Are these expectations impossible, or simply accrued to the most privileged in society? It's not the materiality those kids are complaining about, it's the distribution. Big Corp and Big Government really think they can gas light Americans even when we have access to all the data. That's the rage
It couldn't exist otherwise. The privileged will always be the ones to push the boundaries of any endeavor, medicine included. Have hope that those rewards continue to work their way down, even though the process is long and arduous.
These are differences in perspective. If you can't handle my disagreement with your imposition of regulation on my life, then you are the overbearing lack of evidence I fundamentally disagree with.
Please quantify the economic damage related to the decrease of sulfur in the worlds oceans. I'd love to see the breakout on the impact on Phytoplankton reproduction and the repurcussions on global fish reproduction.
Has it really decreased the prevalence of acid rain that much, and was acid rain really that large an issue? I haven't heard anything about it since the 90s.
That climate activists should be immediately pushing to re&add sulfur? Please show one source citing negative effects of an effort to re-add, and one source citing positive effects of its removal. I find it funny to have three such vapid responses in such a short time.
Almost as if people latch onto the emotional immediacy of being 'activists for good' instead of making substantive change.
I agree with the first sentence. Alternatively, it's amazing how the environmental activists pushing these agendas are focusing on such bad faith efforts. Where has the outcry been to put sulfur back in maritime fuel, as another commenter mentioned? Where is the effort to fix America's broken recycling system? Where is the effort to eliminate the millions of pieces of daily junk mail?
If environmental efforts weren't targeted at the most authoritarian and obtuse results (demands to stop all car use, mass polluters being labeled green through the use of carbon credits, etc.) it'd be a lot easier to take the threat seriously. When the solution to the problem is 'pay me more money and do the things I want you to do' it turns the 'extinction level threat' into just another sales pitch.
This is a bad example and overall I don't see the argument. For decades companies did force workers into extremely long hours. The standardization of the 40 hour work week was in some sense a collective action effort, starting with the request of the National Labor Union in the U.S. in 1866. [1] Prior to those efforts, workers in industrialized positions were indeed working 80 to 100 hours a week on average, with little to no recourse.
Beyond that, you ask 'Why would workers argue for fewer hours if it doesn't end up costing the company net profits? The workers don't care about net profits, at least at the expense of their own time. Time is money, and if the company has more of your time, you have less...
It's a failure of our internal simulatory abilities. People are usually much more confident in their counterfactual beliefs than they have any right to be. Self reinforced internal narratives ("if only this had happened then this would have happened") seem necessary in order for us to maintain confidence in our predictive abilities. I wonder if we were truly aware of the surrounding cloud of possible alternative outcomes, if it'd be paralyzing for otherwise mundane activities. How many times do we escape death by the thinnest margins everyday, without ever being the wiser.
No, and that reading is the exact dogmatic dipolism I'm talking about avoiding. Both sides are human, both sides are American, both sides of political spectrum are represented by the wealth elite. There are millions of common denominators between both sides, and a relatively miniscule number of differences. Most of the differences themselves are exaggerated by the political class, to show division and strengthen in-group ties. Believing one side or the other is morally superior is meaningless- the other side is always going to believe the same thing about you, with just as much supporting evidence.
That would depend upon what you count as a prediction. The Oracles of Delphi operated for hundreds of years, the Sibylline Oracles were relied upon for thousands of years, and both were universally regarded in their day as unnerving accurate. Dismissing their longevity as religious superstition I would argue is itself anti-science. It is the arrogance of dismissing such history that leads people to eventually declare themselves to be 'the science'.
Declarative moral statements like this are so vacuous. Of course there are intellectually honest people who believe both parties are the same. They may be evaluating or prioritizing the evidence differently, but that doesn't make one side or the other 'dishonest'. Casually impuning the morality of an entire swath of people is rhetoric that drives division and strife, not progress.
For example, yes Bidens FTC is a standout actor, but 'both sides' just voted to perpetuate overseas wars with more American tax dollars. In terms of the American war machine, it's 100% accurate to say both sides are the same.
That cement will always crumble, but the next empire will probably be built with it's pieces. It's no accident that the current global language is a derivative of the last 'worldwide' language, Latin, which itself flourished from its relationship to Alexander's Greece, a language which stole its alphabet from the semitic empires. Nothing new under the sun.
Seems perfectly reasonable for people to be chasing buzzwords, when most people don't understand the underlying causal reasons for actual business success. Much safer to follow the herd rather than be left behind.