supersquirrel
@supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
- Comment on However you say it, youre wrong. 1 day ago:
Either way is fine but just don’t come at me with “the data are conclusive”
- Comment on Star Trek: Strange New Worlds' showrunner says his biggest regret is not getting Shatner on the show 2 days ago:
you mean like musicals and puppets and the agenda where the future is only doughy women running everything?
I love this, honestly it is a gem.
You hilariously misjudge the immense power of music, theater, puppet makers and doughy women.
- Comment on Shirley, you can't be serious 3 days ago:
Lol so many people in this thread have been brainwashed.
Do you y’all seriously believe in Ants??!??
- Comment on Star Trek: Strange New Worlds' showrunner says his biggest regret is not getting Shatner on the show 3 days ago:
Interesting see because my biggest regret with Strange New Worlds is, old toxic Star Trek fans on the internet who are obsessed with bashing anything new in Star Trek.
- Submitted 5 days ago to [deleted] | 0 comments
- Comment on Wowee 6 days ago:
How do you sink a Polish battleship?
By placing the entire country of Poland into the Pacific Ocean while the Battleship is in drydock.
- Comment on Seagull leaves it's mark on King as he visits seaside resort 1 week ago:
Charles is lucky the seagulls didn’t think his fingers were french fries.
- Comment on Police say extra funds to hunt grooming gangs in England and Wales will ‘likely fall short’ 1 week ago:
The prime minister is facing political pressure to tackle grooming gangs, which has become a key campaigning issue for Nigel Farage’s Reform UK in Labour’s heartlands.
I am always surprised when the UK shows it is even more full of and controlled by authoritarian rightwing fascists than the US, it hardly seems possible and yet here we are.
- Comment on insert mental health condition here 2 weeks ago:
Texas is a death cult desperately trying to convince everyone it is just another shithole.
- Comment on insert mental health condition here 2 weeks ago:
It isn’t but because time moves at the speed of light and we are viewing it from a slow as fuck perspective so it becomes wiggly because we couldn’t see it if it was straight, it is too fast.
- Comment on insert mental health condition here 2 weeks ago:
The United Dumpsterfires Of America?
- Comment on Future living on Mars problems 2 weeks ago:
Why do memes about video games always assume it is men that play the video games and women that don’t understand? I don’t care if you can show that is the “status quo”, that doesn’t mean memes should relentlesdly lean into and confirm gendering video games as specifically for men.
- Comment on DNAddy 2 weeks ago:
Yes, but the question goes much deeper from there though ending up at chimeras.
- Comment on DNAddy 2 weeks ago:
Reminds me of when President Vic Michaelis asked Hank about DNA stuff
- Comment on 2 weeks ago:
Can we stop repeating Anthropic’s fear mongering about AI? They are just trying to prop up their stock price and keep the bubble from popping a little longer.
- Comment on I got 99 problems 2 weeks ago:
The problems go as deep as you are willing to zoom in.
- Comment on Real Talk 3 weeks ago:
I support this, go one step further and get a pair of dino themed handcuffs so when you citizen arrest the home invader after they trip on an improbable amount of plastic dinos distributed around the periphery of your basement it is maximally embarassing for them and maximally badass for you.
- Comment on Real Talk 3 weeks ago:
Why do rightwing idiots get to buy a “toy” ar15 with a drum magazine and bump stock and claim with a straight face it is “for home defense”?
I think you can claim all your dinosaur toys are for home defense more credibly, just say at night you spread them all over the floor near your windows and doors so if someone broke in they would painfully step on the sharp dino bits and trip.
There now your dino collecting is SERIOUS business.
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 3 weeks ago:
*FTFY
- Comment on We're so back 3 weeks ago:
“Herd immunity” is the result of the worst possible failure state, it is by definition a description of maximum damage. It makes no sense to portray it as a good outcome.
- Comment on Borders 5 weeks ago:
Not a hard bar to clear.
- Comment on Not a good sign 5 weeks ago:
I see what you are saying but my argument is that in real world systems the vast majority of the time it is in the individual’s self interest to enrich and defend a shared wealth/commons.
The idea that it isn’t is inherently a belief not a finding of science and it has been imposed in us for political reasons.
You can create narrow conditions where the self interests of the individual existentially diverge from the interests of the group, I don’t dispute that… rather I think Capitalism is monomanically obsessed with creating these systems artificially and through violence and imposed collapse.
I am fumbling at things Naomi Klein has already more brilliantly expressed.
- Comment on Not a good sign 5 weeks ago:
The only reason “shit just works” for y’all is that noble hole…
- Comment on Not a good sign 5 weeks ago:
I think you are overselling it’s incorrectness and so horseshoeing back around to being like the people who oversell it’s truthfulness.
I am not.
Do you have direct evidence or an argument for why the tragedy of the commons isn’t the most likely outcome if the circumstances just so happen to match the assumptions Hardin made?
