“Climate Realism”

It’s pastime more people raised their heads, the Council on Foreign Relations (#CFR), the think tank of the U.S. political establishment, just published a new statement calling for what they call “Climate Realism.”

1.5°C Is Dead – And they admit it, to their credit, CFR doesn’t sugarcoat the situation. They finally acknowledge that the international climate target of limiting warming to 1.5°C is officially dead. The new “realistic” trajectory? 3°C or higher by the end of this century, if not sooner. This isn’t just academic: 3°C means crop failures, mass displacement, geopolitical chaos, collapsing ecosystems, and runaway feedback loops. It’s climate breakdown, not “climate change.”

The #geekproblem tech fix of geoengineering is Plan A to the looming catastrophe, not degrowth, not ending fossil fuel subsidies, not climate justice or ecological transition. They want massive investment in geoengineering, particularly solar radiation management (SRM), basically spraying particles into the stratosphere to dim the sun. Yes, they’re proposing that we hack the planet to protect global capitalism. All while keeping the mess of extraction and inequality running at full speed.

They don’t say anything about system change, their “realism” is not anything to do with reducing global consumption, transitioning away from endless economic growth, or tackling the structural roots of climate collapse.

On this “common sense” #mainstreaming path we are rushing down, the is no interest in real solutions, because real solutions threaten the economic order they live in. They don’t touch on basic climate justice because justice is incompatible with on going imperial hegemony. They don’t mention degrowth because that would shake the foundations of capitalistic economics.
No mention of capitalism, it’s invisible to them, because they are capitalism, thus they are #blind to this.

This is the new fascist #mainstreaming – A doctrine of U.S. climate power, the statement frames climate breakdown as a national security issue, a geopolitical weapon to be wielded by the U.S. state. Let’s be very clear, this isn’t about saving the planet. It’s about maintaining U.S. dominance in a rapidly destabilizing world.

What they do is debunk four liberal “climate fallacies”:

Global targets are achievable – Not any more.
China and the Global South are the key battlegrounds.
Climate risks are manageable – They admit this is fantasy.
Clean energy is a win-win for the U.S. – Nope. China leads. The U.S. is lagging behind.

Instead, they push a doctrine of planning for collapse with adaptation, disaster readiness, and securing “fiscal room” for emergency responses. Investing in competitive clean tech, not for domestic transition, but to outcompete China in global markets. Leading catastrophic risk mitigation, geoengineering is their “break glass in case of emergency” option. They even float the idea of using economic and military pressure to force other nations to cut emissions.

Climate deterrence is going to be the New Cold War. #CFR now sees climate as a deterrence issue, like nuclear weapons, only with carbon. That’s their vision: a future where the U.S. uses its technological and military edge to impose climate stability through force. This is climate realism in the mess making logic of empire, don’t change course, double down on control.

We are on a path straight to hell, with eyes wide open. This should come as no surprise, ofter the last 20 years of mess building, CFR’s plan is in no way surprising. It’s the logical next step for a system that can’t imagine anything beyond growth, extraction, and domination. In their world, collapse is a management problem, not a moral one.

We should be clear, this is a death march. It’s not “realism”, it’s resignation dressed up as pragmatism. And if we follow them, we’ll arrive exactly where they’re headed, hell, but orderly. We have worshipped this #deathcult for too long.

Adapting to #climatechaos in a post-1.5°C world

The new right’s obsession with Greenland and Canada’s north isn’t some fringe fantasy, it’s real estate logic, twisted through a lens of empire and extraction. When you zoom out and frame it through the lens of #climatechaos, it’s chillingly obvious, the Arctic is melting, and they see land, not crisis.

That AlphaGeo link paints the picture, climate-driven migration, shifting growing zones, and emerging “climate havens” aren’t theoretical, they’re data-driven land grabs in progress. And the political ambition to dominate those spaces? That’s the should now be more obvious to us all.

It’s a gold rush for the apocalypse, a final frontier for the capitalist imagination. They aren’t trying to save anything; they’re re-positioning to rule what’s left. And yes, it’s a children-who-want-to-be-kings fantasy: Trump-esque thinking where climate collapse becomes opportunity, borders become walls, and “winning” means inheriting a lifeboat while others drown.

This isn’t climate denial anymore, it’s climate opportunism. That’s why adaptation can’t just be technical, it has to be political. If we don’t shape the future, they are carving it up in plain sight.

