I’d argue that they’re far more racist and Christian-Nationalist than they are anti-semitic, so killing brown muslims is more important than supporting a Jewish state. Also Israel is a Jewish Nationalist state, so it’s analogous to the Nazi’s allying with Japan — fascists ally with other fascists.
They need Israel to bring about the end times. The Jews themselves will all burn in hell, that is unless they convert to Christianity. That is conservative Christians end goal.
Western support for Israel has always been an antisemitic thing - Christian Zionism has always been based on the virulently antisemitic idea that Jewish people “do not belong” in “western civilization” and should be “sent back where they came from.”
Virulent antisemitism and rabid support of Israel goes together like horse and carriage.
It should be obvious, but it’s like ole’ Malcom X said - the purpose of the media is to make you love the oppressor and hate the oppressed. Nowhere is that more true than the brain-warping propaganda we have been fed in regards to Israel for decades.
If you take a look at all the countries that have always been in support of the very idea of Israel - Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Australia, Apartheid-era South Africa and, of course, the US - it becomes patently clear that the most rabidly pro-Israel countries are all countries with deep histories of white supremacism, antisemitism and, very importantly, colonialism.
It is no coincidence - the people who created Israel and runs it to this very day learned their “westernism” from the best in the genocidal colonialism business.
There’s also the delayed anti-semitism of evangelical Christians. They think that Jesus will come back when a Jewish-controlled Israel suffers a huge attack. Then, as Jesus pulls them all to heaven, he’ll toss all of us Jews into hell for all eternity. By “supporting Israel,” the evangelicals think they are setting Jews up to burn in hell as soon as possible.
This is also why evangelicals are big supporters of groups like the settlers. After all, they need a big attack on Israel and peace in the region would reduce the chances of this happening. If they added a few gallons of gas to the raging fire there, though, they might be able to get things so bad that the “Jesus Returns Attack” happens.
Many of these anti-semites love having Israel as a Jewish state. They imagine that it means there’s someplace for them to send us American Jews off to when they take over. Nevermind that most American Jews were born in America, have never been to Israel, and don’t want to go. The anti-semites think that’s where we belong and they’ll ship us all “back” there as soon as they can.
I homeschooled my kid k-12. When I started, I had no idea how many religious hs-ers there were. I used a secular curriculum, and never even thought about teaching anything regarding religion one way or another. Once I started looking around at all the creationist curricula out there–yikes.
Anyhoo, long story short, my son went on to a college degree (he actually started college classes online at 15–one of the perks of hs-ing for us), and he’s an atheist. Secular homeschoolers do exist!
ETA some links–these are a few secular homeschool curricula. There’s a lot more out there, but this is the majority of what I used through the years:
Secular homeschool graduate here. Parents homeschooled my brother and I because the public school system was drastically underfunded and we were in quite an education desert. I always hate articles like this, as folks tend to paint broad strokes about homeschoolers… But there’s a reason we never had other homeschooled friends growing up; there were a lot of crazy ones, especially in Michigan, as there is virtually no regulation.
We are heading down the HS route for our two girls as the oldest has issues that meant that she couldn’t attend school half of last term. My wife has taken her to a couple of meetups and already she come across the Christian and the anti-vax members - even here in far flung New Zealand
That town has gotten pretty ritzy in recent years since Lady Gaga moved in next door and they added a fancy new production center near the airport. Big name tours use the space to build and test lighting and sound setups, so there's a lot of rock stars in town.
Bullshit, there’s plenty of good chocolate in any major retailer. I can go to my local grocery store and find Godiva, Ghirardelli, Lindt, Ritter, along with a wide selection of miscellaneous European imports.
The stuff you’ll find in stores is not “premium chocolatier in the Swiss Alps” quality, but it’s decent chocolate and it’s not hard to find.
