How does the World view America these days?

[bendish]

The way you view the world isn't borne out by the facts I'm afraid.

 

 

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/

 

yea so all is well then

 

no impending environmental collapse to speak of...capitalism meeting human needs since.... the end of feudalism....

 

ourworldindata is an excellent resource...but our problems are much more complex than tidy graphs 

[goDel]

"yea so all is well then" 

 

that's basically the most insincere response possible, apart from denying the facts. no-one is arguing all is well. so why bother making that argument? need a straw man?

[bendish]

"yea so all is well then" 

 

that's basically the most insincere response possible, apart from denying the facts. no-one is arguing all is well. so why bother making that argument? need a straw man?

 

Im not denying the facts that the graph illustrates, I'm suggesting that it obscures the realities of such 'development'. 

[cichlisuite]

The way you view the world isn't borne out by the facts I'm afraid.

 

And your 'fact' is supposed to dismember which one of my arguments exactly? The graph is quite ridiculous, tbh. It shows the projection that until 2015, about 10% of world population lives with 1.9$ per day, while another graph shows that more than 50% of world population is living with 2$ per day. Wow, those 10 cents must really make a difference. Can you pull up a graph that plots any decent (that is deserving) amount of money earned per day for the kind of economical strata we discussed? And besides, my point was global political and economical meddling without regulations that maximize profit.

[caze]

 

The way you view the world isn't borne out by the facts I'm afraid.

 

 

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/

 

yea so all is well then

 

no impending environmental collapse to speak of...capitalism meeting human needs since.... the end of feudalism....

 

ourworldindata is an excellent resource...but our problems are much more complex than tidy graphs 

 

 

did I say 'all is well'? were we talking about climate change? no. you're changing the subject. I doubt our global economic system has much to do with impending environmental collapse either btw, no matter what system we used we'd be fucking shit up (the commies were far worse than we are now for example), that's just how we roll as a species.

[caze]

 

The way you view the world isn't borne out by the facts I'm afraid.

 

And your 'fact' is supposed to dismember which one of my arguments exactly? The graph is quite ridiculous, tbh. It shows the projection that until 2015, about 10% of world population lives with 1.9$ per day, while another graph shows that more than 50% of world population is living with 2$ per day. Wow, those 10 cents must really make a difference. Can you pull up a graph that plots any decent (that is deserving) amount of money earned per day for the kind of economical strata we discussed? 

 

 

it's not just a graph, read the whole report.

 

this is well documented, and has been known about for some time now (especially wrt to China since the 70s).

 

 

 

And besides, my point was global political and economical meddling without regulations that maximize profit.

 

What about it? It seems to maximise profit and decrease global poverty. Also, there are plenty of regulations, and regulations are often unhelpful meddling themselves.

[Braintree]

and here's my plan for world piece: stop fighting!

 

totally common sense this

 

also, want to stop climate change? stop driving cars!

 

 

Stop eating meat.

[Silent Member]

Bikes are pretty IDM.

 

Veganism kind of is as well, but hippies and hipsters. Eagerly awaiting lab grown beef so I can cancer sustainably.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Gocab

[Hugh Mughnus]

 

and here's my plan for world piece: stop fighting!

 

totally common sense this

 

also, want to stop climate change? stop driving cars!

 

 

Stop eating meat.

 

Yeah cause' all those fruits and vegetables you transport from across the planet are certainly carbon neutral and ethical. 

 

Do you know the carbon footprint of rice?

 

What's the impact of an increased use of nitrogen based fertilizers on greenhouse gasses?

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Bulk VanderHooj

[Braintree]

 

 

and here's my plan for world piece: stop fighting!

 

totally common sense this

 

also, want to stop climate change? stop driving cars!

 

 

Stop eating meat.

 

Yeah cause' all those fruits and vegetables you transport from across the planet are certainly carbon neutral and ethical. 

 

Do you know the carbon footprint of rice?

 

What's the impact of an increased use of nitrogen based fertilizers on greenhouse gasses?

 

 

 

 

https://mission-blue.org/2015/02/whats-the-role-of-mass-animal-agriculture-in-ocean-degradation/

[Braintree]

It's not even fringe science anymore. That information is provided by the EPA and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

[Salvatorin]

I'm sure you are aware of the IMF's and World Bank's Structural Adjustment Programs that were pushed heavily after the stagflation crises in the 70's. They gave loans to 3rd world countries, basically mandating austerity, currency devaluation, eliminating agricultural subsidies, privatization of public services and state owned companies, and most importantly focusing the economies to be almost exclusively on resource extraction and direct export of commodities, while removing tariffs on imports so they must import finished goods from the US mainly. Now China does this with impunity in Africa.

