Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Dude... The VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST majority of indigenous aren't out there "protecting lands", and have no more connection to nature then you or I.
Nice casual racism though!
And that other 90% of humanity is working to industrialize to get where we are. It's a massive issue that as far as I'm aware we have no solution to.
What does "indigenous" even fucking mean. I'm of European descent living in Europe, motherfucker I'm the indigenous one around here.
This comic pretty directly equates "indigenous" with "brown & too poor to meaningfully impact their own ecosystems" (which isn't true either because poor countries have a pretty good track record of destroying their own ecosystems as well).
Saying "humans are a plague" is some edgelord type shit. Equating it with fascism is just dumb and dilutes the term "fascism", and on top of that they've managed to illustrate it in one of the most racist ways I've had the displeasure to read in a while.
Maybe I can give the author some slack and assume they're being a typical yankee and completely disregarding the rest of the world, and trying to be progressive by supporting the work Native American reserves do. But even then it's inexcusably dumb.
Fuck... I never thought about indigenous Europeans. Does this mean Brexit was technically an anti-colonism movement?
Great Britain's a particularly bad example because most of the people living there today are descended from invaders and colonizers. It's telling that the areas that have more natives there (Scotland, Wales) voted not to leave.
Yeah, while I agree with the core message rebuking ecofascism and pointing out that environmental damage is a capitalistic issue, depicting indigenous folks as the sole tenders of the land is some Noble Savage shit.
Do you know where Noble Savage myth came from? From legitimate dialogues between Europeans and Indigenous during the colonization of the Americas. Dialogues like the ones between Kandiaronk and Lahontan, that Europeans were so racist they couldn’t believe were from an indigenous person, so instead they claimed that their countrymen were using metaphor with absolutely no evidence.
Noble Savage shit.
THAT'S the term! Thank you! It was reminding me of the Mystical Blackman trope.
I'm just gonna stop and bitch for a second. As friggen disappointing as it is to see left leaning individuals adopt bigioted attitudes, do you know what the real disappointment is? All the people that don't say something. All the people that don't do something.
People will sit there and talk about bringing down the system, about how horrible the right is, "eat the rich" and all that. They'll post memes everyday about challenging the status quo, but when push comes to shove it's crickets.
Meanwhile I'm getting ready to kamakazi my latest social group for the umpteenth time because someone in the group was intentionally violating the personal space of another. I know no one is going to have my back.
People talk a lot lately about the paradox of tolerance and use that as justification for censoring certain political opinions. The problem isn't tolerance though, it's the silence. It's people not wanting to make themselves uncomfortable, or unpopular.
-ninja edit-
After some discussions with chatGPT what im describing relates to "The Spiral of Silence"
The phenomenon you are describing is known as the "spiral of silence." The spiral of silence theory, proposed by German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann in the 1970s, explains how public opinion is formed and how individuals may withhold expressing their views if they perceive them to be in the minority. This theory is often applied to political and social contexts, including the rise of ideologies like fascism.
In the context of fascism or any other controversial ideology, the spiral of silence suggests that when people believe their opinions are not widely supported, they tend to remain silent and refrain from expressing their views publicly. This silence, in turn, can create an illusion that the majority supports the prevailing ideology, even if it might not be the case. As a result, individuals who disagree with the ideology might feel isolated and discouraged from speaking out, contributing to the seeming growth and acceptance of the ideology.
Several factors contribute to the spiral of silence phenomenon:
- Fear of isolation: People often fear social isolation or rejection, so they may choose to keep their dissenting opinions to themselves to avoid potential negative consequences.
- Perceived social norms: Individuals may gauge the acceptability of their views by observing the prevailing opinions within their social circles and in the media. If they believe their views deviate significantly from the perceived norm, they are more likely to remain silent.
- Amplification of dominant views: When a particular ideology gains prominence and is amplified through media coverage or dominant social groups, people may perceive its support to be more significant than it actually is.
- Social media echo chambers: Online platforms can exacerbate the spiral of silence by creating echo chambers where people are exposed only to like-minded opinions, leading them to believe their views are in the minority.
The spiral of silence can hinder healthy democratic discourse, as it suppresses the diversity of opinions and prevents the exchange of ideas. Overcoming this phenomenon requires fostering an environment that encourages open dialogue, respect for diverse perspectives, and protection for free speech. By promoting inclusivity and ensuring that people feel comfortable expressing their opinions without fear of retribution, societies can better counter the rise of ideologies like fascism and encourage constructive debates on important issues.
✌️😝
Funny, because I’m a native of turtle island, and happen to be very involved with indigenous land protection across multiple continents in collaboration with literally hundreds of unique cultures, all of which are protecting lands and water.
Then this is a good opportunity for you to check your confirmation bias. You and I both know you're not replying to me with a coconut radio.
Funny that you think that the only way to protect things is by being a Luddite or something
I think it's hypocritical.
You haven’t done a good job of explaining why thus far.
