bubblewrap

Socialism has destroyed quite a bit of nature. (look at the Aral sea, for example). What exactly would you is it about capitalism that supposedly destroys the planet?

And how would you propose to remedy the problem?

I mean by starving a couple of million people, as it is wont to do, Socialism could help curb the consumption of resources. I give you that.

And again, lols for the downvotes. You are ridiculous.

What if they didn't care about building a personal library, but only wanted to read a couple of good books?

Would you say going to the cinema is also a waste, because you can not keep the movie you watched?

I'm aware of the issues, I just decided it doesn't really matter. It is rare that I want to read a book twice, or that somebody wants to borrow a book from me.

Rather than wasting storage space for books, it is probably more efficient to rebuy books when I want to read them again. Or bet on ebooks.

I am a bit fascinated by the "Fin de Siècle" epoch. Those people were CORRECT in their pessimistic expectations. WWI and WWII happened soon after and killed many millions of people.

Then again, without history books and museums, you'd barely notice today that those ever took place. So maybe even that was not as much of a doomsday event as feared.

I am currently reading a book on recycling that disputes that narrative (Junkyard Planet by Adam Minter). The main argument is that shipping a container of "recycling material" across the oceans costs real money (much more than a local landfill), that somebody paid. That somebody surely isn't paying for the junk just to burn it.

What is true is that recycling methods can sometimes be cruel. The example is a guy recycling Christmas lights in China. At first all they did was burn the plastic away to get to the copper. Later, when demand for plastic in China was also rising, they invented methods to also recycle the plastic.

Burning the plastic away was of course very dirty. And in other places (like Africa), dirty methods might be still more common.

When I was a teenager, I thought I would never see my 30ieth birthday because of the hole in the ozone layer, or nuclear war, or something like it.

It was not a nice feeling.

Now I am a bit wary of doomsday scenarios. I am not convinced we have seen any real impact of global warming yet (higher temperatures perhaps, but no land has been flooded, for example. Nothing catastrophic has occurred).

I am pessimistic about human expansion, though. I think we are in the middle of a population explosion that started with the invention of agriculture and has not ended yet. Humans will consume everything that get's in their way.

That is the same as with all other species, though (like the classical fox and rabbits scenario - fox population growing until there are only few rabbits left, foxes starving, and so on). Once we hit a natural limit, things will balance out somehow. That doesn't imply that it will be pleasant.

I'm less worried about global warming. There are too many doomsday scenarios. I think if it was that easy to break the balance, it would have happened before. So I think there may be regulating mechanisms that we haven't really taken into account. "Hottest June ever recorded" may not mean that much. There can be smaller cycles (like some news now predict a coming mini ice age because of sun activity), measuring stations can have changed (cities are warmer), all sorts of things.

I think classical damage will probably be worse - agriculture, depleting water reservoirs, destroying top soil, depleting fish populations, deforestation, destruction of animals natural habitats... That's depressing for sure. Maybe the only hope is for capitalism to come up with better means of production. After all, the environment is actually doing better in some places than a couple of decades ago.

Ultimately I think it may also be an illusion that it would be normal for things to remain the same.

Yeah but it isn't, it is available in the US. The claim was that health care in the US sucks. It presumably doesn't. Only the insurance situation sucks (I guess - I am not in the US). The service itself is good.

So inhabitants of SF hate tech workers because they vote Democrats?

It's great if some treatments are available at all, that you can get nowhere else in the world.

Just give those kids an iPad. It's not as if tech people of SF haven't already provided a solution to the problem.

Afaik the best health care in the world is only available in the US? Meaning the type of treatments you can get. Whether you can afford them is another question.

"It should be noted that Zoe, who asked not to be identified by her real name because she was not authorized by her employer to speak to the press, is not the stereotypical tech bro who moves to San Francisco for a job and immediately starts complaining about the city’s dire homelessness crisis. She arrived in 2007 to study at San Francisco State University and had a career in musical theater before attending a coding bootcamp and landing a job as a developer advocate at a major tech company."

Um, how is she not exactly that? Except that she is a girl, so I guess not a bro. What would you say to girls? "Tech chick"? Or just "Tech sis"?

"It’s just not sustainable for a couple to live here"

Then don't? I write this as somebody who also moved away from his hometown and now can't afford to go back.

"she says she is terrified to walk at night."

And how exactly did Tech workers cause that?

Is there even data showing the homeless and drug addicts are former residents of SF, who were then displaced by rising housing costs because of tech workers?

I don't know why SF with all its money can't get a grip on the problem. But it also seems likely to me that many homeless were simply attracted by the rich people, who can donate more than people elsewhere?

Governments are not free markets. That is the problem. What you describe is exactly what governments do. They try to do better than free markets (human hubris, I guess), and therefore they produce waste. Few, if any, political parties try to reduce government.

"historically women have been on the receiving end of physical violence from men far"

Without the "from men" it would presumably not even be true. And the "from men" doesn't really justify retaliating against modern men in general.

Some men are rapists, most men fight rapists and many risk their lives in the line of defense (policemen, fire fighters, soldiers...). Yet they also get blamed for the deeds of the rapists. It's just weird.

It was a rhetoric simplification. Are you seriously offended by that?

