• 0 Posts
  • 134 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 22nd, 2024

help-circle


  • mojo_raisin@lemmy.worldtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldOlympic Diversity
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I mean, they’re on FB, so ya, they probably thought something like that, if their thoughts even went beyond the words themselves.

    It’s like imagining what a lizard thinks about you, it’s easy and fun to project your intelligence on it, this is what you’re doing here. You’re projecting your intelligence and logic on others apparently without that capacity. Those FB people didn’t think about what their words meant any more than a lizard wonders about your nature.


  • Humans existed for well over 200,000 years without government. There is strong evidence of massive settlements that existed for extended periods without any sign of being ruled, just people living and cooperating.

    In fact, it’s the formation of governments that could enforce exploitative economic systems that started the ecological collapse of this planet in the first place. Humans without government live in balance with the rest of the world.

    The idea that humans, to survive and thrive, require the formation of an entity (government/state) that allows the subset of the population in control of the it to exploit the subset not in control of it is a dangerous fallacy.



  • mojo_raisin@lemmy.worldtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldWould be cool
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The only carbon sequestration that makes any sense is small-scale, on-site or local (so you can avoid transport) biochar production via retort.

    –> Biochar if you’re not familiar is similar to charcoal, it’s a form of “carbon black” that is elemental (isn’t going to decompose or oxidize and contribute to climate change) and when added to soil helps plants (by acting as a sponge for water, nutrients, bacteria) while sequestering carbon for millennia in the soil.

    For example, a landscaping company that burns it’s waste to fuel a biochar retort and then using the resulting biochar to amend the soil used in the landscaping operations. (Think in cycles)

    –> A biochar retort is form of furnace or fire pit that uses the flammable gasses produced by pyrolizing organic materials to fuel itself.

    –> Pyrolysis is decomposition of organic material with high heat and no oxygen. It produces gases like methane which are burned in the retort producing particulates, CO2 and water (and that carbon does go back into the cycle) and leaves behind large amounts of elemental carbon black that is not going to contribute to climate change.

    Sequestration by millions of backyard gardeners and little landscaping companies doing a little is better than trying to do it on a large scale because the large scale requires (as you note) resources. Hundreds of engineers and architects and workers driving to work for years so they can design and build a large device made of metal (that had to be mined, smelted, and shipped) and likely has an accompanying parking lot and office building would take years to break even sequestering as much carbon as it took to design and build it.

    Sequestration as I describe here doesn’t require much. For example, I make biochar using coffee cans in my fire pit .

    Q: But won’t burning some of the waste in the retort to heat the biochar contribute to climate change?

    A: Any carbon in landscaping wastes, unless sequestered, is going to decompose into carbon dioxide (e.g. composting). Burning doesn’t add any extra carbon, it’s just that burning is a faster reaction than composting (but both burning and composting are part of the short term carbon cycle, biochar is not) . But because this burning is done to fuel pyrolysis it’s part of an efficient process.

    The real danger from burning the waste is particulate pollution, but that could be controlled with common scrubbers tech.










  • I don’t disagree with you, but this is unrealistic.

    But…we don’t have a choice if we are to survive. Continuation with any system like our current system (i.e. exploitation of nature for economic growth) will lead to obvious ecological collapse. Why is certain ecological collapse viewed as the more realistic choice?

    This is akin to a person well on their way to a heart attack saying “well, eating healthy is unrealistic, so let’s switch to diet coke and pretend that’s enough”




  • I sometimes wonder why out of all the people living in misery why someone hasn’t gone on to just pick a CEO and…

    I have some guesses…

    • As long as mainstream media exists, any lone actor will be branded as a terrorist or murderer and will be viewed as this by most people rather than the start of a movement. This makes it very likely to be arrested or killed as well as bring harm and unwanted attention to your loved ones.

    • The rich people are fairly well protected, by living in exclusive neighborhoods, spending time where threats can’t afford to get near, knowing the police are there to protect them.

    • People are taught to give our right to self defense to the state, that self defense is not ok for “civilized people” except in cases of immediate mortal danger.

    Don’t kid yourself, the whole point of the state is to facilitate relatively safe theft from classes not in control of it. We are taught to conflate it with “government” and told that it is necessary to prevent utter chaos.

    The reason you see right wingers shooting stuff up is I think might have something to do with their lesser ability to reason why such actions are not actually in their favor. That is to say, they are dumber.