(untitled)

Lately I've become less and less caring about material goods, more and more cynical about the consumerist cycle, and increasingly concerned about the environment. Does anyone think this is a global trend, or will the materialist consumerist bandwagon keep trucking on until it destroys us all? Earth is in danger and nobody is doing anything.

>Earth is in danger and nobody is doing anything. what are you doin, expect annoying people on anonymous chans?

Start doing what Bill Gates does. Spread contraceptives among brown peoples.

>>4397 You mean push the "circumcision prevents HIV" meme onto people who just needed education, condoms, and sex toys to eradicate STDs?

>>4398 I need none of that to be honest, anime solves everything.

>Does anyone think this is a global trend no, everyone is too busy looking at the climate change meme. no need to worry about the earth though, worst case scenario once everyones dead stuff will solve itself eventually

>>4394 I like your anthropomorphized Earth-tan but there is nothing sacred about nature. It doesn't need to be preserved or saved or reverted to a prehuman condition. It's all just an accident of evolution. So chill out about the Earth. If it stops being what we need it to be then we need to fix it or find another planet.

>>4399 I guess if Bill Gates told everyone in Africa about waifus, AIDS would really die.

Do you guys really think I'm just being dramatic? I want to do something but don't know what I can.

>>4403 Go join spacex or some other private space company. Barring that, go become a wildlife conservationist or ecologist or something. If you specifically want to try and address consumerism, become a sea steader or a politician, or just go find a nice place in the wilderness to live. You will have to be more specific about what you want to do if you want more specific answers.

>>4404 This. Few things are more annoying than people who complain about the environment but when it comes down to it, doesn't do anything of worth to address it. Or worse, just goes on some anti-human rant talking about how humans are the cancer of the planet. Personally, I would address consumerism by discussing with others how when you think about it, you don't need to spend thousands and thousands to have a good standard of living. Like, how to cut cable television out of your life or smart purchasing decisions with used cars, that kind of thing so they aren't creating more waste. Or demand companies from Apple to Walmart to put out better products that last longer and can be repaired easier so we can reduce waste that is made when we have to throw out that cheap shower caddy or poorly made iPhone. It's an uphill battle though.

At this point whenever I think about the state of the world all I see is a spiral down to a black abyss. Nothing will get better any time soon. Don't expect it to. Live anyway.

>>4403 Not at all, the fact that people are so laid back about these things is a big part of the reason they still exist. If you want to change thingd, you will need power, so first, get some power. This doesn't mean you specifically have to be a figure head, but you will need some direct or indirect influence.

>>4408 What, in your opinion, is the most efficient way to gain direct or indirect power? >>4404 Spacex only seems to be hiring Americans at the moment, but that would be a nice dream in the future if I could get them to sponsor me. As an engineer I would quite enjoy that. >>4405 I mean I could go rant about it, but I feel that might just get me shunned.

>>4413 >neurosuggesting people get shunned for ranting Lain, please, if Youtube and Facebook are anything to go by, ranting at length about whatever topic tends to be popular especially if you insert even the smallest amount of logic. You'll find out that a lot of your friends liked your rant and comments just violently sucking your dick about how you're right. And even if your friends and family disagree, you'll have some other group just ready to tell you that, "You're right, you know". I mean, look at all the "totally not like the other sheep" on chans like this complaining about how they hate Christmas or at least complain about the consumerist element of the holiday. They tread absolutely no ground that hasn't been explored in said posts, they sound no different than people on Facebook besides the usual chan slang to be frank, and posts like that are still accepted by the majority of the population. The entirety of some of Youtube's communities are devoted to ranting for several minutes and some of these people get paid for it. Dude, if you ranted on Youtube and knew how to network, you could not only make bank but you could just sit on your ass and not do anything about things you complain about. You'd end up with a legion of fans if you're lucky too. You'd be highly annoying but who cares about that? It's funny that I just ranted about ranting but point is, people seem to like rants, people tend to click on videos and articles that spell doom and gloom and of course, everyone's favorite; pure unleaded rage rants like webm related.

>>4414 What is a good way to gain charisma? I know I'm asking a lot of questions about these things, but I really want to make a difference.

>>4403 >Do you guys really think I'm just being dramatic? I want to do something but don't know what I can. You don't seem very certain. I don't think this has anything to do with the environment. It sounds like you just want to do something "good" to make yourself feel better about your life. You should be careful about deferring responsibility and asking strangers what you should do. Most people are nice will just give you crappy advice, but eventually you will find people who try to exploit you. If you are serious about the environment then you need to gain knowledge, defend your principles and convince other people to join you. You could start by explaining why >>4401 is full of soykaf.

There are too many people on this Earth, too many to have soul. There are about 2 billion human souls existing in this universe. It leaves most Earth's population soulless. Useless people living useless lives. The only way to entertain themselves in consumerism, the only way to profit off them is consumerism. You can to start with genociding a good chunk of planet's population to revert things back to good old days when grass was taller, milk was made from polystyrene, cats were a size of cow and cows were a size of hangar, an average worker earned 2 bitcoins/hour and played checkers with chessmasters in his lunch break.

>>4421 depends on what you mean by charisma but theatre courses, speaking irl with lots of different people, and having knowledge/experience about what you want to talk about are imo good starting points

In my experience, there's quite a bit of people who are concerned either about the environment, myself included, but even they (again, myself included) do not do much in the way of doing anything about it. It may be hard, but the truth is that often we choose the more comfortable pat. But then there is a very great deal of people who couldn't care les, and would probably choose the more nature-destructive methods over the others as if it were to cause as much destruction as possible.

I wonder if anyone has ever thought about trying to make a fuarrrk ton of money just to help out the world. Maybe somebody is? I think that would be a modern day heroic tale, somebody climbing the ladder of wealth, backstabbing other rich megalomaniacs and then once at the top using all that powerful money to fix earth. But it's not mine. I try to be environmentally cautious and thats about it. I'm down here just trying to live and a dream goal to make people love each other a little more. The idea of making people love earth is even as unreachable as the goal I already have. And aside from which it's not for me. I often fall back into my brain and think everything is meaningless, so up against people like that I would crumble. I just want to make some hope maybe where I can't see any, I can't be the one to move things.

>>4443 Much of the harm to the environment comes because of people trying to make a fuarrrk ton of money. "Just get rich" isn't easy to begin with, and you're putting yourself at a huge handicap if you try to do it through only ethical means. You aren't going to outcompete others in the same business who do hire lawyers to figure out the bare minimum they're legally required to do for the environment.

>>4446 Yeah definitely not easy, near impossible and you would be risking everything including your life. Thats why I said it'd be a modern day heroic feat. I don't think it will happen, but I have to have some kind of hope to keep going and do what I can to be of little assistance. Accepting everyone is human like me and incapable of performing such a miracle is too much.

The world is already ruined, although not in an environmental sense. I really don't care what happens to it so I'll live my life as I please. Materialism will never lose momentum but only continue to grow both in the first world and outside of it as third world countries acquire more and more buying power.

>>4394 I hope you are actually trolling and not this retarded This consumerist cycle is what keeps the wheel of capitalism running and there is nothing you can do to stop it. The only way to stop it would be to ask humans to be less stupid and think about the future generations this means you are effectively asking them to be a little bit less human I used to think communism was a great system before I realised how self absorbed and stupid they are you can't just simply hope humans to be less of a human to solve problems ( a.k.a wishful thinking ) Humans will always be humans the only way to solve problems caused by humans is to reward them for doing what you want and punish them for not doing like paying people for recycling, regulating factories to make them more eco friendly, banning/discouraging the usage of fossil based fuels ( which might actually consume more resources than it saves sure you might be using renewable energy but you are using way more minerals to construct things to use eco friendly energy sources ) but if these measures are not enforced by every major industrial power ( see china and india ) all the effort will be in vain Also there is a very small chance that the earth will be ruined until you die so why hope for the impossible?

>>4462 damn how come your such an expert on human nature and how society works, where can I buy your books.

