I think there are more important things than fairness. We have laws requiring employers to give you paid time off for jury duty and it’s still a significant burden on a lot of people. For someone to be chosen by lot to participate in what’s likely to be the equivalent of a full-time job? Frankly, it would be unfair to place that burden on people who didn’t sign up for it and may not be qualified for it.

And I think you have to draw a distinction between influence and corruption. Everybody has the right to advocate for policies that benefit them. Everybody has the right to form unions and groups and lobby for policies that benefit them. So of course this committee will be influenced by outside parties. The alternative is decision makers who don’t listen to people telling them what they want and need, and that’s not good for society.

And of course there will be explicit and implicit bribes, there will be be influence campaigns, and so on, because you can’t have any decision making process, anywhere, that people won’t try to rig.

But: it’s much, much more difficult for some corrupt billionaire to bribe 100-plus members of a committee - especially if, as I hope, that committee makes decisions by consensus, anarchist style, instead of by majority vote - than it is to bribe one politician. And once you’ve bribed all those committee members, as soon as their term expires you have to bribe a whole new committee, because there’s no guarantee that any committee member will be selected by lot next year (and, in fact, I’d argue someone shouldn’t be eligible to serve again for x number of years after being chosen). On the other hand, bribing a career politician is a continuing investment that pays off year after year after year.

Remember that sortition is government by committee. You’re not selecting one person to be in charge by lot and taking a gamble on that person’s competence; you’re selecting a group of dozens or hundreds of people, from a pool of qualified volunteers, and having them come to a consensus on what to do.

If I had to decide who would make better decisions, a committee of 100 or so ordinary citizens, all of whom were more politically active and aware than the average citizen (or they wouldn’t volunteer in the first place), or a career politician whose first priority is to manipulate citizens into voting for him and whose second priority is to make money off his position, I’d choose the committee every time. Better a group of people who may have been influenced by post-truth brainwashing than one of the people doing the brainwashing in the first place.

Of course we need to act quickly. But we also need to act correctly.

Green capitalism wants us to believe the only problem is greenhouse gas emissions. That if we replace fossil fuel engines and power plants with solar panels and batteries, we can continue burning energy and consuming resources like “normal” and still save the Earth.

This is a bad solution because it ignores all the other environmental harms of unchecked growth. It puts a bandage on one symptom - greenhouse gas emissions - but does nothing to cure the disease.

The solution is not to replace one energy industry with another while we unsustainably consume the world. The only real long term solution is to use less energy.

Hold on, let me quote that section:

the disposal of waste and eventual retirement of the infrastructure Windmill blades are notoriously difficult to recycle because they are made of composites that can’t be easily separated into their constituent parts. Lithium batteries contain reusable materials that it’s possible to recover, but due to expense and logistics, the practice is not widespread. Most solar panels are currently land-filled because of high costs and technical difficulties. With all these, yeah “they’re working on it” but so far progress is slow.

Windmill blades being hard to dispose of is one, true, and two, just one example of one aspect of the environmentally unfriendly production, management, and disposal of renewable energy equipment.

Which is environmentally unfriendly because all industrial production is environmentally unfriendly.

And one of the big points of this article is how environmentalists don’t want to talk - or even think - about that.

I think not violating people’s privacy with technological data collection is a technological issue, not a political one. Because you can have a society without capitalism or the state, you can have incredibly strong social norms governing privacy and the use of people’s data, but as long as that society is collecting and storing information about individual people, that information can still be leaked, stolen, or misused by whoever controls it.

(I mean, imagine somebody in smart city IT has some sort of personal issue or conflict with another citizen and decides to abuse their access to data collection to gather information about that citizen. Even in an anarchist utopia we’d still have stalkers, domestic violence, controlling partners, child custody disputes, and all the ways people in relationships hurt each other that come with humans being human.)

The only way to guarantee data collection doesn’t violate people’s privacy is to not collect data capable of violating people’s privacy - that is, don’t deploy systems that can collect that data at all.

And that restricts the type of data that can be collected so much that, I think, it rules out most of the benefits of a “smart city”.

Open source code for public infrastructure is extremely important, I agree. But it’s not sufficient. If data about individual people is collected by a smart city at all, or even capable of being collected by the hardware the smart city deploys, no matter what the laws are around it or how much you trust the current government, it could be exploited by a future, less ethical government, or stolen by third parties.

