I’m of the opinion that both your points are salient. Americans do not have democratic agency, and would be just about as evil if they did, but with better healthcare and weed.
Edit: Maybe less commitment to stupid wars that are obvious meat grinders.
What if one group says the land another group is standing on is actually theirs and they want to take it back? For example, what if native Americans invading aliens wanted to evict all non-natives non-aliens?
Edit: the hypothetical seems to be pulling a lot of attention away from the point so I updated it with something hopefully less reactionary.
Because I’m being charitable and if you werent, the concern you were talking about would be just, like ‘but imagine the guy signing the papers to make you homeless and is wearing a feather head dress while he does it!’
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on being a weird kind of absurd degree of racist or boot licker. I… Guess I can drop that assumption if you like?
I was originally thinking of Israel and the greater Israel project but didn’t want to touch on that topic and somehow I’m still regretting it. We’re getting away now from what the hypothetical was for aka scenarios where people in group X want people in group Y’s land in any sense or scenario no longer specified by anything or any hypotheticals whatsoever.
So I’ve actually known indigenous folks! They generally don’t want me to leave the country and die until they date me.
And until pretty recently, most Palestinians just wanted someplace to live and make a living. They didn’t mind living alongside filthy Zionist rape monsters, new buildings put together a little taller and no new settlers imported. No idea what the general vibe is now.
It’s a random hypothetical, I guess I should have used aliens because everyone is kinda hyper fixating on the example hypothetical and not the actual point of the discussion.
No, I responded to that too.went with your extreme straw manned misunderstanding by pointing out that we have a shitty corporation that already does that. You asked if I owned any children. I think you just want excuses to be scared of others having agency.
I was originally thinking of Israel and the greater Israel project
Israel is a white supremacist settler-colonialist project that acts like a white supremacist settler-colonialist project… it’s a pretty cut-and-dried situation.
Once again it’s just a hypothetical about any scenario where group X may want group Y’s land regardless of the details. Maybe group X is good maybe they are bad maybe this maybe that, I think we can step away from the specifics because we’re moving away from the original point. Now you’re kinda proving why, it’s because I thought it would guide the conversation into being about the hypothetical more than the original point which is why I said I guess I should have used aliens.
There’s literally no way anyone can live alongside a Zionist. They’ll rape them murder them and post it on twitter, then piss on the corpse and feed it to the dogs they use torape prisoners when they get tired.
I’ve had indigenous roommates, and there was hardly any murder or rape involved at all. Nobody had a dog, and nobody pissed on anyone but themselves, and even that only when they had done lots of drugs.
I think I’d prefer to be evicted by the indigenous ous people William Mulholland fucked out of water for kind of no reason a century ago than blackrock capital. Again.
I mean dependents could also be a grandparent you’re caring for or a disabled sibling and so on and I’m not sure I would say people own their dependents.
Still. Fuck off with your racist bullshit. I’ve had a community before. I’ve cared about people. Some of them were the people you’re fucking talking about. You know they’re just, like, around? I could even be one of them! You would never know! Sorry if that complicates your shittyattempts to justify racism.
I’m not sure I said anything about race, much less racist. I gave a total hypothetical everyone seems to want to focus on more so than the point it was representing, guess I should have used something like aliens for the hypothetical. At any stretch you seem bothered and I hope you’re alright and if you’re not alright I hope you find peace.
generally speaking, that is not what landback advocates are calling for. landback means that it is the people who live in concert with the land who will lead its management, and it is the responsibility of others to listen and learn
And even if it were, I’d rather have some tribe own my apartment than blackrock capital. Even the proposed scary misunderstanding isn’t worse than what currently exists, and could be better.
I’m glad you brought this up, because it’s something I want to make a distinguishment from. I do not want to fetishize or otherwise dehumanize indigenous people. I merely want to acknowledge that every culture has something they do better than anyone else. Us Europeans? We built pan-oceanic boats capable of traversing the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, and Arctic Oceans. That’s absolutely incredible! We are however, dogshit at land management. Hence the constant European desire to colonize more and more of the planet, taking up more and more land to meet the material needs of an aristocratic class that required closely shorn lawns for leisure activities such as polo and croquet.
