meau tender (the account formerly known as hector sperra)

@sperra

rather tender <3

they/them

actor/improviser, writer & essayist, urban planner, computer scientist, amateur media scholar, Chicago lover, tupperware container for multitudes, #1 fleabag fan

it was an honor to be here, cohost <3

twitch (a couple streams a month)

www.twitch.tv/meau_tender

meau tender (the account formerly known as hector sperra)@sperra5/3/2024, 7:39 PM

Noel B @NoelBWrites

Noel B @NoelBWrites5/3/2024, 7:30 PM

This started as a reply to this good post and kind of grew to be only slightly related, so I'm making it its own post.

a few years ago someone made me notice the "hidden constraints" people have for solving problems and how most of the time we don't even notice they're there until someone points them out.

This was in the context of climate change: solving climate change is complicated only of you have the hidden constraint of "nobody should lose money about it." You know how we get to stay under a 1,5°C increase in global temperature? We stop using fossil fuels. That's so complicated! Except it isn't. We fucking shut down the production/extraction of fossil fuels effective now, and stop nonessential production/transportation while we create and move over to a renewable infrastructure. But then some companies (and governments) will lose a bunch of money, do you know how expensive that would be? So instead we have all these "commitments" from companies to reduce carbon emissions at some point in the future and "international treaties" with "targets" for member countries to stay under so we can all gradually, so gradually, move away from fossil fuels without losing anyone any money. Too bad none of this shit works, we're still on track to break a 2°C increase in the next decade. It's just so complicated to stop using fossil fuels (without losing anyone any money).

Of course these hidden constraints apply to other things as well, not just environmental stuff. Money is the most common hidden constraint, though.

Homelessness is such a complicated issue to solve. Except it's very simple: you give people homes. We can't just do that, though. Because it costs money.

And this hidden constraint ends up lodging itself in people's brains so deeply that it's still there when talking about hypotheticals or alternatives for the current system. I was discussing with someone if widespread air filtration in public buildings downtown could have a measurable impact on air quality outside, and their reply was that it would not be cost-effective.

Ah, but I wasn't wondering if it would be cost-effective. I was wondering if, were all pubic buildings downtown fitted with high-quality indoor air filtration systems, would the air immediately outside them show a lower concentration of particulate as well.

That hidden constraint is still there when thinking about alternative systems. Oh, sure fully automated luxury gay space communism sounds great, but how are we going to pay for it?

Money is not the only hidden constraint, just the most common one. "How do we keep the Undesirables from using/benefitting from this thing?" is another common one. "How do I make zero changes to my lifestyle while changing the system?" is a third one. Related to that one is "how can we change this system without disrupting it or going outside of it at all?"

Of course, there's others. And none of us are immune to this shit, so we should all be asking ourselves, frequently, "is this actually complicated or is there a hidden constraint that makes it so?" "What implicit requirements do I have for a solution to this problem that's making me ignore actually viable possibilities?"

#climate change #money #politics #capitalism #furthermore capitalism must be destroyed #communism #anarchism

You must log in to comment.

in reply to @NoelBWrites's post:

jackie @jackie---hollow5/3/2024, 10:55 PM

this is something i've often lamented! in a wider sense, just an absolute failure of imagination on a societal level (kinda in the vein of fisher's capitalist realism). the recognition that an idea is not compatible with the existing system isn't seen as a failure of the latter but of the former every time. feels like that kind of conception is a driving force behind the "taking a principled stance will only get trump elected" type defeatism. there are so many people who recognize problems in the world quite clearly but are sooooo resigned to them being impossible to solve. i'm really disheartened how often people simply cannot imagine a better world.
(this is also a big part of why i enjoyed reading the dispossessed a while ago. it was really refreshing to see a serious attempt at exploring a fundamentally different way of organizing society!)

i'd also like to add though that this isn't limited to thinking about systematic problems. i unfortunately constantly observe how much my own mental action space (and even like, production of desires) is limited in much the same way - by instinctively rejecting things that go against long-ingrained notions. not a fan! so i just wanted to explicitly expand your appeal at the end to internal decisions also (not that you had excluded them or anything)

us3r @us3r5/5/2024, 7:09 PM

It would definitely be a difficult sudden transition. People could no longer be certain their labor would be compensated in a way that they deem fit. Sure people make art and stuff in their spare time but a fully funded team with great direction will have the ability to do a lot more and do it faster.

People have to actually want to do these things. To let go of security and familiarity for the potential of a better world. One that's been sabotaged over and over again.

OR: you can make enough money to pay your taxes, rent food and whatever else and enjoy what time you have off from work.

Ciaran Vilnes @CiaranVilnes5/10/2024, 9:39 PM

that's why information consolidation is important right. the more people understand how the world is bad and what can be done about it, the easier it is for movements to be put into motion. and being more aware of the various crises we face, extreme poverty and war and existential threats like climate change, would hopefully make people less selfish and more willing to sacrifice some of their luxuries and access to art to try to combat them.

us3r @us3r5/11/2024, 4:33 AM

I'm trying to remember who said it but it was something to the effect of "Once someone has lived in a mansion, why would they go back to a tenement?"

You'd have to almost itemize exactly how much you'd theoretically 'lose' down to the letter and even in doing that, it looks terrible. Like, I get that morally, unless you at least strive for something better, then you're essentially just as bad as neo-liberals who enjoy all the niceties of Capitalism deny any blood being on their hands.

It's tremendously difficult for me to not get negative here. In order for me to even see gay space communism the brass tracks would have needed to be laid down 40 or 50 years ago. If the US government explodes then like, maybe? People here would need a very real reason to fight against one of the largest police/militaries in the world.

tl;dr "I can imagine the end of the world before the end of capitalism" etc.

Ciaran Vilnes @CiaranVilnes5/13/2024, 6:57 PM

capitalist standards of living are extremely superficial. understanding the realities of environmental and resource sustainability, understanding social justice, delearning capitalist indoctrination like the belief that wealth is tied to people's worth. these things allow people to understand that a sideways, or slightly downward from a superficial perspective, shift in their living standards (such as to a system of more dense housing) are worth much more than the simple fact that the square feet of their house went down.

of course you can always say not enough people care about those things. they're fine with their car, they don't care about public transit. they plug their ears when environmentalism and social justice and capitalism come up. but our job is to scoop up the people that do care, no? set them to work as well. create a cascading effect that will change something about the world. regardless of if that world will end first. to be a little dramatic, people are counting on us!

us3r @us3r5/13/2024, 9:31 PM

Perhaps. Though I can greatly empathize with people that just want to get away from people. This nightmarish suburbia. If it's annoying now, imagine what it would be like even closer together? To be completely honest I wouldn't mind having modest house with a good amount of acreage surrounding it either.

You really need a clever way to ease into the realities you've mentioned cuz people's eyes will glaze over if you just start talking about it most of the time. Much like I said earlier, if it's easier to see it as this impending doom that's unstoppable you need to give them hope against the world literally ending.

I'm having to stop myself from preaching to the choir here. More so, anyway. If someone does have a plan on how to organize against- well, everything, I'm open to it. Not like I have much to lose in that regard.