Skip to content
0
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Sketchy)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Wandering Adventure Party

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. New blog entry: More in Sadness than in Anger: https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2026/02/more-in-sadness-than-in-anger.html

New blog entry: More in Sadness than in Anger: https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2026/02/more-in-sadness-than-in-anger.html

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
95 Posts 47 Posters 2 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • Charlie StrossC Charlie Stross

    @trademark Democracy does not run on victory to the most numerous these days, it runs on victory to the most indoctrinated. Which goes with the money.

    T This user is from outside of this forum
    T This user is from outside of this forum
    trademark
    wrote last edited by
    #34

    @cstross Cheap excuse to deny the left's own agency. The left can't stop billionaries from spending their own money. What the left can do is to stop sabotaging themselves. If they can do that they will win. The left has been screwing themselves over for more than a 100 years though, this is not new.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • Charlie StrossC Charlie Stross

      @SoftwareTheron No, our planet is beyond its *long term* carrying capacity. We've already passed peak birth rate and even without pandemics or billionaire-induced genocide there will be more than a billion fewer people on earth in 2126 than there are in 2026. It's a self-correcting problem within a period of a couple of centuries, and we can probably survive that long on our current tech base.

      LisPiL This user is from outside of this forum
      LisPiL This user is from outside of this forum
      LisPi
      wrote last edited by
      #35
      @cstross @SoftwareTheron That's assuming both no gain in efficiency and no change in underlying lifestyle (the part that has the most easy gains to make).
      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • Charlie StrossC Charlie Stross

        @feorag I still think we should invest in guillotine futures!

        schrotthaufenS This user is from outside of this forum
        schrotthaufenS This user is from outside of this forum
        schrotthaufen
        wrote last edited by
        #36

        @cstross @feorag Gonna make a killing when the revolution comes🙊

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • Charlie StrossC Charlie Stross

          @jsl @trademark You're missing nuances not specific to the US (you mentioned a Reith lecture!). Here in the UK, the Labour party is de facto politically the Conservative party of 20 years ago: they're absolutely not remotely on the left any more, and they're pursuing dangerously authoritarian policies in many areas. I submit that it's not "purity" to oppose Tories in pink ties, it's realism.

          T This user is from outside of this forum
          T This user is from outside of this forum
          trademark
          wrote last edited by
          #37

          @cstross @jsl ' I submit that it's not "purity" to oppose Tories in pink ties, it's realism.' If that turns out to be true this time, we'll have a case of "the boy who cried wolf", the rhetoric is always the same no matter what. This sort of behaviour was annoying enough when it only brought tory misrule, now it can very well bring in actual fascism, just like it did in 1932.

          Charlie StrossC 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • HighlandLawyerH HighlandLawyer

            @cstross
            It is the intersection of the degrees of selfishness & foresightedness. If your level of selfishness is "the good of all mankind" you want to eliminate poverty by giving everyone enough food, accomodation, etc; if "me and my family" you get traditional aristocratic behaviour; if "me & nobody else" you treat everyone else as objects, which can be disposed of at your whim- mass disposal of the poor on a par with a neat close-cropped lawn.

            lemgandiL This user is from outside of this forum
            lemgandiL This user is from outside of this forum
            lemgandi
            wrote last edited by
            #38

            @HighlandLawyer @cstross

            Enlightened Selfishness: I wish to live free of the fear of starving, freezing, or being shot at. Therefore I wish to eliminate poverty by giving everyone enough food, accommodation, etc.

            HighlandLawyerH 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • T trademark

              @cstross @jsl ' I submit that it's not "purity" to oppose Tories in pink ties, it's realism.' If that turns out to be true this time, we'll have a case of "the boy who cried wolf", the rhetoric is always the same no matter what. This sort of behaviour was annoying enough when it only brought tory misrule, now it can very well bring in actual fascism, just like it did in 1932.

