Largely agree with what you’re saying. I do strongly wish US mass transit didn’t make me feel like I needed a shower the moment I stepped off it (which has been my experience with state run rail systems).

But I’d don’t see the policy changes you lay out as inherently opposed to a liberal state. Yeah, its less capitalist than the current (US) system, but it seems those are talking points and policies often pushed by the American left/Democratic Party (and if I understand correctly that’s typically what’s referred to as the Liberals by communities like this).

Am.i kissing something in that?

Thanks for the reading suggestion. I’ve a feeling I’m not going to agree with the conclusion of the book, but I’ll take a look at it and see what I see.

If you turn up the source on the military ventures = worsening climate change variables, I’d love to read about that.

Also #BigAgree with aviation being a major contributor to climate change. Like, of all the things, that is the one I hear about ad consistently contributing a surprising amount. I would like to see domestic air travel largely replaced by rail (from US, for context).

Should have read more of the thread I spawned before responding to your other comments.

So to me, it seems like the real solution is to begin interplanetary colonization.

That doesn’t fix the problems on Earth, and I don’t want to pretend it does. I also want to be clear that the way that Musk and Bezos seem to envision interplanetary expansion is…not desirable.

But to me, beginning the Terraforming of Mars is a crucial step in human progress. There’s no ecology or biosphere for humans to ruin, but if we can establish a foothold for humans to live there, it let’s off the steam valve of humanity on Earth’s biosphere and let’s us begin the real work of fixing our biosphere without resorting to mass human death.

That probably sounds like a tech-bro pipe dream, and maybe it is, but it also feels like the kind of thing humans will eventually need to do if we want to survive as a species (my main drive for it is so humans can survive the next asteroid, which is a whole issue unto itself).

Okay, just so I’m clear then, you think Eco-fascism is bad, but that there are other flavors of “eco-authoritarianism” that could work in there place?

That probably sounds passive aggressive, but I’m legit trying to learn about Leftist takes on the matter.

I’m a product of the American Public School System, and was taught Leftist can be thought of as just another flavor of authoritarianism. But it seems like there’s more to it than that and trying to “peel back the layers” on that.

Do you think there’s an equitable way to impose de-growth policies (which it feels like is the camp you’re in)?

See and that feels like baby steps towards some flavor of eco authoritarianism (which I suppose I may be conflating with eco-fascism; to me, those both seem bad and in comparable measures).

You seem to be proposing that there is a system (ecologic + economic) that allows for humans to live sustainably at our current-ish population while being mostly free to live their lives with their communities as they see fit and at (at least) a modest level of prosperity.

If there is such a system that doesn’t lean into authoritarianism, I’m unfamiliar with it.

I think it will be difficult to ensure all three of those points (current population + non-authoritarian government + modest living conditions). While I agree Capitalism and Liberalism aren’t doing good on maintaining those three point (gods, are they doing so bad on those three points), I’m unclear what the Leftist suggestions are to fix them.

If you/others here have points that could fill in my gaps of understanding, be interested to hear them. (I worry I’m going to be taken as a Liberal infiltrator, but I feel I know little of the more concrete aspects of Leftist politics and am trying to learn).

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. Double checked the rules and it doesn’t look like I’m violating any, but please point me in the right direction if there’s a better place for my questions. I genuinely am unclear and want to learn.

In this context, what are eco-facsists? And then how does that and Malthusian Population Theory inherently relate to Capitalism?

When I imagine Malthusian Population issues, I normally think of it as a left-wing / anticapitalist talking point. Assuming I’m missing the mark on that, what’s the Socialist proposed solution and/or explanation of why that’s not an issue? (Racked my brain for a better wording for that last sentence, but couldn’t think of one on the fly. Please pardon my ignorance if there’s a different phrasing I should have used).

Edit: wanna say thanks for letting a foreigner in a foreigner land come and pick at some of the thinking of the community. I appreciate the civil discussion and sources being pitched towards me.

I suppose by places I meant like websites and/or resources (my word choice had room for improvement upon reflection).

And specifically looking for things regarding “what was serfdom really like”.

Like I said, I’d agree that most live a subsistence lifestyle. Its hard to break out of a cycle of poverty, and life isn’t easy for most.

But our lives hardly come with the same restrictions that serfs did. I think we think of our times as worse because they come after a period that (we’re told) was great and prosperous for all, while for serfs, they (probably) had no such cultural mythology. I could hear an argument that there lives were better due to community and simplicity of life or something like that (I don’t know if I’d agree, but I’d probably think there was something to it).

But I also think we’re both looking at a wall and you’re saying its fuchsia while I think its magenta. When its all said and done, the wall is some shade of purple; it seems like we agree that things are bad, that they could be a lot better, and that they should be better.

Don’t suppose you know any places that are good to go read up on this?