I think the examples you gave would be good ways to gather data for smart city management without collecting data about individual people that could be misused, but the way surveillance is implemented now, that sort of data collection is dangerous.

For example, a sensor that triggers a traffic light is great, but currently just about every major intersection in every major city in the US already has license plate cameras for traffic enforcement. So any smart city program is going to incorporate those license plate cameras, because why would they spend money installing new sensors when they already have perfectly good cameras? And then those cameras will be used for police and immigration enforcement and other privacy violating data collection even more efficiently than they’re already being used.

One aspect of a “smart city” is a system to constantly monitor a lot of data streams about its residents and use that data to allocate the city’s resources more efficiently in real time or better plan future upgrades to city infrastructure.

This obviously raises a lot of surveillance concerns. Some of it could be done in a manner that respected people’s privacy, with, for instance, extensive algorithmic anonymization of data and strict limits on what data is permanently recorded, but that requires a lot of trust and oversight and, I think, the benefits are likely not worth the risk of having that data collection system in place.

Another aspect of a smart city is enhanced local participation through e-governance, making it easier for people to know about, suggest, and weigh in on policies impacting their homes and communities. This aspect could be implemented without any kind of surveillance apparatus and has some appealing qualities imho.

So, you know, it depends on what benefit you’re talking about.

I think “we” (secular Westerners) are more likely to appropriate spiritual indigenous narratives, take them out of context, and trivialize them into meaninglessness - as the article describes we did with the concept of mindfulness - than we are to erase them. And I think this will happen because we, secular Westerners, are living lives devoid of spiritual meaning, and it’s terribly tempting to steal other people’s beliefs in the hope we can find a fraction of their meaning in life.

And though I’m sure people online are going to go full Reddit atheist on me and tell me belief in a higher power is ignorant and primitive, every society in human history that we know anything about has either had some sort of belief in higher powers or has aggressively suppressed such belief, and that belief served a function of social cohesion that a lot of the left no longer have.

Honestly, I think part of the reason Trump won - and part of the reason populist, religious nationalism is surging worldwide, Trump being just one example - is that the secular West threw out its own spiritual narratives without replacing them with anything. We condemned Christianity as ignorant, bigoted, and repressive, but we didn’t create anything in its place to serve its role. We walked away from the churches, which were the “third places” of our towns, the centers of our social and cultural lives, and we replaced them with what? Coffee shops?

People need something to believe in, and we told them “do your jobs and vote blue, but it won’t matter anyway because the environment is fucked”.

The environmental left needs the warning not to engage in empty spirituality because so many people in it are desperate for the kind of meaning spirituality gives.

deleted by creator

I’ve been challenged in lectures I give, even by scientists, who said, “Ricardo, this cause of yours is minor. We’re discussing the survival of extremely important biomes.” And I said, “Buddy, who decides whether the biome will be preserved or not? Do you think the landowners in the Amazon live on their farms? They don’t. They live in rich neighborhoods in São Paulo.”

Most of the people who elect the politicians who will care about what’s left outside the cities are urban dwellers. If, since childhood, they saw (native) embaúbas and juçara palm trees, you create a bond between people and their territory.

If we don’t convince city dwellers that our biodiversity is incredible, wonderful, and worth preserving, it won’t be.

I think this is incredibly important to remember. It exemplifies two sayings that are not just advice for activism but antidotes to despair: the personal is political, and all politics are local. Your little pollinator garden, your plant-based meals, your creek cleanup project, will have ripple effects far beyond their immediate impact on the environment, because of how it impacts the social environment and the people around you.

And on a side note, using an AI generated TLDR is almost painfully ironic given the content. I’m not really a fan.

Distance also matters a lot. I know where a bunch of little free libraries (no trademark) are in my community, but I don’t visit them because they’re too far away - I can check out books from Libby, I’m not going to take a bus ride for free books 😆

So advertising something like a free farm stand has diminishing returns, because you’re going to reach a lot of people for whom the stuff at the stand isn’t worth the time and effort to get to even if it’s free.

Which is to say, instead of creating a farm stand and then trying to advertise it, one might want to figure out what the people in walking distance want in a farm stand first. Then you set up an email chain or something similar and let the locals know what’s ripe when.

