“Projection” is doing a lot of legwork after I used your own words. But I can see what kind of interaction this, and what kind of person you are from it.
Your words don’t need to “deny their agency,” to illustrate why it is harmful, or at the very least, unhelpful. You want to wait until it denies their agency to change? I don’t know what optimism I can find in that outlook.
As far as climate change goes, again, I’d ask you to consider whether people in “collapsed” ecologies resist with the outlook that you’ve expressed (explicitly). Unless, you’d want to “deny their agency,” by now refusing what colonialism even does, who it has affected, and what they do about it. To call that kind of optimism “religious” (let alone something “corrupting” like "dragging you through the mud), echoes a markedly settler-colonial form of objectivity that, I’ll remind you, emerged from the very system that accepts this harm as inevitable.
And you think you’re being realistic, even though you’d discard the reality of human responses to this destruction. Please, don’t feel the need to type up some vindicating response to this, just sit with it privately and see if there’s anything better for you there.
You are strawmanning me by suggesting that because I think collapse is nearly inevitable or already underway at the moment that this must mean I think humanity cannot live in harmony with the earth and that the unsustainability of capitalism, neoliberalism or any other way of organizing people is inherent to humanity itself.
I never said that.
What I said is, the earth system is in collapse (from a human and biodiversity standpoint, and from a standpoint that ecocide and genocide are bad), indisputably, no matter what we do now.
That does not mean I endorse giving up or that I think people who have already received the brunt of collapse don’t have agency.
“Projection” is doing a lot of legwork after I used your own words. But I can see what kind of interaction this, and what kind of person you are from it.
Your words don’t need to “deny their agency,” to illustrate why it is harmful, or at the very least, unhelpful. You want to wait until it denies their agency to change? I don’t know what optimism I can find in that outlook.
As far as climate change goes, again, I’d ask you to consider whether people in “collapsed” ecologies resist with the outlook that you’ve expressed (explicitly). Unless, you’d want to “deny their agency,” by now refusing what colonialism even does, who it has affected, and what they do about it. To call that kind of optimism “religious” (let alone something “corrupting” like "dragging you through the mud), echoes a markedly settler-colonial form of objectivity that, I’ll remind you, emerged from the very system that accepts this harm as inevitable.
And you think you’re being realistic, even though you’d discard the reality of human responses to this destruction. Please, don’t feel the need to type up some vindicating response to this, just sit with it privately and see if there’s anything better for you there.
You are strawmanning me by suggesting that because I think collapse is nearly inevitable or already underway at the moment that this must mean I think humanity cannot live in harmony with the earth and that the unsustainability of capitalism, neoliberalism or any other way of organizing people is inherent to humanity itself.
I never said that.
What I said is, the earth system is in collapse (from a human and biodiversity standpoint, and from a standpoint that ecocide and genocide are bad), indisputably, no matter what we do now.
That does not mean I endorse giving up or that I think people who have already received the brunt of collapse don’t have agency.
I am done, this conversation is pointless.