this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
408 points (96.4% liked)

solarpunk memes

3055 readers
309 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago

Fun fact that chart is outdated, it's worse now!

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

In a future capitalist dystopia, the Empire (aka USA) will be renamed "United States of Amazon Prime®", and every 4 years the name will be replaced by the name of some other mega oligopoly

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, basically the script of idiocracy

[–] Brickhead92 8 points 1 year ago

Welcome to Costco, I love you.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's just the book Snowcrash

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Interesting, I don't know the work so I'll look into it

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hey at least it will have a distinguishable name for the first time

(There are multiple "united states" in America, such as The United Mexican States and The Federative Republic of Brazil)

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

We are Verizon-Chipotle-Exxon, and we're proud to be one of America's eight companies!

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What happened to our anti trust laws?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The people that enforce them are, ironically, untrustworthy.

[–] lemmyman 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sounds like antitrust people ought to be untrustworthy. Linguistically, ya know?

Wait, is that where it went wrong?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

What's funny about the US experiment is that capitalism is supposedly the better way but at the same time when capitalism runs its course the government feels the need to intervene because it doesn't take long for capitalism to become a monopoly and for the free market to disappear, but that's as far as the reflection goes...

[–] LesserAbe 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Conglomeration occurs naturally - economies of scale in a large organization give it an advantage over smaller ones. Similar to how cities naturally occur. The problem is the organizations are not democratically controlled and so they act in ways that are unsustainable, anti customer and anti worker. Workers should manage the organization through a one person one vote principle (sometimes multi-stakeholder coops would make sense), and all commercial entities should be regulated by a democratic government.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That would be better true but I argue that even if you compare companies to cities the same problem occurs with cities, mega or very big cities are not sustainable or easier to manage, they just occur naturally.

I don't think even if a company is worker owned or democratically controlled may still choose to go against the customer or competition with monopolistic practices so I'm not sure it's possible to have mega corps be very positive in any way to society.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How are mega cities not sustainable?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (5 children)

How do those people feed themselves? How do they move around? How far away is the average person's house from the workplace, or the market, or the hospital? In the end is the average energy consumption per person smaller? The existence of mega cities requires a lot of land elsewhere to sustain those people with the added transportation costs. There is not much to gain from gathering too many humans in one place for the sake of it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Dense cities are way more efficient than living spread out on the countryside.
Infrastructure cost is lower per person, because higher density means less km of pipes, wires, roads etc. per person. Mass transit is also more efficient in both monetary and resource cost than cars, but it is only viable with the density of a city.

How far away is the average person's house from the workplace, or the market, or the hospital?

I live 3 min by foot from the grocery store. Medium/high rise buildings and mixed zoning make that possible. Idk if you are thinking of American style suburbia, which is indeed very inefficient.

mega cities requires a lot of land elsewhere to sustain those people with the added transportation costs

The farmland needed should be the same either way, but centralising stuff usually makes it more efficient. For example a cities grain needs can be met with a single freight train, which should use less energy than the same amount of grain transported in many small trucks to smaller towns

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Dense cities are way more efficient than living spread out on the countryside.
Infrastructure cost is lower per person, because higher density means less km of pipes, wires, roads etc. per person. Mass transit is also more efficient in both monetary and resource cost than cars, but it is only viable with the density of a city.

How far away is the average person's house from the workplace, or the market, or the hospital?

I live 3 min by foot from the grocery store. Medium/high rise buildings and mixed zoning make that possible. Idk if you are thinking of American style suburbia, which is indeed very inefficient.

mega cities requires a lot of land elsewhere to sustain those people with the added transportation costs

The farmland needed should be the same either way, but centralising stuff usually makes it more efficient. For example a cities grain needs can be met with a single freight train, which should use less energy than the same amount of grain transported in many small trucks to smaller towns

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Dense cities are way more efficient than living spread out on the countryside.
Infrastructure cost is lower per person, because higher density means less km of pipes, wires, roads etc. per person. Mass transit is also more efficient in both monetary and resource cost than cars, but it is only viable with the density of a city.

How far away is the average person's house from the workplace, or the market, or the hospital?

I live 3 min by foot from the grocery store. Medium/high rise buildings and mixed zoning make that possible. Idk if you are thinking of American style suburbia, which is indeed very inefficient.

mega cities requires a lot of land elsewhere to sustain those people with the added transportation costs

The farmland needed should be the same either way, but centralising stuff usually makes it more efficient. For example a cities grain needs can be met with a single freight train, which should use less energy than the same amount of grain transported in many small trucks to smaller towns

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Dense cities are way more efficient than living spread out on the countryside.
Infrastructure cost is lower per person, because higher density means less km of pipes, wires, roads etc. per person. Mass transit is also more efficient in both monetary and resource cost than cars, but it is only viable with the density of a city.

How far away is the average person's house from the workplace, or the market, or the hospital?

I live 3 min by foot from the grocery store. Medium/high rise buildings and mixed zoning make that possible. Idk if you are thinking of American style suburbia, which is indeed very inefficient.

mega cities requires a lot of land elsewhere to sustain those people with the added transportation costs

The farmland needed should be the same either way, but centralising stuff usually makes it more efficient. For example a cities grain needs can be met with a single freight train, which should use less energy than the same amount of grain transported in many small trucks to smaller towns

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Dense cities are way more efficient than living spread out on the countryside.
Infrastructure cost is lower per person, because higher density means less km of pipes, wires, roads etc. per person. Mass transit is also more efficient in both monetary and resource cost than cars, but it is only viable with the density of a city.

How far away is the average person's house from the workplace, or the market, or the hospital?

I live 3 min by foot from the grocery store. Medium/high rise buildings and mixed zoning make that possible. Idk if you are thinking of American style suburbia, which is indeed very inefficient.

mega cities requires a lot of land elsewhere to sustain those people with the added transportation costs

The farmland needed should be the same either way, but centralising stuff usually makes it more efficient. For example a cities grain needs can be met with a single freight train, which should use less energy than the same amount of grain transported in many small trucks to smaller towns

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

"I'm from Buenos Aires, and I say kill 'em all!"

[–] Crack0n7uesday 4 points 1 year ago

Is that website still around? I think it was like theyowneverything.com