red_pepper

10

red_pepper wrote

Also, this is why worker cooperatives > consumer cooperatives. Consumer cooperatives would only strive to make the burger cheaper. They don't care at all about the well-being of workers.

11

red_pepper wrote

Advertisements. All kinds. On the TV, on the radio, on billboards, on the internet, I hate them all. The recent news breaking about targeted advertising being used to manipulate and misinform people has made some people more aware of the problem, but I think most people think it's just the wrong kind of advertising rather than a problem with the industry itself.

3

red_pepper wrote

This article has a pretty rosey outlook, but there's one thing it glosses over. Using mulch for ground cover represents an economic loss in most cases, because it would otherwise be used to animal feed or biofuels. That's why farmers in Europe and North America see less business sense in investing in soil remediation. It only makes sense in severely degraded soil, were crop yields have declined far enough that the economic impact is greater than the benefits of reselling mulch.

Voluntary guidelines, business solutions, and consumer activism can not save our soils.

3

red_pepper wrote

This is why pie-in-the-sky solutions like growing massive and water-intensive tree plantations for energy and carbon capture in order to reduce greenhouse gasses will never work. Yet, the IPCC assumes that we are going to be doing exactly this in its models. As long as we're focused on fantasies, fighting climate change will be impossible.

3

red_pepper wrote

Their short discussion about how Facebook might decide to demote pages or content critical of Facebook made me wonder just how far they might go in protecting their brand.

You're someone who shares subversive views with Facebook users. That means you're a danger to their platform. Maybe they'd decide it's in their best interests to demote your posts so that they show up less on other people's timelines? Or, if you aren't on their service, maybe they'll decide to promote negative rumors about you so people are less likely to believe you. Or maybe they give your shadow profile to law enforcement, so they can entrap you in some bullshit where you won't be a threat anymore.

Just how much control over our lives can Facebook have if they aren't stopped?

1

red_pepper wrote

Thanks for your perspective! I don't disagree that there are good and bad types of tourism. I think, however, that the mismanagement that happened over the years is the resource curse. By relying on a single industry for income, the government has less incentive to invest in its people. Tourism can act as an important source of income in the short and medium term, but in the long term it seems to always have bad results.

I'm not an expert, though. Maybe there's a way to keep that from happening. I don't know. And certainly there are benefits to tourism, such as making people more worldly and opening up new opportunities. I just worry is all.

17

red_pepper wrote

I very much agree, and add to this that leftists sometimes confuse an inability to articulate with irrationality (and, conversely, articulation with rationality). Just because someone can't defend one of their beliefs doesn't mean it's indefensible. It just means they haven't had practice defending it. And just because someone can defend their beliefs doesn't mean it's good. It just means they're good at defending.

16

red_pepper wrote

It's also critical to understand the material conditions of these people and how those conditions play into their seemingly ignorant opinions. the way people's employment interacts with their belief in climate change is my go to example for this.

A combination of environmental regulations and renewable/natural gas growth has lead to a massive contraction in the coal industry. In turn, this has lead to the loss of a lot of well paying jobs and the collapse of pensions and the decline of coal unions. In return, they got a bunch of ununionized fracking jobs and solar installation jobs without the same benefits or wages or job security. They had to retrain to do those jobs too, and many people who were in their 50's just retired early. Worse, those jobs weren't located in the same area and so many have had to uproot their lives to move to where the jobs are. This has also lead to the decline of the rest of the economy in coal country.

Convincing these people that climate change is a deadly threat that needs to be fought aggressively is impossible in these material conditions. It's not a matter of education or propaganda, and no amount of arguing will ever sway them. In order to actually bring them on board, we need to change their conditions. Unionize solar and gas, or bail out the pensions, or something. Give them a reason to fight climate change, rather than force them to sacrifice even more when they have already lost so much for the "greater good". Yet, what does the left have to offer? Ridicule, exclusion, and zero sympathy. As if they deserve to lose their jobs and way of life. This needs to change.