MercurySunrise

@[email protected]

Hello! My name is Rykah, call me Mercury if you prefer. I’m into punk (the cultures and the genre) and I’m a multi-media artist. Check out some of my work and my link tree over on Tumblr: in-a-field-of-paper-flowers.tumblr.com/about/

Listening to: DROELOE - Push Through

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

MercurySunrise ,

Finally. Jesus fucking christ, took them long enough to do something useful with these sites.

MercurySunrise ,

A good solution to this is for less dependency on them. This is the nature of them taking too much, and that's just... really not going to work out great for them, nor anyone.

MercurySunrise , (edited )

That anybody can disagree with this is truly flabbergasting. China should not be the sole decider of whether our planet lives or dies. I don't... I don't get how anyone, even the Chinese, can disagree with that.

Update: I think it's the petrochemical industry. They've corrupted all the green energy focused subs here super badly from what I've seen so far. I think we've caught their attention already - which may actually be a good sign. We must be doing something effective enough to warrant it.

MercurySunrise ,

I don't really think it is especially in comparison to petrochemicals, but hydroelectric dams also isn't my favorite green energy. They displace too much matter while also reducing the wildlife of the project area for me to feel comfortable with it. I think perhaps there's further ways water could be used to make electricity that are underestimated or even unknown. I like "old-school" hydroelectrics, watermills. In my opinion this is an example really of individualistic green energy being a better environmental decision on the whole. Such will reduce the damage of our energy needs. Power to the people.

MercurySunrise ,

I agree it provides a more regular "stream" of energy. I think perhaps this focus on having regular unlimited energy at all times of night and day is a little unnecessary. People do sleep, and they should sleep during the night for maximum health, based on research. I find energy storage an important aspect of sustainability. We should have storage regardless of the system. I'm not against using it, all I said was it's not my favorite.

MercurySunrise ,

I get where you're coming from. It's a tandem tech and should stay in that consideration. It's a diversity of tactics in the fight against petrochems. That industry is too big for just one avenue, at least of the ones we currently have.

MercurySunrise , (edited )

Yo, we can't even recognize human rights, as a species. Good luck getting anyone to recognize bot rights - especially when those (at least in our current state of tech) directly interfere with human rights.

MercurySunrise ,

The best media I've seen for this concept is "Robots" and anyone interested in this subject for some reason should definitely give it a look. There's also "I, Robot" and "Blade Runner".

MercurySunrise , (edited )

I think it actually may be a human failing, because human rights have been iffy as hell for all of recorded civilization. This is why it is argued by some that robots could be superior and consider us as too errant to allow continued existence. Perhaps, having an exactly defined and unwavering moral code, actually will make them superior and also save our asses. It seems like the reason human rights keep being disrespected is that people kinda just do whatever they want, and it seems like half the time what they want is cruel or harmful. I think until we find a way to increase mass empathy, our species is definitely gonna keep harming itself until it (and probably everything else) goes extinct. I feel robots (actually existing) are kind of antithetical to empathy, especially under capitalism, especially while made of hazardous materials that require ripping up the earth. I do however think discussion and content of this subject really opens up the dialogue on rights of all intelligent beings and the definitions of intelligence itself and I find that very important. I think we should perhaps be at this time more focused towards expanding the rights of humans and animals before robots, though. Like, this subject is so "getting ahead of ourselves", as Solarpunks, that it's almost kinda funny. Strikes me more as Cyberpunk territory, really.

Billionaire bets big on largest solar project ever proposed to deliver power across oceans: 'At the forefront of the clean energy transition' ( www.thecooldown.com )

The world is on the cusp of an energy transformation that could make the Industrial Revolution look minor. Mike Cannon-Brookes is banking on the Land Down Under to be a major driver of that change....

MercurySunrise ,

Oh my fuck, finally a rich person did something actually. I never thought I'd see the day.

MercurySunrise ,

I'm also for community solutions and I don't oppose this. The rich are unfortunately also part of the world, they should be utilized as much as anybody in this crisis. More so, arguably.

MercurySunrise ,

Idiot troll. This platform is rife with y'all. It's become an issue, frankly. Honestly worse about it than Reddit, which is super unexpected. Fact is that solar is one of the best green energy industries that exist. A person using their big money to help it, especially in an INTERNATIONAL manner like this, isn't a negative. We don't have a method of free perpetual energy if you didn't notice, because somebody fucking murdered Nikola Tesla and destroyed his research to this effect. Probably there's even further people that have tried and been murdered and erased. You can thank capitalism for that, which if you ever bothered to read, you would know I am fully opposed to.

MercurySunrise , (edited )

My phone, a cheap Moto, has survived probably around 50 drops and falling into a tub. After years it still holds charge fine and I've made and sorted through (probably) hundreds of thousands of files of content with it. My current computer has also survived a lot and lasted longer than more expensive ones I've had previously. It's a cheap HP. I don't know if this is exactly "solarpunk" but it's technically low-footprint (comparative to industry standards) just because the tech lasts, even through hardship. I've also kept all my old tech and plan to recycle it after I've retrieved the data. Recycling is solarpunk, I think. I also have a vibrator that's lasted years, takes only one triple A battery, still works great. I intend to get rechargeable batteries soon. Battery waste is icky and battery recycling is tricky (because they're made of such hazardous materials). I'm hoping to get a solar roof installed but that's gonna take quite a bit of time especially since my country doesn't exactly have the greatest subsidies for residential solar.