Meanwhile, I also do not think that indigenous north Americans were perfect. For example, the Cherokee committed a genocide against the Osage, the Inca, Aztek, and Mayans all had theocratic structures that were not great for a large number of people living in their territories, the various peoples of the Americas hunted mega-fauna they encountered to extinction. However, in order for any plan for a hopeful future, we must draw wisdom from many sources. We know this because the current European global hegemony is failing. So we need to start looking for wisdom from other sources. One of the things when we interrogate history is that prior to Europe leveraging military violence to place the global south into a perpetual state of underdevelopment is that the people of the Americas had INCREDIBLE land management strategies that were interwoven with their cultural heritages (food, language, social structures) and agricultural outputs leading to some extremely interesting crops that have become staples worldwide such as corn, potatoes, sunflowers, beans, and tomatoes.
In conclusion: my point is to draw sources from subjugated knowledge
my point is to draw sources from subjugated knowledge
Really not sure what “subjugated knowledge” is supposed to mean.
In any case this is mostly irrelevant. It’s been hundreds or thousands of years, depending on which culture you’re talking about. The environmental conditions have changed, the land has changed, and the cultures are long gone. We have newer methods and better options for land and resource management, and for studying the current actual conditions, and for understanding local environments in the context of the global whole.
the people of the Americas had INCREDIBLE land management strategies that were interwoven with their cultural heritages
They also had a life expectancy of about 50 years and no methods for treating anything like cancer or sepsis or long-term debilitating conditions. My sister is Type 1 diabetic, she’d probably just be dead by 40.
I agree that we should have more respect for those that came before and the work they did that we are still benefitting from today (such as the selective breeding for crops you mentioned), but we can’t move forward by looking backward. The survival strategies of those past cultures don’t scale up to sustain 8 billion people, we need new methods supported by new technologies, better information and system-wide analysis.
Cool idea, also yeah I was just giving a totally random hypothetical. I didn’t want to touch on the greater Israel thing or other real world examples of group X wants group Y’s land.
Man I really should have used a different hypothetical… people are really fixated on it specifically. Also I doubt most nations would be willing to take 10 to 100 million people and how do we pick apart the nationality of individuals who are mixed or don’t have records and so on.
What happens when particular resources become necessary for public good?
That is, does the world in general have the right to extract the resources necessary to manufacture solar panels and grid-scale batteries &etc even if the local people object, because replacing fossil fuel power is a necessity for the survival of the human race entire?
What happens when acquiring and using a resource becomes a requirement for treating human life with value?
Sorry, what biological change in humans made it such that humans as a species require electricity to survive? Or that made it a prerequisite to “treating human life with value”?
Methinks you are conflating maintenance of the human species and maintenance of your desired quality of life.
Sorry, what biological change in humans made it such that humans as a species require electricity to survive? Or that made it a prerequisite to “treating human life with value”?
Medical technology, for one thing. You can’t have modern medicine without electricity. Give up electricity and you drop life expectancy back to what it was in the early 1900s:
the mining of these resources must be done with respect and in cooperation with the people who would be harmed by doing so without respect and care. we must also take an approach of being considerate in our consumption habits, otherwise we’re just participating in eco-colonialism
Copper. The answers to necessary and to whom should be self-evident.
Other examples would be the rare earths which China has done so much work to acquire control over, and also sand for concrete which is such a high-value commodity that it has developed a global black market worth hundreds of billions of dollars, complete with international organized crime groups, and has caused a lot of environmental damage.
Ah, well that makes it easy then. You leave the people the fuck alone, and let them go on with their lives.
Why? Because the necessity is to some rich cunt who needs to exploit the natural resources of an area they have no larger claim to than anyone else, as well as the labour of whoever they can coerce into working there, to extract further riches for themselves. It is not about life or death. t is not about the betterment of a particular community, or society at large. It’s about profit.
This is only a necessity from a capitalistic lens. We have already extracted these materials, and they are out there ready to be reclaimed and reused. It just so happens that it’s more profitable to trample communities and destroy the earth to get more of it, rather than use what we already have.
That is the problem with capitalism. It is inimical to life and humanity, and cares only for profit. Capitalism is the paperclip maximiser.
It is not about life or death. t is not about the betterment of a particular community, or society at large. It’s about profit.
This is a nonsensical point of view. If we’re going to get out of our current climate problems we need to replace fossil fuel infrastructure with renewable energy sources as much and as quickly as possible. That’s going to mean more electrical infrastructure, more solar panels, more grid-scale battery systems, more wind turbines, more hydroelectric stations, etc., which in turn means more copper, steel, aluminum, silicon, and concrete.
Sure there’s profit motivation involved. It’s going to be a lot of fucking hard work and people gotta eat. But framing resource extraction for industrial use as only motivated by profit is so narrow-minded that this conversation can’t really continue until you take a few steps down from your high horse and adjust your extreme point of view to something more rational.
