3 ms·

This by itself looks like a popular topic here (judging by the votes to comment ratio). But as is expected the topic gets derailed because people would like res

This by itself looks like a popular topic here (judging by the votes to comment ratio). But as is expected the topic gets derailed because people would like resilience, mindful use, and ecological care truly by themselves, not within a particular whole, or certainly not the whole that is proposed. But people like this genuinely think that these things are causally interconnected. And that treating them as separate things is counter-productive. They are not on a mission to make as small an intersection as possible. They want to solve the problem. But they think that the Whole that needs to be considered is much larger than you would think. As a detached and hypothtical example: what does the non-political and anti-fossil fuel environmentalist cause look like in a city which is built on the fossil fuel industry? There isn’t one. Making it non-political is impossible. There are clear competing interests at play. You could make an environmentalist club where you volunteer to clean up litter. The grocery clerk as well as the oil executive are just as likely to join that club. But it wouldn’t have anything to do with the anti-fossil fuel cause. Another hypothetical example. Being anti-war. Can such a group be anti-imperialism? To avoid Western blinders, just imagine Russian imperalism. What would a Russian anti-war but not anti-imperalism group look like? Clearly you cannot call the Russian invasion of Ukraine “imperialistic”. The war apologist would say that it is necessary to denazify Ukraine or something. So what are you fighting for? Allow wars that are imperialistic but advocate for more non-combatant aid in terms of supplies and health personel? I mean that would be “anti-war” in terms of reducing suffering. But it could never, ever hope to end any war. There are people that are radical. They think that certain problems have root causes. So they get at the root of the problem, as they see it. This idea of having many loose causes doesn’t make sense in their world view. It’s like fighting weeds by trimming the edges every day. The weeds will always be there.

botanrice 5mo ago
Using your own final example: could you not argue that if you trim the edges every day to fight weeds (read: practice permacomputing as a daily lifestyle), then over time the weeds may never grow to their fullest extent? And that if you get more and more people to help you trim the edges then over time you may establish a new 'edge' so to speak? (read: status quo). But by telling people that they aren't really welcome to help you trim unless they agree that they must attack the root of the weeds, even tho that's really hard! I think that's the wrong way to think about the idea of environmentalism! We should encourage everyone to do whatever they find intersting and helpful. If the oil exec wants to do river clean-ups every weekend then why even balk at that? It's not black & white, it's great that in this theoretically scenario they want to even do that. Maybe over time they realize that the river keeps getting dirty because of their business actions, who knows?
- keybored 5mo ago
  > Using your own final example: could you not argue that if you trim the edges every day to fight weeds (read: practice permacomputing as a daily lifestyle), then over time the weeds may never grow to their fullest extent? There are two parts. 1. Counter-forces overwhelming your efforts meaning you just lose because they overwhelm you (e.g. climate change acceleration) 2. Permanently (nothing in life is permanent but ya know) getting rid of the problem I think weed trimming is insufficient for both. What is this a counter to? All of computing, on an industrial scale. You don’t counter that by hobbyist dilly-dallying. > And that if you get more and more people to help you trim the edges then over time you may establish a new 'edge' so to speak? (read: status quo). You can establish a new edge. It has happened before. And then counter-forces build back the old bad thing eventually. Look, what is the point of trimming weeds if you can get rid of them at the root? What is it? So that you can unlock the achievement of maximum participation? The goal is to clean the garden. Not to get every passerby to clumsily help. > But by telling people that they aren't really welcome to help you trim unless they agree that they must attack the root of the weeds, even tho that's really hard! I think that's the wrong way to think about the idea of environmentalism! We should encourage everyone to do whatever they find intersting and helpful. Environmentalists (and humanity) are up against possibly civilization-ending climate change. The goal for them at this point is not to start an inclusive social club. > If the oil exec wants to do river clean-ups every weekend then why even balk at that? It's not black & white, it's great that in this theoretically scenario they want to even do that. If the food conglomerate executive that issues orders to throw away tons of perfectly good food in order to not devalue their own produce wants to volunteer at the soup kitchen, why even balk at that? The point is not to balk at that.. > Maybe over time they realize that the river keeps getting dirty because of their business actions, who knows? Then what happens next? They order the company to forfeit profit maximization in order to be nice to the river? Then the executive gets fired and they are truly one of the people again.
  - botanrice 5mo ago
    idk man I see your points for sure but feel like you're taking a pessimistic and dramatic take on it. Doing a little something is better than nothing when it comes to climate action. And doing a little something a couple times might lead to greater involvement. environmentalists (myself included) have tried the doomsday "we need to act now!" approach and it turns off a lot of people, clearly, as evidenced by our societal regression (in the US at least). any attempt to help weed whack is worthy of inclusion imo

botanrice 5mo ago

Using your own final example: could you not argue that if you trim the edges every day to fight weeds (read: practice permacomputing as a daily lifestyle), then over time the weeds may never grow to their fullest extent? And that if you get more and more people to help you trim the edges then over time you may establish a new 'edge' so to speak? (read: status quo). But by telling people that they aren't really welcome to help you trim unless they agree that they must attack the root of the weeds, even tho that's really hard! I think that's the wrong way to think about the idea of environmentalism! We should encourage everyone to do whatever they find intersting and helpful. If the oil exec wants to do river clean-ups every weekend then why even balk at that? It's not black & white, it's great that in this theoretically scenario they want to even do that. Maybe over time they realize that the river keeps getting dirty because of their business actions, who knows?

keybored 5mo ago
> Using your own final example: could you not argue that if you trim the edges every day to fight weeds (read: practice permacomputing as a daily lifestyle), then over time the weeds may never grow to their fullest extent? There are two parts. 1. Counter-forces overwhelming your efforts meaning you just lose because they overwhelm you (e.g. climate change acceleration) 2. Permanently (nothing in life is permanent but ya know) getting rid of the problem I think weed trimming is insufficient for both. What is this a counter to? All of computing, on an industrial scale. You don’t counter that by hobbyist dilly-dallying. > And that if you get more and more people to help you trim the edges then over time you may establish a new 'edge' so to speak? (read: status quo). You can establish a new edge. It has happened before. And then counter-forces build back the old bad thing eventually. Look, what is the point of trimming weeds if you can get rid of them at the root? What is it? So that you can unlock the achievement of maximum participation? The goal is to clean the garden. Not to get every passerby to clumsily help. > But by telling people that they aren't really welcome to help you trim unless they agree that they must attack the root of the weeds, even tho that's really hard! I think that's the wrong way to think about the idea of environmentalism! We should encourage everyone to do whatever they find intersting and helpful. Environmentalists (and humanity) are up against possibly civilization-ending climate change. The goal for them at this point is not to start an inclusive social club. > If the oil exec wants to do river clean-ups every weekend then why even balk at that? It's not black & white, it's great that in this theoretically scenario they want to even do that. If the food conglomerate executive that issues orders to throw away tons of perfectly good food in order to not devalue their own produce wants to volunteer at the soup kitchen, why even balk at that? The point is not to balk at that.. > Maybe over time they realize that the river keeps getting dirty because of their business actions, who knows? Then what happens next? They order the company to forfeit profit maximization in order to be nice to the river? Then the executive gets fired and they are truly one of the people again.
- botanrice 5mo ago
  idk man I see your points for sure but feel like you're taking a pessimistic and dramatic take on it. Doing a little something is better than nothing when it comes to climate action. And doing a little something a couple times might lead to greater involvement. environmentalists (myself included) have tried the doomsday "we need to act now!" approach and it turns off a lot of people, clearly, as evidenced by our societal regression (in the US at least). any attempt to help weed whack is worthy of inclusion imo