I'm not an egoist anarchist, but the other answer to your question is wrong and I don't want it to be standing there without correction. Egoism in an anarchist context goes back to "The Ego and His own" by Max Stirner, a German philosopher. He was not an anarchist, but has been and is still very influential on the movement.
Here's his works on the anarchist library: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/max-stirner
I haven't read it myself yet, but read some short summaries. Afaik he wants everyone to acknowledge that we're basically working in our own self-interest all of the time BUT that this requires cooperation and that helping others without immediate material benefit can be part of our self-interest, e.g. because it makes us feel good or because it builds relationships that might be beneficial later.
Uff... Red Scare war wohl damals schon erfolgreich.
Ich meinte aber tatsächlich eine Quelle dafür, dass Ebert das Mist fand. Ich habe dann aber den Wikipedia-Artikel zum 9.11.1918 durchgelesen. Schwer, dabei nicht zu kotzen.
Ist halt totaler Käse, weil die deutschen Kommunisten keine Bolschewisten waren. Liebknecht und Luxemburg hatten andere Vorstellungen, die viel mehr an der ursprünglichen SPD orientiert waren.
Hast du irgendwelche empfehlenswerten Texte von den beiden, außer den "organisatorischen Fragen zur russischen Sozialdemokratie" und dem unfertigen Text zur Oktoberrevolution aus dem Gefängnis?
Echt, da würde ich gern mehr drüber lesen. Hast du irgendwelche halbwegs einfach zugänglichen Quellen dazu?
Absolut lächerlich anzunehmen, es gäbe Aliens die evolutionär bei der gleichen Skelettstruktur wie zweibeinige Landwirbeltiere gelandet wären.
Nicht wirklich. Ich will nun wirklich keine Ufologen verteidigen, aber schau mal nach konvergenter Evolution. Wenn die Bedingungen auf der Heimatwelt anderer Spezies ähnlich waren, sind auch ähnliche Entwicklungen nicht ganz abwegig.
Ich verstehe das Meme eher als Veranschaulichung radikal linker Theorien (da sind sich Marxisten und Anarchisten weitgehend einig) über die Funktionsweise bürgerlicher Demokratien.
Denen zufolge kannst du noch so idealistisch in die Politik gehen, die Umstände (Kombination aus Druck durch andere Parlamentarier:innen, Lobbyisten, angebliche Sachzwänge, ...) bringen dich dazu, im Interesse des Kapitalismus zu handeln. Währenddessen fahren Konzerne die Welt weiter an den Abgrund heran und die Politiker:innen weisen sich gegenseitig die Schuld zu, obwohl man Vieles am Ende auf das Wirtschaftssystem zurückverfolgen kann. Aber die Medien reden über das Politikspektakel, nicht über den Kapitalismus.
Es braucht also nicht mal Spenden oder Bestechungen, damit Politiker:innen letztendlich zu Dienern der Konzerne werden. Das gilt damit auch für Die Linke, wenn sie mal in einer Koalitionsregierung mitregiert, selbst wenn sie keine Spenden annimmt.
The thing is, and I say this living a very comfortable life in Germany: this model makes life good for (many, not all) people HERE, but it still depends on people being exploited elsewhere. Call it imperialism, dependency theory or world system theory, they all say similar things. World-wide social democracy is impossible.
There's so much years old anti storage propaganda in your text, it's painful.
Hydrogen storage is not a mature technology yet
What makes a tech mature to you? We have all the components of a hydrogen storage path up and running everywhere around the world. They're not profitable, at least not without government incentives, but solarpunk is anti-capitalist, so profitability shouldn't be among our primary concerns.
something like 35% round-trip efficiency
That's a worst case figure for purely electrical round trip efficiency. We could use waste heat of the fuel cell process (to a lesser extent also the electrolysis process) in order to bump that number up considerably.
not to mention the issues with hydrogen gas leaking due to its small molecular size
That has not been an issue for quite some time thanks to advances in materials science. Also, we could use methanation, of course sacrificing some more efficiency, but then we could even use old natural gas infrastructure without an issue.
Shouldn't even start discussing lithium ion, but the danger of thermal runaway should alone be enough of a reason to plan it very carefully.
