What a vague and silly comment, half the world’s top contributors to greenhouse gasses aren’t even capitalist countries. I get the fediverse isn’t a fan of capitalism, but you can’t just blanketly blame everything on it.
What makes me think that two countries that have never identified as capitalist and have never been identified as capitalist anywhere except for this crazy ass community where you just go ahead and label anything you don’t like simply as “capitalism”? Oh I don’t know, just a hunch I guess!
Well if you think ‘because they say so’ is reason enough there’s not really any further to go here I don’t think. I was hoping you’d have a more interesting answer about how the economy is structured or how resources are distributed. It looks more like an authoritarian flavour of capitalism to me but I’m no politics expert so I only have a layman’s view, more than happy to be corrected.
Dude, the reason you think they’re capitalist is because someone on Lemmy said so, I’m not going to put effort into correcting something that didn’t have evidence behind it to begin with. I’m not going to sit here and try to prove a negative to correct your layman’s view, that’s not how conversation works.
If you think those 2 are communist countries, you’re stuck in the last century. Let me give you some news. The Soviet Union collapsed and gave way to a capitalist oligarchy. China realized that capitalism is profitable and brings them tons of money from the west. I have no idea why tankies still simp those countries as communist (wait, I do actually - because tankies never had any principles of their own, they just wanted to be anti-west).
There is one country that needs to kickstart change for it to have any effect, it’s the US. Not only does it pollute the most per capita, it’s a huge market. My tiny ass country with fuel prices already being twice as much in the US, can raise fuel prices even more, but that won’t affect global demand. Americans no longer getting fuel for essentially free, would actually affect global demand.
There’s plenty of systems that mix both, but Russia and China aren’t actually good examples. They’re pretty capitalist.
If you want a better example of mixing capitalism with socialism, you can take a look at something like the Nordic countries, where there are tons of social services and safety nets, but there’s still a very strong (just regulated) free market.
And what are those existent communist countries? The ones that come the closest are China, Vietnam, cubs, Laos, North Korea. But none if them is there yet. britannica.com/…/Which-countries-are-communist
And what are those existent communist countries? The ones that come the closest are China, Vietnam, cubs, Laos, North Korea. But none if them is there yet. britannica.com/…/Which-countries-are-communist
Communist means ideologically communist. Because “countries which have built communism according to Marx with stateless society with common ownership of means of production” etc are like Zeno’s Achilles and turtle metaphor. Only I don’t get why would anybody use such an unreachable by design criterion to judge on the effect of communist ideology on societies.
There are gradations between “everything” and “critical mass” as well, and part of it is “private” property which can be easily confiscated or in some other way transferred to a more loyal person, just the system has mechanisms to prevent killing the golden goose (for now, it seems comrade Xi has some ideas with potential to affect this).
I mean, if you consider Nazi Germany capitalist, then China is too.
Anyway, it all depends on terminology. Some people think that “war communism” is the closest to real communism the world has seen. For others it’s not communism at all, because they don’t forget that “stateless” part. While Makhno’s republic is that. For others the Nordic countries are almost like communism.
Just like with Christianity, with Communism we should trace all branches of the tree, not just discard everything we don’t like as schismatic.
Because capitalism with state protection is not capitalism I guess.
In each, we’re talking about capitalism with the caveat that the owners of the country want a kickback too, and in return local capitalists are protected from foreign capitalists. Vladimir Putin owns Russia, the CCP owns China. In neither case does capital belong to “the people” as a whole.
Yes, it’s not. I mean, for Marxists it is, because Marx describes something similar specifically to XIX century Germany with state-supported enormous trusts, influential aristocracy, and so on. Which is for obvious reason of living there, just not very relevant, because real economists use the term differently.
In neither case does capital belong to “the people” as a whole.
Well, CCP is not different from CPSU in this case.
Seems a bit silly to decide that “capitalism” is the majority contributor to climate change when the country that produces the most greenhouse gases is only “pretty capitalist” doesn’t it? If capitalism is the major contributor, why don’t more capitalist country produce more greenhouse gases?
I never set out to argue that capitalism doesn’t exist in countries that aren’t primarily capitalist.
The country that produces the most greenhouse gases is doing so to satisfy the demands of private industry that’s producing goods for private profit. What part of that is not capitalism?
Also the country that produces the most per capita, is arguably the most capitalist country, the USA.
While I agree that per capita emissions is a useful metric, perhaps even more useful than raw emissions numbers, where are you getting that the USA has the highest production per capita?
This table shows data from 2018 so things change, but the per capita emissions would have had to double in five years to put the USA on top.
If you look at the non-per capita numbers, the USA is the second largest emitter behind China (using data from 2018).
Good point, I was a bit inaccurate with my last comment.
If you look at the non-per capita consumption based emissions and divide that by the amount of people, you’ll find that Americans consume way more per capita.
China has the bigger (even per capita) number in terms of production, but they export a lot of what they produce, whereas Americans get all their shit from China and can then claim China has the worse emissions.
Seems a bit silly to decide that “capitalism” is the majority contributor to climate change when the country that produces the most greenhouse gases is only “pretty capitalist” doesn’t it? If capitalism is the major contributor, why don’t more capitalist country produce more greenhouse gases?
That’s not necessarily the case. The pollution comes from where manufacturing is, not necessarily where consumption is. The demand is coming from capitalist countries.
Users are attributing climate change to “capitalism” with no evidence or reasoning to back it up. You’ve made assertions that countries that political experts don’t consider primarily capitalist countries are actually capitalist countries with no evidence to back them up. I don’t have to waste my time disproving your flaky nonsense, calling it out is good enough for me.
And what part of this conversation makes you feel like the intelligent subject matter expert here? The part where you said liberals shouldn’t use certain words? Keep it up bud, appreciate you helping me decide which communities to filter out here.
Users are attributing climate change to “capitalism”
Lol! It’s aliens, right? Climate change is caused by aliens? Is that your angle here?
I don’t have to waste my time
I agree… you don’t have to flail blindly and ignorantly because you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. You can get a clue any time you feel like.
Your ignorance is either naive or contrived. I don’t care enough to investigate which one it is… I only care that your shitty take is understood for what it is. Aaaaand… that seems to be the case.
Think it’s funny that you’re losing your damn mind over there replying aggressively because you can’t leave a comment unreplied to, but I’m the one “flailing” right?
It’s alway surprising that liberals don’t realise that liberalism is a right-wing ideology. They can’t have read the main liberal tracts and treatises because the connection is clear. It could be a US thing, where liberal is used to describe Dems and conservative, Republicans. So liberal is ‘left’ in the states, where it’s the left-faction of the capitalist party. What most people don’t realise is that Conservatives still self-identify as one or another type of liberal and they almost all, ‘left’- and ‘right’-leaning liberal refer to the same handful of books as the basis of their ideology. That’s because liberalism is the ideology of capitalism, fundamentally opposed to socialism.
Users are attributing climate change to “capitalism” with no evidence or reasoning to back it up.
Have one (very liberal capitalist) brief source presenting some evidence to how capitalism is to blame. Then have a very short summary write-up on how China has been the world leader in combating climate change. Happy?
Do you think a tankie would say China is a capitalist nation? Liberalism really is worse than brain cancer. They are either an anarchist or some other shit, you just see the names of the enemies of the empire and scream, you poor ignorant Gringo.
The United States has double China’s emissions per capita, and China actually is the world leader in the production of sustainable development products like solar panels even though the USA had a 150 year head start in its industrialisation. Despite whatever criticisms you may have against China, looking only at total emissions is definitely misleading. China’s renewable power has gone up fivefold in the past 15 years in absolute numbers and double in percentage of total production. The USA hasn’t even been building hydro dams since the 80s, while China has built some 15 in the past 20 years. Since one is explicitly the most capitalist country and the other is “”“capitalist actually”“”, I think it is fair to say that capitalism has a negative correlation with fighting climate change.
Though I have no idea why you included the Russian Federation there, since it is a capitalist oligarchy created by and modelled after the USA. Do you believe that Russia is communist by any chance?
Yeah, think of it like a corporation. Instead of shares, you have votes and taxes.
Everyone in the military can vote on the actions of that military. Although, so can everyone not in the military. And the number of votes don't correspond to how many shares you can buy, because it's more equal than capitalism.
Americans vote for representatives who determine when and where the military gets involved. But even if it had been subject to a direct vote, the outcome would be the same.
Just as there are hordes of idiots on the right who call anything they don't like "socialism", there are a few idiots - primarily teenagers - on the left who call anything they don't like "capitalism".
After the supreme court invalidated Roe v Wade, I attended a rally. I walked away when one of the speakers started shouting "We know what the real problem is...capitalism!" and all the university kids started cheering.
I love the enthusiasm and your heart's in the right place but y'all are dumber than a bag of bowling balls.
You can have industrialized production and consumerism without capitalism. Not that I’m defending capitalism, I just think our problem is deeper than what you make it, and human nature combined with unchecked technological ability to remodel out planet would yield the same outcome, no matter the dominant flavor of our economical structure.
I’d recommend looking into how indigenous people have historically dealt and wish to deal with climate change before claiming much about “human nature”. A lot of so-called “human nature” is just the universalisation of European capitalist values. I suggest starting by reading about the Red Deal, specially if you’re from the USA.
Although interesting, I don’t think your link is the gotcha counterexample you think it is. Previous civilizations caused environmental collapses without having capitalism to blame for it. We could switch overnight to soviet style communism and that would not solve anything if our expectation is to provide everyone on earth with their today’s living standards. We could blame greed, selfishness and that would take us closer to the truth, but even that would be very shortsighted. We would need all humans on earth to be united around a same goal and same path forward, and share the same willingness to sacrifice. No sect or religion has ever achieved that and never will (we are just so many, and spread that wide).
Looking at the world from the lens of an economic ideology alone only gets you so far. Wrong tool for the job.
Not sure what you’re talking about on “sect or religion” when referring to different cultures doing things differently. The link is not some “gotcha” Reddit moment, it is a good source for you and others to start questioning this notion of “human nature” given that lots of humans have been questioning this very same “human nature” dogma since it was imposed on them by Europeans starting 500 years ago and continuing to this day. Notably you shifted the discussion to talk about the Soviet Union, which has nothing to do with my point and doesn’t even exist anymore. Just because nameless “previous civilisations” caused uncited “environmental collapses”, doesn’t mean that every civilization works by the same rule. Specially considering this current environmental catastrophe is on a whole different level and we have current day civilizations that would love to prevent it, if only they got their Land Back.
Mind telling me what this One Goal of yours might be and how it could be possible within capitalism? The ones who have the most to sacrifice are those at the top, ghettoised minorities will go mostly unharmed in most actually practical solutions.
Looking at the world while compartmentalising the overarching mode of production will only get you solutions from that overarching mode of production. You were quick to dismiss it as the wrong tool, but what is the right tool then?
Is it weird that I have the feeling that I’m arguing with a bot? I don’t see what’s hard to understand: the whole premise of this thread is that the cause and solution to climate change is inherently bound to capitalism, and my point is that taking this approach to explain and remedy it is very limiting because capitalism itself is no basis to describe how societies impact their environment (it only describes who owns what in an economy).
When I talk about human nature, it’s because I’m convinced that (and there’s anthropological evidence for) any larger society to inevitably contain selfish individuals with exploitative and sociopathic tendencies, and individuals who can’t get enough when someone else has more than they have (same reason there are cold blood and serial killers all around the world). My opinion is that any rule of law society has the means to limit the power and negative impacts of those individuals, and this extends to corporations who are ultimately led by humans who we should collectively make accountable for their actions on behalf of the organization they lead. There is absolutely no need to bring capitalism into this, and colonialism even less so.
When I talk about sects and religions, it is to emphasize the fact that humanity has never been a uniform species and probably never will be. Tackling climate change in this context in a relevant time-frame will require to exert the current power structures no matter what.
And I don’t pretend to have a solution for climate change, all I’m sure about is that the actual solution is more elaborate than blind antagonism.
It sure is weird since chatGPT is not as advanced as me yet. It also doesn’t like communism. Sadly bots are made by the very same corporations I have issues with.
Compartmentalising the impacts of a mode of production in a society is usually how we get into a bind on trying to tackle problems that arise from them. They are not just “who owns what” but also dictate how humanity and society produces and therefore reproduces. Large urban factories were not a possibility nor desirable under feudalism or North American indigenous collectivism. When one says that “capitalism is the root of the problem” it means that the climate crisis we are living now is a clear consequence of our society’s organisation over production.
