I think aiming for extinction is shortsighted and puts a lot of blame on humanity as a whole for the wrongs of colonialism.

But reducing our population, especially in countries with a larger carbon footprint (and not in developing countries as eco fascists would prefer) is a worthy goal.

Probably? I'm no expert but I always answer with just lower case without issue

Capchas aren't generally case sensitive though.

Very sad day indeed.

I was already using reddit less. I guess this is the final goodbye.

It still works if you're a mod in a community. I don't know why.

I don't disagree with your point in general, but this doesn't make much sense:

If people suffer from the collapse of harmful machinery, it is the fault of the machinery.
No one would have collapsed it if it was not harmful.

A lot of people depend on machines to stay alive, machines that do produce harmful impacts around the world (that may or may not be possible to reduce), like advanced medical equipment that is dependent on semiconductors.

As a disabled person myself, I prefer if no one has to die.

Well, for starters, MPL wasn't anarchist-inspired, it's a coalition movement. Saying it's anarchistic would be like saying Pride is anarchistic due to the lack of a single formal leadership.

I've been in anarchist circles for years, and never, ever saw anyone mention the book "Change the World Without Taking Power". Most anarchists here are more inspired by older, classical works. I myself tend to critique them for not reading anything after 1950s.

And he must be referring to anarchists here when he talks about horizontalists, because the other political organizations in MPL are MLs, trotskyists, and maoists. What's insane is that the vast majority of the Brazilian radical left is marxist leninist and pretty much allergic to horizontalism. The reason they build coalitions is because they are in most cases weak and small, not a lack of authority.

As a Brazilian, I can tell this guy is full of shit and doesn't understand what happened here in 2013.

Choosing Saudi Arabia for this is like choosing the US for an international conference on anti-imperialism.

Use the extension and fuck with advertiser algorithms in general. It works both as an Ad Blocker and adds fake clicks and ads. It even has a feature where they show how much economic damage you are causing per page.

There are other tools designed to screw with data collection, but this is by far my favorite.

Yeah, but ecological damage isn't about CO2. It's about global ecosystem collapse. Reforestation helps stopping damage to local wildlife, keep bees alive, etc. If we focus only on CO2 we run the risk of falling into technocratic strategies of minimaxing it's mitigation. All that while ignoring what we are trying to preserve in the first place.

Trees also help lowering local temperature, and a small but significant part of that carbon will be absorbed by fungi and stored bellow the Earth. And with diversity, they can provide resources for communities such as fruits, teas, and other good stuff.

And if these tanks are 50 times more "efficient" than a normal tree, how much more expensive is manufacturing and maintaining them than planting and watering a tree is?

That's without mentioning the resources invested into building those oxigen farms. The fact that this is done on a rich country already tells a lot. Solar panels aren't made with love and care, but minerals extracted from the earth.

Also, our problem isn't lack of O2 or excessive CO2. Our problem is a series of ideas and decisions we make about how we treat the world we're a part of. One of those ideas, is precisely efficiency above all other things. It's the same idea that makes market speculators fall in love with "line goes up". She even makes a point of saying how much more efficient than trees those are.

Sure, those are efficient in making the air safer for humans, but do they help with other local biodiversity? Do they help fixing the soil? Do they help the global ecosystem as a whole?