By lacking accessibility, this image of text sustains a pattern of systemic discriminatory exclusion.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
- usability
- we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
- text search is unavailable
- the system can’t
- reflow text to varied screen sizes
- vary presentation (size, contrast)
- vary modality (audio, braille)
- accessibility
- lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
- some users can’t read the image due to lack of alt text (markdown image description)
- users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
- systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices
- web connectivity
- we have to do failure-prone bullshit to find the original source
- we can’t explore wider context of the original message
- authenticity: we don’t know the image hasn’t been tampered
- searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
- fault tolerance: no text fallback if
- image breaks
- image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
Viral infections are cured by eradicating them entirely or to undetectable levels. “Humanity is a virus” is not a condemnation of overpopulation but of humanity. Genocide would be inadequate to “cure” the planet of a “human infection”: only speciescide would suffice.
Lemmy has an odd fixation on ecofascism when that’s not implied. No form of government is suggested with the eradication of all humanity, only the absence of any. Any anti-anthropocentrism such as ecocentrism or a morality generalized beyond human welfare is capable of accounting for such thought.
People here tend to fixate on their pet theories that scapegoat capitalism for everything including that humanity’s drain on ecological resources exceeds Earth’s rate of regeneration without acknowledging that their alternatives don’t address the problem, either.
Although governments are far more able than individuals and firms acting singly to take action to protect the environment, they often fail to do so. The centrally planned economies of Eastern Europe, where governments controlled production, had a particularly poor record on pollution control. Per capita mortality from air pollution in Eastern Europe (outside the EU) and China remains high relative to the EU and North America.
In particular, the Soviet economy—with constitutional guarantees to continuously improve living standards & steadily grow productive forces—caused disproportionately worse ecological damage than the US’s. All economic systems have the same capacity to degrade the environment & deplete stocks of natural resources. Without adequate policies to protect the environment, improving & maintaining living standards with the continuous economic growth necessary to do that threatens the environment.
Moreover, human activity before capitalism has led to extinctions of megafauna, plants, & animals dependent on those plants. The quaternary megafauna extinction was likely driven by overhunting by humans. Those extinctions & increased fires coinciding with the arrival of humanity to Australia transformed the ecosystem from mixed rainforest to drier landscapes. Aboriginal landscape burning
may have caused the extinction of some fire-sensitive species of plants and animals dependent upon infrequently burnt habitats
More recently, they killed off the elephant bird likely due to major environmental alterations & overconsumption of their eggs.
As long as people prioritize anthropocentric concerns without considering the environment, I find it an expedient starting point to remind them that exterminating all of humanity will end humanity’s concerns, too, while saving the planet from them. It’s a rhetorical move to stimulate more practical discussion. Around here, though, they never seem to get past that starting point, but instead protract in their useless debates over economic/political systems.
- usability
Although I dont disagree, the argument doesn’t make sense. Do you think our worlds population would be the same if we all lived like indigenous people?
This reeks of the “noble savage” stereotype. I would be willing to bet 80% of biodiversity being in native lands has more to do with how brutally they’ve been repressed than how “in tune” with the environment they are.
They’re people too, and I see little reason to believe they wouldn’t fall to the same human flaws as the rest of us if given the chance.
Except the fact we have lots of evidence that native population (which also includes pre-industrial European culture) built sustainable systems which includes altering the environment. Throughout North America there tons of evidence of the use of fire was used. The classic prairie environment of the Oak Savana is only possible through burns and supports a large buffalo population. There’s tons of evidence of strategic cultivation of trees and other plants within the Amazon rainforest that allow people to get food and medicine close by that to the untrained eye looks identical to the rest of the forest.
That being said some of those same people them destroy the same forest via slash and burn agriculture in order to earn a living for cash crops and more traditional agriculture. So profits is a main driver
So profits is a main driver
This is exactly what I’m getting at. If these groups of humans were placed in the same scenarios that Europeans or other westerners were placed in, would they not be susceptible to the same greed that motivated them?
I do not deny that many native societies appear to live in more harmony with the environment than your average westerner. There is certainly a lot to learn there, and I believe we would do better if we emulated some of those characteristics. However, I think that we’re all susceptible to the same flaws, as we are all human.
Ultimately what I’m saying is I don’t think that natives have some superpower where they have figured out how to escape the flaws that have plagued humanity for thousands of years.
So, there were indigenous societies that were highly class stratified, or did bad things to the environment. No one is denying that.
But generally speaking, indigenous peoples in say, the Americas, developed methods of agriculture and other forms of production that were more ecologically sustainable for their respective continent, than the European methods that settlers brought, and then revised to be more extractive.
The dust bowl, for example, didn’t just happen. It was a product of Colonialism. A region which was relatively recently colonized, had its forests and grasslands ripped up, in favor of shallow rooted monocultures that couldn’t sustain drought conditions.
