People need to realise the next step in civilisation is not stealing labour so eventually we can transition to a society that gets it’s production from “play” (people produce what they like & how they like it) not from “work” (forced production to maximise financial profit of an entity).
Sodomy
Fellatio
Cunnilingus
Pederasty
!Father, why do these words sound so nasty?!<
Masturbation \
!Can be fun!<
!Join the!< holy orgy
Kama Sutra
!Everyone!!<
(ref youtube/jTsD-ecGtts, or even better youtube/vq0RzhgLA3k)
Blue Waffaletta
Nice PSA for understanding the world around us.
Try to grow fucks and then distribute them free of charge?
Oh, good thinking, yeah! Lol
(Also that is how force users would be used irl.)
There is also the whatever amount of power (fields?) was used for constant healing & prolonging life by Palpatine for himself & his lil puppy (Vader in my previous msg was a brainfart, I prob meant Sidious, but same diff … can’t brain today no more).
I bet this could be modified to make electricity via some chemical processes.
Oh, yeah, I understood that - it was the fact that this is for the everyday “consumer” (for consumers) tech that inspired the comment, that regular folk will get up & personal with such tech soon & make it a regular mundane chore.
I could think about how much electricity an electric plant produces (& couldn’t comprehend it in daily terms that would make sense), but sitting in a charging car you get a much clearer picture of what that means, of how much energy (and “how much driving”) is running through that cable every second, etc.
Wow, 1 MW surpasses a lot (most?) of lighting based superhero/supervillains (def the shitty ones like Vader, but also orders of magnitude from TWs in Thors sparklers?).
This is a totally normal thought to have whilst charging up your car, shut up.
Oh nooo, will e-waste numbers ever recover???
(Yes, yes they will/have/constantly do. :()
Yes, but that’s irrelevant, just an accidental “post-” fact.
I think more relevant basic math is that he got a 2.6% bonus in terms of annual net income of the group.
The other 97.4% of labour just goes to shareholders (“landlords” of the financial system).
Shifting “blame” on these white-collar police dogs (megacorp CEOs) instead of shareholders (and the system demanding growth) only needs to happen when everyone understands that even 96m is 2.6% of 3.760m of net income (2024).
So if 1k people were let go all of them could have gotten 1m of bonus and still the company would have made almost 3bn.
But they were let go bcs yoy income (but not revenue) was lower last year, and the financial markets demand a sacrifice (literally any action, even if not actually needed, just to send a signal they are ‘on it’).
The usual “efficient” meat grinder stuff.
Tl;dr: toxic dumplings are a hazard
People have the ability to choose to not damage “the host”?
So we do it willingly?
“Many” when talking for a species is meaningless.
Some brain cancers might heighten some of the brains abilities … yet I don’t think that matters.
Also which humans don’t negatively affect kilometres of Earth’s surfaces and species for 100s of thousands of years?
Beavers, or any species really, can and do affect experientially all they can. They do that until they are in equilibrium with the ecosystem. Invasive species are perhaps a more clear example of this process.
The relative speed of the process and how fast the environment responds is crucial in the infestation definition.
In any population the initial growth is basically limited only by the resource availability. So any species at some point, especially at the beginning, behaves (and it’s evolutionary beneficial to do so) like an infestation, the limits come from the environment, and in complex environment that means other species. That’s how ecosystem grow from single species to complex interaction between 1000s of species in more or less stable equilibrium.
So my next question is, isn’t what we’re doing as a species more or less natural?
It is, imho, and “infestations” are indeed a normal part of ecosystems.
Only few species had global impact tho (and none in the timeframe of a geological second), we arent the first.
infection has too many negative connotations that are unfair.
I would say that we embody (literally) all of those negative connotations actually, ofc with some weirdness, like how many billions of chickens now live bcs of us.
I do struggle to find positives in our interaction an consequences to the planets ecosystems.
What gives us the audacity to justify the loss of biodiversity on such a grand scale?
Lol, never said anything to the contrary, my dear friend!
Everything what I compared humans to has a precedence in the wild (we arent that unique), which ended in a catastrophe of sorts (and a rebound an eon later).
Are you suggesting infestation can be a non-life phenomenon? I am def intrigued! (Even in sci-fo terms!)
Ofc it’s part of the natural selection!
The question is: Is humanity’s rule over the planet justified? In other words, do we have a large enough advantage to all life on Earth that we can reasonably occupy almost all inhabitable land area? What is the advantage that we bring to life?
As said, an infestation, I never argued if justified or not (whatever even means to be “justified” to lower biodiversity like humans do).
However we are in the midst of a mass eviction event.
Similar to how birds can carry plants seeds to far-away islands, humans can carry all life to other planets and provide it with an essential opportunity for growth.
Yes, exactly, and this can also be an infestation when the “invasive species” (human term) spreads and kills the existing local species bcs the ecosystem isn’t balanced. This usually lowers biodiversity.
Like rats killed entire species when were introduced to New Zealand and similar secluded islands.
Yes, we consume & change the environment for millennia on a scale and rate (especially rate!) that could be considered an infection as it is absolutely unsustainable, and it permanently changes environments.
We’ve ended great forests, drained entire bogs, even species millennia ago, under all systems so far.
We never had the mentality of ‘don’t leave a mark’ and and always had the concept of ‘trash’.
We’ve also never had a predator to keep us in check, in fact it is only other humans that keep our numbers in check.
The quantity of humans alone is bound to require so much natural resources that we have a global impact regardless of how we use the current tech we would use (this means enormous areas and natural species subjugated to sustain our needs).
And the same argument about quantity also marks the unmistakable sign of an (unsustainable) infestation - that usually leads to the death of the host.
We needed some 4 million years to get to a billion, and only two centuries to get from a billon to 9 billion.
Well, the largest expeditor of the problem, but still done by and for an infection.
We still made huge impact to the ecosystems in the past too, it’s just that we now no longer destroy only local ecosystems.
Or wireguard, depending where & how they want to implement it might be simpler or better/worse on hardware.