and this is what i don’t get. if somebody likes being exploited, then why not let them?

if your car has internet access, it’s not yours

the world is healing ❤️

that’s also not true! vast current areas become arid tropical. see the tropical rainforest. it’s the hottest and simultaneously wettest regions on earth.

Most of the places we grow food won’t be able to grow food

that’s just not true! higher temperature makes food grow better, not worse.

we can’t even stop a rise in fascism because we lack the tools to do so, most importantly we lack the tool of understanding. we don’t even understand what fascism is or why people follow it, thus we stand no chance of tackling the problem at its root. if you really want to combat fascism, you have to understand it first.

the only real solution to climate change is renewable energy, and solar energy in particular. capitalism or no capitalism basically doesn’t matter.

so just to put this in context: we’re having a doubling of installed solar capacity around every 3 years. currently we have 3% of total energy supply from solar energy. so it will take maybe another 15 years to get close to 100% renewable energy (if we assume that exponential growth continues). source: ourworldindata (go to website and hover over solar energy to see numbers)

so we’ll end up in 2040 with roughly … let me do the math … 1.6°C total temperature difference compared to 1970 in 2040?

u serious? that’s your reasoning? that’s all?

quantencomputer konnten immer schon bei raumtemperatur laufen, die frage ist nur, was dann noch der kohärenzgrad ist. also wie viele rechenschritten können hintereinander ausgeführt werden, bevor der zustand im system zerfällt?

edit: sry english translation:

Quantum computers have always been able to run at room temperature, the only question is what the degree of coherence then is. So how many calculation steps can be executed in a row before the system’s internal state decays?

yeah ok, i didn’t mean to belittle you by explaining convergence and such, it’s just that i wasn’t sure what level of math education you got.

how is it ridiculous and pointless? fixing software is a big concern to me.

well, the question is whether you enjoy the act of picking up a fruit and eating it, i guess. like, even if a full platter suddenly appears in front of you, you still have to shove the mass into your mouth. do you enjoy doing that? if not, then why do you eat?

why so? what makes humans non-animals?

also what kind of view is this? where is the meaning in that?

thanks :)

ok so what you’re describing here is that …

• first of all, labor seems to be the constant in your worldview that everything revolves around. do you believe (or think that it’s possible / desirable) that we will eventually have a fully automated luxury society?
• if yes, how would you call such a system?

secondly, it seems to me that the point that “bourgeoisie” doesn’t work is a big problem to you. mind explaining why? is it because society desperately needs that 1% extra labor output? is it because of some “work is a moral must” mindset (quasi-religious)? is it for some other reason?

thirdly, it seems to me that you’re defining communism socialism as essentially our current society, just that CEOs don’t get huge bonuses and shareholders don’t skim company profit. so, in other words, our current world minus the stock market: every company has to emit zero profit (such that no shareholders gain from it) and all the money must instead be spent on the business itself: wages to workers and resource acquirements.

did i understand that correctly? would you add anything? do you think that this setup is already feasible in today’s legal framework through worker-owned businesses? (“co-ops” and what they’re called)

Put another way: no one should be obligated to participate in society, but then society should likewise have no obligations to the non-participants.

funnily enough, that is exactly what capitalism postulates. that those who don’t work, don’t deserve to eat. “useless eaters” and all that, my mother can (sadly) give you a long and stern lecture about that (she is very much what you would call a “conservative”).

capitalism re-formulates that by saying that you need money to buy food, but to get that money, you have to work. in other words, who doesn’t work, doesn’t get food. that’s why many people say it’s cruel and inhumane because it makes people suffer who don’t work. and that’s exactly why we have things such as social safety nets etc. where the state gives money to people sothat they can buy basic stuff with it if they are poor. because society at large revolts against the concept of “who doesn’t work, shouldn’t eat”. or at least that’s how it is in most (civilized) countries, except of course in america people don’t always see things that way.

funny :) but i came up with it independently

dude … pls put that behind a spoiler tag. that is a serious infohazard there

i do think that “voluntary” is a pretty clear term. would you still do it if it didn’t cost you anything, and it also didn’t get you any physical reward?