I think a large detterent for many is the price difference. Hershey’s kind of matches that snack price for a little treat you’d find at the front counter. Going back to the good stuff and seeing it 3 or 4 times the price will lose a lot of people. There’s a reason people say you get what you pay for though…
I am buying $1 bars of dark chocolate at dollar general now. Luckily I haven’t really had good chocolate, so I don’t know what I am really missing, and I like it better than Hershey’s milk chocolate to me. Claims profits help literacy, so I doubt it is really that great of a chocolate when you get down to it. But I like it and that is enough for me.
There’s a large range of smaller brands too. Pascha, Cultura, Raaka, Taza, Lily’s, Theo’s, Tony’s, Green and Black, Alter Eco… plus dozens of tiny regional brands. It’s about like craft beer.
I generally prefer dark chocolate once I learned there was more than "Shitty Hershey Dark Chocolate" in existence, so I go with Ghirardelli. 72% cocoa, that's the stuff.
Ah, I see. You do realize that reacting to “processed” things isn’t really actually a thing though right? Those are all pretty different. Either you’ve got an allergy to something they have in common or you’re letting all the fear mongering get to your head. Oooorrrrr I suppose you may get a bit of a totally normal upset stomach if you never eat anything but fresh food and then have some cookies. Which is again totally normal because it’s now not something that you regularly have in your diet.
Either way, the processed food fear mongering is frankly getting kind of old. You’re not reacting to processed foods because they’re all “processed”. That’s not really how it works with such a variety. The way people with less resources are shamed or made to be afraid of perfectly accessible and shelf stable food isn’t really acceptable anymore. I really wish you guys would go back to being “intolerant to gluten” again or something else for attention. That actually did wonders for the people that are actually intolerant lol. I hear blaming everything on ADHD is very popular right now!
I haven’t eaten Hershey’s in so long because I remember it tasting mildly of vomit. Am I the only one who thinks the flavor has hints of vomit? What even is that?
The sour notes in America’s most popular chocolate are commonly attributed to butyric acid—a compound found in spoiled butter and, yes, vomit. Hershey denies adding it to their product, and the ingredient isn’t listed on the label, but that doesn’t mean it’s not part of the recipe.
You pull a firearm’s trigger you bear responsibility for what happens. Period.
Was the armorer also at fault? Absolutely. Doesn’t matter: Baldwin still failed a duty to check it. Further, as a producer, he was responsible for ensuring the armrorer…. Was competent
Edit to add: yes, this is absolutely partisan politics, but it doesn’t change that he should have been charged the first time around
Baldwin’s defense just needs one juror*. If they are able to define this is case as partisan politics, I bet all 12 vote to acquit in less than an hour.
Only internet weirdos would want to spend days arguing over this case, normie jurors want to go home.
The only reason Baldwin hasn’t been already found guilty of inv. manslaughter is because people like his movies. You’re right, though.
This is a prime example of tiered justice. If any normal worker was handed a firearm, and told it was unloaded when it wasn’t they’d be held criminally liable along with the idiot who didn’t. And that doesn’t even account for it bejng the boss being handed the firearm
You pull a firearm’s trigger you bear responsibility for what happens. Period.
Utterly wrong. The ONLY person that bears any responsibility for firearm safety on the set of a movie is the armorer.
Unless absolutely necessary, no live or blank firing arms should be accessible to actors.
When needed, the armorer will verify the safety of the blank or live firearm and hand it to the actor. Depending on the armorer and the situation they may not even allow the actor to do something as simple as turn the safety off.
After firing the weapon, the armorer will take the firearm from the actor, clear it, and remove it from the set.
One person has that responsibility. In situations where there are multiple live or blank firing arms there may be multiple individuals with those same resposibilities, but ultimately it will still come down to the one in charge.
