WoodScientist
@WoodScientist@lemmy.world
- Comment on In the Future All Food Will Be Cooked in a Microwave, and if You Can’t Deal With That Then You Need to Get Out of the Kitchen 2 hours ago:
- Comment on When was the first time you cried over an anime? 18 hours ago:
- Comment on Did you ever use your Toe to turn one of these on or off? 1 day ago:
What makes you think I don’t do that on my current computer?
- Comment on Solar is now 41% cheaper than fossil fuels, UN report shows 1 day ago:
Unfortunately this isn’t saving us from climate-induced civilizational suicide. We are not capable of saving ourselves. Conservative governments are science-denying fascists, and liberal governments can’t see any solution that doesn’t involve the free market. They’re both slaves to capitalism, and capitalism is destroying our world. Every societal collapse is driven primarily by a delusional elite powered by high levels of wealth inequality, and our story will be no different than countless societies that have collapsed before us, crushed under the weight of their own dysfunctional political systems.
Renewables are not replacing fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use hasn’t declined at all. Emissions have never been higher. Rather, what should have been obvious is happening. Capitalism is very good at exploiting any available and useful resource, and there is no more useful resource than energy. The market is more than happy to gobble up the output of any number of solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. A use for all that energy can be found. No matter how many solar panels we produce, their output is used to increase the total amount of energy consumed, rather than using them to replace fossil fuels. Meanwhile, fossil fuels are still very useful energy, and the market continues to find a use for them as well. To a capitalist system, the answer to the question “how much energy should we produce?” Is always “yes.”
Solving this problem will require actions that no liberal government is capable of. If you worship the free market as a religion, then you won’t be capable of making the changes that are needed to save our species from extinction. Conservatives know only delusions, and liberals know only subsidies. Both are equally useless at solving the problems we face.
What do we need to do? We need to be using non-market solutions. We need to be phasing out fossil fuels entirely. We need to be limiting the total amount extracted, and we need to lower that cap rapidly over time. Then we need to make it illegal to extract fossil fuels. We need to make it a capital offense to dig an oil well. Anyone caught drilling a well should be buried alive inside that well. Then we need to go to war against any nation that refuses to do the same. Eventually we need to waging outright military campaigns against fossil fuel infrastructure, regardless of what country the infrastructure belongs to. We need to be willing to risk nuclear war, as that is the level of crisis we are facing.
Note, your skin probably crawled when you read those last few sentences. If it did, you’re likely not psychologically capable of truly addressing the crisis we find ourselves in. You’re so conditioned to capitalist realism that those actions seem violent and absurd, rather than acts of rational self-defense of a species against its own annihilation.
- Comment on DOGE's next target revealed after $59 million spent to put illegal migrants in luxury hotels 5 months ago:
I find your lack of critical thinking disturbing.
- Comment on I think we might be leaving the "boring" part of this dystopia 6 months ago:
Sure. So am I. Opt-in posthumous gestation? Not so much.
- Comment on I think we might be leaving the "boring" part of this dystopia 6 months ago:
I mean, sure. I have no problem with people signing up for this thing voluntarily. But it should never be something you can be opted into by default, like organ donation in some locales.
- Comment on What is the origin of aliens looking like humans? Why and when did it become the norm? 6 months ago:
One headcanon explanation I have for this is:
Not all, but some sci fi universes make a central component of their setting the existence of a myriad of alien species (Star Trek, Star Wars, any setting with interacting with countless other species.) When we see species that humans are regularly interacting with, we are only seeing a small subset of the species that exist in that setting. It’s just an unfortunate fact of biology that species find it easier to interact with beings that are most like themselves. The Federation mostly consists of humanoid aliens. We do occasionally see really exotic life forms find their way into Star Fleet, but they’re the exception, not the rule. In my canon, they try to make contact, diplomacy, and exchange with every species they can. But they are inevitably more successful with humanoid aliens than non-humanoid ones. It’s just a lot easier to make meaningful communication with beings more similar to yourself.
- Comment on what was the last game you played in 2024? 6 months ago:
Timberborn! I do love those beavers.
- Comment on The best option 6 months ago:
If he’s convicted, Luigi should set up a small side business in prison where he writes insurance appeal letters for people.
- Comment on I think we might be leaving the "boring" part of this dystopia 6 months ago:
Yeah, that’s the kind of persistent vegetative state you don’t want to wake up from.