There weren’t dustbowls for the millennia prior to colonization, but a sudden shift in the mode of production, to a highly extractive one, artificially produced an ecological disaster
I mean, the main sustainable feature of indigenous food systems is their small population size relative to the environment’s carrying capacity. Trying to feed a large city on hunted game would be far less sustainable than modern agriculture…
It’s called Indigenous TEK and it’s pretty well established.
https://www.firstnations.org/our-programs/stewarding-native-lands/
https://e360.yale.edu/features/native-knowledge-what-ecologists-are-learning-from-indigenous-people
https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/docs/support/sila_video/tek.pdf
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/tek/description.htm
https://www.bia.gov/service/fuels-management/traditional-knowledge
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TEK-Fact-Sheet.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_ecological_knowledge
Thank you for providing sources.
I watched a documentary in New Zealand about fish stocks. It was talking about how the fish around New Zealand are overfished and numbers are low. Had experts talking about issues with boats and how they need no fishing areas. They had Maori on there talking about how much abundance of fish there was before the white people came. They talked about how in tune the Maori were with the land and had ways to manage stock.
The documentary finished saying the issue is still ongoing and not enough has been done. Didn’t really go into why.
Well I looked it up after the majority of fishing companies are owned by the Maori and the reason the scientifically justified areas were not set as a sanctuary was because the Maori didnt agree and wanted to do things there own way that would allow them to fish at levels higher than what the science was saying is possible. On this matter New Zealand cared more about what Maori incorrectly believed over what the scientific evidence was saying to them.
People need to get off their high horse. People suck all over the world. Yea shock the people that live in mountains which remain untouched because it is shit farmland is going to have the most nature. But go to other countries and you see it’s the same, well worse than white countries. Places like UK has had protected land for hundreds of years. They set up protected land in the new places they went. Areas they left like Malaysia and India are full of rubbish and monoculture. They didn’t get better. Go to Indonesia and look at their beautiful islands. The tour guide said to us “look no littering sign. Only in Indonesian. Westerners don’t litter but the locals do”.
That documentary is embarrassingly wrong, the overwhelming majority of companies fishing in NZ waters are huge multinationals, not owned by Māori.
Well I can’t see how thats the case when you can easily look up catch right and special areas where only Maori can fish.
They must be selling off their rights or not using it then because the internet says otherwise. Or you are just making things up.
So the Wikipedia article claims that Māori control about 30% of fisheries, with many citations, do you have real evidence which contradicts this? This includes things like Sealord which is one of the biggest quota owners, but is only half owned by iwi, so a genuine number would be quite a lot lower than that 30%. That’s not to say that there aren’t problems with the management, we agree about that.
“Altogether, Māori enterprises account for 40 percent of New Zealand’s forestry, 50 percent of the country’s fishing quota,”
They are also allowed to fish in ways white people aren’t and in place they aren’t.
If you google iwi veto sanctuary I’m sure would will find that easy enough. So I’m done with the back and forth now.
Nihilists should lead by example and remove themselves first.
Sounds like shrinking the population would solve the problem, as long as it’s a very specific 10% that was shrunk.
Just a little off the top.
I’m tired of people pretending they are smart and problem solving by by mass murdering most humans on the planet and stopping procreation.
You don’t solve a jigsaw puzzle by putting 10 pieces together and burning the rest so you dont have to deal with them.
I’m not sure this person is aware what indigenous means. Unless, of course this meme is a 100% America-centric meme and largely ignores the entire rest of the world.
Also pretty funny that “eco fascism” is placed underneath what I assume are native Americans.
Switch the bottom panels in your head. They’re not meant to be associated with the up row. Oop poor design choice.
I get the intent, but I still think it’s funny that you placed eco fascist underneath the group the native Americans.
Btw, I still don’t think you know what indigenous means.
Your meme has too many words and the four block structure makes no sense.
Dude, there is a memes that are mutliple paragraphs that some people can recite by heart.
Just mention eliter snipers or vaporeon and watch the people go.
Tldr White people bad
It’s actually “TL;DR rich people bad” but sure, pop off I guess.
The final panel is, yes.
Look, I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the message. But if you can’t see how that is what it looks like it’s saying, I can’t help you.
Thanks for the good vibes, they’d also love this over on [email protected]
Feel free to crosspost!
We aren’t saying that brown people are above tech and modernities and that’s why they don’t have them… are we? Surely not.
Ecofascism isn’t a real ideology I don’t know why people keep insisting it is. Almost seems like a deliberate psy-op to create divisions among environmentalists. But more likely people are just stupid and afraid and angry.
