#malming

[probablyasocialecologist]

In “Overshoot,” you write this about the very wealthy: “There is no escaping the conclusion that the worst mass killers in this rapidly warming world are the billionaires, merely by dint of their lifestyles.” That doesn’t feel like a bathetic overstatement when we live in a world of terrorist violence and Putin turning Ukraine into a charnel house? Why is that a useful way of framing the problem? Precisely for the reason I tried to outline previously, which is that spewing CO2 into the atmosphere at an excessive scale — and when it comes to luxury emissions, it is completely excessive — is an act that leads to the death of people. We live in representative democracies where certain liberties are respected. We vote for the policies and the people we want to represent us. And if we don’t get the things we want, it doesn’t give us license to then say, “We’re now engaging in destructive behavior.” Right? Either we’re against political violence or not. We can’t say we’re for it when it’s something we care about and against it when it’s something we think is wrong. Of course we can. Why not? That is moral hypocrisy. I disagree. Why? The idea that if you object to your enemy’s use of a method, you therefore also have to reject your own use of this method would lead to absurd conclusions. The far right is very good at running electoral campaigns. Should we thereby conclude that we shouldn’t run electoral campaigns? This goes for political violence too, unless you’re a pacifist and you reject every form of political violence — that’s a reasonably coherent philosophical position. Slavery was a system of violence. The Haitian revolution was the violent overthrow of that system. It is never the case that you defeat an enemy by renouncing every kind of method that enemy is using.

[renaldyil]

Seru banget bisa main disekitaran JIS. Megah banget stadium-nya😁 #malming #gabut #jakartainternationalstadium (at Jakarta International Stadium) https://www.instagram.com/p/CnZgx9jvX_D/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[ventibesito]

them!!! 💙🧡

[tobyfoxmademeascaly]

Happy Lesbian Visibility Week to Alisaie Finalfantasy

[no-living-thing-within]

Blue whale, 1865.

[gundamnet]

[lostinmac]

How to Blow Up a Pipeline (2022)

Dir. Daniel Goldhaber

[wayward-delver]

undefined

I do believe every 2000s Dino-nerd and their older sibling has Dinosaur King’s opening song living rent free in their head somewhere.

(Fun fact: Every English dub VA has played a role in the Pokémon anime)

[alpaca-clouds]

About Blowing Up Pipelines

A while ago I saw a post about fossil fuels, under which someone posted: "What are you waiting for? Let's blow up the pipelines!" Which is very fair. But someone else came to post under it: "No! Think of the environmental harm! You need to go vote!"

And, let's be honest here: It is very likely that neither of them have actually read the book that the "blow up a pipeline" wording comes from. How to Blow up a Pipeline by Andreas Malm. Which in its core argues that sabotage is good, because voting doesn't do shit.

Now, don't get me wrong. There is a ton of important elections coming up - especially in the US, but soon in Germany as well. And you need to go vote to prevent another Trump presedency! However: There is nobody you can vote for, who will actually stop pipelines from being build, who will actually limit the size of cars folks drive, and who will actually put pressure on natural gas, coal and what not. Heck, even in the best case that on a local level there might be some who want to build out bike lanes and public transport... Those changes often take too long to bring them through during one term and if someone else is in charge next term, chances are, the projects will be cancelled.

So, basically what Malm argues in his book: Voting will not change those things, partly because of lobbyism. Protests will be ignored, partly because politicians care more about the lobbyists. Same goes with petitions. So, the usual ways that technically a democracy will leave for people to engage and influence politics do not work.

But, so Malm says, sabotage does.

Now, he does actually not directly argue for literally blowing up pipelines. But he is arguing for sabotage. He notes: "If just a few people with their keys run through a city during the night and scratch up all the SUVs, a lot fewer people will on the long term use SUVs." He even talks about something like this that he participated in in Sweden and what effects it had.

And yes, he does give ideas of how to deal with pipelines in ways that will do a lot of financial damage, which makes pipelines and hence fossil fuels a lot less attractive to energy providers. Because they are going to need to pay for all that damage.

Even with smaller sabotage... yes, there will be some environmental damage. But try to think of it this way: If enough folks do this, if there is enough damage done on the pipelines (and other forms of creating and transporting fossil fuels), then less of them will be build, will be used. And given that those pipelines and other fossil fuels will leak into the environment either way, and over time will do a lot more damage than a few cases of sabotage will do.

And I really gotta say: Yeah, no, I do agree with Malm. On all the fronts.

So, please... The book is actually super short. Just go an read it, alright?

[probablyasocialecologist]

A ruling order that destroys the foundations of life deserves no loyalty from its subjects.

Andreas Malm, How to Blow Up a Pipeline

[justalittlesolarpunk]

Folks…I just watched How To Blow Up A Pipeline and whew, I have THOUGHTS and EMOTIONS. Please if you can watch this film (it’s on Netflix, Hulu and Sky!)

[saranilssonbooks]

Would a blue whale calf parlour do?

[tobyfoxmademeascaly]

I am in a constant state of conflict between the fact that Alisaie is my favorite character in the game and the fact that I’m… not a fan of most of her official art.

[no-living-thing-within]

Dead whales (1865-1987).

[gundamnet]

[symskellet]

that's so gay , this show is so gay