Nothing’s going to change.

Not so sure about that. I think change is a constant.

Systemic changes occur despite the narratives we are fed by predominant power systems (that they are super strong and have “logical” linear continuity from prehistoric/ancient times, through god or whatever along those lines).

Look at what happened to the notion of kings around the world. Sure, some are still around but the power they have is not comparable to what their grandparent had, if any.

Or what happened to the soviet block. To my knowledge - nobody expected it to collapse when it did, not even the secret intelligence services of opposing capitalist countries.

So no matter what the future holds, I’d say let’s dare and imagine inclusive, egalitarian, ecological solutions against the predominant narrative of structural despair.

That part was hard for me too.

The problem is not that they are not actively working on solving this Zionist war, the Israeli apartheid or its settler colonialism.

The problem is that they don’t have a decent position on the topic, so they are trying to discard it all together.

For those focused on the Israel-Gaza war, she has tried to emphasize the stakes of the climate crisis. “I mean, don’t you want to pass down a better world to the next generation?”

So for those focused on the Israel-Gaza war, she tried to change the topic. Terrible approach.

A better world to the next generation? While Zionists have been destroying the world of their neighbors with bombardments for over a year and keep doing so with no end in sight? While Zionists are actively participating in an effort to eliminate the next generation of Palestinians? So the actual suggestion is to disregard these facts, for a better world for everyone, except Palestinians.

Enough for sure, but not for the reasons mentioned in this article.

For those focused on the Israel-Gaza war, she has tried to emphasize the stakes of the climate crisis. “I mean, don’t you want to pass down a better world to the next generation?”

So for those focused on the Israel-Gaza war, she tried to change the topic. Terrible approach.

A better world to the next generation? While Zionists have been destroying the world of their neighbors with bombardments for over a year and keep doing so with no end in sight? While Zionists are actively participating in an effort to eliminate the next generation of Palestinians? So the actual suggestion is to disregard these facts, for a better world for everyone, except Palestinians.

Enough for sure, but not for the reasons mentioned in this article.

We can do both!

I think I understand how you feel, in the sense I had a similar despair when I first landed in this community. Then I took a look around in this instance and found the slrpnk wiki page. Even just reading it was soothing for me, in a realistic way. If you feel like, take a look at it.

On top of what you say, I would also suggest the following:

What is Solarpunk | Solarpunk is a Revolt of Hope Against Despair | …

I’m not sure I understand. This article talks about the Amazon fires and the criminals they mention are those that have been illegally ranching cattle there? Not the major deforestation companies for example? Did I perhaps miss something?

This sounds like one more theory to me since the

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) says in a written statement that “at this time, neither the substance nor its source has been identified. However, preliminary analysis at an ECCC laboratory suggests that the material could be plant-based.”

I am a bit conflicted with this article. One one hand I think I understand the intentions behind it, but It seems to me that it confuses opportunistic vanguardism with pragmatism.

Yes, Lenin managed to convince enough people to hijack the February Revolution and concentrate all the power to the party himself. To my understanding, he accomplished that mainly by using the wording of the actual bottom-up revolution. So the problem for me is not a matter of principle(s), but how to be sharp enough as a movement not to be fooled by people using a familiar narrative, while trying to achieve their own goals. Something like that.

Edit: Meaning, “pragmatism” was the bait. Nothing more.

It would be great if these approaches would actually contribute in a meaningful way. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be the case.

This is an article with some relevant info:

Climeworks’ “Mammoth” vacuum cleaner is not a solution to the climate crisis

Climeworks’ newest DAC plant, Mammoth, is purported to capture ten times the amount of CO2 as Orca; some 36,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. (…) If 36,000 tonnes sounds like a big number, it’s not: It equates to one one-millionth of our annual global emissions. Even if Climeworks and other DAC companies do build hundreds of these DAC plants, it would not equate to even one per cent of current annual global emissions.

From our world in data on CO₂ emissions:

we now emit over 35 billion tonnes each year

The problem is in the system that allows these people to be in power. Even if this one is out of the picture there is a list of others waiting to take their turn.

For some reason I had troubles viewing this link, so here’s an archived version of it.

That is my understanding as well and it is more of less what the article says.

It takes two to make peace.

I think in the case of the Gaza bombings of civilians (I cannot call this a war) the two parts needed for peace are the US and Israel.

Israel has been killing hundreds of Palestinians civilians in refugee centers, schools and hospitals

Just to note that actually, it’s tens of thousands by now. Even during October Israel had already killed many thousands of Palestinian civilians.

I don’t agree with this narrative of “both sides are to blame”. It wrongly equates the colonizers with the colonized. In this case the Zionist settler colonialists and the colonized Palestinians. Also, in an apartheid we can’t say both sides are to blame because of the power imbalance that is present.

Even tho I understand the intentions of this, I have to say I agree with everything, except this part

Jews are awesome

I don’t think a generalisation like this can be constructive in any way. Netanyahu is not awsome, nor Smotrich, Ben-gvir neither, and they are all Jews. Jewish settler-colonialists are not awesome, and the problem is definitely not their religion. Jews are people with some religious beliefs, some are awesome, some not so much and some of them are terrible human beings.

Edit: Maybe something like that would be more accurate:

Anti-Zionist Jews are awsome

I like your clarification, totally on board with that.

Yeah, it is a nice photo, from a technical perspective I suppose. But without any meaning for me. Still, good to know!