• filoriaOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    4 months ago

    The absolute horror of research in Antarctica. Clearly a sign of colonial intent.

      • nekandro
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        4 months ago

        The Philippines, notorious for inventing and being the primary user of cyanide fishing?

        Japan, largely responsible for decimating bluefin tuna population in the Pacific?

        Canada and the US, responsible for polluting waterways and putting salmon fisheries on the verge of collapse? Maybe for culling Northern Cod populations to 1% of their historical levels.

        Oh, you mean China, which produces 73% of it’s fishery output from aquaculture. China accounts for 19.2% of global catch (i.e., fishing) and 61.5% of global aquaculture.

        • FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          Other countries doing bad shit does not make it OK: It’s all bad and everyone needs to cut this shit out collectively. Just because another country did something doesn’t mean another should be immune to criticism.

          • nekandro
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            You’re arguing against… Numbers? By the numbers, China’s contribution to the world’s wild fishing is proportional to their population (~18% of the world), and most of China’s fish supply comes from aquaculture.

            The fact that you’re focusing on this 18% (mind you, China does control a good chunk of the world’s productive fisheries just due to the sheer scale of the rivers in China) rather than the remaining 82%…

            Arguing that China is overexploiting global fisheries, frankly, doesn’t look at the quantitative data.

      • umbrella
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        yeah they are the ones investing heavily in solar, evs and the like

        • FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          They are not the only ones investing in renewable energy. It’s good that they are, but that does not undo the many environmental disasters they have created in the pursuit of greed. Before you bring up another country or corporation doing it, it should be noted that it’s wrong when anyone does it, full stop.

          Wow, and the original comment was removed, nice censorship.

          • umbrella
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            i still see the original comment.

            what disasters? china is the one country where they actually punish companies perpetrating environmental disasters.

            i think you are thinking of the US here.

            • FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Weird, I got a message that it was removed for supposedly violating rule 1.

              Anyhow, as I previously mentioned, the illegal fishing at a global scale is a fine place to start but let’s not pretend like China isn’t guilty of all the same environmental sins as the US. It’s bad when China does it, it’s bad when the US does it, nobody should use the excuse of, “Oh, well this country does it, so that magically makes it ok”

              The US and China have both punished some companies, but there are plenty who went unpunished for some pretty egregious stuff in both countries (along with other countries, this is a global problem). Whataboutism doesn’t address the issue and neither country should be enabling the destruction of our environment.

              • umbrella
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                What i’m saying is China ain’t doing it to nearly the scale as the US. It would be just as bad if they did. But they are not.

                The US usually fines companies for a fraction of their profits while China makes sure the people responsible are actually jailed and the damage undone (whenever possible)

                Its disingenuous to compare the two like they are equal in their damage or punishment for said damage.

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I try to stay away from conspiracies so I haven’t gone down the rabbit hole too much, but there have been some weird things going on in Antarctica the last few years. Lots of visits from a ton of different heads of state for no officially stated reasons, civilian ships being turned away from certain areas, numerous reports of military aircraft flying around.

      Like I said, I try not to dig into conspiracies too much, but this one sticks out to me. Maybe it’s just because it reminds me of the pre-2016 days when conspiracy theories were fun to think about because they involved stuff like aliens and bigfoot. Now, every conspiracy is just some nonsense political BS that’s clearly trying to push a message.

      • PorkRoll@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Modern day conspiracies are so shit because they’re all like 2 degrees removed from some antisemetic bullshit. The flat earth conspiracy has been hijacked by neonazis for fucks same.

    • Thrillhouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

      It is just common sense. Nations never do things for just one reason. Possession is 9/10ths of the law - if they fill Antarctica with their facilities they can later claim they have so many facilities they should just govern Antarctica. Not a bad strategic move in times of global warming.

      • aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        There are dozens of research stations. Argentina has 14. The US also has 5 research stations and makes up one quarter of the summer population (China makes up 4%). Don’t see any articles hand-wringing about US ambitions in the region, for some reason.

        • set_secret@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Australia has already claimed 42% of the continent fwiw. yes when climate change makes the rest of the world unliveable Aus 2.0 is waiting just down the road.

        • Thrillhouse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah because the US is the ally of my country. Geopolitically if you’re from a BRICS nation it’s not a concern. NATO and 5 eyes nations aren’t supportive of an ambitious China expanding influence and territory.