So here’s some examples to illustrate. Due to the arbitrary concept of “private property” inherent to capitalism, lithium mines in the Lithium Triangle can be owned by foreign corporations. That means that despite those mines directly affecting the lives of the local communities (which includes most workers there), they are kept there and protected by world governments no matter how much they protest. That is an anti-democractic use of the local resources that can’t easily happen under either communism, anarchism or collectivism and yet is the norm under global capitalism.
Another example is the production of sugar, which relies on both work conditions akin to slavery but also constant burning of the plant that wrecks the local ecology. Populations who work producing sugar cane (in particular slaves) have revolted against that in favour of self-sustainable agriculture since sugar monocultures have been a thing, and yet they have had little power to change that economy without also locally abolishing capitalism. These often come with foreign invasions, as was the case of Haiti.
And finally in the case of the Paris Accords, the big majority of Unitedsadians supported staying in it, and yet the USA left it either way. The people who will suffer and die due to ecological crises of any scale are usually the workers and not the owners. That means that if the workers are in charge of production rather than the owners, it is easy to see how they’ll be more willing to change that production to prevent harm to themselves, even if you ascribe to individualism as a natural human trait.
There is absolutely a need to bring capitalism into this, and even more its birth in colonialism and descent into imperialism. There can be no “accountability of the bourgeoisie” if we live in a dictatorship of this same bourgeoisie. The slave masters didn’t bend over backwards to help the slaves, and the kings have routinely sent levies en masse to their deaths. We shouldn’t expect any different from our current rulers. One obvious example of a communist (“anti-capitalist” if you object to that label) nation that has done the most to combat climate change is the PRC. On the other hand the übercapitalist United States is historically the worst at that. This is not coincidence.
And on the matter of “human nature”. As I’ve pointed out before and that you’ve not acknowledged, many natural human societies parallel to European and settler ones have long pushed back against this backwards pseudoscientific notion. In order to make any universal rules for whatever domain you’d need to have complete information about it. However not a single person knows all known history, and all known history doesn’t even include all actual history. It is typical of those who know little history to make bold proclamations about how “humans have always been a certain way” against humans that are a different way right before one’s own eyes.
Your position seems to have softened to say that the issue is “selfish people controlling corporations”, but that assumes that corporations themselves are universal concepts. Either way, the existence of selfish people doesn’t automatically imply that all modes of production and equally vulnerable to it, and liberal capitalism in itself exists on the principle that all people should focus on self-interest and selfishness. It is no surprise that a system that was developed to effectively colonise a land, genocide its people, exploit workers and extract every local resource only for short-term profit will end up doing just that.
If you yourself don’t have any solution and yet feel your opinion is relevant you are the one engaging in contrarianism. The very least you can do is read (and by that I mean actually read in depth) of those who actually have ideas. The Red Deal link is meant only as an introduction for something which I assume is from your country, feel free to develop your understanding further in whichever direction you want. Even if you come up with a solution under capitalism, it’ll be a start. Just don’t come back with no solutions while complaining that others’ solutions are not good enough.
When one says that “capitalism is the root of the problem” it means that the climate crisis we are living now is a clear consequence of our society’s organisation over production.
good that you and OP are convinced that “our society’s organization over production” links climate change to “capitalism”, but my point is that it is probably not as simple as you make it to be, and I still don’t see any evidence of causation for this exceptional claim.
My “hot take” is that we are not doing anything new or different now than we did thousand of years ago (so, before the advent of capitalism and globalization) when it comes to destroying our environment. The main difference is the scale at which we do it now, which is leveraged by our progress in science which permits the usage of large amounts of readily available energy.
The good thing about this discussion is that I only need a single counter-example to disprove your thesis (but you can find many throughout history). link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf02664569 : here you see how ancient Chinese dynasties caused environmental collapses forcing large populations relocations. You may not want to call this human nature, but humans have since forever poked at things without understanding consequences, and with ever larger populations and techniques, the bigger the blowbacks. Capitalism had nothing to do with that: it didn’t provide the means, it didn’t provide the motive, it didn’t provide the opportunity.
And yes, I understand how tempting it is to look at the problem under the lens of current ideas and ideologies, but this is just cheap presentism.
To close on the subject, I am not a climate change denialist, and I am certainly not a capitalism apologist. I am a strong believer that people in future generations will keep poking at things without understanding the consequences. All I hope is that those future generations will be wise enough (i.e. have enough understanding of the world/advances in science, and enough safeguards against demagogic and other unsound ideals) to mitigate the negative impacts.
If you yourself don’t have any solution and yet feel your opinion is relevant you are the one engaging in contrarianism.
Fair. I cannot pretend that I have a single “cookie-cutter” solution for a complex global issue that’s been going on for centuries and whose effects and remedial actions will affect every single individual on earth. I still think I stand higher than those that claim to have such a solution while having their nose and mouth delved into local political matters of no global relevance. I have listened to the whole podcast you linked and the Red Deal offers nothing of substance, just more opinions, as it has no predictive value (it doesn’t try to show quantitatively how much of the problem is remediated under which circumstance).
My “hot take” is that we are not doing anything new or different now than we did thousand of years ago (so, before the advent of capitalism and globalization) when it comes to destroying our environment.
A thousand years in the past there weren’t people in Europe/North America waging massive wars to protect their sources of oil across the world. Global imperialism is essential to this global crisis and no country would be exporting most of its resources to some foreign power to the detriment of its own people if they were not organised in a capitalist fashion. We already have many measures like hydro power that would be much less harmful to the environment but are not as profitable to the property owners as oil and therefore are not properly explored. “We” is already a loaded term because humanity was incredibly diverse in its organisations of society before the 19th century, but this whole crisis is caused mainly by our production methods, not their scale.
The good thing about this discussion is that I only need a single counter-example to disprove your thesis (but you can find many throughout history).
I think I see the misunderstanding here. The point is not that ecological catastrophes are only caused by Capitalism, but this one in specific is directly caused by it. If people owned the means of production they wouldn’t force themselves into a catastrophe we all know is happening. We already understand the consequences in this current case, but just so happen to be ruled by a bourgeoisie that is more interested in fleeing to Mars than actually solving these issues. I fail to see how there could be any solution to this crisis without ending the control of a select few over the entire production of the world to our detriment, which is capitalism.
And for you to claim that something like this is “human nature” you don’t need to just provide a couple of historical examples of ecological catastrophes caused by humans (even ones they knowingly did it), but to show that there has never been the case where humans changed course to avert one, or something of the sort.
I have listened to the whole podcast you linked and the Red Deal offers nothing of substance, just more opinions, as it has no predictive value (it doesn’t try to show quantitatively how much of the problem is remediated under which circumstance).
It would be pretentious to predict the economic effects in a manifesto from those who are not (and will likely never be) in power. If you want actual numbers you can look at how China has been leading the world in green energy production. As I said before, that one was specifically to push back against “human nature” causing this crisis when some very natural humans want to do the exact opposite but can’t specifically because of settler capitalism. Humans want to fight the climate crisis, except for those few property holders who see this as an “opportunity.”
Also what’s with “opinions”? Do you expect some lab somewhere to do an experiment proving if redacting landlords has positive or negative correlations with emissions? Social decisions are based on historical analysis which would be too long for a 30 minute interview. Since you got so interested you replied to me 8 days later and want more of those juicy facts, you can go read their actual whole book on it their positions in depth. Part 3 does a better job explaining it than I could in a single lemmy reply.
A thousand years in the past there weren’t people in Europe/North America waging massive wars to protect their sources of oil across the world.
There definitely were people all over the world waging massive wars to protect/expand their land and agricultural capacity instead. And they were largely affecting their environment in the process (if not at a climate level yet). I cited some ancient Chine dynasties, but the same could be said about every large ancient civilization, just to name few, the Incas, the Romans, the Mongols, the Indus, …: it is very much the same thing.
Trade was equally happening at a large-scale millennia ago (in the Eurasian continent, but in the Americas as well. As I said in my previous post, its impact on global warming was only milder because we only knew about “renewable” energies back then (horse riding and sailing is pretty close to carbon neutral, when there were mere millions individual on earth back then).
All we are observing now is, as I said, more of the same thing, but at a larger scale, because we since discovered the atmosphere-warming and polluting machines and energies that are of widespread-use today. For the rhetoric about capitalism to convince me, you would have to prove that the current situation would only be permitted under capitalism, and all I see is history pointing the other way. And if other systems can lead to the same outcome, then this whole thing isn’t about the system itself, but something “deeper” that would be left unresolved, and all you would have accomplished would be akin to “shooting the messenger”, leaving room for another unsatisfying alternative to emerge.
It would be pretentious to predict the economic effects in a manifesto from those who are not (and will likely never be) in power.
It is certainly not. That’s what organisms like the IPCC have been doing for decades: working on models to predict the future climate with as much certainty and accuracy as our understanding of physics possibly allows. It has this pretty neat thing about itself that it doesn’t care about your, or mine, opinions and political orientations, skipping entire avenues for unproductive debate and distractions. The most efficient way to enact change (IMO) is to commit to actionable goals in light of desired outcomes (e.g. how many plants of which type we need to open and close, how many cars and trucks on the roads, …). The rest is semantics and games.
Honestly I’m kinda tired of this because you seem to be deliberately missing the point. Actually put an effort to understand what I’m saying to be able to argue against it properly, please. Add to that actually reading before you write.
There definitely were people all over the world waging massive wars to protect/expand their land and agricultural capacity instead.
Re-read what I wrote:
A thousand years in the past there weren’t people in Europe/North America waging massive wars to protect their sources of oil across the world.
At no point in history have we had cross-continental conflicts over control of oil deposits before industrialisation. No AES country today does those either. And again, for something to be “human nature” you don’t need evidence of a significant number of civilisations doing something. You need to show that the opposite has never happened.
The global market of fossil fuel is only perpetuated today by capitalist interests against the democratic wishes of the workers. I don’t particularly care about any pre-factory man-made ecological catastrophe because what I (and others here) argue is that this specific one is being perpetuated by the undemocratic owning of the means of production. There can be no redirecting of the economy towards democratic interests under capitalism because the economy itself is not democratic.
In our current specific case we have loads of research on what can be done to avoid catastrophe, and even the specific betrayed pledges on this article. Or the other source I and others provided. It is an unique event in the history of humanity and we’re sleepwalking into it because we can’t risk profit line going down, not due to lack of knowledge or any inherent human desire for all humans worldwide.
It is certainly not. That’s what organisms like the IPCC have been doing for decades: working on models to predict the future climate with as much certainty and accuracy as our understanding of physics possibly allows.
Congratulations, you equated a political group representing indigenous people who have no legal power in the USA with a governmental research group. The IPCC doesn’t make manifestos nor do they advocate for political action, despite suffering from intense lobbying from both corporations and political parties. They work specifically under the framework of liberal capitalism and the directives of the USA government and bourgeois interest, even if the individual researchers are often honest and diligent.
It has this pretty neat thing about itself that it doesn’t care about your, or mine, opinions and political orientations, skipping entire avenues for unproductive debate and distractions.
I could laugh but I guess some people out there really think that “political orientations” are unproductive for deciding what to do politically. How useful are all of their reports if they are not put into practice through politics? And how politically diverse is the IPCC? Every single thing in society is political, specially when it comes to society and economy. You can’t reasonably expect to solve this is issue by relying only on the USA government body and assuming that whatever comes out of there is “apolitical.” How “productive” are those reports if there is no political will to put their recommendations in practice?
The most efficient way to enact change (IMO) is to commit to actionable goals in light of desired outcomes (e.g. how many plants of which type we need to open and close, how many cars and trucks on the roads, …).
Do go on, what “actionable goals” have been committed to and are being enforced right now in capitalist countries? Which ones are even likely to stay in force after an election cycle? How have capitalist countries fought against climate change when it went against the profit of their ruling class? The gist of it all is that all of those “actionable goals” need to be enforced politically, which has shown to be impossible (or at least very unsuccessful) under liberal capitalism over the past 30 years we’ve been aware of this crisis. Compare it with China.
Honestly I’m kinda tired of this because you seem to be deliberately missing the point.
I mean, I hear you, but from my perspective, you are the one missing the point: I replied to you in a more general case…
There definitely were people all over the world waging massive wars to protect/expand their land and agricultural capacity instead.
…but you keep bringing back the discussion to modern specifics without explaining why they somehow contradict the broader thesis:
A thousand years in the past there weren’t people in Europe/North America waging massive wars to protect their sources of oil across the world.
