• Derek @slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    It is terrifying in its wickedness, yes. But it also opens up powerful possibilities for resistance. To bet against the future on this scale – to bank on your bunker – is to betray, on the most basic level, our duties to one another, to the children we love, and to every other life form with whom we share a planetary home. This is a belief system that is genocidal at its core and treasonous to the wonder and beauty of this world. We are convinced that the more people understand the extent to which the right has succumbed to the Armageddon complex, the more they will be willing to fight back, realizing that absolutely everything is now on the line.

    • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      To bet against the future on this scale – to bank on your bunker – is to betray, on the most basic level, our duties to one another, to the children we love, and to every other life form with whom we share a planetary home.

      I’d say we have the general duty to help those in need since we’re living on the same planet. This idea of escapism, that I can build a bunker and hide from the poor destitute masses until they die off, is morally reprehensible. We have a duty to 1) not do that and 2) work together to limit, mitigate, and possibly reverse the damages of climate change so life is alright for the maximum number of people.

      How’s that sound to you?

      • rah@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        I’d say we have the general duty to help those in need since we’re living on the same planet.

        I don’t follow. Why does the fact that we’re living on the same planet mean that we have a general duty to help those in need?

        We have a duty to 1) not do that

        Why?

        and 2) work together to limit, mitigate, and possibly reverse the damages of climate change so life is alright for the maximum number of people.

        Why?

        • EightBitBlood@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 day ago

          Why?

          Survival of the human species.

          Which should be an extention of your own personal will to survive if you are not a sociopath, narciccist, or suicidally depressed.

          The entire history of human civilization has pretty much only moved forward when we worked together with like minded goals.

          This is because the power and skill one person can obtain will always be dwarfed by the power and skill obtainable by hundreds or thousands. Even the most impossible problems to solve, like landing on the Moon without computers, has been conquered through the collective will and skill of our species. But rarely, if ever, by an individual.

          During the industrial age, the goal of working together was the improvement of our livelihoods and well being. Now in the information age, it’s about survival.

          No Billionaire has the skill or power to stop climate change.

          But enough of us together do. Unquestionably.

          Unless you only care about yourself and can’t see the benefits of what working towards a goal that isn’t your own can bring.

          No offense, but your argument is that of a rich white liberal that’s too insulated by money to bother reading about the overwhelming economic benefits of things like taxes, and regulations.

          Basically, in case you didn’t know - as someone else mentioned - you live in the same world as everyone else.

          And what that means is that this world very much has an effect on your day to day life in what opportunities and options it provides you. All of which are not at all decided by you.

          The quality of institutions, education, healthcare, and security you have access to are directly related to the skills and efforts of the hundreds of people running them. Not yours.

          You will be better educated, have a better job, and have better health in these communities because these are things ONLY others can provide YOU.

          So working towards improving these jobs, and the people doing them, also allows you access to that improvement. When a communities environment improves for all in it, that certainly includes you.

          That’s the short of it - but unfortunately we live in a world where billionaires have decided that’s just all bullshit instead of accepted science with hundreds of years of validated experiments in sociology, economics, and anthropology to confirm.

          So now because of the actions of billionaires who have been taking from all our communities for the benefit of themselves - we are now ALL in the same prisoners dillema. They have created an environment for us all where we only have the following choices:

          A) Be too distracted by the firehouse of social media bullshit to do anything. B) Be a coward and convince yourself to do nothing. C) Work together to combine resources and prevent our own extinction.

          Billionaires are actively working towards our own existential demise, so you are either choosing to fight against that or do nothing to let them kill us all.

          So to answer WHY:

          It’s so the future is one where your kids are happy instead of living as slaves in a dying world. Your inaction guarantees the later result.

          Bonus: everyone becomes happier when working towards a better future if you ever decide to try.

          • rah@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 hours ago

            your argument

            I haven’t made an argument.

            It’s so the future is one where your kids are happy instead of living as slaves in a dying world.

            The statement that I responded to was about all humans, regardless of whether they are parents. Your answer is limited to parents only. You haven’t answered why non-parents have a duty.

            • EightBitBlood@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              I haven’t made an argument.

              Then why are you saying I’m wrong? About what? What point are you defending if you never made one?

              These are not rhetorical questions.

              Playing pin the tail on your point isn’t a game others should be playing for you. Say what you’re thinking out loud, or it isn’t worth saying.

              Because this:

              Your answer is limited to parents only.

              Is completely wrong.

              My answer is limited to family. Children of which were the best example. However, any human can be your family. Adoption, Friendship, and close relationships all form the bonds that can make up a family. And helping better our families helps better their own environment which in turns helps others. No human relationship requires a biological componant for you to be in their family.

              So my answer is indeed for all humans.

              You’re either a troll or an edge lord that’s too young to understand their own Temu version of nihilism.

              Literally open any book on morality, read it, then ask yourself why humans are compelled to feel “right” about what they are doing.

              They want to feel that way because we are social animals who are biologically compelled to help each other. Which strengthens our communities, and therefore our lives in them. We even evolved to release dopamine in our brains when what we are doing for that community feels “right” aka morality.

              This works for all humans (except sociopaths.)

              Helping other humans literally makes you feel good, and improves the quality of the community you live in for a better future. The closer you feel to that community (family) the better you feel when helping them.

              There you go. All humans.

              And why we should treat each other well due to our basic biology (it makes you feel good) and improves of our own futures and that of our families.

              Looking forward to hearing about how this is still wrong when compared to the point you’ve never made.

