The thing is, there’s no need to rebuild the world from the 1850s.

We already have the required machinery and energy. We can make use of what we have, even fossil-powered, to speed up the green transition. Our only goal is to keep it going at a growing pace.

As per agriculture, there are sustainable solutions that I addressed in my other response to you. There are green fertilizers, and there are also genetically modified plants able to produce their own pesticides. There are also innovations in logistics and food sharing initiatives to make less food rot without use.

We have the knowledge, we have the energy. What we lack is the political will to shut down those standing in the way for their own gain over our collective future.

Electrical power + water = rocket fuel. You don’t have to use kerosene to launch to space - not that it’s the highest priority anyway.

Why do you equate renewables with primitivism? What exactly stops you from building a skyscraper in a renewable-powered world? We do have green steel, concrete and glass. Besides, most use cases do not require skyscrapers in the first place, and they are seen as undesirable by many urbanists.

Now, yes, switching to sustainable lifestyles is not without compromise here and there, especially on the first stages of green transition. We have to put our effort into this, and there’s no way around this. But with rational organizing, we can end up making something so much better!

• Properly developed public transportation minimizes time and comfort losses associated with this mode of commuting, while making streets and air cleaner, freeing up plenty of space for pedestrians and buildings.
• Comfortable high-speed rail minimizes the need for planes, enabling high-speed travel without all the airport controls and inconveniences and with plenty of amazing vistas.
• Locally sourced seasonal varieties bring back the sense of excitement and allow you to explore so much more than just apples and oranges - there’s a trove of underdeveloped cultivars waiting for their time to shine!
• Plenty of said cultivars are not particularly demanding; also, green fertilizers (for example, microbiological ones, alongside good old manure and compost) are available and can be produced at any scale you need without the need for fossils.
• Easily repairable (user-repairable wherever possible) tech removes financial and organizational anxieties about breaking your devices. Something broke? Just…take spare parts and an hour, and it’s good as new.
• Clothing can always be torn and reassembled in new creative ways! This opens up endless possibilities for creativity, and if you personally don’t like it, I’m pretty sure a local atelier will be happy to help you.
• Community is key to urban living! With more interaction between you and your neighbors and the culture of common responsibility over shared resources, you can turn any “box” into a sprawling place people love to live in. We need to combat the individualist culture to make it work, though.

In this age of sustainability, there’s no issue in having a smartphone, or laptop, or whatever you write this on. In fact, right now there are tech brands oriented at sustainability, long-term support, user repairability and more. Fairphone, Framework, you name it!

We can build our tools, appliances and toys in a post-fossil fuel world. And we can make use of the materials we’ve already extracted to make it even greener.

In the 18th century, we had the technology of 18th century. We did not have photovoltaics, electrical wind and hydro, batteries. We do have them now, and as things stand, renewables are already cheaper than the alternatives.

Energy-wise, we can sustain much, much more people.

And even agriculture can accomodate for more people than we have now. With modern green agricultural technologies improving the efficiency of green farming, as well as wider accomodation of vegetarian diets and alternative protein sources, we can provide food for much more people with much less fossils.

Besides, better logistics and organizational measures can lead to less food perishing before it reaches the consumer, and less of the perfectly good food being thrown away.

Except we live in 2025, and we have modern green technology enabling us to do a lot of things differently.

We can get our power from renewables, and newest sodium battery/pumped hydro/thermal storage techniques are brilliant and more eco-friendly than ever. We now have modern green fabrics, hydrogen steel, etc. etc. We now have greener agriculture technologies, as well as efficient biogas collection and utilization. You can even make some polymers, like polyethylene, out of that alone!

We have what it takes to reverse course. But following that path means upsetting fossil giants, while also investing heavily into the infractructure. And right now, it is easier for politicians to ignore the passive crowd than it is to ignore their sponsors. We need to tilt that balance.

It’s no use going for collective blame and doomerism.

“We have nobody but ourselves to blame…” yeah, except that guy over there burning coal and guzzling fuel like there’s no tomorrow. “The only way is to wipe humanity” …or do something about it for once.

As long as we’re here, no matter how bad it is, we have to step against it in the ways we can. It’s not us who makes it so. We don’t want that. And it’s essential to make it a very clear and loud statement one can not turn away from.

Look up your local climate activist groups. See what can be done. Participate in protests. Do it.

Actually, this is true as well

Surprisingly enough, all of these statements are at least partially true.

Made me wonder if they introduced CSAM detection to fill their collection…

Yeah, not the most impressive hardware, but it is what we have

Solid option

They also try to promote a positive image of “work-life blend” in order to try and spark people’s enthusiasm for working pretty much 24/7.

As in, “work-life balance is a bad concept because it makes work look evil. Let’s put work into all aspects of life, make you live and breathe work, then you won’t think about it”

Me!

True

But I don’t expect for many people to conduct complicated debug on the go.

Though the FSF audience is quite geeky indeed.

And hey, cryptocurrency also has utility outside speculative markets and grifters!

It can be used to move money freely and often times more efficiently, and some of it can be used for private payments, too. Ability to financially support someone anonymously is important for democracy.

It also allows you to get money directly without revealing sensitive payment information or relying on third party with giant fees. This is objectively good!

For people to RTFM, you need clear and concise manuals for different groups of users.

It’s no use addressing most IT-related manuals without prerequisite knowledge and practical experience.

If it’s an instruction to a dishwasher liquid, you better write it for first-graders.

Sure, if you write a documentation to some developer tools, use developer language.

But if it’s something you expect regular folk to use, think of how much more people could use it if they wouldn’t need to learn something entirely out of their field of expertise to use it.

You can make dishwashing liquid kit that would require extensive knowledge in organic chemistry to use. It would be cheap and darn simple to develop. You could release it today! You just…shouldn’t.

Remember people have their lives, and shouldn’t be forced to comprehend everything around them at a professional level. Many developers seem to forget about it A LOT somehow, shifting it to the user and saying “I’m done here”, sitting in the bubble of experts and treating users like stupid rats who can’t simply get a computer science degree to use their computer. As a food technologist, I recently developed a premix for home-baking of phenylalanine-free pastry, and 70% of the work was making it idiot-proof. It is true for any field, yet it is important. People can’t learn everything every time they need something, and it’s not their fault.

Galabrup, anyone?

Ah, fair enough

Who is the “few” in this context, if I may ask? Nonbinaries?

Which is why they should not have any more power (including economic power) than anyone else.

Billionaires should cease to exist, not necessarily by being dead, but by being stripped of their hoarded riches.