We often say “climate change is here. We have no time to lose.” This is very true, in the sense that we have to act now. In the sense that we cannot afford to lose or waste more time. But it is also not true, in the sense that - with climate change - we have so much to lose, including, not in the least, time.

Imagine what we could have done with all the time that we (and future generations) will have to spend on repairing, adjusting, relocating, rebuilding.

One reason why Mastodon, being part of the Fediverse, is great, is that whenever the next big thing pops up (let’s say the Mastodon of The Future), and it stays within the Fediverse, we will all stay connected. No more “starting over” our networks from scratch.

We all have friends and family who are like “so you want me to switch to Mastodon now? Last year it was Signal, and before that Telegram. I can’t be starting over all the time. I’m sticking to Whatsapp and Twitter”. Now they won’t have an excuse anymore. After switching to the Fediverse we never have to start over again.

Originally published 19 Jan 2022.

TLDR: I think the Fediverse - a group of community-owned, open-source, self-hosted, decentralized and interconnected social media platforms - is a cool and promising alternative to the absolute mess that we have let ourselves be trapped in. For more info on the Fediverse, see for instance this.

In short: I don’t like how large corporate social media platforms 1) collect our data, aggregate it and keep it to themselves, 2) use that data to influence us in a way that makes them and others exorbitant amounts of money (and also happens to undermine the foundations of our democracy by drawing people into fascist filter bubbles), and 3) make it artificially hard to leave them.

I often hear people reject arguments in discussions as “whataboutisms”. The idea is that whataboutisms - “ok, you’re angry about thing A, but what about thing B and thing C” - effectively undermine any kind of critique.

I understand this wariness. Especially when it is done on purpose and in bad faith, it is a dangerously easy way to kill any political talk.¹

Still, I wonder why pointing out the ubiquity of injustice should necessarily lead to some kind of cynical fatalism. Why - when the whatboutism is done without too much snobbery or moral high grounds - the response cannot be something like “yes, actually you’re right: thing A sucks, but fuck things B and C as well”.

Some people might say that an idea like degrowth is (in a disqualifying way) “radical”, but it is the current system that is radical. It is undermining the very basis of everyday life. On a global scale. For (at least) centuries to come. No system or group of people has ever been so close to realizing something so utterly insane. If the path you walk leads to large-scale destruction, it’s the “prudent conservatives” who are the irresponsible radical nutcrackers.

Every day a certain amount of work is done. Food is grown. Machines are built and operated. Stuff is transported. If I would add up all the time - the seconds, minutes, hours - that other people work to provide me with the things that I consume, would I arrive at 1 FTE? 2 FTE? 5?¹ In other words: BP may have tricked me into thinking about my carbon footprint, but what is my labour foot print??

Conservatives often want to stop the world from changing, unless this requires them to change their own ways. In that case they prefer to deny that the world is changing.