iLikeAltitude @iLikeAltitude@qoto.org

@mntmn

And .. even though it's organic I'm pretty sure the taste/quality is not on par with Seeberger.

@mntmn

~ 10 €/kg

Don't know if they ship to Berlin though.

https://www.bodenaturkost.de/Produkt/15/21126

@strypey

To be clear. The behavior of many of the richest 1 % is intolerably destructive and damaging to the ecosphere. Private jets, yachts, luxurious real estate, cars, fossil business models, ... often part of their lifestyles.

But it's just not true that their share of the carbon footprint is that big and thus important.

According to ourworldindata the richest 16 % of the global population account for 38 % of global CO2.
Let's be pessimistic and assume the richest 1 % account for 15 % of global CO2.
Then let's leave out the poorer 49 % of global population as they only account for 14 % of CO2.
Taking the richer 51 % of population and subtracting the richest 1 % (using the above assumption) leaves us with 50 % of global population (~ 4 billion people) accounting for 86 % - 15 % = 71 % of global CO2.

Even though the richest 1 % do lead dramatically more destructive lifestyles, the claim that only the individual actions of the richest 1 % should be relevant, while the individual actions of 4 billion people accounting for 71 % of global CO2 aren't really relevant for reducing the burden on our ecosphere, appears obviously and clearly wrong to me.

Sure, institutional actions are a very impactful means to lower the footprint of the billions. They are necessary, yes, but they're not sufficient at all.

> The purpose of the "personal responsibility" ideology is to misdirect people's attention, away from institutions and the wealthiest individuals, and onto policing each other.

And the purpose of the "the rich are the biggest emissions problem" ideology is to misdirect people's (meaning the 50 % of the richer half) attention from their own over consumption, so that they can point fingers and continue their 6.4 tCO2 (~ 3 x earth) lifestyles and keep the trickle-up-consumerism-economy running at full speed (*) .. instead of shrinking their consumption to 2.x tCO2, which would (on paper) reduce global emissions by 33 %.

Getting the richest 1 % to lower their emissions by 90 % - something I would totally welcome and even demand - would (on paper) reduce global emissions by just 13,5 %.

When I see how many people all around me (definitely not belonging to the 1 %) ventilate their homes in winter by just leaving a window tilted open most of the time, it's just one of the countless examples of how the 50 % emit a huge amount of CO2 totally needlessly, without any benefit at all (except for oil/gas companies' revenues).

We need #degrowth to rescue the ecosphere. And not only the richest 1 % or 15 % need to consume/emit less, but also billions of people of the richer half of global population need to as well.
It's not just "those guys up there who we never meet in person" but "this guy over there" and "person xyz right next to you/me".

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#global-inequalities-in-co2-emissions

(*) Sounds like a legit conspiracy theory to me: the capitalists want the masses to think their emissions are negligible (because the emissions of the rich are many times larger) and to think what they're doing is mostly ok and just the richer people need to change their behaviour .. and to continue to consume, so their trickle-up businesses continue earning them money.

@strypey

Another thought: people too closely watching eachother's consumption and behavior is rightly frowned upon ... but a certain degree of watching and communication and feedback is IMO clearly needed if we want to keep the planet habitable.

@strypey

Definitely know the feeling.

Only one of the different tragedies of co-living.

With all the upsides that co-living and shared houses/appartments/flats or even bigger communities have, they also usually come with several downsides.

With every single resource that's being shared and simply split evenly across the number of people, that means there's yet another weakened #negativeFeedback element in the mental system.

Let's say you're a really frugal person and very cautious with your consumption .. and you share waste, electricity, heating, hot/cold water with two others .. all your individual efforts to conserve these resources only earn you 33 % of your actual effort. The other 66 % goes to the other two (assuming they're less diligent). And the other way round, one of the other two person's lavish behavior only costs them 33 % more and 66 % get paid by you and the other one.

Not really strong incentives to be mindful about consumption.

I live with a guy who uses so much warm water for showering and dish washing that even though I never use warm water for the dishes and currently I always shower with cold water (nicely refreshing :D ~12 °C), our combined consumption is that of a small family.

I really see this as a big problem of our time: everybody impacts the whole world with their behavior but only feels a fraction of the (mostly negative) feedback.

Talking about it could *maybe* help, but it's surely everything but fun for everyone.