None of you realize that protecting the enviroment isn't some soykaf you do for humans only. Animals, plants all living creatures need an earth which is healthy but humans are destroying. It shows how selfish you guys are

>>4463 Don't bother. He's making soykaf up as he writes

>>4463 I didn't actually wrote any books but I am planning to I will make a thread in /r when I do so

>>4465 >all living creatures need an earth which is healthy but humans are destroying bullsoykaf. Look at squirrels, raccoons, house sparrows and rats. They rather like what we've done with the place. Now maybe some African tree toad doesn't like this global warming, but he wasn't adapted to the world he lives in and will be naturally selected out. Maybe we ought to cut back on the industrialization and work to preserve the environments we like, but this absolutist "people r bad hug a whale today" mantra is why nobody takes you seriously.

>>4465 >None of you realize that protecting the enviroment isn't some soykaf you do for humans only. Animals, plants all living creatures need an earth which is healthy but humans are destroying. >It shows how selfish you guys are All living creatures still alive have evolved to be the fittest to survive in the current environment. If the environment changes, they will evolve to match it. That's literally how life works. Preserving the environment for the sake of animals is putting the cart before the horse.

Don't be put off by all the nihilists in this thread, lainon. Nihilists believe nothing and they do nothing, so just ignore them and work around them. The ultimate reason behind all this environmental destruction is capitalism, ie. valuing profit above all other considerations. Trying to mitigate climate change without changing our economic systems is like putting a band-aid on a severed limb IMO. There are no technical quick fixes for politics and culture. Change will require a long, drawn out battle between vested interests and those who value the condition of humanity as a species rather than their own personal gain. It will be particularly difficult in the USA where the two party system has everything stitched up, backed by a brutal police force, but even there the cracks are beginning to show. Arguably, the success of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders shows that people are dissatisfied with the system and the overton window is moving to accept discussion of possible alternative social arrangements. Perhaps campaigning for a bernie-like candidate in the future might be one of the best ways to make a change, although it'll certainly feel frustratingly slow. In the meantime, educate yourself and prime yourself to act as soon as you see any opportunity to make a difference. Personally, I think we're too far gone already, and we're going to see devastating climate change in our lifetimes. The drought which sparked the Arab Spring and the mass migrations to Europe is only the beginning, and we're going to see increasingly unstable and chaotic times as crops fail and fish stocks and water tables are depleted all around the world. The wealthiest countries will be insulated from this the longest, but the developing world will likely be hit hard. Even if we rearranged the whole global economy today, we're still going to see a vastly changed world by the end of this century, and projections become more pessimistic every year. I don't think this means action is pointless, in fact I believe that this makes it even more vital that we do everything we possibly can to avoid the very worst outcomes. If there were a technical fix for climate change, it would have been done. Perhaps you could work towards technical solutions to help us live through the effects of climate change, but I think the most effective action will be to build towards systemic change, however long and difficult.

>>4465 >"yea yea, stop with all the pesky LETS SAVE HUMANITY talk, let's talk about how we can save the animals" And they wonder why animal shelters or "save the chicapy owl foundation" get more money than orphanages

>>4470 You are not playing fairly. >Don't be put off by all the nihilists in this thread, lainon. Just because you gave everyone you disagree with label doesn't mean you can now disregard their posts out of hand. >The ultimate reason behind all this environmental destruction is capitalism, ie. valuing profit above all other considerations. Trying to mitigate climate change without changing our economic systems is like putting a band-aid on a severed limb IMO. You are taking your own premise and assumption as the conclusion. Changing the Earth is not automatically a bad thing and reverting the environment back to a previous state is not automatically a good thing. Create a separation between the problem, potential solutions and your preferred outcome. Right now you are just blending them all together. >The drought which sparked the Arab Spring and the mass migrations to Europe is only the beginning, Arab spring was caused by soykafty government and European immigration is caused by Americans bombing the soykaf out of middle eastern countries. I don't see the connection to this thread. >we're going to see increasingly unstable and chaotic times as crops fail and fish stocks and water tables are depleted all around the world. Maybe we should focus on creating more food then, instead of trying to overthrow the US political system. Again, your solution doesn't match the supposed problem.

>You are not playing fairly. Sorry anon, I'm just stating my opinions honestly and in good faith. >Just because you gave everyone you disagree with label doesn't mean you can now disregard their posts out of hand. Many of the posts in this thread could be called nihilist by any reasonable definition. I am not disregarding their posts, merely suggesting that if OP wants to act they need not be put off by the nihilists. >Changing the Earth is not automatically a bad thing and reverting the environment back to a previous state is not automatically a good thing. I agree. There is nothing inherently special about the way the world is or the way it was. However, by current predictions (which seem to become more pessimistic every year) we are heading towards a real threat to human civilization. Sure, some pockets of humanity wil probably survive no matter what, but I believe we aught to aim for the most prosperous future possible. >Arab spring was caused by soykafty government and European immigration is caused by Americans bombing the soykaf out of middle eastern countries. I don't see the connection to this thread. Let's take the example of Syria. Syria has had soykafty governments since forever, and before 2011 seemed like one of the most stable regimes in the region. During a decade of drought, people moved from the farms to the cities en masse, and in the cities they found persistent unemployment and brutal repression. When the drought caused food prices to soar in 2010, people became desperate and when the unrest began in Tunisia, the Syrian people decided that they feared the government less than starvation. There are similar narratives all across the Middle East and North Africa. Food scarcity has been a leading factor in most revolutions. If soykafty governments led to revolution, there'd be revolutions everywhere, all the time. >Maybe we should focus on creating more food then, instead of trying to overthrow the US political system. I only use examples from the USA since I thought most people would know them. I don't actually think the USA will be all that relevant in the 21st century. I did suggest working toward increasing food production, however even if we find more and more efficient ways of producing food, eventually we will come up against a hard limit. The current system requires infinite, exponential growth to keep functioning. This clearly cannot last forever in a closed system with finite resources. Changing our entire economic and political system will be a long and difficult task, so I believe we aught to begin the process immediately.

>>4475 >I don't actually think the USA will be all that relevant in the 21st century. Lol, K. Here's how this goes down: Global warming is 100% the existential threat you claim. fuarrrking hypertyphoonnadoblizzards everywhere. Water levels rise 100 feet. Ice caps melt entirely. It's the apockylips you've been getting wet over for years. The left-leaning city dwellers on the US coasts get swept away by thousand foot tidal waves. Those that remain flood inland to where all the people who own farms and guns live. These people point their guns at the city dwellers and say that if they don't work the farms, they get shot. The US has tons of land just sitting around because the city dwellers want to preserve it. The people with guns and farms convert this land into more farms. The US military then irradiates the southern border with nuclear weapons to prevent refugees from entering. Canada surrenders to the US immediately upon receiving the news that the Mexican border is now made of an unbroken sheet of cancer glass. The fallout reduces the global population by a few tens of millions, but has the net upside of ushering in a "nuclear fall," which cancels out all of the warming effects caused by people using hairspray and not recycling. One country on earth has a navy that can get to the US at this point (assuming the 700 foot swell isn't a factor), and that's China, but they're too busy dealing with the zombie apocalypse caused when you have a couple billion citizens starving to death with nothing to lose and the fact that Russia is using the revolution as cover to seize strategic oil reserves. Europe collapses into a nightmarish wasteland of jihad a la Mad Max, as the entire population of Africa that isn't busy trying to kill each other locally starts pouring in, and right and left wing political organizations try to seize power. The UN/EU beg for US military assistance to help prevent a meltdown into total anarchy. The US says "lol no" and blows up the undersea cables using submarines. Europe is immediately catapulted back to the dark ages, European civilization collapses entirely. North Korea nukes Japan and levels Seoul before launching an all-out invasion across the DMZ. Nobody cares or notices, and without US aid, Southeast Asia begins to fall to the NK government, which finds itself in a relatively technologically advanced position considering the fact that the rest of the world is tearing itself apart because Netflix doesn't work and there's no food. Meanwhile, the US is just sitting back and relaxing, producing food and optimizing agriculture. The US internet works just fine, the US grid continues to operate. While many are lost early on in the years after THE SCARY CATACLYSM, over time the US economy reorients itself around the sustainable production of food, consumer goods, and electronic media. Nuclear power is adopted on a massive scale, and advancements in battery technology free the US from dependence on fossil fuels within 50 years. US naval expeditions discover that the thawed Antarctic continent is an untapped paradise filled with resources, arable land, and room for colonists. At the end of the 50 year adjustment period, the winner of the Russo-Chinese war emerges to discover that North Korea has conquered uncontested territory in southeast Asia, Japan, most of the Phillipines, and is threatening the rough and tumble raiders of the Australian Kangaroo Front. They turn their attention to the conquest and consolidation of Europe, which is a smoldering ruin inhabited by nomadic war tribes and slavers, interspersed with far-right, far-left, and religious enclaves. The Australian Kangaroo Front contacts the US for assistance against the NK imperialists, and the US agrees to assist in exchange for the ability to use Australia as a staging point for the colonization of Antarctica, now known colloquially as "America 2: America Harder." What ensues is a comical case study in what happens when a ragtag band of post-apocalyptic 1950s LARPers come up against a well-fed, well-supplied military with technology from the 2050s, honed in the post-CATACLYSM wastes. The US-Canada-Australia alliance drives the NK regime back, and efforts to colonize "AMERICA 2: AMERICA HARDER" begin in earnest. Within 50 years, those that have managed to persist across the globe hear tales of a far-off land of opportunity, where gold is just sitting on the ground for the taking. AMERICA 2: AMERICA HARDER welcomes these refugees in with open arms and begins levying taxes on their economic output immediately. These funds are dedicated to two purposes: space exploration and military development. In this brave new world, there is no room for diplomacy, and the US government sends its military on a worldwide show of force, demanding tribute from whatever minor city-states have managed to claw their way up from the ashes in the intervening years. Australia and Canada see what's up and immediately petition for admission into the US as vassal states. With a 100-150 year advantage in technology compared to the rest of the planet, the US and their allies effectively win by default, letting most of the world burn and extracting the resources necessary to build the massive arcologies necessary to evacuate this dead world by whatever means they deem necessary- for there are none who can challenge them. 200 years after what is now known as the REALLY SCARY TIME OF GLOBEHOTTENING, the arcologies lift off, spewing massive amounts of gamma radiation into the atmosphere and the US begins its conquest of the stars. Before long, the last US citizen has been evacuated to the Martian colonies, and satellites have been carefully arranged so that the words "LOL GET fuarrrkED" are visible in the night sky from every point on earth. 100 years later, your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grand-it looks up at the sky and asks the sentient tumor that spawned it "?MMMAMM WTUTT MMMNNKGHHEEN LLLL GFFKKKT?" The sentient tumor does not know, nor could it say if it did...for it has no mouth, and cannot scream.

