We're way past 'saving the world'. It's about mass damage minimisation and preparation now, whereever possible, and looking after those that can't. There's a certain dishonesty to much of the climate rhetoric. One of them is that solving warming somehow solves the mass extinction crisis. This is false: biodiversity loss is not predominantly driven by warming, not close. It's driven by habitat loss, largely from Big Ag 2/n

Wouldn't throw it all under a bus. Communities at risk need infrastructure resilient enough to survive pressure from adversaries. There's indeed no community without trust but this is something no platform can wholly facilitate anyway. All can (& has) been done w/out a blockchain

https://twitter.com/emenel/status/1401177164205154308

My lecture on this topic, with one very large case group, addresses this in quite some detail media.ccc.de/v/36c3-11008-s…

nftart seems to be dividing the scene. I admit to being surprised at how many were quick to use nfts as a mechanism to simulate the artifact in an old world material market (as though the 'digital' presides outside of the hardware it is metabolised within), seeing it as progress I guess as tech artists I thought we were going beyond all that, and that software manifesting as 'events in hardware' celebrated an exit from the captivity of the art market. Telling tho this gold rush runs mid-pandemic, when the gig economy that's fed tech art has been on pause

Reminder: the idea we can geo-engineer our way out of this warming mess has no basis in present reality. 29 European science academies did a feasibility audit of negative emissions tech, & found placing hope in them for staying under 1.5C to be absurd easac.eu/press-releases… "..none of the NETs has the potential to deliver carbon removals at the gigaton (Gt) scale and at the rate of deployment envisaged by the IPCC [...] Relying on NETs to compensate for failures to adequately mitigate emissions may have serious implications for future generations"