Your argumentation is presentist and mine is anthropogenic/historic.
I don’t particularly care about any pre-factory man-made ecological catastrophe because what I (and others here) argue is that this specific one is being perpetuated by the undemocratic owning of the means of production.
Indeed, but my point is that you very much should. Let’s suppose that we have it your way, and overnight we suppress everything undemocratic and capitalistic about this world. Would that solve climate change? Your conviction is “Yes, because such and such things that (you believe) caused it (but no evidence was given) are no longer there”. This is not only extremely naive (and unproven), this is also illogical: in essence you would have replaced something we know by something else we don’t (and that moreover could be worse), and be expecting a better outcome, out of pure faith, with no evidence. On top of that, how can you look at the world history (which you are hasty to dismiss) and still believe that whatever new world order of yours would be immune to the same power struggles, in and out fightings, and ultimately the same destructive behaviours which are contrarian to our own common benefit as a species? What would prevent the same griefs you currently hold against “Europe/North America” to be resurrected there or elsewhere, as they were countless times and universally throughout history?
This is the crux of the issue here: you propose change for what looks the sake of change, whereas I’m more interested in understanding why we are where we are now, despite all our knowledge, but still unable to move. That is, so we finally get a chance to break the circle and not just burn the world down in yet another desperate revolution.
The IPCC doesn’t make manifestos nor do they advocate for political action
Which is why they matter, they come before in the decision process, so that any serious manifesto or political action gets some amount of legitimacy and bearing in the physical world that we collectively live in.
, despite suffering from intense lobbying from both corporations and political parties. They work specifically under the framework of liberal capitalism and the directives of the USA government and bourgeois interest, even if the individual researchers are often honest and diligent.
I trust science and the (very much apolitical) scientific method, which the IPCC embodies, by being the largest venue for the best scientists of this world to convene on the subject, and I have no reason to believe that their methods have been corrupted. If you have any evidence of that, please offer it for the sake of our common good. If you don’t, please go away with your FUD, or, better, put together a more qualified and adequate team.
Another easy argument to be said is that this same panel (corroborated by independent studies) came to the conclusion that stopping climate change would be more beneficial for the world economies (and the current world order that you despise as a result) than not doing anything. Which kind of makes sense in light of the ever worse food and water wars, wildfires and destructive weather. Nobody wins.
I could laugh but I guess some people out there really think that “political orientations” are unproductive for deciding what to do politically.
Of course it is. I have a wonderful thing to teach you today: the material world doesn’t care about your (or mine) opinion, or this planet would have alternated between being flat, spherical, carried over the back of a giant turtle, concave, and all of those simultaneously. Similarly, we could unanimously decide that the branch we collectively sit on should be trimmed, and that wouldn’t make it a good decision either. Opinions alone are no reasonable basis to decide what to do next, the best thing we have is science, and the second best is history.
The most efficient way to enact change (IMO) is to commit to actionable goals in light of desired outcomes (e.g. how many plants of which type we need to open and close, how many cars and trucks on the roads, …).
Do go on, what “actionable goals” have been committed to and are being enforced right now in capitalist countries? Which ones are even likely to stay in force after an election cycle? How have capitalist countries fought against climate change when it went against the profit of their ruling class? The gist of it all is that all of those “actionable goals” need to be enforced politically, which has shown to be impossible (or at least very unsuccessful) under liberal capitalism over the past 30 years we’ve been aware of this crisis.
Good points, really. Then the argument should be turned into “why were those actionable goals not implemented”.
You seem to have it all sorted out to explain me how that solely rests on the shoulders of “the villain capitalist West”, and not on the many other easy culprits, like, I don’t know “people are afraid of change/the unknown”, “significant changes always take a long time to be enacted”, “people like to postpone or avoid at all cost tough changes, especially those that are detrimental to their quality of life”, “why would I let other people decide for myself how to live my life, especially when I’m old and won’t have to deal with any of this”, “why should I have it worse than that other person”, “why am I hostage of the bad behaviours of other humans long dead”, “it takes a lot of mutual trust and reciprocal guarantees for committing to sacrifices with the assurance that the other side of the fence/border/geopolitical spectrum will not use it for its own short-term benefit”, and this goes on and on. Like I said in another post, sects and religions. We are not geared-up as a species for reacting rationally in this scenario. We have never been confronted to such a threat, and required to exhibit such an amount of coordinated sacrifice. All we need is to prove that we are better at survival than lemmings. And sorry again for finding ludicrous the idea that taking out capitalism would do anything of substance.
Your argumentation is presentist and mine is anthropogenic/historic.
cute words for saying that I’m focusing on how to solve this specific crisis while you’re philosophising over the tragedy of human nature and pretending you don’t like capitalism while defending it till kingdom come.
Let’s suppose that we have it your way, and overnight we suppress everything undemocratic and capitalistic about this world. Would that solve climate change? Your conviction is “Yes, because such and such things that (you believe) caused it (but no evidence was given) are no longer there”. This is not only extremely naive (and unproven), this is also illogical: in essence you would have replaced something we know by something else we don’t (and that moreover could be worse), and be expecting a better outcome, out of pure faith, with no evidence.
A lot of people here have presented the evidence, you just chose to disregard it because it’s “too political.” You have yet to explain how the capitalist ruling class are doing anything to combat climate change (as we can see from the article they are just doubling down), while a majority of people support actually doing something about it. Like I said, look at all the AES/anti-imperialist countries and their track records on fighting climate change. Is it not evidence for you that China is leading the world in production of green energy? You’re probably just gonna ignore this again and claim “no evidence!”, which is why I’m tired of this discussion.
On top of that, how can you look at the world history (which you are hasty to dismiss) and still believe that whatever new world order of yours would be immune to the same power struggles, in and out fightings, and ultimately the same destructive behaviours which are contrarian to our own common benefit as a species? What would prevent the same griefs you currently hold against “Europe/North America” to be resurrected there or elsewhere, as they were countless times and universally throughout history?
Now you’re moving the goalpost from fighting this specific climate crisis to preventing all ecological crises forever. I don’t care enough to argue that point, even if I have strong opinions about it, because it’s so beside the point that it would be a waste of my time. It seems almost intentional ngl.
Of course it is. I have a wonderful thing to teach you today: the material world doesn’t care about your (or mine) opinion, or this planet would have alternated between being flat, spherical, carried over the back of a giant turtle, concave, and all of those simultaneously. Similarly, we could unanimously decide that the branch we collectively sit on should be trimmed, and that wouldn’t make it a good decision either. Opinions alone are no reasonable basis to decide what to do next, the best thing we have is science, and the second best is history.
Okay yeah you have no idea how organising society works. Good luck doing anything in your life while ignoring your own opinions, or worse, equating them to scientific facts. What is your opinion on the IPCC, I wonder.
I trust science and the (very much apolitical) scientific method, which the IPCC embodies
Oh yeah, there is nothing political about allocating which kinds of research gets done or doesn’t. Science is just a soup that we throw money at and stir around and funny theorems and statistics boil out. I bet your history also relies only on completely objective first sources that speak for themselves without any human interpretation. Humans, politics, groups and interests play no part in any of that, which is why the IPCC definitely does a yearly survey of the carbon footprint of expropriating every 1% property and instating a dictatorship of proletariat, obviously. Gringo, please.
You seem to have it all sorted out to explain me how that solely rests on the shoulders of “the villain capitalist West”, and not on the many other easy culprits, like, I don’t know “people are afraid of change/the unknown”, “significant changes always take a long time to be enacted”, “people like to postpone or avoid at all cost tough changes, especially those that are detrimental to their quality of life”, “why would I let other people decide for myself how to live my life, especially when I’m old and won’t have to deal with any of this”, “why should I have it worse than that other person”, “why am I hostage of the bad behaviours of other humans long dead”, “it takes a lot of mutual trust and reciprocal guarantees for committing to sacrifices with the assurance that the other side of the fence/border/geopolitical spectrum will not use it for its own short-term benefit”, and this goes on and on.
Oh look, a lot of political and social questions. All of those are valid of consideration, but the overarching system in which those are embedded isn’t because it’s “opinionated.” Please feel free to quantify scientifically how much influence dead people’s laws should have in society. The IPCC must have a couple of papers on it.
buncha wikipedia links
buncha wikipedia links
And sorry again for finding ludicrous the idea that taking out capitalism would do anything of substance.
Feel free to believe whatever you want. Unlike the material world and societal organisations, which can be moulded through collective decisions based on public opinions, your bourgeois overlords don’t really care much about your opinion of what should be done to society. So long as you keep consuming as they want, they’ll barely even think of you, and capitalist society will keep trudging on towards the 4ºC mark. Sorry for finding ludicrous the idea of trying to prove that a crisis the likes of which has never happened before, being exacerbated by the structure of our society despite overwhelming public support to prevent it, isn’t related to this societal structure, but only by citing a bunch of unrelated crises from previous modes of production, without providing any proof that it can be solved under this current system.
I’ve provided some evidence of communism being a better alternative, you have provided literally zero evidence of the contrary. Haven’t even acknowledged what I brought to the table, much less argued over it. Until you can actually show me some solution that is actually working under capitalism, keep reading Wikipedia and pretending to be an specialist in everything from anthropology to meteorology.
Riddle me this: What is, in your factual scientific opinion, that which is preventing humanity to actually combat global warming and climate change as they overwhelmingly want to? The answer will say a lot.
(edit: had to split the post because of reaching max limit)
cute words for saying that I’m focusing on how to solve this specific crisis while you’re philosophising over the tragedy of human nature and pretending you don’t like capitalism while defending it till kingdom come.
I challenge that very much: how can you hope to solve a problem that you chose deliberately to look at from a narrow angle and not in its entirety?
Let’s suppose that we have it your way, and overnight we suppress everything undemocratic and capitalistic about this world. Would that solve climate change? Your conviction is “Yes, because such and such things that (you believe) caused it (but no evidence was given) are no longer there”. This is not only extremely naive (and unproven), this is also illogical: in essence you would have replaced something we know by something else we don’t (and that moreover could be worse), and be expecting a better outcome, out of pure faith, with no evidence.
A lot of people here have presented the evidence, you just chose to disregard it because it’s “too political.”
Where is this evidence again? If we are still talking about climate change here, and not diverting into a political crusade, we can just look at the emissions causing the warming, their main cause, and find that they map to an exponential increase of human activities since the industrial revolution. Exponentially more people live, consume resources (food, shelter, heating, goods), and reproduce. This is life in its most quintessential aspect, the very same you would observe in a Petri dish. Are bacteria consuming nutrients till they cause their own extinction forming a capitalist structure, too?
You have yet to explain how the capitalist ruling class are doing anything to combat climate change (as we can see from the article they are just doubling down), while a majority of people support actually doing something about it.
No, YOU have to back the exceptional claim that this has anything to do with capitalism. The fact that the ruling class opposes change is pretty much what defines it: elites wants to preserve their status. You and I have a problem with conservatism, not capitalism, unless you consider that every member of the current elite defends capitalist ideals, which is fairly easy to disprove by just looking at the religious elite or nobility around the world.
Like I said, look at all the AES/anti-imperialist countries and their track records on fighting climate change. […] China is leading the world in production of green energy
On top of that, how can you look at the world history (which you are hasty to dismiss) and still believe that whatever new world order of yours would be immune to the same power struggles, in and out fightings, and ultimately the same destructive behaviours which are contrarian to our own common benefit as a species? What would prevent the same griefs you currently hold against “Europe/North America” to be resurrected there or elsewhere, as they were countless times and universally throughout history?
Now you’re moving the goalpost from fighting this specific climate crisis to preventing all ecological crises forever. I don’t care enough to argue that point, even if I have strong opinions about it, because it’s so beside the point that it would be a waste of my time. It seems almost intentional ngl.
The only way that you could hope to gain traction in your stated mission to abolish capitalism is by convincing others that whatever comes next will stand the test of time, and so I am legitimately curious. I don’t think we can afford buying into pretty but empty promises.
Of course it is. I have a wonderful thing to teach you today: the material world doesn’t care about your (or mine) opinion, or this planet would have alternated between being flat, spherical, carried over the back of a giant turtle, concave, and all of those simultaneously. Similarly, we could unanimously decide that the branch we collectively sit on should be trimmed, and that wouldn’t make it a good decision either. Opinions alone are no reasonable basis to decide what to do next, the best thing we have is science, and the second best is history.