Ideally all appliances should have meters on them right next to the controls, that constantly show consumption and maybe even calculate the energy consumption or the price.

@hehemrin

Just set up my nostr a few days ago.

Unlike @e33io@gnulinux.social my experience was not that Bitcoin’y .. as with Mastodon it 100% depends upon who you follow .. plenty of people there who rarely chat about Bitcoin.

If you're new you might first have to vade through some of the many Bitcoiners who undoubtedly are there .. but given a few days patience, you'll find enough other content, I'm quite sure.

@dameoutlaw@mstdn.social @volkris Maybe hinting at the distributed approaches that might become available.

@Oshaughnessy

Thanks for pointing this out, I should have mentioned it.

@Apfellust

Oops, I missed that. You're right.

@carnage4life

Wow, this:

> Of course, the easiest way to prevent harvested components from entering the parts stream is to destroy as many old devices as possible. That's why #Apple's so-called "#recycling" program shreds any devices you turn over to them. When you trade in your old iPhone at an Apple Store, it is converted into immortal e-waste (no other major recycling program does this). The logic is straightforward: no parts, no repairs:

> https://www.vice.com/en/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-iphones-macbooks

@shilkytouch @carnage4life

Exactly.

More people need to understand this and what consequences it has for them.

People buy products from and invest money in companies which are led by one top priority "generate maximum profit". True for most companies.

Through the investor lens this is good for people, earns them a share of the profits.

Through the lens of the consumer it's bad for people, because " generate maximum profit" delivers all sorts of bad for the consumer: worst tolerable service for highest tolerable price, maximum externalisation of societal/ecological costs/damage.

The conclusion from this could be: choose doing business with companies that do NOT have "maximize profit" as their top priority.

There are such companies, but they're not "joint-stock" type companies.

The #cooperative would be one type of company where the incentives are different.

People need to realize that by buying from and investing in profit driven companies, they're basically giving the orders to do all theses things they hate as customers/consumers.

If you want different, you have to invest/consume differently.

Hey @thunderbird .. after the latest update you kindly asked for a donation to keep the project alive.

Well, I will indeed consider donating to #thunderbird .. I'll do so IF you STOP needlessly changing the UI every few versions.

The previous UI (~ v 102) was .. absolutely fine.

Now it is - yet again - noticeably slower. And the message list has too much contrast.

It's just frustrating .. to see great software that once was perfectly snappy on my old machine become slower with every update.

@jayreding

WhatsApp uses #XMPP under the hood. As does Zoom, KIK and a few others.

https://xmpp.org/uses/instant-messaging/

@kevinrns

Typo in third paragraph. Should've read: "wouldn't"

Yes, the technology to do all these things exists. But currently doing these things would drive up costs of end products so much, that people just wouldn't be able to afford them.

@kevinrns

> Like oil just sitting there, we can collect sun light, just like we collect oil. Store it, ship it, sell it. Wind is waiting to be collected.

You're making it sound as if using wind and solar generated electricity is as easy as using fossil fuels. It is not, at least not yet.

Try flying with an electricity powered plane. Try buying stuff at your local grocery store that's been trucked from the port with an electric truck. Try mining copper or any other material needed to produce wind turbines and solar panels with electricity powered machines/vehicles. And so on.

Yes, the technology to do all these things exists. But currently doing these things would drive up costs of end products so much, that people just would be able to afford them.

Yes, using fossil fuels leads to CO2 and other emissions, which is bad. But in many applications there's effectively no viable alternative to fossil fuels yet.
Telling people that politicians "just" need to decide to build more wind turbines and solar panels and soon everything will run on cheap renewable electricity will not change physics/thermodynamics.
It will however distract people from what is currently the most feasible way to cut emissions: less consumption and #degrowth

@BrentToderian

Yes, this is a plastic illustration of how unpleasant driving a car can be.

But is it representative of the _average_ experience of people who drive cars? I don't think so.

Most people experience traffic jams from time to time. But to most people it'll only be a part of the whole car experience.

If this picture represents your view of most people's car driving experience, then it's only coherent, that you think these people have "a REALLY strange definition of <<freedom>>".

By the way, I don't own a car and I drive at most few hundred km per year (in other people's cars).

@prasoon

I might have seen it. I'll have to check.

Is this where they also show solar PV parks that became abandoned?