Lithium-ion batteries are environmentally bad for sure, but talking about thermal runaway? Really? You need very high temperatures for that to happen. Most stationary storage applications will never see such high powers that they come even close to thermal runaway by themselves. If in a high power application, you'll have better battery management systems supervising the temperature and reducing the allowed power. It's really a non-issue if you have engineers who know what they're doing working on it.
Coming bad to environmentally bad: see sodium-ion batteries.
Sustainable practises, especially energy generation are way cheaper than non renewable sources, so why would corporations try to make energy cost more for themselves?
Sadly, that's not the whole story. I don't share all of his takes on how to move forward (he's a tankie, I lean towards anarchism), but Second Thought summarized very well what the weak point in your argument about cost is: https://youtu.be/3gSzzuY1Yw0
this time the main blame is on the government for not putting the environment first and not forcing adverts for unsustainable products to have warnings about their environmental impact. But the government is installed by people (in democracies) and the people clearly don’t care.
Sadly, you're also wrong here. For the USA it has been shown that the opinion of average citizens on proposals of individual policies has no significant impact on the probability of the policies being implemented. It is only the position of lobbyists that have an impact. Lobbyists also include environmentalist groups, of course, but more often than not corporate lobbyists all take similar stances whereas non-corporate groups are very often single-issue groups who only make themselves heard on relatively few occasions, making them less impactful overall. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
I don't know of a similar study for EU countries. My guess is that the multi-party systems here work in favor of more voices being heard but also against implementation of new actually useful policies because of the need for compromise and coalitions.
I would like to avoid adding a lot of examples to keep it short and to the point. Otherwise no one reads it.
Would it be possible to have the CoC short but with links to explicitely non-exhaustive examples for what is meant by each point?
Really gives me extra hope that this isn't another vaporware battery technology.
I'll take it with a grain of salt:
- From the summary I didn't see if the energy density is a cell level value or a system level value. We have to compare system level energy densities.
- Also energy density isn't the only thing lithium ion batteries are good at. Firstly, if the cell at its core is a reversible fuel cell with nafion membrane, the dynamics of the cell will be comparable to PEM fuel cells. Lithium-ion batteries can deliver full power instantly without an issue. With PEM fuel cells you have to be more careful: it's possible to flood the membrane with water or dry it up if you change power too quickly, which is why their response time (time from set point change to actual delivery of full power) is usually limited to about one minute. Secondly, how good or bad is the calendric and cyclic aging and recyclability of the new battery? Lithium-ion has come a long way concerning lifetime - recyclability not yet, sadly.
- With Sodium-ion batteries there's another, more mature and similarly environmentally-friendly technology already on the market. And while I wouldn't have thought that it made sense, chinese manufacturer CATL already has built Sodium-ion batteries for cars, and (sadly) that's the far more important market for batteries compared to stationary ones.
but I rarely hear anyone talking about banning planes.
Then do it, but in your own post.
I mean that literally, it would be good to ban private planes and cut down usage of other airplanes drastically. However using that to discredit people talking about other drivers of climate change is just plain whataboutism and sabotaging the movement.
- Das Fallpauschalensystem wurde in Deutschland flächendeckend 2004 eingeführt.
- Karl Lauterbach ist 2005 erstmals in den Bundestag eingezogen.
- Er ist sein Amt mit dem Versprechen angetreten, das System abzuschaffen, weil es Scheiße ist.
Aber er ist Schuld. Is klar.
Politicians take inadequate measures because they do what the population wants to be reelected on the next term.
That's the only thing you're getting wrong here, but it's a very crucial point. Even in the best democracies on earth, political power does not come from the people as a whole, it is not distributed equally. It's kind of difficult to prove or quantify but this study succeeded for the US: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
They showed that it's organized groups who actually influence politics. It's obvious that lobbyists of corporations and industry associations will be among them, but it also includes unions, climate lobby groups, etc. But corporate lobby groups often have similar interests whereas most non-corporate groups only talk about very few issues, making them less visible (the paper suggests that they'll be impactful if they all speak out in favor of the same things). Furthermore, who is actually part of such groups? It'll be the well-off people who don't have to work two or three jobs to survive. Now it's common knowledge that the US is far from being the best democracy on earth, but I have a feeling that the EU where some of the better democracies are located works very similarly.
Therefore it's neither correct nor fair or helpful to blame everyone. The elites need to be held accountable, or even better, be abolished.