Okay yeah you have no idea how organising society works. Good luck doing anything in your life while ignoring your own opinions, or worse, equating them to scientific facts. What is your opinion on the IPCC, I wonder.
I really don’t understand what’s causing your vivid reaction here and you said nothing to help me understand it. But okay.
I trust science and the (very much apolitical) scientific method, which the IPCC embodies
Oh yeah, there is nothing political about allocating which kinds of research gets done or doesn’t. Science is just a soup that we throw money at and stir around and funny theorems and statistics boil out.
So I take away that you are a science denialist. If so, I don’t see the point of continuing further, because this could be all fake news as well. And if not, then I’ll ask what you gain from removing the scientific step from the decision process. And I would re-iterate my offer to provide evidence that the IPCC is biased as you claim.
You seem to have it all sorted out to explain me how that solely rests on the shoulders of “the villain capitalist West”, and not on the many other easy culprits, like, I don’t know “people are afraid of change/the unknown”, “significant changes always take a long time to be enacted”, “people like to postpone or avoid at all cost tough changes, especially those that are detrimental to their quality of life”, “why would I let other people decide for myself how to live my life, especially when I’m old and won’t have to deal with any of this”, “why should I have it worse than that other person”, “why am I hostage of the bad behaviours of other humans long dead”, “it takes a lot of mutual trust and reciprocal guarantees for committing to sacrifices with the assurance that the other side of the fence/border/geopolitical spectrum will not use it for its own short-term benefit”, and this goes on and on.
Oh look, a lot of political and social questions. All of those are valid of consideration, but the overarching system in which those are embedded isn’t because it’s “opinionated.”
You missed the forest for the tree, didn’t you? At the very least you deflected my question. In the present world order, how do those pertain to capitalism, and in the new world order that you propose, how are they addressed?
Please feel free to quantify scientifically how much influence dead people’s laws should have in society. The IPCC must have a couple of papers on it.
I know this is sarcasm and I have no idea where you are going with your dead people’s law, but at least in the case of the social questions above, science, and the IPCC in particular could provide some partial answers (e.g. how long/how big the sacrifice, how to adjust to many aspects of every-day’s life), which will absolutely help weather the incoming storm. I really don’t see the need to denigrate.
your bourgeois overlords don’t really care much about your opinion of what should be done to society. So long as you keep consuming as they want, they’ll barely even think of you, and capitalist society will keep trudging on towards the 4ºC mark.
Who exactly are my bourgeois overlords? And how are they compelling me to over-consume exactly? Perhaps it’s not obvious but you and I must be very close on the political spectrum, and I could be your best ally when it comes to proposing a more sustainable lifestyle for the future. My problem is that your discourse is not nearly as polished as you make it to be, and shooting the messenger without addressing the core of the issue will not give you legitimacy and support. I live in a mostly socialist highly-educated country where our political landscape is diverse and organized in coalitions who must compromise. Unlike some stereotypes, we were not “brainwashed” during the cold war into believing that the world must exist in an extreme form of either communism or capitalism. Capitalism isn’t something that I see practically affect my life because without specifics (which this thread is lacking en masse), this is just an abstract construct. Market laws (offer vs supply) do, but this is trade, this doesn’t equate capitalism, and I think I already made that point clear.
I’ve provided some evidence of communism being a better alternative
I don’t think you did. All I (mis)read is that abolishing capitalism to be a condition for addressing climate change, and I’ve been begging to know more about how it will play out in practice.
Riddle me this: What is, in your factual scientific opinion, that which is preventing humanity to actually combat global warming and climate change as they overwhelmingly want to? The answer will say a lot.
I can only offer my biased and limited opinion, sorry. Part of which you already got in my paragraph about the “easy culprits” (people being scared of change, etc) which still stands. I believe there are many large issues, the fact that most people are in denial about it is a significant one: no matter what we do now, we will collectively take a huge cut in our quality and comfort of life for the centuries to come; pensions, property titles, diplomas, insurances, … will become meaningless and that’s a tough one to swallow. Most people are just incapable to imagine such a world, and won’t react until too late. Then comes the fact that most countries have experienced the late stage of their demographic shift: you get a large population of elderly and politicians representing them who won’t get to live through the hardship of climate change, and who have little to no incentive to do anything about it. Then comes the fact that this is a global phenomenon that affects all countries unequally but requires all of them to agree, commit, and execute toward a common goal. We have no global instance with the legitimacy to oversee and arbitrate in this context, and I doubt there will ever be one. This post is long-enough but I think you got the gist.
The only way that you could hope to gain traction in your stated mission to abolish capitalism is by convincing others that whatever comes next will stand the test of time, and so I am legitimately curious. I don’t think we can afford buying into pretty but empty promises.
First staunch flow, then treat infection, then do a course on first aid. If you do it the other way around you just die, though you at least get to be smug about it.
I really don’t understand what’s causing your vivid reaction here and you said nothing to help me understand it. But okay.
Vivid is a strange synonym for “sarcastic.” If you actually think anything can be done in an organised social society while ignoring opinions by looking only at “science,” I’m pretty sure you have no idea how anything, be it societal actions, be it actual research, gets done in practice. Have you ever heard the phrase “expert’s opinion,” or do you think data is some kind of holy word from god that speaks in tongues by itself?
You missed the forest for the tree, didn’t you? At the very least you deflected my question. In the present world order, how do those pertain to capitalism, and in the new world order that you propose, how are they addressed?
Nope. You pretend don’t want to deal with social questions that are impossible to measure, yet most of your questions you want answers for are exactly those. Which follows with:
I know this is sarcasm and I have no idea where you are going with your dead people’s law, but at least in the case of the social questions above, science, and the IPCC in particular could provide some partial answers (e.g. how long/how big the sacrifice, how to adjust to many aspects of every-day’s life), which will absolutely help weather the incoming storm. I really don’t see the need to denigrate.
Showing that you have no idea how social sciences work. You yourself listed dead people’s laws, which is why I pointed it out as absurd to measure scientifically. It’s on you to actually provide some data-only opinion-less analysis that measures the impact of social concepts such as these, but spoilers, you won’t find anything of value. They are unmeasurable and so are based on our human understanding which comes from studying and understanding many different perspectives and interpretations. There is no single “correct factual way” in social studies for the vast majority of cases, which is why I mocked your naïveté there. Good luck “factually” finding answers to your questions of interest in your future job at the IPCC.
Who exactly are my bourgeois overlords? And how are they compelling me to over-consume exactly?
Leave your computer device, pick your car, go to the supermarket, but some plastic with food in it, go back to your apartment, pay your rent, buy new electronic devices, maybe contract Hello Fresh because you don’t have time to shop groceries or watch yet another multimillion Marvel production from your ever-increasing backlog. Then come back and tell me which of those things are absolutely necessary for you. Specially considering the human and ecological cost to all of those things that you probably ignore daily.
Perhaps it’s not obvious but you and I must be very close on the political spectrum, and I could be your best ally when it comes to proposing a more sustainable lifestyle for the future.
Best ally seems incredibly unlikely, what do you even do to help? Vote?
I live in a mostly socialist highly-educated country where our political landscape is diverse and organized in coalitions who must compromise.
I’d like you to actually define socialism because we have a bunch of libs thinking the NHS is socialism running around. Also not sure what “highly-educated” has to do with anything. Weird flex.
Capitalism isn’t something that I see practically affect my life
lol
I don’t think you did. All I (mis)read is that abolishing capitalism to be a condition for addressing climate change, and I’ve been begging to know more about how it will play out in practice.
Did on the other one. Either way if you want me to get a USA government body to analyse the carbon benefit of toppling the USA, you’re gonna have to help me crowdfund it. I and others have shown here how capitalism is preventing us from democratically fighting climate change. Unless you know of some way to bypass those hurdles within capitalism (please don’t say “vote harder”), it naturally follows that abolishing capitalism is at least the only alternative we know.
I can only offer my biased and limited opinion, sorry. Proceeds to blame the victim.
Have a read from scientific material. This might help you stop blaming civilians with no power.
So I take away that you are a science denialist. If so, I don’t see the point of continuing further, because this could be all fake news as well. And if not, then I’ll ask what you gain from removing the scientific step from the decision process. And I would re-iterate my offer to provide evidence that the IPCC is biased as you claim.
For that you’d need to have linked literally any research for me to deny it. You have only named the IPCC randomly without providing any specific article, and I have not denied the truth of the only one you actually provided (the ancient China one). If you think science is only looking at pretty graphs in OWID and pretending that’s the whole picture, you might be a bit out of your league here, and that is why you’re so set on your positions while being so vague and abstract about the issue at hand. I say this as an actual researcher, though not of physics or meteorology.
Every research institution has a bias, research is made by humans and they have limited resources to allocate to every avenue of research. Even simple stuff like choosing one metric over another is a source of bias that needs to always be taken into account in any serious research. I don’t think it’s that important to prove that “the IPCC is biased” knowing that, and again you have not even provided a direct source from the IPCC for that to be relevant. Research has to take account of a multitude of sources and be very aware of what is and is not actually being studied, as well as paying attention to whether experiments are shown to be reproducible. You might notice that the IPCC provides recommendations as well as data, and since the data collection methods, the analysis already always contain some biases, the recommendations themselves will have even more as they are based on (very informed) opinion. Being biased isn’t a bad thing, it is natural, but failing to account for it is the problem. Not sure why liberals and laypeople keep getting this wrong.
But I guess I’ll humour you. 1, 2, 3, 4. Those are very well known cases of meddling.
Edit: btw, if you don’t want to split posts (please don’t because they’re annoying for me to reply to), then don’t quote yourself from two replies ago. I can just go check it, as I repeatedly do, and you’re just wasting space.
I challenge that very much: how can you hope to solve a problem that you chose deliberately to look at from a narrow angle and not in its entirety?
by not wasting time talking about things that are unrelated. If you’re bleeding you first stop the flow, not try to find how to create steel skin. By focusing so much on abstract concepts and your liberal view of history, you’re avoiding talking about this specific issue. Funnily enough though you still insist in pretending you’re interested in it at all.
Where is this evidence again?
here. And here. Also all the other ones. “what evidence???”.
Exponentially more people live, consume resources (food, shelter, heating, goods), and reproduce.
Look at this photo fucking graph. Now this one. One is up by like 6 times while the other one is almost a 100, so they’re not proportional. “where’s evidence?”
Are bacteria consuming nutrients till they cause their own extinction forming a capitalist structure, too?
Bacteria, famous for having governments, research institutions and social organisations. They also have opinions on the concept of private property and knowledge of their limited resources.
unless you consider that every member of the current elite defends capitalist ideals, which is fairly easy to disprove by just looking at the religious elite or nobility around the world.
Wait you don’t? Then disprove it, please, since it’s so easy.
First, I will laugh at the association of “China” with “anti-imperialist country”.
When was the last China-backed regime change? Then compare it with the last talks of doing a regime change in China itself. And then look into all the partnerships that China has through the BRICS and show how they were actually imperialist all along. Take your time.
The country generated 56.2% of its electricity using fossil fuels last year, according to the National Bureau of Statistics, down from 63% in 2021. China’s “ultralow emission, coal-fired capacity” reached 1,050 GWs, and its renewable energy capacity amounted to 1,200 GW – nearly doubling capacity from five years earlier.
Third one I have no idea how you got “median” of the mix out of it or what you mean by that. It’s even per capita. Change from relative to absolute and click the "play button and you’ll see how quickly China has caught up on green energy production within just the last 20 years while the others stagnated. Also note how much energy Europe and the USA consume per capita compared to the world median.
Fourth one at least is interesting, but I think the tragedy here is how a rapidly developing country under a trade war is being blamed for not having access to the resources it needs to develop further. It sure would be lovely if the Capitalist developed countries exported their technology to help China develop its green energy further, but instead they have been blocking critical tech exports there. I guess we need to ignore that because it’s political.
Either way, it’s also very important to be careful when jumping between different metrics such as total, per capita and per KWh. Trying to consider all of those in a black or white manner will lead you to awkward and subtle mistakes and syllogisms. Here’s a very well researched article that goes in depth on how the CPC is leading the way into actually producing more carbon-efficient energy. This twitter thread also has a lot of reading material on how China has been on a gigantic green energy growth spurt for the last 30 years both in internal production and also in importing infrastructure. Solar, Wind, Hydro. All those sources are political and not made by the IPCC, so be careful there.
