to see if this global civilization and shrink its ego enough to fit through it.
Some recommended reading:
"Would abandoning false hope help us to tackle the climate crisis?"
‘Climate Optimism’ Is Dangerous and Irrational
Making the future too bright: how wishful thinking can point us in the wrong direction
"The Neoliberal Optimism Industry"
And some gallows humor for you: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/zwgsdit718nhpvp2u25s0/h?rlkey=3fkknreo30eovbmim8wqnt56b&e=1&dl=0 from https://postdoom.com/
The culture wars are about the class war indirectly. Women are famously the first large underclass, worse than workers who don't own the means of production: workers who don't even own themselves, workers who do a second shift at home which goes unpaid and unrecognized in pensions and healthcare.
Failure to understand how these are connected translates into failure to achieve solidarity.
Unraveling a $130 million web of climate denial, political extremism, and Trump campaign ties.
>For decades, oil and gas magnate Charles G. Koch and his late brother David fought vigorously for environmental deregulation, including by supporting groups that sow doubt about the science of manmade climate change. Foundations linked to Koch gave at least $9.6 billion to 15 Project 2025 groups since 2020. But four of the lesser-known families — Bradley, Scaife, Seid, and Uihlein — gave even more, and all six family fortunes helped to fund Project 2025 groups that have denied the science of manmade climate change.
Almost 20% of the Kayapó Indigenous Territory has burned in this year’s Amazon drought, the worst ever recorded in Brazil.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/20824402
> Automaker's latest subscription model takes nickel-and-diming to new heights
Footage captured by a local vet shows a pile of dead infected cattle left unattended by the roadside, with no warnings or biosecurity measures in place.
>These cows, confirmed to have been infected with avian influenza (H5N1), were left exposed without any warning signs or biosecurity precautions. The footage was deemed too graphic for publication.
>"What was so shocking was that there was so little signage around anywhere telling the public about avian influenza and warning them of the biosecurity risks," Heath told Newsweek.
edit
--------------------------------
Photos of dead cattle show bird flu is overwhelming Tulare County. How did the virus get in?
NSFW CW:
spoiler
DEAD
spoiler
COWS
spoiler
https://www.kvpr.org/health/2024-10-11/photos-of-dead-cattle-show-bird-flu-is-overwhelming-tulare-county-how-did-the-virus-get-in
This news article adds photos, more context, and local details about how the virus came into the biggest "dairy" region in the US.
The cow pharmers are throwing the dead cows on the side the road like trash because that's where it's most convenient for the trash "rendering" truck to collect the bodies. It's not really surprising that they're ignoring biosecurity. What is important is that they're failing to contain this epidemic.
A pair of psychologists and an economist at the University of Turku, in Finland, have found that because the average electric vehicle (EV) owner is wealthier than the average person, they still have a bigger than average carbon footprint.
> Maybe EVs are not a comprehensive climate solution??
A pair of psychologists and an economist at the University of Turku, in Finland, have found that because the average electric vehicle (EV) owner is wealthier than the average person, they still have a bigger than average carbon footprint.
> Maybe EVs are not a comprehensive climate solution??
> >Humans as Agents in the Termination of the African Humid Period > > >There is great uncertainty over the timing and magnitude of the termination of the African Humid Period (AHP). Spanning from the early to middle Holocene, the AHP was a period of enhanced moisture over most of northern and eastern Africa. However, beginning 8000 years ago the moisture balance shifted due to changing orbital precession and vegetation feedbacks. Some proxy records indicate a rapid transition from wet to dry conditions, while others indicate a more gradual changeover. Heretofore, humans have been viewed as passive agents in the termination of the AHP, responding to changing climatic conditions by adopting animal husbandry and spreading an agricultural lifestyle across the African continent. This paper explores scenarios whereby humans could be viewed as active agents in landscape denudation. During the period when agriculture was adopted in northern Africa, the regions where it was occurring were at the precipice of ecological regime shifts. Pastoralism, in particular, is argued to enhance devegetation and regime shifts in unbalanced ecosystems. Threshold crossing events were documented in the historical records of New Zealand and western North America due to the introduction of livestock. In looking at temporally correlated archeological and paleoenvironmental records of northern Africa, similar landscape dynamics from the historical precedents are observed: reduction in net primary productivity, homogenization of the flora, transformation of the landscape into a shrub-dominated biozone, and increasing xerophylic vegetation overall. Although human agents are not seen as the only forces inducing regime change during the termination of the AHP, their potential role in inducing large-scale landscape change must be properly contextualized against other global occurrences of neolithization. > > https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2017.00004/full
In contrast to the simplistic notion that capital unilaterally imposes consumption upon us, German scholars Ulrich Brand and Markus Wissen, authors of The Imperial Mode of Living, emphasize a dialectical analysis in which capitalist domination “draws on the wishes and desires of the populace … becom...
