this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2025
91 points (100.0% liked)

chat

8594 readers
36 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

like holy shit the bourgeoisie are trying to kill us all actively en masse within our lifetimes and all movement against it feels like it has died come the 20s. Every time it gets brought up it feels like people are either revelling in it, are denying it, are too tired to care, say “someone's going to fix it so there's no point in worrying," or get angry asking "well what do you want me to do about it I can't fix it" or something. It feels like we're in a moment where we have just abandoned science all together in the decaying west, so the plan is almost like to keep attacking the biosphere out of spite for everyone around us.

It feels Lovecraftian, I can't think about it because every time I do it paralyzes me in awe of the urgency and scope of what has to be done. Do I just stop thinking about it? I guess the answer is to keep organizing but I'm scared that we don't have enough time at this rate to address it before it gets catastrophic and has irreversible effects

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Dort_Owl@hexbear.net 36 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Hahaha that's the fun part, you don't.

Real answer: As someone in the environmental sciences, it's not easy. The thing keeping me going is knowing that there are many people who don't want it to be this way and are trying very hard to stop it, and that when we succeed the Earth can recover. Stories of rewilded places bouncing back are hopeful.

Also China is doing good things.

[–] WokePalpatine@hexbear.net 33 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I was reading in Monthly Review today that the bottom 50% of the US already lives underneath the emissions targets required to meet the goals laid out and it's really the top half (and really, really the top 10%) who need to make massive sacrifices. Made it seem way more do-able when looked at this way.

International attempts to mitigate climate change began with the establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, followed by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, forming the basis of all subsequent climate negotiations. This led to the 2015 Paris Agreement, in which countries pledged to reduce their emissions by certain stipulated amounts, with the object of reducing global carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030 and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. Central to the entire UNFCCC process has been differences in emissions between rich and poor nations. However, this emphasis on the nation in relation to international climate negotiations led to a corresponding deemphasis on the class basis of emissions. In recent years, the disparities in carbon emissions on a class basis have proven ever more crucial in addressing the climate problem. Inequality in greenhouse gas emissions within nations now exceeds the inequality between nations—although the two remain intrinsically related due to imperialism. Consequently, a combined class and nation approach that more directly challenges capitalism in all of its aspects is now required if there is to be any hope of solving the planetary climate crisis.

Over the last few decades, there has been a dramatic reversal in the relative role of class and nation in the structuring of carbon emissions, due to enormous increases in class disparities under global monopoly-finance capital. (Note: the data in the studies referred to below add carbon emissions associated with net imports to domestic carbon emissions, with the result that total carbon emissions of Europe, for example, are 25 percent higher than if only domestic emissions were counted.) According to the 2022 World Inequality Report:

In 1990, most global carbon inequality (63%) was due to differences between countries: then, the average citizen of a rich country polluted unequivocally more than the rest of the world’s citizens, and social inequalities within countries were on average lower across the globe than today. The situation has almost entirely reversed in 30 years. Within-country emissions inequalities now account for nearly two-thirds of global emissions inequality. This does not mean that there do not remain significant (often huge) inequalities in emissions between countries and world regions, on the contrary. In fact, it means that on top of the great between-countries inequality in carbon emissions, there also exist even greater inequalities in emissions between individuals [economic classes]. (World Inequality Report 2022, “Chapter 6: Global Carbon Inequality,” World Inequality Lab, wir2022.wid.world)

The implications of this can be seen by looking at the United States. If we examine U.S. emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement (prior to the Donald Trump administration’s withdrawal from the agreement), the United States needed (based on 2019 data) to reduce its per capita emissions by 11.1 tonnes per year to reach its 2030 target. (One metric tonne [1,000 kilograms] is about 10 percent more than a U.S. ton, weighing 2,000 pounds.) Here it is significant that the bottom 50 percent of the U.S. population is already below the target level of annual emissions aimed at for 2030, which means that workers in the bottom half—assuming these targets still applied—would not need to reduce their emissions at all, and indeed would need to increase them by .3 tonnes on average, or 3 percent, to match the targeted per capita emissions. In contrast, those in the middle 40 percent would need to reduce their emissions by 12 tonnes on average, or 54 percent annually, to come into line with the national per capita emissions, while those in the top 10 percent would need to cut their average annual emissions by 64.7 tonnes per year, or 87 percent. A similar situation applies to France and other European countries. It follows that the emissions reduction efforts, particularly in the wealthy countries, need to be directed at the top half of the income distribution, making greenhouse gas emissions fundamentally a class problem. This is, indeed, the conclusion of World Inequality Lab researcher Lucas Chancel, who writes that “policy efforts should be focused mainly on reducing the emissions of the top half of the population, and particularly the top 10 percent” (Lucas Chancel, “Climate Change and the Global Inequality of Carbon Emissions, 1990–2020,” October 21, 2021, World Inequality Lab, wid.world/news-article/climate-change-the-global-inequality-of-carbon-emissions; Jomo Kwame Sundaram, “Inequality Worsens Planetary Heating,” Substack, August 12, 2025, jomodevplus.substack.com).

