In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there are important, interesting or just plain weird things happening out there and a group of people can find these better than one.
I thought I would test with a thread for linking general news articles about "other news" and discussion. Perhaps it goes into the abyss that is page 2 and beyond, but it is worth a try.
Some guidelines:
- Try to find the "clean link", so that links to the news site directly and not a social media site. Avoid "amp-links" (google).
- Write some cliff notes on what it is about, especially if it is a video.
- It's not an excuse to make outlandish claims via proxy or link extremist content.
- If it's an editorial or opinion piece, it is polite to mark it as such.
- Note the language if it is not in English.
- There is no demand that such things be posted here, if you think a piece merits its own thread, then make one.
yes i am terrified about what else they will invent to keep gullible people hooked on progressivism after trans issues.
they have been trying "the climate" for many years now but it doesn't get the traction they hoped, what will they move to?
Do you honestly believe ~8B people hacking away at this rock every single day is having no effect on it?
Do you honestly believe ~8B people hacking away at this rock every single day is having no effect on it?
I believe whatever net effect it is having, conditions are dramatically better for human beings than conditions were 300 years ago, exactly because we easily manage to feed 8 billions.
there is nothing to be scared about, technology is already capable today to fix any purported 4 sigma scenario (in terms of our well being), and ofc it improves every year.
only things we have to fear is those humans who fight to decrease our growth rate
Nothing to see here folks, I'm sure such a rapid warming will have no effects at all
Nothing to see here folks, I'm sure such a rapid warming will have no effects at all
it has effects, but as with literally everything else in human society, socialism and collectivism will never be the correct answer to any of those effects, and any attempt on that direction will make things worse.
and btw many of those effects are positive (on net, in aggregate) for all cold countries (ie countries which are colder than the human optimum more days than they are hotter than the human optimum) which... include most of Europe.
and there is no moral mandate to care for strangers who live far away (unless you are an universalist commie or something, which i am not) so... if I live in a place that is colder than optimal I should actually try to emit more CO2 on purpose as a society in my moral model (which uniquely and exclusively considers self interest as the moral imperative).
evidently, if a place is colder than optimum for humans, it becoming warmer is a positive for hums beings living there.
it has effects, but as with literally everything else in human society, socialism and collectivism will never be the correct answer to any of those effects, and any attempt on that direction will make things worse.
and btw many of those effects are positive (on net, in aggregate) for all cold countries (ie countries which are colder than the human optimum more days than they are hotter than the human optimum) which... include most of Europe.
and there is no moral mandate to care for strangers who
lol you hate immigration and yet want to accelerate the warming of the planet such that places that become uninhabitable will need to see mass migration. it will cause wars, terrorism, mass civil unrest, etc, but let's just ignore that because you want the climate a little bit hotter in Europe.
This might be one of the worst takes and most short-sighted foreign policy takes I have ever seen. Stability is prosperity, I don't see how anyone that looked at the 20th century wouldn't understand that.
lol you hate immigration and yet want to accelerate the warming of the planet such that places that become uninhabitable will need to see mass migration. it will cause wars, terrorism, mass civil unrest, etc, but let's just ignore that because you want the climate a little bit hotter in Europe.
This might be one of the worst takes and most short-sighted foreign policy takes I have ever seen. Stability is prosperity, I don't see how anyone that looked at the 20th century wouldn't understand that.
I don't hate immigration. I hate unfiltered immigration as long as a welfare state of any kind exists for newcomers (this means in generational terms, not just a few years) and citizenship is automatic at birth.
I am pretty ok with open borders, absolutely 0 welfare to immigrants, and citizenship only accrued with a significant quality filter.
btw immigration severely increases CO2 emissions for obvious reasons, one of the many contradictions of the left.
I don't hate immigration. I hate unfiltered immigration as long as a welfare state of any kind exists for newcomers (this means in generational terms, not just a few years) and citizenship is automatic at birth.
I am pretty ok with open borders, absolutely 0 welfare to immigrants, and citizenship only accrued with a significant quality filter.
btw immigration severely increases CO2 emissions for obvious reasons, one of the many contradictions of the left.
Can you qualify what you mean by severely? I just want to know before I post the fact check. Because the stats I just looked up doesn't show a "severe" increase in CO2 emissions, but it does show a modest increase.
Let's also not forget that if more unfettered development happens in the developing world without actually being able to reduce the CO2 cost of generating energy, then that net increase to CO2 emissions will become marginal or non-existent, especially if the developed world becomes CO2 neutral or even net negative in CO2 emissions.