It’s okay to think they’re not doing enough, but to pretend that the EU (which is very dependent on their polluter friend the USA) is somehow beating them at this despite their very minor improvements over the past 20 years is just disingenuous. If you remember energy production 20 years ago you’ll notice that it has barely changed in capitalist countries, while anti-capitalist countries really care about it. This comes from the intuitive fact that the power serves the common proletarian, who are the most affected by climate change, rather than the stockholders.
This was actually the point of the discussion, and I’m happy you finally addressed it so I could rectify it. Now reply to me by ignoring all the listed sources, while moving the discussion to other nonsense abstract notions of bacteria and ancient civilisation, like you seem to enjoy doing.
It's not a full solution, but I'd love to see more use of compostable single-use plastics coupled with municipal biochar facilities.
It's an excellent cycle that harnesses capitalism and materialism. People buy single use plastics, then throw them away. Municipal garbage (a utility company paid for by ratepayers), picks it up, and brings it to a biochar facility. The facility pyrolizes it, making syngas (which they burn for energy which is then purchased by consumers) and biochar, which is sold as a soil amendment and happens to be carbon-negative. Excess biochar can be buried.
It's a typical capitalist create-consume economy except it's carbon-negative (when paired with decarbonized transportation like electric trains and delivery vans, and hydrogen powered garbage trucks). The more you consume, the more carbon you actually suck out of the air.
There's a few proposed loops like this which instead of fighting consumerism actually harness it to make carbon negative actions. Another one that I'm very interested in is making HVAC filters that also passively absorb carbon from the atmosphere. With electric heat pumps we already have an HVAC technology that is minimally emitting. Pair that with carbon negative filters and you're golden.
Or concrete using injected co2. It's a real thing that exists, it just doesn't have price parity with traditional carbon-intensive concrete. Imagine if just by building a building you could be carbon negative.
Again, it's not a total solution but I wish I could see more use cases like this instead of the "consume less" narrative. People are not going to consume less, that's not how people work. The only way to get people to consume less is by raising prices (which is a necessary part of the solution of course).
I didn’t know lemmy was full of anti maskers. Wear a mask ffs. You should have kn95s or n95s. They work and prevent all sorts of illness. Even a regular mask works better than nothing. They did plenty of studies.
I think the newest Cochrane medical study rated n95 as 18% effective and regular masks 5% effective against covid, btw. Better than nothing, yes, but worth it?
Other studies show that in health-care workers, n95 vs medical masks made almost no statistical difference.
However, the use of masks in the public is not necessarily to protect yourself. It’s to keep you from spreading germs in a wide range if you cough. It’s the same concept as herd immunity with vaccinations. We all help protect each other.
WAIT?! You made this comment an hour after I quoted and linked to the clarification from Cochrane that it is a misunderstanding that their study says cloth masks are not effective in response to ONE OF YOUR comments.
Have YOU read THAT?!
Don’t be out here saying “OMG have you readed what Cochrane said about it?!” when not only have you misread it but also seemingly not read Cochrane’s attempt to gently explain that to you!
A cloth mask is effective, read the Cochrane statement.
I mean sorry but are you wearing a helmet every day at your desk? There is surely a 0.01% chance that it prevents some minor headinjury from a colleague bumping into you
That’s not what the science says. It seems logical, but the mask is supposed to protect the wearer from external shit. It seems logical that it would slow down the spread if an infected individual wears a mask, but the science is far from clear on this after a multi year long pandemic. If a mask makes you feel better, then wear it, but it’s not evident that it plays a big role when it comes to respiratory viruses.
There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated.
Clearly you haven’t read the review I linked. I guess people struggle with reading the literature so they spew shit that, while logical, is simply false.
i’m not an anti-vaxxer, ut I do refuse to have my DNA modified by a vaccine. Not only that the risks associated with the vaccines for covid are too high for my health. I’ve already had 2 heart attacks, I don’t need a vaccine to increase the risk of another one.
during the pandemic, before the lockdowns were completely lifted, I wore my mask for the sake of others. Not all anti-vaxxers can be lumped into your last comment. Oh and btw, I’ve had covid twice, once before it was even listed as a pandemic, and it did not put me in the hospital, but it did make me feel worse than if I had the flu.
also, on another note, I thought the vaccine was supposed to HELP defeat Covid? Obviously that was a lie. Everytime a new variant comes around, all of a sudden you need another booster shot which has not been “programmed” to help with the new variant. At this point the covid vaccine is nothing more than a cash grab for big pharma.
I think the newest Cochrane medical study rated n95 as 18% effective and regular masks 5% effective against covid, btw.
Lots of people seem to have picked up the idea that the recent Cochrane report states that the evidence shows masks not to be effective that but it is a misunderstanding (largely it just seems to claim that the various studies it found on the various topics they were looking at were mostly useless for drawing any sort of conclusion about the matter.)
The text of the statement on the matter from Cochrane from the above link:
Statement on ‘Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses’ review logo
The Cochrane Review ‘Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses’ was published in January 2023 and has been widely misinterpreted.
Karla Soares-Weiser, Editor-in-Chief of the Cochrane Library, has responded on behalf of Cochrane:
“Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that ‘masks don’t work’, which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.
It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people’s risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.
The review authors are clear on the limitations in the abstract: ‘The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.’ Adherence in this context refers to the number of people who actually wore the provided masks when encouraged to do so as part of the intervention. For example, in the most heavily-weighted trial of interventions to promote community mask wearing, 42.3% of people in the intervention arm wore masks compared to 13.3% of those in the control arm.
The original Plain Language Summary for this review stated that ‘We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.’ This wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize. While scientific evidence is never immune to misinterpretation, we take responsibility for not making the wording clearer from the outset. We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.”
You are not up to date. The science on whether mass masking is effective is far from settled and the biggest reviews of the literature strongly suggest that masks are not effective in preventing or slowing the spread of respiratory viruses. See below.
The Cochrane Review is highly respected in the medical community. The authors, after a massive study, write the following:
We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.
There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated.
Stop posting this all over the place. Masks clearly work, unless you like randos sneezing and coughing all over you. It catches all the phlegm.
Also, it prevents the smells of anti-maskers from reaching your nose. They can be pretty bad. You wear clothes over literally every other part of your body. Why do you think your face is different?
“Stop posting something that, while scientific and deeply rigorous, goes against my deep seated and unchangeable views. I can’t handle it with my weak, feeble mind!”
It is scientific and rigorous. You’ve not understood it correctly and Cochrane have been explicit about the fact of that misunderstanding. They are not saying the things you think they are saying.
The editor in chief was covering her ass due to the political nature of the results. All she attempts to say is “we don’t have conclusive evidence that masks are not effective”
No shit. The review said the same thing. The point is that the large scale study showed no effects of masking. That is, they weren’t sure if they helped or not. That means there is no conclusive evidence, still, after 2 years, that masks are an effective population level intervention.
“But I wear my cloth mask just to be safe.” Okay. You do you. But just know there is no conclusive evidence that it works. Might as well stay in your room, locked for life. Just to be safe.
You’ve been corrected multiple times with excerpts from the authors of the study you’re parroting all over this thread. And yet you just keep posting the same shit, not acknowledging the people who are refuting your claims.
I haven’t been corrected. The farthest anyone has gone was post the editorial comment or highlight that the Cochrane review said “we don’t think masks made any difference but we don’t really know because we need more studies”. Don’t you think it’s pretty damning that, after 2 years, they still don’t know whether masks are effective at the population level? So you are just gonna argue “just to be safe!”
No. I don’t live my life by that mantra. Read Haidt’s The coddling of the American mind.
“The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.”
“Our confidence in these results is generally low to moderate for the subjective outcomes related to respiratory illness, but moderate for the more precisely defined laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection, related to masks and N95/P2 respirators.”
You failed to mention that part when you quoted the study. Good thing not everyone is a health care worker huh?
The science on whether mass masking is effective is far from settled
Be kind and wear a mask until it’s settled that they don’t help. What we know for sure is that it’s very hard to measure whether they’re effective or not.
FWIW, they definitely do work. The issue is that it’s quite hard to produce effective studies to confirm if they work one way or another to point to to say “see, we’ve proved they work, now put one on!”
I don’t understand people downvoting without correcting. This way this wrong information stands here, seemingly scientifically sound as a study is linked, contradicted only by votes and words.
Thank you @SigloPseudoMundo for looking at the study and noting its limits here.
Some studies exist that measured no benefits of masks under certain circumstances. E.g. only evaluating complete protection. But few also seem to be sound at first glance. E.g. one looking at effects of a mask requirement in Bexar County, TX.
Many of the negative result studies focus on cloth face masks, one even suggesting they increase risk.
Many studies and metastudies with generally more sound methods suggest mask are effective at preventing spread and limiting mortality.
Conclusion: Masks, excluding simple cloth masks, are likely quite effective. More research is needed.
Your conclusion, in respect to the highly detailed Cochrane review, is extremely wrong. I don’t know how people like you come up with this logic. It’s bizarre. Cloth masks have been proven to be in effective time and time again and you keep promoting them. It’s ridiculous.
It’s not seemingly scientific, the study I linked is the best study we have and it came up with “masks don’t seem to help for reducing the spread of respiratory viruses.” Yet you spew the same bullshit we had at the beginning of the pandemic that wasn’t researched.
Luckily I live in a place where it will be highly unlikely for some ridiculous mandate. Hopefully you live in a place that will mandate this shit for the rest of your life so you can live in the dystopia you want to live in. Leave the rest of us alone.
It seems you have not read my post or the study in detail.
Indeed it seems that cloth masks are not very or even not effective. But, and that’s a big but: FFP2/KN95 Masks seem to be quite effective.
The Cochrane study authors themselves note the low confidence they have in their results. The sample size is quite small (e.g. only 8407 people in summary over all studies they evaluated for FFP2 masks) They even got the result that handwashing has no benefits.
In Contrast the studies in the metastudy I linked work with far larger sample sizes.
I won’t respond anymore after this comment as you seem agitated and resort to personal attacks which won’t lead to a productive discussion. I hope you find a calmer moment to consider the evidence studies have gathered and overthink your position.
Largely what the Cochrane report appears to say is that these studies aren’t actually suitable to draw firm conclusions from (which is what all the talk of “evidence” are about. They mean that the studies they read don’t have sufficient evidence to support their own claims and that while Cochrane can therefore tell us “study X had conclusion Y” they and we shouldn’t assume that’s actually correct as “study X” wasn’t actually very good.)
My whole point is that the scientific consensus on whether masks make a difference at the population level for respiratory illnesses is inconclusive. So why should governments continue mandating them? “Just to be safe” is not a sound argument, especially when the intervention is so drastic against the human condition.
I love showing my face and seeing other people’s’ faces. It angers me that so many people don’t care about faces. I find these folk to be expressively anti-human and it angers me. Masks limit human expression. They dull human life.
In addition to Macros’s comment explaining some of the details around what the specific claims of that report are, here is the statement from Cochrane explicitly saying that people have misunderstood the report in claiming it says masks aren’t effective (and taking ownership of the fact that this is at least in part because of issues with how clearly the report communicates it’s findings.)
To err always on the side of caution, especially when it comes to denying a very human expression (one’s face) is not a good way to live. If we erred on the side of caution for everything, it would be a meaningless life. Life involves risks. It’s very low risk to not wear a mask.
I don’t wear one in my day-to-day, but I’m certainly not going to begrudge somebody for wearing one, and you can be sure I’m gonna have em around for flu season, COVID or no.
The problem is masks got politicized by assholes that want to be contrarian for the sake of preserving their paradigm, their worldview.
These are people so mentally weak and reliant on the lifestyle they’ve grown accustomed to that when something like a plague comes around, it shifts their paradigm so fuckin’ hard that they have to tell themselves the science is wrong and everybody is going to be fine. I suppose the other part of it is treating your national politics like a fuckin’ football game, but that doesn’t even warrant discussing because it’s so goddamn obvious and pervasive.
Now imagine, as a hypothetical scenario, the government tells us aliens are real one day, and they’re here. Watch these people really lose it. Wouldn’t know whether to shit or go blind.
Edit: As for the people that are just genuinely tired of hearing about it, be it on here, Reddit, or else where… Pull the fucking plug and let everything go for a bit. Decompress. You don’t have to be online and connected to everything every minute of your boredom or free time.
There’s no lockdown anymore. Go touch grass.
KF94’s are also equally effective (and similar in comfort to KN95’s.) There are concerns about counterfeits of KN95’s in general and masks made in China in general though so KR95’s (Korean) made in Korea or n95s made not in China are more reliable options.