But really this kind of abuse of people in these states goes way beyond pregnancy. If we’re willing to do this to women, why not keep vegetative patients of both sexes alive for years as continuous blood donors? I could easily see someone justifying that, especially if the victim has a rare or that universal donor blood type.
Or how about organ donation? We do currently take organs from deceased donors, but usually it’s a one time deal. When it comes time, if the person is a willing donor, you pull the plug, and then harvest whatever organs you can that you have a recipient for at the moment. But you could make that a lot more efficient if you could keep the donor alive for a long time, perhaps years. Just keep them alive, waiting for someone in need. Someone needs the first kidney? Give it to them. Someone needs a second kidney? Give it to them and put the donor on permanent dialysis. Someone needs a hear or lung? Take the donor’s and keep them going via artificial means. Or maybe we could take skin graft after skin graft, growing new skin again and again. Treat them like sheep being shorn. It’s the difference between having to use a butchered animal up all at once vs being able to freeze most of it for later. Hospitals could have whole wards of these donors caught for years in a state of half-disassembled living death.
This is an ethical Pandora’s box we REALLY do not want to open.
- Comment on If you are a young person you have no idea how bad everyone and everything smelled until at least the 1990s. 6 months ago:
Try working in a restaurant. I worked as a server for awhile, right at the tail end of when they still had smoking and nonsmoking sections. It was awful.
- Comment on I think we might be leaving the "boring" part of this dystopia 6 months ago:
Essentially yes. Again, we all start as parasites. A uterus primarily is just a way for pregnancy to be survivable. But in theory it is perfectly doable in males.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy#Ectopic_impl…
As that article notes, pioneers in reproductive healthcare have even commented that it would likely be possible. We just don’t do it because it’s medically unconscionable to deliberately create an ectopic pregnancy. It goes against the whole, “and first, do no harm” principle. But if we’re throwing ethics to the wind and involuntarily impregnating people we consider already dead anyway, why not do the same to males?
- Comment on I think we might be leaving the "boring" part of this dystopia 6 months ago:
With all due respect, you seem to be actively seeking to be offended. This comes down to bodily autonomy. And providing an example of how this effects everyone is not some monstrous thing perpetuating the patriarchy. I think you’re a little too deep in the gender theory here.
I’m a trans person. I have had to fight for bodily autonomy my entire life. The fight for bodily autonomy is what ultimately connects trans rights with what are traditionally labeled “women’s issues.” Ultimate the right to abortion or contraception is about the right of everyone to bodily autonomy. To have final ownership and control of your own flesh and blood effects women’s reproductive rights, trans rights, the right to die, organ donation, etc. This goes way beyond just traditional women’s issues.
And honestly, the scenario isn’t convoluted or absurd. If the government did ever allow this kind of surrogacy, there would be no need to confine it to just one sex. Hell, I would be actively petitioning to apply it to everyone regardless of sex. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and I AM that pettty. I would absolutely demand that atrocities be applied equally. And if we’re doing this, we’re probably also doing involuntary organ donation. So again it all comes back to bodily autonomy.
What is horrifying about this proposal is not that it would be done to women. What is horrifying about it is that it would be done to human beings. And I don’t feel the need to throw up artificial barriers and get offended that someone would dare to point out the broader implications of this beyond narrowly defined and ghettoized “women’s issues.”
- Comment on I think we might be leaving the "boring" part of this dystopia 6 months ago:
What I really hate about longtermism is that it actually tells us nothing about what policies are best, as we don’t know what paths will lead to the best future.
You could argue that low taxes on billionaires will give them the resources needed to do space colonisation. Thus, in the long term, not taxing billionaires now is good. Or you could argue that a robust social safety net and UBI is the best path to a long term best future. How many Einsteins throughout history died illiterate peasants? By providing resources for everyone, we maximize our chances of the truly talented having a shot at elevating us all through new science and discoveries.
Hell, I could even justify a nuclear war through longtermism. Economies grow more worn-in and sclerotic over time. Every so often you need a historical arsonist like Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan to run through an area, burn the existing order to ashes, and give people a chance to start again. Existing elites prevent necessary change. And often the only way to remove them is to burn everything down. On the next attempt at civilization, they can learn from their predecessor’s mistakes. For example, destroying the fossil fuel industry now is effectively impossible; they’re simply far too entrenched and powerful. By voluntarily starting a global thermonuclear war, we will smash their power. Civilization can then rebuild powered entirely by solar and wind. Yes, we lose 90% of the human population today, but we prevent total human extinction via complete biosphere collapse, which appears to be the road we are on now. From the long term perspective, deliberately starting a global thermonuclear war is the only rational choice.
