I recently read a complaint about the opposite. Someone deleted their Proton account and their handle was made available 1 year later. They were rightfully angry because the next user would potentially start receiving mail from things like the original user’s bank. The new user could perform password resets on accounts where the original user had not yet changed the email address on file.

Interesting lesson in this story:

Pkg with contraband was intercepted, documented, all needed warrants secured. Pkg is delivered while the house is staked out by LEOs. Sometime after delivery (a day later, iirc) they bust in, find the pkg, and arrest. The pkg was sitting just inside by the door, unopened. Defense argued “my client knows nothing about this unexpected package. Who’s to say the sender wasn’t framing the recipient?” So he obviously got vindicated.

So there’s a game of timing. Recipients need to be given the chance to open the pkg and react by calling the police. Not sure how it goes if you consume it immediately after opening and burn the box. Certainly the wrong move is to open it and let it sit around open.

/cc @snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world

To be clear, the spores are perfectly legal. You can mail order spores that come in saline solution in a syringe without trouble. The businesses selling that are smart enough to not use media mail, which of course would cross a line (fraud). I wonder why someone would risk media mail. Perhaps they thought it would be trusted as such and thus have less scrutiny.

The nuance here is you said “kit”, which suggests everything you need for growth and thus intent. Maybe you’re right on that bit. Buying everything separately would require surveillance to put all that together that you have a kit, in effect.

And don’t neglect the disease factor. Recent research shows that stressed animals (both human and non-human) have weakened immune systems. And as you might expect farmed animals are stressed in high numbers. This has been linked to diseases. Diseases in non-human animals sometimes jumps to humans. There would be substantial overlap between climate activists and those valuing safety from pandemics. And indeed, that same political party in the US who fought masks and vaccines happens to be the same group of people who deny climate change.

Why not? If the right eco answer is to eat more of a certain kind of meat instead of quitting meat,

First of all that’s not likely correct info. I can’t see the uncited chart you posted but it certainly sounds untrustworthy. I’ve seen several charts in documentaries and research papers and they generally show roughly the same pattern, comparable to this chart.

But let’s say someone managed to convincingly cherry-pick some corner-case legumes that are bizarre outliers to the overall pattern. Maybe there are some rare fruits that get shipped all over the world. It certainly does not make sense to divide, disempower, and diffuse the vegan movement in order to make exotic fruit/veg X the enemy of climate action in favor of preserving chicken factory-farming. Not a fan of Ronald Regan but there is a useful quote by him:

“if you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

IOW, you’ve added counter-productive complexity to the equation at the cost of neutering an otherwise strong movement – or in the very least failed to exploit an important asset we need for climate action. This is not an environmental activist move. It’s the move of a falsely positioned meat-eating climate denier strategically posturing.

The wise move is to consider action timing more tactfully. That is, push the simple vegan narrative for all it’s worth to shrink the whole livestock industry (extra emphasis on beef is fine but beyond that complexity works against you). No meat would be entirely eliminated of course (extinction mitigation is part of the cause anyway), but when a certain amount of progress is made only then does it make sense to go on the attack on whatever veg can really be justified as a worthy new top offender. The optimum tactful sequence of attack is not the order that appears on whatever chart you found.

The somewhat simplified take is: “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em, then beat ’em”. Vegans are united and it’s foolish to disrupt that at this stage.

Note as well that if the chocolate comes from:

• #Nestlé
• #HaagenDazs or
• #Hershey’s

then the supply chain has child slaves as well.

You can’t even get people to oppose livestock subsidies, and you’re talking about proactive blocks? The action you propose has the least chance of success. Individuals with self-control is the only certain action you can count on.

It would be a lot more environmentally effective to convince people to reduce beef consumption and replace it with chicken/pork instead,

Let’s not drive a wedge between the eco-vegans and the animal welfare vegans. Beef is the worst for climate while chickens get the least ethical treatment.

This duplicity muddies the waters and makes getting real actual change that would benefit the climate harder to achieve and less likely to happen.

Dividing an already tiny population of much needed activists is not how you get progressive change. Non-beef meats still shadow plant-based food in terms of their climate harm.

Your pic was too big for me to download but if it’s the same data I’ve seen, then beef is the worst and lamb is 2nd at about ½ the emissions of beef, and all the meats are substantially more harmful than plant based options.

The emphasis should be on “social”. There are many facets to the problem but the social problem (individuals neglecting to act as they wait on systemic action) is the problem of my focus. The hope that Trump does not get reelected in 1 year and set back global systemic action for 4 years is a bit problematic.

Yes, but insufficiently so, and as I said much more slowly. Why wait? And why needlessly emit GHG as you wait?

The amount that any person could change about their own lifestyle to impact climate change will never be enough,

Systemic change will also be insufficient and also late. You need both people acting now and the system eventually making some impact - which will be a compromise as the oil states claim they need to sell oil to afford to reach a carbon neutral infra.

In contrast, I think psilocybin reinforces the narrative that we’re individually responsible for climate change.

It’s not about blame. This is what the climate deniers try to push: “it’s not humans fault thus we are not responsible for fixing it”. A solution is what matters, not looking for who to blame.

People who are psychologically flexible are the ones who are signing up to stop contributing to the problem and who can become part of the solution faster than systemic change can be deployed.