But again this is just a distraction issue because you made the frankly insane claim that what's in the best interest of Europe is to accelerate global warming, as if there aren't downstream effects other than Europe getting a little warmer.
Can you qualify what you mean by severely? I just want to know before I post the fact check. Because the stats I just looked up doesn't show a "severe" increase in CO2 emissions, but it does show a modest increase.
Let's also not forget that if more unfettered development happens in the developing world without actually being able to reduce the CO2 cost of generating energy, then that net increase to CO2 emissions will become marginal or non-existent, especially if the developed world becomes CO2
severe, you multiply the emissions linked to that person several times, details depend on the country of origin and country of destination of course.
as a rule of thumb just check per Capita emissions per country to see immediately why allowing people to move from poor countries to rich ones automatically increases emissions (obviously).
they get access to stuff that emits more and to wages that allow them to buy it.
they might not afford AC and a car and a lot of meat, they can when in the USA, and so on.
I am talking about emissions as they are right now.
I disagree that there are "downstream" negative effects for Europe because of climate warming and I argumented about that extensively already in the climate thread many times. all main objections are made up.
btw a warmer Europe saves a ton of European lives which isn't a small deal
wait a second you’re italian why are you speaking of “european” lives? doesn’t this violate your 100% self-interest of the state thing? or somehow you expanded self-interest to europe but not to humanity writ large?
also, again, they studied this so there is a figure that has been come up with and while it’s significant it’s not severe. What would be severe to me is something like 20%+ increase, which the numbers don’t show at current levels.
wait a second you’re italian why are you speaking of “european” lives? doesn’t this violate your 100% self-interest of the state thing? or somehow you expanded self-interest to europe but not to humanity writ large?
also, again, they studied this so there is a figure that has been come up with and while it’s significant it’s not severe. What would be severe to me is something like 20%+ increase, which the numbers don’t show at current levels.
because Italy is in a federal union with other countries, we share a single federal border with them, treaties regarding that federation entered our constitution and we are a nation federally basically.
some things are more decentralized than in the USA, some more centralized, still a federation of states.
"they studied this" is not going to convince me when basic logic dictates otherwise. if you move from a country with very little CO2 emissions per Capita lol at 20%
Do you think there's some greater point to this whole thing? We're just flying around on a speck of dust in an infinite universe for no reason. Turning it into a giant game of survivor as if there's some point to it all has always been dumb lol
If there's more than enough for everybody--why make it a competition?
because Italy is in a federal union with other countries, we share a single federal border with them, treaties regarding that federation entered our constitution and we are a nation federally basically.
some things are more decentralized than in the USA, some more centralized, still a federation of states.
"they studied this" is not going to convince me when basic logic dictates otherwise. if you move from a country with very little CO2 emissions per Capita lol at 20%
It’s actually significantly less than 20%. So you are saying 20% is not significant? Good to know.
It’s actually significantly less than 20%. So you are saying 20% is not significant? Good to know.
what is "significantly less than 20%", the individual carbon footprint increase for the immigrant? lol, it's a big multiplier as I said, how bigs depend on origin and destination.
it can be as big as 30x if not more for subsahariana africans
Do you think there's some greater point to this whole thing? We're just flying around on a speck of dust in an infinite universe for no reason. Turning it into a giant game of survivor as if there's some point to it all has always been dumb lol
If there's more than enough for everybody--why make it a competition?
which whole thing, individual life? humanity?
there isn't more than enough for everybody to live very good lives, there is more than enough just to survive decently, and people want more than surviving.
and most of all many of them want to live very good life on the back of other people work, because it's funnier when you succeed, so that makes things even more complicated
Yes, Humans on this Earth thing obv.
oh ok--because it's just funny. That makes a lot of sense--sorry I asked.
Carry on 😀
what is "significantly less than 20%", the individual carbon footprint increase for the immigrant? lol, it's a big multiplier as I said, how bigs depend on origin and destination.
it can be as big as 30x if not more for subsahariana africans
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article....
The analyses reveal that mean per capita CO2 emissions are nearly three times higher in countries with net immigration than in countries with net emigration. Those differences project a cumulative migration-induced annual increase in global emissions of approximately 1.7 billion tonnes. For Canada and the United States, the projected total emissions attributable to migration from 2021 to 2030 vary between 0.7 and 0.9 billion tonnes.