>>4481 Why don't we just get the empire back together now and skip the intermediate bits?

>dumb american thinks any soil below 55th parallel will be able to produce food when it's 50C outside in September evening Good luck living the Mad Max dream with guns'n'shiiet'n'mufuggin commiefornian refugees mufugga

>>4481 I'd watch that movie, but you still have a severe case of 'MURICA-nism.

>>4485 >Boris

>>4413 What country do you live? You can gain power through collectivisation, assuming it's not illegal in your country. Find some grassroots movements - "Think Global, Act Local" and all that - local ride-shares, tool-shares, makerspaces, skill-shares. I mean, doesn't make a huge difference as an individual, but doesn't cost much either. Though as an engineer, I'm sure some of the repairing you can teach could reduce resource costs. You can gain power through knowledge of what is going on from top-down policy perspective as well of upcoming issues [4][5]. Write to your representative, help people suing govts to do more [0][1][2][3] >>4413 >>4414 You can be knowledgeable and not rant though as well [0] BEL - https://www.klimaatzaak.eu/nl [slow progress] [1] NL - http://www.urgenda.nl/en/climate-case/ [successful] [2] INT - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/23/climate-change-government-court-cases-study [3] UK - https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/planb/ [looking for more funding] [4] Turn Down the Heat - a look at 4C temp change http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/publication/turn-down-the-heat [5] Lithium shortage https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-lithium-battery-future/

(I am nowhere on the political spectrum, and you can't put me on it. I laugh at it, and laugh at you if you try to.) My approach to these things is as follows: - Most, but not all people have purpose (goals), often several and conflicting, but some have none. - These purposes form a network: some purpose is a requisite of others, or they depend on each other, their relative importance may vary based on the dependency hierarchy or current availability (e.g. you need lots of money to buy a yacht, yacht seller needs you to buy it; but spending all of it to survive right now is a better route to the yacht than keeping the money and dying, both parties benefit from your seemingly detrimental action) - Intelligence is a wider set than the power set of all possible goals and purpose. Nothing belongs to anyone, and everyone is free to use any resource in proportion to the specific:all purpose ratio at hand. Some specific purposes inherit the share of purposes dependent on them. (e.g. if most purposes depend on the world surviving, and the world surviving depends on you surviving, you are free to send an entire continent to death just for your own survival.) Being a mindless consumer serves only a minor part of some conglomerates purpose of profit. If it makes you happy, it's justified until your consumption mostly just affects you. Again, one person's behavior has little impact on a system. If everyone is happily consuming, the system is working all right. Trouble begins when most consumers still aren't happy (see poor countries, overworked people scraping by.) Environmental concerns are the dependency of many other goals, but mostly long term ones. The twist is that small-scale action remains small-scale and starves out the very activist taking small-scale action. But most importantly (for me), intelligent activity serving no particular purpose (the reason why intelligence is a wider set than the power set of all purpose) takes all precedence. If I had to choose between the survival of the entire human race against one child more intelligent than any of us getting to play with new concepts and perhaps throwing out a few platonic forms for no reason at all, I would vote for the kid. Anyone is free to use any resource including other people without limits, if they have no goal or purpose, and are simply 'pushed by intelligence'. >inb4 fedora enlightened tips Think AI, chums. Think AI. If the overlord wants to play, I will gladly be a toy.

>>4503 >(I am nowhere on the political spectrum, and you can't put me on it. I laugh at it, and laugh at you if you try to.) you're the "2 cool 4 skool" kid, aren't you?

>>4504 Definitely too cool for you.

>>4506 If I am laughing at you then you're probably not.

Oh my god we're all going to die aren't we.

This whole earth-chan meme just reminded me of something I had long forgotten. About a decade ago while running I had a sudden overtaking vision of a girl with blue hair telling me the planet was in danger, and I had to help her to save everyone. Seeing these pictures I realize earth-chan (at least in the ideal) looks almost exactly like that girl I remember (if she was anime). It's creepy as fuarrrk.

>>4509 America is not the world anon. In 4 or 8 years there will be a democrat in the office, most likely.

>>4394 >Lately I've become less and less caring about material goods, more and more cynical about the consumerist cycle, and increasingly concerned about the environment. so ou are becoming an environmentalist slowly, or at least a concerned citizen. >Does anyone think this is a global trend, or will the materialist consumerist bandwagon keep trucking on until it destroys us all? From all statistical modeling, the ride never ends, basically unless we solve 3 major issues, one of those being energy (the return-on-investment for most of our sources of energy is offset by the longterm damage casued. the exception is nuclear, ut that requires dangerous mining techniques and then you have indisposable waste at this time) the other being fresh water resource management, and the third being temperature shocks to stressed regions (this combined with poor fresh water management will result in much of humanity is kill). >Earth is in danger and nobody is doing anything. people have been screaming at the tops of their lungs for decades now. it only becomes a public issue when >thousands are dying >muh gas prices are too high >emergency services are overwhelmed. see coastal flooding and too many migrants in order to educate yourself on these issues, you can read a wealth of knowledge from the WHO which has population statistics and analyzes global health trends for the next few decades. based off of some reports that I have read, sustainability becomes an issue somewhere around 2050 as a generally agreed upon number unless we can compensate for ecological destruction and global warming in our human migration strategies, and much of the earth will be under water stress potentially starting WW3 for water to drink. the funiest part (if something could be called "funny") is that the entire holy land will become an uninhabitable desert and no longer worth fighting for. major parts of the USAs agricultural regions will become more barren, as will large parts of those in Asia and Africa. all systems are interconnected, and one must analyze the human, ecological and energy sectors in order to get a good picture of why geopolitical struggles occur and why mass immigration like that european clusterfuck is going on. so far it can only get worse

>>4535 here is a tl:dr image some other factors to consider: >rainforest and biodiverse system depletion for cash crop growth (like palm oil and ornamental flowers, and those other gay hipster healthy organic products by countries in asia and africa and south america) >people drinking non-renewable water sources (using fresh water trapped underground like oil reserves) >warming sea temperatures and overfishing causing fish migrations causing fishermen to turn to smuggling operations and piracy and activities linked to terrorism >flooding coastal regiouns casuing megacities to appear as humans move inland due to no fish or coastal resources and no more homes. these people displace others who were already stressed and contribute to conditions that are conducive to war and civil unrest, which spill into other countries when population becomes unsustainable and people flee as refugees. we cannot handle the massive numbers of refugees going into first world countries, but we cant do anything to stop it without making socially unethical decisions like mass killing or abandoning human lives which would violate numerous treaties and declarations

>>4536 >>4535 What do you suggest that could be done at this point? This stuff is keeping me up at night, every night since I posted this thread.

