In a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, President Donald Trump has reoriented America’s geopolitical path, distancing from Ukraine and seeking rapprochement with Russia. This realignment reflects a broader strategic calculus aimed at countering China’s rising influence on the global stage.
Reassessing Ukraine’s strategic value, historically, the United States has supported Ukraine as a bulwark against Russian expansionism. This has changed, the Trump junta views the ongoing conflict in Ukraine as a European concern, diverting U.S. resources from more pressing business challenges. We see it underscored by recent diplomatic engagements in Riyadh, where U.S. and Russian officials met to discuss the Ukraine conflict without Ukrainian representation. Building mess as the talks granted concessions to Russia without securing meaningful commitments in return, undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and regional stability.
This realignment is about the decoupling of Russia from China, this policy shift is highlighting Trump’s focus on China as the primary geopolitical adversary. By improving relations with Russia, the U.S. weakens the burgeoning Sino-Russian alliance, thereby isolating China. This strategy is part of the nasty realist school of international relations, which advocates for keeping the status Que of power among nations to prevent any single entity from challenging dominance. However, this “make America great again” carries real risks, as it embolden Russian aggression in Eastern Europe and strain’s U.S. alliances with European partners.
Economic considerations play a key role in this geopolitical shift. Trump has proposed gaining stakes in Ukraine’s vast natural resources, including rare earth minerals, in exchange for military assistance. Ukrainian officials, however, view these offers as unfavourable, given the ongoing conflict and logistical challenges in resource extraction. This economic angle further complicates the U.S.’s position, as it is perceived as financial interests over steadfast support for an ally under siege.
This strategic pivot has implications for global power dynamics. By attempting to realign relationships and isolate China, the U.S. is destabilizing existing alliances and emboldening adversaries. The success of this path depends on Russia’s willingness to distance itself from China, a prospect that remains uncertain given their shared strategic interests. Moreover, sidelining Ukraine leads to increased instability in Eastern Europe, challenging the security framework that has underpinned the region since the end of the Cold War.
In conclusion, while there is a method to Trump’s messy geopolitical madness, the long-term consequences of this remain deeply uncertain. Balancing the immediate goal of countering China’s influence with the potential risks of alienating allies and emboldening adversaries requires a carefully calibrated foreign policy strategy, which we are unlikely to see.
This is not even touching on onrushing #climtechaos which will need all the globe good will we can get to have any hope of surviving this century. Mess and more mess, we need more real composting, do you have a shovel, do you need a shovel #OMN
In the world shaped by corporate control, liberal co-option, and empty activism, the language we use is a battleground. The push for this #mainstreaming has dulled radical discourse, replacing it with sanitized, #NGO-friendly language that avoids real social change and challenge. If we are serious about building an alternative, we need to rethink how we communicate—not just what we say, but how we say it.
An example that I have been developing for the last ten years is the #OMN (Open Media Network) hashtag story—a project rooted in direct action, radical media, and bottom-up organizing. It’s a path away from corporate-controlled narratives and into messy, human, and effective grassroots communication.
The problem with #mainstreaming language, NGO-driven approach to activism and media has a core flaw, it seeks acceptance rather than transformation.
This blunts radical movements, it dilutes the message, #mainstreaming turns radical ideas into soft, palatable soundbites. Instead of speaking clearly about power, control, and oppression, it replaces them with vague, feel-good language designed for funding applications and media appearances.
Example: Instead of saying, “Capitalism is a #deathcult destroying the planet,” we get, “We need sustainable economic growth and green investments.”.
The result? The core critique is lost. The real causes of oppression are left untouched. It shifts focus to liberal activism that places too much trust in institutions—governments, tech corporations, and NGOs—assuming that change can happen from within. Instead of building our own autonomous networks, we waste time begging for reforms that never come.
Example: Instead of rebuilding grassroots media, activists push for more regulations on social media companies—keeping power centralized rather than challenging the #dotcons path itself.
The result? Big tech still controls everything, and alternative voices get pushed to the margins. It avoids direct conflict and struggle, as real social change is messy. It requires taking risks, building new paths, and confronting power. #Mainstreaming, on the other hand, prefers safe conversations and endless dialogue over real action.
Example: Instead of fighting for community-controlled spaces, NGOs organize panels and workshops on “inclusion”—without actually shifting power.
The result? We #blindly talk while the same power structures remain intact. The #OMN path for real communication for real change. For this to be real we want to escape the #NGO liberal mess, we need to reclaim radical communication. That means, speaking in clear, direct language:
Say this: “The internet is controlled by #dotcons—giant corporations profiting from our data and attention. We need to take back control.” or “The #deathcult of neoliberalism is driving us to #climatedisaster.” and “#NothingNew: Stop wasting time chasing tech hype—fix what already works.”
