god i hate anprims so much grararahrahrahr. let's go back to the pleistocene in which everyone was happy! except for those who got bacterial infections or were injured in any way or who wanted to have sex without producing a child (or perhaps had a complication in pregnancy or were just unlucky enough to suffer severe internal bleeding in the process of labor) or who wanted to make more advanced art/communicate more complex ideas or those who were curious and wanted to learn about the world or those with diabetes or sickle-cell anemia or any number of genetic disorders, let alone those were transgender like. i think i just operate on a fundamentally on a different track/mindset than these people in such a way that our methods of thinking are mutually incomprehensible, incommensurable. (like in an antichain in a poset) the thing si that people like this don't care about the fact that while capitalism itself has not improved people's lives, industrialization (which operated primarily under a capitalist framework for most of history, much to the detriment of the world and the people) unquestionably has in countless ways across all aspects of life, from the development of medicine to the specialization of labor (and thus reduction in labor done by the individual) the addition of safety-nets, of the ability to travel lon distances, of all these things. The crude, uncontrolled aimlessness of industrialization has destroyed far more of nature than otherwise necessary, but to attack it is to attack the wrong target. I support monkeywrenching and such because they uniformly hurt capital - under a socialist framework where workers owned and managed industry, I would not. And what this really ties back to is a total divergence in beliefs. like okay. i consider myself pro-environmentalist and pro-conservationist. but my thinking (which admittedly did originate from a vague sense of 'maybe destroying the world is bad?') is not backed up by this callous disregard for the quality of life of humanity. It is backed up by the fact that the destruction of vast swathes of nature destroys ecosystems on which humanity depends in so so many ways, not just in terms of carbon-capture but in all its downstream affects, it is backed up by the fact that people generally love to walk in nature, that it is beautiful, inspiring, joyous to behold and thus improves our quality of life, that protecting the natural world is a boon to humanity, and that we have already destroyed far more land than is necessary. These people instead operate on this much more disturbing devaluation of human lives; they drive their picks first into the very idea of materialism and humanism. and i find that both disturbing and unjustifiable I'm probably not a very good academic for this (hell, i'm not a good academic in many ways) but if you think through an ideal, and what adopting it would mean, and it doesn't end with a net gain to the quality of life of all of humanity, then what even is the point, here? If you think through what the implementation or reification of your beliefs would mean, and it makes you viscerally, instinctively uncomfortable while also providing no benefit to others (this latter part is crucial, as a lot of social justice advancements made people uncomfortable at the time), that's probably an indicator that something is direly wrong with your thinking!!!!