>>4537 I educate myself on it mostly. if you look at the entire situation in a calculating fashion, accept that there is nothing that can be done on your end, except tell others about it. some of the others have suggested spreading your message on youtube, but it would never trend unless you make it cartoony and very simple for the layman to understand. some things that can be done on your part >write articles for newspapers- either local or online that talk about how YOUR COMMUNITY will be affected and make sure your article is correctly sourced, or drop tips about it in the suggested articles area, news people love a sensational story, the problem is that 5-10-15 years is still too far in the future for most people to care >get elected, or politically active by going to debates and legal discussions when matters of industry or ecosystems are discussed, in the united states these are often publicly listed >join an environmental conservation group that does volunteer testing of ecosystems (water/soil sampling), or advocate against big pharma or megacorp pollution. most of the time, they get away with it because nobody is there to make sure they are following the law. unfortunately, right now there is not much you can do, but once things get worse in the next 5 years, people will start to discuss it more. i remember i watched the national news every day for years and say perhaps 1 story on environment change in the entire year, but weather changes have caused now close to 4-5 per year to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_party http://www.pbs.org/earthonedge/resources2.html https://www.peacecorps.gov/ most countries even have military or government positions that focus on the environment. DONT GIVE MONEY- it will mostly be sued for advertising and brand marketing rather than actual conservation if you want to take the paranoid route, start focusing on making yourself sufficient off the grid in a life boat so to speak. but also teach people to become self sufficient. you can probably volunteer to give lectures/talks at a school as a member of an environmental organization unfortunately people tend to not notice these big things until people want to move into their lawns because their homes on the coast were destroyed. we can prevent it by forward thinking about what to do to prevent the next problem instead of contemplating what went wrong

>>4539 thanks for the sources, have a book on overthrowing oppressive dictatorships in a non-violent manner

>>4469 The world will be long dead before they have time to adapt. Adapting takes a long time.

>>4544 Well, humans can adapt technologically, maybe we can adapt animals?

>>4503 There's too much essentializing of "intelligence" here as if it's trans-historically definable rather than historically bound and changing, depending on the type of knowledge that the particular society and time period have as bestowing "intelligence" upon an individual. "Intelligence" is meaningless as a term without a wider society that judges "intelligence" and its contrary "stupidity" according to whatever varying standards it sets and debates. This mindset does play into a certain kind of political view which also eternalizes the historical immediacy, thus tends toward conservative views of things like "human nature" (and "intelligence"). Also, the consumerist hedonism you seem to support is nihilistic, as Nietzsche pointed out, because to say nothing besides pleasure is worthy of striving is simultaneously to abandon striving for any specific goal to realize; the action is dependent purely on what feels good without any further aim.

>>4394 As an ecologyst I can tell you that big part of these "dangers" are also made up by corporations to higher consumption.

>>4605 Higher consumption of what?

>>4544 Adaptation happens quickly, because the necessary changes have already taken place. It doesn't have to be growing a new appendage or something ridiculous like that, it's just that the unfit species die off and make room for those that remain. Some of these we call "invasive species" but mother nature has no such prejudices. Over the next thousands and millions of years those remaining species will multiply and create new species in preparation for the next extinction event.

>>4606 Of anything they want you to buy. Put "good for ecology" sticker on something and people will buy it with higher price. Also you can read about fridges with frione gas and global warming. Sorry for my english.

I personally feel pretty helpless when it comes to the envirovment. What can one human being actually do to stop billionares from destroying our world? What exactly is there aside from revolting, moving to the wilds or any other social suicide? I at least try to buy new products as little as possible and try to recycle everything I can. I feel like this + buying recycled products actually means soykaf in the big picture. I tried talking my close ones to try and lead a bit more eco friendly lifestyle as well and I just got the "Hmm yeah...I'll try" or other passive negativity on the road. What really can a student such as myself do?

>>4606 I think they're being ironic and if not they should probably learn to spell their job title.

>let's make memes to spread our blatant political propaganda *yawn* How pathetic

>>4610 http://news.mit.edu/2016/signs-healing-antarctic-ozone-layer-0630

> Daily reminder that mars and mercury are quite fine without any life

Since all people are so preoccupied with materialism and making money, the "cure" to climate change probably lies in taxing carbon emissions and deforestation and other soykaf. For example, have someone own all the oceans and jungles so they have an incentive to keep it clean and safe for the animals within.

>>4655 >have someone own all the oceans and jungles so they have an incentive to keep it clean and safe for the animals within this is how illogical communists are LOL Don't you think "materialism and making money" would drive those people to strip the jungles and oceans from their natural resources? dumb cunt lol

>>4656 >taxation is communism inbred detected

>>4657 >strawmaning me this hard Trying to hide how buttblasted you are because I pointed out your dumb logic? also yea, most people on the left would say that countries with high taxes are on verge of socialism (eg. scandinavian countries they always like to mention) Have a reply?

>>4659 >also yea, most people on the left would say that countries with high taxes are on verge of socialism Taxes have nothing to do with socialism or communism in themselves. Tax is merely a policy tool that both the left and right have used. The policy the other poster describes isn't remotely close to one anyone on the left would advocate. Some would make exactly the same point you did against it, in fact.

>>4665 Taxation is theft by monopoly of force, the mafia of government fuarrrk you hippies, tax yourself you carbon space wasting f4ggots

>>4666 >Taxation is theft by monopoly of force Taxation is why money has value: taxation drives the demand for government-issued currencies. Without taxation, that money would be meaningless. The government does have a monopoly on (legal) force, but that same monopoly is also what allows you to claim a right to certain things as your property in the first place and stops me and a group of friends from simply declaring it ours (or no one's) and taking it for ourselves. Hobbes made a similar point with the "war of all against all" in Leviathan.

>>4667 >Taxation is why money has value >Without taxation, that money would be meaningless Hah, good one You obviously don't know how fiat currency works and how it's value is adjusted to goods and services but even if I were to argue you on that point, which I won't, what about cryptocurrencies? >The government does have a monopoly on (legal) force >(legal) Yea, and you can be branded a terrorist and put in Guantanamo bay with no hearing in court. What's your point with "(legal)" soykaf when the higher ups can make laws as they wish? >but that same monopoly is also what allows you to claim a right to certain things as your property in the first place HAH as if They don't allow me soykaf, they just give me a priviledge to do so. They do it just so they can milk me some more of my money. >and stops me and a group of friends from simply declaring it ours HAHAHAHAHAHAH shut up pussy boi you never fought in your life, let alone faced a homemade double action revolver that can blast your face right off >Hobbes made a similar point with the "war of all against all" in Leviathan. It already is, what you mean? What I like is "Ordo ab Chao" not your pussy filled ideas about rulekeeping and refferees. Julian Assange is already fuarrrking dead and Wikileaks reputation is being bled like a fuarrrking pig. They are playing dirty all they want while you fearfully cling to a guidebook filled with rules THEY have written. And all that because f4ggots like you who are scared of change. So what if few houses burn and few hundred thousand f4gs like you die off? The days after that we will return to natural order of things and life on this planet will resume peacefully and gracefully. Humans crave order in their lives, but deep down you know you fetishize chaos. That's why novel and new information is cool to your brain. Why you stop and stare at something not seen before by your eyes. This system we have built can't run into stagnation of order, it has to break eventually and let another system take it's place.