I would like to add that refusal to “ditch their car” is ignoring a glaring problem: Many cities are not walkable, and/or people live too far away from employment to choose cleaner options.

That’s not an oversight. Choosing to live and work in places that do not require a car is part of the act of ditching the car. Indeed, ditching the car is not as simple as selling the car in many cases.

In my case ditching the car meant vacating the shitty car-clusterfucked city I was in. I switched to public transport for a few years then realized that’s just a baby step (a city bus with just 5 people is as bad as 5 cars each with 1 person). So from there I migrated to a bicycle.

It’s not guaranteed to be a positive experience or produce a “climate-friendly” change in mindset.

Indeed it’s not for everyone. And in fact it’s somewhat late. The study shows that those who take psilocybin before they reach the age 35 are for the rest of their lives more open minded. I don’t think you can easily refute that. The leap I’ve made from there by saying open-mindedness is conducive to adapting to a changing world (being flexible about changing one’s own lifestyle) is probably not far-fetched. But certainly it’s not for everyone.

Prediction: meditation will become more popular and the short-cut (psilocybin) will become a more and more liberated option in the future. It will make populations more adaptable to a changing world and future crises. At this point, I can see psilocybin helping people better adapt to a fully played out climate impact 20 years from now.

Yeah, individual “solutions” to climate change all miss the point. We need systemic shifts

It’s a false dichotomy to say individual actions are in any way at odds with systemic changes. To the contrary, the needed systemic solutions will result in individual lifestyle changes in the end anyway. It’s just a question of whether you’re willing to act now or whether you intend to wait until collective forces manifest in some ½-assed compromising way. We need people to act now, well before policy slowly twists the arm of those in the climate denial camp.

But the poll also found that the most religious are the least concerned about the climate crisis – in large part because they’re more likely to align with the Republican party, which has a long history of climate denialism and climate action obstruction.

^ Exactly what went through my mind when reading the thread title. Even those who don’t deny climate change, they likely figure it’s God’s doing. Nonetheless, it’s probably worth the effort to get the religious leaders of the conservative right nutters onboard with climate action. If the influence is substantial, the republican party would have to adapt.

It is indeed useful when that rejection gives a built-in way of moving your business to another bank that’s less reckless with excessive data collection.

But it does not always work out that way. I refused to answer a needless intrusive interrogation and it had no effect (which also proves the interrogation was not necessary). The bank likely made a note of my refusal… perhaps to try to use against me. They really want you to believe you’re required to answer those questions. In any case, it obviously makes sense to avoid the banks that show signs of over-collection because it hints that there could be more excessive collections going on with that bank. E.g. when you call the bank, some banks will initiate a spontaneous interrogation unrelated to the reason for your call.

There are countless ethical reasons to do as many transactions in cash as possible. If a bank were to show me the door for doing too many withdrawals, then it would actually be a feature. You don’t want your money in a bank who is protectionist against runs on the bank. It’s better to bank where your money is not trapped.

US banking rules are tough to comply with if you don’t know your customer. Tor makes that hard.

This is covered by 31 C.F.R. § 103.121, which requires:

1. name
2. date of birth
3. residential address
4. identification number (SSN for natural US persons)

That’s it. They don’t need your IP address and they do not need to track your realtime whereabouts. That may sound baffling because banks often demand much more info than that. The Patriot Act tells banks they can collect more information for KYC purposes. This ensures that customers cannot sue their banks for data over-collection. So when the bank says “we need to know where you work, how much you earn, what your profession is, etc, because ‘Patriot Act’…”. They’re being sneaky and misleading. They do not have to collect all that info, but they can, if they want. And they often want excessive amounts of info because it’s profitable. Since there is no GDPR in the US, banks can misrepresent the purpose of data collection. They can say “we collect that info for KYC/Patriot Act” when they actually just want to feed their market research.

Some banks allow Tor logins thus demonstrating that it’s legally compliant.

On page 8 there is a claim that switching to an EV reduces CO₂ emissions, but they probably don’t realize that the old car just gets shipped to Africa where it continues emitting indefinitely.

Of course it’s important to keep in mind the most green is probably to not bank at all – something I’m experimenting with myself. Then the only notable GHG would be from the armored cars.

From this page:

[T]he average U.S.-based adult with a bank account can reduce their estimated annual banking footprint by 76% by moving their money from the average carbon-intensive bank to the average climate-responsible bank.

Even national central banks are investing in fossil fuels.

The big one in the US is Amalgamated Bank. Others are listed here

It’s useful to cross-reference that list with the bad list. Amalgamated welcomes Tor users onto its sales website but if you register for an account and try to login you will be blocked.

That bank.green site may give a good starting point for short-listing, but it’s important to do further investigation. Note for example:

• Beneficial State Bank (BSB) writes car loans even for city dwellers. WTF? Yeah, not green.
• BSB also uses Cloudflare, which pushes graphical CAPTCHAs thus has an excessive CO₂ footprint.
• BSB also uses FedEx (the worst courier for the environment).
• BSB forces customers to get their app from Google playstore (Google, who helps Total oil company find places to dig).
• BSB uses a variety of Microsoft products & services (linkedin, email) and MS is obviously quite bad for the environment (e.g. partnership with Chevron).