On reflection, I think the worst part of Cory Doctorow’s argument in favor of LLM use is this:
Uncategorized
23
Posts
18
Posters
1
Views
-
On reflection, I think the worst part of Cory Doctorow’s argument in favor of LLM use is this:
« Doubtless some of you are affronted by my modest use of an LLM. You think that LLMs are "fruits of the poisoned tree" and must be eschewed because they are saturated with the sin of their origins. I think this is a very bad take, the kind of rathole that purity culture always ends up in.
Let's start with some context. If you don't want to use technology that was created under immoral circumstances or that sprang from an immoral mind, then _you are totally fucked._ »
This is a form of argument beloved by awful people. I can’t be pure and perfect, they say, so there’s no point my trying to make better or less damaging moral choices.
Stop buying from Amazon? Walmart and Target aren’t perfectly moral. Stop driving an SUV? Your car pollutes too, and so do buses. Stop using Twitter? Facebook and Bluesky are far from morally perfect, and mastodon.social has poor moderation. And so on.
I see this kind of excuse all the time online. It’s a cousin to both whataboutism and Mister Gotcha. It also rests on a false premise. The idea that anyone is expected to achieve complete purity is a straw man. You’re not having sainthood demanded of you, people are just hoping you’ll consider *reducing* the amount of immoral and damaging behavior you engage in *when there are perfectly viable alternatives*. Sure, we can argue about whether the alternatives are truly viable, but the idea that if you can’t be perfect you may as well not even try to be better? That’s moral bankruptcy.
Mocking the desire for people to behave more ethically as “purity culture” is like mocking it as “virtue signaling”. It says things about the person doing the mocking, none of them good. It’s also deeply hypocritical coming from someone who has gone out of his way to avoid using DRM. Isn’t that “purity culture”?
@mathew Life has kicked me around enough to finally learn the lesson that achieving *most* of a goal has to be acceptable.
I wanted to decarbonize my house, but my solar array only covers about 60 percent because of archaic zoning requirements.
I wanted the HVAC to be entirely electric, but it turns out I have to burn a small amount of gas when it gets seriously cold.
Sometimes I throw out things that could be recycled because they probably won’t actually be recycled.
Etc.
-
On reflection, I think the worst part of Cory Doctorow’s argument in favor of LLM use is this:
« Doubtless some of you are affronted by my modest use of an LLM. You think that LLMs are "fruits of the poisoned tree" and must be eschewed because they are saturated with the sin of their origins. I think this is a very bad take, the kind of rathole that purity culture always ends up in.
Let's start with some context. If you don't want to use technology that was created under immoral circumstances or that sprang from an immoral mind, then _you are totally fucked._ »
This is a form of argument beloved by awful people. I can’t be pure and perfect, they say, so there’s no point my trying to make better or less damaging moral choices.
Stop buying from Amazon? Walmart and Target aren’t perfectly moral. Stop driving an SUV? Your car pollutes too, and so do buses. Stop using Twitter? Facebook and Bluesky are far from morally perfect, and mastodon.social has poor moderation. And so on.
I see this kind of excuse all the time online. It’s a cousin to both whataboutism and Mister Gotcha. It also rests on a false premise. The idea that anyone is expected to achieve complete purity is a straw man. You’re not having sainthood demanded of you, people are just hoping you’ll consider *reducing* the amount of immoral and damaging behavior you engage in *when there are perfectly viable alternatives*. Sure, we can argue about whether the alternatives are truly viable, but the idea that if you can’t be perfect you may as well not even try to be better? That’s moral bankruptcy.
Mocking the desire for people to behave more ethically as “purity culture” is like mocking it as “virtue signaling”. It says things about the person doing the mocking, none of them good. It’s also deeply hypocritical coming from someone who has gone out of his way to avoid using DRM. Isn’t that “purity culture”?
@mathew from the parts I’ve seen quoted, he’s also totally ignoring that it’s not about the sin of their origins, it’s mostly about the ongoing harms. The theft that’s baked into the models and repeated with every use. The poisoning of air when they’re used. The depletion of water in drought zones doesn’t stop when the models are trained. The trauma and abuse of data workers is ongoing. Foisting the ongoing costs of their power demands on area residents instead of the companies.
-
On reflection, I think the worst part of Cory Doctorow’s argument in favor of LLM use is this:
« Doubtless some of you are affronted by my modest use of an LLM. You think that LLMs are "fruits of the poisoned tree" and must be eschewed because they are saturated with the sin of their origins. I think this is a very bad take, the kind of rathole that purity culture always ends up in.
Let's start with some context. If you don't want to use technology that was created under immoral circumstances or that sprang from an immoral mind, then _you are totally fucked._ »
This is a form of argument beloved by awful people. I can’t be pure and perfect, they say, so there’s no point my trying to make better or less damaging moral choices.
Stop buying from Amazon? Walmart and Target aren’t perfectly moral. Stop driving an SUV? Your car pollutes too, and so do buses. Stop using Twitter? Facebook and Bluesky are far from morally perfect, and mastodon.social has poor moderation. And so on.
I see this kind of excuse all the time online. It’s a cousin to both whataboutism and Mister Gotcha. It also rests on a false premise. The idea that anyone is expected to achieve complete purity is a straw man. You’re not having sainthood demanded of you, people are just hoping you’ll consider *reducing* the amount of immoral and damaging behavior you engage in *when there are perfectly viable alternatives*. Sure, we can argue about whether the alternatives are truly viable, but the idea that if you can’t be perfect you may as well not even try to be better? That’s moral bankruptcy.
