Tiresia

Okay then. If you appreciate talking that way, then either delete your account or shut the fuck up.

It's nice that you/we have reclaimed Lemmy, but this was possible because its structure is anarchist. Substack is centralized closed-source software operated by a for-profit corporation in a nation with a fascist government. We have no leverage over them other than having the power to leave, so why not do that now rather than wait for them to get their hooks in us so they can be a tool of fascism? Or even just enshittify?

Those authors that left substack show that it is is possible. It's only career suicide if we, their audience, choose to be scabs and break the consumer strike. If they are the only authors we can link to, that alone would cause their careers a lot of good. (even in an anarchist context, a popular author can more easily get sufficient help to stay safe from oppressors and to flourish as a person).

Also note that while substack is platforming Nazis, it deplatformed covid antivaxers. They do not have a principled stance of libertarian free speech, they have just chosen to support Nazis.

So why set ourselves up to be hurt in a year or two when fascists come for it?

Bloody hell, their comment section is toxic.

I do agree with many of them that Enlightenment philosophy served to calcify hierarchy and elitism by dismissing all "non-rational" argument, with "non-rational" defined to enshrine patriarchy, elitism, whiteness, centralized executive power, alienation of labor, etc.

It is debilitating to ignore the biggest part of the brain when doing intellectual activity. Any successful intellectual has learned to hide their intuitions behind a charade of Rationality, but that mandatory hiding prevents people from communicating the most important parts and from learning to address their most toxic intuitions. This is why schools are so bad at their jobs; we aren't allowed to communicate what matters. This is why psychology academia is so ill-fitting; we aren't allowed to publish how we decide to make good decisions.

And in context of the central question, the 21st century rise of post-rationalism is the natural product of two centuries of rationalism steering us off a cliff and designing our societies to be hollow optimizations of certain rational paramaters. We can't survive by going back to the system that is currently in its death throes.

What kind of anarchism survives the 20th century? 21st century anarchism. Lifestyle anarchism; the active pursuit of what feels fulfilling when taking the entire world into consideration, rather than what you can rationally justify. Communities of people who enjoy each other's company doing things with enthousiastic consent or sitting out. Seeing what communities feel healthy and which help people and the world flourish.

We learn by trying, and we try by feeling.

Why did the economist walk straight past a $1000 bill sitting in the middle of the sidewalk? Because if it had been there someone would have already picked it up.

y- you do understand the joke is that the economist is wrong here? The invisible hand of the market is a lie designed to justify capitalism and its highly inefficient hierarchical exploitation-based modes of organization.

The free market is not efficient. Capital owners make catastrophic errors in judgment that cause them to miss out on billions of dollars. Most profitable things do not happen. There are no anti-gun liberals flooding NRA meetings to get them to vote for gun legislation. There are no billionaires investing in walkable neighborhoods. Voters en masse vote to impoverish themselves and are genuinely surprised when it happens.

The USSR was not a CIA plot to make the USA turn away from communism. Millions of people genuinely believed in its "leftist" state even as it caused mass starvation through its incompetence, and tens of thousands of westerners hung on Pravda's every word. I won't deny the possibility that there are some trolls, but there is no need for that hypothesis when it comes to most Lemmy users.

If the Catholic Church treated climate change as seriously as they treat denying people access to abortion, the media wouldn't be using language like "helped inspire".

Thanks for fact checking me!

Spaceflight has been responsible for 1% of global warming (radiative forcing) in 2009-2019, mainly through dumping black carbon straight into the upper atmosphere. source The number of launches have increased massively since then, and in 2025 they're several percent.

Each space tourism flight has as much effect on global radiative forcing as 40,000 passenger jet flights. Taylor Swift's absurd reliance on private jets is a rounding error compared to space tourists. For the median American, their lifetime effect on global warming is less than that of one second of a space tourist being in space.

A juice company-sponsored scientific article finds that juice company waste is good for the environment?

How could this be?

Historically, peer review has not been enough to weed out positive publication bias and outright fraud even when there was no profit motive. With a United Fruit Company/Dole-tier juice company breathing down your neck? Science... finds a way.

The Boats is a classic.

Nothing is going to beat high speed rail for convenience, price, and comfort. Just like cars, overland personal airplanes aren't about convenience or "having a point", they're a hobby. Though in case of cars the hobby got forced on everyone by a literal conspiracy of xenophobes and the ultra-rich.

Many buildings in Africa have their own fossil fuel electric generators. Reliable electricity removes the need for those, which does reduce emissions immediately.

Furthermore, improving people's lives empowers them to help reduce emissions (or increase them). Reliable electricity frees up labor for things like washing clothes or cooking, which they can then use to work on, for example, regenerative agriculture like the Great Green Wall, which captures CO2 and further reduces the production of CO2 and chemical pollution from extensive farming practices.

Nukes won't destroy the planet. All their yields combined don't measure up to a 1 km asteroid or an average supervolcano, and their radiation and dust is gone in 0.00005% of the remaining time Earth will exist.

The chemical pollution of all our industry washing out to sea will have a bigger impact. All ocean-based animals with shells will die out as oceanic acidity reaches critical levels, though in 0.01% of the remaining time earth will exist shell-based life from freshwater habitats would probablu repopulate them if non-shell-based life doesn't evolve to fill the same niches first.

There will be trees, flowers, mammals, shellfish, algae, fungi, birds, reptiles, and insects. The Earth from above will look like ocean, forest, desert, and glacier, though the forests may cover less of it for the first 0.01% of the remainder of its existence. We will produce a mass extinction event comparable to the other five, but Earth will still look the same at the scale of a simple drawing.