 

Statistically this does nothing to improve the economies of 3rd world countries and does exacerbate the collapse of interior economies, agriculture in particular. This has been shown to lead to the massive increase in slums in cities that have no real industry throughout the world.

 

So let me bring this back to automation. Your point about offshoring production: while some developing countries may have gradually benefitted economically from these practices, the increasingly the new corporate paradigm is "reshoring" aided by increases in efficiency and profit margin from automation. Here's a piece of data from the world bank itself:

 

 

According to the World Bank, 2016 World Development Report, about two-thirds
of all jobs in developing countries could experience significant automation.3 For example, in

1 Luke Kingma, Universal Basic Income: The Answer to Automation? FUTURISM,
https://futurism.com/images/universal-basic-income-answer-automation/ [hereinafter Kingma Futurism].
2 Robots and Industrialization in Developing Countries, UN Conference on Trade and Development (2016),
http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/presspb2016d6_en.pdf.
3 Id.
2
China, 77% of jobs are at risk due to automation and mechanization. Similarly, 69% of jobs in
India are at risk, and 75% of jobs in El Salvador.

 

And so then, what happens to poor countries and their pools of unskilled labor, those countries already lagged behind in infrastructure by centuries of colonialism and neocolonialism. Some people that the losses in jobs will have to be offset by targeted universal basic income. But how exactly is that going to happen when the damage has already been done and is still being done by predatory economic practices, stripping poor countries of their resources? There is no reason to believe that inequality will be reduced even if poor countries manage to own their own means of production once automation becomes the norm, because, as we are seeing in the US, the trend is toward ever increasing consolidation of economic power.

 

So what does this have to do with America? With the tax cuts on corporations happening right now, does anyone believe that the top earning corporations will soon agree to accept a tax to offset the inevitable loss of jobs for all the unskilled working class here? I do not see that coming. In this way the pressure on the lowest tier of earners in all countries will increase, and inequality and famine and the amount of IDPs around the will continue to grow around the world unless these tech utopians and multinationals put billions and billions more into directly investing and building the infrastructures around the world. 

This is the just the beginning of my criticisms. GET READY FOR SOME MORE BABY

[Hugh Mughnus]

It's not even fringe science anymore. That information is provided by the EPA and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

 

I understand the impact of mass produced/factory farmed meat etc. I don't think most people would argue that it doesn't have a huge impact. But I insist, research the effects of increased use of fertilizer on greenhouse gases (specifically nitrous oxide btw). Fertilizer bad? Go organic? Welp, organic farming has a huge impact on how the land is tilled/soil is turned over, causing permanent damage to the environment. Oh and the decreased yield associated with organic farming. 

 

I bet your last serving of fruit arrived in your city an airplane btw. 

 

Simply not eating meat is probably not the answer.

 

I mean, if you don't do it for ethical reasons or whatever that's cool. But the environmental impact argument isn't clear cut.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Bulk VanderHooj

[Braintree]

 

It's not even fringe science anymore. That information is provided by the EPA and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

 

I understand the impact of mass produced/factory farmed meat etc. I don't think most people would argue it doesn't have a huge impact.

 

 

I bet your last serving of fruit arrived on an airplane btw. 

 

 

 

No, actually. I live in California.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/07/california_grows_all_of_our_fruits_and_vegetables_what_would_we_eat_without.html

 

 

 

California produces a sizable majority of many American fruits, vegetables, and nuts: 99 percent of artichokes, 99 percent of walnuts, 97 percent of kiwis, 97 percent of plums, 95 percent of celery, 95 percent of garlic, 89 percent of cauliflower, 71 percent of spinach, and 69 percent of carrots (and the list goes on and on). Some of this is due to climate and soil. No other state, or even a combination of states, can match California’s output per acre. Lemon yields in California, for example, are more than 50 percent higher than in Arizona. California spinach yield per acre is 60 percent higher than the national average. Without California, supply of all these products in the United States and abroad would dip, and in the first few years, a few might be nearly impossible to find. Orchard-based products in particular, such as nuts and some fruits, would take many years to spring back.