Mocking the desire for people to behave more ethically as “purity culture” is like mocking it as “virtue signaling”. It says things about the person doing the mocking, none of them good. It’s also deeply hypocritical coming from someone who has gone out of his way to avoid using DRM. Isn’t that “purity culture”?
@mathew So, two things. One: As your follow-up and everyone else's comments illustrate, ethical consumption is about harm reduction, not perfection.
Two: "And yet you participate in society. I am very intelligent."
-
Let me give an example of how I’m not perfect.
I believe that environmental plastics are a big problem and we should try to cut out plastic packaging. Do I buy products packaged in plastic? Absolutely yes! There are some kinds of product I don’t think it’s possible to find in non-plastic packaging. An example from last week: CR2032 batteries. They’re sold in hard-to-open plastic packages for safety reasons. (They’re also apparently coated in something bitter to discourage kids from swallowing them, which immediately made me want to taste one out of curiosity, but I was able to resist that urge.)
On the other hand, if I’m buying olive oil and there are two bottles on the shelf, and one is plastic and the other is glass, I’ll buy the oil in the glass bottle, even if it’s a bit more expensive, because glass is both recyclable and less harmful in the environment. The canola oil in the kitchen, on the other hand, is in a plastic bottle; I’ve never seen any sold in glass.
So yeah, we can’t be perfect, and I absolutely don’t expect you to be, but let’s all try to be a bit better eh?
@mathew My own trite example of this was suggesting elsewhere that, "If you are considering giving money to a charity, consider writing a check rather than using a credit card so they don't lose money due to the fees." (Clearly, this is in the US...)
A majority of comments were about "you should donate via credit card because ... pick random argument having nothing to do with the fee motivation for the original suggestion".
-
@mathew My own trite example of this was suggesting elsewhere that, "If you are considering giving money to a charity, consider writing a check rather than using a credit card so they don't lose money due to the fees." (Clearly, this is in the US...)
A majority of comments were about "you should donate via credit card because ... pick random argument having nothing to do with the fee motivation for the original suggestion".
@jhaas Charities I’ve contributed to recently have an option to pay the credit card fees and add that to the total, so I’ve been doing that. Of course, contributing via credit card is still better than not contributing.
-
@jhaas Charities I’ve contributed to recently have an option to pay the credit card fees and add that to the total, so I’ve been doing that. Of course, contributing via credit card is still better than not contributing.
@mathew All true. All mentioned.
And if you pay the 3-7% to cover the costs and have the option to just give them that money directly rather than fritter it way... why not?
The core message is: Donate.
The enforced point is: As efficiently as possible
The chorus of purity folk: If you don't do it the easiest way, you're discouraging people from donating at all. Which is the bullshit in question. -
On reflection, I think the worst part of Cory Doctorow’s argument in favor of LLM use is this:
« Doubtless some of you are affronted by my modest use of an LLM. You think that LLMs are "fruits of the poisoned tree" and must be eschewed because they are saturated with the sin of their origins. I think this is a very bad take, the kind of rathole that purity culture always ends up in.
Let's start with some context. If you don't want to use technology that was created under immoral circumstances or that sprang from an immoral mind, then _you are totally fucked._ »
This is a form of argument beloved by awful people. I can’t be pure and perfect, they say, so there’s no point my trying to make better or less damaging moral choices.
Stop buying from Amazon? Walmart and Target aren’t perfectly moral. Stop driving an SUV? Your car pollutes too, and so do buses. Stop using Twitter? Facebook and Bluesky are far from morally perfect, and mastodon.social has poor moderation. And so on.
I see this kind of excuse all the time online. It’s a cousin to both whataboutism and Mister Gotcha. It also rests on a false premise. The idea that anyone is expected to achieve complete purity is a straw man. You’re not having sainthood demanded of you, people are just hoping you’ll consider *reducing* the amount of immoral and damaging behavior you engage in *when there are perfectly viable alternatives*. Sure, we can argue about whether the alternatives are truly viable, but the idea that if you can’t be perfect you may as well not even try to be better? That’s moral bankruptcy.
Mocking the desire for people to behave more ethically as “purity culture” is like mocking it as “virtue signaling”. It says things about the person doing the mocking, none of them good. It’s also deeply hypocritical coming from someone who has gone out of his way to avoid using DRM. Isn’t that “purity culture”?
@mathew Right on. I don't take any statements which include pejorative phrases like "purity culture" or "virtue signaling" seriously. They are simply one tiny step away from "woke" and it's a lazy rhetorical shortcut. Gonna start calling us luddites too? Geeeeez.
-
On reflection, I think the worst part of Cory Doctorow’s argument in favor of LLM use is this:
« Doubtless some of you are affronted by my modest use of an LLM. You think that LLMs are "fruits of the poisoned tree" and must be eschewed because they are saturated with the sin of their origins. I think this is a very bad take, the kind of rathole that purity culture always ends up in.
Let's start with some context. If you don't want to use technology that was created under immoral circumstances or that sprang from an immoral mind, then _you are totally fucked._ »
This is a form of argument beloved by awful people. I can’t be pure and perfect, they say, so there’s no point my trying to make better or less damaging moral choices.
Stop buying from Amazon? Walmart and Target aren’t perfectly moral. Stop driving an SUV? Your car pollutes too, and so do buses. Stop using Twitter? Facebook and Bluesky are far from morally perfect, and mastodon.social has poor moderation. And so on.