>>4668 >You obviously don't know how fiat currency works A fiat currency isn't simply a declaration that something is "currency" but one by a government whose issued currency can be used to pay debts or financial obligations incurred to that government of issuance. >what about cryptocurrencies? A cryptocurrency is a highly speculative asset. It isn't money as it isn't a stable long-term store of value. It isn't a unit of account either. People exchange it for a variety of things, but this isn't sufficient for something to be money. >they just give me a priviledge to do so. The privilege you have is purely verbal without a power to define "property" and arbitrate between claims of what you regard as your own and what others regard as their own. Without such a power that sets standards of judgment, I could claim that everything that belongs to you is actually mine, and it would be equally as true as your claim. >you never fought in your life It wouldn't matter if I had. Anyone could declare it theirs and take it from you by force. In turn, you could arrange some force against that opposing force, but any claim of "property" would be solely a function of how much force one has and how much one can seize from another. In this dynamic, there is no recognized neutral arbiter or standard to judge what "property" is and, if defined, what belongs to whom as property. Even though you subjectively dislike government, it's objectively true that stable governments are widely recognized in disputes over property and much else as neutral arbiters with definite standards set by laws and legal precedent. To be at odds with this is to deny reality. >It already is, what you mean? It isn't. Most people recognize or at least consent to some set of laws.

>>4670 >governments.....objectively true....neutral arbiters. nothing about governance is objective or neutral, it is ultimately a concentration of power ,and resources thereby, to facilitate further accumulation of power and resources for a particular sub set of ruling persons. Any "beneficial functions" of government are primarily facade play to fool individuals into a false sense of security, or incidental side effects of some other purpose or machination occurring to facilitate transfer of more resources and power to the existing government and its owners, IE the subset of ruling persons. Further, the objectivity of government is fundamentally at odds with the structure and function of government. To be objective requires objective information, no government that has ever existed has had access to truly objective information, it follows that no government has ever been objective. This same rule applies to the likelihood of your "objective truth". At best, truth is empirical, and even that basis is often shaken by further experiment, take the continuous developments in our understanding of fundamental physics as quantum mechanics begins to intermingle with relativity in modern physics studies. >how much force one has determines one's property This has always been a fundamental mechanism of the human species, and is ultimately the only determinant of real property. How much force one can bring to bear on a person or thing, determines one's ability to control and posses that person or thing. To be owner is to have power. This is why governments are unnecessary and harmful to everyone living in them, they coerce ownership from the individuals by force and use that power to make themselves even more powerful. Tyranny never died, it merely became temporarily re-framed in the tyranny of the majority. When every individual can learn to own themselves, to own who and what they are, and realize the necessity and beauty of power; only then will they each and all be free. Fear is a powerful and deadly ally, it sometimes works against us, and sometimes for, but to let it, or any other concept or fixed idea rule one is to surrender one's self to tyranny, to have died to oneself. A sad fate indeed, but one nonetheless desired by many individuals of the human species.

These kinds of threads need to be posted on social media of biggest offenders 1 billion of chinese that burn up all the coal 1 billion of Indians that help cause more and more plastics being burned Not the west, the white man doesn't need to feel guilty for things he helped rectify and correct long LONG ago

>>4683 But the only reason the producing nations are able to do that is because consumer nations don't really care where thing come from as long as they get them cheap. it absolutely is a first world problem. if people didn't want cheap new disposable iphones, there would be no need for 12 year olds to die from exhaustion at foxcon or an heroing off the building after realizing they are only alive for capitalist interests the west puts it on itself. Europe is one of the largest consumers of east asian palm oil, the ecological damage is irreversible because of the biodiversity that has been lost. consumers dont care because palm oil is healthy. Africa uses its resources to grow flowers because they sell for massive amounts on the international market, even though it causes environmental problems by depleting water resources. and south America is basically owned by beverage companies so NEETs can drink doritos and dew while gaming. the worst part is now that all of these countries are developing, they are also falling into the same disposable society habits that westerners take for granted

>>4685 Are you implying that non western countries don't have self determination? THAT they are kids who just react to what we do? They chose to burn coal They chose to employ children They chose to do all these things without us being in the picture, far before china was electronics super manufacturer. You can't blame everything on white people, even though you want to.

It's not earth that's in danger, it's humanity that's in danger. No matter what people do, life on earth wont die, but if we fuarrrk with the environment enough, it will no longer support human life. Earth doesn't need humans, but we need earth.

>>4691 We are at unbalance with nature my dear child Everything will come back in balance once new world order comes into place.

>>4672 >nothing about governance is objective or neutral It doesn't have to be. Most people only have to believe it to be. My "objectively true" point only acknowledges a social reality: that people recognize and rely upon governments for the definition of "property" and who it belongs to. >To be objective requires objective information This is circular reasoning. >This has always been a fundamental mechanism of the human species, and is ultimately the only determinant of real property The threat of force isn't the same as force; similarly, the belief in or consent to an authority isn't the same as force being used. Authority, legal or otherwise, ends where force begins. You act as if no one believes the government or country they belong to is righteous, just, fundamentally good, or, if nothing else, basically legitimate and correct in its laws. This belief isn't the same as coercion by force, nor even is the fear of a government using force. Even the original conception of tyranny relied upon distinguishing between (just) legitimate authority and (unjust) usurped authority. Using "tyranny" against all government is to use the word against sense. As in the case of "tyranny," these anarcho-capitalist arguments too often rely upon conflating the direct use of force with the fear of force being used, and also assume everyone believes like they do that the government has power through either force or the fear of it rather than its authority. Again, force doesn't determine property. Property is determined through legal authority. Without a recognized legal authority, there's no way to determine what property is and who has it because "property" relies on a certain conception of belonging, e.g. if property is and what it is, if and how land can be split into parcels, whether and who should receive inheritance from one's relatives, how to determine the truth of documents which claim property versus competing claims made by others, etc. Those aren't claims that rely on force but legitimacy, a basic belief in the government's authority (in the form of the law and legal system) by those involved. The government's power isn't entirely or mainly due to force either but its being viewed as having legitimate authority. You might say that this legitimacy is incorrect or morally wrong, but it doesn't matter as long as the belief exists. >When every individual can learn to own themselves, to own who and what they are Without a mutually recognized knowledge authority, there is no sense in which we can speak of ownership or a who or what we are as having any meaning to one another or even to ourselves. A language never belongs to one person but is social, thus we must always resort to ideas that never had any origination in ourselves but in others in order to communicate anything. This process recognizes an authority which determines for us reality and truth. And, without such an authority, neither ownership nor any conception of identity can be determined.

>>4694 >it does not have to be I do not claim that it has to be, merely that it is not objective or neutral. Just because most people submit to a master does not render that master objective or neutral. Social reality can change, and most importantly is a function of underlying power structure. Society, IE social reality is determined by the powerful in the society, the ideas, thoughts, concepts, laws, economics, ect. are fundamentally based on the backs of those individuals with the greatest power, often obtained through use of various kinds of force, mental and physical(including legal, economics, collective, ect)(I feel like I may be missing your point here but I also get the strong sense we disagree on something fundamental, please elaborate for me so I can understand) >to be objective requires objective information What is circular about it? A truism is different from circular reasoning in that it states a basic component of truth in a particular system. While the truism is context dependent, when properly applied it helps to clarify a statement and expands on the root of a concept therein. >the threat of force is not the same as force... The belief exists. I must not have made myself clear. Apologies. I do not assume that others believe the way I do. In fact, quite the opposite, that I am among a very small subset of all people that think the way I do, and recognize their assailants as they are, for what they are, assailants. Threat of force is coercion, and coercion without backing to support that coercion is a kind of force regardless. Force, for me, comes in two broad varieties, physical and non-physical (human specifically, mental and physical) For a simple example, say agent A has a gun and threatens a store owner with this gun(mental force). Even if the gun is unloaded(rendering it a tool of coercion or mental force), if the store owner has no equal response to the applied force, he will likely capitulate to agent A's demands(the scenario ends). If the gun is loaded, the store owner may still capitulate; however if the store owner does not comply and resists the application of force(essentially by applying mental force), agent A will in turn be forced to either back up their coercion or back down from their demands. If Agent A's gun is loaded, they may apply physical force to prove their might over the store owner and take the object of their desires. If the gun is unloaded, Agent A may still use physical force by bludgeoning and take the risk that the store owner can overpower them as the threat of their force multiplier was merely a mental force easily trumped by the mental force of the store owner's cunning and perhaps attention to detail. I hope that clears up my Idea of force. Fundamentally, force determines property in aany society, even one where the government controls property, because government coercion is a form of force. If any individual became sufficiently powerful to overcome the government and its force with force of their own, then the government would cease to be the determiner of property, IE the owner of property. I think I am starting to see what you mean on the last part here. But I still disagree, as the government's legitimacy is determined by the collective force of the constituency. However I also see governments as actively using force to compel compliance by citizens, and this compliance frequently includes loyalty to the state and submission to the laws of the ruling government. Incorrect or morally wrong are not considerations I make in this calculation as ultimately force is the only determinant of property and legitimacy. Really, my whole philosophy boils down to might makes right, as it always has and always will. The survivor writes the history books and thus determines how the story is told. Any belief otherwise, while interesting as a curiosity is likely either covering up some other motives. Not that having ulterior motives is uncommon, it is just a strong indicator that adopting that belief is not in one's best interests. Thanks for taking the time to reply at length.

