@toni I must say, I hope we reduce the ammount of non-carbon energy! But I don't have much faith.

Leaves me skeptical of a Ericssons whitepaper saying "computing won't have that big of an environmental impact if it was powered entirely by green energy"...

@alcinnz Incentives are currently far from where they should be to significantly reduce CO2. It looks gloom but we have no alternatives than to continue the fight. However I see that remote work can support the goal for CO2 reduction. Hopefully we as human race will also become more connected with the environment and nature since remote work allows us to move away from cities / metropolitan areas.

@toni Could you explain how this is different than the arguments made for colonization during the 16th and 17th centuries?

I see your comment as shockingly analogous to, "Colonization can support the goal of human prosperity. Hopefully we as a human race will also become more connected with the environment and nature since colonization allows us to move away from cities/metropolitan areas."

With CO2 output down only 8% despite most of the consumption-based civilization sitting at home on their hands, it seems absurd to go "Ah yes, this and another round of settlement, that's going to solve things!"

(Additionally, I advise you to consider the anti-Indigenous racism in confusing your European colonial ways with "the human race." Not everyone has lost their connection with their environment, and it plays into the contemporary mechanisms of the genocide of my peoples to erase our cultural perspective while holding it up as the one future for humanity.)

There's a sad irony in seeing someone from Finland, a country actively working to dispossess their Indigenous peoples of their lands and traditions, saying remote work and de-urbanizationation will bring you closer to nature.

It hasn't so far.
@alcinnz

@emsenn @alcinnz Not sure I fully understand colonization connection. In Finland as population migrate to capital region for work abandoning small towns / rural areas it creates a vicious cycle that starves the remaining public & private services in those areas (schools, hospitals, grocery shops) making life more difficult for those still living there. Remote work allows smaller more spaciously spread communities to form and less traffic, commuting, need to build new apartment blocks etc.

@toni I understand what you're saying: this is the same rhetoric presented by Europeans, presented for the same reasons ("overpopulation," "overwork,"), as was provided by intellectuals during the nascent days of colonization.

While I don't have the energy to give you a comprehensive education on colonization, I do have the energy to let you know, you're repeating centuries-old supremacist rhetoric, and I encourage you to divest from discussing our future and reinvest in learning your own history.

(I know, I'm coming in with some big claims: you're here looking to make sure rural Finnish folk don't end up without medical care, and I'm saying that's basically the same thing as sending conquistadors into Peru. I'm hoping you'll hear a stranger out, since that stranger is saying you're accidentally advocating cultural supremacy. Since, well, what /does/ remote work do to provide a place for the Sami with whom y'all share that land?) @alcinnz

@toni (If you are keen to go self-educate on this topic, if I were in your place I might start by familiarizing myself with the neocolonial philosophies that guided American modernists, from Keynes to Toffler, whose bureaucratic capital state is now the model for global civilization; such information may help you see how "colonization" does not require an expansion of physical territory, but can be practiced entirely within the bounds of your own head, the "colonizer" nothing but the culture you're inundated with. @alcinnz

@toni

Hopefully you don't mind the long replies, but I'd like to address the specific thing you mention here:

Finland has been urbanizing, reducing social services in rural places. A focus on remote work will cause a de-urbanization, and an increase in those social services. I believe that's the spirit of your statement?

---

They did that in the US already, and it didn't work like that. Instead, those people that were in rural places had their properties bought, and they moved into cities, which had their social services reduced. And formerly rural communities were rebuilt as suburban subdevelopments with small commercial centers, and all social services (transport, healthcare) is through small private services.

In theory we got everything we wanted: high speed internet, grocery stores, abundant housing, even all controlled by local interests instead of either a large government or large corporation.

In practice, it's all for people in the middle-class and the rural people are now working in the urban centers as service workers, no longer own their homes, no longer maintain gardens, often they even have to change religious denomination because there aren't churches for them in the cities they're moving to.

Am I certain an equivalent thing would happen wherever it got tried? Certainly not. But unless there's an intentional focus on preventing these outcomes, I don't see why they /wouldn't/ happen.

And considering Finland is, like I said, actively dispossessing Indigenous peoples, I really don't think y'all will do much better with rural settlers. @alcinnz

@toni @alcinnz

Urban life is substantially less resource-intensive, for a comparable standard of living, than country life. That's just a fact. And if you're willing to give up indoor plumbing in order to feel more connected to nature, that's great for you, but not for most folks.

@toni

Moon colonies we could definitely have. And a devastating nuclear war can't be excluded either, I'm very much afraid. The weapons are there, & it takes political & social stability to avoid their use. That seems to be in short supply nowadays.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
mastodon.toni.im

This is a personal Mastodon instance of Toni. Follow me @toni@mastodon.toni.im.