I don’t think white nationalists mind being called white nationalists. The same for zionists or islamists. What these drisciptors and the people who stand by them have in common is that they all share isolationism, supremacy and the disdain for otherness. These features are all intertwined and inseparable, like the three sides of a shitty triangle.
One can say being called one of those descriptors when one finds them wrong and disagreeable is obviously offensive to the person in question.
As for if it constitutes hate speech… it’s a mess. I’m not one to police language and speech.
As the defense of every hateful person is that they can just be ignorant. And how true that is. But how convenient as well.
Trying to legislate intention is impossible, and banning words is a terrible idea. And using the elusive concept of the status quo for a barometer of what is acceptable is also not a good idea at all. So… what are we left with? Allowing speech to fight back speech, basically. It’s far from perfect, but is the best we have.
But in this case, yes, this is just someone drumming up fear in the racist bias of a portion of the public.
As for if he is ignorant and believes the nonsense he speaks or doesn’t and is just mad that there’s an actual voice for the people to hinder and reduce the control of the elites, which include him and the moron tech bro brigade he’s a part of…
I would say the distinction is irrelevant.
But that’s just me.
I’m not entirely clear as if you just ment that as a thought experiment… Because I wasn’t suggesting anything in that direction, actually. I was merely stating that the ratio of space required to grow food for the population in cities should match the vertical design of cities themselves. And even include these vertical farming structures within cities themselves. It all needs to match the design of efficiency in housing. Otherwise, it’s just a race to the bottom in how to run out of surface land and resources the fastest way.
Also, I want to mention that this idea that the entire lives of people would have to be dedicated entirely to farming has always been greatly exaggerated as to scare off people from procuring sovereignty for themselves and their communities. My girlfriend and I grow some of our food. I would say even if I took the task alone with the intention of feeding us both entirely all year round, it would take me about less then 2 months worth of work spread out across two seasons. That out of an entire year leaves a lot of time to spare. Not to mention, that I could use the same time to grow more for more people. After you put what you need in the ground, setting an automatic irrigation system, the maintenance work is not that much of a hassle, especially using the syntropic method within a permaculture design. The early stages of setting this up are laborious indeed, but after that, not really, not really at all.
This all to say that this is another one of those myths that capitalism has ingrained falsely in people as to keep the labour of the masses retained to the benefit of the few who gain the most from it. It’s about insuring the conditions where the elite can keep manufacturing the consent in others to exploit them. And insuring dependency is always the way to do it.
Farming wise, and regarding our current food systems, I think that people in general should learn more about syntropy if we are to communicate better as to what needs to be achieved. As it will mean different approaches depending on geography. Not to mention Urban vs rural settings would also require different approaches as well.
Then it would also be easier to gather support for innovations such as Precision Fermentation. Because using bacterial and microbial life to grow our sustenance is ingenious. The lower the trophic level we consume from, the lesser the destruction. And it would also be faster. Always.
If we truly insure true efficiency, we truly minimise destruction. And maximise the potential for prosperity for all, including non-human animals, plants and all other organisms.
Unfortunately the only efficiency that our current systems are designed for is to maximise profit. Which requires continuous growth, which is unsustainable and will ultimately lead to its own inevitable collapse. 6 of the 9 established planetary boundaries have already been breached. It’s only a matter of time now. As to how much time that will take and how much of the world will be taken with it, that is all tied to massive amounts of data for us to even fathom to process.
And AI is currently accelerating all this race to depletion in all fronts.
So, yeah, optimism right now, would be indeed for fools as you say.