You really think that there is no savings potential for the German government? I think there is lots and lots.

And BER is costing money every day. It might be cheaper to tear it down and start again from scratch.

I think there is publication by the "society of tax payers" listing all the wasted tax payer money. Too few people read it though.

https://www.schwarzbuch.de/ - I see it is even free. And I have never read it, either. Will order a copy now :-)

I think as long as people are reasonably pampered (enough money left after taxes), they don't care enough.

In my opinion it is also the way the system is set up: taxes for employees are deducted before people even receive their money. So they have less feel for how much is being deducted. Self employed people see it differently.

I had an employed person deny this recently, but I am not convinced.

Decentralized Social Media already exists, like the recycling bins at our apartment complex.

The problem is the network effect. But then who are the protestors protesting to? They should protest to their friends to switch over to decentralized SM. Maybe they are just not important enough to have their friends follow them to better services?

Instead of going on a strike, why not evangelize those solutions to your friends?

As for losing weight: it is true that sometimes people like to have their hands forced. It is called an Ulysses contract, from Ulysses tying himself to the mast so that he couldn't jump into the sea to follow the sirens.

Calling for the government in the case of Social Media seems way overblown, though. There are no health issues involved like with unhealthy food. And for unhealthy food, people make those choices by buying smaller packages or using different shops. Arguably not really a case for government intervention, either.

Not my experience (in Germany). Sometimes people (mostly women) assume I am taking a day off for daddy time and give me some sort of mini applause. But that is pretty rare.

More notable is perhaps the gender distribution on the playground. I do think it is easier for moms to connect/bond with each other. Like if I plan an excursion and wonder what friends of my kids could join, I find it more difficult to simply ask another mom. Might just be me, though.

Typical New York Times, and typical for that kind of discussion.

In such discussions, the image is always of a mother resigning from an interesting and important academic job. Presumably it is mostly academics who discuss such things, and NYT readers are also mostly academics. So when they think of mothers and careers, they think of interesting academic jobs.

In reality, most women (and men) don't have such interesting jobs. The most common job for women is shop assistant, followed by nurse (or vice versa, don't remember for sure - numbers from Germany a couple of years ago). Now nurse might be reasonably interesting, but not irreplaceable like that lawyer. And arguably, you would be doing the same job as at home (changing diapers), only not with your children.

Sorry it annoys me that this women styles herself like some sort of hero, when other people are forced to make that choice out of financial necessity.

Obviously it is a valid choice to prioritize her job, like she did. The annoying part is the claim between the lines that she is somehow special and going against the societal pressure.

There are already options for decentralized social media. So clearly the majority of people is not in favor of using them, or they would simply do so (without a strike).

Therefore, this is about a minority trying to force the majority of people to adapt to their preferences.

I can not sympathize with such a cause, even though I personally would prefer decentralized solutions.

It reminds me of the town that voted to ban Amazon - when they could just have shopped locally to begin with. Weird, really.

What number are people most likely to pick the second time if you ask them twice?

I'm not convinced. The public generally is not really aware how the money is being spent. And all parties tend to promise tax reductions that never come. How exactly is the population going to get out of this?

"but most governments work somewhere between “well” and “adequate” most of the time"

Until they don't. The last major crisis is less than 100 years old.

Some people are earning good (government) money from the ruin of the airport just sitting there, every day.

Not sure it is all just about regulations.

But did he specifically axe regulations of fire safety? Or did he mean to abandon all ALL regulations? Just because some regulations may be good, does not mean all regulations are good.

So far fish seem to be doing fine, though. Humans, too. I haven't heard of any mass extinction events because of plastic consumption.

There actually lots of other toxic and non-digestible things floating in the sea, not the least life forms who defend against predators by producing toxins. Therefore it seems unlikely that plastic will be that much worse.

Not sure what you mean. But it seems society is making that compromise all the time.

For example road accidents seem like a better comparison? Many people get pleasure and benefits out of being able to drive, but a couple thousand people die because of it every year, including many children.

Politician giving speeches at some random gathering of industry types - isn't that SUPPOSED to be entertainment? It's not as if those speeches matter in any way?

I think comedians do a similar thing, practicing their act until it seems spontaneous but every punchline hits. Why should politicians do their job part of "public speaking" in a different way?

So what does "for real" mean? If a comedian manages to look spontaneous, yet every word and move has been practiced hundreds of times, is he for real?

I don't think he is giving the sheep speech at EVERY occasion. Presumably he has more than one trick up his sleeve.

Sorry I have troubles understanding.

I gather the main money maker is "net interest" - but wouldn't that only apply if the Discount Broker sold me an investment (promising me x% in returns, while they make x+y% by reinvesting my money)? I thought that is exactly what Discount Brokers are not doing, I thought they only help me buy other people's investment vehicles?

Or is it just the cash I have sitting at the Discount Broker, to be ready to trade, that produces the gains for the Broker (average 10% according to the article)?

Or do the DBs usually offer "savings accounts" with interest x on your money, and all the other stuff (cheap stock trades and so on) are supposedly only the advertising, luring in customers so that you can send them offers?

"high-interest bank accounts" - where can I get such a one, or do they only exist for very rich entities, or only in the US?