I agree that most today are on a subsistence lifestyle.

But gonna have to disagree with “we’re at modern serfdom” in the sense that medieval serfdom existed. There are LOTS of economic barriers to picking your life up and moving somewhere else, to changing what you do for a living, etc; but there aren’t legal barriers. That is, if you decide to move or change jobs, you could land yourself in lean times, but no one is going to chop body parts off you or lock you in a dungeon for doing it (as could happen to serfs in the long ago.

Additionally, if you’re one of the lucky ones who does manage to buy a place, it becomes a financial asset. If you have kids, it can be passed to them, at which point they an sell it to go move themselves somewhere else. Contrast this with the typical depiction (which I assume is at least moderately factually correct) where your kids are now tied to the land you lived on.

Unless you mean to speak of serfdom to the government who can control your ability to travel (generally I mean internationally, but some nations do restrict intranational travel), who take a portion of your wealth on a regular basis in the form of taxes (thinking property taxes, but I guess could be applied to income and other taxes), and who can lock you up in a “dungeon” (prison - and for relatively arbitrary/subjective reasons).

How many owned their own land through history?

I know very little about how things were handled pre-medival, but its my understanding that serfdom (where you were attached to a piece of land and obligated to work it) was the norm for the vast majority of common people.

Not doubting if this was bad, but wanted to see if they commented as to the scale of the problem sin e they just state “of some Americans” in headline (and they do!):

Kashtan and colleagues estimate that the average total residential long-term NO2 exposure across the U.S. is 24 percent lower for people with electric stoves, which do not emit NO2.
The average American’s exposure to NO2 exceeds the World Health Organization’s recommended levels. However, approximately 22 million Americans would fall below the WHO-recommended limit if they stopped cooking with gas or cut back their use of it, Kashtan said.

Ugh, yeah that is a frustrating part of any discussion I have with a lot of people I know IRL: they seem to think of it in an “exclusive or” (one or the other but not both) mindset.

In my most humble of opinions, we need to be doing classic nuclear, renewables, and SMRs (and as pipe-dream-ish as it might be, research into nuclear fusion) all at once. Oh, and let’s not forget the mass-scale grid storage.

Would that be a hella expensive investments? Yes, but worth it in the long run.

Look, I hate fossil fuels as much as the next guy, but am missing why this article is pitching nuclear as a bad idea.

As I understand it, the coal and natural gas plants that have been decommissions still have millions of dollars per site of mostly workable infrastructure (in the form of steam pipes, valves, turbines, etc) and Small Modular Reactors really seem a promising tech to make use of that infrastructure. They might be “unproven” (as the article claims), but its my understanding is that its mostly regulations and finding investors that have kept them from being built (since they need to be completely certified as a full nuclear reactor would be, which takes the better part of a decade to do, thus investment has been slow rolling).

The prospect of a small nuclear plant replacing Indian River as a base load provider seems a lot more promising than wind without properly built mass grid storage. I’m sad to see fossil fuels reemerging, but this lumping of nuclear with fossil fuels feels disingenuous.

Am I really missing something in all this?

As much as I abhor Reddit, they have a lot more active communities for military related questions. I expect they’ll same is true for police. I think you’ll have better results asking around over there.

If you really want to go military, “there’s a waiver for everything” is a common saying (source: I did a stint in the Navy), so you can probably find a doctor who’s willing to write a memo telling them your fit for service. I expect the police will will have similar policies.

If this has rekindled your hope for military, feel free to DM me. Lol, I’ve got lots of thoughts and can point you in directions on that end (not so much the police stuff) and don’t want to wall of text too hard.

Good?

If your appeal requires everyone to have less information about what really went down, then I think were better off with you not having your appeal heard, no?

Lol, suppose not.

But I’m glad at least I’m not crazy while living in this reality (though I suppose it my be less painful that way).

Oh, I was wondering why RAM prices seemed so much higher. Its been ~4 years since I looked and gaslit myself into thinking my brain was just going bad.

Glad to see I wasn’t just imagining it.

HUGE FAN

I don’t have beta features enabled, so haven’t tried it myself, but LOVE the idea of it. Its not too often, but maybe 1 in 100 times when I swipe back to leave a post, it’ll take me back to the home menu (not sure if that’s the right name for it).

I think on by default is the play. Not sure how hard this would be to implement, but maybe the first 3-5 times, include a “don’t show again” button on the bottom of the popup (with another popup on how to re-enable in settings if a user hits “don’t show again”)

Eh, gonna have to soft disagree.

Its got a lot of those same elements, but you have a character that is only at one spot at a time, and so that limits how elective you can be at the expansion part.

That said, it is also not a typical RPG where you have just a character adventuring across the land. Really unique game in that its a bridge between those two broad genres.