I hate the realpolitik of this perspective but BF from what I know is still pretty socially conservative. There was a study done a while ago there saying something like only 8% of people would "accept a homosexual as a neighbour". Regardless of what Traore thinks it may just not be politically feasible for him to retain support from broad swathes of his coalition if he comes out swinging for LGBT rights in BF, and if his mandate collapses or his allies turn against him shit could get bad for him pretty fast.

I know the meme is that fusion is always 20 years away, but with recent developments and China's private companies achieving 2/3 critical conditions for extended fusion it really does feel like we're less than 2 decades out from commercial fusion. Will be world changing, for better or for worse, and I'm excited that we'll be around to see what it does.

I am not saying I disagree with you, I'm just saying that the origins of Marxism is in an age of Western philosophy where "nature" was very much regarded as separate and indeed subservient to humanity, and that the 'traditional Marxist lens' on climate change would be "this should be fixed because it will negatively affect the development of socialism". I think that with the knowledge and advancements we've made since the 1800's we obviously need a different philosophical approach to the situation.

I understand where you're coming from but I think the answer is that a capital M 'Marxist understanding of climate change' would be centred in 'climate change as an issue that affects the human ability to maintain organised civilisation' rather than the perspective that the planet and it's ecosystems are worth maintaining for their own sake.

RIP zei squirrel, you were the only good twitter account