Language should be sharp, memorable, and rooted in everyday experience. But this is not only about talking, building alternative structures, not just critiquing the system is needed. Talking is not enough. We need to build. The #OMN project is about creating a real alternative to corporate-controlled media through grassroots, federated networks.
Instead of: Complaining about Facebook’s censorship… Build: A network of ActivityPub-powered, self-hosted media hubs that can’t be shut down.
Instead of: Asking Twitter to fact-check misinformation… Build: A trust-based network of independent journalists and aggregators.
The Fediverse and #OMN are already moving in this direction. We #KISS need to push harder.
Recognizing that change comes from conflict and challenge, social movements succeed when they agitate. That means, calling out power structures instead of begging them to change. Defending radical voices instead of silencing them to fit liberal narratives. Using technology as a tool for liberation, not just convenience.
The biggest lie of #mainstreaming is that change happens by playing nice. History tells a different story: The labour movement won rights through strikes and resistance. The civil rights movement succeeded because of direct action, not just speeches. Open-source software survived because of forks, fights, and refusal to comply. If we want a free and open internet, we need to fight for it.
The #OMN is a practical vision of a radical media network for the future, decentralization – Breaking free from corporate control. Autonomy – Creating trust-based networks instead of top-down paths. Action over talk – Building real alternatives, not just complaining about problems.
This is the path forward. If we want to escape the bland, corporate-friendly language of the liberal web, we need to reclaim radical, direct, and effective communication.
The #socialweb is shifting away from corporate-controlled paths like #Twitter and #Facebook toward decentralized, more #DIY alternatives. The idea is simple: instead of a single company having control, decentralized protocols allow different platforms to connect while giving people the power to shape and control their digital paths.
Three major decentralized protocols have emerged:
Fediverse (#ActivityPub) – The most established and widely used, forming a “native” backbone of the #openweb.
Bluesky (#AtProto) – A Twitter-funded project that claims decentralization but is still highly centralized.
Nostr – A relay-based, censorship-resistant protocol with interesting tech but major cultural and usability challenges.
While all three claim to support decentralization, only ActivityPub (the #Fediverse) actually delivers on this promise. An overview:
The Fediverse (ActivityPub) – The Decentralized #openweb
Background & history, the Fediverse is powered by ActivityPub, a W3C-recommended standard, since 2018. Unlike Bluesky and #Nostr, which are still evolving, ActivityPub is already a mature, widely adopted protocol. It was designed from the ground up, through a 20-year unbroken history to enable interoperability between platforms, meaning people on different apps can communicate seamlessly.
This #ActivityPub network exploded in popularity after Twitter’s collapse under Elon Musk, with Mastodon seeing millions of new users in 2022. Popular apps & servers, it not just one platform—it’s a whole ecosystem of independent apps that mostly copy #dotcons:
Mastodon – The most well-known microblogging platform, often compared to Twitter.
PeerTube – A decentralized YouTube alternative.
Pixelfed – A decentralized Instagram-style photo-sharing app.
Pleroma / Misskey – Alternative microblogging platforms.
How ActivityPub Works, Federation: Different servers (instances) talk to each other, creating a #4opens network of networks. How this works, you create an account on one instance, but interact with people across the entire Fediverse. Each server is independently operated, meaning no single company owns the network. There is an issue of instance Lock-In: If a server shuts down, yes, people must migrate manually—but this is a small tradeoff compared to the massive corporate control seen in more #mainstreaming paths.
Bottom Line: ActivityPub is the most decentralized and established protocol, already powering a thriving ecosystem of apps with real communities. #Bluesky (AtProto) – Fake Decentralization, A shadow #Dotcons
Background & history, Bluesky started as a Twitter-funded project in 2019, originally backed by Jack Dorsey. It claims to be building a decentralized social network, but in reality, it’s architecture favers centralization, due to it being built to prioritise scaling. The #AtProto, allows for theoretical federation, but in practice, Bluesky is still just a Twitter clone controlled by a single company.
Popular Apps & Servers
Bluesky – The only major client, self-hosting is possible, but current federated servers are limited to 100 users, and Bluesky can refuse to federate with them.
How AtProto works: #DID-based identities – Users can theoretically move between services, but only if Bluesky allows it. Centralized moderation – The vast majority of users rely on bsky.social, meaning Bluesky still has the power to block or censor at will. Limited self-hosting, Bluesky restricts who can run a server and limits federated instances.
Bottom Line: Bluesky is currently a trap, a con, It looks decentralized but is a #dotcons, the normal corporate-controlled path.