So just under 5% of emissions can be attributable to the trends you’re talking about. Significant but a far cry under 20% of emissions.
Can you read my claim before answering with unrelated numbers?
My claim is that the immigrant footprint multiplies by a lot and your link actually confirms that.
No idea why they average out different countries lol if we are talking the USA, if 3x is the average (worldwide) then my claim that it can be up to 30x is reasonable, not disproven.
So you were claiming that TOTAL emissions wouldn't increase too much compared to existing emissions with immigration (a completely different claim).
But lol guys you are telling us it's a first order moral imperative to REDUCE them so immigration from poor countries to rich countries should be the first thing to be completely cut off, if you actually believed your Kool aid, especially because it doesn't cost money to do so nor it changes lives of citizen.
Then, your link is quite bizzarre as an answer to my claim also because it doesn't take into account that the left wants a massive increase in immigration (which would make the aggregate numbers look far worse), and also because it chooses not to look at the past, why I might ask? Why not calculate how much emissions would be in (say) Europe with half or one third the immigration in the last 30 years, to get a useful picture of how much leftist policies actually "polluted the planet" under a leftist model?
it has effects, but as with literally everything else in human society, socialism and collectivism will never be the correct answer to any of those effects, and any attempt on that direction will make things worse.
and btw many of those effects are positive (on net, in aggregate) for all cold countries (ie countries which are colder than the human optimum more days than they are hotter than the human optimum) which... include most of Europe.
and there is no moral mandate to care for strangers who
Not it’s not.
And btw in case you didn’t know how geography works , the cold parts on earth is vastly smaller !
So it gets massively bad for the most part of humans on earth .
And here in Canada we already have an immigration problem we don’t need to have a bigger problem because of people like you knowing **** about science ….
Exactly. This is why I wanted to pin you on a percentage. You’re just dishonestly moving the goalposts.
People can judge for themselves who is being dishonest in this topic. You’re concern trolling over a problem that’s not even the major source of our issues!
Besides this is a matter of rate of CO2 emissions. If we can get our net emissions per person to negative using technology, regulation, and government intervention, now all of a sudden immigration becomes a utilitarian good and we should import everyone into our country!
You’re literally just avoiding the topic because it’s a twitter commie levels of stupid and dishonest talking point. It’s like when they say police brutality disproportionally effects black people at 3x the rate without considering what the total amount is in the first place.
Most lefties don’t want unlimited immigration, they want to solve the root causes of immigration through global inequality. Most people don’t want to leave their homes and their cultures to chart a new way in a new land. You think we would have all these people coming here if their countries were just as advanced and rich as the United States and Europe?
Percentage is far higher though, as it isn't only for 10 years and it isn't only about future, ulterior immigration lol.
Like how much would american population be, and how big would emissions be, with immigration at the low levels of 1920-1950 since year 2000? Since 1980? Since 1950?
That's the size of how much a preference for immigration has contributed to emissions in the USA + the same counterfactual 2021-2030 THEN you add eventual future immigration.
It's quite a big chunk of total American emissions don't you think? Possibly the single biggest contributor.
American population could be 20-25% smaller today if immigration had stayed low as it was in the years after WW2.
As for the "if they get richer they emigrate less", lol man mexico and central America in general are far far far better off per Capita than they were in 1930, yet a bigger % wants to emigrate. Explain that.
And a ton of European emigrate
Percentage is far higher though, as it isn't only for 10 years and it isn't only about future, ulterior immigration lol.
Like how much would american population be, and how big would emissions be, with immigration at the low levels of 1920-1950 since year 2000? Since 1980? Since 1950?
That's the size of how much a preference for immigration has contributed to emissions in the USA + the same counterfactual 2021-2030 THEN you add eventual future immigration.
It's quite a big chunk of total American e
That’s just not how it works because you’re only accounting for Americans coming in and not accounting for changes in birth rate or how we can actually reduce the CO2 impact over the next ten years. That’s actually a statistically illiterate argument to make.
Russia has declared itself a “safe haven” to any “foreigners”
who want to “escape” their “neoliberal” home countries.
Russia has declared itself a “safe haven” to any “foreigners”
who want to “escape” their “neoliberal” home countries.
I told someone this today who was saying that Russia is more free than the US (he's a Jimmy Dore style socialist that thinks Ukraine is nazis).
He told me he would move there if I paid for his ticket. Anyone want to start a fundraiser for him? lol
Well has long billionaires are free to jump windows I guess it’s still a free country .