Repeat after me: A MOVIE SET IS NOT A GUN RANGE. You are not dealing with even twice a year hobbyist shooters. You are not in a controlled environment. The protocols that are used for firearms on set have been developed after decades of trial and error, and these are situations where said error ends in death. Trying to apply range logic to a movie set is what gets people killed, which is why sets do not work like that. You have one dedicated professional whose job is ensuring the safety of everyone on set WRT firearms. At no point did Baldwin have any responsibility to check any weapon as any weapon available to him at that time, by protocol, should have ONLY been a "weapon shaped object." That is, a chunk of rubber or plastic molded from a real weapon that's used for doing things like blocking shots (which is what Baldwin was doing) and generally carrying around a scene. Instead, the armorer had zero control over where firearms ended up and Baldwin picked up what he thought was a prop gun. Instead, it was a loaded live firearm. The scene involved Baldwin pointing a gun at the camera and pulling the trigger.
In no way is Baldwin criminally liable here.
Note I say nothing about civil liability. In my opinion, he's is absolutely responsible for helping create a lax working environment by continuing to employ an armorer that clearly did not give a shit about doing their job properly.
EDIT to mention that Baldwin and the production company VERY quickly came to a settlement agreement with the family of the deceased. They were always going to win so it basically just skipped over a meaningless trial.
When your holding a firearm, You don’t get to “not my job” basic fucking gun safety.
Professionally, as an actor, it wasn’t Baldwins job. The criminal code doesn’t care what was in his job description
Criminally, it doesn’t matter. There is a long sequence of actions that Baldwin should have taken that he did not take, any one of which would have prevented this from happening.
That sequence:
hiring a competent armorer who: didn’t have live ammo, who cleared fired arms, ensured all staff handling the weapon were trained in firearm safety, and that a multi-layered safety protocol was strictly adhered to.
could have used a non-firing replica for the blocking shots
could have cleared the firearm
could have not pointed the weapon at other people
could have not pulled the trigger.
But nope. Apparently it’s not his job and now someone is fucking dead.
You know literally nothing about anything. I already explained to you why none of your points are relevant. Stop making yourself look like more of an an idiot by continuing to post your ignorance to the world.
Says the guy quoting civil litigation in a discussion of criminal charges. I wasn’t going to go there even if it is like 6th grade civics level…. But now your just being insulting.
Just because another person also had a duty of care- doesn’t mean Baldwin didn’t.
It’s simple tragic fact that Baldwin failed in his obligation to handle a weapon that was fundamentally designed to kill humans in a safe manner. If he had done anything to even half ass checking that weapon Hutchinson would still be alive.
That the armorer failed to do their job, doesn’t change that simple fact. When you’re dealing with things that have “death” as a likely consequence… you don’t rely on a single person, which is why the armrorer is also guilty. They both are.
Nothing you are saying actually changed that Baldwin’s own actions lead directly to it- and if we swap out literally any other actor, that don’t change.
Because he still pointed a weapon fundamentally designed to murder people, at Hutchinson, and pulled the trigger.
Reasonable people don’t do that without excessive amounts of paranoia- including checking a firearm that takes ten seconds to safely check.
I find some humor in the wiki link you provided for duty of care, the first sentence starts with “In tort law” as you keep trying to use it for criminal law.
There are no legal requirements for firearm handling that requires someone to check for a load. When you, and many others, say “the first rule of firearms” I invite you to provide us with a legal definition of these rules.
There is no expectation for a non-expert to identify the differences between blanks, dummy, and live rounds.
While there was likely gross negligence on the set, I’m not sure it rises to the level of criminal liability. A film set is a unique situation where there are different rules to firearm handling. This is a simple fact that cannot be overlooked. The rules of firearms as you have been trained on and as you understand them simply don’t apply.
So your saying that an adult picking up a firearm and waiving it around cocking it and pulling the trigger (accidentally or otherwise,) isn’t negligent when that firearm happens to go off?
Yes that article mostly covers tort law which is civil. esp. In this case the negligence rose to the level of criminality, and the test for duty of care applied to show he was being negligent.
