wow - how is this even a debate - she straight up released an SS necklace and there are people genuinely going “hmm idk about this”??

She most definitely did not do it anonymously…

I feel it’s complicated - on one hand yes they are supposedly anti-fossil fuels and are saying to replace them with electrified alternatives - on the other the website has so many pro-AI articles that do have some anti-ff messaging but also an underlying “well it does suck but it’s unrealistic to power them with anything else so whacu gonna do”

Some data centers have invested in transmission and distribution networks, at times increasing their investment by over 35% to connect to the grid. Still, concerns about the energy deficit and the impacts of fossil fuels haven’t affected new investments, Rivera Cerecedo said.

“We aren’t seeing a slowdown in the industry,” she said. “The effort that companies developing data centers are making to stay in Mexico is big.”

and for a newspaper focused on “VCs sitting in Palo Alto to think twice when a proposal from Indonesia comes across their desk” the above does read like unvoiced support for whatever gets them their superintelligent AI dream.

Idk I’m just saying that this may not be pro-fossil fuels but its still definitely pro-capitlaism and industrial exploitation under the veneer of neo-liberal human rights concerns…

Actually fair enough - having read the whole article it does seem much more preoccupied with the dangers of nickel mining than the proven negative effects of fossil fuels and stuff like this is quite obvious pro-ff propaganda

It’s almost impossible to transition away from fossil fuels without nickel from Indonesia,” said Johnny Linghui Ni, a United Kingdom-based research analyst for Project Blue, a data provider on critical minerals. “And it may stay this way until at least 2030, if not longer.”

Still useful to learn about but compared to the landscape of positive oil rig articles this definitely doesn’t pass the smell test - thanks!

Ah yes the oil supporting Uproot Project of the Environmental Justice Fellowship…

Just because nickel mining is verifiably awful doesn’t mean oil rig work is any better. The point most serious environmental groups make is that we shouldn’t just replace fossil fuel based exploitation and environmental destruction with metal and rare earth ones instead.

We should focus on an overall reduction of consumption not just taking the over 1 billion cars and turning them electric but instead rethinking our whole relationship with nature.

She’s also less likely to be disappeared than others.

Honestly I feel this is her playing to her advantages - Israel can (and does) sink ships carrying aid - and while I have utmost respect for the crews and aid volunteers on those ships - Israel doesn’t - and having a high profile person on board that Israel knows is bad PR if they kill provides some safety for the whole crew.

deleted by creator

I mean yeah that makes sense - but I’ve personally not seen examples of prefigurative building that have rejected funding and resources from the old system on ideological “purity” grounds - quite often the reason is that established systems just refuse to funnel resources into alternative systems that don’t generate a profit.

As an example - I was involved in a waste reduction/swap shop (food, clothing, furniture, etc) cooperative that due to it’s well established social value was getting council and some governmental finding for over 10 years - everyone involved in it would see it as a prefigurative example of the future of society of fulfilled low carbon living. However, due to austerity cuts and a profit seeking landlord, who was asking for 10 grand a month in rent (which was over a third of how much the coop was making) once the council could no longer funnel money into the landowners pocket - the project was no longer viable and folded.

Now do you think the people that were involved didn’t do everything in their power to keep the project running? Not in the slightest - it’s just that the system is so hostile to such endeavors that they’re constantly fighting an uphill battle where one slip is enough to send you all the way down.

So while I do agree that ideally we’d funnel resources from the old to the new - time and time again it’s been proven that relying on the existing precarious system only results in building on weak foundations that will take you down with them when they inevitable collapse.

And I’m not saying this to dissuade you from pursuing a dual system theory - I’m genuinely trying to figure out a way where we can build the sorely needed infrastructure of the future in any way possible - in a climate that takes 15 years to approve a 50 square feet low traffic street to pedestrian area conversion in a time where we’re 25 years away from unprecedented climate catastrophy.

Is your proposal then to reform the existing system into a new one? To use the existing levers of power to attempt to rip that power away from those that are currently pulling them?

Which I wouldn’t mind if it worked - but the original reason for prefigurative action was because this approach didn’t seem to achieve anything. But I guess you’re arguing that maybe the environment is different now and therefore more susceptible to change?

How do you see everyday people participating in this political movement - voting? canvassing? running for office?

