I think both can be problems, to be honest. It's important not to spend too much time focusing on what others think or who thinks a certain thing, because you might end up inadvertently steering away from good ideas or towards bad ideas because someone in particular has the same ideas.
Carrying capacity is a fundamental part of environmentalism. In biology, there's for example so much vegetation, and say it can support 100 deer, and that would be equilibrium. The amount of vegetation available to support the deer would be a function of the quality of the soil, the amount of sunlight, and the specific adaptions of the local vegetation against the deer. If you got 101 deer, there would be no immediate effects, but the vegetation would be eaten a bit too quickly for the vegetation to recover and if nothing changes the population will eventually drop because there won't be enough food.
If we're going to live in harmony with nature, we need to think the same with humans. There are locations where you don't need a lot of energy just to survive (this is particularly important with respect to local temperatures -- temperate climates where you rarely need to heat or cool your home are ideal), and it's relatively easy to farm locally, so you can live off the land with what's there and have lots of people and it's relatively OK. On the other hand, there's locations where every person needs a lot of extra energy to survive because it's too hot and needs cooling or it's too cold and it needs heating, and you can live on renewables in those regions, but if you overpopulate then you end up requiring the fossil fuel subsidy (or the nuclear power subsidy) to make up the difference between the energy you can produce and the energy to need to not have everyone die.
There is a fixed limit on the renewables that could be practically generated in a particular region, so it does matter the energy balance compared to the population.
Population size matters a lot. Ontario has roughly 10x the population of Manitoba. If instead it had 2x the population of Manitoba (it has about twice the geographical area of Manitoba, so that isn't unreasonable), then the hydroelectric generation alone would fully power the province with room to spare with no need for nuclear or oil and gas.
It's interesting given the totality of the discussion then, the dichotomy (Anakin noooooo) that high population density is really necessary for Chinese-style high speed rail to be effective, but the same high population density in many regions in North America (particularly up north) would require fossil fuel subsidies in the same way that China despite its trains uses 50% of all the coal burned on earth every year (which would bring up the next thing the elites wouldn't like, that the developing world is the developed world's environmental painting of Dorian Gray -- we pretend we're so good because we don't burn coal because we get China to burn it for us).
Carrying capacity is a fundamental part of environmentalism. In biology, there's for example so much vegetation, and say it can support 100 deer, and that would be equilibrium. The amount of vegetation available to support the deer would be a function of the quality of the soil, the amount of sunlight, and the specific adaptions of the local vegetation against the deer. If you got 101 deer, there would be no immediate effects, but the vegetation would be eaten a bit too quickly for the vegetation to recover and if nothing changes the population will eventually drop because there won't be enough food.
If we're going to live in harmony with nature, we need to think the same with humans. There are locations where you don't need a lot of energy just to survive (this is particularly important with respect to local temperatures -- temperate climates where you rarely need to heat or cool your home are ideal), and it's relatively easy to farm locally, so you can live off the land with what's there and have lots of people and it's relatively OK. On the other hand, there's locations where every person needs a lot of extra energy to survive because it's too hot and needs cooling or it's too cold and it needs heating, and you can live on renewables in those regions, but if you overpopulate then you end up requiring the fossil fuel subsidy (or the nuclear power subsidy) to make up the difference between the energy you can produce and the energy to need to not have everyone die.
There is a fixed limit on the renewables that could be practically generated in a particular region, so it does matter the energy balance compared to the population.
Population size matters a lot. Ontario has roughly 10x the population of Manitoba. If instead it had 2x the population of Manitoba (it has about twice the geographical area of Manitoba, so that isn't unreasonable), then the hydroelectric generation alone would fully power the province with room to spare with no need for nuclear or oil and gas.
It's interesting given the totality of the discussion then, the dichotomy (Anakin noooooo) that high population density is really necessary for Chinese-style high speed rail to be effective, but the same high population density in many regions in North America (particularly up north) would require fossil fuel subsidies in the same way that China despite its trains uses 50% of all the coal burned on earth every year (which would bring up the next thing the elites wouldn't like, that the developing world is the developed world's environmental painting of Dorian Gray -- we pretend we're so good because we don't burn coal because we get China to burn it for us).