- Comment on I think we might be leaving the "boring" part of this dystopia 6 months ago:
You’ll be pleased to know that it would be perfectly possible to use men in persistent vegetative states as well. In theory, it’s perfectly possible for a male to carry a pregnancy ectopically. It just hasn’t been done, because as the embryo grows, it latches onto and messes up the internal organs. The placenta has to be cut out like a cancer afterwards.
But if we’re using people in vegetative states like this, there’s no reason to throw out half of our potential surrogates. Males in vegetative states could easily be used as one time use surrogates. You first castrate the male to nuke testosterone production. Then you introduce estrogen and progesterone. Finally you implant an embryo in the abdominal cavity. After it grows to term, you remove it surgically and let the surrogate father die.
- Comment on I think we might be leaving the "boring" part of this dystopia 6 months ago:
Good news boys, if we’re willing to use women this way, we can actually do the same for men! This is one unique sexual reproduction horror story that can in theory be inflicted on both sexes!
Pregnancy without a uterus, impossible! You say. But ectopic pregnancies are a thing. We all start out as parasites. As an embryo develops, it looks for a surface of flesh rich in blood vessels to latch onto. The primary function of the uterus is to provide an inner lining that is sort of a “disposable surface.” The inner lining is rich in blood vessels, the ideal environment for a zygote to latch onto and grow from. The embryo can integrate its blood vessels with the uterine lining and thoroughly mess those up. Then after pregnancy the whole inner lining is just sloughed off. That in inelegant terms is the uterus - an organ that produces a nice safe surface for the zygote to latch onto that won’t harm the person carrying the pregnancy.
But, things don’t always go well. If a zygote somehow tears through the uterine wall, then ectopic pregnancy, pregnancy outside the uterus, can result. And this a serious life-threatening medical condition. The fetus as it develops will latch onto not the intended uterine surface, but the vital abdominal organs. Giving “birth” in this case is done surgically, and it’s more akin to cutting out a cancer than a healthy live birth.
But while it hasn’t been tried due to the obvious health risks and huge medical ethics issues, there’s little reason to think that ectopic pregnancies couldn’t be carried in a male admomen. DNA and chromosomes shouldn’t be a barrier. The placenta that the fetus grows is evolved to prevent the fetus from being rejected like a donor organ. It’s not like mothers and infants share their DNA.
So in theory we could use men in vegetative states as one-time use surrogates. There has been research proposed and papers written on the possibility of trans women carrying children via uterine transplant, but this method, deliberate artificial ectopic pregnancy, is in principle a lot simpler. You don’t need to transplant a delicate organ and find a way to carry a pregnancy while taking anti-rejection drugs. You just implant an embryo in the surrogate abdomen and let it go to town. Let it latch in to whatever internal organs it wants. Then after nine months, just cut open and discard the surrogate father.
It wouldn’t be as simple as just implanting an embryo. The pregnant vegetative man would likely need to have his hormone profile monitored and heavily manipulated. But this is easy enough. Testosterone production could be nuked by simple castration, and erogenous estrogen and progesterone could then be introduced as needed before and during the pregnancy. After the pregnancy, it is unlikely the man would survive. So this is a one time deal. But if we’re OK treating people in persistent vegetative states like resources to be exploited, I see no reason to throw out half of our potential surrogate population simply because they happen to be men.
- Comment on Le Reddit Army is Here 7 months ago:
What you miss is people aren’t arguing from a constitutional perspective. They’re saying that it’s fucking ridiculous that sites like reddit censor perfectly legal speech while also billing themselves as bastions of free speech.
There is a certain logic to it. If you want to bill your site as a public square, then maybe you shouldn’t censor anything other than speech that is actually illegal. It is not illegal to say things in support of Luigi Mangione. In fact, it’s perfectly legal, and totally Constitutionally protected, for me to go right now and hold a big sign in front of NYPD headquarters saying, “Luigi Mangione is a saint, and I hope to see a hundred more like him!” The law restricts true threats, but those are defined way, way narrower than many on social media seem to think.
People aren’t saying that reddit or other platforms can’t censor content on their platform, they obviously can. But you also shouldn’t bitch about people pointing out the rank hypocrisy of sites that bill themselves as public squares censoring content to serve their corporate overlords.
- Comment on Accused killer of US insurance CEO pleads not guilty to 'terrorist' murder 7 months ago:
Luigi? Nah. That’s not him in the video. It’s literally Saint Michael the Archangel! He personally came down to drag a wicked soul to Hell! Luigi just happens to bare a resemblance to St. Michael.