We have already extracted these materials, and they are out there ready to be reclaimed and reused. It just so happens that it’s more profitable to trample communities and destroy the earth to get more of it, rather than use what we already have.
There are already massive recycling industries in place for aluminum, steel, copper, and even lithium recovery from old batteries. Aluminum in particular is cheaper (more cost effective in terms of time and labor) to recycle than to mine and refine new ore. That’s great, but it still doesn’t produce enough volume of material, we still need more new material also.
There are also quarries that grind rock and old concrete down to make fine particles, but… it’s not the same as sand, it can’t be used in all of the same production processes. The result is more like very fine gravel than it is sand. There’s also an issue with a lot of concrete being reinforced with steel cables or rebar, which you can’t just throw into a rock grinder.
I don’t know why you’re talking about this as if it were all-or-nothing, that’s not a practical approach in the real world. It seems like you’re more interested in scoring holier-than-thou points than discussing actual solutions.
petrostate stays winning until we value the people and the land they live on more than we value the resources they stand on
You say that as if ordinary people got a say in any of this
we won’t so long as we don’t band together!
Benjamin Franklin
Ooh, a bumper sticker of that’d be super fun —but pretty unwise in this gestapi climate. 🤌🏼
Believe it or not, straight to jail
I’m of the opinion that both your points are salient. Americans do not have democratic agency, and would be just about as evil if they did, but with better healthcare and weed.
Edit: Maybe less commitment to stupid wars that are obvious meat grinders.
We are so fucked.
What if one group says the land another group is standing on is actually theirs and they want to take it back? For example, what if
native Americansinvading aliens wanted to evict allnon-nativesnon-aliens?Edit: the hypothetical seems to be pulling a lot of attention away from the point so I updated it with something hopefully less reactionary.
Why do you assume Native Americans would act exactly like white fascists do?
Why do you assume my white owners aren’t going to do this to me? I feel like the indigenous folks wouldn’t be as shitty about it even if they did.
And that’s my “assumption” (according to you) because…?
Because I’m being charitable and if you werent, the concern you were talking about would be just, like ‘but imagine the guy signing the papers to make you homeless and is wearing a feather head dress while he does it!’
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on being a weird kind of absurd degree of racist or boot licker. I… Guess I can drop that assumption if you like?
Nah… I rather think you’re just full of shit.
It’s totally just a hypothetical. I guess I should have used aliens or something.
Even hypotheticals must be based on grounding assumptions… what was yours based on?
I was originally thinking of Israel and the greater Israel project but didn’t want to touch on that topic and somehow I’m still regretting it. We’re getting away now from what the hypothetical was for aka scenarios where people in group X want people in group Y’s land in any sense or scenario no longer specified by anything or any hypotheticals whatsoever.
So I’ve actually known indigenous folks! They generally don’t want me to leave the country and die until they date me.
And until pretty recently, most Palestinians just wanted someplace to live and make a living. They didn’t mind living alongside filthy Zionist rape monsters, new buildings put together a little taller and no new settlers imported. No idea what the general vibe is now.
It’s a random hypothetical, I guess I should have used aliens because everyone is kinda hyper fixating on the example hypothetical and not the actual point of the discussion.
No, I responded to that too.went with your extreme straw manned misunderstanding by pointing out that we have a shitty corporation that already does that. You asked if I owned any children. I think you just want excuses to be scared of others having agency.
Israel is a white supremacist settler-colonialist project that acts like a white supremacist settler-colonialist project… it’s a pretty cut-and-dried situation.
Why not? It’s a very easy topic to touch.
Once again it’s just a hypothetical about any scenario where group X may want group Y’s land regardless of the details. Maybe group X is good maybe they are bad maybe this maybe that, I think we can step away from the specifics because we’re moving away from the original point. Now you’re kinda proving why, it’s because I thought it would guide the conversation into being about the hypothetical more than the original point which is why I said I guess I should have used aliens.
Those details are important.
There’s literally no way anyone can live alongside a Zionist. They’ll rape them murder them and post it on twitter, then piss on the corpse and feed it to the dogs they use torape prisoners when they get tired.
I’ve had indigenous roommates, and there was hardly any murder or rape involved at all. Nobody had a dog, and nobody pissed on anyone but themselves, and even that only when they had done lots of drugs.
Worse than every landlord I’ve had since 2010 how?
Fuck it, let em. I don’t own shit.
