• 0 Posts
  • 12 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 9th, 2026

help-circle
  • Something like this already happened when we traded the long-term health and fertility of the topsoil for the immediate high yield output of artificially fertilized crops.

    By outsourcing the repleneshment of fertility to the relatively fragile and unreliable supply chains and social organisations of man, we assumed management over a delicate balance which previously belonged to nature.

    I’m not arguing against industrial agriculture and its commodification of fertiliser by the way. If carefully managed it’s possible to imagine an endpoint of equilibrium where global supply chains increase total system fertility by selectively resting soil and relying more on imports to then switch once local fertility peaks and so on. Really just sane and unmolested market forces should in theory discover such a negotiated endpoint.

    Fertility alone is not descriptive enough to capture, say, the importance of biological diversity or the load bearing capacity of local environments to support ecosystems, while also producing exportable outputs suitable for maintaining population growth in humanity.

    Perennial crops are also ridiculously underused in overall food supply chains. They are more difficult to monetize in existing commodity forms because their overall system value is not captured numerically.

    I don’t have an overall solution, but any solution will require at its core a way to assign value to the work which nature already does to replenish its own local fertility and to price that effect very cautiously in such a way that it becomes cheaper for intensive producers to rest unfertile soil until it becomes fertile than it is to compensate for unproductive soil by importing chemical fertiliser from somewhere else


  • not really, this place basically is reddit only with a smaller user base and even more of a sanctimonious-liberal-PMC kind of vibe. If this became a place that cared about and defended free speech it would destroy the hugbox and alienate their core users, who themselves are reddit refugees. This isn’t really a good place for difficult discussions which deviate too strongly from accepted mainstream talking points. It’s more a place of comfort for people who are exhausted by the relentless nightmare that is modern life.

    What would we even argue about? which products are better to purchase? which form of labor pleases oir employers and landlords the most?





  • the minimum would be transparency for the algorithm. If users can see exactly what a social media algorithm is doing with their content feed, they would always have a way to identify and escape dark patterns of addiction.

    But this minimum itself would require powers to compel tech companies to give up what they would describe as intellectual property. Which would probably require a digital bill of rights?

    The most practical option would be to just ask your kids directly about the kinds of content they’ve been consuming and why. Dinner table conversations can probably reveal those dark patterns just as well


  • tl:dr when they say ‘I have nothing to hide’ you respond with 'you aren’t even really you without privacy so you can’t really say what ‘you’ have to hide. Then when they give you a confused stare you walk them through the previous logical steps. I’m not sure it’s incredibly persuasive IRL especially to the kind of person who would argue against their own fundamental human rightd in this way (i’ve had similar chats with my own father fwiw) but it’s a good starting point.

    Following up with concrete examples of harm (which don’t rely on a logical chain of propositions) is a good follow up.


  • being monitored (even if you are not aware of it) changes your behaviour via the ‘big brother’ effect.

    Your behaviour is most of what makes you an individual, and is the means through which people express their autonomy and social existence.

    putting these things together gives you the result that you cannot fully be ‘yourself’ while you are being watched. At best you are performing what you’d like ‘yourself’ to be for an expected audience.

    Self actualisation, or the process of developing and becoming ‘yourself’ is therefore disrupted meaning that you can never be or know yourself while you lack real privacy.

    Another (more dramatic) way to say it would be you cannot be fully human without also enjoying a default privacy