#ideologically correct

[probablyasocialecologist]

Chaos Marine Trans people Existing Does Nothing Negative To Your Life

Our Distro is 100% Sweatshop Free. We used Water Based Inks, to try our best to use the most environmentally friendly chemicals that are ava

[oneringofkeys]

kili is the pippin of thorin’s company

[probablyasocialecologist]

AI is a cruel technology. It replaces workers, devours millions of gallons of water, vomits CO2 into the atmosphere, propagandises exclusively for the worst ideologies, and fills the world with more ugliness and stupidity. Cruelty is the central tenet of right wing ideology. It is at the heart of everything they do. They are now quite willing to lose money or their lives in order to make the world a crueller place, and AI is a part of this – a mad rush to make a machine god that will liberate capital from labour for good. (This is no exaggeration: there is a lineage from OpenAI’s senior management back to the Lesswrong blog, originator of the concept of Roko’s Basilisk.) Moreso even than cryptocurrency, AI is entirely nihilistic, with zero redeeming qualities. It is a blight upon the world, and it will take decades to clear up the mountains of slop it has generated in the past two or three years.

Gareth Watkins, AI: The New Aesthetics of Fascism

[probablyasocialecologist]

[probablyasocialecologist]

[probablyasocialecologist]

The Idea That Trees Talk to Cooperate Is Misleading

It’s a romantic notion, but pretending they’re like humans could actually harm the cause of conservation

Overemphasizing cooperation is misleading. The forest floor is a forum of fierce competition. A mature maple tree produces millions of seeds, and on average only one will grow to reach the canopy. The rest will die, with or without help from mom.

Amid this struggle, trees can sometimes facilitate each other’s growth. But this does not mean that a forest functions like one organism. An ecosystem comprises an ever-changing diversity of organisms having an ever-changing variety of interactions, positive and negative.

After the last glaciation, different tree species migrated north at different rates and by different routes. The beech-maple forest, or the oak-hickory forest, did not move as a unit. In fact, trees currently live in combinations that may have no analog in the past or future.

Anthropomorphism is taboo in science because it deceives us more often than it helps. Trees are not people and forests are not human families or even republics. Suggesting that they are can only lead us to imaginary conclusions.

In interviews, Simard has said that she purposely uses anthropomorphism and culturally weighted words like “mother”—even though the trees in question are male as well as female—so that people can relate to trees better, because “if we can relate to it, then we’re going to care about it more.”

Do trees need to have human values and emotions for us to let them live? The science supporting conservation is compelling enough. New discoveries about the underground world are thrilling enough. The public deserves to hear the true story, without the confusion of personification and stretched metaphor.

These distractions keep us from confronting reality: facilitation may be real, but so is the Darwinian struggle for existence. We are moral creatures in an amoral world. Nature does not share our values, and mercifully, we may choose not to emulate all of nature’s ways.

Between treating plants as objects or as humans, I suggest a third way: let’s seek to understand plants on their own terms. Plants are fundamentally unlike us: mute, rooted and inscrutable. We need to meet the challenge of cultivating respect for organisms that are different from us—in their separate and complex bodies, in their sophisticated interactions, in their unfathomable lives.

[probablyasocialecologist]

[probablyasocialecologist]

Imagine seeing a dude worth 300 million dollars hitting a guy worth 100 million dollars and thinking anything other than “lol. Lmao”