I’m not sure how you managed to misunderstand, but by disruptions I was referring to precisely the kind of disruptions of the lives of ordinary people that - and I’m sure we can at least agree on this - they have quite successfully caused.

Our two parallel discussions are about the methods of protesting against the use of fossil fuels. Our discussions here exists because of JSO. It got you thinking about what should be done to get rid of the use of fossil fuels, even if this was just for the purposes of making counterarguments.

You do realize that you replied to a comment just now that raised the issue of fossil fuel subsidies, and the effect those have on the price and thus consumption of oil? Just ending those subsidies would already have a dramatic effect.

It’s true that the discussion is currently centered on freedom of speech, most notably because of the most recent developments, but the issue that is being protested is constantly present in the background. I’m betting that after the criminalization of protests stops being news, that issue gets back into the limelight.

Direct action against fossil fuel infrastructure would be less in the public due to a less central location. Sitting on a street works because it’s a nuisance to many, thus generating a lot of interest among the press and that way the message gets amplified. Gaining publicity via industrial sabotage would be difficult unless they did somehting very drastic, which would only turn them from a mere “nuicanse” into actual villains in the press. Especially so if some such drastic measure leads to the unintended death or injury of a worker at a refinery etc. This would also turn the fossil fuel companies from crooks into victims and I’m betting that they’d also try to frame it as sabotage hurting the blue collar workers they employ. All this while affecting the actual price of oil in a miniscule way at most and alienating the majority of their members who don’t accept these acts. Nonviolence is held in high regard.

The process I described unfortunately does take longer than the initial lashing outs of the establisment. A couple of “martyrs” may not be the worst thing either.

YungOnions already provided you with some good articles about why and how nonviolent disruption works. I suggest you read them.

You approach the whole issue as if it were just up to consumers to stop oil by changing their habits. It isn’t. Switching to an EV isn’t a solution when you’re still paying taxes that go into subsidizing fossil fuels. (Switching to an EV for getting around in a city isn’t a solution anyways, use public transit or get a bicycle). Consumers won’t stop consuming oil until the full cost (including all externalities) of it is shown in the price tag. Action is needed at the political level, and that won’t happen unless enough noise is made regarding the issue. That’s what JSO is doing.

Disruptions cause outrage

Outrage sparks discusson

Discussion leads to political pressure

Political pressure leads to action that targets the oil industry

Mostly it’s just people discussing whether flour should be measured by mass or volume. Jokes about using some mcburgers per football field -esque satirical units, some joke about using moles instead. Some comment about a funny misspelling in the meme. Nobody is flying into an incoherent rage.

I think you’re taking the trollface in the meme a bit too literally. It’s annoying and unnecessary, and can cause mistakes that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise. Ahem, the Mars Climate Orbiter is a good example of a particularly costly one.

Nobody is flying into an incoherent rage. It’s merely annoying having to accommodate the outdated quirks of one country. You having to do the opposite is quite reasonable on the other hand, because you’re not accommodating the conventions of one country, but those of the rest of the world.

Fair point. Rephrase: largest English speaking country by internet footprint, global influence or some similar measure.

Thank you for the correction kind sir. My deepest apologies sir. English isn’t my native language. Would you perhaps care to elaborate on the claim made in your previous comment, so that this here conversation may have some substance beyond mere grammar.

Oh I understand it pretty well. I just take no pride in that. If I don’t remember something I can always look it up. Doesn’t mean it’s not impractical nonsense.

Bear in mind that there are multiple countries where English is the largest language and metric is used, and that English is the modern lingua franca. It just so happens that the largest english speaking country has some weird ways to measure things. As such those weird measurements and associated conversions are often forced on anyone who wants to look for a recipe in English, be that their native language or not.

I’m sorry but who are you referring to? I’m sure there’s idiots in every country, but that is quite an outlandish generalization to make if we’re still talking about entire continents.

Oh no. I just want to be rid of the imperial system. I would have no issue with it if it wasn’t a part of my life. Unfortunately I work in a field where imperial units are used world wide (apart from China and Russia for historical reasons). Because of this, I use some of those units myself every day at work. I understand some of them but take no pride in it. The only reason that the imperial system is still used so much is purely by convention. It is inferior to the metric system in every aspect. I do not feel superior to people who use imperial units because as stated above, I am one of them. People who I feel superior to are the ones who delude themselves into thinking that this somehow isn’t purely because of convention. I dislike them because they are forced upon me by international conventions. OP appears to dislike them because recipes written in English force those units into their life.

There is no pride in understanding a nonsensical system of measurements.

Empathize with stupidity and you’re halfway to thinking like an idiot

• Iain M. Banks

Undeniable DPRK W

There’s also an unlocked bootloader, if you didn’t notice.

Climate change is just one of six planetary boundaries that we’ve crossed, out of a total of nine. The choice of rocket fuel is largely inconsequential compared to the effects of maintaining the industrial capacity necessary for such endeavours.

#1: I doubt there would ever be a situation where those same resources wouldn’t be better used to make things slightly less unbearable on the home world. In our case, even if we covered the world in poison and had an endless nuclear winter, Mars would still look like the worse planet to live on. It’s doubtful whether or not a better one exists within any “practical” distance. If the aliens happened to have a lucky spawn in a star system with multiple habitable planets, good for them. They have another chance to figure things out. But interstellar flight (not to mention colonization) is still vastly more difficult.

#2: Exploiting the resources of the solar system is orders and orders of magnitude simpler than establishing self-sufficient colonies in uninhabitable space or planets. The show For All Mankind threw out most of any believability it had a while ago, but even there the entire fourth season revolved around the subject of how even a single asteroid full of rare earth metals would sate our hunger for such a long time as to effectively kill any initiatives to expand in space.

I hope that when this happens, ASAT-missiles are common enough that I’ll be able to get one.

Space exploration necessitates a technological industrial civilization. So they/we would somehow have to figure out how to first do #2 (so as to not die), while still maintaining the industrial capacity to spread out into space. That sounds like an even more improbable subset of the already improbable scenario #2.