space0cadet

5y

So how do people feel about the imminent society collapse in 2040

americana

5y

Civil freedoms mean nothing without economic freedoms

Frankito Reynolds

5y

Yeah and Economic freedom means nothing without civil freedom

americana

5y

Civil freedoms mean nothing without economic freedoms

space0cadet

5y

So how do people feel about the imminent society collapse in 2040

americana

5y

Civil freedoms mean nothing without economic freedoms

krishna bound

5y

I don't believe it to be honest and I don't say this as a means of denying climate change or environmental harm which is completely real and the effects of are already being seen (and have been seen for like 150+ years if not significantly more). Having done fellowship research before I know how flawed academia is intrinsically and what the incentive is for either academics or NGOs to churn out research A) as quickly as possible and B) claiming to be as innovative or fearmongering as possible in short periods of time. This issue has existed since at least the 60s but the growth of academic & NGO as an economic trade rather than an apparatus or resource has caused significantly more issues in research. The reality of the situation is that doomsday collapse mongering goes back to like the 60s if not prior...the predictions are updated periodically with claims of science evolving but the predictions are usually identical and even typically cross-reference each other or use rushed research because you need to understand the grants and subsidizing for this stuff is CRAZY and always has been. Academia + government funding + NGO funding is insanely profitable for churning out these types of papers which has an incentive for people to fearmonger or write these things based on half-assed or faulty research that simply looks legitimate. CompSci is incredibly guilty of this as a field but it happens in other fields as well. The worst part about this is it causes actual research to not be achieved or often clouded out by research done for the sole purpose of funding; you may as well be copy pasting into spreadsheets half the time to produce this research.
The cynical side of me also would point to this whole type of funding apparatus as being a cynical ploy to push certain agendas by corporations and governments. A great example is electric car makers. Electric car makers have existed forever, but as seen with Tesla, government subsidies are more important to big companies than actual business. So they go hard commissioning studies on environmetnal impacts then use them to lobby congress and fearmonger the impacts of gasoline or something, then reap subsidies once congress passes "green laws" or similar, all while also gaining the public PR + reputation of "going green". This type of cycle happens everywhere and there is also entire job complexes based around this type of time at every stage even just solely in the private sectors.
There's a reason no one ever wants to focus on CURRENT HARM TO THE PLANET, and these articles are always future-scoped and not present. The planet is already completely f***ed and if even a twentieth of the modern population in a big country understood what big corporations have done to them you'd see huge outcry. But that's not convienent and no one wants that research and there's no funds to be made there. It's why the only activism highlighted ever is idiots like the extinction rebellion people and never real activism like the people fishing trash from the ocean or similar.
Environmental debates are probably one of the oldest pivots of modern politics too which makes this even more frustrating. Like one of the origins of modern libertarianism (unironically) in the modern era was because of environmental concerns, ancap authors like Rothbard and liberal economists like Hayek wrote extensively on environmentalism as being one of the key traits of politics. Ecology used to be a huge part of even paleoconservatism for example (I debated this heavily with that Aquinas guy in the conversative thread before he was banned), but the hijacking of environmentalism as just another industry (the natural evolution of anything being discussed in conservative circles to begin with tho tbh lol) has completely destroyed the perception of environmentalism for like legit all people of all political backgrounds

Frankito Reynolds

5y

Yeah and Economic freedom means nothing without civil freedom

Frankito Reynolds

5y

Yeah too many peer reviewed journal articles are written by biased people.

News like this is just bait to see what scares people most so they can expand on it when time is right.

Nobody cared about UFO's and Aliens when NASA "declassified" their s*** last year, but the new Apple TV Series Invasion is quite thrilling

krishna bound

5y

its not really bias as in political belief or something as much as it is misplaced economic incentives

americana

5y

How would an anarchist society handle trains? Sectarian conflict? Specialized tools? A mass response event?

space0cadet

5y

Having s***and waiting turns inherently creates a power structure between the woman, the bull, and the cuck, therefore trains will be abolished.

Scratchin Mamba

5y

Disagree tbh

Not living in extreme poverty is more important to me than the civil freedom of bourgeois activists to collaborate with NED & USAID funded NGOs to overthrow their government

But maybe that's just me

krishna bound

5y

I don't believe it to be honest and I don't say this as a means of denying climate change or environmental harm which is completely real and the effects of are already being seen (and have been seen for like 150+ years if not significantly more). Having done fellowship research before I know how flawed academia is intrinsically and what the incentive is for either academics or NGOs to churn out research A) as quickly as possible and B) claiming to be as innovative or fearmongering as possible in short periods of time. This issue has existed since at least the 60s but the growth of academic & NGO as an economic trade rather than an apparatus or resource has caused significantly more issues in research. The reality of the situation is that doomsday collapse mongering goes back to like the 60s if not prior...the predictions are updated periodically with claims of science evolving but the predictions are usually identical and even typically cross-reference each other or use rushed research because you need to understand the grants and subsidizing for this stuff is CRAZY and always has been. Academia + government funding + NGO funding is insanely profitable for churning out these types of papers which has an incentive for people to fearmonger or write these things based on half-assed or faulty research that simply looks legitimate. CompSci is incredibly guilty of this as a field but it happens in other fields as well. The worst part about this is it causes actual research to not be achieved or often clouded out by research done for the sole purpose of funding; you may as well be copy pasting into spreadsheets half the time to produce this research.
The cynical side of me also would point to this whole type of funding apparatus as being a cynical ploy to push certain agendas by corporations and governments. A great example is electric car makers. Electric car makers have existed forever, but as seen with Tesla, government subsidies are more important to big companies than actual business. So they go hard commissioning studies on environmetnal impacts then use them to lobby congress and fearmonger the impacts of gasoline or something, then reap subsidies once congress passes "green laws" or similar, all while also gaining the public PR + reputation of "going green". This type of cycle happens everywhere and there is also entire job complexes based around this type of time at every stage even just solely in the private sectors.
There's a reason no one ever wants to focus on CURRENT HARM TO THE PLANET, and these articles are always future-scoped and not present. The planet is already completely f***ed and if even a twentieth of the modern population in a big country understood what big corporations have done to them you'd see huge outcry. But that's not convienent and no one wants that research and there's no funds to be made there. It's why the only activism highlighted ever is idiots like the extinction rebellion people and never real activism like the people fishing trash from the ocean or similar.
Environmental debates are probably one of the oldest pivots of modern politics too which makes this even more frustrating. Like one of the origins of modern libertarianism (unironically) in the modern era was because of environmental concerns, ancap authors like Rothbard and liberal economists like Hayek wrote extensively on environmentalism as being one of the key traits of politics. Ecology used to be a huge part of even paleoconservatism for example (I debated this heavily with that Aquinas guy in the conversative thread before he was banned), but the hijacking of environmentalism as just another industry (the natural evolution of anything being discussed in conservative circles to begin with tho tbh lol) has completely destroyed the perception of environmentalism for like legit all people of all political backgrounds

Yuzzy

5y

Just say you want a one party statw and be done with it lol

americana

5y

How would an anarchist society handle trains? Sectarian conflict? Specialized tools? A mass response event?

Yuzzy

5y

Just say you want a one party statw and be done with it lol