The top ten countries by air pollution listed in another comment hardly produce anything the developed world uses, they mostly export natural resources.
Even if there were no reliable studies, the precautionary principle would suggest to limit food that is highly processed and somehow of a novel form, very different from what was consumed in the past.
Anticipating a critical misreading, this does not mean that everything that was consumed in the past is automatically good.
More likely, by a huge margin, since it takes only checking a box in some software system, whereas the alternatives you mention need a lot of messy work to achieve.
Sorry if my question appears ignorant, but how quickly is quantum really coming? If your prior belief is "nothing practical is ever likely to come out of quantum computing", then so far there is nothing that would seriously suggest you to reconsider it.
I do not say this lightly, having followed the academic side of QC for more than a decade.
Yes, I guess in most of Europe the 200-250 years between Rembrandt and van Gogh is exactly when family names solidified from a simple description "the one from village X" or "son of Y" or "the one with a red hair" to become a hereditary name essentially detached from its meaning.
There is a trivial alternative that military strategists have been suggesting for decades. For a nation of 20+ M, having a reservist army of 1M would be feasible and make the island impossible to invade even if the rest of Earth would join forces to do that.
That's an interesting perspective, that could be used as an argument by both camps. You say more social democracy, someone else might say, more social cohesion due to shared cultural background and low immigration.
I think the midwit meme captures this best, where at both ends of the IQ bell curve the characters say "I hate technology", and the guy in the middle loves it.
I think the point of disagreement is even whether "things have already happened" have really happened or not. From reading his posts, my understanding is that he thinks the claims so far can be explained by statistical errors and fudging the data. I'm not speculating whether he is right or wrong, just that the disputed facts are at a lower level.
I think he is playing it smart. The more fringe/contrarian it is, the bigger the payoff if he turns out to be right. So far nothing of much use came out of QC, and if nothing will, then the hype pendulum swings back at some point, and he will win big. If not, his position will seem silly, but not much risk to his reputation, being skeptic of a new model is intellectually fine and even courageous if it goes against the mainstream. I see it as those who called out "replication crisis" in social sciences.
I find the opposite, he often makes some ridiculous claim in the post, the comments (the ones he lets through) rightfully point out how wrong he was, then he cherry-picks and engages one of the more outrageous comments, so a superficial observer is left with the impression that the original claim was OK.
I gave those three just as examples from many possible. The swedish quality of life is due to the similar caliber swedish innovators of the past hundred years. At least we agree in ending the conversation :)
Oh, that's not a very high bar now, not being the last :)
Siemens, Bosch, Mercedes-Benz, etc. etc. were innovative startups once that defined their industries and they put the foundations of the high standard of living that you enjoy now. Where are the similar European innovations of today?
You may value other things like peace or a societal safety net or good healthcare or plenty of free time for your hobbies, etc. but it will be hard to maintain all these without growth and prosperity; like it or not, these things were paid for by VW selling cars abroad and the US Army protecting you. Europe is facing a rude awakening.
Yes, and the second most stable and peaceful moment was 1913 when people were celebrating a half-century of continuous growth and prosperity. I think I'll pass your introduction, thanks.
I'm not going to try convincing you, as again, the attitude you express is very common across Europe. Just a small question you may want to consider: how come the US is calling the shots everywhere around the world, Mid-East, Ukraine, etc., and in all technological issues that matter. Where is Europe in all this? Ten years ago, at least Angela Merkel was sitting at the table. Can you claim with a straight face that the influence of Europe has not decreased?
The stability of Europe is an illusion. Politically and economically Europe is becoming a lightweight who will not be able to do anything without the US permission.
You must be kidding, the last decade is about Europe totally shooting themselves in the foot and giving up leadership in almost every field. US and China have been the big winners here.