I find that anti-comunist sentiments in Poland, Ukraine, and some other formerly soviet countries usually refer to the soviet state, not communism as such. It is actually anti-soviet and anti-tankie.
Soviet occupation left very bitter memories, and poisoned any potential for communist progressivism in this part of the world.
This should be considered while criticising anti-communism.
There are plenty of people who are still into future building. But, indeed, a lot of the west is falling into decadence.
But I still see enough spark to hope it will reignite. With a better experience.
Also it is possible to actually like what you do for a job. Many people do.
Then, some people clearly do not. I suppose their work will be replaced with robots. And people who implement these robots are doing it enthusiastically.
Still, we would not want to disenfranchise people who see their work as nonfulfilling. This is a challenge.
Cats are already smart enough, they just find it easier to access the technology using their chips.
Please don’t insult cats, it’s cats who are smart enough to know how to use their chips! Robots and chips just react as they are programmed.
So I have a cat chipped 15 years ago, and she can still operate modern devices with it - open doors, get food from a robot.
Not all tech goes obsolete fast, there are legacy compatibility layers!
It was just the peak of the US, in some aspects anyway. With all my appreciation to all the good things that the US still does.
there is not almost any attempt to organize public participation. Except maybe admin posts with discussions in comments. Also users can vote with their feet.
I agree that the admin instinct is mostly honest and democratic and they should be regarded for their work. But the instance governance is mostly autocratic. And this kind of structure usually devolves in despotism, since power corrupts.
Would be nice to see an institution-based instance, with a constitution, elections, balance of power. Would be a great social experiment!
This is really interesting, also in comparison to governance of “traditional” social networks.
I would not be surprised if someone did scientific research about it.
An interesting difference is no need to fight for land and resources, anyone can go and create another microstate.
Still, there is some benefit of larger states, they can resist spam better. But as much as they implement spam filters in the code, smaller instances can them. Political benefits of open source are real.
Strangely, in chess, there is almost never a man category. There is everybody and there is women. wikipedia . See also motivations why and arguments against. It’s tricky.
What are people of good faith going to do about even a small fraction of those who disagree?
There is also “us” which is a larger “me”. Large problem like unintentional geoengineering needs large “us” to control and reverse. There are political implications of this kind of “us”.
If we are talking about giving an example, while I agree in part, I also find there are people more popular and influential than billonaires. Half of the top 10 richest people are not really public personas at least from where I stand. Conversely, you do not need to be billionaire to produce 10000x CO2, you need some money but not that much. These people need to be also in attention focus. Even just middle upper class who like to fly a lot, the difference it makes is huge. Billionaires do their own part, but through ownership of large companies and their relation to customers, I think is more important way in which they make a difference.
How about stopping other individual from doing some things? Else this strategy is self-defeating, those survive who will not follow it. Writing a comment about it actually counts for conviencing others, but should this fact be one of the points?
At least in Europe it’s ok, golfstream will shut down and we’ll be under a glacier. Climate change is not just warming, it’s volatility.
hey, but how far does your backyard go? Don’t you feel at least for your city, your country? Why not something bigger?
Most companies do not optimize to exist long term. Another, longer lasting, entity needs to take charge of this. Like humanity itself, except it needs some organization, reflecting legitimate consenus. The problem is that it needs to be enforcable, and world govenment with punitive powers is not an unproblematic idea.
I think one big problem is that Earth has become too small, but this fact and it’s implications did not quite get absorbed. People act on in instinctively by favoring space exploration, but it’s pursued by most adventurous ones, and not in unproblematic ways.
Companies sell to people though, who willingly buy from them unsustainable products. But I think it’s a bit much to expect people make this choice every day, I prefer at least for some things make a regulation. It’s like “normal” pollution, we do not expect people to figure out which company relies on less toxic leakage, why is CO2 pollution any different?
Also, good to read a well-thought comment! It is an interesting question when a radical position is justified. Normally, I would radically appeal for nuanced and balanced discussion and progress within liberal institutions. But sometimes this progress is slow or near impossible.