> >UB: To start with, we tried to argue with our book against a very dynamic treatment dealing with ecological crisis: what we call green capitalism, or the green economy, or ecological modernization of capitalism. Which is: we have a problem with the combustion engine so it should be the electric engine. This will not be sufficient, we know, because the resources have to come from the South and there is still the space problem. > > >We prepare our argument of solidary mode of living against a strong expectation of the green side of the government in Germany and Austria that we don’t have to question our imperial mode of living: we green it a bit. There’s a greening ecological modernization, if you like. I’m sure in Canada you have similar debates. Even many movements believed it; not the radical movements, but many NGOs and so on. > > >We argue: no, if we take the problem seriously: that we have to get rid of the capitalist growth imperative, that we have to get rid of the world resources market, this enormous flow from the South to the North. We need principles but also to take seriously experiences and then certain policies towards the solidary mode of living. This chapter is a first attempt. It’s very comprehensive and it was also criticized—which is why we’re writing another book. > > >But you point at a distinction which to us seems crucial: the distinction between the subjective preconditions and the objective preconditions. We don’t accept an environmentalist discourse that says “it’s just behaviour, it’s just the consciousness.” But we also don’t say, “it’s just the policy framework.” We say that if we want a real mobility transition, but only from the combustion engine to the electric engine, we need an understanding via conflicts and via learning processes that the car is not only not necessary but it’s not attractive. It’s a struggle over subjectivities that what we call the “automobile imperial mode of living” or “imperial automobility” is not any longer possible. > > >The objective conditions are the other infrastructures, the other production systems, which means also a loss of jobs. I work a lot with trade unions on this. A reduction of the car industry means to rethink how the production of mobility is organized and to take the power from the automotive industry and to produce much more the means for public transport. The argument from the automotive industry is always: “There is job loss.” And the unions are on their side. It’s necessarily to convince them to have good public transport—which does not mean planes but a good train and bus system—means also to create jobs. This is the subjective and objective. > > >Then, we have some principles. One principle, since we come from critical theory, is that the care principle—a principle to organize society carefully: to have care for yourself, for others, for nature, for society—should overrule the profit principle of the large companies. At the large scale of the automotive industry and military, the profit motive turns into political power. We have to reduce certain production but we also have to change property relations. > > >Another principle beside this care principle is to rebuild the public sector. Of course, we have many problems with the public sector. Corruption, inefficiency: we are aware of these things. But to guarantee basic provisioning, we need a strong public sector because this can be made responsible. When it comes to pensions, when it comes to health, when it comes to education, the private principle is “who has the money?” The public principle is that it’s a social right. > > >Finally, we argue that we need strong social movements, which are usually the indicators of the need of radical change. We have this wonderful movement in Germany to leave the coal in the soil and the anti-nuclear movement that has decades of experiences and work. At the end, it’s political contestation: it needs to be armoured—to draw on Gramsci—with coercion and the finances of the state. It needs a macro perspective. It’s not enough to remain within a niche. But we defend that the radical innovation usually comes from the edges. For example, we don’t argue “we have to wait until the majority wants it.” We need these starting points of an emancipatory politics, which means criticizing domination in a manyfold sense.
In contrast to the simplistic notion that capital unilaterally imposes consumption upon us, German scholars Ulrich Brand and Markus Wissen, authors of The Imperial Mode of Living, emphasize a dialectical analysis in which capitalist domination “draws on the wishes and desires of the populace … becom...
>UB: To start with, we tried to argue with our book against a very dynamic treatment dealing with ecological crisis: what we call green capitalism, or the green economy, or ecological modernization of capitalism. Which is: we have a problem with the combustion engine so it should be the electric engine. This will not be sufficient, we know, because the resources have to come from the South and there is still the space problem.
>We prepare our argument of solidary mode of living against a strong expectation of the green side of the government in Germany and Austria that we don’t have to question our imperial mode of living: we green it a bit. There’s a greening ecological modernization, if you like. I’m sure in Canada you have similar debates. Even many movements believed it; not the radical movements, but many NGOs and so on.
>We argue: no, if we take the problem seriously: that we have to get rid of the capitalist growth imperative, that we have to get rid of the world resources market, this enormous flow from the South to the North. We need principles but also to take seriously experiences and then certain policies towards the solidary mode of living. This chapter is a first attempt. It’s very comprehensive and it was also criticized—which is why we’re writing another book.
>But you point at a distinction which to us seems crucial: the distinction between the subjective preconditions and the objective preconditions. We don’t accept an environmentalist discourse that says “it’s just behaviour, it’s just the consciousness.” But we also don’t say, “it’s just the policy framework.” We say that if we want a real mobility transition, but only from the combustion engine to the electric engine, we need an understanding via conflicts and via learning processes that the car is not only not necessary but it’s not attractive. It’s a struggle over subjectivities that what we call the “automobile imperial mode of living” or “imperial automobility” is not any longer possible.
>The objective conditions are the other infrastructures, the other production systems, which means also a loss of jobs. I work a lot with trade unions on this. A reduction of the car industry means to rethink how the production of mobility is organized and to take the power from the automotive industry and to produce much more the means for public transport. The argument from the automotive industry is always: “There is job loss.” And the unions are on their side. It’s necessarily to convince them to have good public transport—which does not mean planes but a good train and bus system—means also to create jobs. This is the subjective and objective.
>Then, we have some principles. One principle, since we come from critical theory, is that the care principle—a principle to organize society carefully: to have care for yourself, for others, for nature, for society—should overrule the profit principle of the large companies. At the large scale of the automotive industry and military, the profit motive turns into political power. We have to reduce certain production but we also have to change property relations.
>Another principle beside this care principle is to rebuild the public sector. Of course, we have many problems with the public sector. Corruption, inefficiency: we are aware of these things. But to guarantee basic provisioning, we need a strong public sector because this can be made responsible. When it comes to pensions, when it comes to health, when it comes to education, the private principle is “who has the money?” The public principle is that it’s a social right.
>Finally, we argue that we need strong social movements, which are usually the indicators of the need of radical change. We have this wonderful movement in Germany to leave the coal in the soil and the anti-nuclear movement that has decades of experiences and work. At the end, it’s political contestation: it needs to be armoured—to draw on Gramsci—with coercion and the finances of the state. It needs a macro perspective. It’s not enough to remain within a niche. But we defend that the radical innovation usually comes from the edges. For example, we don’t argue “we have to wait until the majority wants it.” We need these starting points of an emancipatory politics, which means criticizing domination in a manyfold sense.