>>4413 The most efficient way to gain direct or indirect power? It all really depends on what specific kind of power. There are many specifications of power. Economic Academic Political Social Religious Collective Electric Physical Magnetic Thermal Biological Spatio-temporal ECT. You have to choose one that suits you and create a mechanism or mechanisms through which you can generate sufficient force to acquire that power. Personally, I like economic and social power. I use my business to acquire a passive stream of income that grows autonomously in a a tax advantaged way. I also acquire a certain degree of prestige when in social settings and can use that prestige to build new connections and thus acquire yet more prestige and economic force. I apply this force to science in the search for immortality so that I may go on in this cycle and expand to encompass new realms of possibility for as long as possible, forever If I can. But forever is a long time, and I am not yet powerful enough to be confident in such timescales. Come back in 20-50 years and I will maybe have an answer.

>>4697 What is your business? I personally want to start a business of some kind, but have no idea for an innovative product or how to generate one.

>>4700 I am an information broker. I do research on contract for clients and provide intelligence on whatever subject they require. I charge a flat fee upfront and an hourly rate. If I find something especially valuable, I sometimes charge a higher premium for especially hard to come by data and information. I am a service based business though, so it has its ups and downs, ins and out, assholes and glitterboys... What I have always heard is that you should pay attention to the little details in your life and look for ways to improve those little actions and objects to make them faster, cheaper, safer, more convenient ect. Maybe try some kind of smart coffee lid that gives visual indications when it is fully sealed? Bored Elon Musk seems to have some interesting ideas. Nothing wrong with taking up after someone who is already successful, we all need a mentor from time to time. https://twitter.com/BoredElonMusk?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

>>4700 As far as passive income generation goes, I have multiple people and businesses who subscribe to my services instead of going with the flat fee and hourly rate. I provide them discounted access to me and my skills and connections, and they provide me a steady source of income. I usually invest close to 80% of my net income either back into my business, as advertising, connection forming, information resources, storage and other items, or into my steadily growing portfolio of dividend earning companies.

>>4709 What kind of information? Like black hat hacking info, or research?

>>4716 I primarily specialize in business intelligence and organizational research. I cannot confirm or deny the color of my hat. Suffice to say it's color is mostly in the eye of the beholder. I like to think of myself as an equal opportunity hatter.

Genetically modified organism and geoengineering projects are the solution to climate change. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/03/barrier-reef-coral-genetically-altered-in-hope-of-surviving-climate-change

>>4696 >Just because most people submit to a master does not render that master objective or neutral. That wasn't what I was getting at, though. I said: >it's objectively true that stable governments are widely recognized in disputes over property and much else as neutral arbiters with definite standards set by laws and legal precedent. That is, objectively, a stable government is recognized as the absolutely determining authority by most people within its territory over property disputes and anything else under the domain of the "legal," not that governments themselves are necessarily objective or neutral; to judge that requires some rational apparatus, a standard. Most people submit to the government's authority (and standards) as objective, but that's beside the point I was making. >I feel like I may be missing your point here but I also get the strong sense we disagree on something fundamental, please elaborate for me so I can understand I think I covered the above, but I would say we do as I don't think we can speak of "force" without some standard for judging what can be regarded as "force." I've been trying to speak of physical exercises of "force" only, but you've been using multiple "forces." For example: >various kinds of force, mental and physical(including legal, economics, collective, ect) Some of these derive their value as forces solely within a mutual understanding and consent that such things have authority or through them some form of power (not necessarily physical force) can be exercised. They are not the same as "law of the jungle" physical force, unconstrained force that occurs in the absence of a coherent society with a set of rules. They have value because they are regarded as having authority or are protected through something that has authority. >What is circular about it? Because to have objective information would require an objectivity, yet to have that objectivity would require objective information. The argument doesn't demonstrate a separate source of objective information other than objectivity, nor a separate source of objectivity other than objective information, so it becomes circular. >example The example isn't wrong per se about threats and exercises of force (although I would question the conflation of force as causing physical harm and force as cunning), but the example isn't the same as the relationship between a state and those who reside in it. Of course, there are people who see it like you do, but there are also people who view government power as good in some way or otherwise rely heavily upon it and rarely view government itself as fundamentally coercive but instead may view the enforcers of its laws as such (the police, federal agents, border patrol agents, etc.). And they would not view these enforcers, in their current forms, as necessary to the state or society. Also, again, many people view the state as in some fashion having authority that doesn't proceed simply from its force or the threat thereof. For multiple separate reasons, they view its authority as legitimate and not simply as a threat of force. You might say that its authority ultimately proceeds from either the exercise or threat of force, but that isn't how they see it and that does matter to the argument: if not everyone feels the threat of force but obeys due to the state's authority and legitimacy, then it isn't like your example. The example requires an immediate fear of force being used by the shopkeeper and, neglected in the example, the shopkeeper's belief that the authority of the robber is not legitimate, therefore he only acts under the threat of force. People may believe this at certain times for certain things (e.g. when doing taxes) but they largely don't believe it to be true for the state as a whole. >Fundamentally, force determines property in aany society, even one where the government controls property In a certain sense, this can be said to be true, but in another, this is false. Force is also modified by legal authority to become "legal force," force that isn't merely an arbitrary exercise of state power but constrained by norms and laws which the state and its officials must also obey (or, at least, must be regarded by society as obeying to some extent, not acting with total impunity). The trial form and a despot's exercise of absolute power are entirely different creatures. The latter doesn't even have to pretend to be obeying anything beyond personal whim, while the former comes attached with rules and limitations on state power. In practice, these may be less than strictly obeyed, but, if they aren't obeyed much or at all by those who embody the state's authority, then the state loses legitimacy (thus authority) in the eyes of its populace. >the government's legitimacy is determined by the collective force of the constituency A government's legitimacy is derived through a constituency's belief in its claim to objectivity, thereby creating a socialized objectivity (supposing the claim is widely believed). It isn't force from the constituency but the lack of it that characterizes a state generally viewed as legitimate and having authority. >Thanks for taking the time to reply at length. It's not a problem. I'm not usually thanked for replies, so thank you.