#Techshit Hype – #NothingNew

The is nothing new to pointing out that our #fashionistas #mainstreaming crew push tech mess.

Remember in when drone deliveries were going to revolutionize shopping? When every major news outlet unthinkably reported that we’d have autonomous quadcopters dropping off toothpaste and Amazon boxes on our doorsteps?

Or when 3D TVs were the future of entertainment, pushed so aggressively that manufacturers stopped making non-3D models for a while? Where are they now? Rotting covered in dust in clearance bins or forgotten in garages.

Then there was the Internet of Things (#IoT) hype, your fridge was supposed to talk to your toaster, which would text your smart kettle to boil water before you even knew you wanted tea. Instead, we got insecure, surveillance-riddled devices spying on us for #dotcons corporate profit.

And we need to not forget #blockchain, #NFTs, and the endless #Web3 hype? Each was pushed as a revolution, yet all followed the same pattern of hype, vulture capital gold rush, and then, inevitably, disillusionment. NFTs went from “the future of digital ownership” to being silently abandoned by even their most vocal promoters.

Why do we keep pushing this #techshit? Every time a new #mainstreaming tech fad appears, it follows a predictable, boring hype cycle. First, it’s marketed as the next big thing, a must-have, must-invest, must-embrace technology. Then, sceptics, like this site, are ridiculed as out-of-touch or anti-progress, at best or simply trolling at worst. But when the promised revolution never materializes, we quietly move on, forgetting the past mistakes and priming ourselves for the next wave, this is a rinse and repeat cycle.

We need more people to say, “Not this again, you were wrong last time”? So we have space to ask why do we let the wannabe #nastyfew feed us this mess, why do we let it slide, allowing the same marketing binds to #blind us over and over?

The answer is that we have our heads down worshipping a #deathcult, and this is the pushing of #fashernista tech, the cycle of embracing new trends not because they work but because they fit the cultural moment. A mixture of corporate propaganda, social pressure, and the desire to be seen as forward-thinking creates a path where critical thinking is drowned out by #FOMO (fear of missing out). It’s fear, simply fear.

How do compost this? A first step is, instead of dismissing critics, we should embrace grounded scepticism as part of a healthy tech culture. The goal isn’t to reject all new technology, it’s to demand real, meaningful progress rather than letting corporations sell us snake oil over and over. There’s a hashtag for that: #nothingnew, a reminder that most “revolutions” are just recycled ideas repackaged for a new round of exploitation.

This is part of the native #openweb story, not just about technology, but about culture. We don’t need to mindlessly adopt every new fad. Instead, we should compost the hype, extract what’s useful, and discard the corporate waste. Yes, it’s messy. But that’s what being native to the #openweb means.

The #openweb and #fediverse is anti-viral?

DRAFT

There is #mainstreaming criticism that the #fediverse has “anti-viral” features, as there is no central algorithm promoting specific content to go viral, but this is not entirely accurate. What this actually points to is a deeper issue within the social path of the #openweb itself. The notion of “anti-viral” isn’t about a lack of features; it’s about how certain structures and behaviours are actively discouraging people with larger reach from thriving in these “native” spaces.

It’s a people to people web, so huge accounts can’t and don’t talk back, so can’t be “native” to this path. It’s not a question of choice, rather a question of path. It might be useful to think about this, as these conversations being #blind to thinking outside their current #dotcons path, and thus unknowingly bring it into the openweb reboot.

The problem with the talk of “Anti-Viral” is pushed up by current outreach. When people say that the Fediverse lacks virality, they are focusing on the absence of centralized algorithms, found on corporate platforms (the #dotcons). On those, algorithms drive engagement by amplifying sensational and emotionally charged content, at the cost of meaningful discourse and ethical considerations. In contrast, the Fediverse is praised for being different, more community focused, more human scale, and more about interaction rather than manipulation by algorithms, however, this is still a perspective missing a crucial point.

What we are actually seeing is that the Fediverse has developed social norms and features that end up pushing away people who “go viral” or have large followings. The problem isn’t just that the platform lacks virality; it’s that it lacks the infrastructure and culture to support people with large followings in a way that feels sustainable and meaningful. Large Accounts don’t thrive, by design.

The #openweb and #fediverse are built on the principles of decentralization and #DIY community, which are fantastic for fostering small, intimate interactions. However, this structure makes it difficult for larger accounts to function. Why? Because the social architecture is inherently hostile to large-scale influence based on one way broadcasting.