I see this kind of excuse all the time online. It’s a cousin to both whataboutism and Mister Gotcha. It also rests on a false premise. The idea that anyone is expected to achieve complete purity is a straw man. You’re not having sainthood demanded of you, people are just hoping you’ll consider *reducing* the amount of immoral and damaging behavior you engage in *when there are perfectly viable alternatives*. Sure, we can argue about whether the alternatives are truly viable, but the idea that if you can’t be perfect you may as well not even try to be better? That’s moral bankruptcy.
Mocking the desire for people to behave more ethically as “purity culture” is like mocking it as “virtue signaling”. It says things about the person doing the mocking, none of them good. It’s also deeply hypocritical coming from someone who has gone out of his way to avoid using DRM. Isn’t that “purity culture”?
@mathew oh, this is so well said, thank you. Yes.
-
Let me give an example of how I’m not perfect.
I believe that environmental plastics are a big problem and we should try to cut out plastic packaging. Do I buy products packaged in plastic? Absolutely yes! There are some kinds of product I don’t think it’s possible to find in non-plastic packaging. An example from last week: CR2032 batteries. They’re sold in hard-to-open plastic packages for safety reasons. (They’re also apparently coated in something bitter to discourage kids from swallowing them, which immediately made me want to taste one out of curiosity, but I was able to resist that urge.)
On the other hand, if I’m buying olive oil and there are two bottles on the shelf, and one is plastic and the other is glass, I’ll buy the oil in the glass bottle, even if it’s a bit more expensive, because glass is both recyclable and less harmful in the environment. The canola oil in the kitchen, on the other hand, is in a plastic bottle; I’ve never seen any sold in glass.
So yeah, we can’t be perfect, and I absolutely don’t expect you to be, but let’s all try to be a bit better eh?
@mathew (i can quench the curiosity on the bitterant, having licked both a battery and a switch cart: it's real bad and it takes forever to get out of your mouth)
-
On reflection, I think the worst part of Cory Doctorow’s argument in favor of LLM use is this:
« Doubtless some of you are affronted by my modest use of an LLM. You think that LLMs are "fruits of the poisoned tree" and must be eschewed because they are saturated with the sin of their origins. I think this is a very bad take, the kind of rathole that purity culture always ends up in.
Let's start with some context. If you don't want to use technology that was created under immoral circumstances or that sprang from an immoral mind, then _you are totally fucked._ »
This is a form of argument beloved by awful people. I can’t be pure and perfect, they say, so there’s no point my trying to make better or less damaging moral choices.
Stop buying from Amazon? Walmart and Target aren’t perfectly moral. Stop driving an SUV? Your car pollutes too, and so do buses. Stop using Twitter? Facebook and Bluesky are far from morally perfect, and mastodon.social has poor moderation. And so on.
I see this kind of excuse all the time online. It’s a cousin to both whataboutism and Mister Gotcha. It also rests on a false premise. The idea that anyone is expected to achieve complete purity is a straw man. You’re not having sainthood demanded of you, people are just hoping you’ll consider *reducing* the amount of immoral and damaging behavior you engage in *when there are perfectly viable alternatives*. Sure, we can argue about whether the alternatives are truly viable, but the idea that if you can’t be perfect you may as well not even try to be better? That’s moral bankruptcy.
Mocking the desire for people to behave more ethically as “purity culture” is like mocking it as “virtue signaling”. It says things about the person doing the mocking, none of them good. It’s also deeply hypocritical coming from someone who has gone out of his way to avoid using DRM. Isn’t that “purity culture”?
@mathew yeah, I mean, he's written several books without using any AI at all. We just want him to keep doing what he'd been doing.
-
On reflection, I think the worst part of Cory Doctorow’s argument in favor of LLM use is this:
« Doubtless some of you are affronted by my modest use of an LLM. You think that LLMs are "fruits of the poisoned tree" and must be eschewed because they are saturated with the sin of their origins. I think this is a very bad take, the kind of rathole that purity culture always ends up in.
Let's start with some context. If you don't want to use technology that was created under immoral circumstances or that sprang from an immoral mind, then _you are totally fucked._ »
This is a form of argument beloved by awful people. I can’t be pure and perfect, they say, so there’s no point my trying to make better or less damaging moral choices.
Stop buying from Amazon? Walmart and Target aren’t perfectly moral. Stop driving an SUV? Your car pollutes too, and so do buses. Stop using Twitter? Facebook and Bluesky are far from morally perfect, and mastodon.social has poor moderation. And so on.
I see this kind of excuse all the time online. It’s a cousin to both whataboutism and Mister Gotcha. It also rests on a false premise. The idea that anyone is expected to achieve complete purity is a straw man. You’re not having sainthood demanded of you, people are just hoping you’ll consider *reducing* the amount of immoral and damaging behavior you engage in *when there are perfectly viable alternatives*. Sure, we can argue about whether the alternatives are truly viable, but the idea that if you can’t be perfect you may as well not even try to be better? That’s moral bankruptcy.
Mocking the desire for people to behave more ethically as “purity culture” is like mocking it as “virtue signaling”. It says things about the person doing the mocking, none of them good. It’s also deeply hypocritical coming from someone who has gone out of his way to avoid using DRM. Isn’t that “purity culture”?
@mathew When I say "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" i mean to imply "and therefore we should attempt to avoid consumption wherever possible under our circumstances." To date nothing has made it so I *have to have to have to* use LLM's so I won't.
