• 27 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 22nd, 2025

help-circle




  • I’ve been watching Landman clips on YouTube and I have mixed feelings on it.

    I think it does a good job of capturing the futility of this situation, in the sense that every stage of fossil fuel production (and consumption) is populated with folks “just doing their job,” providing for their families, following orders, etc. I watch this show and see the banality of evil, oil CEOs who genuinely believe they’re doing right by the world rather than burning it down.

    But I’m also acutely aware that this is not the take most viewers will be walking away with. We’re talking about a general public that idolizes the likes of Tony Montana, Gordon Gekko, Patrick Bateman, Tony Soprano, and Jordan Belfort, despite their films/shows explicitly depicting their downfall as a result of their moral failings.

    The vast majority of viewers are going walk away from these films feeling less guilty for their own fossil fuel consumption.






  • I love this angle! That makes a lot of sense, and I appreciate your detailed breakdown.

    My main criticism of this piece is, as implemented, it still relies on a larger governing body of some sort to police inter-local conflict. If we just do away with federal government entirely, there’s nothing stopping a warlike locality from invading and conquering another to increase its territory and resources, and if that continues unchecked you just get another federal government. (Other examples abound, such as a locality upstream dumping toxic waste into a river that serves as drinking water for a locality downstream.)

    If you don’t have a federal body those issues go unresolved, but if you do, the struggle becomes checking the power of said body and preventing it from taking away local sovereignty. And I don’t have any easy answers to that.



























  • The difficulty in regulating mining in international waters are precisely why companies are rushing into this market. It’s much harder to stop something that’s already been started, and regulatory agencies are notoriously slow.

    What we do know of seabed mining is that it’s incredibly destructive to marine ecosystems. As Peter Watts writes,

    Very little research has been done on the environmental impacts of deep-sea mining. The only real study was undertaken thirty years ago, led by a dude called Hjalmar Thielon. It was a pretty simple experiment. They basically dragged a giant rake across 2.5 km2 of seabed, a physical disturbance which— while devastating enough— was certainly less disruptive than commercial mining operations are likely to be. Today, thirty years later, the seabed still hasn’t recovered.

    But what’s more concerning is what we don’t know, as very little research has been conducted on its impact. Moreover, many of these ecosystems are largely uncharted. We could very well destroy something before we have the chance to understand it.

    On a higher level, this is what happens when you attempt to solve for one variable (climate change, in this case the transition to renewables and its associated mineral demand) instead of looking at an issue holistically (i.e. the total integrity of our biosphere).