The database cleanup was just running a couple of built in pleroma scripts that clean up old data (cleaning out 25GB of remote posts!), but the real issue seems to have been a number of faulty packets with invalid addresses being aimed at fbxl social in particular (once I stopped accepting packets for fbxl domains the server came back and once I started again)
My hypothesis so far is that either intentionally due to malicious attack or unintentionally due to a misconfigured server a bunch of these malformed packets were sent my way, and filled up connection slots in the kernel, locking up not just http but telnet and icmp. Once I added some configuration changes to increase the number of connection slots and also to filter any packets with bad addresses (sysctl calls them martian packets since they come from "alien" address spaces) the connection issues ceased.
My hypothesis so far is that either intentionally due to malicious attack or unintentionally due to a misconfigured server a bunch of these malformed packets were sent my way, and filled up connection slots in the kernel, locking up not just http but telnet and icmp. Once I added some configuration changes to increase the number of connection slots and also to filter any packets with bad addresses (sysctl calls them martian packets since they come from "alien" address spaces) the connection issues ceased.
Just imagine, some shady guy on a streetcorner, "Hey, hey. Do you want the right turn signal from a 1987 datsun?"
Yes, it is important to note that practical considerations of the amount of energy people use is not related to judgements of a person's value as a human being, particularly based on genetics or cultures. An Englishman living in India using little energy is no different than a Punjabi living in India for this calculation, same as an Englishman or Punjabi in Alaska burning oil all winter to not die.
Fair enough in that regard. Cheap energy does help reduce Fossil fuels in other use, however. Quebec and Norway are using renewables for 70% of heating, and industry wants to use electric when it can because electricity is cleaner, safer, and generally easier. Controlling electric vs. gas is so easy and cheap it'd blow your mind the difference.
[admin mode] martian packets... It seems that I was getting hit by a bunch of them, and that's what was overloading the network subsystem on my reverse proxy. Once I saw the log messages I added some configuration to drop such packets and now we're back up.
Happy that every time I find a new little thing, my overall configuration gets a little more robust.
Happy that every time I find a new little thing, my overall configuration gets a little more robust.
[admin mode] Thinking we might be under ddos attack?
Getting hammered so hard by something outside that I can't even ping the server (but it isn't crashing), so for now I've taken some evasive action, we'll see if that helps.
Getting hammered so hard by something outside that I can't even ping the server (but it isn't crashing), so for now I've taken some evasive action, we'll see if that helps.
[admin mode] completed some maintenance tasks on the database(hence the inaccessibility today), it shrank the database a shocking amount so I'd call that a win. Should improve performance, I've still got more to do later but it's fine for now.
The big question is this: Is conservatism as it stands today something with it own basis, or is it just a reaction to progressivism?
I think the answer is "it depends who you're talking about".
In my view, a conservative who reads history and the great works of the past such as the Greek philosophers, the romans, Christian philosophers such as St. Augustine, the enlightenment philosophers, and so on, well there's a huge body of knowledge there that doesn't rely on the current zeitgeist. It is truly conservative, and trying to use the wisdom of the past to help understand the future.
By contrast, there is a brand of conservatism that is just progressivism but taken in a different direction. Most lefties won't like it, but the fact is that National Socialism and Fascism are both deeply steeped in the progressive project. After all, they both intend to implement whole new ways of doing things that have never been seen before in the name of progress. It's no mistake that Mussolini and Hitler both came from Socialist parties.
Another contrast is the current brand of conservatism which only seems to have positions in opposition to the current progressive zeitgeist. For example it can oppose wokeness, but it doesn't have much of a vision of what else could be other than just "not that".
Ironic, since the current progressive zeitgeist is in many ways as dysfunctional as it is because it is also set up as a "not that", focused on the Nazis in world war 2. Much of it is just a scramble away form one point, as if that's going to get anyone anywhere meaningful.
I think the answer is "it depends who you're talking about".
In my view, a conservative who reads history and the great works of the past such as the Greek philosophers, the romans, Christian philosophers such as St. Augustine, the enlightenment philosophers, and so on, well there's a huge body of knowledge there that doesn't rely on the current zeitgeist. It is truly conservative, and trying to use the wisdom of the past to help understand the future.
By contrast, there is a brand of conservatism that is just progressivism but taken in a different direction. Most lefties won't like it, but the fact is that National Socialism and Fascism are both deeply steeped in the progressive project. After all, they both intend to implement whole new ways of doing things that have never been seen before in the name of progress. It's no mistake that Mussolini and Hitler both came from Socialist parties.
Another contrast is the current brand of conservatism which only seems to have positions in opposition to the current progressive zeitgeist. For example it can oppose wokeness, but it doesn't have much of a vision of what else could be other than just "not that".