I also hate that some say "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" and mean "and therefore I don't have to take responsibility for my harmful actions" -
On reflection, I think the worst part of Cory Doctorow’s argument in favor of LLM use is this:
« Doubtless some of you are affronted by my modest use of an LLM. You think that LLMs are "fruits of the poisoned tree" and must be eschewed because they are saturated with the sin of their origins. I think this is a very bad take, the kind of rathole that purity culture always ends up in.
Let's start with some context. If you don't want to use technology that was created under immoral circumstances or that sprang from an immoral mind, then _you are totally fucked._ »
This is a form of argument beloved by awful people. I can’t be pure and perfect, they say, so there’s no point my trying to make better or less damaging moral choices.
Stop buying from Amazon? Walmart and Target aren’t perfectly moral. Stop driving an SUV? Your car pollutes too, and so do buses. Stop using Twitter? Facebook and Bluesky are far from morally perfect, and mastodon.social has poor moderation. And so on.
I see this kind of excuse all the time online. It’s a cousin to both whataboutism and Mister Gotcha. It also rests on a false premise. The idea that anyone is expected to achieve complete purity is a straw man. You’re not having sainthood demanded of you, people are just hoping you’ll consider *reducing* the amount of immoral and damaging behavior you engage in *when there are perfectly viable alternatives*. Sure, we can argue about whether the alternatives are truly viable, but the idea that if you can’t be perfect you may as well not even try to be better? That’s moral bankruptcy.
Mocking the desire for people to behave more ethically as “purity culture” is like mocking it as “virtue signaling”. It says things about the person doing the mocking, none of them good. It’s also deeply hypocritical coming from someone who has gone out of his way to avoid using DRM. Isn’t that “purity culture”?
@mathew This sounds to me like a variation of his other take - that there are no individual solutions to structural issues. You can refuse to use LLMs for your own reasons, and the rest of the world are just going to continue using them, and the one to be disadvantaged ultimately would be you.
In short, it doesn’t seem any different from his earlier conclusion here.
https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic/109932407074736182
Fatalistic? Maybe?
-
@mathew This sounds to me like a variation of his other take - that there are no individual solutions to structural issues. You can refuse to use LLMs for your own reasons, and the rest of the world are just going to continue using them, and the one to be disadvantaged ultimately would be you.
In short, it doesn’t seem any different from his earlier conclusion here.
https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic/109932407074736182
Fatalistic? Maybe?
@Abazigal The rest of the world will go on using DRM even if he doesn’t, and he’ll continue to be disadvantaged by not having Audible carry his audiobooks, but somehow he thought that was a battle worth fighting. I wonder what’s different this time?
-
Let me give an example of how I’m not perfect.
I believe that environmental plastics are a big problem and we should try to cut out plastic packaging. Do I buy products packaged in plastic? Absolutely yes! There are some kinds of product I don’t think it’s possible to find in non-plastic packaging. An example from last week: CR2032 batteries. They’re sold in hard-to-open plastic packages for safety reasons. (They’re also apparently coated in something bitter to discourage kids from swallowing them, which immediately made me want to taste one out of curiosity, but I was able to resist that urge.)
On the other hand, if I’m buying olive oil and there are two bottles on the shelf, and one is plastic and the other is glass, I’ll buy the oil in the glass bottle, even if it’s a bit more expensive, because glass is both recyclable and less harmful in the environment. The canola oil in the kitchen, on the other hand, is in a plastic bottle; I’ve never seen any sold in glass.
So yeah, we can’t be perfect, and I absolutely don’t expect you to be, but let’s all try to be a bit better eh?
@mathew One thing I've learned from your post is that I know how CR2032 cells taste and you don't.
-
@mathew One thing I've learned from your post is that I know how CR2032 cells taste and you don't.
@mathew But yes, Cory's response is really disappointing.
-
On reflection, I think the worst part of Cory Doctorow’s argument in favor of LLM use is this:
« Doubtless some of you are affronted by my modest use of an LLM. You think that LLMs are "fruits of the poisoned tree" and must be eschewed because they are saturated with the sin of their origins. I think this is a very bad take, the kind of rathole that purity culture always ends up in.
Let's start with some context. If you don't want to use technology that was created under immoral circumstances or that sprang from an immoral mind, then _you are totally fucked._ »
This is a form of argument beloved by awful people. I can’t be pure and perfect, they say, so there’s no point my trying to make better or less damaging moral choices.
Stop buying from Amazon? Walmart and Target aren’t perfectly moral. Stop driving an SUV? Your car pollutes too, and so do buses. Stop using Twitter? Facebook and Bluesky are far from morally perfect, and mastodon.social has poor moderation. And so on.
I see this kind of excuse all the time online. It’s a cousin to both whataboutism and Mister Gotcha. It also rests on a false premise. The idea that anyone is expected to achieve complete purity is a straw man. You’re not having sainthood demanded of you, people are just hoping you’ll consider *reducing* the amount of immoral and damaging behavior you engage in *when there are perfectly viable alternatives*. Sure, we can argue about whether the alternatives are truly viable, but the idea that if you can’t be perfect you may as well not even try to be better? That’s moral bankruptcy.
Mocking the desire for people to behave more ethically as “purity culture” is like mocking it as “virtue signaling”. It says things about the person doing the mocking, none of them good. It’s also deeply hypocritical coming from someone who has gone out of his way to avoid using DRM. Isn’t that “purity culture”?
