Solidarity: A World-Changing Idea
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- We need collective action and social movements to bring about change, but where is our sense of community and shared identity?
Leah Hunt-Hendrix and Astra Taylor talk to Rob about their recently released book, "Solidarity: The Past, Present, and Future of a World-Changing Idea." The wide-ranging conversation covers the importance of solidarity in addressing the current crises of economic inequality, climate change, and democracy.
Learn more: www.penguinran...
Bravo Robert. Good to see you here again on iNET UA-cam. Much gratitude to the authors and the production crew too Cheers
An essential tenet or principle of Ken Wilbur’s Integral Thinking consists of movement from “me thinking to us and them, and ultimately from us and them to we (inclusive).
18:00
❤❤❤❤❤❤
Solidarity - Proletarians - luxerious intellectual "Überbau" - INET?
Less CO2 in the atmosphere equals with less food production.
Malthusians and Eugenics like the idea of less food.
Didnt know, communists like it too.
OK, the Lyssenko famine, OK Maos transitions, OK, the pilgrims....
Less CO² doesn't equal less food production... We already provide more food than we need to feed everyone equitably and adequately, we throw away more edible food than is needed to eliminate hunger, why would a Eugenicist like the idea of less food? Then that risks killing "good" genes in their eyes and thus they prefer more targeted approaches like sterilisation. Communists want equitable distribution of resources, including food which means the elimination of hunger. Mao and other revolutionaries did a lot of bad and some good, under Mao the most people in history were lifted out of abject poverty, obviously this doesn't excuse the mass artificially induced famine that occurred under him.
This brain-dead and childish ideology of communism-bad and progressivism-bad, is honestly insane and laughable.
@@Betweoxwitegan Less CO2 (nothing else changed) means less food.
Artificial CO2 is used in Greenhouses, to increase the amount of food production far over the costs of the additional CO2 gas.
Waisted food is an other topic.
Many eugenics see wealth as a sign of good genes.
And over all, to rule the world themselves, they don't need all people with good genes.
Kaleghi speaks about a light brown mixed race, IQ 90, high enough to work, but to low
to ever understand how miserable they are enslaved.
Some CO2 eugenics say 2 billions, the german Schellnhuber says one billion is all, renewals can do,
other guidestones speak of 500 millions, the least number I heard was 100 to 200 millions of people,
who would be sufficient to serve the elites with everything, without to waist to much of the resources,
the elites need for their descendants for the coming thousands of years.
When you want to meaningful reduce the population, you cant work with individual testing.
I agree with your view of Mao. But think, there must be better solutions.
Brain-dead and childish... Ok my comment was very short, a bit angry and may have missed the point.
I'm not an academic.
Angry because of the very narrow view points of INET. What about Richard Werner?
@@thomasbentele2468 I agree that many eugenicists see wealth as a sign of "good" genes but even they wouldn't go this far, starving workers means decreased productivity and thus less disproportionate benefit to wealthy people, they also need to maintain growth and consumption if they want their currency to be worth anything. CO² comes from a variety of sources, food production only accounts for like 30% of global artificial CO² production. IQ is not an accurate indicator of intelligence or ability to learn, you need people who are smart if you don't want a nuclear apocalypse from reactor meltdown, etc. Why would you decrease your population if you can exploit more working capital?
I think you're being far too conspiratorial without any valid evidence or reasoning. The elites don't have a conspiracy theory of genocide, etc. They do serve the interest of capital however and this is why they often act similarly, to eliminate this capital incentive, new modes of production are required, like communism for example.
I'm not the biggest fan of INET either but I think they're a relatively good learning tool for people interested in Economics and who want to keep up to date on things.
Also you can produce the same amount of even more food and emit less emissions, it's refining the production process to be more efficient and less pollutive.