https://monthlyreview.org/articles/mr-077-05-2025-09_0/

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 28 points 3 months ago

We could cut global emissions in half if we simply eat the rich.

[–] Horse@lemmygrad.ml 33 points 3 months ago (1 children)

i don't know which is more depressing, the rightists who either insist it isn't real or pretend that it's good actually, or the leftists that think the PRC is going to save us from it

China has been doing incredible work on renewables and other measures to combat climate change, but one country alone isn't enough, not even close

[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago

China has been doing incredible work on renewables and other measures to combat climate change, but one country alone isn't enough, not even close

Especially when they get tariffs slapped on them for doing too good (EVs^[though I loathe them, cars are not a solution] and solar cells and so on)

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 28 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Either it's too late or it's not but we will only ever know the truth of it in hindsight. That's a scary proposition but, unfortunately, it's the reality.

It's really important to not foreclose on the opportunity for change by giving up prematurely. I know that's hard (believe me, I do.) While it's scary to confront the prospect of doing everything you can and failing or doing everything wrong and thus failing, it's important to focus on confronting what it would be like not trying and failing. After all, everything seems impossible until it's achieved and then retrospectively it seems as though it was an inevitability and so it's preferable to try and fail than to not try at all. This isn't any consolation and it's completely intellectualizing the problem but it's an important frame to maintain imo.

There's three paths forward, from what I can tell:

  1. Revolution and bringing the world back from the brink

  2. Climate apocalypse

  3. Climate catastrophe and reconstruction

1 is what we can hope for. Idk if it's a viable possibility but so be it. 2 means we're all fucked. 3 seems the most likely but, thankfully, we can shoot for 1 and if we land at 3 then basically all the efforts will still be applicable to the latter anyway.

A vulgar take on this next part would be to call it opportunism or accelerationism, but it's really not - if we have a number 3 outcome and a subsequent partial collapse of society then the people who are best organized, who are the most connected to their communities and who are capable of vanguard-style leadership and who are genuinely able to provide for their community's needs, are going to be the people who will be best positioned to reshape the political landscape. Post-WWI Russia was a similar situation. The years just prior to the Chinese revolution were too. It will be different under a number 3 scenario but the broad brushstrokes will remain the same.

If the person who knows how to grow food and is looked to for organizing the distribution of local resources in serious post-collapse community says that we aren't reverting to capitalism, people will listen. And I'm not even talking about some sort of autocratic edict being handed down here, obviously - if you're a leader and you talk to the people in your community who look up to you and rely on you and you tell them about how the previous economic system's externalities led to this outcome then you won't even need to directly educate and propagandize them against capitalism because living in the fallout and having someone bring their attention to how deeply unwell and destructive the previous system was would turn anyone against it immediately.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago

GOOD comment. Said what I wanted to say, but with less doom and gloom.

[–] puppygirlpets@hexbear.net 25 points 3 months ago
[–] feelingyourselfdisintergrate@hexbear.net 23 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Got high and read this thread. Absolute worst mistake of my life.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Read climate news about what China does to heal yourself a little bit. You can also read about how quickly things got better during the COVID lockdowns. It's not impossible to halt what is happening.

[–] HamManBad@hexbear.net 21 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Honestly, I've just been trying to ignore it except for when it's useful for organizing and recruitment purposes, or during periodic reviews of my consumption habits to see if I can "do my part" better (which is easy when I don't have money to spend on consuming). But since the climate is fucked unless capitalism ends, that's where I put my mental energy, and the existential climate dread gets compartmentalized as much as possible. No use stressing about the eye of Cthulhu getting larger in the sky

[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

realityIt is lovecraftian. Anyone who says otherwise don't know enough. We are fucked. I interact with a bunch of climate/environment people and they're all what this site would describe as "doomers". That kind of annoys me, because a doomer isn't just someone who knows what goes on and accepts reality.
Even the IPCC would be called doomers, and those guys are notorious for pulling their punches in order to make it palatable for politicians.
Most people my age do not want to talk climate. Neither do the people I interact with. Never in any depth. You only find this if you get them talking long enough. It feels like the prologue to children of men.

