4 ms·
Okay, but what would that look like? How do you go from where we are now to there without massive disruption. How do you start feeding NYC locally? It's way ha
by workthrowaway27 9y ago
Okay, but what would that look like? How do you go from where we are now to there without massive disruption. How do you start feeding NYC locally?
It's way harder to de-industrialize than to industrialize. A lot of our cities are only viable because of the dividend from fossil fuels.
- jessaustin 9y agoObviously, the first step would be to repeal the second amendment. Since that train ain't leaving the station, the threatened tyranny, while lovely to dream about, isn't so likely.
- ci5er 9y agoI missed the context of your context switch. It reads as if you are saying that 'we' need to repeal the second so that 'we' can be loaded up and forcibly moved by our societal masters (with little resistance) Is that correct?
- jessaustin 9y agoI could have been writing ironically... if so it would have been to highlight the silliness of grandparent's "when I am king everyone will do the right thing also that will have no side effects I'm neglecting to consider right now" scenario. Really, someone ought to do that for all such scenarios.
- ci5er 9y ago> Really, someone ought to do that for all such scenarios. Agreed. I had a lawyer-gf at one point in my past, and she executed some variant of this on me every time a vacuous proposal left my mouth. Any proposal at all, really. But, I did not understand the intent behind what you were writing. Can you restate this for those of us slower members of your audience?
- jessaustin 9y agoWell, this whole thread is a glob of implausible proposals justified by implausible assumptions. "We'll eat no more meat or bananas!" "Because we won't burn any more oil!" "Because oil will be illegal!" "Because sustainability!" This is all just silly. Credit to 'workthrowaway27 for responding in reasoned fashion, but that hasn't dissuaded any of the silly folk in their silliness. They suggest catastrophic changes to the lives of everyone on earth, and the reasons they offer are transparently based on personal psychological idiosyncrasies rather than on a practical understanding of reality. All of this tyrannical bullshit won't happen, not only because it shouldn't happen, but also because it can't possibly happen. One does admit it to be a lovely dream, because one understands that lots of people dream of denying the agency of other humans. This is an impulse to indulge in daydreams, not in the political sphere.
- ci5er 9y agoEverything here is hypothetical responding to anecdote. And vice-versa. I have enough life experience to build a rich (and often sorrow-ful) anecdote, but that's all it is. Thank you.