fantoozie

Unsurprisingly, you cannot answer even the most basic and rudimentary questions.

"You can’t defend the actions of Israel you only know how to attack Hamas. Why are you incapable of criticizing Israel?

Right now it’s not all that different from how Germans kept murdering ‘undesirables’ even when it was obvious they’d lose. It’s tragic how people can become so indoctrinated in hatred they can’t stop committing genocide when their moral legitimacy is completely destroyed, there is zero chance they can win, the only thing they can accomplish is getting more people (mostly women and children) killed. But they continue to fight out of hatred or some insane idea that it’s somehow honourable to murder Gazans or whatever. Even after IDF soldiers called out their government’s war crimes, Israelis keep on fighting and Palestinians keep on dying.

The leaders of Hamas are all dead, their cities are bombed to shit, but Israel still keeps the war going instead of fighting to return hostages. Why?

Look at the photos of Gaza. This is the accomplishment of the “children of light and civilization”. Was it worth it? Did Netanyahu do anything good for the Israeli people?"

What an idiot.

Okay. Let’s assume everything you are saying is true: how does shooting children and women at aid distribution sights help further Israel’s purported goals? How does the forced displacement of 2 million people help destroy Hamas? Why isn’t Israel committing itself to the release of hostages? Why is the ICC asking for Netanyahu’s arrest for war crimes? How do you excuse Israel’s plan to build a 'humanitarian city" and force the civilian population to be deported to foreign countries? How do you rationalize this? What is Israel’s goals and intentions? How many Palestinians do you think should die before things are right again?

Bargaining for the release of Palestinian political prisoners and the right to sovereignty over the land they live on. I’m surprised you don’t know this, considering you appear to be capable of reading and using a search engine

Can you post a link to a credible source of information that isn’t your dirty asshole?

deleted by creator

I’d argue we’re already in overshoot as far as carrying capacity, if we’re using current standards of living in the West as the baseline. In that sense, population decline is inevitable.

Its impossible for me to answer the question you’re asking, but I posit this: at this point, what is the alternative? Can we keep affording to slow-walk actionable solutions to climate change? What are the wealthy nations of the world willing to sacrifice to sustain Earth’s future as our home? How will we decide who and what to preserve, and who and what is worth losing?

I also agree with you that it’s unraveling. But that’s why’d I’d rather try to adapt now and face the reality than pretend I can have Amazon Prime and not participate in killing life on Earth.

I think your argument is sound if the goal is to sustain current living standards in developed nations

But perhaps we should be evaluating whether, if those living standards require such an oppressive system, it may be better for us in these wealthy nations to learn how to do without

Not easy, not even likely, but necessary if we want to have a planet for future generations

Propping up an unsustainable system through resource extraction and technological innovation without contextual relativism doesn’t just magically make it sustainable.

It comes down to climate resilience, deglobalization of produce markets, and creating the political will to build localized, worker-owned food production and distribution systems. Yes that will mean paying out the ass for bananas, but it’s better than watching children choke on smoke while they ask you why it has to be like this.

Lot of assumptions there.

Whine whine whine. This person will hold their tablet against their chest and bemoan the loss of porn-on-demand while we get to work building sustainable food capacity.

That’s a complete mischaracterization. Intensive mono cropping is time and labor intensive because you have to factor in inevitable losses in crop yield (due to blight, pests, etc.) plus the labor costs of harvesting a single crop that all matures at once. The costs of soil nutrition are also exacerbated because monocropping extracts nutrients from the soil with very little return (there’s a lot of hubbub about rotational cropping with clover and things like that, but it’s not a long-term solution, especially when you’re bleeding money for having a field go fallow)

Building up soil diversity is 100% about working with nature to build crop and soil diversity, and letting natural processes accumulate to produce optimal growing conditions. The issue is it’s not very scaleable, and so grumpy Westerners and urbanites toss it aside because they don’t want to actually grow the food, they just want to feel good about buying it

This is a big one for me. Decoupling social activities from consumerism so people can access human connection without implicit or explicit paywalls.

I’d argue Johnson sealed our fate when he rolled over for Confederates after the war.

But really the argument could bemade that the moment European explorers realized they could just kill people and take their homes away and nobody would stop them, they decided to make it a core part of their identity by rationalizing everything they can, and dismissing whatever they can’t.

The devil works hard, but colonizers work harder.

The suffering is just a side effect. Massive death is the goal, they just don’t want to have to get their hands dirty.

It’s probable that they’re betting on technological innovation to bring about a post-scarcity economy where profit and capital are irrelevant. And relatively speaking, that could a good thing.

The issue is instead of taking a reasonable utilitarian approach, these people would rather lean on things like:

unmitigated greed

racism

a romanticization of historical imperialism

the social construct within the Western capitalist mindset to incessantly seek new frontiers of exploitation

and the insidious belief that other people don’t deserve to participate in such a society; either because of their beliefs or because of immutable characteristics that deem them unworthy or otherwise burdensome to the system.

IMO, the tragedy is that while the rich want to bet on consolidating enough capital to shoot themselves out into space, the statistical likelihood that they will find anything within reach that even remotely resembles the beauty and habitability of our planet is very low. Too bad they will kill all of us first before realizing that.

Something something, when we cut down the last tree and poison the last river…

Observe the resurgence of right-wing nationalism in the West.

It’s not accidental that this phenomenon is occurring specifically within the context of algorithmic social media exclusively controlled by multinational corporations. It is collusion between these companies and certain political entities to consolidate political and economic power within the fortresses of wealthy Western countries, as a defensive posture to the projected collapse of habitability and globalized trade across the world. By exploiting peoples fears and internalized biases, these architects are redefining the West to meet their economic agenda.

Simply put, the political moment the West is living through is a manufactured cultural shift intended to psychologically prime the populace of said regions for the steady collapse of international law and human rights in the face of unprecedented ecological disaster and the resulting mass migration of displaced people.

Instead of reckoning with their fundamental role in creating this dire circumstance and pursuing a policy of redistribution of wealth and resources to minimize the impacts globally, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that the wealthy oligarchs of the world are instead doing away with liberal values and leaning into a nostalgic ideology of social Darwinism and the belief that wealth is a product of intrinsic superiority.

Theres a beautiful video circulating of Seun Kuti speaking to a crowd and telling them that if Europe (and by extension, the West) can free itself from the destructive ideologies of its past, it will inherently lead to resolution of the conflicts in Gaza, Sudan, and the Congo. It iterates the point I am presenting here in a beautifully succinct way and I recommend watching it.

I think tools misrepresents it. It seems more like we’re in the transitional stage of providing massive amounts of data for LLMs to train on, until they can eventually develop enough cognition to train themselves, automate their own processes and upgrades, and eventually replace the need for human cognition. If anything, we are the tool now.

Sharing my thoughts isnt lecturing. Sit down and stop being condescending.

I empathize with the sentiment and agree with the argument that Europe should invest in its own defense infrastructure, particularly if Putin is gearing up to make a move.

That being said, Im increasingly wary of Europe’s willingness to appease Trump, and find it probable that, if right-wing parties continue making political gains, this same infrastructure will be turned against marginalized communities in these same countries; in a similar vein to the U.S regime’s attacks against immigrants and dissenters.

Again, I’m not opposed to re-armament, but I hope EU citizens exercise more vigilance and skepticism in this era of resurging nationalism and protectionism.