The feedback loops have begun long ago. The Siberian permafrost is thawing. We are seeing massive algae death. The Amazon is no longer a carbon sink. The albedo effect on the poles is nearly gone. The old world is dying, a new one is struggling to be aborted. Now is the time of monsters.

Apart from just not thinking about it, I find solace in the following places

  • China does good.
  • More and more people realise the gravity of the situation.

I had to think about it for a bit to find the second one.
When I had more energy I also found solace in involving myself in local volunteer work.

CW: SuicideIn my darkest moments I fantasize about doing a combined Bushnell/Mangione against the highest ranking capitalist I can willem-van-spronsen
Mainly I just try not to think about it.

Me Grumbling about cope.Also I chastise everyone who says shit like "don't worry humanity made it thru the plague. Well persevere!" Dumbest argument I've ever heard. I don't care about humanity persevering (and that is not at all a guarantee). I care about billions not dying and life not turning into living hell.

Personally I am going to China to do a masters starting next year. Equal parts interest and future planning for becoming a climate refugee.

[–] miz@hexbear.net 15 points 3 months ago
[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 7 points 3 months ago

Also antidepressants take the edge off

[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

At this point, imo, we are more or less locked into at least the end of modern industrialized society, and the deaths of billions. These deaths will be due largely due to food shortages (at some point, it won't be possible to grow rice in SEA and that means famine) and forced migration, though also nuclear conflict breaking out, see eg the violation of the Pakistan/India Indus River treaty being explicitly named by Pakistan as an existential threat justifying nuclear war.

I also think it's basically impossible for us to "win" given that it would more or less require the death of the USA, whether by revolution or a very, very rapid collapse that burns through the fascist death drive remnants in short order, both ending within 5-10 years. I don't think it's likely that anything we do will matter, as what the US government actually does has nothing to do with what the people living in the US want, and the conditions are nowhere near a revolution, so even organizing probably won't accomplish anything.

But what if I'm wrong? What if getting out there and organizing actually works, and the ever-escalating crackdowns on the climate movement eventually make it so liberal co-option is no longer possible, and cause a backlash resulting in enough people turning for us to eke out a "win"? I don't think it's likely, but if my choices are to treat it as a 1% chance of winning or a 0% chance, well I might as well bet on the 1% because at least that's something. And it would also mean I'd get to watch some billionaires get what's coming to them.

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

As the effects become more real in people's eyes, exponentially more people will become radicalized. It's of very high importance for us to organize and have people across the world ready to be useful and educate people as the world breaks down over the next couple decades. If you're the kind of person that's getting "blackpilled" now, the knowledge, experience, and organization you can realize over the next 10-20 years can be what's necessary for the world to keep spinning. If there is to be human civilization in 100 years, the people who learn the critical things necessary about everything from agriculture to logistics and cybernetics are alive right now and learning about how those things are necessary. No other future is worth considering IMO.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago

As the effects become more real in people's eyes, exponentially more people will become radicalized.

The issue for me with finding rest in this, is that I watched that Al Gore documentary when I was a kid. "By the time we can see the effects, it'll be too late". I keep thinking back to that. Brings me down.

[–] 9to5@hexbear.net 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I dont want to sound like a doomer but I guess Ive just accepted it ? Theres a realistic chance well see the end of the world as we know it within our lifetime.

But its not like I’m a prepper getting ready for doomsday . I just try to live my best life and hope for the best.

[–] culpritus@hexbear.net 14 points 3 months ago

There is a tension between when global capitalism loses hegemony, and how that process of collapse plays out. My main concern is that the death drive of capitalism will result in a massive scale destruction of productive capacity that could be used to transition with better resiliency.

If capitalism doesn't terror bomb the world in its death throes, I'm fairly hopeful that much of the world can adapt pretty quickly. We can't avoid significant climate catastrophe at this point, but there is a possibility of adaptation and resilience in that scenario.

[–] BountifulEggnog@hexbear.net 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I guess I don't know exactly what you mean by blackpilled. It already is too late to avoid irreversible catastrophe. In terms of the people idk, most people are ignorant. Ignorance is somewhat blackpilling I get it but idk.

we have just abandoned science all together

Even mainstream climate science has abandoned how bad the problem is. But yea people collectively have abandoned even that.

Do I just stop thinking about it?

That's what I do tbh, I want to transition and fix my body. I know the world is ending but I want my little peace, my decade or two.

