Chana

It's not a coincidence that capitalism and colonialism co-developed. They are two parts of the same thing, and have continued to be as colonialism has diversified and been relabelled (imperialism/neocolonialism). Fascism is also part of the continuum of this socio-politico-economic development.

The material developments of proto-capitalism enabled proto-colonialism. Shipbuilding advancements led to Europeans building transportation networks to new places, including the Americas, where it would've otherwise of course been impossible for them to colonize. When Euros first arrived, they didn't really have plans to colonize. As you mention, Columbus the Dumbass was planning on finding passage to Asia, not run into Hispañola. But they were incredibly violent almost immediately, and were already supremely chauvinist. They set to work on "conquering" immediately, beginning with the Spaniards. Columbus returns from his first voyage in 1493. Tenochtitlan falls in 1521. 30 years, basically a single generation, between merely knowing the region exists and defeating its strongest military power. That's not just an outcome of disease or having good technology, it is a decisive and swift adversarial posturing and dedication of resources.

Anyways, getting back on track: as others mentioned, Europe was already primed psychologically and politically for these ventures. Others mention the crusades. The crusades center the church and economic boon through conquering. They have an ideological apparatus that justifies and promotes violence against their enemies along racial and religious lines. The Euros invading the Americas are using that same ideology of casual chauvinist violence and expectations of gains. The system itself sends people to do exactly that sort of thing. And the Spanish famously invest everything in just replicating that process as infinitum, making more ships, trying to conquer more and more places, bringing back more and more gold and resources. Other Euro kingdoms do their best to follow suit, often with the same blessings of the church, beginning a colonial race and contest similar to inter-imperialist conflicts today. Euros constantly fought with each other, kingdoms fell or merged or split, religious factions emerge and wars are fought using them as proxies.

Completing the loop is technology and proto-capitalism. The process of colonizing creates a form of inflation. Gold doesn't have any intrinsic value, you just use it to buy more stuff from other people that expect it to retain value. The church flails trying to regulate this, but the impact is still there. The inflation means you either need to focus on other ways to colonize or you need to get even more gold even faster. Spaniards and a few others try both, and too much of the latter. Others focus on other modes of colonization focused on resources, uneven trade deals, and developing what we now call capitalism. The engine of capitalism drives technological advantage and a feedback loop that makes them militarily dominant, with the ability to make more and more powerful fleets because they have more stuff and better production and more production. This is closer to the style of Anglo settlers as well as the dutch and French, with the former eventually becoming dominant, again with tons of inter-Euro fighting. During the period the Anglos are also colonizing the British Isles as well, for example. It is during this period that the Anglo core industrializes off the deindustrialization of its colonies, a core force developing and being developed by capitalism.

It really is essentially how Marx lays it out, which is as a confluence and dialog between the material base and wider society, with technological development changing economic and social relations, which then respond, and in this case it is the development of capitalism that is the qualitative change produced by the accumulation of these things. And colonialism was an accelerator of this process through inter-colonisr war, technological competition for that war and colonization, and then, eventually, a mode of colonial extraction that favored industrialization of the core at the expense of the periphery. Part of it is historical contingency, like the proximity of the crusades to Euros being able to reach the Americas. Part of it is clear material development, like the fact they could reach the Americas at all requiring technological development and social will. And the two interrelate, as the reason to develop and send those long-range ships emerges from trade questions raised by the crusades.

Full of trots and other opportunists

Whatever

So is the assumption I was responding to, which assumed that there were trees there to cut down in the first place.

Both the comment you responded to and the comment you made had that kind of assumption. And I'm not replying to what they said...

I wasn't making any normative claims about what the land should be, just pointing out that this process appears to have been afforestation of an area that, prior to this intervention, was grassland, and so the implicit assumption in the original comment that the local water cycle had already been perturbed may be wrong.

I don't think that's what you communicated, actually.

The point is that this land was not immutably grassland historically, and so the prior point re: its prior state is not inherently valid. The only question is how long it was the case, if that's what we are meant to care about.

I haven't said anything about whether it's strategically better in this case, that's just a category error re: your reply. I am highlighting that one should avoid the (often settler naturalistic fallacy mindset) that the right thing is what it "used to be", where "used to be" tends to be a somewhat mythological description of the place 50 years ago.

Ah, but how long was it grassland? Humans have been changing the landscape for tens of thousands of years, on top of major climate changes before and during that. Much of what we call "natural" or "wild" was/is actually curated and lived in.

Oof

Lots of reasons you might try out other distros:

• Boredom / curiosity
• Your current distro has a problem or doesn't fit your needs (this is usually why I have distro hopped)
• You want to learn something that a distro focuses on. Atomic updates, reproducible builds, compiling software, etc.

But you can also just sit and be happy with what you've got!

Where is that water even going?

Isn't it understood that even though we can extend lifespans past 80, the brain itself tends to degrade around then, so quality of life tends to deteriorate anyways? So it's just length of a life, but whether the mental impacts of aging can be prevented.

That's aside from the whole labor commoditization angle.

I refuse to use it until it also mines crypto from my browser and sends it to the most sexually harassy guy ever.

Working with others in an org doesn't require being a leader, friend. Organizations need help doing things like scheduling, creating artwork, writing, putting up posters, handing out flyers, etc etc. And when you first join you'll probably be doing a lot of reading. Just focus on being friendly and liked and you'll do well. Sticking to principals / handling political issues is something you can develop later and strategically, if you'd like to, and this ends up being what leadership does.

One low-stakes thing anyone can do is join a group like Food Not Bombs. They feed people and their members come from a broad left background. I wouldn't expect to get a good political education there, but you will get comfortable with basic organized left group work! And meet people who will let you know about other local orgs.