If you’re in the United States, don’t worry. Between tariffs and mass deportations, ordinary grocery store veggies are going to be more expensive than farmers’ markets pretty soon.

The cultural divide between you and I is so great that I don’t even know where to begin to respond. I appreciate you sharing your point of view, at least.

Are you talking about fresh fruit and vegetables? That sounds like you’re wasting a lot - in terms of money, not just in terms of food. It’s pretty easy to tell whether fresh fruit and vegetables are going bad (getting rotten, getting moldy, and so on), and if they’re not going bad they’re fine to use, whether there’s an expiration date or not.

Which is to say, I don’t think reducing food waste is a non-starter, but I do think it’s a matter of bottom-up education and practice (for you, I think that would mean learning how to tell when fruits and vegetables are going bad, and being confident enough in your knowledge that you can feel secure eating fruit and vegetables you didn’t buy recently) as much as it is top-down changes in policy.

At this point, “we should install more solar panels and waste less food” is seen as crazy hippy delusion by the American right.

If anything, the American Democratic Party has swung too far in the other direction, portraying itself as defenders of the status quo - even being willing to move further right - in order to avoid being seen as “crazy hippies”.

Meanwhile, MAGA is a utopian movement - it wants to completely transform America in the image of an idealized Christian conservative past, and doesn’t care what laws it has to break in the process.

The Democrats haven’t been able to effectively challenge MAGA’s utopian vision, because all they offer is a return to the status quo under Biden, and Americans are sick of that status quo. And the American left outside the Democratic Party has been so marginalized (mostly by the Democratic Party) that even mild “let’s do things a little bit better” leftists like Bernie Sanders have no real voice in American politics.

It’s not about being crazy hippies. It’s about having a vision for a better America, a plan to carry it out, and the courage to fight for that plan even when people call you a crazy hippie.

I think there are at least two other reasons, too:

One, sweat equity matters. I know I value pieces of furniture I built myself more than furniture I bought, even though the furniture I bought is better quality - because what I made myself represents my skill and my labor and my commitment. And in a throwaway culture, creating that emotional commitment to clothing or furniture or a home matters.

And two, rammed earth tires require no supply lines, no 3D printers, no expensive tools or complex chemistry, no gas or electricity, even. Just used tires, local dirt, and local labor. If global supply chains fall apart and resources get scarce, people can still build Earthships - and the people who are building them now will be able to teach others how to build them in the future.

deleted by creator

(clippy) It sounds like you’re trying to build a commune. Would you like help with that? (\clippy)

So I’m going to try to answer your questions, but before I do I want to emphasize the commune issue. It sounds like you’re trying to draw people together, artificially build a community where people live, work, and play in common under the guidance of the same organization, and keep them working together for a lengthy period of, frankly, impoverished struggle.

You’re trying to build a commune from the top down.

The problem with communes is they require a HIGH level of trust between members BEFORE they commit to sharing their lives, finances, and other resources. because of how quickly they can lose everything if the commune’s leadership exploits or fails them, and how easily they can be exploited by free riders and abusers.

And they need members who won’t abuse that trust. Which, historically, has been the sticking point.

When you set up a situation like this, where a person’s employment, housing, and social life all depend on maintaining their status within the same organization, you’re building a fragile edifice. Because if that organization fails, either through bad decisions, exploitation, or reasons out of its control, everyone who relies on it goes down with it.

It’s the opposite of the sustainability and resilience that we need in the uncertain future.

And it attracts a higher than normal share of desperate people, exploiters, and bad actors. Because people with good prospects in society won’t gamble those prospects, and people with strong economic and social ties to society won’t give those up, by submitting their entire lives to the governance of one organization.

Also, I am NOT millennial or Gen-Z so am not going to speak for them - polling people in those demographics directly would be a lot more helpful to you. And since the answers to a lot of your questions will reasonably correlate with age (e.g. older people who already own homes will be MUCH less likely to go live in a yurt), I think adding age ranges to your more formal polling will really help you focus on your core age demographics.

Anyway:

Q1. I’d be mostly unwilling, primarily since I’d have to quit my job, though I’d at least be curious. Not speaking for other generations.

