dawnglider

I don't know, thinking more about it, I frankly don't understand both why on earth you would feel responsible for this, and why do you think that this would ultimately be a lesser harm. It really sounds to me like you are not putting anyone at risk and ALSO that this change of license wouldn't actually help anyone.

I even understand the argument that copyleft might be detrimental to some projects because of big for-profits contributions, but this reads like a cop-out "for free". I would understand a change of license to protect your own ass (without advocating for others to do the same), but this is saying "I don't do copyleft because someone, somewhere, might be hurt by an abusive corporation or state for reasons vaguely related to my choice of license".

By this logic, knowing that your project benefits the interests of those who jailed innocent workers, shouldn't you just take your project offline altogether? Aren't you worried that you're actually taking agency away from both those workers AND from people trying to offer an alternative to those clearly evil corporations?

I'm sorry it's not even your decision that's driving me a bit nuts, it's your work and you license it however the fuck you want, it's the logic behind it.

I think the notion of "choice" or "fault" here is a little questionable, I understand your argument broadly (that's what I tried to do in the last paragraph), so maybe it's mostly just a language issue (I don't think saying it is your "fault" or "choice" really means the same thing as saying that it's "up to you").

But I believe you're contradicting yourself when you say that you both have to act and get out of situation such as abuse (not be defeatist) and but also learn to be fine with the situation (which reads like admitting defeat to me). I think this confusion between an actionable scenario (you can change things around you) and a non-actionable scenario (you can only change your outlook) is at the core of it.

Regardless I agree that self-pity is an absolute poison, but I'd tend to believe the way you put it is perhaps more controversial (because of what it implies or leaves out) than the point itself. Choosing not to suffer can also be a form of defeatism.

Purely as a thought experiment, this is mostly just vacuous logic. Sure, you can kill yourself, or kill everything you love or hate, or make sacrifices that are probably infinitely greater than the suffering itself (you could choose to stop caring about human suffering, most would much rather suffer than do that).

In practice however this is even worse than vacuous, it's just wrong and insane. You can't choose to not be schizophrenic, physical and psychological pain aren't two neatly distinct categories, saying it's "a choice" is just drawing a completely arbitrary border on where choice starts, and no shit people get angry at you because unless you heavily qualify this kind of statement further, anyone would think you're doing the purest form of bootstrap victim blaming argument possible. Anyone would think of that one time they suffered the most in their lives and you're saying "you chose that, that's on you".

If I try to be as charitable as I possibly can, I would assume this is an attempt at criticizing self-pity, highlighting that we are often our biggest obstacles to healing and that will plays a greater part in our agency than we recognize. I'd agree with all of that, but that's being really charitable, I don't think your statement makes that case at all.

I think people are freaking out about very low reproduction rate and aging population in rich countries more than anything, since that's the demographic trend right now. Also factory farming is not like an inevitability of high population density, that's just profit and lobbying. (I put the usual land use per kcal graph at the end, it's not perfect because of the reality of arable land...etc, but still a very good reference)

Also to be fair, one country did try to handle overpopulation (and more broadly the risks of a sudden boom in population) and have been dragged through the mud for it for like 40 years.

That really sucks, but it does seem like just giving this company the win. I imagine it didn't break those guys out of jail either. Regardless, do you have an article or something on this subject? I've never heard of such a case but I'm interested!