MercurySunrise , (edited )

I totally agree that "outside" protestors shouldn't be considered any kind of reasoning for dismissing a movement. It does imply the movement is bigger than local or territorial lines and therefore should be taken more seriously than not. In regards to anti-national revolutionists, that's actually a very specific point of pride, and it should be. We are all people regardless of the territorial lines we are forced into. If we can reach outside the scope of the nation, we have in a sense, beaten it. This is why I see internationalism, or as some say, globalism, to be a very important goal for all movements focused on human rights. We are more than just where we are on the Earth. Humanity is a connected species, and in my opinion, that does go beyond just tech and state structures. I feel that reactionary solidarity should not be dismissed, though. Class warfare, for example, has a certain level of necessity for movements against oppression. I do not disagree with oppressing the oppressor. I think it's a tactic we've actually seen too little on the left and perhaps could explain some of the incrementalism we've seen so far. I am, however, an accelerationist. Personally, I feel the more I am fought, the more I can fight back - and I do think that's really important to allow others on the left to utilize too. We must find ways to equal the playing field, and I think literally all forms of solidarity have their roles in that. I think to say we cannot alienate those that alienate us leaves us as the only ones alienated. Those that disregard the use of reactionary solidarity disregard the use of tactics used against us. This is actually a larger philosophical argument of pacifism. I like to call it the batman argument. You're putting yourself on a moral high-ground that only hampers your effectiveness. The "bad guys" keep going and keep coming because they are not actually stopped. They are not, as some of the more intensive left likes to say, "stomped". The right-wing stomps, and they also steal from us constantly. We should stomp and steal back, while also using transformative tactics. Never disregard the importance of diversity, not in anything, but especially not in warfare. Honestly, I see this argument against it as dividing the left up more. There are aggressive leftists. They have their right to be, because of self-defense. The right-wing fucking murders us, to say we should not be angry and that such anger somehow makes us weaker... I just simply disagree.

MercurySunrise , (edited )

This is an awesome information resource! Also, free Palestine, and THE STATE CANNOT ERASE THE PEOPLE! THE PEOPLE WILL ERASE THE STATE! THE PEOPLE MUST ERASE THE STATE! YOU WANT WAR? YOU'LL GET WAR, MOTHERFUCKERS! Ahem. This is a very important subject that shouldn't be ignored. The military industrial complex and their relationship to silencing protests has to be dealt with by the people. It's completely unacceptable. The government (the state) won't, because they're fucking weak and greedy. It's been going on for so long now. Always the time for the people to use that second amendment. Equalize American weaponry or the weaponry must be destroyed, and it has to stop being sent to murder people in unrelated countries. The state can't keep doing this to people, It has to be stopped if it won't stop itself.

MercurySunrise , (edited )

A mother, angry about state motherfuckers, downvoted on mother's day. Damn.

The second amendment: "WELL REGULATED MILITIA", which is quite specifically a citizen's army. I'm literally just advocating rights we were guaranteed at the beginning of our constitution. This shouldn't actually be controversial. If you can't regulate to an equal playing field, the only way to "well regulate" is by destruction. "Arms" isn't exclusive to guns just as it isn't exclusive to bombs. It is however made exclusive to THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT to "bear arms". The people can find equality in arms that aren't totally insane (such as the arms they had when the constitution was written), and that is an important part of saying "well regulated". They designated the military as not an official part of "the people" (the citizenry), and the military itself technically has no right to bear arms. That is why it is within the purview of the second amendment, and arguably the government's job, to destroy all arms not accessible to the people (and in the case of the military, arms not accessible to ALL PEOPLE). The very point of it is to assure equal weaponry so that the people are not forced from their freedom by the power of the larger societal structures, whether that be a state, a military, or capitalism.

The government owes the people respect, not the other way around. They put food on their table with our money, our work, whether we agree or not. The government's money isn't the government's money, it's the people's money, distributed. If they're going to take our money with or WITHOUT CONSENT and put it towards something else, especially something like murdering innocent people for what mostly seems to be a religious cause, we have to be allowed to complain. We have to be able to shut them down if they won't change, as the people. The founding fathers intended for our system to change, or we wouldn't even be able to make amendments. The constitution itself was an intended change from the static religious monarchy of Britain, which required civil war because it was static (it refused to equitably change).

The state, especially the federal government, technically only exists to regulate currency (and resulting industry) as the people need for maximum well-being. So the state needs to get their heads out of their ass and do it instead of trying to silence protestors during national crisis and every war or they'll be, in a sense, fired. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Then again, if they were actually doing their fucking job, none of this shit would be happening. The constitution isn't an unreasonable structure. The biggest problem is that we have let capitalism completely overwrite it, which is quite literally the opposite of what the constitution intended. Once again, "WELL REGULATED".

MercurySunrise ,

Whoever is going to be using it. It's not fucking complicated. Under (actual) communism the populace is educated to take care of themselves, unlike in capitalism, which purposefully perpetuates the class divide through lack of education to preserve hierarchy.

MercurySunrise ,

That's a hell of deep dive on the subject. Thanks for sharing.

MercurySunrise ,

War never changes. ;(

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines
    •