Have I not seen both Harris and Walz in rural areas almost every day lately going into small shops and union factories… putting tons of money and energy into swing states and states not normally considered in play for the Democrats? I don’t remember seeing either of them spending much energy going to Manhattan, Los Angeles, San Diego, etc. that I remember. I’ve heard them both talk about rural areas mostly and being incredibly important and listen to their concerns.

The US is huge, they are two people, it’s impossible for them to visit every small town.

Like hormesis works in reverse for them

The job of CEO seems the far easier to replace with AI. A fairly basic algorithm with weighted goals and parameters (chosen by the board) + LLM + character avatar would probably perform better than most CEOs. Leave out the LLM if you want it to spout nonsense like this Amazon Cloud CEO.

Conservatives are simply fascists with masks on.

Enchirito or I’m voting Trump

and then doing jack shit to fix the broken system.

That’s where your problem is.

Let’s be clear about what this is,

this is the executive branch refusing to put checks on a clearly corrupt and dysfunctional judicial branch. The stability of our 3 branch system depends on the branches being willing and able to check each other. If one branch yields to another, the system fails.

Voting will not solve our problems, but it can buy us time allowing us to work to change things outside electoral politics.

I think the left should take advantage of this. As an anarchist, I’m not a fan of state education, if leftist groups started schools the way the right does, we can turn this on them. Even the threat of doing so might make them reconsider.

Similar in idea to how minorities getting armed inspired gun laws in the 80s.

In my view, “state” is by definition domination. There can be organization, community, and cooperation though without domination.

State is inherently evil. There is no non-evil way to dominate others.

Unspeakable acts

This is true to some degree, but ignores several important factors, such as

• The electoral system was set up before we were even around with the goal of limiting our power
  • therefore using the electoral system to fix the electoral system is extremely inefficient
• We are subject to extremely effective propaganda and psyops
• There are significant efforts by the right wing to keep people dumb and poor

As expected, the purpose of state is to facilitate relatively safe theft from classes not in control of it, and blocking justice is the primary method.

Rail as part of degrowth is a great idea. Rail as part of expanded exploitation of natural resources is not.

8 billion is unsustainable, our population will decrease drastically in the coming century. We can choose whether it’s via degrowth (a controlled, intentional, intelligent reversal of the economic growth of the last decades) or famine, disease, and war.

I fear you’re right that degrowth will never happen and we’re just going to march toward collapse.

Studying the bible is what started me on the path to atheism.

EVs can’t save the environment. EVs are made from oil (tires, plastics), and the metals they are made from are extracted and shipped using huge machines also made from and burning oil.

Switching from pumping oil to mining Lithium isn’t a net improvement to the environment.

Any mode of transportation that is heavy and uses tires is going to be a major source of microplastics.

It is not possible to expand into sustainability when it’s our massive scale that is at the core of our unsustainability. Degrowth is our only chance.

All the waste a plant ever produces in its lifetime can be contained with ease on site.

Won’t that create a bunch of targets all over the country? Then terrorists or enemy states can use simple small bombs to make whole areas uninhabitable for the next millennium.

I don’t disagree with you, but this is unrealistic.

But…we don’t have a choice if we are to survive. Continuation with any system like our current system (i.e. exploitation of nature for economic growth) will lead to obvious ecological collapse. Why is certain ecological collapse viewed as the more realistic choice?

This is akin to a person well on their way to a heart attack saying “well, eating healthy is unrealistic, so let’s switch to diet coke and pretend that’s enough”