"During [the canal's] three centuries it needed virtually no maintenance, it relied on no engines or fuel, no mining, no metals, no chemicals. There was no pollution, the boats could be hand built. ... It did not cause any emissions or erosion, it saved millions of man hours otherwise spent on ... roads. There were no accidents: at walking speed and thirty centimeter depth it was safe enough to have children playing in the middle of it with boats coming and going."

wrathofgnon.substack.com/p/sus

@grey just fyi, WrathOfGnon has links to neoreactionary spheres. the info in that post is historical and factual but the larger vision of traditionalist urbanism etc is one where everyone lives in ethnostates with baby factory wives, etc. a few years back lots of people in that sphere realized that being connected to figures like Mencius Moldbug was politically radioactive so they dialed back their most openly abhorrent politics to reach a larger audience.

Follow

@grey i do think it's worth considering the overlap between leftist vs regressive urbanism / low-tech movements; there are several cases where we want similar things for entirely different reasons. and certainly, the appeal of "don't build in hyper fragile, capital-addicted ways that can't possibly be sustained" has a broad common sense to it.

· · Web · 1 · 0 · 1

@jplebreton Always worth noting that one need always wear your critical reading glasses when considering others reasons for things.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!