Do you have kids or any dependents by chance?
I don’t own any children.
I think I’d prefer to be evicted by the indigenous ous people William Mulholland fucked out of water for kind of no reason a century ago than blackrock capital. Again.
I mean dependents could also be a grandparent you’re caring for or a disabled sibling and so on and I’m not sure I would say people own their dependents.
Still. Fuck off with your racist bullshit. I’ve had a community before. I’ve cared about people. Some of them were the people you’re fucking talking about. You know they’re just, like, around? I could even be one of them! You would never know! Sorry if that complicates your shittyattempts to justify racism.
I’m not sure I said anything about race, much less racist. I gave a total hypothetical everyone seems to want to focus on more so than the point it was representing, guess I should have used something like aliens for the hypothetical. At any stretch you seem bothered and I hope you’re alright and if you’re not alright I hope you find peace.
What are you even excited about? What do you really oppose here?
generally speaking, that is not what landback advocates are calling for. landback means that it is the people who live in concert with the land who will lead its management, and it is the responsibility of others to listen and learn
And even if it were, I’d rather have some tribe own my apartment than blackrock capital. Even the proposed scary misunderstanding isn’t worse than what currently exists, and could be better.
What does that even mean? It sounds an awful lot like noble savage mythology.
I’m glad you brought this up, because it’s something I want to make a distinguishment from. I do not want to fetishize or otherwise dehumanize indigenous people. I merely want to acknowledge that every culture has something they do better than anyone else. Us Europeans? We built pan-oceanic boats capable of traversing the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, and Arctic Oceans. That’s absolutely incredible! We are however, dogshit at land management. Hence the constant European desire to colonize more and more of the planet, taking up more and more land to meet the material needs of an aristocratic class that required closely shorn lawns for leisure activities such as polo and croquet.
Meanwhile, I also do not think that indigenous north Americans were perfect. For example, the Cherokee committed a genocide against the Osage, the Inca, Aztek, and Mayans all had theocratic structures that were not great for a large number of people living in their territories, the various peoples of the Americas hunted mega-fauna they encountered to extinction. However, in order for any plan for a hopeful future, we must draw wisdom from many sources. We know this because the current European global hegemony is failing. So we need to start looking for wisdom from other sources. One of the things when we interrogate history is that prior to Europe leveraging military violence to place the global south into a perpetual state of underdevelopment is that the people of the Americas had INCREDIBLE land management strategies that were interwoven with their cultural heritages (food, language, social structures) and agricultural outputs leading to some extremely interesting crops that have become staples worldwide such as corn, potatoes, sunflowers, beans, and tomatoes.
In conclusion: my point is to draw sources from subjugated knowledge
Really not sure what “subjugated knowledge” is supposed to mean.
In any case this is mostly irrelevant. It’s been hundreds or thousands of years, depending on which culture you’re talking about. The environmental conditions have changed, the land has changed, and the cultures are long gone. We have newer methods and better options for land and resource management, and for studying the current actual conditions, and for understanding local environments in the context of the global whole.
They also had a life expectancy of about 50 years and no methods for treating anything like cancer or sepsis or long-term debilitating conditions. My sister is Type 1 diabetic, she’d probably just be dead by 40.
I agree that we should have more respect for those that came before and the work they did that we are still benefitting from today (such as the selective breeding for crops you mentioned), but we can’t move forward by looking backward. The survival strategies of those past cultures don’t scale up to sustain 8 billion people, we need new methods supported by new technologies, better information and system-wide analysis.
https://sociology.institute/sociological-theories-concepts/foucault-power-knowledge-discourse/
Cool idea, also yeah I was just giving a totally random hypothetical. I didn’t want to touch on the greater Israel thing or other real world examples of group X wants group Y’s land.
Honestly? If we had an actual plan in place for where everyone would go i’d play along. I’ve never been to europe but it seems very nice.
I’m not exactly keen on the idea but I can’t deny that it would be pretty fair.
Man I really should have used a different hypothetical… people are really fixated on it specifically. Also I doubt most nations would be willing to take 10 to 100 million people and how do we pick apart the nationality of individuals who are mixed or don’t have records and so on.
Maybe because the US is an apartheid state and we are absolutely the bad guys
And yeah it wouldn’t be very feasible but I can’t argue against it morally.
We’re still moving away from the original point and regret even bothering to give a hypothetical example.
OK.
What happens when particular resources become necessary for public good?