Even a counterfeit mask claiming to be any of the above is likely to be alrightish and far better than nothing.
What you want to look for generally is a triple-layer (or more) mask that is made from non-woven/melt-blown material that gets a good seal. Beyond that just finding something you can afford, reliably get and feel comfortable wearing are kind of the next most important things to look for (the mask you wear is always better than the one you don’t!)
False information. Masks made in China are perfectly fine. The majority of N95 respirators (and masks in general) are made in China. In fact the numbers in the name is part of the Chinese Filtration Index.
KN95, KN95S, KR95, KF94 all follow the same index.
N95 respirators will always be the best option, but they require a shaved face and are very uncomfortable.
I’m not an anti masker, wore mine for 3 solid years, but definitely tired of it. And we can’t wear a mask forever.
I can understand if I’m sick or regularly near someone who is sick, but day to day is too much. Especially in my line of work, where I’m working in the heat doing physical work.
Why can’t we wear masks in public forever? Do you wear pants in public? Shoes?
If you are in an open space outdoors distanced from people, like most hard labor, you probably don’t need to be masked. But white collar jobs in coffee proximity to each other?
I should ask this, how long do you typically wear a mask for when you do wear one?
I had to wear it for 8-12 hours a day while at work. My sinuses were clogged up by the end of the day, acne all over my face, and the mask venting into my eyes was causing an stye to develop on my eyelid.
The anti maskers/vaxxers are just loud and like to make their opinion known. I don’t really give a fuck anymore who wears a mask or not, I just stay safe and try to keep others safe. People are gonna be dumb no matter what you do. Just wish they weren’t so fucking vocal about pushing misinformation, while being so confidently incorrect.
I really like the KF94’s personally, they’re more comfortable for me. Definitely look into them if you haven’t already!
Edit: By looking at your upvotes vs the loud minority, you can tell what people around here think lol. A lot of instances don’t allow downvotes (mine for one), so upvotes are the only option
No, your immunity to viral infections doesn’t last forever. Cultures around the world wear masks when they are out in close proximity or if they are sick and you don’t see higher infection rates among them. Japan is a culture famous for wearing masks and they have a lower infection rate overall.
We also didn’t threaten to kill the farmers for growing it. No shit the Taliban was successful. Comply or die. They’re the ones who were profiting from it anyway. Now that they’re in charge again, religion trumps financial needs.
I’m pretty sure the Talibans (not to defend them, mind you), were already cracking down on poppy farming before 9/11 and the subsequent decade long war.
So how were they benefitting? Or do you mean to say the US and allied forces allowed mass poppy crop farming that was then utilized by the Taliban to fund itself? You know there is an alternative hypothesis: the US and other occupation allied forces tolerated poppy farming to pacify and win over tribal chiefs and keep corrupt Afghan officials squarely on their side. Maybe both were happening, who is to say.
Lmao, how can you justify this shit? Do you really think American was actually trying to win hearts and minds when even you admit high command was protecting child rapists?
Quite a few would disagree with that view, giving how many fled their own country when the Taliban took over again. But hey, don’t let that narrative ruin your perspective. Lol
Of course people who cooperate with occupiers usually want out when the occupation ends. They don’t want to face the consequences of selling out their country.
And of course “when people leave a Bad Country it’s for political reasons, when they leave a Good Country it’s for economic reasons” applies.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1982159006/ is a summary of the Washington Post’s reporting on Afghanistan, specifically on the US government’s own internal assessments from all levels of the military and political administration. In it, you’ll find this quote:
Of all the failures in Afghanistan, the war on opium ranked among the most feckless. During two decades, the United States spent more than $9 billion on a dizzying array of programs to deter Afghanistan from supplying the world with heroin. None of the measures worked. In many cases, they made things worse.
The US doesn’t need “tankies” or anyone else to make themselves look bad as far as the Afghan drug trade goes.
This flew over your head but it is heavily implied that the US’ “war on opium” was in fact a deliberate effort to subsidize opium production and transport, a policy that we have pursued for the benefit of our own state-backed terror organizations in many other countries. Regardless of all other opinions on the US and the Taliban, this is an issue that the Taliban is objectively better than us on, and saying “lol who cares” is not an argument against talking about it since obviously the people in this thread care because they’re in here talking about it.
That’s not the creation of a straw man, that is an accusation I’m making of you, specifically, based on the fact that your comment in no way addressed the idea. If you read my comment you’ll see that I also address your “argument” directly.
I quoted you incredulously asking why someone would post and comment about this and then made a comical version of you incredulously asking why someone would post and comment about this. That’s not a straw man, unless you’re trying to tell me that you’re a scarecrow (because you certainly need a brain).
No, I’m mocking you because I don’t respect you. Why should anyone take you seriously when your only response to any sort of citation is to pretend not to know how to read and post Reddit-tier debate bro buzzwords that you clearly don’t understand the meaning of. It’s hilarious.
ding ding ding! we got an association fallacy, just because you think 1 responder is a troll doesn’t mean they’re all trolls, you didn’t prove that, you just used a fallacy
just because you ignore the proof doesn’t negate it.
I can copy and paste a response to every comment you make as well. It doesn’t make you right, you just copypasta your response and move on. If that isn’t a logical fallacy I don’t know what is
Who said I was arguing with you, dipshit? What would the point of that be? I’ve seen how you act. You ignore literally everything everyone says and post clippings from a high school textbook you clearly never read and don’t understand.
And what the fuck would I be making an argument about in the first place? You aren’t talking about anything. Shame on my comrades for engaging with you for anything other than to bully your ass for being a blight on the conversation other people are having around you.
and your childish tantrums and name-calling don’t impress me, nor does your bullying. all it tells me is that you’re so afraid of losing an argument to a stranger on the internet, it drives you into a blind rage.
that’s how much control you give to strangers because you have no control over yourself.
Are you a fucking smurf? Do you have blue fucking skin?
Do you read the completely different words ‘reply’ and ‘argue’ and just hear “smurf smurf smurf!” in your head? You understand different words convey different meanings, right?
It’s funny as an insult because it reflects both how you used bots to give yourself upvotes (you also post on them with those fallacy notecards of yours, don’t think it hasn’t been noticed) and how you can’t tell the difference between words.
By calling you a smurf I’m saying you’re both a fucking idiot and a pathetic loser who needs other people to think you’re getting social validation but are faking it and are receiving none.
If someone said that shit about me I’d be very upset, but I guess it’s just incorporated into your self image so fundamentally it doesn’t even register as an insult. That’s fucking sad lol.
I hope you’re short irl too so it hits on three levels.
Yeah really funny how all your posts appeared with exactly five upvotes and after that no one upvoted them afterwards.
you’re saying you’re child who can’t argue a point and can only deal with heir anger with name-calling.
Again, you fucking moron, from the very beginning I said I had no intention of arguing with you and that you didn’t have any points to argue with in the first place. Am I wrong? Do you have a point?
Lol if anything it would have been post hoc ergo propter hoc
well, you’re the pro at wielding local fallacies. nice telling on yourself, btw.
You’re bad at doing your own bit lol
I just got you to confess to the trolling you’ve been denying, so… obviously not, lmao
Lmao how the fuck would I know?
you pretend to know lots of things about me. why would you stop making stuff up now? if you can’t even make sense out of your own argument, how do you expect it to make sense to anyone else? LOLOLOL
Neutral. Your core personality trait is just something I learned in school. Except I didn’t fetishize it as being a way to argue itself. And I actually paid attention in class.
Wanna go back and count the number of times I pointed out you never made a point to argue about and tell you how many times you’ve proven me right so far
I appreciate your sympathy but if you’re cognizant of my mental deficiencies it would be good of you to accomodate them if you’re planning on continuing this conversation.
To wit I need an answer please.
Literally just tell me what you think we’re talking about. Come on. You can do it. Don’t be scared. Nice and slow.
Do you think quoting someone smarter than you is going to make your arguments better? That’s actually adorable. And usually you’d be right! But you’re running into the same problem as the fallacy flash cards, dummy. You have to read the words first to know what it says.
The point @AntiOutsideAktion was making is that you have no value as a poster. Your words are meaningless because you are not even trying to say anything you are just trying to be antagonistic.
To him your only purpose in existence is to be used as a speed ball for anyone with a brain to show how many times they can smack your ugly mug. Your only virtue is your ignorance as it makes you keep coming back for more.
He just got a free workout at the dunking gym. He didn’t brake a sweat pummelling your thick leathery brain. He is using you to make himself look like a golden god of shitposting by measuring himself against you. (though his endurance is pretty impressive) If you had any redeemable qualities I’d feel his continued dunking was a bit mean and I’d pity you but you are beyond pity to the point of farce. You seem too pathetic to exist and yet you do. Its a marvel that makes me laugh.
no. I was kinda amused but you are boring now. I think I’ve proven @antioutsideaktion is where the humor comes from and that you are useless except as a prop in the hands of a master. I leave it to him.
All the times you said something was invalid because of this or that logical fallacy.
Two is sufficient.
WE’RE not arguing because I’m not arguing. YOU however have made many arguments, just only over petty in the moment interactions without any larger subject or point you were trying to make.
it’s 3:48a on the east coast. it’s more likely those few people went to sleep than your paranoid delusion is true, even after you keep moving the goal posts.
You know we are leftists here. You can just say you are into your wife sleeping with other men. We respect a diversity of lifestyles. You don’t have to do the whiskey overcompensation persona thing here. We can accept and respect who you are.
You know we are leftists here. You can just say you are into your wife sleeping with other men. We respect a diversity of lifestyles. You don’t have to do the whiskey overcompensation persona thing here. We can accept and respect who you are.
you have a talent for self-contradictory speech. the way you mix the word “respect” with overflowing disrespect, how you espouse leftism and diversity while speaking the sexism and misogyny of a fascist… it’s artful.
It is artful. That is the point. Further, the only sexism I talked about is the internalized negative self image that would lead a person to think ‘whiskey pickle’ is anything other than a cringe attempt to develop a self identity by subverting the worst societie’s worst instincts. Most of us here have done worse, but we grew stronger and passed through that phase. Join us.
artful trolling and disingenuousness is the point? and you proud of that? ew…
Further, the only sexism I talked about is the internalized negative self image that would lead a person to think ‘whiskey pickle’ is anything other than a cringe attempt to develop a self identity by subverting the worst societie’s worst instincts.
OR I like a drink called a pickleback, which is a shot of whiskey served with a pickle brine chaser, and you’ve decided to demonize me because of your own deep-seated insecurities that you’re projecting onto me.
ut thanks for that revolting glimpse into your psyche…
No doubt you like a whisky drink, but why? Is it you are drawn to the stereotypically masculine drink because you feel your masculinity is threatened by some other aspect of your life? It just feels performative is all.
I could be reading more into it that in there. However your completely uncritical regurgitating of western propaganda can only lead me to belive introspection is not a well developed skill in your life.
That you have no personality, no self worth, no critical thinking skills and you are defensive about it. All I see from you are projections and deflections. Honestly, it is a little underwhelming. You can do better as a person.
you have a talent for self-contradictory speech. the way you mix the word “respect” with overflowing disrespect, how you espouse leftism and diversity while speaking the sexism and misogyny of a fascist… it’s artful.
Wtf are you talking about? Nobody said anything sexist or misogynyst. Words have meaning. Saying that you’re into cuckoldry has nothing to do with being sexist to women. It’s rude to you yes but fascist? Come the fuck on. Stop saying socialists are fascist for fuck’s sake it’s unbelievably cringe and nobody is buying it.
you’ve been trolling me since your first comment. to act like you’re interested in “good faith” anything is hilarious, but not as hilarious as acting like a victim because I didn’t give you the satisfaction of getting angry like you 💋
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
I have only made two comments, one pointing out what they said wasn’t sexist or misogynistic, and another in response to your actually-sexist response.
You also keep upvoting yourself in the most obvious way and it’s hilarious.
It’s sad that you’d make such a piss-poor attempt of gaslighting as if she’s the only one to notice your hilariously obvious exactly 5 upvotes on everything
Yeah, if anything the cuckold fans are likely to be less misogynistic. They can appreciate a woman’s activities without being threatened or offended by their autonomy.
“I know you are but what am I?” is not a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5. (borrowed form another comment)
Operation Enduring Freedom was sold as a war on terrorism
see, you even admit that it wasn’t about opium.
the US repeatedly cited opium as a target of the war because they claimed it funded the Taliban.
you’re welcome to cite sources to back up your claims. and I’ll be happy to point out how the timeline doesn’t support your assertions that the war was about opium, it just happened to be something the US did while we were there.
