As to your second post about the anti-abundance forces. I am generally supportive of abundance but I am old enough to remember when people were talking about Affluenza. And this wasn't just confined to the Left either. I know a number of devout Christians that are disgusted with the commercial bacchanalia that Christmas has become.
I think where the Left went off the rails on this was when they started attacking basic stuff like food, energy, transportation, and housing instead of the stupid "stuff" that was the target during the Affluenza years. How much of this is the product of the funding and encouragement of the Groups by billionaires and politicians whose basic assumption is that they will be insulated from deprivation, I can't say.
It is not just the algorithms. You get an awful lot of crazed action from the uncurated commenters too. I bailed from Facebook a decade ago and have never been in X or any of the video platforms like TikTok or Instagram so my perspective is from MSM and the print portions of the Internet. A lot of these platforms don't allow comments but when they do I often read them to try to take the pulse. Even when the owners are posting relatively civilized, if sometimes controversial pieces, the commenters are often just off the wall especially when it comes to basic norms. I have abandoned some of my regular read and comment platforms after watching people call each other morons or other things that would be considered fighting words if you did it in person. Lots of people advocating violence too. While some of this is undoubtedly trolls, I have been doing this for years and have a long memory about prior posts. It could be that they are consuming social media out of my line of sight and adopting attitudes from that but I find little evidence like links. What links that do exist are generally amusing or downstream links from MSM.
The woman who questioned the Abundance movement, asking who does it really represent? is the typical move of threatened professional progressive activists. Her question implied that probably Abundance was some sort of astro-turf movement, funded by interest groups, maybe representing a few intellectuals who were on the take. This is a common take down from every progressive to being questioned. They always with respond by asking who is funding the questioner and implying you have no legitimacy. Its a classic case of projection, because it is usually they themselves who have dubious funders.
What I regard as a desirable goal is a reasonable level of abundance PER CAPITA, and which is indefinitely sustainable. This implies continuing progress in the efficiency of utilizing natural resources (particularly fossil fuels) as well as limits on population growth. The best current examples are the Scandinavian countries.
As to your second post about the anti-abundance forces. I am generally supportive of abundance but I am old enough to remember when people were talking about Affluenza. And this wasn't just confined to the Left either. I know a number of devout Christians that are disgusted with the commercial bacchanalia that Christmas has become.
I think where the Left went off the rails on this was when they started attacking basic stuff like food, energy, transportation, and housing instead of the stupid "stuff" that was the target during the Affluenza years. How much of this is the product of the funding and encouragement of the Groups by billionaires and politicians whose basic assumption is that they will be insulated from deprivation, I can't say.
Double post from your first link.
It is not just the algorithms. You get an awful lot of crazed action from the uncurated commenters too. I bailed from Facebook a decade ago and have never been in X or any of the video platforms like TikTok or Instagram so my perspective is from MSM and the print portions of the Internet. A lot of these platforms don't allow comments but when they do I often read them to try to take the pulse. Even when the owners are posting relatively civilized, if sometimes controversial pieces, the commenters are often just off the wall especially when it comes to basic norms. I have abandoned some of my regular read and comment platforms after watching people call each other morons or other things that would be considered fighting words if you did it in person. Lots of people advocating violence too. While some of this is undoubtedly trolls, I have been doing this for years and have a long memory about prior posts. It could be that they are consuming social media out of my line of sight and adopting attitudes from that but I find little evidence like links. What links that do exist are generally amusing or downstream links from MSM.
The woman who questioned the Abundance movement, asking who does it really represent? is the typical move of threatened professional progressive activists. Her question implied that probably Abundance was some sort of astro-turf movement, funded by interest groups, maybe representing a few intellectuals who were on the take. This is a common take down from every progressive to being questioned. They always with respond by asking who is funding the questioner and implying you have no legitimacy. Its a classic case of projection, because it is usually they themselves who have dubious funders.
What I regard as a desirable goal is a reasonable level of abundance PER CAPITA, and which is indefinitely sustainable. This implies continuing progress in the efficiency of utilizing natural resources (particularly fossil fuels) as well as limits on population growth. The best current examples are the Scandinavian countries.