 

But that's a logical fallacy you're using, and I think you know it. The point is that animal agriculture is more detrimental than the transportation industry. So even if my food had been delivered by plane, the impact would still be less than eating meat.

[auxien]

Y'all wanna know the real problem? Too much fucking. Too many people.

 

Stop fucking. Stop having babies. Kill a few people, kill your great grandparents, kill yourselves. Too many people need to eat (and in America, waste) too much food. Less people, less problems.

 

Quit fucking.

[Hugh Mughnus]

Still sidestepping my questions. The point is not that animal agriculture is more detrimental than the transportation industry. The point is a sudden shift in worldwide diet to not eating meat would have a significant impact on the environment due to increase nitrogen release associated with the required fertilizer + significant destruction of the environment due to farmed land, impact on waterways, etc. This is being studied in great detail right now by people far smarter than myself, it's also not "fringe" science.

 

The answer is not "don't eat meat", but more so "curb population growth".

 

Anyways, not worth arguing about it or anything. 

Y'all wanna know the real problem? Too much fucking. Too many people.

Stop fucking. Stop having babies. Kill a few people, kill your great grandparents, kill yourselves. Too many people need to eat (and in America, waste) too much food. Less people, less problems.

Quit fucking.

 

yes heh, you posted that as I was typing the same.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Bulk VanderHooj

[Hugh Mughnus]

before u respond, I have my christmas hat on and only want to spread cheer =(

[Braintree]

Still sidestepping my questions. The point is not that animal agriculture is more detrimental than the transportation industry. The point is a sudden shift in worldwide diet to not eating meat would have a significant impact on the environment due to increase nitrogen release associated with the required fertilizer + significant destruction of the environment due to farmed land, impact on waterways, etc. This is being studied in great detail right now by people far smarter than myself, it's also not "fringe" science.

 

The answer is not "don't eat meat", but more so "curb population growth".

 

Anyways, not worth arguing about it or anything. 

Y'all wanna know the real problem? Too much fucking. Too many people.

 

Stop fucking. Stop having babies. Kill a few people, kill your great grandparents, kill yourselves. Too many people need to eat (and in America, waste) too much food. Less people, less problems.

 

Quit fucking.

 

yes heh, you posted that as I was typing the same.

 

 

Are you suggesting the curtailing the planet's #1 polluting industry is a bad thing?

 

It would surely have an impact, but the impact would be positive. We would use less water, emit less CO2, and use less farm land. The ocean's acidity would either stabilize or decrease. I'm sure there are some other externalities involved, but in general, it would take care of a lot of pollution.

 

If you would just do some research instead of giving a knee-jerk reaction because you enjoy chicken so much, you'd learn that pretty damn quick.

[Hugh Mughnus]

It seems you don't understand the topic very well and are jumping to a lot of conclusions so I'll move along.

 

I wish you a pleasant night.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Bulk VanderHooj

[Braintree]

I'm sorry you don't like facts.

[Hugh Mughnus]

I'm sorry you can't google the impact of fertilizer production and use and the impact on GHG to gain a better, more rounded understanding of how the problem is not 1 dimensional.

 

Your own Berkeley university has some leading scholarly articles on the topic?

 

 

"Yet agricultural soil management, which includes N fertilization and manure application, is estimated to contribute about two-thirds of the U.S. nitrous oxide emitted to the atmosphere. "

 

nitrous oxide is only one ghg but it's not a particularly good one meng.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Bulk VanderHooj

[Braintree]

You didn't even need to Google anything, I provided you with articles that you neglected to read. Fertilizer isn't a major problem. Ocean dead zones are. You have an odd sense of priority here, since it sounds like you want to throw the baby out with the bath water instead of using the damn drain.

 

The negative effects of that global shift in diet will not be a detriment when considering the current impacts of animal agriculture.

[caze]

Organic farming (especially the big business US stuff) is far worse for the environment than regular farming as well, so if you want to stay off the meat keep it industrialised please, for the planet's sake.

[Hugh Mughnus]

Fertilizer isn't a major problem. 

lol what?

 

They contribute like 65% of agricultural related nitrous oxide. Not to mention toxic nitrates in waterways etc. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Bulk VanderHooj

[caze]

Nitrogen in fertilizer is a big cause of ocean dead zones, organic fertilizers use far more nitrogen (and other harmful things for the ocean).