HelixDab

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

You could, for instance, shut down at the end of a cycle and do a thorough cleaning without using pesticides. Using steam, heat, and high-powered ultraviolet light, you should be able to effectively kill any pests or eggs that pests are leaving. Yes, pesticides are certainly less expensive in the short run, but in terms of long-term health for the entire planet, they're super-bad.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Depending on how you generate power, you could use LED grow lights in vertical farms. You also have the luxury of working in an environment that you can tightly control; that means you may not need to use pesticides or herbicide at all. If you aren't working in large fields, you can get away from using heavy diesel farm equipment.

Fundamentally, we need to use less land for farming, we need to use far fewer pesticides and herbicides, and need to reduce the emissions associated with farming. Vertical farming has the potential to help with all of those.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

Cooking healthy food is more expensive than eating fas foods.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

Economics is political. Always has been.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That's closer to anarchism then communism. Communism, as it's generally developed, has a central state authority.

Personally, I see the existence of a state and individual liberties as always under tension. You can't have a state without some infringement on individual expressions. But some restriction on individual expression is necessary for a functioning society. The question is what infringements and under what circumstances are acceptable.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't think you have any idea how difficult that is, particularly since the US isn't a totalitarian dictatorship. There are a lot of factors in play for the average person, and you need to convince that person that they should change everything about their life and pay far more in taxes, for something that a significant percentage don't believe in or care about. You can't win with a fact-based argument; you need to successfully appeal to emotion. And so far, climate activists are doing a really, really bad job at that. Getting people to make incremental change is more likely to be effective, even if make reform is needed.

There's also a prisoner's dilemma here; if we bankrupt the country building this infrastructure, and China and India don't, then not only is climate change not significantly affected, but we also lose economically.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

It is in fact very, very hard, when your entire country is planned around the automobile. You're talking about building infrastructure that doesn't exist, and replanning every single town.

When I lived in Chicago, I drove once a week, for groceries, because I lived in a food desert. Otherwise I rode my bicycle (yes, in the winter too). That's not even remotely practical now, because I live in a very rural area.

Again: don't let perfect be the enemy of better.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 years ago (8 children)

...But that's not what Christian nationalists are working towards. They want to teach their religion, not teach about all religion.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago

Most of the people I've known with anxiety did have bad parents.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Well regulated" means trained. Not governed by a central authority. Anyone that goes to a range to practice regularly would be considered "well related".

[–] [email protected] 45 points 2 years ago (8 children)

You mean misANDRY, right? Because white cis het Christian men are truly the most oppressed minority in the history of the world.

Right?

/s

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't think that it's accurate to call tankies liberals.

A lot of this gets thought of on a left-right spectrum, but it's really more like a compass, with economics being left-right, and authoritarian/antiauthoritarian being top-bottom. Liberals in the US would be slightly left of center on the economic spectrum, but largely centrist on the authoritarianism spectrum. Tankies would be far left on the economic spectrum, but at the top of the authoritarian spectrum. Libertarians (or, what gets called libertarian now) would be at the extreme right on the economic spectrum, but at the very bottom of the authoritarianism spectrum. (The most modern libertarians are not actually anti-authoritarian, although they claim to be. E.g., many of them oppose abortion rights.)

view more: ‹ prev next ›