Nostr – Interesting Tech, but bad culture
Background & history, #Nostr (Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays) was created by an individual in 2020 as a censorship-resistant social protocol. Where ActivityPub and AtProto, use server-based networks to build community and distribute moderation, Nostr uses a relay-based model where users broadcast messages across multiple relays. It gained popularity in #Bitcoin circles and received funding from Jack Dorsey (again).
Popular Apps & Clients
Primal, Nos, Snort – Web-based clients.
Damus – iOS client.
Amethyst – Android client.
How #Nostr works, It is Relay-based, with no comminute based instances – No centralized servers, messages are published to multiple relays. Cryptographic Identity – people have opaque public/private keys instead of usernames. No true federation – people rely on relays to store and transmit data, but relays don’t communicate with each other like ActivityPub servers do. Difficult for adoption – The reliance on cryptographic keys makes it confusing, and there’s no built-in moderation system, so comminutes remain fragmented, its tech for the native #stupidindividualists paths, in this diversity is good and as it bridges it might become a useful project.
ActivityPub (Fediverse) is a clear winner, it’s proven, widely adopted, and already functional with true federation across multiple apps, decentralized and people-controlled. Where #Bluesky (#AtProto) is a hidden #Dotcons which claims to be decentralized but is still controlled by Bluesky, Inc. Federation is limited, and self-hosting is discouraged thus is a Trojan horse for another corporate-controlled network. Nostr is interesting but niche, completely decentralized, but difficult to use. No federation between relays and not practical for mass adoption.
Final verdict: If you care about real decentralization, community, and people, ActivityPub (Fediverse) is the clear choice.
What is needed next is to take the step in the Fediverse is moving beyond simply copying the #dotcons. It is time to reboot the #Openweb with a project like the #OMN. The Open Media Network is about taking control of our digital paths and building a future beyond the #dotcons. If we want a truly decentralized internet, one core message is that we need to support ActivityPub-based paths instead of getting fooled by corporate-backed “alternatives” like #Bluesky.
Join the Fediverse today: https://fediverse.observer/ It’s time to reclaim the #openweb to build digital spaces that work for people, and the social change challenge we so urgently need.
One thing is clear, you can and need to walk away from the corporate #dotcons.
For the last ten years, activism has been trapped in a paradox: we speak of grassroots change, yet we reach for #dotcons and #geekproblem tools built for control. The digital infrastructure we rely on is dominated by top-down, vertical structures, reinforcing the very power dynamics we claim to be resisting. Meanwhile, the #4opens horizontal tools, the ones that foster collaboration, openness, and true grassroots organizing, sit unused at the bottom of the toolbox.
This isn’t just a tech issue; it reflects how activism itself is structured. Most organizing still happens through #closed, opaque affinity groups, mirroring the exclusivity and hierarchy of the systems we seek to dismantle. The language of activism, whether framed in utopian peace and love or rigid revolutionary rhetoric, too often masks this blunt reality. In truth, much of what passes for activism today reproduces the same centralized power structures, just with different slogans.
Yet, we live in one of the most open and radical times for building real alternatives. The tools for horizontalism exist. The challenge isn’t a lack of technology or platforms, it’s a failure to break free from ingrained habits of control and gatekeeping. The real work isn’t just about using better tools; it’s about shifting how we organize. Transparency, openness, and collective governance must move from the margins to the centre of activism. With the #OMN the seeds of the tool set are there, what’s missing is the will to develop and use it.
Militarism is on the rise globally. Arms sales are at all-time highs, and public confidence in the military has surged. Rather than waning in the post-Cold War era, military glorification has intensified, with political and cultural leaders idealizing soldiers, not for their professionalism, but for their heroism and sacrifice.
At a recent event hosted by the #Oxford University International Relations Society, Professor Ron Krebs explored the proliferation of militarism, its cultural underpinnings, and its consequences for democracy, security, and governance. He painted a picture of a world where the military is increasingly romanticized, and political leaders use this veneration to their advantage.
Militarism is a cultural force, where militarism is often framed as a policy issue, whether states use excessive force or employ the military as a tool of national strategy. However, Krebs argues that militarism is, at its core, a set of cultural practices. It is driven by a deep-seated romanticism about the military, which manifests in three ways:
Pacifist Militarism – Even among the left, there is a tendency to view the military as a necessary tool of national policy, even in peacetime.
Excessive Force – The normalization of military interventions, where using force is seen as a default option rather than a last resort.
Idealization of Soldiers – The emphasis on heroism and sacrifice overshadows discussions of military professionalism, effectiveness, or accountability.
