fantoozie @ head_socj @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

99

Joined

4 mo. ago

They're evil; not biologically different. You too could be an evil rich fuck, but instead you're just a stupid poor fuck.

Bring back the Commons; fertilize with rich bodies.

Actually the report that came out recently (the one that found institutional real estate investors buying something like 27% of all available homes) made an important note: most of the companies buying these homes are so-called "mom n pop" landlords who own < 5 houses

So it's actually corporations AND fucking boomers.

Honestly, better than being rich. I mean it.

when rates go down

My sweet summer child, how dense and naive you are.

Don't make your bed then? I hope you're being facetious, cuz all I'm getting from this is two things:

You are obsessively preoccupied with other people

You are irrationally critical of people's behavior that has literally nothing to do with you.

Truthfully; no one gives a fuck about you or your bed. Go outside

I'd argue we're already in overshoot as far as carrying capacity, if we're using current standards of living in the West as the baseline. In that sense, population decline is inevitable.

Its impossible for me to answer the question you're asking, but I posit this: at this point, what is the alternative? Can we keep affording to slow-walk actionable solutions to climate change? What are the wealthy nations of the world willing to sacrifice to sustain Earth's future as our home? How will we decide who and what to preserve, and who and what is worth losing?

I also agree with you that it's unraveling. But that's why'd I'd rather try to adapt now and face the reality than pretend I can have Amazon Prime and not participate in killing life on Earth.

I think your argument is sound if the goal is to sustain current living standards in developed nations

But perhaps we should be evaluating whether, if those living standards require such an oppressive system, it may be better for us in these wealthy nations to learn how to do without

Not easy, not even likely, but necessary if we want to have a planet for future generations

Propping up an unsustainable system through resource extraction and technological innovation without contextual relativism doesn't just magically make it sustainable.

It comes down to climate resilience, deglobalization of produce markets, and creating the political will to build localized, worker-owned food production and distribution systems. Yes that will mean paying out the ass for bananas, but it's better than watching children choke on smoke while they ask you why it has to be like this.

Whine whine whine. This person will hold their tablet against their chest and bemoan the loss of porn-on-demand while we get to work building sustainable food capacity.

That's a complete mischaracterization. Intensive mono cropping is time and labor intensive because you have to factor in inevitable losses in crop yield (due to blight, pests, etc.) plus the labor costs of harvesting a single crop that all matures at once. The costs of soil nutrition are also exacerbated because monocropping extracts nutrients from the soil with very little return (there's a lot of hubbub about rotational cropping with clover and things like that, but it's not a long-term solution, especially when you're bleeding money for having a field go fallow)

Building up soil diversity is 100% about working with nature to build crop and soil diversity, and letting natural processes accumulate to produce optimal growing conditions. The issue is it's not very scaleable, and so grumpy Westerners and urbanites toss it aside because they don't want to actually grow the food, they just want to feel good about buying it

You're not wrong, but being concerned doesn't mean being disappointed. Maybe use a less broad brush, unless you were intentionally just being provocative. In which case, tell your kids to cut down the asshole tree.

Actually it turns out it's a lot easier to just convince Americans to be cool with slavery again instead.

Now the question is: will they demilitarize if/when the threat dissipates? Methinks the EU is repeating the fatal appeasement strategy of the 1930s.

You're very right, but one important caveat is that US-born citizens do not want these jobs. They literally think it's beneath them and won't do it.

I'm serious; I've worked with migrant farm laborers for 12 years. Citizens will choose exploitation over and over and over rather.

This is a big one for me. Decoupling social activities from consumerism so people can access human connection without implicit or explicit paywalls.

Right. They also sent bullets and untrained security personnel to shoot unarmed civilians seeking to access said aid.

Two US contractors describe chaos and gunfire as Palestinians seek food in Gaza | AP News https://share.google/I3cXJybvFlqB4KsHE

I'd argue Johnson sealed our fate when he rolled over for Confederates after the war.

But really the argument could bemade that the moment European explorers realized they could just kill people and take their homes away and nobody would stop them, they decided to make it a core part of their identity by rationalizing everything they can, and dismissing whatever they can't.

The devil works hard, but colonizers work harder.