Oh, by the way. The armorer wasn’t even on site. He was handed the weapon by a non-expert who declared it cold. Adding another failed check: “hey you’re not the armorer!” Would have also saved his victim’s life.
But nope. They had a schedule to keep. So whatever. What’s the worst that could happen?
You’re acting like Baldwin is not a reasonable human- he’s not a toddler who you would have no expectation of knowing “hey maybe I shouldn’t do this”. That it was on set in a staged scenario doesn’t absolve people of their personal responsibility.
Baldwin didn’t receive the gun from the armorer. So he wasn’t even following your rules either. He’s still responsible. If he had followed the rules as you stated, upon being handed the gun by the assistant director he should have said “you’re not the armorer” and refused to handle it until it was verified as safe by the armorer.
You're taking bits and pieces and ignoring the full context, which is a shit thing to do.
The firearm should never have been available to an AD in the first place, or to anyone but the armorer.
On a set the assumption would be that anything available to someone that wasn't an armorer would be a non-firing replica.
The armorer alone is tasked with firearm safety on the set.
This is how it works. This is how the entire legality of the situation is established. As long as everyone is acting in good faith the liability does not fall to them, it falls to the armorer. When Baldwin received the weapon he did so believing it to be a non-firing replica, not an actual loaded firearm, as it would not be proper protocol for a loaded firearm to be available to anyone other than the armorer.
He has already settled the civil liability aspect with the victims and families. That was done rather quickly. As producer, he was liable for the hiring and continual employment of the incompetent armorer. That makes him liable on a civil level.
He has zero criminal culpability here, no matter how hard the DA tries. His roles as producer and actor are legally distinct.
Might be a good argument for using clearly fake stuff in movies further on. Just hand the actor a TV remote and CGI in a hand gun or a plastic sci-fi “gun” that has no means of firing anything.
He and his production team hired the “expert.” They are responsible for vetting and overseeing employees and contractors.
Even if (big if) he’s not guilty for pulling the trigger (actors take weapons safety courses), he’s completely guilty of negligently surrounding himself with unqualified people in positions that are of life and death importance.
Gross negligence can and should be brought up in a civil case. But criminal law is a different animal. People get killed all the time, but you don’t get charged for murder when it’s obviously an accident. Even involuntary manslaughter probably has too high a bar for a rich person to get convicted. Remember the afluenza kid?
A weapons safety course doesn't mean anything when it comes to criminal liability on a movie set. All that does is absolve the studio if stupid shit happens because an actor did stupid shit. It was not an actor that did stupid shit here, it was the armorer.
The armorer that Baldwin hired and continued to employ long after she was shown to be ill suited for the job, which made him and the company civilly liable.
Baldwin and the production company already came to a civil settlement with the deceased's family.
As the producer and the actor pulling the trigger, he is ultimately responsible for this. He hired the “professional” who was supposed to make sure there was no live ammo on set, and he was responsible for checking the chamber and magazine before they started the shoot.
If my friend handed me a gun and I pointed it at someone thinking it was empty and killed someone, I would still be charged with at least manslaughter. I don’t see how this is any different.
Anyone that has ever taken even a basic gun safty course knows that 1 you never hand someone a loaded and chambered gun and 2 when you are handed a gun the first thing you do is check to see if it is loaded/chambered.(the real first rule is never point your gun at anything you do t want to destroy but that does not apply to this situation)
This was extreme negligence from top to bottom and if even 1 person on set that day that handled that gun(especially the last peraon to have it the actor) did their job correctly no one would be dead.
Doesn’t matter who hands it too you. People fuck up. That’s why these rules are in place. Your argument is bad anyway because it wasn’t the armorer that handed it to him. It was an assistant director (who is also not an expert)
Assuming the rules they use on movies are different he still didn’t follow them because the gun was given to him by someone who was not an expert. He should have had the armorer check it before he used it if he was not qualified to do so himself.