Ironic, since the current progressive zeitgeist is in many ways as dysfunctional as it is because it is also set up as a "not that", focused on the Nazis in world war 2. Much of it is just a scramble away form one point, as if that's going to get anyone anywhere meaningful.
[admin mode] no idea why, but it looks like my postgresql died and didn't come back on automated reboot. It just kept on rebooting and rebooting. Looks like it's back now, I'll be doing some Mtce tonight to prevent future issues.
LMFAO that's pretty funny. The sad thing though is that just like a lot of these people on the right, feeling like Marine Le pen is going to get in and end up being exactly the same as the people on our government replaces... In that sense democracy doesn't work because people are liars...
So after GameStop went up massively, their earnings came out, and it turns out that exactly as I said nobody is buying game consoles from them, nobody's buying games from them, known as buying collectibles from them, and their revenue is way down.
Anyone who plays video games knows that this is the case. Honestly, of all of you out there, of the last 10 games that you bought how many did you buy in a store? For me the answer is zero, and zero for the 10 before that, and zero for the 10 before that, and zero for the 10 before that. It might not be the nicest fact but the last time that I bought a video game on physical media it was off of Amazon. I didn't need to walk into a store and wonder whether they had the thing I was looking for, I just went online and bought the thing.
Now you can argue that it's illegal and unethical and horrible and Amazon is destroying small business, and maybe that's even true but this is the world we're living in and you can't invest in outrage when the outrage is about the fact that certain industries are just collapsing...
Anyone who plays video games knows that this is the case. Honestly, of all of you out there, of the last 10 games that you bought how many did you buy in a store? For me the answer is zero, and zero for the 10 before that, and zero for the 10 before that, and zero for the 10 before that. It might not be the nicest fact but the last time that I bought a video game on physical media it was off of Amazon. I didn't need to walk into a store and wonder whether they had the thing I was looking for, I just went online and bought the thing.
Now you can argue that it's illegal and unethical and horrible and Amazon is destroying small business, and maybe that's even true but this is the world we're living in and you can't invest in outrage when the outrage is about the fact that certain industries are just collapsing...
Most people in Canada feel like Justin Trudeau is actually just interviewing for his next job, unfortunately for him the interview started to go really badly about 4 years ago...
I think a lot of people in the very near future are going to start realizing that they were sold a life plan that consists of taking out a bunch of debt, working your whole life to pay back the debt, then dying of old age, having achieved nothing and passed nothing on to the next generations because they were told that to be fruitful and multiply was evil.
" hey Mr Spidey trying to help you here here go go go no no no no no no I was trying to help you get out of the car not stay in well" the hazards of using voice recognition -- sometimes you have to do something else in the middle of a post LMAO
"Vote for us or it's dangerous to our democracy" is the new "Vote for us or the terrorists win"
I think a thing to keep in mind is that in canada, a lot of places have already been at 100% renewables for longer than you've been alive. Manitoba, quebec, newfoundland, and for the most part British Columbia are all near 100% renewables. This isn't a pie in the sky dream, it's something very doable because it's already been done. All we have to do is do the thing that we've already done a bit more.
Even in ontario, I live in a region whose electricity is 90% hydroelectric.
Which brings us to another thing that really the politicians who are pretending they really care about this aren't going to touch with 100 ft pole -- why exactly are we taking people from the lowest carbon use jurisdictions on the planet and shipping them to the highest carbon use jurisdiction on the planet? You take people who are living in areas where you don't need electricity to survive, and you move to a place where if you don't have energy for travel and energy for getting your home then you die. The least sustainable places in Canada would be the places with all of the migrants, Toronto and vancouver. Why did we bring all these people in? It's not good for the planet. Here we see proof of my ongoing point laid bare: if you ask these politicians why we need to be importing people like this, they'll give you all kinds of stories about how good it is for the economy.
Even in ontario, I live in a region whose electricity is 90% hydroelectric.
Which brings us to another thing that really the politicians who are pretending they really care about this aren't going to touch with 100 ft pole -- why exactly are we taking people from the lowest carbon use jurisdictions on the planet and shipping them to the highest carbon use jurisdiction on the planet? You take people who are living in areas where you don't need electricity to survive, and you move to a place where if you don't have energy for travel and energy for getting your home then you die. The least sustainable places in Canada would be the places with all of the migrants, Toronto and vancouver. Why did we bring all these people in? It's not good for the planet. Here we see proof of my ongoing point laid bare: if you ask these politicians why we need to be importing people like this, they'll give you all kinds of stories about how good it is for the economy.