              • rah@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 hours ago

                why are you saying I’m wrong?

                I haven’t said that.

                this:

                Your answer is limited to parents only.

                Is completely wrong.

                You said “your kids”.

                Children of which were the best example. However, any human can be your family. Adoption, Friendship, …

                You didn’t say any of that. In fact, your comment didn’t contain the word “family” once. You’ve changed your tune.

                Regardless:

                and improves of our own futures and that of our families

                Why does one have a duty to improve one’s own future or the future of one’s family?

                • EightBitBlood@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 hours ago

                  You didn’t say any of that.

                  That’s what my second comment saying just that was for.

                  You didn’t understand my original point (and still don’t).

                  Which is why I made a second comment explaining that you can ctrl+F for “children” and replace it with “family” to better understand my point.

                  The answer to your question can be found in multitudes of philosophy, ethics, and biology books. I encourage you to read them instead of trolling here for the sake of your own ego.

                  Because this question of yours:

                  Why does one have a duty to improve one’s own future or the future of one’s family?

                  Has an obvious answer. One that you can reach by asking similarly obvious questions.

                  “Why does one have a duty to eat?”

                  Or breath?

                  Or sleep?

                  Survival. That’s why. Without eating, sleeping, or breathing you die. Without a community to help provide security for these things, you also die. (Unless you want to tell me humans aged 0-8 are expected to survive if yeeted into the wild? I sincerely doubt you would too despite being older)

                  Survival is a BIOS level operating function of everything living.

                  And the same point I first made along with everyone else that you will continue to ignore.

                  So it’s not so much a “duty,” as a biological compulsion similar to being hungry. Making us all want to survive, and eventually thrive for a happy life. And the only way that happens is if we work to maintain or improve our environment. (Like eating when you’re hungry). Our own biology pushes us to do that through internal reward mechanisms that spiral out into a feedback loop of prosperity. Like when you body tells you something tastes good, and you want to share that taste with a friend.

                  Your question implies an unsaid argument that is essentially the fast food equivalent of nihilism. That humans don’t matter, and our lives are meaningless.

                  No offense, but you are either too young or too far up your own ass if you think you’re on to anything new with your question. It’s been answered hundreds of times throughout history by people far smarter than us, and I’m not going to hold your hand through understanding something you are clearing saying just because you want to feel special when saying it rather than learn an actual answer.

                  If you want to feel that life is meaningless, go right ahead. But stop pretending that you can’t give it meaning yourself. I’ve given you the basic biological one, you’re gonna have to open a book if you want the rest.

            • EightBitBlood@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 day ago

              Thanks! And appreciate it.

              I’m more trying to trap the troll with bait than just feed it.

              While I was honest about what I said, it leaves the troll with no place to go that isn’t morally reprehensible.

              So they’ll either stop, or continue on with some shallow belief that the value of human life can be quantified. The conversation ends there eitherway 👍

        • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          Oh you must be new to Earth. Welcome! So humans have been doing this thing called reciprocity, which is a mutual or cooperative interchange of favors or privileges. That means if you help someone, they’re likely to help you when you’re in need.

          • rah@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            13 hours ago

            favors or privileges

            if you help someone

            What you’re talking about doesn’t sound like duty.

            Regardless, you haven’t explained why you believe reciprocity is a duty.

            • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 hours ago

              These are not easy questions for the average person to answer, and I’m woefully average. I’m going to take the lazy approach and refer you to a real philosopher. Look up Peter Singer. If you have further questions, then I’d recommend starting from the ground up in a philosophy 101 course, maybe sprinkle some religious studies in there, and don’t forget eastern philosophy/religion. That should bring you up to speed.

              • rah@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 hours ago

                I’m going to take the lazy approach

                Pfft.

                I’d recommend starting from the ground up in a philosophy 101 course

                LOL that’s very presumptuous.

        • MountainVeil@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          I love how you’re essentially “just asking questions” the concept of helping other people. This is where we’re at in the year of our lord 2025.

          • rah@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 hours ago

            you’re essentially “just asking questions” the concept of helping other people

            My question isn’t about helping other people. My question is about duty.

        • houseofleft@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Are you taking specific fault with the idea of “duty” or do you genuinely just not think that moral obligations are real?

          Either way, “why should we be motivated to act ethically” is a pretty mammoth question for a PHD thesis to answer, let alone a comment on lemmy.

          I think it seems fair, that even if you don’t accept ethical obligations to each other exist, then it’s at least a widespread enough and accepted notion, that it’s hardly controversial to include it in the article as assumed.

          • rah@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 hours ago

            Are you taking specific fault with the idea of “duty”

            I want to understand why someone believes that I have a duty. To anyone. Or anything.

            • houseofleft@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Surely you’ll trolling? You must get that people are here to talk about some politicial commentary, and you’re saying “well, I’m not convinced in the concept of duty”. It’s like turning up to an astrinomy club and saying “you can’t prove these stars aren’t a dream of mine!”.

              If you’re genuinely interested, then there’s a bumch of philosophy under the category “meta-ethics”. Would massively recommend J L Mackie’s “Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong”.

  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 days ago

    Thanks for sharing, well written article!
    And very funny annecdote that Peter Thiel considers Greta Thunberg the “antichrist” 😅

    • P1k1e@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Damn man, all you gotta do to earn the titles of the end times is noisily oppose the end times…neat

      • MountainVeil@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Don’t forget they are fascists. They will try to crush any resistance and use any lies they can come up with.