Nobody has pointed to a source of what the movies rules actually are so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. It’s beside the point anyway as he himself has already admitted he was wrong by settling the civil case.
If that was literally their job that they are being paid to do and you were specifically using the gun to film a movie involving you pointing that gun at someone and pulling the trigger under the pretense it was cleared and verified by a professional prior to the filming, they should definitely shoulder some burden.
Arguments can be made about working conditions not being suitable causing mistakes to be made and those conditions were brought on by Baldwin, but then he should be treated almost as two separate people. If it had been a different actor to pull the trigger, would that actor be liable? Would the producer, or whatever role Baldwin had outside of acting, be liable?
If it was a different actors then yes, they should still be held accountable in some way. Anyone who has ever taken even a basic gun safty course knows the first thing you do when you are given a gun is to check the chamber to see if it is loaded every single time.
Every time I go so a shooting range with friends and it is their turn to shoot I place my handgun on the bench unloaded with the chamber/Cylinder open and the mag/rounds next to it. Complacency kills and this movie is a perfect example of extreme negligence from the top down.
False equivalency. Those are completely different situations. This gun was MEANT to be loaded and chambered because THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO FIRE IT IN FRONT OF A CAMERA. But go on with your “oh I’m so good because I know gun safety and am the expert of the experts now reee”.
Worse: they are saying that he, rather than the weapons handler, is somehow responsible as if he should know more than an expert.
A bus driver who drives a bus trusting the mechanics kept the brakes in working order and runs over someone doesn’t get to blame the mechanics. They’re supposed to pretrip the bus and check that it’s in working order.
A maintenance tech doesn’t get to blame the the operator when the operator tells them an industrial machine has been de-energized after opening it up and getting their partner fried. They’re supposed to verify the system is in fact de-energized.
You shoving a friend out an airplane hatch without a parachute because your sky diving instructor said it was safe…. You don’t get to blame the sky diving instructor.
You don’t get to hold a firearm and blame the person that handed it to you when you fail extremely basic gun safety. Criminal law doesn’t account for job descriptions.
If you pick a firearm, you have a duty of care to handle it in a safe manner, Baldwin didn’t. Further, even if the armrorer said it was safe he should have had prior experience handling fire arms screaming “nuhuh”.
It’s pretty blatantly self evident that Baldwin failed duty of care - evidence exhibit a: the dead body he put in the morgue.
This is literally the opposite of true. We have actually real world cases where airplane engineers fuck up and cause the plane to crash and they are found to be at fault, not the pilots.
I don’t get how casual people are with machines designed solely to kill. It may be perfectly a cut and dry case of self defense, but it was designed to kill.
That being said, I am pro 2a generally, though I wish proper handling of firearms was taught at different age levels in school. From elementary where, just no, to high school. Additionally, a better system to screen for mental health issues (of which I might not be able to own a firearm) but that would rely on the US having any sort of infrastructure for mental health care.
My insurance is so shit I could go to a practitioner down the road and pay less, with no insurance taken at all. That’s just for mental health.
I like the place I’m at, but the shitty insurance really has me looking.
Of course there is a whole other dialogue on how the US has fallen behind most of the civilized world in medical care, under a variety of parameters - part of that being insurance is tied to your employer. I can accept it or look elsewhere for work.
Interesting that you are pro 2a yet recognize that US healthcare has fallen behind the rest of the civilized world. You probably don’t realize these are related.
Gubs on a set can very very realistic looking gun shaped objects, same bullets, blanks, dummy rounds, non functional bulleted shaped objects. This is why on movie sets you have firearm experts.
The simplest and surest way is to use a clearing station. basically, they’re steel containers with… stuff… inside that the bullet slows and is caught. I’ve never been to a gun range anywhere that didn’t have one… and that model in the link is meant to be portable. For a revolver, you just dry-fire through the cylinder, and maybe an extra time or two to be sure. any live rounds would go off, and somebody would get bitched at, maybe fired… but nobody would be dead. That is, if Baldwin was running a safe set.