I don't think we need to use nuclear in Ontario, tbh. We're reliant on it because of NIMBY policies which set it up years ago not to use any of the extensive geography in Ontario to build renewables.
Manitoba, Quebec, British Columbia, and Newfoundland all have nearly 100% renewable electricity generation, but it was almost all infrastructure built before the current age of "no".
That's what's so insane about the whole thing, just imagine -- entire provinces larger than most countries in Europe have been 100% renewable longer than you or I have been alive. All day, everyday, the lights, the heat, the cooling, much of the industry. It's canada, it's a place so huge that you can't even wrap your head around it, there's so much geography that of course we could build more hydro dams, but we just don't.
I've got the same problem with nuclear that I do with steel -- the amount of resources that go into extracting and refining this stuff is on a scale that most human beings can't imagine. You can have a giant tank of propane that would be for a distribution facility in many places, and burn through it in a single day just to keep mine air heaters running, and even in places that brag about how they don't use any fossil fuels in their mining, they're lying and they still use fossil fuels on their mine air heaters. And then there's travel -- most mines today are flying fly out to reduce the environmental footprint, and that means that almost every single day there are hundreds of people flying long plane rides for remote locations. You think your morning commute burns a lot of fuel? It's got nothing on a mine in nunuvut. And that's just two examples, it's just one thing after another after another, the environmental footprint of mining is just so astronomical.
But the thing is, this is the environmental industrial complex. A known good solution to a problem that can be more or less immediately implemented and then the problem is solved isn't helpful for anyone in this equation other than the Earth and the consumer. A few people make a little bit of money maintaining a hydroelectric dam, but a lot of people make a lot of money if you're raping the Earth to dig up uranium and coal and steel! Man, there's money to be made by everyone then! Especially if you need to invent something that's perpetually 5 to 10 years off! Oh the amount of money in perpetually having something that's just 5 to 10 years off? I mean you can leech off of that grift for centuries.
Of course not everywhere is as blessed as canada, but some places are. Canada is, for example(go figure!). But again -- especially when the technology to fix things has been known for over a century, and we could actually implement the fixes immediately and start getting environmental and social benefits immediately. But we don't, because for politicians what good at that solvable problem? For crony capitalists, what good is a few low margin megaprojects when there's fortunes to be made? Nobody stands to get rich and powerful that way.
Manitoba, Quebec, British Columbia, and Newfoundland all have nearly 100% renewable electricity generation, but it was almost all infrastructure built before the current age of "no".
That's what's so insane about the whole thing, just imagine -- entire provinces larger than most countries in Europe have been 100% renewable longer than you or I have been alive. All day, everyday, the lights, the heat, the cooling, much of the industry. It's canada, it's a place so huge that you can't even wrap your head around it, there's so much geography that of course we could build more hydro dams, but we just don't.
I've got the same problem with nuclear that I do with steel -- the amount of resources that go into extracting and refining this stuff is on a scale that most human beings can't imagine. You can have a giant tank of propane that would be for a distribution facility in many places, and burn through it in a single day just to keep mine air heaters running, and even in places that brag about how they don't use any fossil fuels in their mining, they're lying and they still use fossil fuels on their mine air heaters. And then there's travel -- most mines today are flying fly out to reduce the environmental footprint, and that means that almost every single day there are hundreds of people flying long plane rides for remote locations. You think your morning commute burns a lot of fuel? It's got nothing on a mine in nunuvut. And that's just two examples, it's just one thing after another after another, the environmental footprint of mining is just so astronomical.
But the thing is, this is the environmental industrial complex. A known good solution to a problem that can be more or less immediately implemented and then the problem is solved isn't helpful for anyone in this equation other than the Earth and the consumer. A few people make a little bit of money maintaining a hydroelectric dam, but a lot of people make a lot of money if you're raping the Earth to dig up uranium and coal and steel! Man, there's money to be made by everyone then! Especially if you need to invent something that's perpetually 5 to 10 years off! Oh the amount of money in perpetually having something that's just 5 to 10 years off? I mean you can leech off of that grift for centuries.
Of course not everywhere is as blessed as canada, but some places are. Canada is, for example(go figure!). But again -- especially when the technology to fix things has been known for over a century, and we could actually implement the fixes immediately and start getting environmental and social benefits immediately. But we don't, because for politicians what good at that solvable problem? For crony capitalists, what good is a few low margin megaprojects when there's fortunes to be made? Nobody stands to get rich and powerful that way.
"We destroyed an entire generation's future, but now we need a federal standard to make sure all generations are destroyed forever!"