Q2. It depends VERY MUCH on the details your question leaves out. Do I know the person? Can I choose the person? Can I switch people? Being stuck with the same roommate for five years can be fine and can end up a complete nightmare - the situation would need a strong conflict resolution model at minimum.

And then there’s the environment. What are summers and winters like? What heating and cooling exists? What kitchen/bathroom facilities are there? Is there any privacy in this four seasons tent? Is this going to be five years of basically camping?

And what’s the incentive? Do I have to pay for five years of camping? What do I get out of it and do I get any of that reward if I back out before the five years?

PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO ANSWER ALL THESE QUESTIONS. I’m not joining your commune and don’t need the answers. I’m just bringing up things people WILL want to know before committing.

Q3. Holy labor law violations, Batman! I count a max of 72 hours of blue collar + white collar + teaching work in there, and I would absolutely not sign up for anything even remotely near that without seeing a contract with much clearer labor terms and worker’s rights protections. And how exactly is the 8-24 hours of “leisure” separate from the rest of your life during that week? Is this managed leisure of some kind? Honestly that description reminds me of a 996 startup grind and I would come at it with extreme suspicion.

Q4. And there’s the incentive: five years of camping with a roommate and 996 grinding in exchange for the lifetime right to live in a 2000 sq ft house. For me: absolutely not. For younger people who have basically no chance of ever owning a house in this economy? I won’t speak for them, but maaaaaaybe?

Here’s the thing. I don’t believe land should be owned. I believe land should be managed by communities, with usage rights to a home guaranteed to the members of that community who reside in it. So from THAT standpoint your idea sounds like a great prefigurative phase shift from private ownership to community ownership. But it’s still ownership, because we still live under capitalism - and if I don’t own the home I live in, who does? What rights do they have that I don’t? And what happens when we disagree?

And circling back: who decides what counts as “satisfactorily maintaining”, and to whom can someone appeal if that decision-making body abuses its authority? Because if it takes five years to vest in a house, and in year 4 management realizes they’re not going to have enough houses for everybody and decides to kick out half their workers…

Q5. Fuuuuuuck no. This is where a lot of communes fail - because they’re totalizing, and the worker’s homes are linked to the worker’s jobs are linked to the worker’s status in the community, and if the employment fails everything fails. (Look up “The Farm” in Tennessee.) I think a community that relies so heavily on one employer, owner operated or not, multiple divisions or not, is dangerously fragile.

Q6. As long as it takes? Not writing any startup a blank check for my labor. Sorry.

Q7. Won’t change. My problems with this setup have nothing to do with the size of the house.

Q8. Holy shit, no, fuck that. So abusable.

Q9. My first reaction is to fear for victims of domestic violence.

Without going on an incredibly lengthy rant, the best way to protect individual human rights is to guarantee those rights universally, and, if those rights have to be restricted or removed for some reason, have a carefully structured procedure with objective oversight, checks and balances, and an appeal process, before anyone’s rights are restricted. And if this sounds like a court system, that’s because taking away people’s rights for the good of society is what a court system does, and even then there are some rights not even a court can take away. And evicting someone from their home should definitely be under the jurisdiction of such a court system.

A system where someone can lose their place in a commune - lose their home, lose whatever sweat equity they put into the work of the commune, and so on and so forth - if a sufficient number of fellow commune members hate them enough to vote against them, is a bad system. The way it could facilitate racism, bigotry, prejudice of all kinds, should be obvious.

And I bring up domestic violence in particular because I’ve seen too many people somehow find the courage to accuse a well-respected community member of abuse, and end up ostracized, punished, even banished from their community, because the community took the side of the well-respected member and believed they’d falsely accused a good man of a heinous crime.

Direct democracy may not be the worst possible way to run a judicial system, but it’s really, really close.

Q10. That question has so many caveats and unknowns that the answer to it wouldn’t change anything for me.

It’s pride in one’s own expertise, which is also something the assembly line model took away from us.

Wait wait wait. Hold on. You believe that Republican voters do not like or support Trump personally? That they disagree with his policies but grudgingly support him because the Democratic alternative is worse? That Trump’s support among Republicans voters is primarily a matter of Party loyalty?

That’s so profoundly the opposite of what I’ve experienced that I can only assume we’re living in different parallel universes.