- Comment on Accused killer of US insurance CEO pleads not guilty to 'terrorist' murder 7 months ago:
In Ye Olden days, there used to be formally separated court systems, one for nobility and one for commoners. Turns out, they just got a lot better at hiding this system.
- Comment on Accused killer of US insurance CEO pleads not guilty to 'terrorist' murder 7 months ago:
Even if the politics doesn’t change, enough CEOs getting cast into Hell sure might do the trick. People say that it won’t change how companies operate, but I disagree. First, changing CEOs isn’t easy for a company. The sudden loss of one is disruptive, and it means they can’t implement whatever plans they had for the company. A company with repeated CEO murders is one that will be thrown into chaos. Second, regardless of what shareholders might want, CEOs have to consider their own interests. Even a $10 million salary doesn’t mean much if you’re dead before you can enjoy it.
- Comment on Israel plans to double population in Golan, cites threats from Syria 7 months ago:
Israel needs Lebensraum.
- Comment on Why do the majority of women still take their partner's last name? 8 months ago:
I also took my husband’s name when I got married. I personally am not a big fan of hyphenated names. For those that like them, fair enough, but they’re not for me. To me, the problem with hyphenated names is that while they seem a way to avoid the “whose name do we give the kids” problem, they just kick the problem down the road a generation. If you have a hyphenated name, and you marry someone who also has one, are you both going to start using a 4-part surname? How about the generations after that, are they going to use an 8, 16, or 32-part name?
Of course not. At some point, now or in the future, someone is going to have their surname dropped. It either happens when you get married, or it happens when your children or grandchildren themselves get married and have to decide which names to drop. Rather than putting that burden on your kids or grandkids, I think it’s better to make those hard decisions yourself. Better to just come up with a shared name for both partners and move forward together.
- Comment on Do the ultra-rich consume popular media? 8 months ago:
Ah don’t be such a pessimist.
They’ve also seen the fires of Hell!
- Comment on Do the ultra-rich consume popular media? 8 months ago:
Well, it made sense that Reagan was elected in the 1980s. That was the age of the camcorder, the first portable personal miniature TV production studio. With anyone being able to be a TV studio, it was only natural that actors would become presidential candidates!
- Comment on Do the ultra-rich consume popular media? 8 months ago:
I would be content seeing him sent to one of RFK Jr’s wellness camps.
- Comment on Do the ultra-rich consume popular media? 8 months ago:
Except, like any religion, the rules were ultimately self-contradictory and open to any convenient interpretation.
- Comment on Do the ultra-rich consume popular media? 8 months ago:
I mean, plastic surgery is pretty advanced these days. The body mod scene can also get pretty extreme. Musk certainly has the resources for it. Fuck it. Let’s all just try to convince him to get himself surgically altered to have giant Ferengi forehead and ears.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 8 months ago:
That’s for the nuclear industry to figure out. But the fact that companies from different companies originating in entirely different countries suggest that it’s a problem with the tech itself.
The hard truth many just don’t want to admit is that there are some technologies that simply aren’t practical, regardless of how objectively cool they might be. The truth is that the nuclear industry just has a very poor track record with being financially viable. It’s only ever really been scaled through massive state-run enterprises that can operate unprofitably. Before solar and wind really took off, the case could be made that we should switch to fission, even if it is more expensive, due to climate concerns. But now that solar + batteries are massively cheaper than nuclear? It’s ridiculous to spend state money building these giant white elephants when we could just slap up some more solar panels instead. We ain’t running out of space to put them any time soon.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 8 months ago:
Also 10s of billions is still insignificant for any power, transport, or healthcare infrastructure in the scheme of things -
Bullshit. If you can get the same amount of reliable power by just slapping up some solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries, then obviously the cost is not insignificant.
That sentence shows that you really aren’t thinking about this as a practical means of power generation. I’ve found that most fission boosters don’t so much like actual nuclear power, but the idea of nuclear power. It appeals to a certain kind of nerd who admires it from a physics and engineering perspective. And while it is cool technically, this tends to blind people to the actual cold realities of fission power.
There’s also a lot of conspiratorial thinking among the pro-nuclear crowd. They’ll blame nuclear’s failures on the superstitious fear of the unwashed ignorant masses or the evil machinations of groups like Greenpeace. Then, at the same time, they’ll ignore the most bone-headedly obvious cause of nuclear’s failure: it’s just too fucking expensive.