This cultural shift is seen in the growing presence of the military in national celebrations, such as Independence Days. Military parades and displays have increased, yet there is little focus on mourning fallen soldiers. Instead, these events serve to reinforce the image of military power and national strength.
Why militarism has grown since the 1980, the decline of trust in government institutions, driven in part by #neoliberalism (the #deathcult), has paradoxically fuelled greater trust in the military. As faith in political leadership eroded, the military, seen as an aspirational and apolitical institution, became a pillar of stability.
This shift has created a dangerous dynamic:
Populists thrive on military imagery. They love dressing up in military uniforms, invoking military rhetoric, and surrounding themselves with soldiers.
Dead soldiers are useful political tools. They cannot challenge political narratives, making them perfect symbols for populist movements.
Public perception of military support influences policy. When the public believes the military supports a political leader, they are more likely to support military action. This feedback loop drives increased militarization across the political spectrum.
The populist-military conflict, despite their public admiration for the military, many populist leaders privately clash with military institutions. Donald Trump, for instance, has reportedly expressed disdain for military leadership behind closed doors. His approach follows a broader pattern. Populists support enlisted soldiers while attacking military officers, particularly those from elite institutions like West Point. This allows them to position themselves as allies of “the people” while undermining traditional hierarchies.
In countries like Poland, Hungary, and India, populist leaders have avoided direct military confrontations, allowing dissenting officers to step aside quietly. In the United States, however, tensions are escalating. If military leaders resist political co-option, they will likely face aggressive purges and public attacks. Brazil under Bolsonaro offers a clear example. Although he had military ties, his alliances were fragile. When officers opposed his leadership, especially during the COVID-19 crisis, he swiftly removed them.
The long-term consequences, militarism is a raw deal. While it leads to increased military engagement, it does not necessarily bring greater benefits for soldiers. Instead, it results in, the erosion of democratic institutions. As militarism rises, civilian governance weakens, and leaders increasingly rely on military authority to consolidate power. Diminished military effectiveness. When the military becomes a political tool, its strategic competence declines.
Personal loyalty to leaders replaces merit, weakening the institution from within. A dangerous feedback loop. If unchecked, militarism becomes self-perpetuating, reinforced by political narratives, public perceptions, and the military’s own internal culture. The military, when it “drinks the Kool-Aid” of its own infallibility, loses its ability to self-correct. The blurring of lines between civilian leadership and military authority erodes trust, making governance more unstable and unpredictable.
Conclusion, we are living in an age of global militarism. The question is not whether it will wane on its own, it shows no signs of doing so. Instead, the challenge is how societies will respond to its continued rise. Will democratic institutions push back, ensuring that the military remains professional and accountable? Or will the glorification of soldiers, the erosion of civilian oversight, and the manipulation of military loyalty accelerate the militarization of politics? As Professor Krebs warns, the veneration of the military is not only about national security, it is about the future of democracy itself.
The chattering classes, eager to ride the wave of #mainstreaming, are finally pushing real rather than fake radical critique. These are the same people who built their careers within the #dotcons and #neoliberal highways, are now embracing narratives that grassroots movements have been fighting for decades. Sure, “better late than never,” but we should remain deeply sceptical of their radical awakenings, especially the #fluffy paths they carve out. After all, they’re still operating within the structures that created this mess in the first place.
There’s an element of performative rage at play here, condemning billionaires while continuing to use, benefit from, and reinforce the systems that empower them. Meanwhile, real alternatives, grassroots, decentralized, and open networks like #OMN, remain sidelined, unfunded, and ignored, still too far outside the “common sense” media narratives that shape any current #mainstreaming paths.
It’s not entirely useless to have media celebrities and polished pundits repackaging anti-billionaire sentiment. It does shift the Overton window. But it’s equally vital that we critique this and, more importantly, walk a different path, one that is messy, grassroots, open, and outside the control of the #fashernistas who are now finding the courage to speak up about what we’ve been saying all along. We are the ones with the lived experience. Now, where are the resources? That’s the question we should be asking our freshly radicalized “allies.”
And if their “solutions” come wrapped in top-down, controlled narratives? Well, piss on them, it helps with the composting. Thanks.
We don’t have time for more mess, the real challenge is ensuring that this moment doesn’t become another media spectacle to be consumed and discarded. How do we push the narrative in a way that resists being co-opted? How do we move beyond talking about change to embodying the real challenge they’re now beginning to acknowledge is needed.
The key takeaway of the current #mainstreaming is that we must actively build alternative structures—not just critique the existing mess. That means reclaiming digital and physical commons, supporting participatory democracy, and pushing back against #dotcons billionaire-driven tech oligarchy. The work with #4opens and #OMN grassroots media is exactly the kind of response we need to counteract this heist.