@mathew yeah but ya see, LLMs are neat.
The weirdest part to me is he is defending using them as spell and grammar checks, when that's been a solved problem for ages. What a waste.
-
On reflection, I think the worst part of Cory Doctorow’s argument in favor of LLM use is this:
« Doubtless some of you are affronted by my modest use of an LLM. You think that LLMs are "fruits of the poisoned tree" and must be eschewed because they are saturated with the sin of their origins. I think this is a very bad take, the kind of rathole that purity culture always ends up in.
Let's start with some context. If you don't want to use technology that was created under immoral circumstances or that sprang from an immoral mind, then _you are totally fucked._ »
This is a form of argument beloved by awful people. I can’t be pure and perfect, they say, so there’s no point my trying to make better or less damaging moral choices.
Stop buying from Amazon? Walmart and Target aren’t perfectly moral. Stop driving an SUV? Your car pollutes too, and so do buses. Stop using Twitter? Facebook and Bluesky are far from morally perfect, and mastodon.social has poor moderation. And so on.
I see this kind of excuse all the time online. It’s a cousin to both whataboutism and Mister Gotcha. It also rests on a false premise. The idea that anyone is expected to achieve complete purity is a straw man. You’re not having sainthood demanded of you, people are just hoping you’ll consider *reducing* the amount of immoral and damaging behavior you engage in *when there are perfectly viable alternatives*. Sure, we can argue about whether the alternatives are truly viable, but the idea that if you can’t be perfect you may as well not even try to be better? That’s moral bankruptcy.
Mocking the desire for people to behave more ethically as “purity culture” is like mocking it as “virtue signaling”. It says things about the person doing the mocking, none of them good. It’s also deeply hypocritical coming from someone who has gone out of his way to avoid using DRM. Isn’t that “purity culture”?
@mathew To me LLMs are almost something like cars which are also terrible inventions and a lot of people will go to great lengths why they can‘t under no circumstances give up driving. It‘s like an instinctive version of Adorno‘s "Wrong life cannot be lived rightly,“ a consumer choice.
Which is why the whole argument is meaningless if we don’t manage to overcome the relations of production. It‘s good and right to buy olive oil in a glass bottle but it won‘t achieve any real meaningful change.
-
Let me give an example of how I’m not perfect.
I believe that environmental plastics are a big problem and we should try to cut out plastic packaging. Do I buy products packaged in plastic? Absolutely yes! There are some kinds of product I don’t think it’s possible to find in non-plastic packaging. An example from last week: CR2032 batteries. They’re sold in hard-to-open plastic packages for safety reasons. (They’re also apparently coated in something bitter to discourage kids from swallowing them, which immediately made me want to taste one out of curiosity, but I was able to resist that urge.)
On the other hand, if I’m buying olive oil and there are two bottles on the shelf, and one is plastic and the other is glass, I’ll buy the oil in the glass bottle, even if it’s a bit more expensive, because glass is both recyclable and less harmful in the environment. The canola oil in the kitchen, on the other hand, is in a plastic bottle; I’ve never seen any sold in glass.
So yeah, we can’t be perfect, and I absolutely don’t expect you to be, but let’s all try to be a bit better eh?
@mathew When I simply judge what Coy Doctorow is quoted here, then you are criticizing a straw man.
I don't see the moral bankruptcy here. I see simply pledging people to not overdo it.
How many times have I seen and experienced that moral people are creating a toxic environment where everyone needs to be perfect in whatever the target is. Any deviation is harshly punished.
Which is a well-known disease of any activist groups and regularly tears up initiatives.
-
Let me give an example of how I’m not perfect.
I believe that environmental plastics are a big problem and we should try to cut out plastic packaging. Do I buy products packaged in plastic? Absolutely yes! There are some kinds of product I don’t think it’s possible to find in non-plastic packaging. An example from last week: CR2032 batteries. They’re sold in hard-to-open plastic packages for safety reasons. (They’re also apparently coated in something bitter to discourage kids from swallowing them, which immediately made me want to taste one out of curiosity, but I was able to resist that urge.)
On the other hand, if I’m buying olive oil and there are two bottles on the shelf, and one is plastic and the other is glass, I’ll buy the oil in the glass bottle, even if it’s a bit more expensive, because glass is both recyclable and less harmful in the environment. The canola oil in the kitchen, on the other hand, is in a plastic bottle; I’ve never seen any sold in glass.
So yeah, we can’t be perfect, and I absolutely don’t expect you to be, but let’s all try to be a bit better eh?
@mathew I agree with you, Cory is just looking at it from a skewed perspective. My personal take is:
As long as you, the individual, have the INNER motivation to strive for "perfection" with regards to anything, nobody has the right to stop you. Give the best you are able to offer.
On the other hand, if you're forced to be perfect by others or by society in general, so it's an OUTER motivation, then ... Yeah it might be the right thing to do objectively, but maybe it's not fitting in your reality which might be really constrained (as explained with your example) ... So don't stress yourself out too much about it. Sometimes its not possible to live a contradiction free live. -
Let me give an example of how I’m not perfect.
I believe that environmental plastics are a big problem and we should try to cut out plastic packaging. Do I buy products packaged in plastic? Absolutely yes! There are some kinds of product I don’t think it’s possible to find in non-plastic packaging. An example from last week: CR2032 batteries. They’re sold in hard-to-open plastic packages for safety reasons. (They’re also apparently coated in something bitter to discourage kids from swallowing them, which immediately made me want to taste one out of curiosity, but I was able to resist that urge.)
