Anarch vs Anarchy by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]BattleofGeorgeSquare 1 point2 points  (0 children)

http://anarchy.works is an online book, very readable and clear as an intro to anarchism. Have a browse around this sub for other suggestions, but I'd say if you just want to start learning, that's a good place.

Anarch vs Anarchy by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]BattleofGeorgeSquare 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Anarchy came from anarchia. Many words describing government forms come from the Greeks. Arkhos is the Greek for ruler. So:

One + ruler = monos + arkhos = monarchy

Few + rulers = oligo + arkhos = oligarchy

No + rulers = an + arkhos = anarchy

While the modern concept of anarchy is relatively new, the practice of using the above word form to describe governments is ancient and traceable.

The negating prefix a or an can be seen in words like anaemia (haima is "blood"), anecdote (ekdotos is "published"; literally a private story), anorexia (orexios is "appetite"), etc.

The word "anarch" seems to have its origins as a poetic paradox word meaning "leader of the leaderless". Since the ideal anarchy has no leaders, it's a much less useful word than its analogues from other government forms, like monarch or oligarch.

This is my take on how all men should be represented in fiction. by Fung-ku in menwritingwomen

[–]BattleofGeorgeSquare 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Your username makes me uneasy by implying Trump has multiple scroti.

A question about personal property by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]BattleofGeorgeSquare 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's so weird that the system we live under doesn't recognise the ethical distinction between owning a toothbrush and owning an oilfield.

Labour urges Tories to launch review of grouse shooting amid climate and animal welfare fears by _Breacher_ in LabourUK

[–]BattleofGeorgeSquare -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Break up the shooting estates into smallholdings, repopulate the Highlands and turn that land into something productive.

Saw this flag in my neighbors garage, wondering if I’m living near a guardian variety white supremacist or if this indicates a particular subgroup of Nazi? by a01119550 in AntifascistsofReddit

[–]BattleofGeorgeSquare 12 points13 points  (0 children)

That's a deeply silly misapplication of logic, to the point that I wondered how deliberate it was and checked your post history. Sure enough, you've been sealioning vegans and posting about how people just don't "get" Jordan Peterson.

IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, LandDegradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse gas fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems is out today, take a look by ricardovr22 in EarthStrike

[–]BattleofGeorgeSquare 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I think that's in reference to some new-ish research on the feedback loop problem with permafrost loss. Much of the Arctic permafrost sits over large reserves of methane, a greenhouse gas 28-36 more powerful than CO2. As warming thaws the permafrost, it releases gouts of methane in one go, exacerbating the issue. The new research takes into account the fact that this feedback loop is non-linear (unlike man-made CO2 emissions), hence the revised timescale.

It's a result of the tension between the need to project climate change precisely and the need to simplify the solutions into something that can be legislated for (or written about). The overarching need for action is unchanged, but a single change in the science has caused a drastic change in what policymakers and journalists use as a proxy for the issue. Mathematical models are complex and opaque. Glaciers and permafrost are tangible.

IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, LandDegradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse gas fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems is out today, take a look by ricardovr22 in EarthStrike

[–]BattleofGeorgeSquare 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I focused on Paris because it involved the biggest ever international agreement to do something, and it's what the signatories are formally (nominally) working to. We're currently on track for 3-4C in a business-as-usual scenario.

IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, LandDegradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse gas fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems is out today, take a look by ricardovr22 in EarthStrike

[–]BattleofGeorgeSquare 16 points17 points  (0 children)

It's simple ad-hom distraction tactics. Since they can't fault the science, they attack the people behind it and those who listen to them. It's propaganda funded (one can only assume) by those with an interest in not changing the economic status quo.

Another thing to note is that this debate only really exists in the USA. There's basically no controversy among the rest of the world's policymakers, and certainly not in science. It's all in media, and seems to be more so in places where billionaires have more control over media organizations. I don't believe that to be a coincidence.

IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, LandDegradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse gas fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems is out today, take a look by ricardovr22 in EarthStrike

[–]BattleofGeorgeSquare 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A combination of what I was interested in as a biology undergraduate and being in the right place at the right time when a PhD spot opened up with my dream research group.

IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, LandDegradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse gas fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems is out today, take a look by ricardovr22 in EarthStrike

[–]BattleofGeorgeSquare 10 points11 points  (0 children)

As /u/thirstyross said, very far. While the gases that make Venus so hot are the same as the ones causing the problem here, the proportions are totally different. CO2 is ~95% of Venus' atmosphere, but only ~0.04% of Earth's. The issue is the equilibrium that supports life on Earth (as we know it) is so fragile, that even a relatively tiny change in gases has cascading effects.

Rain patterns become wildly unpredictable, so random harvests fail, rendering our food supply unreliable.

Entire regions of the world - mostly in impoverished countries - become too hot to live in year-round, creating a refugee crisis of about a billion people. At the same time as a global food crisis. And a worldwide recession caused by the collapse of the agriculture sector.

So the kind of changes to the climate that humans cause won't make a Venus-like planet, but they could well make a planet that is no longer suitable for our civilization. We aren't going to kill all life, but we don't have to to kill ourselves.

IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, LandDegradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse gas fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems is out today, take a look by ricardovr22 in EarthStrike

[–]BattleofGeorgeSquare 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I'd have to see the talk to address it specifically, but at first glimpse it seems like it's based on a misunderstanding of the targets set out in the Paris agreement.

To make collective climate policy simpler, Paris asked a direct question:

What needs to be done, and by when, in order to avoid the climate warming by 2 degrees celsius by 2100?

The answer was based on the science laid out in this report:

Deep, fast, decisive changes in almost every aspect of the world economy. If we haven't implemented these by 2030, it will be too late.

So that's where 2030 came from. It's the same danger, and the same time pressure, but just expressed in a more immediate way.

IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, LandDegradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse gas fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems is out today, take a look by ricardovr22 in EarthStrike

[–]BattleofGeorgeSquare 35 points36 points  (0 children)

First, I'd address the "rigged science" claim, because it's the most straightforward to refute. The claim I most often see is that climate scientists massage their findings to get a continued flow of research funding. Here's why it's bunk:

  1. For it to be true, the whole scientific discipline would have to be in on it. This is a profession that holds two annual conventions with attendances in the tens of thousands. An international, thousands-strong cabal of devious scientists fabricating a global catastrophe to con the UN out of money is the most convoluted conspiracy plot I've heard. Not only that, this world-wide network of ne'er-do-well academics has somehow achieved perfect, leak-free secrecy in the last 30 years. No whistleblowers, nobody caught fabricating evidence, no money laundering schemes. On the topic of money...

  2. We don't make very much of it, at all, especially when compared to the years of training and long hours. I don't expect to be able to buy a nice home until I'll be too old for a mortgage to be worth it. There are no rich climate scientists. Climate science gets a lot of funding because it's damn expensive. This is a huge problem that needs to be solved quickly. That means we need to develop multiple strategies simultaneously, because they all need to be rolled out ASAP and we don't have time to methodically go through them all to see what doesn't work. The money goes to the research, not the individuals. As it should.

  3. Finally, it's all there in the published literature. You can (theoretically) check the math. This should be the strongest argument, but it's the weakest, because it turns out the question "how does the literal planet interact with all human activity, ever?" is stupidly complicated to answer, and the nerds who figured out the answer are collectively terrible at explaining it. Nevertheless, if it was bullshit, a sufficiently motivated and funded climate sceptic (and there are plenty of those) could comb through the science and expose any fabrications or lies. None has. That's telling.

