@aarnegranlund@mastodon.social @jruoh Insisting on maintaining the imperial mode of living is definitely the issue here. There are wants that simply aren't sustainable, like driving cars even though there's perfectly good public transit, or flying for fun. IMO zoning can't be expected remove them. Policies are needed.
So it's a matter of how to produce well-being most effectively with green policies in place. I believe the literature suggests cities are the best way to do it.
@jruoh @aarnegranlund@mastodon.social Isn't the argument more that in Helsinki you don't need a car at all, and not that you drive less in Helsinki?
While I'm sure it's possible to live carless in many places in Finland, but, from personal experience, it's very easy in Helsinki, also outside the city center.
@aarnegranlund@mastodon.social I use in Helsinki my dad's over 50 year old Finnish Snow Star leather coat, that's still in great conditition, super warm and grunge af.
I hope to pass it on to my kid in a couple of decades.
My wife hit a bug reported in August with a new #Pixel where Do Not Disturb still plays notification sounds. Only way to silence it is to manually mute the combined notification/ringtone volume, which in practice means she's accidentally radio silenced half the time.
She says her 2018 mid range phone is vastly superior to a 2022 flagship 95% of the time.
How bad can things be at #Google when "DND still disturbs" is a) not caught by regression tests and b) takes months to fix?
Fantastic and accessible new #degrowth comment article in Nature by all-star writers @jasonhickel, Giorgios Kallis, Tim Jackson, @jks and others.
There is much still to research, explore, expose, advocate and win, but the momentum is growing every day.
"In our view, the question is no longer whether growth will run into limits, but rather how we can enable societies to prosper without growth, to ensure a just and ecological future. Let’s pave the way."
Yet new leaks about the immorality of fossil fuel corps.
For example, BP claims publicly to be part of the solution but internally says it has “no obligation to minimize GHG emissions”.
#BigOil needs to be first cut out of all climate policy discussions (how they are allowed have any lobby groups in #COP meetings is beyound me) then nationalized, and then ramped down.
There will never be a time when they will voluntarily stop destroying the planet for profit.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/09/politics/big-oil-disinformation-record-profits-climate/index.html
@ariadne@eldritch.cafe They are both true at the same time. We are losing informed people due to doomism, and at the same time losing everyday people due to the capitalist misinformation and delay campaigns.
@ariadne@eldritch.cafe That's good to hear!
I urge you to think about the ways different speech acts influence people.
There's a massive problem with people getting defeated right at this time when their collective actions would have the biggest impact.
This defeatism is happening, I claim, in large part because it's so comfortable to believe that "the end" is inevitable. That means you don't need to do anything, and even that you are the smart one not doing anything.
That mentality must be rejected.
@ariadne@eldritch.cafe In the Global North, that still leaves the middle class and a much of the upper classes. Still an overwhelming democratic majority.
@ariadne@eldritch.cafe Yes, I'm aware of the studies, and they are good to know about.
But IMO it's highly irresponsible to use those risks to claim "the end" is coming, ignoring all of ways we can still change the outcome.
I've seen this play out time and time again: it's especially those who have the highest capability to act that are first to give up on the slightest whiff that it might fail.
@ariadne@eldritch.cafe "it will be far better if humans themselves become extinct as quickly as possible."
Should we look at the millions or billions of people who are taking from nature only the amount that nature can regenerate, and say to them you need to go extinct?
Or should we rather blame the people who are taking vastly more from nature than nature can regenerate and demand them to stop the excess?
To me it's obvious the latter is right and the former a gross injustice.
@ariadne@eldritch.cafe "even though we must keep trying until the end"
This sounds like a wrong analysis. There is no single cut-off point we are about to hit after which it's "the end". A runaway hot house scenario is unlikely, as per IPCC 2022.
That means that there is (with high probability) never in our lifetimes a time to stop fighting. Every species saved, every forest protected, and every life saved is a massive victory. Even though we can't save everything, does not mean we mustn't save what we can.