That is, does the world in general have the right to extract the resources necessary to manufacture solar panels and grid-scale batteries &etc even if the local people object, because replacing fossil fuel power is a necessity for the survival of the human race entire?
What happens when acquiring and using a resource becomes a requirement for treating human life with value?
Sorry, what biological change in humans made it such that humans as a species require electricity to survive? Or that made it a prerequisite to “treating human life with value”?
Methinks you are conflating maintenance of the human species and maintenance of your desired quality of life.
Medical technology, for one thing. You can’t have modern medicine without electricity. Give up electricity and you drop life expectancy back to what it was in the early 1900s:
https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/global-average-life-expectancy-has-more-than-doubled-since-1900
That’s an awful lot of human life.
Methinks you have no real concept of what life was like 100 years ago.
It is an awful lot of human life, but it’s certainly not all human life, by any measure.
My tongue-in-cheek quip about human evolution was in response to your hyperbole about human existence being threatened.
Human existence is threatened. Just browse some of the articles at /c/climate@slrpnk.net :
France’s June heatwave caused more than 2,700 heat-related deaths
Warming Could Ravage a Third of Plants Used by Amazon Communities | Hotter temperatures and harsher droughts could cause Indigenous societies to lose many of the species they have used for medicine, r
The world’s oceans are warming at a record-breaking pace
Climate change causing more species to go extinct in temperate regions, UA study shows
It’s hardly hyperbole. The environment we live in is actively disintegrating. The effects of the damage are accelerating, right now.
The most effective thing we can do to address the problem is increase renewable energy sources: What actually works — right here, right now — to address climate change
That means more copper, steel, aluminum and concrete, for the whole world, as quickly as we possibly can.
the mining of these resources must be done with respect and in cooperation with the people who would be harmed by doing so without respect and care. we must also take an approach of being considerate in our consumption habits, otherwise we’re just participating in eco-colonialism
That sounds great… on paper. A very Disney ending to the long story of international resource conflict.
It also doesn’t really address my question, which is:
What happens when the extraction of a resource is necessary, but the local people object? What if they refuse to cooperate?
What kind of resource is that, what makes it necessary, and to whom?
OK.
Copper. The answers to necessary and to whom should be self-evident.
Other examples would be the rare earths which China has done so much work to acquire control over, and also sand for concrete which is such a high-value commodity that it has developed a global black market worth hundreds of billions of dollars, complete with international organized crime groups, and has caused a lot of environmental damage.
Ah, well that makes it easy then. You leave the people the fuck alone, and let them go on with their lives.
Why? Because the necessity is to some rich cunt who needs to exploit the natural resources of an area they have no larger claim to than anyone else, as well as the labour of whoever they can coerce into working there, to extract further riches for themselves. It is not about life or death. t is not about the betterment of a particular community, or society at large. It’s about profit.
This is only a necessity from a capitalistic lens. We have already extracted these materials, and they are out there ready to be reclaimed and reused. It just so happens that it’s more profitable to trample communities and destroy the earth to get more of it, rather than use what we already have.
That is the problem with capitalism. It is inimical to life and humanity, and cares only for profit. Capitalism is the paperclip maximiser.
This is a nonsensical point of view. If we’re going to get out of our current climate problems we need to replace fossil fuel infrastructure with renewable energy sources as much and as quickly as possible. That’s going to mean more electrical infrastructure, more solar panels, more grid-scale battery systems, more wind turbines, more hydroelectric stations, etc., which in turn means more copper, steel, aluminum, silicon, and concrete.
Sure there’s profit motivation involved. It’s going to be a lot of fucking hard work and people gotta eat. But framing resource extraction for industrial use as only motivated by profit is so narrow-minded that this conversation can’t really continue until you take a few steps down from your high horse and adjust your extreme point of view to something more rational.
There are already massive recycling industries in place for aluminum, steel, copper, and even lithium recovery from old batteries. Aluminum in particular is cheaper (more cost effective in terms of time and labor) to recycle than to mine and refine new ore. That’s great, but it still doesn’t produce enough volume of material, we still need more new material also.
There are also quarries that grind rock and old concrete down to make fine particles, but… it’s not the same as sand, it can’t be used in all of the same production processes. The result is more like very fine gravel than it is sand. There’s also an issue with a lot of concrete being reinforced with steel cables or rebar, which you can’t just throw into a rock grinder.
I don’t know why you’re talking about this as if it were all-or-nothing, that’s not a practical approach in the real world. It seems like you’re more interested in scoring holier-than-thou points than discussing actual solutions.