The tension between control vs. trust in tech and society is a core issue that defines the success or failure of grassroots, open projects like #OMN and the #fediverse. The problem isn’t just technical, but deeply social: a struggle between hierarchical control (power over) and distributed, democratic trust (power within).
The #geekproblem keeps repeating, open projects fail because devs build control-based systems rather than trust-based ones. This results in endless cycles of #techchurn, producing #techshit instead of durable, humane tools. Metaphors matter, #datasoup or #witchescauldron (with the #goldenladle as the app interface) is a powerful way to frame how we should be thinking about tech, fluid, organic, adaptable rather than rigid, controlled, and top-down.
The #4opens approach is the solution, a key to a thriving semantic web is transparency, grassroots processes, and tools that reflect the diversity of people using them—not centralizing power in closed systems. Balance is crucial, the #openweb decays when #mainstreaming pushes over the commons, just as the #dotcons did with the early web. If we don’t actively mediate power, we lose everything to enclosure. Spreading power widely through open democratic governance, combined with a real culture of diversity and autonomy, is the best balance we’ve found so far.
The #yFediverse as a case study, its strength is accidental, not only in standards, code, or power politics, but in good UX and #4opens processes. The biggest danger is internal infighting and distractions, often fuelled by ego, control struggles, and lack of process. The chaos of #mainstreaming serves a purpose, but it’s not a good one. It fractures movements, undermines trust, and ultimately hands power back to the gatekeepers.
What’s next, how do we actively resist these cycles rather than just watching them play out again? The #OMN path makes sense, but what’s the next tangible step to anchor it in practice? Are there any spaces left where trust can be built at scale, or do we need to create them from scratch?
The boater community is in rapid transition, with the pressures from gentrification, corporate control (#CRT), and online group dynamics (#failbook) colliding with a long-established scruffy, self-sufficient, and sometimes chaotic #liveaboard culture.
This can be seen in the #failbookLondon Boaters group which has shifted away from its activist roots into more of a “management” role, shaped by #NGO-style moderation and back-channel conversations with #CRT. The shift from grassroots resistance to passive mediation is a familiar story in many alternative and radical spaces, where energy gets siphoned away into “keeping the peace” rather than fighting for actual autonomy in what remains of our “commons”.
The cultural split is deepening: The divide between “scruffy” boaters and the more middle-class/posh newcomers is not just aesthetic; it’s a direct outcome of policy and economic pressures. And fear is creeping in, often a precursor to authoritarian responses.
The activist potential of #failbook is limited, big #dotcons groups rarely function as true organizing spaces, as they tend to get co-opted by NGO logic, mainstream narratives, and self-censorship.
The pressure cooker effect, with rising costs, more restrictions, and no real outlet for collective resistance, conflict is building. The lack of a strong, active counterforce means the CRT agenda is rolling forward fundamentally unchallenged.
Admin struggles, the LB admin team is focus on firefighting rather than any real direction. Without a broader base of radical, committed people in admin, the group moves to becoming a tool of pacifying #mainstreaming.
What’s Next? The current trajectory points to London’s waterways becoming sterile, managed, semi-privatized space, just like what’s happened in European cities. Unless a new, grassroots, real-world organizing effort is built outside #failbook, the “scruffy” boater culture may not survive in London.
Nationally we have the #NBTA which is an old school activist organising group, can we add up-to-date infrastructure and working practices. Would it be possible to restart a parallel #openweb platform (maybe something lightweight like a #fediverse instance) where people committed to actual resistance can organize without interference from NGO-style moderation? The boating community needs a space for counter-narratives and real discussion, rather than just a loop of buy/sell drama and soft social control.
What do you think, what’s the best way to push back while there’s still time?
This lecture will explore the shortcomings of market-driven solutions to the climate crisis, the role of green energy, and the structural limits of capitalism in addressing environmental challenges.
The climate crisis is getting worse, not better. We are burning more fossil fuels, not less. Even with the massive expansion of renewables, energy use is still rising, because green growth adds to consumption rather than replacing it.
So, what’s blocking real change? Professor Brett Christophers lays it out: It’s not economics—it’s politics. The cost of renewables is dropping, largely thanks to China’s command economy driving down manufacturing costs. But the real problem is deployment, not production. Governments in the rich world still rely on the private sector to make the energy transition, using subsidies, tax incentives, and market nudges.
But capitalism is not built to save us, the market won’t solve this. The profit motive is a #blocking force. The oil and energy sectors are oligarchic, meaning investment only flows where market control guarantees profit. Renewable energy doesn’t work this way. Once solar panels or wind farms are built, everyone benefits, so investors can’t “capture” the value in the same way fossil fuel companies can.