          • davelA
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            NATO/Five Eyes represents almost the entirety of the imperial core. They’re the real threat in the world. The imperial core caused WWI and WWII and Cold War I, and now they’re starting Cold War II.

    • Candelestine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      Where does this association that all things bad and colonialism must always be one-in-the-same? If it’s not colonialism, it must not be bad. If it’s not bad, it must not be colonialism.

      Regardless, the solution to the problem is fairly simple. The American stations, at least, are somewhat multinational, people from all over can go there. Perhaps they could invite foreigners to do work as well?

      • carl_marks_1312
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        The American stations, at least, are somewhat multinational, people from all over can go there. Perhaps they could invite foreigners to do work as well?

        Where do you get the info that China isn’t inviting foreigners?

        China’s Qinling Station in Antarctica, the country’s fifth research station on the continent, started operation on Wednesday. The research facility is expected to help enhance mankind’s scientific understanding of Antarctica, provide a platform for China to cooperate with other countries in scientific expeditions and promote peace and sustainable development in the region, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said on Wednesday.

        https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202402/1306895.shtml

        Also American research sites aren’t somewhat open either. They kicked out the Chinese from the ISS…

        • Candelestine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          I don’t know if they are or are not inviting foreigners. However, I do know that inviting them and allowing them full access to the station would put national security concerns to rest.

          I was talking about American antarctic stations, not all American research sites. Though I’m now curious what the reasoning was for the ISS kick.

          • carl_marks_1312
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            4 months ago

            Your comment implied they weren’t thats why I asked. Especially since the Chinese are in fact inviting foreigners as per their foreign ministry.

            Though I’m now curious what the reasoning was for the ISS kick.

            Iirc it was the same national security bs

            • Candelestine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              4 months ago

              Do we have invitees accounts of that, or just the word of a governmental body?

              National security is a legitimate concern, hand-waving it away as just “bs” is not a very practical attitude.

              • carl_marks_1312
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                4 months ago

                Do we have invitees accounts of that, or just the word of a governmental body?

                The word of a governmental body that has been consistent in their foreign policy and also accounts of other research projects: Why Some Scientists Choose China’s Space Station for Research - NYT Also the station is opened not even a month…

                I see you moving goal posts. You’re not even doing basic research and implying that there’s no invites for international cooperation going out. How about you back up your initial claim that they aren’t or at least edit your post?

                National security is a legitimate concern

                For rubes, as anything can be a national security concern. Anything can be used dualy (militarily and civilian)

                • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  In other words no, just the words of the governmental body. My goalpost there has been pretty consistent. I’m not tossing any accusations whatsoever, despite apparently offending you. Just pointing out that national security concerns can be alleviated, there is a viable, diplomatic path forward for that. Since I am not an expert on the subject matter, I simply do not know if that has been attempted in earnest or not. I’m just being cautious before simply giving completely blanket trust to a country, I’m withholding my judgement and not yet forming an opinion.

                  No, not anything. Studies on, oh, let’s say emperor penguins would be difficult to militarize. Or, atmospheric studies using ice cores. But many things, yes. Hand-waving them away and tossing casual insults about it is silly regardless.

                  • carl_marks_1312
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    just the words of the governmental body

                    And of course (what you conventiently omit) past examples which I provided.

                    My goalpost there has been pretty consistent. I’m not tossing any accusations whatsoever

                    In deed you are consistent, in holding the default position that aligns with the current hegemon the US: China Bad.

                    Since I am not an expert on the subject matter

                    Then why are you concern trolling? No research, no right to speak.

                    No, not anything. Studies on, oh, let’s say emperor penguins would be difficult to militarize. Or, atmospheric studies using ice cores. But many things, yes. Hand-waving them away and tossing casual insults about it is silly regardless.

                    Can you point to any chinese research facilities doing military research to hold this type of skepticism?

                    Also the argument for anything can be a national security concern goes more like: Hey you have a research station? My nation security is violated because you could be doing military research and spying Hey you have a civilian port and are producing X amount container ships a year? My national security is violated as you could easily turn these into naval battle ship production facilities Hey you’re stockpiling food? My national security is violated as in the event of war you could be feeding your soldiers

                    Michael Parenti

                    “During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”

          • davelA
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            What national security concerns? Antarctica is on the other side of the planet. China isn’t going to invade the US from there, so I’m not especially concerned for my safety.

            • Candelestine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              4 months ago

              The article cited signals intelligence. I’m not with the NSA or anything, so I’m pretty much just going off the article.