Looks like the liberal-to-that-which-they-claim-to-hate pipeline is operating at record efficiency.

Didn’t you hear? The earth system works on partial credit. So long as we keep voting in the lesser evil, we don’t need a plan! The climate will just keep issuing waivers.

It’s ironic that the people in the article are decrying “doomism” as an excuse to give up and do nothing are juxtaposed against a guy who quit his job and moved to Bali to start a permaculture operation (not sure how well that would work as a universal solution, but good on him). The crime in the eyes of the anti-doomer isn’t giving up, it’s opting out of the idea that we can solve climate change by running on our little hamster wheels harder.

I think they get it, they just don’t think they’ll ever experience consequences. They can always move somewhere comparatively insulated from harm or don’t see a point in worrying about anything that happens outside of their own lifetimes or are techno optimists and assume we’ll crack fusion or invent efficient carbon scrubbers

Murdering the climate was really their first priority all along, wasn’t it?

Redditor
LLM

Removed by mod

I am well aware of what you are talking about. I am just trying to create a general understanding without resorting to ideology.

Why are you assuming that hunger has ideologically neutral solutions?

I already assumed we had enough technological capability

We do

that humanity as a whole shares the interest to solve this problem

It most certainly does not

What else remains?

The fact that some very powerful and very rich people stay powerful and rich by keeping other, less powerful and less rich people hungry

The inability to translate those capabilities into achieving the desired goals

We have the ability. The cost of addressing global hunger is in the billions. We could do it tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. The calories are there, the funds exist.

How else would you be able to make sense of the results without resorting to specifics of human history?

I don’t understand the question. How do you make sense of the results without resorting to the specifics of human history? Everything is the way it is now because of things that happened then.

But if you manage to work this general model, whatever answer you get albeit general would apply to every context.

There isn’t a model here. There’s a very facile understanding of the problem that leaves out its major driver. Researchers have already progressed well beyond this level of thinking and have proposed solutions. The reasons the solutions are still not being implemented is obvious, and people have pointed that out as well. This whole train of thought is like walking into a dark room and trying to figure out why it’s dark without looking at the switch. “Gosh, we’ve changed the bulb, we replaced the fixture, we’ve checked all the wiring, we’ve ensured the house has power, we’ve done everything! Why won’t the light turn on?” If you insist on leaving ideology out of it you’re never going to get to the answer because ideology is the answer.

How do you reconcile that with the fact that before the slave trade and colonialism, famine and malnourishment in Africa were comparatively rare? Why, despite the increase in technology and food production capability do these problems exist now when they didn’t then?

Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out

Blood Libel refers to the belief that Judaism incorporates the murder and consumption of (mainly) Christian children. Conflating this idea with what this meme is clearly referring to (what happening in Palestine) reinforces the Zionist propaganda that Zionism (and therefore the actual ethnic cleansing that Zionists are currently doing) is intrinsic to Judaism and should be immune from criticism on religious grounds.

But I suspect you are aware of that and are here in bad faith, so in short: no u

Hoo boy wait til you see what Zelenskyy was up to.

Without NATO aid, Ukraine will just plainly be taken over by Purine Russia

Ah, I think I’ve found the issue. Here at Hexbear we only support Pyrimidine Russia. We hate fuckin’ cytosine, don’t we folks?

I believe this is yours

Yeah, it’s not what I’d describe as a serious attempt at problem solving.

The Pareto principle is an economics idea - something is considered Pareto efficient if you can make someone better off without making someone else worse off, and you are at a Pareto optimum when you can’t make anyone better off without making someone worse off. Of course, because “better off” and “worse off” are entirely up for interpretation, people argue that taxing the rich to improve the lives of the poor is not Pareto efficient because you’re worse off if you have less money regardless of how much money you have left. So the only Pareto efficient solution is to grow the economy until all the poor people make enough money.

You can’t be poor if you’re dead