This is why China is leading the transition. In 2023, 65% of global renewable investment was happening in China, before that, it was 90%. In contrast, the for-profit world is barely moving. The left is starting to rethink public ownership, but decades of privatization and #neoliberal dogma make this difficult, especially in the Global South, where many countries lost their public energy sectors over the last 40 years.
One small but key issue is that we are trapped in a modernist mindset, where the lights must come on when you flick the switch. The market logic of energy scarcity (storage = control = profit) is at odds with the need to stabilize and expand access. When energy storage becomes widespread, its market value drops, meaning investment dries up before it even begins.
Public ownership has a bad history, but so does privatization. Without cultural change, we are stuck with broken systems that won’t save us. The Coming Storm, in the next 10–20 years, shit is going to hit the fan. #climatechaos is not a distant threat, it’s already disrupting global energy grids. Look at China, where hydropower is failing due to extreme drought, and where record heat waves are driving air conditioning demand through the roof. These are feedback loops that increase carbon emissions, pushing us closer to tipping points.
Governments aren’t prepared for the chaos that’s coming. If history is any guide, they’ll do what they always do: double down on control, repression, and violence. As the crisis deepens, we could see a return to 20th-century authoritarian solutions, forced migration, resource wars, and military crackdowns. If you’re young today, ask yourself: What future are you walking into? What careers will put you on the wrong side of history? Which paths will put a gun in your hands, or leave you standing in front of one? These are grim questions, but they are real.
The #Deathcult has failed, what comes next? For 40 years, neoliberal capitalism has blocked systemic change. Market redesign might be possible, but power and politics shape the system, and the #deathcult that built this mess won’t give it up easily.
The #dotcons are stepping into the void. Big Tech is now playing the role governments used to play, guaranteeing long-term energy contracts to fund #datacenters and #AI infrastructure. But this is a narrow and unstable path, its more noise than signal.
We need alternatives, we need #publicownership, #commons-based solutions, and #4opens governance. We need to mediate our overconsumption, compost the #mainstreaming, and reclaim progressive paths before capitalism drives us into collapse.
If we don’t, the market’s failure will become our failure, and the planet won’t care whether we survive or not.
Market Failure: Climate Crisis, Green Energy and the Limits of Capitalism
Professor Brett Christophers (Uppsala University)
This lecture will explore the shortcomings of market-driven solutions to the climate crisis, the role of green energy, and the structural limits of capitalism in addressing environmental challenges.
My notes:
We are using more carbon based energy, adding to energy use with “green growth” this varies regionally, but the numbers are going up not down.
What is #blocking this, its political and policy he argues, the NIMBYs. The economics are not a problem, the costs are going down. The costs coming down is due to China with its central command economy, this is a useful view of the path we need to take. What’s #blocking it has to do with profitability not generating costs, what douse this mean? Deployment is the hidden “cost”, the hidden restraint. Governments in most parts of the world are relying on the private sector to make this energy change, using nudges, subsidy etc. the motivation is profit, and “confidence” in this profit.
Can capitalism save us?
The oil industry is full of oligarchy’s, this shapes investment. The electricity is the same, but how it’s generated has its own market value. Your ability to make a profit is only based on you capturing the market sector. The tech change helps everyone, so the is no profit, value if the investment can’t “capture” a sector.
He slags off the understanding of the Labour Party in the UK. One ansear is market redesign, that what we have is not “natural” but planned, it’s shaped by power and politics and for the agenda of this power. Then we have the artifice of “price” we have not planned this well enough yet, externality’s. In the UK the carbon tax could be argued to have worked with the phase out of the last coal power plant, drax, is shut. But the cost of a real carbon tax is to high for our “democracy” to implement. This is likely true.
More subsidy is an example, the Inflation Reduction Act in the US is an example. To incentivise the private sector to make the change in energy production.
The left criticises this, anti market, It’s still not working, this argument is likely true, look at china. Let’s look at this in 2023 its is 65% globe of renewables investment in China, before this it was 90% this almost nothing happening in the for-profit world, for profit is obviously not working. The left are starting to rethink public ownership as a path.
In China there are contradictions, it’s a mix of clean and dirty, energy demand is growing very fast, climate change is driving this in part, with the disruption of hydropower and the heat waves driving air conditioning, it’s a feedback loop. But it’s instructive with a very different political economy you can have very different outcomes in the energy transition.
This path might happen in the rich north, but will be hard to do in the weak south? They just don’t have the public budgets, some of these have only lost to privatization there public energy sectors over the last 40 years.
