The issue is, the "wisdom" isn't "don't worry about personal emissions", it's "take voting extremely seriously. Become a single issue voter, that issue should be climate"
But there's a psychological thing where people take the discount today and the payment later.
I remember thinking this in 2005 odd. I said something to the effect of "If you think Climate Change doesn't exist, start an insurance company" Unfortunately, turns out all insurance companies weren't really pricing in climate...
Not a premium user but Youtube has poisoned its own waters with its algorithm. You can see the "top" content basically gaming that algorithm as well as it can. Literally every part of it from the title to the thumbnail to the content itself is hollow except for the skinner box.
It's a pretty tepid way of thinking about the issue to be honest. In a strategic sense, basically any move Microsoft is forced to make for actual (rather than apparent) security makes it harder for them to do things in a way which creates lock-in. Yes, they will use it to push for DRM, as another commenter noted, but that's another apparent security solution. In the long term, this is a positive, but it's not an immediate and direct benefit, as the blog post notes.
but you expanded the example with food availability
No, the example is always about "moving the problem elsewhere" which is the essence of colonialism, so when coming up with a neat solution, one must always ask "is there a problem I'm moving elsewhere?". The food needs to be grown somewhere. The land is effectively in permanent use by your stomach. You can't pretend it doesn't exist just because it's somewhere else.
Are you advocating that houses would be better for farming and animal rearing given the lesser land availability?
I'm saying apartments do not solve a problem here. Villages have collections of small houses and then some farms. Some of those houses are a bit further out, and some are in a cluster. That's required because of the different job roles of the individuals in that society. Perhaps we should design with respect to those different job roles and optimise for internalities, bringing our lifestyle in line with our usage.
that septic tank would need to be routinely emptied somewhere
You can use it in biofuels and treat it with nature, then turn it into fertiliser. It is a resource. See how that internalises the usage? You are taking the big loops of "I need big government to solve this problem" into a "my community or family can solve this problem?"
would it be inconceivable for the much greater surrounding land to be co-opted for farming and animals?
That's not how it works. It ends up being a wash due to just how much land is used for farming vs just living. I'm not arguing for McMansions here. I'm arguing for single storied, sometimes detached housing in a "community configuration". Shared gardens and farms, and a mix of earthships and townhouse style developments. Keep the sustainable "loops" small.
Because land in villages is typically owned by several different families who are unwilling to share it
Even pre-capitalist and non-capitalist communities have a village like structure. Even nomadic tribes have a village like structure. They know how to share. We don't need multiple stories.
Overall, the problem with advocating for higher density is often a statement of denial, similar to the "zero waste" people. Pretending that you are only using the space you sleep in and discounting all the space you use for food, and treating your problems as "waste" which is just thrown away and forgotten or left to some big government to deal with. This is the opposite of Solarpunk.
What are you talking about. It's an island. Where are the animals for the kebabs? Where are the "groceries" coming from? How much power does it take for the "single" sewer line? Who said the houses would have a sewer line and not septic tanks? What roads? I'm not arguing for the thing on the left, I'm saying there's a reason why we have been building villages in village shapes and not in apartment shapes.
If you draw those things, the actual land use becomes apparent, and then you have to draw the infrastructure to bring the food in and take the poop out. Eventually you'll start to see that there's an enormous amount of land use just for living, it consumes the island either way, and there's an argument to be made for living like a village (as they do in actual villages) because of the decentralisation of resources and lowering the land use of infrastructure.
Humans turn food into poop. They don't just sit in an apartment. An apartment is a tool to bring in food and take out poop (and other waste).
You can draw a building like that, but to portray the apartment system correctly, you need to show where the poop goes, and where the food comes from.
Guessed as much. They've got nothing.
Yeah agree with what you've said. I think your example of Tactical voting lines up with Zagorath's detailed explanation. Makes perfect sense.
Overall, my main point was that there were a cohort of "small l" liberal voters who accept the science on climate change, and basically cannot vote for the LNP any longer, but for aesthetic reasons really would prefer to stay away from the Greens or Labor.
Which is it?