Tiresia
No, you disagree with myself and pretty much all historical usage on the definition of "right-wing". Whether it's the original right wing in the parliament of the first French Republic, monarchists in general, 19th century British Tories, imperialists in general, ethno-nationalists, fascists, etc.
Mussolini was fascist, but held left wing beliefs like welfare and relief for the poor and government intervention and ownership.
Welfare for the in-group is not (exclusively) left-wing. The Nazis had welfare for blonde blue-haired 'aryans' that produced lots of children. Also, neoliberal and conservative western governments love giving welfare to corporations and rich people. Even if your in-group is "all Romans" (in case of the ancient grain dole that Mussolini was inspired by) or "all Italians", if the motivation for welfare is to empower the in-group to exploit the out-group, it's right wing.
Government intervention and ownership are not (exclusively) left-wing. The original right wing - the monarchists in the French parliament - were pro-government intervention and ownership, with the government being embodied by the king. Government spending is consistently higher among Republicans than Democrats. Large ostentatious state projects with kickbacks for the in-group are bread and butter of pretty much every right wing government, from the massive Nazi government-owned holiday park Prora to the Space Launch System. Right-wing governments often forcefully nationalize projects run by the out-group, like Jewish shops in Nazi germany or Black Panther community support networks in the US.
The right wing may cloak themselves in the guise of the free market or of individual liberty or decentralization of power, or in the guise of community and centralization and rights that must be defended at the cost of freedoms. They will present themselves as underdogs and punks and outsiders or as rightful inheritors, powerful leaders, loyalists and patriots. Often they will switch narratives from topic to topic, going from underdogs fighting against the liberal elite who says you can't say slurs anymore to patriots bemoaning the lack of solidarity of people kneeling in protest at a flag.
The one thing that unites them, the one thing that is consistent, is to exploit and oppress the out-group to benefit the in-group.
Contrast communist authoritarianism and mass murder, which were generally justified as being for the good of all mankind.
Based on my amateur understanding, it actually seems possible if climate change gets bad enough. When the calcium carbonate of plankton, seashells, and limestone reacts with the carbonic acid that defines the acidic zone, you do get an increase of gaseous carbon dioxide in the water.
The main chemical reaction is
CaCO3 + 2 H2CO3 -> Ca(2+) + 2 HCO3(-) + CO2 + H2O
The chemical reaction by which seashells and limestone dissolve, releasing CO2 and increasing the gas pressure. The CO2 can be dissolved back into the water via
CO2 + H2O <-> H2CO3 (<-> H(+) + HCO3(-))
While dissolving limestone and seashells neutralize the acid in the short term, this just means that more CO2 will be pulled in from the atmosphere and from the freshly produced CO2 to increase the acidity again. Luckily this isn't an infinite loop - half the CO2 gets stuck in HCO3- each time - so this would actually be a carbon sink from a purely chemical perspective. Ecologically, the dissolving of plankton would take away a carbon sink and so accelerate climate change.
As for the limnic eruption, while shellfish and plankton live in shallow enough water that them dissolving would probably be able to outgas into the atmosphere quickly enough that there is never a toxic concentration, limestone deposits can be found at great depths and can be over a kilometer thick. Just because the ocean can dissolve a 0.2mm plankton shell quickly enough for it to die doesn't mean it can eat through 2km of limestone at an appreciable rate. It seems possible that ocean acidification would increase fast enough that the limestone isn't yet all gone by the time it erodes fast enough to form a convective plume, sucking in fresh acidic ocean from the surrounding water while carbonated but less acidic water quickly rises to the ocean's surface, outgassing the carbon dioxide like a limnic eruption.
While on average the dissolution of limestone would be a carbon sink, a lot of the ocean floor is not limestone, and so these places would draw in CO2 while places that do have limestone deposits would vent CO2. I don't know if it would be fast enough to produce a toxic concentration of CO2. I also don't know if by the time oceanic limestone gets eaten away at this rate the earth would still be habitable by humans.
If that is the choice you make, I believe you that you feel like it is the best you can do right now. But if 'we' refers to people in general, then that is simply false. There are many people who gleefully make things worse and there are also many who fight with heart and soul for a better world. It is not a given that those who see clearly are depressed and too overwhelmed to act.
If you have any energy to spare, search out people irl who take climate change as seriously as you do. Communal mass action is both the most effective strategically and the most invigorating emotionally.
I’m acting under the assumption that they would have died anyway. As they do. When they decompose naturally, they release their carbon.
Okay, glad to understand that the issue is that you didn't understand my first comment or any comment that came after it.
One last time: what I'm saying is that you bury the wood to prevent it from decomposing and releasing its carbon, as an alternative to burning it. And that as an alternate source of electricity you use something that doesn't produce as much emissions, like solar, wind, or nuclear. And if you think burying wood is bad for any reason, then setting it on fire is bad for the same reason.
insurance crisis That's like calling a pandemic a funeral home crisis.
The insurance rates are accurate. Florida is just becoming uninhabitable. (At least, for standard postcolonial architecture).
How about no? A saved life is just as valuable whether there are 70 million dead or 7 billion. And even if it's just delaying the sterilization of the earth by a month that gives billions of people and quintillions of animals a bit more time.
Work-life balance is important and improves productivity, so you should be spending time with your loved ones regardless of how productive labor is. But giving up is just a waste.
If we go extinct, we had better make the last decades of humanity worth living.
If we thread the needle as a species, bottlenecking down to millions or thousands until we can weather the storm, we had better make sure that the culture that makes it through is not the capitalists that built the hardest bunkers or the fascists who massacred enough people until the survivors made it through with no skill of their own or even the liberals who adopted post-hoc constitutional principles that leave them unprepared for the next catastrophe.
And if billions survive, then every person counts. And that means every tonne of CO2 or microplastics, every species, every micrometer of ocean rise, every acre of robust circular agriculture.
There is no scenario in which we just get to lie down and take it.
You're right that there is a definition of anarchism that nobody will meet, just like there's a definition of feminism or capitalism or communism that nobody will meet. Those definitions are therefore useless, but that doesn't mean anything goes.
There's a difference between self-styled 'anarchists' who name themselves after oppressive systems and consciously include oppressive tools in their proposals for change and self-styled 'anarchists' who name themselves after systems that can help empower anarchism and that try to include as little archism in their proposals for change as possible.
The anarchist movement isn't a static definition, it's a vector force pulling at present-day society. Ancaps don't pull along that vector. Non-vegan anarchocommunists do.
Amazon's Human Resources Department buys all the land around where you stand, kills you of you violate the NAP by trespassing, and then barters for your unending indentured servitude in exchange for food and water.
Anarcho-capitalism is like taking the worst parts of feudalism and chattel slavery, but with fewer human rights.