We are stuck in the modernist mind set, the lights must come on when you flick the switch. This is still a core #blocking force. Storage is to tame the market, to stabilize the price. The business model is based on the scarcity of storage so when we implement it can easily lose its market value, so investment will not flow in the first place.
Culture change is needed as public ownership does have a bad history as much a for-profit ownership, without this cultural change we don’t solve any of the mess.
One path is blended finance, but the is very little of this existing, so it’s not going to happen in a meaningful way despite the fluffy propaganda people spread.
The question of responsibility?
In the next 10–20 years shit is hitting the fan with #climatechaos we are likely to go back to the 20th century tradition of shooting people, I am wondering, for this generations job prospective, what careers are likely to lead to you being shot when this history repeats and what careers will leave you with the metaphorical gun in your hands, both of course are bad outcomes. But would be useful for young people to think about this to help choices a path after #Oxford
The question of cross discipline for the students comes up, but he says this is really hard, narrow areas, grants, and culture. His ansear is pessimistic, to play the game, till you have the power not to play the game, mess. He does not like it, but advises young people to play. Market redesign, the #deathcult fucked over this path over the last 40 years.
AI and distributed energy, the #dotcons are pushing this, the preform the same role governments used to play, by garentlying prices in long term contracts for there new data centres, they promise long term fixed price which lets the banks fund projects. This is a very limited funding flow, so more noise than signal.
We live in a system that worships consumption. It’s not just about meeting needs, it’s about feeding an economy that only grows when people buy more, waste more, and replace instead of repair. This is one of the core tenants of the #deathcult, the #neoliberal ideology that tells us there is no alternative to endless growth, even as it drags us toward #climatechaos.
What if we build something different, something that values community over consumption, reuse over replacement, and DIY culture over passive consumerism? This is where the #4opens come in, transparency, collaboration, and shared knowledge as the foundation for real alternatives to the corporate churn machine. It’s a tool to mediate overconsumption, it isn’t just about the stuff, it’s about the system. The #dotcons (big tech platforms, global brands, centralized supply chains) exist to keep us dependent, feeding a cycle of control, waste, planned obsolescence, artificial scarcity, and throwaway culture.
We see this everywhere, in #techchurn, New phones, new software, endless updates that make old devices “obsolete” before they break. Fast fashion, clothing designed to fall apart, pushing people into a cycle of cheap, unethical labour and landfill waste. Algorithmic media distraction, a constant flood of junk entertainment designed to keep us too distracted to act, too demoralised to challenge the system. This is by design. The corporate web, the #dotcons, will absorb everything if we don’t (re)create our own independent alternatives.
The composting alternative is about creating a regenerative culture, isn’t only boycotting big brands or consuming “better.” It’s about nurturing and mediating alternatives—turning the waste of the old system into compost for something new. By embracing the #DIY ethic – Fix things, repurpose them, and share knowledge instead of feeding the churn. Build the #openweb – Move away from corporate-controlled spaces to decentralized, transparent platforms that serve communities, not ad networks. Reject #mainstreaming trends – Stop chasing the latest thing just because the algorithm tells you to. Foster trust-based networks – Support local, independent, and open-source projects that work for people, not profit.
The #OMN as a tool for mediation, a practical example of challenging the corporate wasteland of mainstream media and tech. Instead of relying on big platforms, it creates a decentralized, grassroots-driven network where people control their own media, bypassing the need for #dotcons and centralized control.
In the same way, we need to mediate overconsumption—not just by refusing to buy, but by building something better in its place. This isn’t about guilt or purity. It’s about real alternatives. If we don’t start creating them, we will be left with nothing but the corporate churn, stripping away our agency and leaving us with a hollow, temporary world. The current mess is compost. We either let it rot uselessly or turn it into the soil for something new. The choice is ours.
Slow travel, there’s something special about taking the slow route, moving at just 8 km/h, feeling the rhythm of the water beneath you, and experiencing places in a way you never would when rushing from A to B.
This is #overlanding, but with a twist, overlanding by water. Instead of highways, we followed ancient trade routes, gliding through canals, rivers, and locks that have shaped Europe for centuries. Our vessel? A refurbished oil platform lifeboat, a rugged, self-sufficient craft that carried us deep into the continent’s heart.
The Journey, waterborne adventure, our route took us across Europe’s vast inland waterways, connecting diverse landscapes, cultures, and histories. Each stretch of river and canal brought a new challenge and a fresh perspective on a continent that many only see from the motorways or rail lines. Some of the highlights:
The Rhine River, Germany, A mix of industrial might and natural beauty, passing legendary castles perched on cliffs, thriving cities, and historic port towns. The river’s strong currents and busy commercial traffic kept things exciting. The Danube, Eastern Europe, A vast and wild waterway, stretching through multiple countries, from Austria to Romania. This river offered true off-grid adventure, with remote stretches of untamed nature, tiny riverside villages, and encounters with local boaters who still live by the rhythms of the water.