[–] Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This binary catastrophe/non-catastrophe dichotomy is a myth and actively harmful propaganda promulgated by the fossil fuel industry. Yes it is too late to prevent the terrible, irreversible effects of climate change.

But every additional tonne of CO2 makes the effects even worse. It's not like "oh, we've locked in catastrophe, we can throw up our hands, there's nothing left to do." No, it's a gradient of severity, and it gets worse the less we do.

[–] BountifulEggnog@hexbear.net 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Hundreds of millions, billions are going to die from climate change. That is a catastrophe. WhyEssEff was considering/hoping that being avoidable, I'm saying it wasn't. You and I agree on that.

Yea I also agree with you that more ghg makes the effect worse, makes catastrophe worse, all that. Didn't say we should throw up our hands. I was just trying to say that its going to be catastrophically bad (again hundreds of millions to billions) and that it isn't avoidable. Totally agree with you we should make it the least bad catastrophe possible. I'd much rather 2 billion then 4, or have a bit better quality of life, etc. Definitely not worth giving up and not dropping emissions as fast as we possibly can.

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 4 points 3 months ago

Yeah exactly, unless she means she's absolutely certain that human extinction will happen.

[–] WhyEssEff@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

the problem is here specifically for me

I can't think about it because every time I do it paralyzes me in awe of the urgency and scope of what has to be done.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The only real solution to your issue is to just not think about it I'm afraid.
There's patchwork solutions that aid in not thinking about it - Preparing for what comes, organizing so you feel like you're doing some good, working to alleviate the worst of it, learning about nice things that are happening (mainly in China).
You'll still end up thinking about it from time to time. You'll still be paralyzed. Hopefully it will be easier to break out of with some of these.
I've never met a mentally healthy person who was aware of what lies in store for us. I've never met a mentally healthy person who was thinking about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] robotElder2@hexbear.net 13 points 3 months ago

We must do without hope. There is always revenge.

[–] miz@hexbear.net 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] crazycraw@crazypeople.online 5 points 3 months ago

hey giving up is also something. it means you tried.

[–] LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins@hexbear.net 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I was never planning on having kids and I feel like however I die is going to be horrifying either way. I'm not religious, I can't make myself believe in an afterlife, all I have is the fear of the void and the hope that at least nothing will truly be nothing

haha, cope yea

[–] LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins@hexbear.net 5 points 3 months ago

however China keeps winning and keeps performing exactly how a society that puts its resources towards solving problems would so I have some hope that they'll at least solve or mitigate problems for themselves. Maybe that'll trickle over (cope yea )

[–] CocteauChameleons@hexbear.net 9 points 3 months ago

Living paycheck to paycheck helps

[–] EatPotatoes@hexbear.net 9 points 3 months ago

Seeing nostalgia bait online of people getting upset that kids don't have the carbon copy childhood that they did. Then mentally pushing back against that as hard as I can. That's not how anything is supposed to work, change is part of life and we owe it to our all our ancestors to adapt to whatever hellish conditions are around the corner as they did for billions of years.

The question is who inherits the new earth. My conspiracy theory is that bougeoise despise us so much that climate change is more of a force multiplier to wiping us out. Everything is irrationally being put into AI and androids to eliminate the need for a lower class. Parts of the earth will be kept habitable through careful site selection and geoengineering to keep a few thousand people alive.

I am not a very sensitive person. It's honestly been such a blessing the last few years. But I am kept going through spite and resentment. Even if it's just a few hundred women and a sperm bank. The proletariat must be who survives.

[–] dat_math@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

re paralysis: #govegan

re blackpill: that's a conscious choice I have to take every day*

spoilerone that is made easier with appropriate quantities of psilocybin and cannabis

[–] towhee@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

We are all descended from people who were so unreasonably optimistic about the future that they had kids. Many times their surroundings were far more dire than the circumstances in which we find ourself. This isn't an exhortation to reproduce but I guess to indulge in that same unreasonable optimism. People will argue that that optimism is paralyzing. That is the case for the naive techno-optimists but I don't think it is true always. I don't think a movement can be built out of people who believe all they have to win is a dead world. Reality can shift very quickly.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Philosoraptor@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago

The same structures that might help prevent the worst of the collapse--organizing, sustainability, class consciousness, mutual aid--will also be essential to getting though the worst of the collapse if and when it happens. If you live like you're trying to save the world, you might at least be in a position to save a few people.

[–] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Communism defeated Nazism, we will struggle but we will defeat those pesky gas molecules!!

[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

One of the Soviets' biggest mistakes was in assuming communism was inevitable. And that was before we were handed a definite expiration date.