Baring that, Colt .45 SAA’s are pretty easy to check. You open the loading gate, see the cartridges, so you pull them out and check the cartridges. if you want to check the entire cylinder, the process is fairly simple, and you can see that briefly in this video (which is demonstrating how to carry an antique single action revolver safely. this was the historic method of carry, by the way. And you can see why at the end of video.)
Generally, props are all marked in a variety of ways that indicate- and obviously so, even if it’s not obvious to the camera- that they’re distinct from real. Cartridges for example are loaded with BB’s so they rattle (and frequently will have holes drilled in the side, and used primers so there’s a giant divot,) non-firing prop guns come in a large variety of differing levels of functionality, and are usually pretty obvious when you’re actively holding it.
Fuck everyone in this thread cheering this on. This is NOT schadenfreude.
Read the article you dipshits. This is not impacting the wealthy, or white areas, it’s impacting the poor black ones.
All you lazy armchair activists are cheering on the actions that are guaranteed to raise the black infant mortality rate in Alabama even higher than it already is.
Hard agree and also, because I love them but don’t hear them getting nearly enough shit alongside us, Canada is just a resource extraction megacorp masquerading as a country.
Do your damnedest to keep them away. I’ve come to realize that the core of modern conservativism bypasses nationalities. All Western conservative leaders have the same goals.
(Conservative here meaning socially conservative largely. Fascists, not all capitalists necessarily)
I visited last month and it made me realize just how bad it’s gotten. I had it in my head that I was in a reasonably safe area of the US, but it’s getting worse. I may have to actually consider the asylum for trans people if it becomes a reality :~;
our police/courts/corrections is an industry, unfortunately. Who knew that placing ever more profit motives on arresting, processing, and jailing people would end up leading to bad outcomes.
But, hey, it’s just the unwashed the masses, so who cares, I guess.
I had mine 14 years ago 100% free all thanks to Plan Parenthood. No pain for me and I was back in action after 5 days. Wife at time had no problem giving me the 20 our so releases I needed to make sure I was clesn of active sperm.
So after doctors said I was clean said goodbye to condoms and never been freeier.
They say you can get easily reverse so see no reason why women should suffer under a horrible surgery and be out of action for 6 to 8 weeks. When it takes 30 minutes and all well in 5 days.
Fyi mine also done here in Oklahoma but Tulsa area. I had to wait only 2 months for a slot.
They told me it be less likely that I could reproduce the longer I had it but I was assured it was easily reversed. Not that matter I am not interested in having any more kids.
Yeah when I got it done, my doctor told me to consider this as permanent procedure even though it is possible to reverse it. They want you to make this decision without the idea that a reversal is quick and easy or even possible
Most women who’ve had a hysterectomy have likely had a severe debilitating medical issue related to the uterus and so removing it probably makes them feel the most free they’ve been in a long time.
I agree, but the sad part is this is being done because abortion is illegal there now. It’s being done out of desperation, not because someone wants it done.
I understand the sentiment, but supporting this is sort of conceding the anti-abortion laws are there to stay and I don’t think we should accept that.
If you want to get a vasectomy, fine. That’s a personal choice. But the reason so many men are signing up for a free vasectomy isn’t because it’s a good financial deal. It’s because we’re losing the fight and we need to start winning it again.
I completely agree about the need to fight for our bodily autonomy. I’m old and postmenopausal even if I hadn’t yeeted the uterus years ago. But I am appalled that my daughters don’t have even the meager protection of Rowe v Wade.
There’s a tiny bit of my soul that is gratified however by the way more men are starting to step up and take on the responsibility of pregnancy prevention.
Here’s a few things to consider, but I’m hardly the person to give an authoritative list.
What are our quality of life targets?