The French Canals – A world of their own. Peaceful, meandering waterways winding through the French countryside, past vineyards, medieval towns, and stone bridges that have stood for centuries. Unlike the Rhine and Danube, these canals were more about relaxed travel, culture, and history.
The Amsterdam to Belgium Route – A labyrinth of interconnected canals, bustling harbor cities, and picturesque waterways lined with windmills and historic trading towns. Navigating this network felt like unlocking a hidden Europe, one far from the usual tourist paths.
Like any true expedition, this journey came with its share of hardships and surprises. Boating across a continent is not just about floating down a river, it’s about self-reliance, problem-solving, and adapting to the unknown.
The Challenges We Faced:
Mechanical Fixes – Keeping an ex-oil platform lifeboat running on a #DIY budget was an ongoing challenge. From fixing leaks to repairing the old diesel engine, we had to be resourceful.
Weather & Water Conditions – Strong currents, sudden storms, and fluctuating water levels made navigation unpredictable. Some stretches were calm and easy, while others tested our skills and endurance.
Navigation & Locks – Unlike the open sea, Europe’s waterways are full of locks, bridges, and tidal zones that require careful planning. Some days felt like solving a giant puzzle, with different canals and rivers connecting at odd angles, each with their own set of rules and operating times.
Remote Travel & Supplies – In the wilder sections, finding fuel, food, and spare parts required good planning. Some villages along the rivers still rely on weekly supply boats, a reminder of a slower, older way of life.
But the rewards? Unmatched, instead of rushing through Europe, we immersed ourselves in it. Instead of highways and train stations, we saw the real heart of the continent, the backroads of the water. We watched sunrises over misty rivers, navigated narrow canals that felt like stepping into history, and met people who still live by the pace of the water. There’s a world beyond the tourist hubs, a Europe that exists outside the rush of modern travel, and the only way to experience it is to slow down and take the journey itself as the destination.
The #climatecrisis isn’t just about rising temperatures and vanishing ecosystems, it’s also about the structures we build, the technology we use, and the ways we connect. The fight for a sustainable future isn’t limited to forests and oceans; it extends into the digital world as well.
In this website, a recurring theme is composting the mess of the modern world, whether that’s the corporate-controlled internet (#dotcons), failing grassroots movements, or the destruction of our physical environment. It’s all connected. How tech shapes our planet. The internet as we know it, centralized, monopolized, and powered by massive server farms, has a huge environmental impact. Tech giants consume massive amounts of energy, lock users into wasteful upgrade cycles, and push short-term profit over long-term sustainability.
But just like we need to transition away from fossil fuels, we also need to rebuild a sustainable digital infrastructure:
✅ Decentralized platforms → Reduce reliance on data centers owned by megacorporations. ✅ Longer-lasting hardware → Move away from planned obsolescence. ✅ Federated networks (#openweb) → Support resilient, grassroots-driven alternatives. ♻️ The OMN: Composting the Digital & Social Waste
The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a practical response to this. It’s building an alternative media ecosystem, one that isn’t driven by corporate interests but by community needs and #4opens collaboration. Think of it as #permaculture for the internet: Instead of clear-cutting everything for profit (like the #dotcons do), we nurture independent spaces. Instead of burning energy on ad-driven engagement, we use #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principles to create sustainable digital tools. Instead of accepting “inevitable” climate and digital collapse, we turn the existing mess into compost for new growth. Radical Simplicity = Radical Sustainability.
One of the ideas behind this path is that “stupid” is better than perfect, because perfect never gets built, but “stupid” works. This applies not just to open-source technology, but also to environmental activism, with small, local actions > Waiting for big global solutions. Simple, practical solutions > Over-engineered complexity. Messy, community-driven change > Top-down control.
In the bigger perspective: The Environment will be fine without us, it’s not “the environment” we are destroying. It is ourselves. The world does not need saving, we do. The choice is not a simple choice between saving the planet or letting it die, but between changing our ways or letting ourselves go extinct.
If we want a sustainable future, both online and offline, we need to break from the corporate paths that are destroying our ecosystems. That means, supporting grassroots tech and independent media, building resilient, federated alternatives to big tech, embracing open, transparent processes (#4opens).
The world is in crisis, but crisis is also an opportunity. Whether you’re fighting for a better internet, a liveable planet, or stronger local communities, it’s all part of the same struggle. What do you think? How can we build a more sustainable digital world? Let’s discuss! #RewildTheWeb#SustainableTech#OMN