Or did you think it was retaliation for 9/11 or something?
what I think is irrelevant. that facts are what matter.
I have American friends who died defending those poppy fields. I remember it all very well.
irrelevant. present facts. not anecdotes or your feelings.
Also do feel free to explain how this is any way relevant to the conversation:
correlation ≠ causation
I have, repeatedly. your inability/refusal to understand is not my problem.
You don’t seem to be capable of following the conversation
I’m perfectly capable of noticing when people move the goalposts because they can’t prove their argument with facts, as I keep pouting out. raging about it doesn’t change this fact or any other facts.
Oh my, you are really lost!
not according to the facts. if this continues to confuse you, that’s not my problem.
I’m sorry that I do not know how to find search results from 2001
not my job to prove your argument.
Yes, that’s why I was trying to figure out why you are struggling with them.
“I know you are but what am I?” is not a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.
you’ve presented nothing but anger, insults, and logical fallacies, none of which are convincing of anything other than that, when you can’t argue the facts in good faith, you resort to these bad-faith tactics ad nauseam because, so blinded by anger and hate, you can’t handle defeat.
Well that pretty much confirms my suspicions
so you admit to arguing from a position of clear and obvious bias. we get it— you hate the US. this has zero bearing on the facts— just that you like to insult people when you lose an argument.
Ah, so you do realize that it makes absolutely no sense lol
I’m not responsible for your lack of comprehension.
Looks like my job is done here. Rage on, little snowflake.
theres just so many logical fallacies from whiskey pickle here I don’t even know where to start, I’ll just leave this little guide for you maybe you can read up on this stuff a little.
I’m not responsible for your lack of comprehension, learn about logical fallacies or I’m gonna have to call the fallacy police and you don’t want to deal with them
You selectively picked an activity that American soldiers would do everywhere (peeing) over something they did only in Afghanistan (guarding opium fields) only because it would support your argument.
That my dear good m’sir is a classic case of cherry picking.
You selectively picked an activity that American soldiers would do everywhere (peeing) over something they did only in Afghanistan (guarding opium fields) only because it would support your argument.
nope, just an example. you’re not very good at this
Ha you were conclusively proven wrong and didn’t even blink
oh, you mean here?
the US didn’t give a shit about it at all
ya got me there. they did care. still doesn’t prove that it’s why the US was there, and, in fact, several of the linked sources directly state to the contrary against claims that it was.
too bad it’s meaningless and - like always - you’re wrong. lmao
Lol so you initially ignore being wrong, then acknowledge you were wrong somewhere else, then say “well that was meaningless” when you go back to claim you were adult enough to say you missed on that one? …What?
Go back to reddit if you’re going to be a debatelord
wow, you moved those goalposts so fast and with such double-standards, I’m amazed you didn’t snap your own neck with those mental gymnastics. impressive!
I’ve certainly learned a lot about hexbear trolls and what triggers them: getting called out as trolls and images of logical fallacies. just look at you!
The only thing logical fallacies trigger for us is our funny bones
Nothing funnier than a fool who thinks shouting “logical fallacy, logical fallacy, logical fallacy!” over and over again wins any argument instead of just making them look like the asshole they are
DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.
DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
Why would they care? That they just approved this stuff is sufficient proof that the right people got the "right incentive" to wave it through. Why should they anger the people who paid them?
Federal law requires the EPA to conduct safety reviews before allowing new chemical products onto the market. If the agency finds that a substance causes unreasonable risk to health or the environment, the EPA is not allowed to approve it without first finding ways to reduce that risk.
But the agency did not do that in this case. Instead, the EPA decided its scientists were overstating the risks and gave Chevron the go-ahead
Anyone can use Resist bot to write their representatives for free. You basically write a short letter on mobile (ios app or text “resist” to 50409 and follow the prompts), and it’ll format and send it as a fax.
Might want to add that the relevant data for those chemicals the EPa says they calculated incorrectly were not released, so the only data available by the EPA indicates the insane inevitabilities of cancer that their report states.
That resist bot is super cool. I didn’t know about that, thanks.
Literally everyone near these fuel emissions will(not can) get cancer
It doesn’t say that. It refers to exposure “continually over a lifetime”.
There aren’t all that many substances that won’t cause cancer with continuous exposure over a lifetime. Gasoline certainly will, but so will sawdust or grape juice.
This article reads very much like the “Dihydrogen Monoxide” warnings. Let’s step back for a second and critically evaluate what is being claimed.
The EPA didn’t release a report that people continually exposed to water will definitely get cancer.
These two new fuels using plastic-based refined chemicals have been determined by the EPA to definitely give people cancer over repeated exposure throughout their lives.
These poisonous chemicals determined by the EPA read nothing like jokes for middle school science teachers.
They don’t even name the agent in question, or provide any information on its chemical composition. There is no way to corroborate any of the information given.
The carcinogenic claims I read in the article would apply to “gasoline” just as much as the unnamed, undefined, “evil villain chemical(s)” described. The article is heavy on FUD, but very light on fact.
It’s an EPA report, specifically about plastic-based fuels that give people cancer, reported by more than one credible news source and corroborated by an EPA veteran.
Giving people cancer does not make a chemical an “evil villain”, but a fuel company known to abuse human rights and destroy the environment with carcinogens developing and the EPA approving fuels that they have determined give people cancer 100% of the time over repeated exposure is something that should be stopped, or if the EPA has made a mistake, made clear and retested.
This article is heavy on data and precedent, your comment is not.
The original post is not an EPA report. The original post is a ProPublica article. The ProPublica article is not written to inform, but to inflame.
To form a meaningful opinion, we also need the utilitarian value of this mystery chemical, and we need to know how its risks compare to those of similar products.
Again. ALL of the carcinogenic claims made in the ProPublica article about the mystery chemical(s) are equally true of “gasoline”. They refer to the chemical as “boat fuel”; all the boats I have been on have burned either gasoline or diesel. Is this mystery chemical “gasoline”? Something with the same utilitarian value and risks as gasoline? ProPublica tells us the risks of this mystery product, but doesn’t give us the context of other products.
I understand ProPublica wants me to be pissed off. What I don’t understand is why ProPublica is pissed off. Are they supporting an environmentalist agenda? Are they supporting one of Chevron’s competitors producing a similar product? Are they a right-wing group trying to shut down a government agency for incompetence? Are they a left-wing group fighting against regulatory capture? Are they just trolling us for the lulz? Until I understand why they want me to be pissed off, my pitchfork is staying in the barn, and my jimmies will remain unrustled.
That is a 203 page report. You didn’t read it. All you know about it are the cherry picked segments that ProPublica is using to get you pissed off. You don’t know why ProPublica is trying to get you to be pissed off any more than I do.
You want me to be pissed off about the EPA report, you need to show me a summary written to inform rather than incite. I don’t respond well to blatant, unrepentant propaganda.
You have been provided with a summary of the EPA report. That’s literally what the article is.
You’re being rationally and clearly informed by a credible news organization about carcinogenic fuels that, according to the EPA, will directly and indirectly certainly cause cancer.
You’re being rationally and clearly informed by a credible news organization about carcinogenuc fuels that, according to the EPA, will directly and indirectly certainly cause cancer.
“Gasoline” is a carcinogenic fuel that directly and indirectly certainly causes cancer under the “continuous exposure” circumstances described in the article. Nothing in the article actually distinguishes between “gasoline” and the mystery chemical mentioned. Substitute “gasoline” in for every nebulous reference to plastic fuel or boat fuel, and all of the facts discussed in the article are still true.
Whatever truth there is to the article is overshadowed by the propaganda. The only valid conclusion we can make from the article is that ProPublica wants us to come out with our pitchforks without actually telling us why.
You are incorrect, the EPA report specifically asseses waste plastic-based fuels developed by Chevron. The EPA assesses those plastic-based fuels as definitely cancer-causing.
What are you referring to specifically when you keep saying propaganda as if you were using the word correctly?
If you find the same report for “gasoline”, you will see that it shows substantially identical risks, including the “definitely cancer causing” risks.
What is it about the risks from this unnamed fuel product that actually distinguishes it from the risks of “gasoline”?
The propaganda I am referring to is the article’s insinuation that the risks from this particular chemical are substantially higher than for other chemicals used for similar purposes. The EPA report does not show a higher risk, and the ProPublica article does not provide an apples-to-apples comparison. For all we know, the cancer risk from gasoline could be double or triple that of the unnamed chemical. Neither the article nor the EPA report on the unnamed chemical actually allows us to make a reasonable comparison either way. You could be condemning a fuel that is safer than gasoline.
Obviously, we wouldn’t want to drink this unnamed chemical, or rub it all over our bodies. We wouldn’t want to shower, bathe, or swim in it, but the same is true of gasoline, diesel, jet-A, kerosene, propane, heating oil, bunker fuel, and any number of other fuel products. The article does not explain why we should be outraged over this one particular substance, and not any of the other substances that all carry substantially identical carcinogenic risks.
You are entirely wrong on all counts: 1)gasoline and plastic-derived fuels are different materials and have completely different risks. 2)The EPA report shows a higher risk by a factor of literally 1 million and 3) the article explains that because this new fuel is 1 million times more carcinogenic than the EPA limit, according to the EPA, it should not have been approved.
You’re just straight-up lying.
The article very clearly explains the difference in EPA assessment between gasoline at a normal pump station and this new plastics-derived fuel.
The likelihood of developing cancer from being around gasoline fumes is under the usual EPA maximum ratio of 1 in 1,000,000. The chance of developing cancer by getting around the fumes of this new plastic-derived fuel is 1,000,000 in 1,000,000.
Do you understand the very large difference between the numbers 1 and 1 million?
EPA risk maximum - .0001% chance of developing cancer according to the EPA
This plastics-derived fuel - 100% chance of developing cancer according to the EPA
You don’t have to bathe, drink ot swim in it. The EPA says you’ll get cancer just from being near it.
The article very clearly explains the difference in EPA assessment between gasoline at a normal pump station and this new plastics-derived fuel.
Oh really? Ctrl-f, “gasoline”, 0 results found. Article doesn’t seem to be making any comparisons to gasoline.
The likelihood of developing cancer from being around gasoline fumes
Ctrl-f, “fume”, 0 results found. The likelihood of developing cancer from fumes of any sort - let alone gasoline fumes - is not discussed in the article.
You don’t have to bathe, drink ot swim in it. The EPA says you’ll get cancer just from being near it.
The article does not claim you’ll get cancer just from being near it. From the article:
determined was so hazardous, everyone exposed to the substance continually over a lifetime would be expected to develop cancer.
“Just being near it” has a slightly different meaning than “exposed continually over a lifetime”.
The article does not mention any type or duration of exposure other than continual lifetime. It uses 14 variations to refer to such “lifetime” exposure. It never claims that cancer will be caused by incidental exposure.
Yes! Finally you’re agreeing with me. Appreciated.
Cancer from these plastic-based fuels can be caused by direct or indirect exposure over a lifetime, including but not limited to during the production process or being around the emissions.
You really are a slow reader.
I guess that’s why you’ve been wrong this entire time.
As for the one in a million maximum risk limit, I’m referring to any publicly common chemical approved by the EPA. Now that you’ve learned how to use Ctrl+F simultaneously, try moving on to something called a search engine (It’s like a really big control F). You’ll be able to find information about how the EPA assesses risk and their conventional limits.
I mentioned gasoline specifically because for some reason you’re fixated on gasoline, even though as you agree with me, the article does not mention gasoline since that’s a different fuel than the waste plastic derived fuels Chevron is producing and is irrelevant to the conversation.
You saw the word fuel and assumed that meant gasoline instead of what the article talks about, a plastic-based fuel.
So yes, you are getting closer. Just keep reading. It’s taken you hours to get through ostensibly the first paragraph, but eventually I guess anybody could theoretically read the entire thing no matter how long it takes.
True, gasoline would not be approved today by the EPA’s own rules as it is a carcinogen. That’s how fucked our environment is.
That doesn’t mean that gasoline is not a dangerous substance, it just means that it has been grandfathered into the regulatory structure because of predates the EPA.
“The proposed Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) would require notification to and review by EPA before these fuels could be made using plastic waste-derived feedstocks that contain impurities like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), heavy metals, dioxins, bisphenols and flame retardants.”