>>4722 >it's objectively true that stable governments are widely recognized in disputes over property and much else as neutral arbiters with definite standards set by laws and legal precedent. ob·jec·tive əbˈjektiv/ adjective adjective: objective 1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Are you sure the above is what you mean by objective and not the following? em·pir·i·cal əmˈpirik(ə)l/ adjective adjective: empirical based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. I think I agree on the last point, that many people born in a society under some government will tend to submit to it under the mistaken assumption that it is objective and reliable. >Some of these derive their value as forces solely within a mutual understanding and consent that such things have authority or through them some form of power (not necessarily physical force) can be exercised. They are not the same as "law of the jungle" physical force, unconstrained force that occurs in the absence of a coherent society with a set of rules. They have value because they are regarded as having authority or are protected through something that has authority. I think I understand. On further examination I think I agree that your description of non physical forces as reliant on some authoritative mutually agreed upon arbiter is reasonable. However, I am not sure if I agree on the nature of the arbiter, in that, that arbiter's authority comes from it's ability to enforce its judgments. Such enforcement ultimately relies on physical force from the arbiter, otherwise, the whole transaction between the original two parties remains between those parties and is a function of their mutual consent or non-consent. How can one have an authoritative arbiter that cannot enforce it's authority through physical force? >You might say that its authority ultimately proceeds from either the exercise or threat of force, but that isn't how they see it and that does matter to the argument: if not everyone feels the threat of force but obeys due to the state's authority and legitimacy, then it isn't like your example. The example requires an immediate fear of force being used by the shopkeeper and, neglected in the example, the shopkeeper's belief that the authority of the robber is not legitimate, therefore he only acts under the threat of force. People may believe this at certain times for certain things (e.g. when doing taxes) but they largely don't believe it to be true for the state as a whole. You are correct in your assumption about me here. But I challenge you to demonstrate that those people accepting the rule of state on the grounds of "legitimacy" are not merely acting implicitly to the power of the state to apply physical force (IE Arrest, imprisonment, execution, removal of assets, ect.) What I mean, is, if a person is raised under some state authority, and adopts the narrative of the state as their own personal narrative, IE accepts the legitimacy of the state without direct use of force to extract their conformity, that person is still merely responding unconsciously to the state's coercion. I would also posit that the embodiments of the state have the benefit of secrecy and power to hide their indiscretions. They can at the very least work together with their fellow embodiments to prevent the discovery of the full depth of their exploitation, it is almost always easier to work from the inside on these matters. I agree that the creatures are different, but whether tiger or lion, both are my enemy and seek to consume what it mine. I still do not want to be in a cage with either of them for a protracted period of time. I would argue that the despot has merely been transformed into many smaller despots. But again, merely a matter of opinion there. >A government's legitimacy is derived through a constituency's belief in its claim to objectivity, thereby creating a socialized objectivity (supposing the claim is widely believed). It isn't force from the constituency but the lack of it that characterizes a state generally viewed as legitimate and having authority. I think I agree here, a lack of force from the constituency is at least an implicit recognition of the authority of the ruling power. However, I think the state is more an arbiter of force than objectivity, as there is nothing objective about law and politics. Laws appear to me at least to be expressions of social ideals that are ossified in codes for application to any future scenarios that come before the arbiter of the state or judiciary. Perhaps the state's authority is widely recognized, but objectivity is not determined by wide belief. Objectivity as seen in the definition above, is a function of physical actuality not social and cultural norms. I would yield that the state can claim authority based on the populaces belief in its legitimacy, as such belief promotes allocation of resources to the state which in turn increases its power to apply force. Hope I got everything. It is good to see things from a new perspective from time to time.

>>4394 embrace the profligacy of consumerism until you die. I never was brought into this world by choice, thus I have no obligation to follow the guidelines some people think I should. If the world perishes in an atomic fire because I didn't use an electric car, so be it. I welcome the apocalypse.

I would say dismissing consumerism is a positive attitude, however doing it for the sake of "the environment" is a narrow mindset. In my view, the earth does not need to be saved. It is a big chunck of rock floating in space, it can't die because it's not alive. With or without humans the earth will still be here until the sun engulfs it probably. Rather, we should be critical of consumerism by realising that it is ultimately not fulfiling. No matter how much stuff you buy, you will never be truly happy or content because of it, rather it is your own mindset that determines your happiness. >Does anyone think this is a global trend, or will the materialist consumerist bandwagon keep trucking on until it destroys us all? I think that consumerism will not end until capitalism does. There are many people with many more resources than us who have a vested interest in keeping people in this mindset. Advertising is a huge industry, and it gets into people's brains. Most people will never think about their actions enough to realize that the capitalist cycle is a trap. But it's not their fault, every force is against us; of course every capitalist wants to retain and build their wealth they're not evil they're just insentivised to do that. We must think for ourselves, "do I really need that anime figurine or would I rather save the money?" (not that I have anything against figers or the people who buy them, this is just an example from my own life). Being less concerned with material goods can never be a bad thing, even from a capitalist viewpoint it's saving you money right? I suggest you look deeper into why you think like this, and start doing it for yourself rather than for the ideal of a protected earth that doesn't exist.

White people do more than any other group to help the environment. Only white weaboos think of making a stupid meme like cute little girl in pain named Earthchan and everyone helping her. You do not see chinese get angst looking over this meme while burning all the coal in their cities. They don't care about environment. They don't care about anyone else but themselves. as seen by those two videos of cars running over toddlers in Chinese market streets and no one stopping to look at them: https://youtu.be/UqVYUzHc5L8 Or this video: https://youtu.be/ghkSTAS-VQw Also, wondering how much soykaf like this isn't seen if cameras only captured few clips like this. How much more stuff is happening behind cameras. But I bet you guys will find a way to blame this on whitey too Your mental gymnastics amuses me though, so keep on doing it. Maybe it will work? Try blaming capitalism while other countries function normally.

>>4772 Yes because suburban homes with his and her's SUVs are great for the environment.

>>4775 >assumptions

>>4780 Excuse me, was that supposed to be some sort of comeback?

>>4782 Not really, I don't take things online personally By the tone of your replies I would assume its different for you Is it because you have no close meaningful ties with people to have good close to heart conversations with?

>>4772 >neurosuggesting climate irresponsibility is a race problem its almost like there is a board for that behavior on halfchan, OOOOHHH BOOOOY I hope you like your climate refugees African and south American though and for some correlation-not-causation action, have this IQ map note how the places with no resources cannot support a lifestyle conducive to learning. looks like unless google and Facebook solve all our problems with technology, the whole world is going to go to hell in a handbasket

>>4813 >neurosuggesting you HAVE to take in "refugees" Lol, you live in a fantasy world

>>4814 >murder human beings by the thousands because they try to hop across borders >allow human beings to die by the thousands because they have no water or ability to grow food or live on their own resources >provide free handouts and aid to stop people from wanting to go to a different country the alternative is not much better, and dealing with literal swarms of people is not easy. pic related would happen multiple times a day >A leading charity has accused the EU of living in “La-La land” for planning to keep African migrants in Libyan detention centres so that they cannot sail to Europe. >The director-general of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) said that conditions in the camps were unacceptable and inhumane and that the EU was condemning migrants to torture and extortion. >“People are being hunted and captured” in Libya, before being hired out like slaves, said Arjan Hehenkamp of MSF, who toured centres recently. this can only go two ways >people become overly sensitive and try to allow too many refugees in >people commit literal crimes against humanity to prevent refugees from coming in this could be different if we miraculously solved resource problems. but currently it does not look likely.

>>4797 What you're doing now is what you internet kiddies refer to as "projection" and it's a fairly complex example of it actually.

>>4481 I want to play an RPG setting based on this post >>4534 I think 8 years maybe. The right is more unified than ever because the left has essentially declared all-out war on traditional values. If you need a source look at who won the Presidency. The right would rather band together and vote in Donny J. than take on another 4 years of the current liberal policies. I'd bet my hard-earned BurgerBucks that Trump takes a second term if Shapiro doesn't run.

>>4902 The democrats would have to be even more inept than usual to lose the next election. Even if you're on the right, four more years of that asshole is not a good idea.

>>4914 As a conservative I am ashamed that Donald Trump is now who people think of when they think of my ideology. How did we let it come to this.

>>4772 If I was poor as soykaf I'd be more than willing to fuarrrk over my descendants 100 years later on in order to get soykaf like food and healthcare right now. Caring about the environment, or taking a current loss for a future benefit in general, is a luxury only available to those who have. As long as poor countries make more money and get closer to being not-poor by burning soykafloads of coal, they are gonna keep burning soykafloads of coal, pollution be damned. To solve this you need to either make them no longer poor (through charity), remove the profit incentive for the environmentally unfriendly soykaf (e.g. by awarding aid for using clean options) or simply remove their right to free choice and force them to stop with your superior first-world military. But even in non-poor countries, under capitalism there is a strong profit incentive to do things for personal benefit in exchange for global cost. If the only thing driving decisions is expected profit, saving $1 million by not filtering your factory's waste looks much better than causing $1 worth of environmental degradation to all 7 billion people on the planet. Even if it's a net loss for humanity as a whole it's a net gain for the individual, and as long as a system exists where people are primarily expected to act only for their own personal benefit it will keep happening.

>>4933 >under capitalism there is a strong profit incentive to do things for personal benefit in exchange for global cost. It's worse than that. Publicly traded companies are legally obliged to act in the best interest of their shareholders' money and fuarrrk everything else.