On the other hand, if I’m buying olive oil and there are two bottles on the shelf, and one is plastic and the other is glass, I’ll buy the oil in the glass bottle, even if it’s a bit more expensive, because glass is both recyclable and less harmful in the environment. The canola oil in the kitchen, on the other hand, is in a plastic bottle; I’ve never seen any sold in glass.
So yeah, we can’t be perfect, and I absolutely don’t expect you to be, but let’s all try to be a bit better eh?
@mathew Cory Doctorow right now -
undefined oblomov@sociale.network shared this topic on
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
Come quest’isola remota mi ha dato una grande lezione su chi pensavo di essere.
El Hierro, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spagna
El Hierro (seconda parte): il silenzio magico che cura e insegna. –
Verso Casa – dove il cuore vuole stare.
El Hierro, un luogo perfetto che ha tutto quello che sto cercando.Dopo l’impatto iniziale con il paesaggio arido e il vuoto di El Hierro in questo secondo episodio racconto il tempo lento vissuto sull’isola.Qui il silenzio non è solo assenza di rumore, ma uno spazio che ti ascolta, che ti costringe a fare i conti con te stesso.Ho vissuto giorni particolari, a cavallo tra la noia e una specie di rinascita. La Ragione voleva delle risposte. Al cuore non servivano.Questo episodio parla di tempo denso, di ascolto di se stessi e di come un luogo apparentemente immobile può diventare l'opportunità di capire molte cose di sé.Verso Casa continua da qui:da un’isola che nella sua stranezzati rapisce il cuore.🎧 Guarda di più su YouTube 🌍 Scopri di più sul sito Simone ViaggiatoreI miei Video su El Hierro.=== LOCALITA' CITATE ===- Las Playas- La Frontera- Sendero de la Llanìa- Centro de Interpretaciòn del JulànPossiamo restare in contatto tramite questi canali. Ti aspetto :-)- https://www.simoneviaggiatore.com- https://www.youtube.com/@versocasa- https.//https://www.youtube.com/@simoneviaggiatore- https://www.tiktok.com/@simoneviaggiatore- https://mastodon.uno/deck/@simonperryQuando penso alle nostre città italiane, la prima cosa che mi viene in mente è il rumore.
Viviamo immersi nel frastuono. Abbiamo vicini che possono farsi sentire a qualunque ora del giorno e della notte, e poi ci sono le strade con il rombo delle automobili, dei camion e i clacson.
Quando andiamo nei centri commerciali siamo invasi dalla musica e ormai divertirsi è un sinonimo di rumore.A El Hierro invece c’è un silenzio magico.
Quando avevo preso coscienza di cosa mi facesse stare bene in un posto, il silenzio non l’avevo incluso ma dopo qualche giorno sull’isola mi stavo accorgendo che era fondamentale, e la quiete era il fattore principale che mi stava aiutando a rilassarmi.
[…]
Al mattino presto, quando l’orizzonte passa dal blu all’arancione, il silenzio magico di El Hierro viene spezzato.
Ma in fondo sono in vacanza e mi va bene anche svegliarmi così.
[Gallo che canta]
È il momento di esplorare la costa est.
Ho intuito che l’isola ha alcune caratteristiche importanti, ma non riesco a descriverle finché non arrivo a Las Playas, piccola località balneare con spiaggia di sabbia.
Proseguo l’esplorazione di questo tratto di costa, di questo golfo lasciato da questa caldera, anche da questo lato dell’isola collassata in mare chissà quanto tempo fa e mi sto spostando in pratica da nord verso sud. El Hierro è un’isola strana, nel senso che… non ha un vero e proprio centro, cioè mi spiego meglio, non è un’isola rotonda, non è un’isola lunga, non ha un su e un giù. Se guardi la cartina lo capisci subito. È una specie di… immaginati la testa di una mucca, con le corna e il muso in basso e diciamo proprio al centro di questa enorme struttura di questa isola, c’è un altissimo crinale di montagne di 1200-1400 m, quindi davvero non c’è un centro. E se tu vuoi vedere le coste devi comunque salire e scendere. Se vuoi attraversarla devi salire fino al clinale e scendere dall’altra parte oppure devi girarci intorno, quindi diventa un’isola che nonostante non sia grande (perché è 250 km² di estensione), allo stesso tempo non è neanche piccola; le strade sono molto belle, ma percorrele in un senso o nell’altro è comunque una cosa un po’ lunga, per cui è un’isola che sembra più grande di quello che è.
El Hierro sembra più grande di quello che è. Ma la realtà è che si tratta di un’isola piccola e abbastanza vuota.
I crinali dell’isola e le scogliere separano i paesi tra loro isolandoli.
Alle Canarie i governi delle singole isole si chiamano “Cabildo”. Il Cabildo di El Hierro ha costruito dei tunnel che mettono in comunicazione tra loro le valli, che altrimenti resterebbero separate.
Resta il fatto però che in quest’isola remota è davvero facile sentirsi isolati.
La Frontera, sulla costa opposta dell’isola, è un paese più vivace rispetto ad altri, ma si nota anche qui che la vita scorre lentamente. Verso mezzogiorno vedo che molti ristoranti non aprono. In uno dei pochi aperti mi spiegano che è perché non conviene. Non ci sono abbastanza persone. Tanto vale aprire solo nei fine settimana oppure a cena.
L’hotel più piccolo del mondo invece è aperto.
