I’ve had this very thought. Unfortunately we don’t have many trams here so there are no grassy ones at all to work on.

Interesting. Do you feel the economy functions well in Cuba? If it’s safe for you to opine on such things. Not sure the level of online censorship or repression there.

I think the main advantage of anarchism and adjacent systems is better local governance and personal freedom. But I’m not really convinced that means global governance would be worse. If anything, disarming the global superpowers would improve international solidarity since different autonomous groups could more effectively reach agreements for the common good rather than being bullied into doing harmful things by the powerful. This would make the anarchist-UN potentially much more effective than it is now. Otherwise, I don’t think it would be too different than the way international orgs work now plus some additional norms and structures to avoid bullying and encourage consensus.

But my point is just that not having a clear solution for this specific problem isn’t a reason against these ideas. These issues are some of the most difficult to solve and I’d rather focus on low-hanging fruit first.

Which country?

Do you feel current systems of governance are handling these global collective action problems well? Because I do not. I think they’re just very difficult and thorny problems that we’ll always have to wrestle with.

It’s never too late. They can still be stopped before more people are hurt.

You’re allowed to identify with this description if you want to but it’s important to acknowledge that these social categories you’ve described are not reflective of reality. There are no alpha or beta males. Some people might be more or less likely to settle into those roles in particular situations, but they aren’t immutable personality types, nor even aspects of human nature. Rather, they are the result of unhealthy social structures that are forced on people and which they adopt in response. From what I’ve seen, “alpha” and “beta” in particular tend to be highly overlapping categories. A person who adopts a dominant persona in one context is often more likely to act submissive in another, usually because they’ve been indoctrinated into thinking these roles are inevitable or healthy.

If you are completely trapped in these extremely hierarchical social relations (or if you imagine that you are—online narratives about society are important here) then the sigma label might appeal to you. Acting “beta” is humiliating and acting “alpha” is sociopathic—or perhaps it merely seems out of reach if you have low self-esteem. So there was a need for another role for people who didn’t feel they fit into the alpha-beta dynamic, and it turns out this was most people.

But none of this is healthy human behavior. Just because alpha and beta don’t fit doesn’t mean you or anyone else is sigma. Most people I know don’t fall into any of these categories. They neither dominate, submit, or isolate. They are social, but in a supportive and collaborative way. In my view, this is how people are meant to relate to one another. The prevalence of these social hierarchies—or at least the belief in them—are symptoms of a deep sickness that has invaded our society. Rather than asking yourself which box you fit in, you should be asking yourself how you can free yourself and others of these boxes.

Interesting article, thanks for sharing.

Fucking splitters at it again.

Just be aware that no matter what you say, a few people will still buy you pointless BS because they’re incapable of following instructions. But it’s still worthwhile to discourage it as much as you can.

Human behavior is context dependent, and the right context can encourage mutual aid and discourage the behaviors you mentioned. This is more or less the goal of every society. It’s not like people, especially anarchists, somehow didn’t notice that people can sometimes be awful to each other.

There are tons and tons and tons of species that can do this. It’s not clear to me what the prevailing species concept is nowadays, if we’re even still following one.

Are you sure they weren’t spilled by accident?

Humans are just animals surviving however we can, like any living thing. There is no way we were meant to live because there is no intention behind our existence, other than our own intentions. The way we live now is just as natural as we lived 500,000 years ago because both lifestyles evolved from how our nature interacts with the environment we live in.

I agree with you that being free is a better way to live but I think that’s a different and more solid moral argument than speaking of how we were “meant” to live. The latter idea can smuggle all sorts of ideas into the conversation, such as appeals to authority, tradition, religion, etc.

I don’t know if he’s put words to his exact ideology but it seems to be anarchist or at least anarchist adjacent, albeit with lots of heterodox opinions on various things. But you’re right that he’s very pro-materialism.

I generally enjoy his content but I haven’t read the book so this series was a bit beyond me.

I don’t think anyone really claimed otherwise. 400 years ago was 1625. Unless you thought Marx lived in the 1600s this comment makes little sense.

Any social relation that exists is natural. The term natural is practically meaningless and is built on a fallacious idea that there is one true way humans were meant to live.

Also, natural does not mean better or worse than any other way.

To be fair I think this video was made before the book was actually out. Not sure why he decided to do that but I think I remember him saying in another video that the book was better than expected.

True, but unfortunately, this species is way over-planted in many cities. I would not recommend them unless they happen to be uncommon in your local area. Urban forests need to be as diverse as possible to resist the constant barrage of pests and diseases being introduced by global trade.

In California we have a relatively new pest called shot-hole borers which are killing off many of the London planes, so we’re scrambling to plant other species that can resist them.

Also, resistance to air pollution isn’t as crucial as it once was due to better emissions technologies.

Your potted tree isn’t a tree in the sense that I’m talking about. The environmental services trees provide are all based on size and so are predominantly provided by larger trees. Cities usually avoid planting these under electrical wires and in smaller tree basins to avoid damage to infrastructure. So practically, there are many urban locations where big trees won’t fit.