Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] wrote

7

Tequila_Wolf OP wrote

Why can't people even consider that we're going to have to change the way we live rather than just change what powers our devices?

I think partly because they assume we don't have to, partly because we've bought into a progress narrative/teleology, well, a lot of things.

8

[deleted] wrote

6

Tequila_Wolf OP wrote

Yep! Classical Marxists and liberals are in the same boat on the progressivist front, and that's troublesome.

6

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

hot take: I think that dialectics have their place???

Universalism, on the other hand...that is what you are really talking about in your earlier comment about dialectical materialism, in my understanding. You can have dialectic frameworks that are useful to specific contexts, but that don't have the arrogance to presume a giant ass metanarrative that can be imposed willy nilly. at least, i may be foolish enough to believe that, anyway.

Frankly, the universalist shit, regardless of whether it is dialectical, theological, etc, it's all very toxic, and is at the root of the worst parts of many social formations

4

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

celebratedrecluse wrote

Sure, but I would posit additionally that the problem with Newtonian mechanics, and in fact the current search for a "Theory of Everything" in physics to unify under one framework predictive powers for both very large and very small scales of physical reality, is still just the universalism implicit in both.

What defines newtonian physics, if not a universalist worldview? In fact, that was largely shared by other intellectual heavyweights in our culture, such as einstein, despite his contributions to our current relativistic worldview (his opposition to accepting "spooky action at a distance", as well as his opposition to other implications of his work on quantum mechanics)

2

[deleted] wrote

1

celebratedrecluse wrote

everything points to life/reality as we experience it is a dynamical system.

this is the proof which i need to accept your worldview, but we can get into that on another occasion, as i really have to pass out now lol

This also explains why the physicist Bohm was so obsessed with finding a casual version of QM as he was a Stalinist for a long time

i am intrigued, i really would like to learn more than i have been taught/exposed to about history of science. it clarifies a lot, from what i know so far.

2

Anargnome_Communist wrote

Why can't people even consider that we're going to have to change the way we live rather than just change what powers our devices?

I think most people genuinely can't imagine that being the solution and I can't blame them. Over the last few centuries, improvements in technology have directly solved a lot of problems for people. Okay, it also created a ton of problems, but seeing as the direct material conditions of people in the West improved, they didn't think about those problems too much.

Additionally, propaganda (in the broadest sense of the word) continues to promote a future which is pretty much the same as today, but "better" in some vague way.

3

Mango wrote

Now I'm going to have to look into lithium battery recycling

There's a Puerto Rican, jehugarcia, on Youtube who expertise is making DIY projects out of recycled lithium ion battery cells. Anything from power wall, solar inverter, portable power generator, to full scale electrical powered vehicles. Example

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

The real solution is to reduce consumption, not subsume consumption into an "acceptable" format.

It will take ingenuity, to provide for the needs of the vulnerable (produce medicine, ensure basic needs for all), while not reifying the exploitation of the subaltern (maintaining unsustainable consumption associated with industrial capitalism).

That ingenuity will be simultaneously technical, logistic, and social. Not merely one, at the exclusion of the others. Otherwise, suffering will predominate even further than it already does.

Green technology is commodity fetishism. it does not get us where we need to go, and is frequently a distraction. great article, thank you for sharing

6

RosaReborn wrote

This is absolutely true. A green revolution as it is generally framed overlooks the huge cost of creating all these new electricity sources and storage.

That being said, personally I do research in the field of new battery technologies and there are many alternatives that can make it a lot more sustainable. Alternative cathodes in place of Ni, Mn, Co ones, hydrogen storage, redox-flow and possibly even fluoride batteries all could be game changers as these can all be more environmentally friendly ways to store power.

That being said, it means nothing if we don't fundamentally change our stance of interacting with the natural world and find some balance that doesn't eventually lead to cataclysm

4

RosaReborn wrote

Yes i realize now I said "that being said" twice, I hope you can forgive me

2