We can support a crapton more people if we all go Amish. We gotta reduce growth to a global lottery system 30 years ago if we want everyone in the world to live like a median American.
This isn’t a one-size-fits-all-age answer, either. People need more resources as they get older, and contribute less work in return. An aging population means more economic stress on the younger population, and less economic output relative to each senior citizen means less access to medical care.
What are our sustainability targets?
Some things are getting bad faster than others, some things are closer to breaking points, etc.
How much do we want to bet on degrowth vs. innovation?
If we assume only tiny incremental improvements for centuries to come, then we’re preparing for something very different than if we’re trying to keep research investment steady or even accelerate progress on things like fusion, carbon removal, microplastics remediation, and power distribution and storage.
What policies are on or off the table?
Some philosophies say that limiting a person’s reproduction is categorically immoral, even if the predictable consequence is that everyone dies. Some TESCREAL dudes say we should use nukes cuz the ends justify the means.
How do we mobilize these policies?
We have lived experience that an aging population isn’t great for getting effective policy in place.
What about the political fallout?
Population change policies certainly won’t be done globally in lockstep, which means in order to stabilize local economies, there will be more immigration for places where the internal population growth is slowing/reversing. That can easily lead to xenophobia, which could destabilize everything. It’s hard to fight global climate change when you’re dealing with local fascism.
etc.
That’s why I can pretty much only reliably say “people who don’t want kids… not being forced to have kids… is an unambiguously good thing” and I can’t extend that to people who do want kids.
I regularly see people calling for massive reductions in population and I don’t think they are as informed about the subject as they think they are. For starters I usually get the feeling that they think degrowth will be painless or relatively painless even when massive. It won’t, even a slight reduction in worker population each generation is massively going to decrease the standard of living, starting with pretty much every luxury service we have. Any innovation in tech? Yeah not gonna happen anymore, there is not enough breathing room in the economy to waste on fancy little toys. In a system set on degrowth any available resource will be exclusively used to maintain the status quo, forget improvements.
Thinking further beyond the immediate consequences there is the long term question of what we want to happen to humanity. If people think we should go extinct then degrowth is a perfectly viable strategy for making that take a bit longer, if we are to potentially survive indefinitely degrowth is not an option. We are consuming more depletable resources than any individual can count and a great many of them have already dropped below a level where we could rediscover them. For example: There is not enough surface ore (coal, iron, copper, etc) in the world anymore to repeat an industrial revolution. If we lose the capacity of mass production that’s it, no second attempt. And it is like that with many resources, Helium is running out in iirc ~100 years, Uranium for reactors in iirc ~80 years, nitrate needed for fertilizers is running low and concrete manufacturers are looking into alternatives to river sand because that is also running dangerously low. Now we can stop growth and extend the usable time we have left with these resources but they will run out eventually. Or alternatively we can stop pretending that stagnation has ever worked for anything (no not even nature works with stagnation, a forest with only old trees dies together with its entire animal population and is eventually replaced by a new forest with young trees) and start working on solution to that problem. If we don’t want to got extinct the only solution is to get off this rock and start mining the planets we don’t have to be careful with. We cannot strip mine earth because it’s the only habitable place we have but we don’t have that problem with any other celestial body.
As for the short term, getting rid of the excessively wealthy would be a good start, it’s not like we lack resources as is, it’s just that 0.1% of the population are hogging 99% of it for themselves. Imo eating the rich will net much better results than doing a china and having less kids (btw anyone check on how their industry is doing, cuz last I checked their government is panicking a bit about the side effects the decline in workforce brings with it)
Well a lot of social safety nets require on a continually growing work force, of course they could be removed but that will never happen. Immigration is also a good solution but it’s unclear if in many places that will ever be expanded. But furthermore, there is no reason to stop people having kids in most situations.
Exactly, burning. If we do away with the burning, trading fossil fuels for environmentally friendly alternatives, we can reduce or eliminate greenhouse gases, the biggest contributor to climate change.