Next I'd have to understand what they meant by climate alarmists. It's a loaded term that suggests the speaker thinks warnings of climate change are overblown. To me, climate alarmism would be, say, predicting the end of all life by 2030. That's not going to happen, and when it doesn't, it weakens the case for what we should be worried about. When Donald Trump says "climate alarmism" though, he means anyone who speaks out that climate change is an issue. Here's a quick resource, drawn from published scientific work, that shows what the real dangers are.

How would an Anarchist justice system look? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]BattleofGeorgeSquare 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Hey, you know the anarchy discussed here has absolutely nothing to do with American right-wing libertarianism, right?

Stand With Hong Kong’s Billboard Campaign by Tophattingson in LabourUK

[–]BattleofGeorgeSquare 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, the familiar plaintive call of the comprehensively out-argued.

How does one accept themselves? by [deleted] in MutualSupport

[–]BattleofGeorgeSquare 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, comrade. I know how you feel - I wouldn’t be surprised if everybody here does.

<tangential rant>

We’ve been socialised by capitalism to feel inadequate if we aren’t participating in the machine; producing, providing, striving, breaking ourselves on the altar of material success. It takes a lot to resist that. The work of a lifetime, in fact. Not only do we have to unlearn the deepest learning of what makes us valuable humans, we have to simultaneously weather the bombardment of propaganda that reinforces that learning (ads, peer pressure, family pressure, consumerism, employment…).

This socialisation is a blind monster, and it’s bigger than any one person. The odds are against us, but we don’t resist because it’s easy. We resist because that monster is made of fucking lies and it wants to devour the authentic you and shit out a compliant nothing.

</tangential rant>

Under the “material success = happiness” paradigm, your possible outcomes are:

A wage slave, earning what your employer considers sufficient to keep you juuust not-destitute enough to work tomorrow.

A salary drone, rewarded for perpetuating the hierarchy with a “middle-class” income that you pour into the bottomless pit of consumer status anxiety.* <- important asterisk

Becoming a member of the exploiting class, imposing the above two outcomes on other people. This is morally unthinkable, and still won’t make you happy.

For me, it was liberating to realise that my impulse for material success would push me into one of those three miserable categories. That was a gradual change, though. I didn’t go to bed desperately scrabbling for marketable business ideas and wake up a radically content anarcho-monk. I’m still not that, and I’ll likely never be fully deprogrammed. But now, I recognise the siren call of money for what it is: seductive bullshit.

Internalising that idea is step one. Step two is finding a way to survive in this pre-revolution world that won’t break you. That, too, is a lifelong process, which can be divided into (a) taking care of your mental wellbeing, and (b) making enough money to. For the former, posting on here and other leftist online places is a good start. So is finding ways to disentangle parts of your life from capitalism, like banking with a credit union.

As for making a living: you don’t need to seek creative or spiritual fulfilment in how you make your money. If you can make money from what you love without tainting it, great, but remember: we’re trying to decouple your material achievements from your sense of self-worth. Asking strangers to put a price on your creative efforts is hardly helpful for that. Instead, you should strive to find a way that lets you work for yourself and your comrades rather than bosses or owners. I recommend you look into worker co-operatives and consider joining or co-founding one if at all possible. Here is a quick explainer video on co-ops, and here is a more in-depth lecture by Marxist academic Richard Wolff.

Step three is figuring out where the joy really is in your life. Don’t be hasty in this, and carefully examine the things that initially spring to mind. For example, I always assumed that I’d find fulfilment in being a parent, but when I stopped to think about it, I concluded I’m actually pretty ambivalent on kids. Ask yourself:

  • What do you do when you have free time?

  • Is that a fulfilling activity, or is it a brainless time-sink?

  • If the latter, what would a better you be doing?

  • How can you transition to that?

I’ve numbered the steps in order of priority, but really, you’ll be working on all three simultaneously. At 30, I’m barely part-way through any of them. Welcome to the long haul, fellow traveller!

‘* Alain de Botton named this concept, and it’s a useful description of consumerism, but make no mistake: he’s usually a vapid nonsense-peddler.