Similar vibe, but I think ‘marxism’ is not the only conclusion from realising how much megacorps control our world. I’m more of a left-anarchist myself :U
Anarchism is less a system of functions to be implemented, and more of a governing philosophy on how we build other systems. That philosophy focuses heavily on the expansion of democracy and the elimination of hierarchy wherever possible in order to create the most total freedom in the system. It is not inherently opposed to the concepts of governance or laws as many believe. It usually means focusing on smaller governing units, preferring local governance wherever possible, to give people the most direct control over their own lives. Self-sufficient communities are a major goal here.
The meaning of freedom to an anarchist is wholistic; not just freedom to, but also freedom from. Freedom to pursue your life on your terms, freedom from any obligation or inhibition that would prevent or detract from that goal. This includes, for example, unconditional freedom for all people from starvation, homelessness, or the inability to access medical care. It is an intentionally utopian ideal, that we should strive for something that may not even be possible, because that is how we’ll create the best possible world.
Once upon a time, anarchism was effectively synonymous with libertarianism. That word was bastardized in America to the point that it is unrecognizable now.
Well. That’s a wholly different picture than the word itself paints.
It’s almost sad, as anarchist has such a negative connotation that, to me, it feels what you’re describing may deserve a new name to relieve it of the baggage associated with the name. It will be awfully hard to get people to listen in America when it’s so saturated with the idea that anarchism is, well… anarchic, ungoverned chaos.
Not only the billionaires, even the millionaires, and all the people taking the plane more than once a year. It is an ecological crime the pollution of air transport.
Is that planes that are packed to the gills or private planes that actually have space that people aren't crammed into?
Also, 3-4/6 liters of what? ICE cars and modern planes aren't burning the same fuel, so I'm not sure what this is intending to portray by directly comparing how much of each (in liters) that they burn (serious question, no snark)
efficient ICE cars consume ~6l per passenger per 100km.
More like 6L per 100km, whatever the number of passengers, I suppose. So it’s usually still less than planes.
And there are better alternatives like trains or buses, which can be actually efficient for long distance travels (high speed trains, night travel. Works well from city centre to city centre)
There is also the additional issue of contrails which are a massive factor of greenhouse effect
Edit #2: ICE is a type of train in germany. I mistook “ICE cars” as meaning trains and was wondering how flying is supposed to be more efficient than trains. Hence my confusion.
**OG comment (invalid, see Edit #2):**Where are these numbers coming from?
I cannot find any source for the 3-4l/passenger/km claim. I cannot find any source for the claim that planes are more efficient. Nothing comes even near this claim.
Edit #1: I just want to add that my old combustion car (VW Up! / Seat Mii / Skoda Citigo) burned around 4.2l/100km. So I according to you, if I had another person with me, I’d beat both planes and trains with what stands uncontested as the most inefficient form of transport?
It drives me crazy, this performative enviornmentalist bullshit. I have to pay 10c (on top of 300% food cost increase don’t forget) for a plastic bag at the grocery when i forget my canvas ones. In these bags i must pay for i can place fruit individually wrapped in plastic.
Every time something gets worse, we must be the ones to pay. This whole environment-saving-by-paper-straw phenomenon is so insipid that I would rather believe that it’s actually a deliberate corporate strategy. At least that would make sense. If they keep us thinking that something is being done, they don’t have to change a thing, and if it’s “all of our jobs” (read: not theirs), to save the world, we’ll never take them to task for their (greater) part of the waste.
Nothing beats collection of beer/cola can's pull tabs for recycling competition at schools. That forces children to ask parents to buy more of the six packs so that they could have the tabs.
You’re treating it like a hypothetical but that is in fact exactly what’s going on.
Corporations and the politicians they own are hyperfocused on (relativee to centralised) inefficient end user recycling and regular people taking responsibility for the environment and climate change to distract from the fact that maybe 95%+ of it are the fault of corporations, not their customers.
Even consumer waste is many times worse than it would be if companies didn’t for example use all that plastic and design electronics to become obsolete if functional at all in as little as a single year just to squeeze as much money out while spending as little as possible.
It is actually a deliberate corp strategy. Plastic straws were never a real concern, save for that ONE turtle. Plastic straw make such a negligible amount of plastic waste that stop using it will have virtually zero measurable impact in amount of plastic waste we create. All it ever was intended for was to make us feel like something was being done while doing absolutely nothing.
That’s not to say all plastic reduction initiatives are pointless. But the straws definitely belong in the least environmentally impactful category.
All it ever was intended for was to make us feel like something was being done while doing absolutely nothing.
It certainly does help a little bit. But it’s of course still not a coincidence that companies are pushing for it instead of more effective measures… It’s not just cheap but it also pushes people to believe that measures to save the environment are all useless and annoying, and makes them less likely to want more to happen.
It’s the “thoughts and prayers” of environmentalism. I’m convinced the net effect is negative after you factor in the way it distracts people from anything that might actually help.
Fund a grassroots media campaign advocating to make corporations pay to fix the environment and for price control laws to stop them passing on costs to the consumer.
At some point, people are going to have to accept their legal systems have been completely broken by regulatory capture and that they’re going to have to go to war to implement new governments that actually will do what the people want them to do. That’s the real talk that needs to happen
ANY effective, long-term collective change REQUIRES that the large majority of people CHANGE THEIR CONSUMPTION HABBITS. While not great, the private plane stuff is exactly as pointless as the paper straws. Both are ways for everyone to point the finger at everyone else, and not have to change.
If the government implemented the “correct” laws tomorrow, but the populace doesn’t want to change their habits, they will vote in people that give them back their old, bad things.
If a company implemented to “correct” processes, but the consumers don’t want to pay the necessary price, they go bankrupt, and the company with the “incorrect, but cheap” processes wins.
ALL COLLECTIVE ACTION IS A COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUAL CHANGE. There is no alternative!
Obviously, there are those of us who like to leave their v8 running while in the grocery store and they absolutely need to stop. No emptying the ashtray on the street or going to starbucks every day and get a one use cup every time. But still, I‘m done listening to people telling me I‘m not doing enough.
I don’t even want a straw, I prefer drinking from the side of the cup and save the environment even a little more bringing my own fave cup and asking for no straw!
And yes, billionaires really do go brrr while I do all this
pawb.social
Oldest