• 0 Posts
  • 69 Comments
Joined hace 2 años
cake
Cake day: jul. 18, 2020

help-circle
rss

I can already tell you the next stage of technological advancement in terms of climate will be carbon capture. Most if not all of the climate experts have gone on record saying this will be the technology that prevents the atmosphere from collapsing even if 2.0 degrees is passed, and because of the nature of the technology, fossil fuel pollution will be essentially cancelled out.

As for your Western hegemony bit, I’d say the Western hegemony has already disintegrated and the US is only giving off the illusion it hasn’t, they are paper tigers to borrow a Chinese analogy.


Decent post overall, but apparently the writer hasn’t been made aware of carbon capture if he’s even leaving the possibility humanity could go extinct from climate change at this point.



Someone’s projecting big time about being an idealist.

If all of what you said, chaos in the streets because of dollar values and whatnot, was true, we wouldn’t have socialism literally anywhere because of US just being able to press your theoretical ‘capitalism conversion button’ on a whim (imagine having such little agency in the 1940’s), and yet, an AES country is preparing to lead the world economically. It’s almost as if your premise that US controls the world is complete bullshit.

Not only that, but who is really afraid of USA at this point? They can’t even stage a proper coup anymore, look what Venezuela did to one of their pathetic color revolutions. I understand not wanting to underestimate people, but why do you think these incompetent people are really that much of a threat? You act like they can just take away people’s agency on a whim.

I highly doubt any of this political turmoil will overwhelm China, look how they handled COVID-19 compared to the other countries, look how they handled Tienanmen Square. It is my humble opinion that you underestimate China’s organizational capabilities way too much.




That’s not what I’m talking about. The guy above me made a dramatic post stating that the entire WORLD would plunge into chaos. Last time I checked, US wasn’t ‘the whole world’.


The US collapsing won’t ‘suck the whole world into chaos’. China will pick up the pieces from where US collapsed and do a way better job of leading the world than the US ever could. This has been established with most countries already doing business with China.


Well, the environment’s pretty much has been secured by China, so that’s out of the question if that’s what he means. I guess if he doesn’t feel secure economically, he could organize with other leftists and ensure their survival.


I’m lost here, how does ‘collapse of empire’ make life worse? If anything, it should be looked at as an opportunity to rebuild.


Earlier today on lemmy you were claiming the Earth had no chance? But yeah, China will definitely save the Earth at this rate, the doomerists can cry all they want about how their apocalypse isn’t coming true.





Why would you bother even quoting them then? If they supposedly don’t know anything about science, they are a waste of time so why bother? Also you seem to talk about trust like it is an inherently bad thing. If there was no trust in this world, we would never advance as a species.

Skepticism comes with the territory when you’re talking about science, so you’re complaining about an oxymoron that doesn’t really exist (and an oxymoron that no one actually entertained to begin with), because if there was no skepticism involved, it wouldn’t be science.

I already explained this. “If you believe in “trusting the science” uncritically, this is where that thinking would have led you in the early 20th century.”

But you still cannot understand me. Your conclusions on me being ‘uncritical’ and ‘anti-science’ are way off, seeing as how I have demonstrated that in many other threads before this, such as the climate change threads, so perhaps your process is flawed?


You said ‘trusting the science’, not ‘trusting the liberal science’. If you had said the latter, you would have been right on that occasion. You did not. You saying the former implies you do not trust science at all, and is generally too vague of a statement.

EDIT: I was also well aware you were quoting somebody. You quoted him in a manner which suggested you did not agree with science. That still is a contradiction because you went on to say that liberal science is the issue. Herein lies the issue: is it science that is the problem or is it liberal science?

‘I never said you did! You are the one strawmanning me! My point was that it follows from your way of thinking. If you believe in “trusting the science” uncritically, this is where that thinking would have led you in the early 20th century.’

How does anything of what you claimed I said ‘follow from my way of thinking’ when you clearly cannot understand my way of thinking? Not that my way of thinking is bad, but you can’t infer it properly somehow. How do you arrive at that point where you know me that much?


‘Reading comprehension bro. Why don’t you reread the context of where I put that quote carefully.’

The ‘context’ is that you uttered two incoherent points. The entirety of what you said in that bit is all the context you need. ‘Context’ seems to be a word you like to throw around when losing an argument.

‘So would you trust the eugenicists of the early 20th century? If “science” told you that certain races are worse would you believe them uncritically? I’m not anti-science, you are, because you wouldn’t know what science is if it hit you in the face. Every real Marxist understands historiography, the history of philosophy and the history of science, and knows that the study of these things serves the interests of the ruling class. If science could reveal something disadvantageous to the ruling class, it would never be funded in the first place. REAL science, relies on criticism, and not just an appeal to authority FALLACY which you are invoking. It’s you who doesn’t believe in science.’

So many things to unravel from this trainwreck of a paragraph. Who is arguing ANY of this? This is a straight-up strawman. I have never argued for eugenics, science is not just limited to criticism, and Marxists can study all of the sciences you listed without being ‘anti-marxist’. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are philosophers, I guess they served the ruling class then, guess that means we have to ignore everything they said, which means I guess everything we’ve ever accomplished is history, and you continue to superimpose the western situation onto science as a whole, which includes Chinese science, so I don’t know what else to infer from this other than you are an arrogant western ‘leftist’ who believes in the superiority of the western world over nations like China.


Thanks for completely missing my point. The point was that you shouldn’t rush to conclusions in the field of science, whether it be vaccines or any other field of endeavor in the sciences, because it is unscientific and therefore anti-marxist to do so. You also pretty much undermined your (apparent) point with ‘with the vaccine technology we have today’. Solidifying one of my own points, which is that science is never set in stone. You never know what science is truly capable of. I have never claimed to have a solution to covid, that is for the great scientists of the world who have actual training to figure out, so you are appearing to poison the well on that front.

You don’t seem to have a consistent point of your own, it seems: “trust the science, don’t think critically and do your own research.” and then you followed it up with why we shouldn’t trust ‘liberal science’? So which is it? I also love the presupposition that people who follow science are basically sheep. If that were the case, we couldn’t do literally anything without ‘being a sheep’. That just reeks of Alex Jones-level craziness.


‘Everyone is saying it so it must be true’ that is not good reasoning and is anti-marxist and defeatist no matter how you spin it, because it is unscientific. You can’t just declare ‘it’s never gonna get cured’ because how do you know for sure it can’t be cured? We’ve said the same things about diseases such as polio for example. There should be absolutely no absolutism with declaring diseases ‘uncurable’.