              Charlie StrossC This user is from outside of this forum
              Charlie StrossC This user is from outside of this forum
              Charlie Stross
              wrote last edited by
              #39

              @trademark @jsl Labour is pursuing a bunch of very unpleasant policies—institutionalizing transphobia, banning sex education for kids, banning immigration, social media surveillance, reclassifying free speech as "terrorism"—to say nothing of pandering to the far right and running a massive rearmament program (the latter might, alas, be necessary this time round). They're trying to recapture the Tory voters who have deserted for Reform. They're going to turn Labour fascist if they continue.

              T 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • lemgandiL lemgandi

                @HighlandLawyer @cstross

                Enlightened Selfishness: I wish to live free of the fear of starving, freezing, or being shot at. Therefore I wish to eliminate poverty by giving everyone enough food, accommodation, etc.

                HighlandLawyerH This user is from outside of this forum
                HighlandLawyerH This user is from outside of this forum
                HighlandLawyer
                wrote last edited by
                #40

                @lemgandi @cstross
                That's the high foresightedness version of high selfishness. Includes considering that one might want companionship, services, etc without personal risk from the flock.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • HighlandLawyerH HighlandLawyer

                  @cstross
                  It is the intersection of the degrees of selfishness & foresightedness. If your level of selfishness is "the good of all mankind" you want to eliminate poverty by giving everyone enough food, accomodation, etc; if "me and my family" you get traditional aristocratic behaviour; if "me & nobody else" you treat everyone else as objects, which can be disposed of at your whim- mass disposal of the poor on a par with a neat close-cropped lawn.

                  Medea VanamondeM This user is from outside of this forum
                  Medea VanamondeM This user is from outside of this forum
                  Medea Vanamonde
                  wrote last edited by
                  #41

                  @HighlandLawyer @cstross

                  Nuke the Rich.
                  Eating them is bad for the collective colon

                  HighlandLawyerH Darwin WoodkaD 2 Replies Last reply
                  0
                  • Medea VanamondeM Medea Vanamonde

                    @HighlandLawyer @cstross

                    Nuke the Rich.
                    Eating them is bad for the collective colon

                    HighlandLawyerH This user is from outside of this forum
                    HighlandLawyerH This user is from outside of this forum
                    HighlandLawyer
                    wrote last edited by
                    #42

                    @MedeaVanamonde @cstross
                    I'd prefer to compost them, better for the environment.

                    Medea VanamondeM Dr David MillsD 2 Replies Last reply
                    0
                    • HighlandLawyerH HighlandLawyer

                      @MedeaVanamonde @cstross
                      I'd prefer to compost them, better for the environment.

                      Medea VanamondeM This user is from outside of this forum
                      Medea VanamondeM This user is from outside of this forum
                      Medea Vanamonde
                      wrote last edited by
                      #43

                      @HighlandLawyer @cstross
                      And poison the soil?

                      HighlandLawyerH 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • Charlie StrossC Charlie Stross

                        New blog entry: More in Sadness than in Anger: https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2026/02/more-in-sadness-than-in-anger.html

                        Woozle HypertwinW This user is from outside of this forum
                        Woozle HypertwinW This user is from outside of this forum
                        Woozle Hypertwin
                        wrote last edited by
                        #44

                        @cstross I reached the conclusion over a decade ago that humans range ethically over the entire spectrum -- from basically* 100% good to basically* 100% evil.

                        Key point: evil people exist. I tend to get pushback when I use the word "evil" ("I don't believe in the supernatural!"), so maybe "completely selfish" is a better term in some contexts.

                        ...and then one is rather forced to reach the conclusion that the global wealth/power system is or has evolved into (since at least Reagan/Thatcher) something which rewards "the worst of the worst" (once again, every accusation is a confession).

                        ...and that the element which has most enabled this shift or intensification is the power that technology creates. (I could go on at length about this.)

                        Key point: humanity isn't inherently bad or self-destructive; we just haven't learned how to keep the problem-children away from the dangerous stuff -- because there didn't used to be so much of it, and it kind of happened rather suddenly, speaking in terms of cultural-evolutionary timeframes.

