“If you don’t apply your morals consistently, don’t bother applying them at all”…?
Human beings are not rational actors. It’s a recipe for burnout and depression to walk around expecting them to be.
For anybody feeling the way parent commenter feels, do yourself a favor and let it go. We’re human beings. What we are is what we are.
country
*planet
Speaking as a Canary user, what am I missing?
The article says it was slivered onions from a single supplier servicing 3 distribution centers in and around Colorado and Nebraska.
How much acreage does it take to feed a person? How does it scale?
Detailed in Freaknomics where Romania is used as an example.
I imagine for some of those folks being a part of a group that demands nothing other than your agreement is better than belonging to a group demanding a truthful relationship to the facts and their impact.
Oysters and kiwi
Yes, very well said.
I’m considering the Lusophone world for myself and my family. My vision is to find a place where my kid can put down roots. I’m having a hard time working out the details, though.
I have climate-driven concerns about living near the equator or in Europe. And as part of the contraction you mentioned, I expect moving around the globe will become difficult or problematic.
That doesn’t leave many options.
I appreciate that your answer was something other than violent revolution or its buddies. Thank you for elaborating!
If you’re willing to share: where would you go?
Yes, the “fascization” of the US government has been unfolding for decades.
To make a leap from that to an inevitability that “destroying the system to start over” is the only cure…
Well, isn’t the cure is worse than the disease?
What are the practicalities your presumptive solution hand-waves away?
Insurance and reinsurance markets, for example, provide regional/national/global stability for business to happen in the face of mass catastrophe. Medicare and Medicaid provide millions of people with healthcare.
These details, and literally thousands like them, make up the everyday function of government—even if they are currently not working in some places or not working as well as we’d like in many others!
If you’re actually committed to the welfare of millions of ordinary people, then your position has got to be more nuanced than “destroy the system!”
What are we destroying? What are we replacing it with? What kind of work are we doing to ensure a reasonable transition? Who is the we that is organizing toward a new vision? How do we work with opposing forces inside and outside of our camp?
All of those questions fall under the banner of politics and the answers are constrained by the agendas of the participants engaging with the existing system.
I don’t agree with all your conclusions or timelines, but you’re perfectly cogent enough. Ignore the haters. You literally pointed them to Kahneman 4 sentences in and they couldn’t be bothered.
I enjoy the use of language. Not that you need me to say it but keep on doing you and know that—to the extent you’re willing to make yourself understand—the message can be received.
To all the haters: Look at OP’s post history. This person’s views are coherent and nuanced. Their creative unusual use of language doesn’t merit ad hominem attacks. How about calling yourself out as unwilling or unable to grok the communication?
The background to OP’s comment is that human beings have two modes of engaging with the world:
Our world order counts on reason being sufficiently related to reality. Otherwise, law (which is entirely reason-based) can be weaponized for the sake of the feelings of the powerful. Rule of law then becomes a smokescreen for “might makes right.”
None of this should be surprising so far. OP then makes some pessimistic predictions about the inevitability of a Trump presidency and its dire consequences for the more-or-less reason-based world order we’ve grown accustomed to.
Will a sufficiently powerful mass of anger, greed, and fear snuff out the infinite possibilities of empowerment, creativity, and uplifting spirit that human beings can generate? OP says yes (referencing the Great Filter) and predicts some timelines.
OP, if you’re willing to share I’d be interested in hearing how you came to the timeline conclusions.
OP, I don’t think a Trump presidency is inevitable. And, tangentially, the scope of the underlying structural situation scares me. Seems like we can have a good conversation (maybe here?). Thanks for posting.
Never Biden voter on all of us to make sure we put in someone who will
Ok troll, take your sanctimonious BS and go home. If Biden or Trump (or, Godwin’s Law arriving right on time, Biden or Hitler) are equivalent in your eyes, you are lost.
I think [Wilson’s] point is that the brand has an exclusive image and he’s saying that they shouldn’t want to be all things to all people, which is a place where the Gap brands live," Schwartz said. "There are, however, multiple benefits to having an inclusive brand image and a limit to how many wealthy, fit, young women you can sell to.
Chip’s point, as quoted in the article, seems to be a comment about brand positioning. And the criticism seems to be on two levels:
As a comment on positioning, what he said is Marketing 101.
Not sure if what he said was taken out of context, though, because his actual interview is a different Forbes article behind a paywall.
So is he insensitive, or talking about marketing basics, or both? I think it’s hard to tell.
Look at what Hamas could extort from the Israeli government with one hostage (see: Gilad Shalit).
At a certain point, the Netanyahu administration needs to sit down with its military apparatus and get answers to hard questions like:
It’s not hard to imagine a calculated decision around a table where the outcome favors eradicating Hamas over recovering hostages.
And with respect to
But are Hamas going to be blamed for those deaths? When in reality the hostages were killed due to an aerial bombardment coming from Israel?
It seems like academic distinction at this point. There is casus belli for Israel to attack Hamas. Now there’s a war. War sucks for many, many, many reasons, among which is collateral civilian damage. Made even worse when the Israeli military fights against irregular forces who have deliberately embedded themselves into and under high-density vulnerable targets amongst their own population. Do you blame the missile striking its target? The institution with justification to launch them? The deliberate design decision for the Hamas government to bunker up their terrorist leaders underneath civilian hospitals?
What are you trying to sort out for yourself by deciding how to mete out the blame?
War is war. Innocent people will die. So it goes. “Poo-tee-weet,” as Vonnegut wrote about the whole disgusting affair.
Eliminate Hamas > free hostages
Fascinating! Thanks for sharing.