And chevron’s planning to use these fuels at 100 locations according to Pro-Publica so, yeah it’s a huge problem.
I just found the EPA reporting link online, what do you mean by raising enough hell to Biden himself, is there some sort of contact route to the president? And yeah, the EPA is an executive agency.
I mean writing letters to the man directly. Even if he has someone else write back, the fact that he’s being contacted about this will keep him from forgetting about it.
Clickbait outrage. The movie showed what the bomb does to people without feeling like it was exploiting the suffering of innocent victims for the sake of a summer blockbuster.
The article even explains how: "In another scene, Oppenheimer gives a speech and, while looking into the crowd, visualizes some of the predominantly white audience as the victims of his bomb."
It's an effective scene. Sometimes what you don't show (negative space) is as powerful as what you do show.
The official account can’t decide whether she was between 10 - 15 or 15 - 20; given that the soldiers involved clearly lied about literally everything we can now prove wrong I’m going to guess the Israelis in fact did take turns raping a child over several days.
There’s literally no difference between a trans person getting medical care like hormone therapy and any adult getting any other type of treatment. If you take pills for your limp dick, get breast implants, or use hormone therapy for things like controlling heavy menstrual bleeding or even as a form of cancer treatment, your rights are at risk. It’s merely a matter of who is in the White House and who controls the legislative bodies. These dickhead republicans are entirely shortsighted in that respect. Not that it matters, their base will eat it up as a victory. They literally led these idiots off a cliff during Covid and they cheered Trumps name as they took their last fibrosis riddled breath.
It’s far too much to type and way too philosophical for anyone to give a shit about, but, tldr: the US (and arguably the world) is on a freight train speeding at absolute destruction. No one in power is pushing the stop button. (In the US) one party is (sometimes) pushing a slowdown button but the other party is always slamming any button they can find that doesn’t say stop on it. They know where it leads, and this is what they want. Everyone “knows” the current institutions and systems are failing, but the only politically relevant (so, in the US, not the actual left) force with power is the far right wingers who desire destruction and their only resistance is the left and right wing liberals in the middle going “noooo the institutions!” but no one actually cares about the institutions, besides other liberals. They lack any ability though, due to their political ideology, to actually fight for the beloved institutions. They can only rely on the powerful far right to “come to their senses” and stop pushing the death button. Unfortunately for them, the far right will not stop without someone stopping them- forcefully. And since the far right and liberals effectively eliminated the far left and even the center left for the most part… there’s no one to counter that far right fascistic death drive.
But you don’t even need that accurate assessment of things to understand the situation. Just know they want to abolish public education, medicine, doctors, anything related to “science” broadly, any non-Christian religions, non-white people, LGBTQ+ people and anything tangentially related to gay stuff (imagined or real), etc. pretty much infinitely.
These people are the proto-Nazis of our time. Not everything will align perfectly, but it doesn’t have to. They want to burn medical information, they want to destroy what they see as “perverted secular society” burn it all away and cleanse the land for some great rebirth of a Christian Nationalist theocracy where white men are elevated above everyone and your white male status plus property owning status is all that matters. I know this all sounds cliche and overstated at this point… but they keep proving it true every chance they get.
The worst part is that ultimately they’re the only side making progress towards their goal because their goal is aligned with the way things are going and must go. But the difference is we can arrive at that destructive moment, whenever it is, and come out the other side in some Christian theocracy nightmare world or something much better than we can currently imagine possible. As it stands right now, that nightmare vision seems to be the only viable conclusion. Which is rather depressing…
I couldn’t agree more. But for what it’s worth I think there are people who are angry and motivated and willing to take it to the bastards. Every era also has its folk heroes. Is it enough? Maybe not. Maybe the added element of cooking ourselves has tipped the scales into an unrecoverable tailspin, but at least there will always be people who will never stop trying to pull us out of the dive. Even as the challenger broke up as it re entered the atmosphere based on the position of certain controls they could tell that the pilot never stopped trying to recover the aircraft even as it broke up around him.
I’m about to crack what is probably the halfway point of my life, adjusted for delicious plastic intake and the inevitable 6 cancers I’ll develop of course, but I won’t stop fighting to try and make the world slightly less shit and slightly more hospitable for the youth who will follow behind me once I eventually eat shit.
The thing is, there are people who do the right thing solely because they can and you can’t convince them to do otherwise. It’s a choice and any person can make it. And so long as those people exist, there’s always going to be someone willing to at least try to stomp this bullshit out.
They’re also quick to spread climate change denialism, because they are under the mistaken belief that only the people who they hate will suffer, and that their God-given privilege will keep them safe/in power.
They’re going to take us all down to a deeper level of hell once they realize they, too, are on a sinking ship.
Does a “no” vote by the US automatically veto it? Or did they have to take an additional action? If the vote alone didn’t veto it, that’s the perfect place to hedge your bets. Vote no, then don’t veto it. You can claim both sides then to appease everyone.
That is the explanation I was given, but these days I think that’s more of a rationalization than an explanation. Closer to the truth, I think, is that those are the countries that came out of WWII the victors, and so they wrote the rules.
The UK abstained, that is explicitly not supporting the US. It’s not objecting either, but it’s not supporting.
What I find interesting is that the PM Rishi Sunak talks in full support of Israel in national politics, yet on the international stage the stance is now slightly more neutral.
It is a scam happened before, countries abstain because they know the US would veto. If UK didn’t abstain I think the resolution would pass. That’s why they did it, help to not let the resolution pass and it doesn’t look bad as veto.
Not to a scam but clever politics... Let US to take the hit, since supporting Israel is becoming hard as people are wising up to their goals and policies vis a vis Palestinians. The people more educated people get on the topic, the harder it is support Israel at all.
Politicians know that domestic support esp among younger people is down.
Basically every country, for the most part, wants to keep regular relations going with every other country. Doesn’t mean they agree with each other or really even engage in trade. They want to remain friendly and have open communications channels. Severing ties in this way means that there is no possible normal interactions between them again.
I feel like Palestine would have something to say if “Iran” just waltzed in (how?) and decided to setup a concentration camp for jews, since israel as a country would rightfully no longer exist.
Do you think the only options are allow Israel to do a genocide or do a genocide on Israelis? Cutting off diplomacy with a settler colony client state is not genocide.
Amazing projection, considering those nasty Israelis are currently running the world’s largest concentration camp and are working on converting it to a death camp.
Being able to talk to a government is a far cry from supporting it or agreeing with it. Even if you dislike Israel, you should want there to be diplomatic relations - that is how other countries can exert influence and attempt to steer them off more radical courses, after all.
Case in point - if the West had no diplomacy with them, then the opening of the border crossing into Egypt would never have happened.
What makes a ‘country’ is and itself very complicated. I do not believe Israel would want diplomatic relations with countries which sanction it.
ISIS was a ‘state’ at its peak and held control over territories but no one else had any formal diplomatic ties with them because everyone rightfully recognized them as an unlawful terrorist state. Is Israel really that different? Israel has shown blatant disregard for any peace plans whether its 1967 or Oslo. There are good reasons to not recognize Israel even though it holds territory.
Also, just because two countries have no formal diplomatic relations doesn’t mean they can’t have interactions. Look at USSR and Israel in this example
They were extradited to the Soviet Union and sentenced to prison terms, although at that time Israel and the Soviet Union had no extradition treaty as relations were still severed at the time. All hostages were released.
I think the thing to recall in your example is that any treaties signed would formalize this process. In this case, they went through and made a request as a one-time thing that may never be repeated.
“Then–Defense Minister of Israel Yitzhak Rabin criticized Soviet authorities for providing the hijackers with an aircraft and flying them to Israel in exchange for the release of the hostages.”
Christ how evil can Israel get? “how dare you save an airplane full of children”
I agree. Having no diplomatic communications at all is a bad idea especially during times of crisis. Regardless of your feelings of the behaviour of a state, the phone line should always exist for governments to speak to each other. Whether we’re talking about Israel or Iran or Russia or North Korea or whatever. When your own citizens need help, or a crisis is ongoing, or a natural disaster occurs, or whatever, you want someone on the other end to pick up the phone.
I think the argument they’re making is that detecting that a death is caused by cancer is probably not an advanced affair requiring new diagnostic technology.
Personally, I think it’s an interesting question, given that it stands to reason that cancer, by the time it has caused death, should be pretty easily detectable in any sort of autopsy.
Even in the US, autopsies are not always performed. Ima quote WebMD because I’m bone idle:
Although laws vary, nearly all states call for an autopsy when someone dies in a suspicious, unusual, or unnatural way.
Many states have one done when a person dies without a doctor present. Twenty-seven states require it if the cause of death is suspected to be from a public health threat, such as a fast-spreading disease or tainted food.
According to a 2012 DOJ report, only 8.5% of US deaths result in autopsy.
I think you’d be right about the “number of diagnoses” statement in the title, but I think the discussion is about the deaths due to cancer, which have also increased and would not have as strong of a correlation for the reasons others mentioned
But that’s directly related. People used to die when “catching a cold”. We call that lung cancer nowadays. Same thing with many other branches of cancer.
This article kind of made a mess of the numbers. At one point it suggests the mortality rate increased, but that’s not what the actual research shows.
From OG article: “Our study showed that the global morbidity of early-onset cancer increased from 1990 to 2019, while mortality and DALYs slightly decreased”
The vast majority of the raw numbers increasing is because of the word population going from 5.3 billion to 7.75 billion in that same time. The next cause does seem to be diagnostic ability, especially when looking at what cancers saw the biggest increase.
Yeah. The unfortunate truth about science news reporting is that usually it’s not sensational, so they need to play things up for clicks and ad revenue. A lot of the time it ends up in somewhat misleading semi-truths like this.
There’s actually a simple explanation for that. Much like the “conservative/christian entertainment” industry the alt-tech movement is primarily composed of failures and hacks who couldn’t cut it in the mainstream field.
A smart racist would have to be stupid in such a specific kind of way that it would be like a zyzygy of all the stars in the sky aligning at the same time.
I don't get this whole push against abortion. I mean, you can be against abortion... but people seem to feel so strongly about this that they are happily willing to sacrifice doctor-patient-confidentiality, risk dead women and whatnot. I... I just don't get it. There are so many issues on this world that should trigger all the same impulses but don't get responses nearly as strong.
Be it child abuse, child soldiers, child murders, child sexual abuse, whatever.... yet, somehow living children that can really feel shit aren't as important to protect as lumps of cells that can't feel shit yet because they have about 7 brain cells none of which is working yet...
The breeding fetish is more of a western libertarian kink.
I really do believe that pro-lifers in europe wants to help. Unfortunately, people who wish to help you are often worse enemies that those who wish to harm you.
Yeah. In the US, the same ppl that say “you can’t tell me what to do with my guns” are often the first to say “you can’t do that to your body”.
what is interesting is the anti abortion starts from a place of love, as a personal choice, and then spills quite quickly into a structure for control, a place intolerant and quite unloving.
I am not sure of the mechanisms that do this, nor why it is done.
I get having tests, in the ER that could be helpful (I imagine) but I don’t get why it is important outside of that scenario.
Amongst people that married their high school sweetheart and endured the hardships of a boring life in suburbia, abortion is seen as a kind of cheat.
They feel as though there should be some kind of punishment or consequences for partying away your 20s. If you have sex out of wedlock then you should bear the risk of having to raise a child as a single parent and have to endure the shame associated with that.
One of the basic tenets of morality as taught by Christianity, or boomer working-class polite society, is that immoral behaviour has shameful consequences. The “wages of sin”, “you reap what you sow”, et cetera.
Basically, people feel like only harlots need abortions, and harlots should be punished.
Many good points here. While many boomers are conservative, conservatives are less and less boomers as they doddle off to the old folks home. At some point, blaming the olds is just a distraction.
That's a two part issue: you can be for abortion. If that should have any consequences is something else. You can he for the legalisation of murder, but murder should not be legal.
I edited my post because the last bit was counter productive. Most people are not against abortion in theory. They are socially engineered into supporting shit like abortion bans. Much of the world has fallen into authoritarian “order”. There will be an eventual fall of that order, even if it takes several hundred years. Maybe it won’t though. Maybe the order only lasts 10 more years, who knows.
Read The birth dearth or listen to the video by Jane Elliot.
It’s racism.
In their eyes, Minorities tend to be poor and couldn’t access abortions if they were legal, but white women? They can. And they want white babies, to increase the white population. But those pesky white women can afford abortions.
worldnews
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.