                        So the problem now is twofold: (1) how do we keep the bad people away from the dangerous things, and (2) how do we prise their greedy little fingers off those things in the first place?

                        These aren't easy problems to solve, but (final key point) I do think they're solvable. We just have to get enough people really understanding the problem in these terms (assuming I'm not wrong), and working together on solutions.

                        a noted foot

                        * allowing for error-margin and the fact that no real thing is ever perfectly in accordance with any ideal

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • gjmG gjm

                          @cstross I wouldn't put anything past Epstein, but Gates has given enough evidence of somewhat-benevolent intentions that I'd at least _consider_ the possibility that he just picked a very bad way of saying "how do we get rid of _poverty_?".

                          I too would like a world in which there are no poor people, provided we can get there by making the currently-poor people not-poor and stopping new people becoming poor, rather than killing existing poor people and preventing anyone being born who might turn out poor.

                          (Of course there might be elements of both. It could be that Gates genuinely wants to eliminate poverty but some bit of his brain wants to do it because poor people are an untidy nuisance rather than to benefit those people, and sometimes that leaks out into his words, and all that could be true even if he wouldn't ever actually go for mass murder as the, er, final solution to the problem of poverty.)

                          Obligatory link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_4J4uor3JE

                          JavierJ This user is from outside of this forum
                          JavierJ This user is from outside of this forum
                          Javier
                          wrote last edited by
                          #45

                          @gjm @cstross

                          Gates is personally, actively evil on a scale seldom seen. He's responsible of millions of deaths during the pandemic, and the sequestering of lots of pharmaceutical advances that used to be freely discussed between research laboratories.

                          Willing to kill every poor person aligns perfectly with his history.

                          gjmG 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • Hugo MillsD Hugo Mills

                            @feorag I suspect that when it eventually comes to that, you'd be lucky to get 5% from the liquidation.

                            At least the $1bn ballroom could be used as a warehouse, but even then it's probably got terrible transport links.

                            An awful lot of the "money" is either in the form of objects which are expensive to make but of limited utility to non-billionaires, or largely illusory -- how much is Tesla actually worth as a company, if there's no billionaires to buy it? Probably not the current market cap.

                            Robert Pluim 🇪🇺R This user is from outside of this forum
                            Robert Pluim 🇪🇺R This user is from outside of this forum
                            Robert Pluim 🇪🇺
                            wrote last edited by
                            #46

                            @darkling @feorag The point is not to "fund government" since any country with a sovereign currency can never run out of money, so the conversion percentage really doesn't matter. The point is to remove power from a bunch of toxic psychopaths, so that the government can perform its basic function of stopping its citizens from dying unnecessarily

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • Charlie StrossC Charlie Stross

                              @trademark @jsl Labour is pursuing a bunch of very unpleasant policies—institutionalizing transphobia, banning sex education for kids, banning immigration, social media surveillance, reclassifying free speech as "terrorism"—to say nothing of pandering to the far right and running a massive rearmament program (the latter might, alas, be necessary this time round). They're trying to recapture the Tory voters who have deserted for Reform. They're going to turn Labour fascist if they continue.

                              T This user is from outside of this forum
                              T This user is from outside of this forum
                              trademark
                              wrote last edited by
                              #47

                              @cstross @jsl As I said, if it turns out to be true THIS TIME, it will be a case of "the boy who cried wolf". Assuming what you're saying is true, I would guess that Labour's leadership must have seen what happened to the most left-leaning US president ever and decided to overcompensate in the other direction. In the current situation I would recommend you spend 95% of effort on warning about reform and the remaining time on whatever labour is doing.

                              jslJ 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • Colman ReillyC Colman Reilly

                                @cstross @SoftwareTheron we could also do a lot of things a lot cheaper if we actually assigned the costs properly. Excess air travel would be self correcting if it had to cover the full costs for example.