What do you mean? It certainly is. It has been, for example, an influence in several right extreme terror attacks (notably the Christchurch, NZ mass shooting in 2019 comes to mind, where the murderer explicitly described himself as such in his manifesto). Not to mention that crunchy, back-to-the land ideas are a really important part of contemporary far right propaganda.
I’d also argue that this doesn’t really sow division amongst environmentalists; just because it has ‘eco’ in the name doesn’t mean these people actually care about the environment, it’s all aesthetics.
Well first was this guy’s ideology really distinct or is he just a fascist who talks about environmental issues as a post-hoc justification to make his objectively deranged actions seem more reasonable? And if he’s just a fascist I don’t think he need to take his justifications seriously by giving him a newly named ideology.
But I didn’t mean there are no singular eco-fascists anywhere on earth. There are 8 billion people on the planet so I could make up a mad lib ideology and chances are it’s similar to what someone somewhere believes. But I’ve never met one to my knowledge, not even online. There’s no organized push for this or political power behind it. The vast majority of fascists don’t give a shit about the environment and the vast majority of environmentalists oppose fascism. So the only time I see it mentioned is when people get criticized for discussing the impacts of human population.
I understand why it’s a touchy subject. Past racist policies used overpopulation as a justification for crimes against humanity. But that the human impact on the earth is proportional to our population is just a fact, and it doesn’t make you a fascist to acknowledge that. You’re only a fascist if you think that fact gives you a right to brutalize people, and, as I’ve said, I just don’t hear this from any organized or popular thinkers.
I heard about this around Paul Watson, who is accused of “eco-fascism” because he claimed we should reduce our population by billions, and his close friendship with David Foreman, who is both very implicated in environmentalist actions and has harsh conservative views. Overall, i’ve heard that there are quite a few similar thinking individuals in Sea Shepherd.
In an interview, Paul Watson said that “rich people just want to get richer, and poor people just want to get rich”, implying that the over-consumption by the richest parts of populations does not mean we should focus our efforts there, because “it’s human nature to consume and destroy”. I don’t know if that’s eco-fascism, but that’s precisely what this meme denounces, and it’s held by a quite important figure.
I also heard of Edward Abbey who doesn’t promote violence directly but combines a very conservative and very environment first ideology, same as this Garrret Hardin. Both are quite influent in environmentalist activism.
Radical environmentalism, even when combined with advocacy for peacefully reducing the earth’s population, is not fascism. Fascism is a specific ideology. Most of the people you listed are anti-government activists. Some are even anarchists. Fascism requires a totalitarian state. They are also internationalist in their politics, where fascism is hyper-nationalist. I’m similarly not aware of any strong racial theory in their ideas, which is perhaps the single most important part of fascism. You can disagree with their viewpoints but it’s crazy to call them fascists when they don’t fit the definition and have deep ideological disagreements with fascism.
This is precisely why I don’t like this term. It’s just a smear against the environmental movement that doesn’t fit the actual ideology it’s criticizing. Which again, I don’t mind criticism but I do mind thought-terminating cliches in place of thoughtful critique.
Garret Hardin is probably the one person who you could argue does fit the eco-fascist label, but I would argue his influence has waned dramatically. Maybe there are a few boomers who uncritically parrot his views but there is no organized political movement from his ideas. I can’t think of any disciples of his ideas of any prominence.
Yes, surprised at these comments considering how much this stuff is some of the current hot topics in research.
Sorted by date:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&scisbd=1&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=ecofascism
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q="indigenous+stewardship"&scisbd=1
Biodiversity is one of my areas, chat.
Your post really called out all the “smart” people who have decided on a form of fascism to appeal to their idea of how to fix the world.
They won’t change their mind cause they want less people and they want to think it fixes stuff without having to read a study about it. They liked it during covid when there were less people to interact with I think and had comfort in wealth to not have to suffer the consequences and now just aim for it.
Good post. Love the resources.
amazon, many rainforests(both amazon and mega-biodiversity of indonesia, south eas asia) is being decimated and untold species both undiscovered and rares are fast disappearing.
There is a point burried in there that is drowned out by all the fallacious added baggage. Its disingenuous bullshit.
Indigenous Chinese or Indians or Nigerians are not protectors of the earth, just like every other industrial nation. The picture meant to frame “Indigenous” as what Canada calls the indigenous First Nations peoples. It’s relying on the racist trope of the noble savage, forgetting that First Nations aren’t against industrializing their lands, as long as they are included as partner beneficiaries and they don’t maximize returns via egregious environmental destruction on their lands. They also generally want industrialization and trade including water treatment, sanitation and all the other goodies like internet, tv, playstations and the like.
It also targets “capitalist” without looking at the eco-horrors of every other 'ism on earth. Go have a cool tall glass of Ganges, Nile or Yellow river water and tell me how refreshing it is.
This is a shitpost carefully designed to be a lopsided attack.