Other people seem to have no issue understanding. I think my coconut comment was on point, and the fact that you responded referencing Luddites shows I've explained myself perfectly fine.
What specifically don't you understand about me saying I think this is hypocritical?
That it implies that the only people capable of making critiques of society are people who reject material reality and try to live a thousand years ago.
Anyone can critique society.
I don't get your 1st issue. That statement was based on statistics offered throughout the blurb. Are you claiming those statistics are wrong or inherently racist?
I think it's fucking weird the comic attempted to differentiate indigenous from the rest of humanity so that's specifically what I'm taking issue with.
While saying that indigenous people are inherently more connected to nature is at best iffy however I think the point the comic was trying to make is that on a general basis indigenous are (or were depending on how much of their culture and history has been destroyed) more knowledgeable of the lands that they have been inhabiting. More specifically compared to the colonisers that invaded their land.
If you already know that and was just pointing out discriminatory language then yeah not much to say
you have some of a point here, and yeah, for various reasons, including marginalization, its resulting societal standings, and simply the lack of opportunity to industrially fuck up the landscape, indigenous people do in fact tend to end up as better stewards of the land. however, suggesting that this is because they're born special and aren't just following a different culture and incentive structure is a slippery slope that tends to end up in ethnonationalism on the part of whoever colonized a given piece of land first.
colonialism is absolutely a problem to this day, but it's not the only problem there is. while eco-fascism can go to hell, simply opposing it does not automatically clear your ideology of any problems.
Those statistics are shakey at best I looked into it and was unable to find any real evidence of the stat being anything more than lip service.
And that other 90% of humanity is working to industrialize to get where we are. It’s a massive issue that as far as I’m aware we have no solution to.
The problem has never really been industrialisation or resource shortage (e.g Rare Earth Metals aren't really rare at all, just more difficult to extract and the cheapest methods are polluting >.<) . It's that the technologies used to do it in a green way with more automation have been actively pushed against by the oil and gas industry (for example solar cells have been around for a long time but refining the tech to improve cost/kWh could only happen recently with absolutely tons of pressure, or the way cities are designed for cars, etc.), the fact that we do not recycle important resources very much (phosphorous in particular), and also the fact that the upfront cost of automation for the more dangerous aspects is higher than using slave/cheap labour, which is enabled by capitalism in combination with extreme short-term mindsets which prevent automation systems from reaching economies of scale/meta-automation nya. Also, because right now polluting is slightly cheaper in the current economic system than containing waste and even reprocessing it, which is another problem.
The main risk with "resource shortage" is actually land-use agriculture rather than industrialisation more generally. In particular, we value "unused" (in colonised areas, this is often formerly controlled/managed by indigenous groups, but this was not considered "usage" by colonialists >.<) land very poorly, and our economic systems incentivize using order-of-magnitude less efficient agricultural technologies on wide open land, over using indoor (or vertical) systems which are far more able to recycle water and avoid fertilizer runoff/waste, are more resilient to climactic changes, and produce significantly better yields with no pesticides nya.
Such systems require some construction and hence the land cost is much higher, even though it would be far more ecosystem-friendly and promote food autonomy for urban areas, as well as allowing "re-wilding" efforts by massively reducing land use. The other problem is energy usage - but generally I think we should prefer higher-energy mechanisms that are more circular and less land-hogging, because electrically powered systems can be and are being green-ified over time as the electric grid becomes more powered by renewables or nuclear.
Even basic techniques, not including the vast potential of environmentally controlled indoor farms, massively mitigate a lot of the issues with agriculture, but a lot of places are unable to do these sorts of things due to various socioeconomic factors >.<, including things like intellectual property law increasing costs and decreasing mass production capabilities of mechanized agricultural systems (including things like those robots that can kill weeds without pesticides), or access to research and education on these topics for farmers, or the fact that Slash and Burn is often cheaper in the short term.
For example, the yield of potatoes per hectare has huge variance, with New Zealanders getting on the order of 60-80 tons/hectare, but many other countries getting much lower yields (19-30 tons/hectare >.<). This is just with basic outdoor farming, not including the massive potential of environmentally controlled farms, vertical farms, etc.
(Note: I haven't mentioned the sand issue around concrete, but I could go on a whole thing about that - it is possible to make artificial sand and we could probably do an economy-of-scale thing with that, too, even if it's higher energy for the same reasons of electrification being a good idea even if right this second it still produces more CO2 than directly harvesting the right type of sand from riverbeds and oceans nya).
That implies that the non richest 10% is happy with that and aren't trying to catch up with the richest 10%. That is completely untrue. The idea behind decreasing the world population is that a smaller population could all live in modern comfort. I have a feeling that this comic was written by someone very much in the richest 10%.
Now please explain how you create a smaller population that doesn't reek of eugenics, and you'll see the problem.
Nazis also wanted a smaller population so that the privileged few that remained could have a higher quality of life.
Now please explain how you create a smaller population that doesn’t reek of eugenics
Education. People tend to have fewer kids the more educated they become. Give everyone in the world top class educations, and the population will naturally decline.