                                Woozle HypertwinW This user is from outside of this forum
                                Woozle HypertwinW This user is from outside of this forum
                                Woozle Hypertwin
                                wrote last edited by
                                #48

                                @Colman This is the conclusion I have also reached. TLDR: all mineral extraction should be taxed at a rate sufficient to cover the costs (best estimate) of fixing the environmental damage caused by how it is processed and used.

                                (...and the revenue generated thereby should be used to, you know, fix said damage -- or reuse/recycle materials as much as possible to minimize it. e.g. pay people to repair and upgrade electronics, rather than grinding them up and sending the results to the poor side of town, locally or globally. Pay people to repair clothes and furniture. Pay for recycling plastics that aren't "cost-effective" to recycle. Pay for research into better ways to recycle things. Dump billions or trillions into mass transit, because it's so much more efficient than cars. ...and so on)

                                @cstross @SoftwareTheron

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • CallistoC Callisto

                                  @jsl @trademark @cstross What you're missing about "the left" in the USA is that (1) for the most part, they don't exist, still victim of the purges of the 1950s; and (2) the only reason we (a pronoun I use loosely) seem disunified is that the strategy of the Official Opposition™️ is to throw out test balloons of which vulnerable people to discard this week, then when opposition to *that* is led disproportionately by folks most directly impacted, then scream "you're tearing us apart."

                                  T This user is from outside of this forum
                                  T This user is from outside of this forum
                                  trademark
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #49

                                  @callisto @jsl @cstross No, the left was always going hard after Biden, the more left somebody are the more they are criticized by the left. Even when he forgave the student debt, they claimed it was his fault the courts struck it down and gave him no credit for even trying.

                                  CallistoC 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • T trademark

                                    @cstross @jsl As I said, if it turns out to be true THIS TIME, it will be a case of "the boy who cried wolf". Assuming what you're saying is true, I would guess that Labour's leadership must have seen what happened to the most left-leaning US president ever and decided to overcompensate in the other direction. In the current situation I would recommend you spend 95% of effort on warning about reform and the remaining time on whatever labour is doing.

                                    jslJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                    jslJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                    jsl
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #50

                                    @trademark @cstross Yes, sorry, I'm not familiar with either US or UK nuances. Just surprised and unable to reconcile the ideas of the eponymous Labour movement with what is coming out of Westminster.

                                    Charlie StrossC jslJ 2 Replies Last reply
                                    0
                                    • Medea VanamondeM Medea Vanamonde

                                      @HighlandLawyer @cstross
                                      And poison the soil?

                                      HighlandLawyerH This user is from outside of this forum
                                      HighlandLawyerH This user is from outside of this forum
                                      HighlandLawyer
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #51

                                      @MedeaVanamonde @cstross
                                      It's their ideas which are toxic, not their flesh. But if you really want, put them all in a rocket & fire them into a lunar impact with enough velocity to create a crater visible by eye from the Earth, as a warning to future generations.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • Charlie StrossC Charlie Stross

                                        New blog entry: More in Sadness than in Anger: https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2026/02/more-in-sadness-than-in-anger.html

                                        Final Round Player 😷🇪🇺🍸J This user is from outside of this forum
                                        Final Round Player 😷🇪🇺🍸J This user is from outside of this forum
                                        Final Round Player 😷🇪🇺🍸
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #52

                                        RE: https://wandering.shop/@cstross/116108349700425602

                                        @cstross

                                        > The class war has turned hot. And we're all on the losing side.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • Charlie StrossC Charlie Stross

                                          New blog entry: More in Sadness than in Anger: https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2026/02/more-in-sadness-than-in-anger.html

                                          NemoI This user is from outside of this forum
                                          NemoI This user is from outside of this forum
                                          Nemo
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #53

                                          @cstross
                                          But.

                                          You cannot give up on self interest without consequences, no matter how much you dislike self interest looking like helping other people...

                                          In fact, I'd argue it's *very quickly* unsustainable if you're left to your own devices.

                                          I just hope it's quick enough.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0

                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          • First post
                                            Last post