This is such a short sighted and selfish thing to say.
I had a vasectomy, for many of the reasons stated here (the most important one being so my wife didn’t have to put her own body through any more trauma).
But I had 3 beautiful, healthy and perfect kids first
So that’s how we tell if people are having a good time? Whether or not they kill them selves!? Wtf. I’ve not had a good time but my brain is wired to not kill itself.
You must know more about it than me. What’s my reason then? I thought it was because of how hard life is and the extreme possibility to suffer but what do I know.
Don’t make your ladies have a more invasive surgery. Just get it done.
word, the differences in their longterm health outcomes are ridiculous with hysterectomy. We still get our testosterone and dangly bits, we just, er, cut the swimmers off at the pass. not having to worry about condoms / bc / etc? priceless.
That is if you can find a doctor who will give a recommendation for one. My partner has endometriosis and has wanted an oblation for a while but nobody will give her the ok cuz she’s in her 30’s and “she could still have kids if she wanted to.”
I thought stuff like that was a meme but she can’t find anyone. The first doctor I met with just wanted me to know a vasectomy was permanent and he gave me some vallium. $200 and 20 minutes was all it took for me and she’s STILL looking to get an oblation :/
On the other hand, if this puts on pressure to more quickly move to 4 day work weeks then I’m all for it. Actually, I’m all for it either way. I wish I had 4 day school weeks when I was a kid.
Unfortunately the reasoning isn’t to improve school-life balance or give parents more time with their kids, it’s that schools in the US are criminally underfunded and cannot afford to operate 5 days a week.
One criticism of WFH is that you'll have increased energy bills since you're home all day. Aside from the obvious reasons that's wrong, this provides hard data showing that WFH is better for the environment in addition to being better for literally everyone except commercial real estate investors.
I would assume it takes far more energy on heating/cooling/ventilation systems for large buildings in general than it does for a series of small buildings that have classic ventilation systems called “windows that open to let in fresh air.” Something that is pretty rare in office buildings.
EDIT: Furthermore, large buildings usually have automated systems that keep it roughly the same temperature throughout the whole building while individuals in their own homes might try to keep heating/cooling bills low by choosing to only heat/cool specific rooms that they’re actually physically using. I know I certainly do this at home, no sense in doing temp control in a room no one is occupying (other than making sure it’s above freezing for pipes, etc.).
It really depends. For larger systems you can start taking advantage of economy of scale and a LOT of homes have those shit-tacular window units. Also, during the winter you can take advantage of body heat and residual heat a lot more to not have to run the heat as much as someone in a room with poorly insulated windows would.
And that ignores offices co-located with servers where you likely already have a pretty strong HVAC system that needs to run anyway.
And then there is just the personal impact. Employees tend to not (knowingly) pay the heating/cooling bill in an office building. They do at home.
I once worked in a high-rise office that would get uncomfortably cold (for me) in winter. I thought they were just being stingy with the heating, until I went into the office on a Saturday and found it was pleasantly warm. Turns out all the computers were keeping the office nice and toasty, and they were actively cooling the place during the winter to keep things at a “business temperature.”
This depends greatly on the home and how the home is used for how effective changing the thermostat during the day actually is. You have to keep it mildly in a comfortable temperature range to prevent damage to the home, plus any people or animals at home during the day will reduce the savings available by adjusting the thermostat. There’s also the problem of the fact that if you let the home get too far outside of the desired range the HVAC then has to “catch up” for when you get home which may be enough to not only negate but use more energy and if it just stayed at one set temperature.
All of the increased energy use at home is nothing compared to the energy use of a personal car. My family was able to go down to a single vehicle thanks to hybrid work. Literally an entire car off the road. We live in a rural area where traveling between towns is a requirement and driving your own car is the only way to reliably get between towns, so being a single car family and not missing having a second car is a rare luxury where we live
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.