Large accounts can’t engage meaningfully with their followers in a people-to-people web. When you have thousands of people interacting with your posts, it becomes impossible to engage in a way that aligns with the native path that is part of the code of the #fediverse.
Without centralized moderation, content moderation is a community effort. This can mean that people who attract controversy, whether deserved or not, increase the instance workload, creating a practical culture that is inhospitable to “big voices” paths and agendas.

The “People-to-People” Web is set up to favour small-scale interactions and communities over larger, more influential voices who are more normally broadcast media focused. This is both good and bad, yes it can be a problem when we think about the kind of impact we want the #openweb to have. In this, It’s not about changing the current path but creating parallel ones, the solution, we need to move beyond the #stupidindividualism of copying the microblogging of the #dotcons and think of balancing with “native” oprochs to media, the #indymediaback project is an example of this path, which we do need to take.

Broadcast media is not social media, we need to build out the Fediverse with this in view.

———————————–

The Myth of “Anti-Viral” Fediverse: A Path Problem, Not a Feature Problem

There is a common #mainstreaming criticism that the #Fediverse has “anti-viral” features—meaning it lacks a central algorithm that promotes content to go viral. While this may seem accurate on the surface, it actually points to a deeper issue within the social path of the #openweb itself.

The notion of “anti-viral” isn’t just about missing features; it’s about how the social structures and behaviors of the Fediverse actively discourage large accounts from thriving in these “native” spaces. It is a people-to-people web, which means that huge accounts—those with thousands or millions of followers—cannot meaningfully engage with people at scale. It’s not a matter of choice but of structural design.

This is important to understand because much of the conversation around “anti-viral” fails to step outside the #dotcons path. People coming from corporate social media unknowingly bring their assumptions with them, expecting the Fediverse to function in the same way.

What “anti-viral” really means, critics, focus on the absence of centralized engagement-driving algorithms—the kind found on corporate platforms (#dotcons). These algorithms prioritize sensational, emotionally charged, and controversial content to maximize user engagement. In contrast, the Fediverse is structured to be more community-focused, human-scale, and interaction-driven rather than manipulated by algorithms.

However, this framing misses a crucial point, the issue isn’t just about missing algorithmic amplification, the Fediverse has developed social norms and features that actively discourage large accounts from thriving. Large accounts don’t fail due to a lack of virality—they fail because the culture and infrastructure aren’t designed to support them.

Why large accounts struggle on the fediverse, the #openweb and #Fediverse are rooted in decentralization and #DIY community-building, which are fantastic for fostering small, intimate interactions. However, this same structure makes it difficult for large accounts to function, because:

The People-to-People Web Doesn’t Scale for One-Way Broadcasts, Large accounts cannot engage meaningfully with followers in a way that aligns with the native interaction path of the Fediverse.
If thousands of people interact with a post, it’s impossible to respond in a way that fits the small-scale, community-driven ethos.
Content Moderation Is a Collective Effort, Not a Centralized One, Without centralized moderation, controversial accounts create workload pressure on individual instance admins. More controversy = more moderation burdens, making the Fediverse structurally inhospitable to high-profile users.
The “People-to-People” Web Prioritizes Small-Scale Interactions, The architecture favours small, engaged communities over mass broadcasting. This is great for community resilience but limits the ability for larger voices to exist organically.

Beyond #StupidIndividualism: Creating Parallel Paths Instead of Copying #Dotcons

If we want the #openweb to have an impact, we can’t just copy the microblogging model of the #dotcons and expect a different outcome. The Fediverse doesn’t need to change its current path, but it does need to parallel paths that allow different media approaches to thrive alongside it.

One solution? #Indymediaback.

The #IndymediaBack project provides an alternative approach to publishing that isn’t locked into the “social media” framing of the #dotcons. Instead of trying to make the Fediverse work like Twitter, we need to build native, federated broadcast media that works within the #openweb values.

Broadcast Media ≠ Social Media. To build a thriving #openweb, we need to stop treating broadcast media and social media as the same thing. Instead, we should:

Develop media models that work at different scales rather than forcing one system to do everything. Support federated, trust-based networks where large voices can operate in ways that fit the architecture. Think beyond the “individual” model of content production—this isn’t about one person going viral, it’s about building resilient, collective media structures.

The Fediverse isn’t broken—it just isn’t designed for the kind of viral engagement that corporate platforms push. If we want large-scale influence on the #openweb, we need to build native alternatives instead of trying to force the wrong models onto it.