È costruito con la stessa lava nera delle scogliere su cui si trova. Ha una sola stanza che si può prenotare, ma anche un ristorante che è molto più grande e può servire molte più persone.
Mi dicono che è gestito da un italiano e di italiani residenti qui non ce ne sono ancora. Mi piacerebbe chiedere a questa persona come si vive sull’isola, ma non lo trovo. Da quello che posso vedere io il posto è stupendo, ma non credo che mi piacerebbe viverci. Alle spalle del paese c’è una scogliera alta 1000 m.
È il bordo dell’enorme vulcano crollato in mare per metà. Quello che è rimasto in piedi corrisponde quasi a una metà dell’isola e potrebbe starci dentro una città come Mantova o Viterbo. Davanti al paese invece c’è il mare, ma non ci sono spiagge: soltanto scogliere alte una ventina di metri su cui le onde si infrangono con violenza.
Per poter consentire ai cittadini di fare il bagno, il Comune ha messo delle scalette che portano in acqua oppure in alcune piscine naturali che si riempiono con le onde del mare. Visto che non sono più tanto giovane, tutto questo per me sarebbe inutile. L’oceano è troppo impetuoso qui, non farei altro che mettermi in pericolo per tutto il tempo.
A La Frontera molte persone hanno un che di esotico.
Una ricerca veloce in internet mi svela che nel ‘900 in questa città si è svolta un’altra migrazione.
Partirono diverse navi cariche di persone che volevano fuggire alla dittatura spagnola che stava nascendo. Quelle navi arrivarono a Cuba e in Venezuela. Oggi diversi eredi di questi migranti stanno tornando alle terre dei loro antenati. Alcuni portano con sé altre persone; parlano già spagnolo e con un accento molto simile a quello di El Hierro, per cui per loro è più facile integrarsi qui e ottenere la cittadinanza.
Una signora con cui chiacchiero mi conferma tutto questo. La chiamerò Maria.
Maria lavora alla riserva in cui si cerca di recuperare la specie di lucertole che si è evoluta qui nel corso dei millenni. Questi rettili qui vengono chiamati Lagarto Gigante de El Hierro, ma il nome scientifico è Gallotia Simonii, anche se non ha niente a che vedere con me!
Parliamo di rettili che possono diventare anche 40 o 50 cm, lucertole di mezzo metro!
Si pensava che fossero estinte, ma proprio qui, vicino al centro di recupero, sono stati ritrovati pochi esemplari dai quali è iniziato il recupero della specie. La visita è davvero interessante e con un po’ di fortuna e un po’ di aiuto si possono vedere i lucertoloni che si mimetizzano perfettamente nel grande terrario in cui sono conservati. I loro figli verranno deportati su uno scoglio vicino, come piano B.
In fondo qui potrebbe sempre iniziare un’eruzione.
Lo capisco benissimo. Anch’io sto cercando un piano B rispetto a Tenerife, in effetti.
Seguendo una strada spettacolare, salgo fino ai crinali dell’isola.
Ci sono punti panoramici incredibili e addirittura uno di essi ha il pavimento di vetro. Lassù, a 1000 m di quota, lo sguardo può estendersi così tanto da farmi provare una grande sensazione di libertà. Mi chiedo se dovrei restare qui per sempre. Come informatico, probabilmente non avrei molto successo. Sarebbe difficile riempire le mie giornate.
Con l’abitudine anche questi panorami eccezionali diventerebbero normali per me.
Ci sembra sempre tutto bello quando è nuovo, ma io devo immaginarmi cosa succederà dopo 10 o 20 anni.
I crinali dell’isola sono quasi disabitati. Questa zona è spazzata dal vento e ho un po’ freddo, ma vale la pena conoscerla meglio. Trovarsi su questi crinali e quindi camminare sui vulcani che hanno formato l’isola è un’emozione.
Vale bene la pena di vincere un po’ di vento, che poi comunque non è detto che ci sia sempre, per vedere spettacoli come questo, però appunto questo era per dirvi di arrivarci preparati perché non è che siccome sono canarie c’è caldo, se venite in inverno… c’è freschino.
Uno dei percorsi che consiglio di fare è il “Sendero de la Llanía”.
Attraversa boschi composti di vegetazione di diversi tipi che piano piano ha colonizzato i vulcani spenti. È emozionante vedere che la vita lentamente li sta riconquistando dopo le eruzioni.
Mentre passeggio per i boschi, mi sento molto in forma. In Italia non sarei riuscito a percorrere i 5 km di questo sentiero facile. È il potere del clima che c’è qui che migliora la mia salute.
Nel bel mezzo del bosco trovo il centro di Interpretación del Julan. È un museo con una bella vista sul deserto a sud e che racconta la storia dei Bimbaches.
I Bimbaches arrivarono qui dal Nord Africa qualche millennio prima degli spagnoli. Dalle loro scritture sappiamo che discendevano da popolazioni libiche e algerine. Ancora una volta resto di stucco nel vedere quanto si spostasse la gente nel mondo antico.
La migrazione dei bimbaces, in un certo senso, non è ancora finita. Oggi El Hierro è diventata una delle porte di accesso dell’immigrazione clandestina in Europa. Le barche continuano ad arrivare dalle coste del Nord Africa, piene di persone che, come al tempo dei Bimbaches, cercano solo di vivere. Una certa stampa la chiama “invasione” e diverse persone chiedono a gran voce di interrompere questi flussi migratori. Queste persone sono state convinte che i loro problemi dipendano da questi arrivi. È curioso che i discendenti di persone che hanno preso queste isole con la forza chiedano di interrompere una migrazione di fatto pacifica.