>>4932 >cückservative Yea, go ask the jewish lobby if we need to continue endless wars in middle east You are hated by both the left and the right, you are the fake right wing

>>4934 its laughable how casually this is stated too

>>4932 Real conservatives in my mind would be people like PJ O'Rourke, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, etc who have denounced that asshat. Conservatism should be based on things like community values and a strong work ethic, towards improving the country through positive action. Not blaming others for everything, or pandering to people's feelings of inadequacy and failure by giving them scapegoats. He said he wanted to see Americans win again... that kind of rhetoric mostly appeals to one type; losers.

>>4932 You know how.

>>4934 >and fuarrrk everyone else In todays marketplace, whether it be selling charcoal briquets or being a software engineer, you can't stay afloat if you "fuarrrk everyone else". Burning bridges in real world of capitalism can't make a company continue to make money. Capitalism is a group effort. This is why there is no "US company" vs "Russian company", it is all international and everyone is helping in this transfer of money from hand to hand. I think you are just angry at 1% cuz they dont give you any free money.

>>5016 It's almost as if you can't pick up on hyperbole. But corporations operate on calculated risk. If they can afford to fuarrrk over someone, they will. This is like anyone else. The difference is that they're powerful enough to do a lot of damage as a result.

>>5016 > you can't stay afloat if you "fuarrrk everyone else". Don't use quote marks if it is not a quote. The original was "fuarrrk everyTHING else". Acquire money for shareholders. fuarrrk everything else. Everything else being things that don't directly make money for shareholders. Yes companies need to be nice to some people (like customers) but there are also externalities they will abuse as much as they can (like the environment). >I think you are just angry at 1% cuz they dont give you any free money. 3. Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks.

>>5028 >Yes companies need to be nice to some people (like customers) but there are also externalities they will abuse as much as they can (like the environment). Continually manipulate consumers into buying useless soykaf they don't need with planned obsolescence = make money = legal duty Taking care not to fuarrrk up the environment = lose money = legal liability Pretty fuarrrked up but that's capitalism.

>>5017 Ever wondered why multimillion international companies don't attack each other, get on their turf, have deals with politicians (this is politicians and peoples fault btw) ? This isn't fuarrrking "calculated" risk, whatever that means. It is a fuarrrking safest of bets. When these big companies were starting up THEN they made crazy stunts and backstabs, but seeing how today startups are automatically assimilated in these big companies you just have to have a good idea to be honest that means those days of capitalism is over. >>5028 Are you going to grasp for straws? Really, semantics debate? We sre even talking about the same thing, whatchu about willis? I won't even acknowledge any of points you made because of that point alone >>5029 >Continually manipulate consumers into buying useless soykaf they don't need with planned obsolescence Wow, its almost like it is on you how you spend your money. "Manipulate", sure, but when your wife asks where that 1500$ went from the savings account you can't really start "blaming da system maaaan, duuuude". Next time spend your money wisely and don't try to point fingers around when you can't find a guilty person. >Taking care not to fuarrrk up the environment = lose money = legal liability > "= lose money" The fact of matter is that fixing things is more costly than not damaging them in first place. The same goes for our environment. Price of goods and services is based on demand and supply. Natural resources like lithium of which Li-ion batteries are made of to power electric cars is really costly because of "supply" part of equation. Not to mention Elon Musk making big dough cuz of "demand" part. Hydrogen cars are a joke unless we find tanks that can hold at least 10% of their mass in hydrogen (and graphene can go up to 7%). If any system would fix the world it's capitalism. Socialism/communism would still be burning coal (like China is doing atm) and engineers from those countries wouldn't care about solving those issues when their biggest reward would be "feeling good about helping the environment and stuff". Long story short, thinking people will go out of their way to sacrifice themselves for environment FOR nothing in return while everyone else is going the easy route you are then in big delusions. The environment talk is getting in back of everyones mind, even the right wing. But unless you start talking about solutions then everyone will just sigh in your direction

>>5028 I will make a point just to shut you up >Everything else being things that don't directly make money for shareholders. Yes companies need to be nice to some people (like customers) but there are also externalities they will abuse as much as they can (like the environment). Don't you think their competition would use that as excuse of political and economic dirty play? If I was a competitor of, lets say, a major socks making company, and they started bruning trash as part of their "recycling" fuel agregation wouldn't I build a soykaf smearing campaing and make local people revolt, call up my politicians lobby and build a case against the "opposing party and company" ? "Making money for shareholders" is much more than just what you perceive as immediate money making. Most companies don't have the balls to get into dicey playing fields of employing children or putting third head making chemicals in their products because of this single reason. Making money for their investors is only sensible legaslation because then every CEO would purposefully tank the value of their company before announcing new technology or improvement (making him and his buddies a ton of cash). Are you so out of the touch with reality that you think these CEOs do it just for the money? Don't you think they would get bored with it after first million? It isn't about money for them.

>>5032 >Are you going to grasp for straws? Really, semantics debate? We sre even talking about the same thing, whatchu about willis? I won't even acknowledge any of points you made because of that point alone It's not much of a discussion if you base your whole argument on something nobody even said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man >>5033 > If I was a competitor of, lets say, a major socks making company, and they started bruning trash as part of their "recycling" fuel agregation wouldn't I build a soykaf smearing campaing and make local people revolt, call up my politicians lobby and build a case against the "opposing party and company" ? No. You would do it too and neither of you would admit it. >Making money for their investors is only sensible legaslation because then every CEO would purposefully tank the value of their company before announcing new technology or improvement (making him and his buddies a ton of cash). You're talking about manipulating the stock price. Investors own stock by definition so whatever is good for the CEO is also good for the investors in this scenario. That's definitely not the reason this is illegal. >"Making money for shareholders" is much more than just what you perceive as immediate money making. Most companies don't have the balls to get into dicey playing fields of employing children or putting third head making chemicals in their products because of this single reason. The reason companies don't take certain profitable actions is because those actions are against the law. There is no other reason. >Are you so out of the touch with reality that you think these CEOs do it just for the money? We're talking about legal obligation not personal preferences. >Don't you think they would get bored with it after first million? Wealth is relative. From your perspective $1.000.000 is more than enough money. From a homeless perspective the $1.000 you have in your bank is more than enough. The homeless wants your $1.000 for the same reason you want the CEO $1.000.000 for the same reason a CEO want $100.000.000. It's all relative.

>>4394 "Earth is in danger..." The only thing in danger is our survival. Earth will survive for a long time even after we are gone. The only thing our polution is goning to destory is ourselves and the other animals unfortuinate to live at the same time as us. even if we use all our nukes to glass the entire planet, given enough time life will return without humanity. There is nothing to fear for the earth but everything to fear for us.

>>5045 >>5045 >You would do it too and neither of you would admit it. The market sets up the standard. No buyer wants harsh chemicals in their socks or pollution at expense of little bit cheaper soykaf. The tactic your proposed is not long term. Most people buying stuff today are proof of me being right. Most companies doing awful soykaf get their reputation soykaf on TV. >You're talking about manipulating the stock price. Investors own stock by definition so whatever is good for the CEO is also good for the investors in this scenario. Moron. Investors don't know why CEO is doing such soykaf moves and soykafting up the stock prices until its long over. They cant get in on the game. It is only CEO winning on behalf of dumbos who sell stocks because CEO soykafted on his company in first place. But I would like to see where you got that info that companies are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to maxinize shareholder profit. I would really want to know because I couldnt have found anything on that.

>>5055 >No buyer wants harsh chemicals in their socks or pollution at expense of little bit cheaper soykaf. Don't mix and match, this is the same as strawman. My response "you do it to" was about the trash burning thing. Logically, if your competition is doing something immoral and nothing bad happened to them, then the best thing for you to do is copy. "Morals" doesn't make money. >Most companies doing awful soykaf get their reputation soykaf on TV. Your idea that companies who do bad things somehow get punished by consumers is pathetically naive. Give me one example of a company that did something bad and went out of business because of public response. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men#Dow_Chemical >But I would like to see where you got that info that companies are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to maxinize shareholder profit. I would really want to know because I couldnt have found anything on that. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/a-duty-to-shareholder-value