I guess you see Mamdani as such an example? Tho I doubt anarchists would reject him just on the grounds of him being a reformist and therefore not valuable to the cause, in my experience any push towards a more socialist society is generally embraced and not rejected no matter where it comes from.

So what is your proposed alternative?

💯

If you want to expand your political environment, teach activists or organizers how to cook. Teach them how to talk about relationship problems. Organize tea parties, raves, and mending clubs. Create spaces to unwind after work. Infiltrate churches, sports clubs, gyms, games clubs, online forums. Turn street protests into a space for networking: nobody is listening to your chants anyway.

This is like prefigurative social building 101 - and sure there’s always going to be the “if you want to report abuse you should call the cops” type “anarchists” - but this whole post reads like terminally-online schizo-posting and not useful advice for people that are already out in the world as they say “touching grass”

This is not a wishy-washy hippie approach to politics. It’s not the vapid appeal to community building of a New York artivist. It’s not about feeling good and projecting a vague sense of emotional intelligence onto the politics we do. It’s a sad, but necessary act. Sad because it adds to relationships an element of political motivation, and politics is always dirty. It is necessary because without a global-spanning web of social affordances, History won’t get back into motion.

Also in terms of practical advice this article sounds exactly like the “vapid” community building they’re mocking. And while the hyper-violent “rivers of blood” framing may be useful for some - I thoroughly refuse the “sad” positioning as I’d much rather build toward happiness in the ideal of “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution”

Idk it’s an overall emotive text with imo like little substance that reads like “you believe in prefigurative action? that pales in comparison to my strategy - firebombing a Walmart” and then not firebombing a Walmart.

US for all it’s shitty things, is still, in my opinion, a far safer choice for world than the cool trio Russia, North Korea and Iran

As I said: “that’s an easy position to hold when you’re on the side with all the nukes…”

I’m just trying to warn you that defending such a system only leads to more contradictions, which require more violence to subdue, which in turn creates even more contradictions, which repeats until it collapses under it’s own weight.

Fair, the whole point of attacking Iran was because of Europe having a diverging stance on Palestine than Israel so we agree on that - but now that Israel has bombed Iran - all of Europe is rallying behind them and the genocide in Gaza has fallen to the wayside.

Obviously I’m not saying that killing civilians (both scientists and casualties caught in the cross-fire on either side) is equivalent to the annihilation of a state. I’m saying that by manufacturing consent for the “war on terror” the G7 is exposing itself as the unfair political partner it has always been which only fuels more resentment on the side of BRICS, which will only further escalate the conflict until another full out war erupts (like what’s happening in Ukraine)

So I’m arguing that we should discourage unprovoked attacks by allies of the G7 on the grounds that those are unproductive to peacekeeping.

And if you’re claiming that “Everyone’s in agreement about the fact that Iran should not have nukes.” but “Blowing up nuclear sites and some scientists” is “hardly a war” - then you’re either saying BRICS can do the same and should expect no repercussions or you’re saying that they should expect repercussions and therefore attacks and escalations against the G7 are justified as well.

I feel we may not be understanding each other so I’ll present my argument and you present yours?

My point is: The G7’s hypocritical application of international law and use of violence and coercion to maintain dominance is exactly what drives countries to join BRICS as an alternative, making Western actions counterproductive to their own stated goals of democracy, peace and stability - which results in further conflict and loss of life across the globe.

Again, the UK (MI6 on behalf of British Petroleum) were one of the key players in carrying out the coup against Mosaddegh and despite the whole Brexit thing the UK is still very much part of Europe.

Western Europe is quite obviously against everything that’s currently happening.

Also this^ is obviously nonsensical when we’re commenting under a post about how the major European powers are 100% backing Israel and condemning Iran in an escalation that was started by Israel - which part of this looks to you like Europe is against what’s happening?

As for the alliance between Iran and Russia - yeah it sucks - I’d much rather them be aligned with us but I can’t blame them when they’ve been historically exploited by the west so they turn to the enemy of my enemy as their friend.

Maybe if western proxy states (Israel) were to stop bombing them under the pretext of Iran being months away from nuclear weapons for the past 30 years it would be possible to have more civil relations and be less aligned with Russia.

Now you may think it’s too late for that - which I understand - but then you must also recognize that at that point you’re calling for the military annihilation of either side - which is an easy position to hold when you’re on the side with all the nukes…