roseweird posted:

shriekingviolet posted:

here i put it in quotes so it's like u posted it!!

thank you, i love you in the sense of distant impersonal solidarity.

Superabound posted:

Scrree posted:

how is the increased consumption of non-depletable energy sources necessarily less desirable than the current level (or even significantly decreased) consumption of depletable resources?

energy is tool and has no innate goodness/badness outside of its use. obviously renewable is better for a society that acts in ways to preserve its own existence, but that is not how modern society is organized. if renewable energy becomes cheap and plentiful then capitalists will make sure there will be a rise in consumption of non-renewable materials which leads us to the same fucked position, and if it isn't so cheap as to undercut all fossil fuels then they'll just burn coal and build solar farms at the same time - which is a small improvement at best

the invention of a solar powered car would further problems of suburban sprawl because it would cheapen the cost of a commute. the cheaper commuting becomes the more it makes sense for companies and towns to exile their workers to inhospitable suburbs while cultivating a rich core of consumerist yuppies, which further taxes the poor because now they have to give up unpaid time just to get to work. all the techie 'green consumption' shit is almost always a devil's choice that externalizes costs elsewhere in the system.

i'm not a primitivist or whatever, NYC is the most efficient/greenest city in america because it's so dense that people are systemically limited on how gross their consumption can be, and that's a good thing! it's just that pumping energy into a system with a belief for unlimited growth will only lead to a spreading of the cancer, even if the energy is of a better kind.

roseweird posted:

i can't believe how many incidences of arrests or police harrassment over lawn maintenance there are in america

hahaha im goin to fucking JAAAAIIIIILLLLL

roseweird posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

'wasting' water on a lawn if youre in an area with lots of water isn't exactly a moral crime; that water would be sitting there anyway, not growing sorghum for starving africans

i don't know where you get water in upside down desert land, but here we usually draw up that water from aquifers and other deep groundwater at a rate faster than its natural replenishment. i don't really understand what is so terrible about allowing growth of native vegetation that thrives in a given region's natural climatic conditions, but anglo settlers worldwide have found the idea intolerable for centuries apparently

Roseweird stop making stuff up. In the United States 2/3s of households draw their water from surface sources, and many of those using aquifers draw from those which are naturally replenished, for example Miami Florida and Memphis Tennessee.

Also I bet you've never tried to play frisbee in a natural Sage-Brush and Prickly-Pear field, because you'd understand right away the appeal of irrigated grass.

I suspect that on your list of irrigated crops alfafa represents a greater threat to our nation's water budget, because if you're irrigating alfafa you are definitely in some godforsaken desert. For reference, it's one of the major crops of Nevada.

roseweird posted:

Squalid posted:

Roseweird stop making stuff up

i'm just faithfully repeating what i learned in some geology and ecology classes, and i grew up in an area whose aquifer was being rapidly depleted, however if you would like to convince me that groundwater depletion is not in any way an issue please feel free to direct me to some more reliable resources

Also I bet you've never tried to play frisbee in a natural Sage-Brush and Prickly-Pear field, because you'd understand right away the appeal of irrigated grass.

then go to a park/build parks instead of maintaining sad little aspirational-wannabe-bourgeois lawns in front of every house

Why would I post sources saying something I have not argued and do not believe?

In any case the importance of lawns is overstated in most discussions of water issues. The real water consumers of water are agriculture and industry/commercial users.

Squalid posted:

roseweird posted:

Squalid posted:

Roseweird stop making stuff up

i'm just faithfully repeating what i learned in some geology and ecology classes, and i grew up in an area whose aquifer was being rapidly depleted, however if you would like to convince me that groundwater depletion is not in any way an issue please feel free to direct me to some more reliable resources

Also I bet you've never tried to play frisbee in a natural Sage-Brush and Prickly-Pear field, because you'd understand right away the appeal of irrigated grass.

then go to a park/build parks instead of maintaining sad little aspirational-wannabe-bourgeois lawns in front of every house

Why would I post sources saying something I have not argued and do not believe?

In any case the importance of lawns is overstated in most discussions of water issues. The real water consumers of water are agriculture and industry/commercial users.

what about leaving the water running while you brush your teeth

NoFreeWill posted:

actually marx only says a little bit about the environment in capital and what is needed is for hippies to realize the problem is capitalism, communists to start wearing no deodorant, and all of western civilization to plunge into darkness due to lack of oil.

i like to think of the impending ecological disasters rendering the planet incapable of sustaining animal life much larger than the size of a brick to be the crisis of capitalism which marx given his era would have found difficult to forsee

roseweird posted:

i can't believe how many incidences of arrests or police harrassment over lawn maintenance there are in america

'wah, i'm a libertarian, what i do on my own property is of NO CONCERN to you!'

these people need to grow up and realize they live in a society, not their own personal little bubbles where they can do what they want without consequence

roseweird posted:

well my argument isn't that lawns are a major ecological problem so much as that they are ridiculous accessories for silly people

yeah we get it, you're all about freakin' out the squares