La verità è che non si rifiutano le persone, ma le persone povere e diverse da noi. Perché se hai i soldi o l’aspetto che si ritiene giusto, allora non sarai mai straniero da nessuna parte.
Le persone dal sudamerica, sono la prova: sono potute tornare tranquillamente, così come altri europei più o meno facoltosi che stanno comprando le case sull’isola, togliendole ai residenti.
Senza contare che gli africani non vogliono fermarsi qui. El Hierro per loro è solo un modo per entrare in Europa, uno come tanti altri. Ma di questi fatti la stampa dice poco.
Ragionando su queste cose mi rendo conto all’improvviso che anch’io qui avrei l’aspetto che si ritiene giusto e anche se non sono ricco, di certo non arriverei a mani vuote dopo una vita di lavoro. Potrei entrare tranquillamente perché sono europeo, ma sarei anch’io un migrante.
Anzi, sono un migrante: già ora, perché ho deciso di andare, anche se non conosco la destinazione. Cosa mi distingue dalle persone che arrivano sulle barche?
Le nostre condizioni di base che sono molto diverse.
Io posso scegliere dove vivere e non sto scappando da guerre, carestie o dittature. Non c’è merito in questo, solo fortuna. La fortuna di essere nato in un paese che mi ha dato i mezzi e il privilegio di poter pianificare tutto.
[Musica]
È arrivato il momento di partire da qui per tornare a Tenerife e poi in Italia. Là la mia casa mi aspetta, ma la vedo sempre di più come una sistemazione temporanea, in attesa che il mio sogno possa realizzarsi.
El Hierro mi aveva insegnato l’importanza di avere vicino a me il silenzio, ma anche una comunità numerosa. Non perché mi piaccia la confusione o il cemento, ma perché vivendo lì alla lunga non avrei abbastanza stimoli. Non avrei la possibilità di vedere cose nuove o di conoscere persone nuove, neanche se lo volessi. Ci sarebbero anche problemi di lavoro e sarebbe difficile riempire le giornate.
Dubitavo di potermi adattare a quella vita più tranquilla, ma anche più lenta. E se avessi avuto problemi di salute importanti c’era il rischio di non avere cure adeguate. Vivere a El Hierro vorrebbe dire vivere ai margini dell’umanità senza potermici immergere quando lo voglio. Davvero troppo, troppo ai margini. Sull’isola si può sopravvivere e anche bene, ma conoscendomi in breve tempo El Hierro mi sarebbe sembrata una prigione a cielo aperto, troppo lontana da tutto, persino per me.Era arrivato il momento di ripartire per Tenerife. [Musica]
Viaggio tra le isole d’Europa per trovare un posto dove il cuore vuole stare e il corpo non fa male. So che esiste, devo solo trovarlo. Se anche tu ami viaggiare o sogni di cambiare vita, seguimi in questo lungo viaggio verso casa.
Se vuoi aiutarmi nella mia ricerca, condividi questo podcast, seguilo e lascia una valutazione positiva o un commento sulla piattaforma da cui stai ascoltando.
Tag per l’episodio:
#Podcast
#VivereAlleCanarie
#CambiamentoDiVita
#Resilienza
#RicercaDellaFelicità
#MinimalismoEsistenziale
#VivereConLartrite
#DiarioDiViaggio
#SlowLiving
#versocasa
-
vabbè regà dati i tempi io me guardo la seconda stagione di fallout :ablobblastoff:
-
Curami: puntata di sabato 28 febbraio. teva nuoce gravemente alla salute
@anarchia
La trasmissione di sabato 28 febbraio ospita Lorenzo Falchi già sindaco di Sesto Fiorentino Consigliere regionale AVS Toscana e Alberto Hoch della Rete Bresciana Società Civile per https://www.rivoluzioneanarchica.it/curami-puntata-di-sabato-28-febbraio-teva-nuoce-gravemente-alla-salute/
-
@quinta siamo al delirio.
-
From Der Naturen Bloeme (ca. 1350).
Source: National Library of the Netherlands
https://pdimagearchive.org/images/f17a45e7-d549-4c3a-8125-16daff621e52
-
CINEMATOGRAFIA QUEER (@cinematoqueer.bsky.social)
https://bsky.app/profile/cinematoqueer.bsky.social/post/3mg3vidlppc2n
> Dia 26/03, "Ruas da Glória" chega aos cinemas. Felipe Sholl filma o mergulho de Gabriel em um Rio de sombras, desejos e obsessões. Com Alejandro Claveaux e a magnética Diva Menner, é um retrato visceral sobre luto, prostituição e busca por identidade. 🇧🇷🌈 https://cinematografiaqueer.com.br/2025/10/ruas-da-gloria-brasil-2024.html
-
@sen @TheBreadmonkey I would have thought of The True Fork https://truefork.org/DragonPreservationSociety/index.htm
-
CROSETTO AVEVA ASCOLTATO ANCHE “ONDA VERDE, VIAGGIARE INFORMATI”?
@news
*Proprio non capisco l’accanimento nei confronti di Guido Crosetto e ancor meno l’acidità dei commenti nei riguardi delle Istituzioni che non avrebbero evitato l’imbarazzante situazione di un Ministro bloccato al gate di un aeroporto come un qualunque agente di commercio in trasferta.
L'articolo CROSETTO
