Precisely the problem
Precisely the problem
Yes, logos are designed to be remembered, but that's not the point. We are so hopelessly out of touch with nature. How can we protect something we don't understand and don't value?
You're viewing a single thread.
It's almost like we just remember stuff associated with foods we prefer?
...kinda just like we're supposed to do. It's like it's a natural thing we do or something.
Not that hard to figure out, and in this case pretending it's wrong or misaligned with our objectives (to grab the right foods we like) is the incorrect position to take.
Of course we recognize the signs of resources we're after. We're humans, we adapt in order to gain and prosper.
Absolutely, but the point remains that we are tragically disconnected with nature. Yes, you no longer need to know that willow bark can alleviate pain, but we don't value nature as essential to our survival and therefore must manage it. Instead it is a resource to be exploited.
Yes, willow bark is considered to alleviate pain because it contains salicylic acid, an ingredient in pain killers which I'm assuming would need a two part extraction process (because it's an acid) probably using a solvant than something more base, then some evaporation...
...but your argument is underdeveloped. Why would it not be exploitation if I did this chemical extraction process, but would be exploitation when someone else does it? What are your conditions that define it as exploitation? What are the constraints or qualifiers that make it exploitative?
Also, why assume that people don't know this stuff? Some people no doubt do. How else would we be exploiting it?
underdeveloped
Maybe, but yours is bordering on meandering stream of consciousness writing.
Qualifiers etc
Let me clarify: use of natural resources, like willow bark is fine. Unsustainable use on a regional scale is not. The use of natural resources should be part of a land use management plan to prevent this.
For instance, if the use of willow can't be replenished at a rate where the same management unit to the point where harvest and regeneration are equal (or better), then we shouldn't be harvesting as much. There should also be metrics measuring impact on plant and animal biodiversity and populations.
If the resource is vital to the betterment of humanity, and non-renewable (e.g., copper, or other metals that will help with green transition) or it will have a permanent negative environmental impact, then offsetting should occur. In this case, less desirable lands, can be converted to those which were lost to maintain the abundance of the destroyed ecosystems. This is commonly done in mining with wetland restoration.
As I say, nothing wrong with using resources, but very much a lot wrong with using them and not thinking about knock on effects and considering the costs and benefits to their use.
So you are of the opinion that strong and sustainable environment protections can produce a Capitalism that isn't exploitative of nature?
But you essentially support sustainable industrial Capitalism, as long as your environment criteria is met?
...so does that mean you understand people recognizing brands, and being disconnected from nature? Because I don't think your suggestions would prevent that phenomena.
Sorry you feel I'm riding you, or if it seems like I'm expecting you to have all the answers. Sorry if you feel attacked or something. I'm just picking your brain.
I have a vague idea that Solarpunk has neoliberal Capitalist inclinations (is a dream of a "Neo-capitalism"), and has an underdeveloped understanding of how Capitalism forms an inevitable system of totalitarian exploitation that can never simply or completely be resolved right?
Someone is still slaving over the solar panels to coat them in curious chemicals and highly processed additives... Oh I better stop there before you accuse me of meandering again.
But I will say, the purpose vs actual function of people's fantasy worlds interests me. WHY we dream what we dream, and HOW that might break down if it became a full realised reality.
So you are of the opinion that strong and sustainable environment protections can produce a Capitalism that isn't exploitative of nature?
Yes. Capitalism isn't my preference for an economic system, but I'm ok, at least for the short term. There needs to be a lot stronger regulations on all fronts for me to accept it more than I do.
But you essentially support sustainable industrial Capitalism, as long as your environment criteria is met?
Yes. Again, I don't love capitalism, but it's the system I'm currently stuck with. Changing economic systems entirely seems like a gargantuan task, thus amending the system with more regulation seems to be a somewhat achievable first step to a better system
...so does that mean you understand people recognizing brands, and being disconnected from nature? Because I don't think your suggestions would prevent that phenomena.
Yes, but I think the systems as they are have pushed us too far, and people now no longer see the value in nature because of capitalism.
Sorry you feel I'm riding you, or if it seems like I'm expecting you to have all the answers. Sorry if you feel attacked or something. I'm just picking your brain.
We good, fam. My viewpoint isn't underdeveloped: I know the steps I want to see taken, and what a greener future looks like, but I wasn't going to bore you with all that.
I have a vague idea that Solarpunk has neoliberal Capitalist inclinations (is a dream of a "Neo-capitalism"), and has an underdeveloped understanding of how Capitalism forms an inevitable system of totalitarian exploitation that can never simply or completely be resolved right?
I don't think so. Ask some of the other slrpnks here, and they are much, much, more anti-capitalist than what I describe. A lot are anarchists.
Someone is still slaving over the solar panels to coat them in curious chemicals and highly processed additives...
Do they have adequate PPE, safety standards, and a hazardous waste management plan? Are the chemicals able to be safely disposed of or reused? Then I'm ok with it. Otherwise, no.
Oh I better stop there before you accuse me of meandering again.
I suppose I deserve that. There's nothing wrong going into the werea a bit, provided it supports a point. I don't see how extraction you were talking about did that.
But I will say, the purpose vs actual function of people's fantasy worlds interests me. WHY we dream what we dream, and HOW that might break down if it became a full realised reality.
Sadly, it probably is fantasy. We are doing everything we can BUT reducing emissions. We are doing everything but making meaningful conversions of land or stopping future incursion and resource exploitation.