Here you go
boingboing.net/2019/03/07/scientific-fraud.html
Even before Hardin’s ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ was published, however, the young political scientist Elinor Ostrom had proven him wrong. While Hardin speculated that the tragedy of the commons could be avoided only through total privatisation or total government control, Ostrom had witnessed groundwater users near her native Los Angeles hammer out a system for sharing their coveted resource. Over the next several decades, as a professor at Indiana University Bloomington, she studied collaborative management systems developed by cattle herders in Switzerland, forest dwellers in Japan, and irrigators in the Philippines. These communities had found ways of both preserving a shared resource – pasture, trees, water – and providing their members with a living. Some had been deftly avoiding the tragedy of the commons for centuries; Ostrom was simply one of the first scientists to pay close attention to their traditions, and analyse how and why they worked.
The features of successful systems, Ostrom and her colleagues found, include clear boundaries (the ‘community’ doing the managing must be well-defined); reliable monitoring of the shared resource; a reasonable balance of costs and benefits for participants; a predictable process for the fast and fair resolution of conflicts; an escalating series of punishments for cheaters; and good relationships between the community and other layers of authority, from household heads to international institutions.
aeon.co/…/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false-a…
news.osu.edu/the-tragedy-of-the-commons--minus-th…
news.cnrs.fr/…/debunking-the-tragedy-of-the-commo…
landscapewanderer.link/tragedy/
- Comment on Not a good sign 5 weeks ago:
There is no scarcity of resources for the bears because here bears use a form of violent authoritarianism to ensure resource (salmon in your example) availability for themselves. A dominate bear will kill weaker bears to ensure food, mates, and territory are established. In that sense, it mirrors the human reaction. Again, that points away from a non-violent benevolent society of a workable shared commons.
Are you an expert on bear behavior? How do you know this? How do you explain Bears co-existing nearby while feeding on Salmon without killing one another?
You seem to be absolutely convinced the lens you see reality with is not a lens but reality itself and you are wrong.
- Comment on Not a good sign 5 weeks ago:
Do you have a human society to point to where your proposal exists successfully already?
Every single human society in history where a commons was maintained via a system other than centralized authoritarian violence?
In other words, every society that isn’t ruled by an oppressive, authoritarian regime and that has some shared wealth whether it be in public spaces, public knowledge, public utilities, public education or other forms of public shared resource.
In the natural world it is very difficult to find ecosystems that function purely on a scarcity mechanism. If one considers the function of a predator in an ecosystem, it is precisely to stabilize the ecosystem so it can absorb large inputs of excess resources without the system collapsing. If one considers the basic function of herbivores in ecosystems it is the same, to stabilize the growth of plants so that abrupt periods of resource abundance and opportunity don’t destabilize the forest.
The only system that functions under the axiom that you suggest, which is that scarcity is a necessary obstacle to tackle before systems can stabilize, are ecosystems dominated by invasive species. This is in fact why invasive species collapse ecosystems.
Which is all to say, there are systems that cannot handle abundance as a temporary state and not a final destination never to be reached, but they are systems of cancer. All the dynamically stable systems we can point to whether they in the natural world or in human societies all feature some degree of scarcity, some degree of abundance and yet still manage to develop a shared commons of wealth.
For example, if you watch how Grizzly Bears eat Salmon, they do a shit job of it. They often become distracted in the process of eating a Salmon and just drop it leaving an only half eaten Salmon carcass on the ground wherever they happened to be. The way you understand how scarcity MUST impact systems cannot explain this blatant inefficiency in a natural ecosystem, individuals in nature are supposed to use EVERYTHING they can right? Evolution selects for efficiency right?.. Except it didn’t because it turns out the Grizzly Bears discarding the Salmon ends up transferring a massive amount of nutrients from the Ocean to the Forest.
You cannot understand the essential aspects of the above example of Grizzly Bears, Salmon and Forests under the mindset that you are approaching this problem from.
- Comment on Not a good sign 5 weeks ago:
I would imagine a system you’re suggesting would first have to eliminate scarcity of resources.
Provide evidence for this claim.
I understand this has been established as our cultural intuition but it is a near axiomatic assumption that upon examination has very little evidence to support it, whether we look to the natural world or to human societies.
- Comment on Not a good sign 5 weeks ago:
Oh definitely, my issue with the concept of the Tragedy Of The Commons is not that shared wealth is not vulnerable but rather that the idea that humans innately cannot function in an environment while preserving and growing a shared commons without some kind of system of authoritarian control and violence actively preserving that shared commons is a deeply political, problematic and scientifically incorrect way of understanding people.
- Comment on Not a good sign 5 weeks ago:
Yes, how disturbing is it that the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan will be most useful to historians not as a hyperbolic tragedy that stood alone but as a way to explain the much broader mass slaughter of humans that the 20th century perpetrated and locked in for thousands of years?
- Comment on Not a good sign 5 weeks ago:
I am uninterested in comparing the moral qualities of generations. Humans are humans.
I am interested in the scale of the violence done by these generations against the earth as it will never be able to be surpassed without fully annihilating the human race.
800 years from now no one is going to care how sorry everyone was now about the damage they have done, what matters is the impact.