I think you’re missing my point now. Maybe the headphone example is weak, but it illustrates the point. Abundance is not necessarily abundance of wealth. Im arguing that reducing general production and increasing wealth are compatible. Making the distribution of wealth depend on abundant production, independently of quality, only overworks people and pollute the world.

Legitimizing degrowth exterminates those unable to afford resistance to oligarchy.

This seems too general. Defending degrowth may do that if its done in the specific way you have described before, but not generally. Resistance to oligarchy and general improvements to quality of life could have degrowth as a consequence, not the other way around. What you seem to be criticizing is that “other way around” thesis.

By economic growth i mean more production. This production can be marketable but not represent an actual wealth gain. If i produce a shitty headphone that breaks in a week of use, the world would be better off without it, but it did contribute to the growth of the economy when i sold it to some unfortunate soul. In this sense, a reduction in production may not really represent a reduction in wealth globally. A better production can have a way smaller volume than the current global production while still giving us more actual wealth to live with. Thats why i say economic growth is not quality of life. Of course theres a correlation in the actual data today, but my point is that this correlation is not necessary, its an empirical correlation, not a logical one, and it is something that may change in the future.

If we cant dissociate economic growth from well being, then i take your point and agree with it.

Regarding UBI, if it is done in a way that emancipates people, instead of just enabling and maintaining conditions for enslaving people, great. And from my perspective this would probably also entail a spontaneous degrowth.

I think our views are compatible. Im not defending a forced degrowth nor hope that people do it voluntarily out of nowhere. But political measures to redistribute wealth and improve living standards, like what you envision with UBI, could lead to a natural and widely accepted degrowth, which would be positive.

I think you have a point. Although i dont have the knowledge to see for sure that there really is a viable path alternative to economic degrowth.

i agree that directly supporting degrowth would be unpopular, lead to conflict and maybe would benefit a movement towards genocide. Correct me if thats not what you meant.

The crack i see in this argument is that it seems to assume that economic growth and quality of life are correlated and that people see it this way. A movement towards improving quality of life in general would entail, i assume, a reduction of our working hours, a reduction in industrial production (as we produce a lot of useless objects just as an excuse to redistribute means of survival without changing the dynamic of the economic system). So a move towards better quality of life would naturally lead to a healthy economic degrowth (in some areas) that could be well seen by people. Maybe im fantasizing too much, but i hope not.

A degrowth can be in consumption rather than population. We could use less plastic, less gas,…a lot less

Secret ballots are really important. There should be an effort into making in person voting more accessible and ending postal voting imo. Not american though, but i know my country historically had a very big problem of people being coerced to vote for certain candidates. The vote now is secret, spreaded all around the country and public transportation is free on voting days, which are on weekends.

I think thats not really a religious thought. Youre thinking and conjecturing things about the universe, and how life forms and matter all fit together in it. If you start worshiping this “greater energy” and declaring how things should be or should be done, then it would start to look more like a religion. Otherwise its just harmless conjecturing about nature.

I made up that speed just to give an example. The thing about pausing/resuming is an advantage of torrents in general, for whoever needs it. Besides, when you download a file via DDL the speed also depends on the server thats sending, which is sometimes much slower than your download speed limit.

I think its a fair assumption that most people make that whatever data which isnt explicitly displayed to a regular user is not public. Having likes be public but hidden is misleading.

Assuming people use a vpn is a bit of a stretch. I dont know anyone that does that constantly.

Tbf you only mentioned the permissions, but ok

You download from a bunch of other people at the same time. So if you have a 300mb/s connection and 5 people have the file and are uploading at 20mb/s, it gets a chunk of the file fron each of them, so you would download at 100mb/s.

Besides, you can pause and resume the download as much as you want without corrupting the file. So if youre dowloading a 50gb folder, you can turn your pc off, and continue later. With DDLs, the download link expires and most browsers cant resume downloads properly. Plus if the browser corrupts the download you have to start over. The torrent uses checksums to detect corrupted parts of the file and redownloads just that small part, and in the end you get a clean file.

Did you enable the plugin called expose filesystem?

My point is about how people trust new types of food. Knowing the name of the compounds in a food doesnt help in making someone trust it. People trust alimentary habits that are centuries old more than a newly developed method that they have no familiarity with. Im talking about trust on safety regulations rather than the actual regulations.

How would you feel if a foreign power invaded your country to spy and destabilize your government and economy under the pretext of a supposed war on drugs, using what is evidently the wrong tools and methods for the supposed job?

The world would be much worse if everybody just surrendered everything all the time

A scientist telling you the name of every compound of some food doesnt make you actually know whats in it. Theres a big difference between knowing the name and knowing the thing and how it affects your body.

Call it something else, rebrand it. We could say that if it didnt come from an animal, its not meat, its just a protein cake or a red pudding, or something. Could it avoid the ban this way?

They didnt ban any vegan protein source, they banned the exact one that tries to make you feel like youre eating beef. The name “Lab-grown meat” tells those ranchers that it wants to replace them, its unnecessarily aggressive, which innevitably creates a reaction.

I guess they mostly scrape it. To waste resources posting here they have to find a way to make money in doing so. They put bots posting on facebook because they think it increases user engagement. They dont want to increase engagement on lemmy (not that it would work…).

Me? The marginalisation of a group depends on my personal conceptions???

Society marginalises groups, not a single person. Its a cultural phenomenon that affects these groups whether we like it or not.

Right, but the word transfers the marginalization of vegans to ‘ai vegans’.