[–] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 4 points 3 months ago

How did the Soviets assume communism was inevitable? Care to explain?

Also, how am I assuming it's inevitable? I'm talking of big efforts done in the past, and talking of struggle to achieve the goals.

[–] cogitase@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We have everything we need to get to net zero, all the technology is there, we just need to produce everything and, for some technologies, make them cheaper. Once we do that, we also have the technology to sequester about 10-15% per year of what we are emitting right now. Of course, we aren't going to avoid any number of environmental catastrophes, but humans have committed numerous environmental atrocities already during the Holocene extinction.

Incremental progress doesn't make headlines. LCoEs continuing to plummet for wind and solar doesn't get reported on. Even successfully saving species doesn't get much notice unless it's something flashy. Roughly 1/3 of all patents being filed today relate in some way to reducing carbon emissions, electrifying transport, increasing recyclability, etc. That's millions of minds across the world all chipping away at this problem little by little.

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 14 points 3 months ago

If we drop cars and fossil fuels entirely tomorrow, we still will see about +3C from the pre-industrial average this century. Where in the capitalist world is anyone making the kinds of investments in renewables that are warranted for this crisis?

Also, it's not reassuring at all that the solutions to climate collapse are being patented and held by an intellectual property system that has already been used to withhold lifesaving technology from the global south. What makes you think the same global ruling class that murdered hundreds of thousands in Gaza in the last 2 years has any interest in deploying that tech to save people in South and South-East Asia, Africa, South America, and the Pacific? Remember these are the regions that will be most affected and some of the most populated regions of the world.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

At some point recently I realized I had kind of forgotten about it. There is just an absolute deluge of ongoing and increasing threats that demand immediate attention that it can be hard to remember the thing that, while super urgent, has distant consequences. That thought made me really depressed because I realized that not only have we made little progress on fixing this existential threat to humanity, but in some ways we're getting further from being able to fix it. Fascism and surveillance capitalism are tightening the noose around effective political organizing and improvements to technology like AI are only going to make that worse on top of it's impact on climate and the environment.

I keep having this irrational thought pop up in my head that's something along the lines of "surely... they won't keep making this worse right? There has to be some limit on just how cruel the people in power can get... right?" and then I snap myself back to reality and remember all they've done and continue to do and realize that isn't going to happen. Over my life I've watched as things have just steadily gotten worse. There were glimmers of hope when Obama got elected, but seeing him continue most of the bad stuff was a real shock to my worldview. I thought that maybe things were going in the right direction with Bernie's campaigns, but then that was crushed and now we have more brazen fascists in power.

I was recently thinking about just moving to a communist country like China or Vietnam, but aside from the logistical challenges involved in that, but even there the US will still manage to fuck me over with climate change so...

At this point, the fight for our freedom is the same as the fight for stopping climate change. The rich and powerful are never going to stop driving us towards that cliff, so we need to do something about them first. I just wish I knew what that even was.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TopFell@hexbear.net 5 points 3 months ago

Know and accept thy limits.

Though it saddens me that those who have the least, pollute the least. And those who have not catched up yet, perhaps due to a history of colonial exploitation, will suffer the most.

In my mind, this government capture and fight against recognizing externalities is a prominent argument against Capitalism. And also why they so fight against universal healthcare.

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 5 points 3 months ago

Honestly? By not hitching my hopes to a collective American national consciousness having a change of heart; by instead having a pretty well-developed strategy for land acquisition for the purpose of building communes that do extensive permaculture and silviculture, maximal self-sufficiency through appropriate technology, and biochar sequestration. My networks have a good amount of land projects going already, and most of what we need is for a lot of people to make the lifestyle switch from "living as an individual socialist under capitalism" to "living as part of a collective project".

In the meantime I have a low-end "first-world" income level with a high-end "third-world" consumption level. In less than a year I will be set to really take off with urban commune and workers' cooperative projects. Maybe people see how much better of a living we're making for ourselves and desert the market to us en masse, or maybe they don't and make capitalist colossus teeter more. To hell or utopia; either answer satisfies us.

Yes I am basically wagering that something close to the pre-Cambrian level of CO~2~ is not enough to turn us into a runaway hothouse Earth that resembles Venus, and that a lot of salvaging can be done in a generation or two once Western civilization topples under its own destabilizing forces. These may not be true but believing against them doesn't help the cause.

[–] micnd90@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago

I touched grass and found meaning in the value of labor

https://hexbear.net/post/7010657

load more comments
view more: next ›