That is a disgusting over simplification of what the Nazis did and I'm not even going to bother talking to you if you're just going to go straight to comparing everything to Nazis with zero nuance.
All population control is a form of eugenics, and it is not possible to implement as a policy without it AT LEAST disproportionally affecting an "undesired" group. Whether that is racial, GSRM, people with disabilities, or even class.
Eugenics was the basis of the Final Solution, and should be looked at with disgust. There is no need for nuance when calling the sky blue.
Sorry if the comparison offended your, but I suggest you think a bit deeper about this. Population isn't really the problem, logistical and environmental issues from capital are. And population control is a poison pill meant to greenwash abhorrent ideology.
Theoretically one could try to take an Thanos-like approach with equal mass-murder. Unfortunately that wouldn't really help, since most countries can't afford to lose half of their population, without going into a severe crisis-state. Instead we could just eradicate whole countries, not based on citizenship, but people who work in or profit from this country (to include Billionaires who get their money from companies in these countries). Chance of eradication correlate with the number of people to be eradicated (so a country with 1 Billion people in a world with 8 Billion will have a chamce of 1/8). Like that we could sit back and spin the wheel of fortune - "Death Edition" - till we get past wanted population size.
This would also solve the issues steming from capital you mentioned. Due to globalisation the likely collapsing of China, India, maybe the USA, 1-3 big European countries and a hella lot of of Asian, latin American and African countries providing various resources, the economy and the finance systems would likely crash. Industrial states will probably have the most problems getting back on track due to their dependency on foreign slave labor. This rebuild may again be very eco-damaging, but with enough pressure it could be sustainable. For the finance system, there is the question if we even want to reestablish this system, where all debt can never be fully paid back or there is a trade with derivatives. (Seriously it's fucked up. In 2007 the trade with derivates was about 1 Quadrillion, while the products produced in the last 1000 years roughly equal to 100 Trillions, a tenth. Guess what a major factor of the 2008 financial crisis was.)
For not-so industrial countries, it would maybe not be that bad (?). While not having the ability to buy first world products, there also wouldn't be assholes using them as a trash depot, or selling them stuff to bad for Europe and the USA at so cheap prices that the local economies collapse. But economic rise would in these countries probably cause more damage to the enviroment, due to missing knowledge and technology of e.g. sustainable energy.
But at least it would be indiscrimatory (as much as you can be in an genocide without trowing humanity back into medivial times).
Not to mention the bio-diverse indigenous lands are largely in sparsely populated areas of the americas showing low population goes hand in hand with the better land management. As the comic says. Families, smallholders, and local communities. Not big urban cities. The corpo world we have is one reason when shipements from ukraine get disrupted there is starvation in africa and asia. If the 10% went away we would quickly lower our current population. The cartoon is correct until it gets to its conclusion in the last panel.
Reminder that almost every single one of us is part of the world's richest 10%.
Agreed. Exactly why we need to listen to these marginalized communities, and empower them to take action on our behalf and with our cooperation. It’s why no matter how good I think my ideas are, I try to recognize that I come from a position of relative privilege, and that it is likely that even my best of ideas will be lacking in intersectional analysis that is needed to develop real, powerful solutions.
we need to listen to these marginalized communities.
Dude... Why are you speaking as if you're not indigenous now?
and that it is likely that even my best of ideas will be lacking in intersectional analysis that is needed to develop real, powerful solutions.
It turns out the solution to global warming was friendship all along 🌈
I mean, shrinking the population would absolutely help assuming that you shrunk it enough.
It's hard to destroy an environment when the destroyers dont exist.
It would be more efficient if we shrunk the power of the wealthiest individuals and made everyone fall under a wealthy limit
Why should one person own and control so much wealth when they will never realistically be able to enjoy all of that wealth during their lifetime? Especially if that one person hoarding all that wealth they'll never use is producing, creating and maintaining so much pollution for one individual.
We better make sure to completely eradicate all life on Earth down to the tiniest microbe just to be certain that life like us doesn't evolve again, I guess.
Sure, or we could just ban super yachts, private jets, cruise ships and empower those indigenous communities who have had such meaningful successes to spread their ideas and understanding so that we can begin to develop a sustainable culture, and we don’t need to kill half the worlds population.
NEVER trust the vehement anti-natalist movements. It's thinly veiled eugenics that brands itself as super-moral.
I’m unsure of the Artist of this one, but the oldest reference tineye reverse image search found was this medium page, which is down. I’ve linked the archived version I found, but I can’t seem to locate the image itself to be sure this is the origin.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210803014648/https://alexcharlesdiblasi.medium.com/
If you know the artist let me know, I’d love to see more of their stuff!
I spent a long-ass time trying to work out why a bunch of randos, dressed in generic national costumes like when '80s Saturday morning cartoons tried to be diverse, would be eco-fascists who want to oppress the indigenous Irish. I actually almost thought it was a racist joke about how England isn't as white as it used to be.