haroldbkny
9mo ago
Invasive species have caused catastrophes though.
What sort of catastrophes? I'm interested to know, I know little about this.
haroldbkny
9mo ago
I remember a links post by Scott from like 8 years ago where he asked, given the fact that humans have been responsible for the extinction of tens of thousands of species, mostly bugs I think I recall, (not to mention introduced lots of invasive species detrimental to various local environments), why the hell haven't we seen catastrophic impacts to our ecology and agriculture? I guess I have a pet theory I've been working up in my mind for a while
Epistemic status: I know close to nothing about agriculture, except some basic historical facts I've heard about previous food industries changing.
Essentially, I think that capitalism and human industry may be what has saved us and prevented catastrophic changes. As someone who works in engineering, I know you always have to deal with changes to your plans, and nothing ever goes right. When you do deliver systems that work, nothing ever stays non-broken, and you always have to come up with new fixes. However, you have goals, and as such you keep finding tradeoffs and workarounds so you're still able to deliver and fulfill the customer need consistently. If you don't, then you lose the customer's business and someone else ends up fulfilling their need instead. Perhaps almost all human-impacting ecological sectors have essentially already been turned into self perpetuating industries.
Is there some fungus which is going to kill all the Gros Michel bananas in the world? Banana farmer moguls absolutely do not want that happening, and they're not stupid. They will end up employing experts that help them set up systems to delay that eventually as long as possible, so they can still meet their quarterly earnings projections, whether by developing new farming methods or new antifungal treatments for the plants.
Does it finally get to the point that the Gros Michel banana can no longer hang on? Either the Gros Michel banana moguls have already started setting up systems to farm new varieties of bananas in preparation for this eventually, or else some until-now specialty supplier of bananas that used to be not as popular (like the Cavendish banana) ends up rising to power by fulfilling the now-unmet demand for bananas, capturing the market and supplanting the old industry leaders as the new head of the industry.
For the record, Gros Michel bananas did taste different, and maybe even better, than Cavendish bananas. But I guess Cavendish bananas are a sufficiently good workaround because they've been the norm for 70 years now.
Is it still bad that humans cause so many changes to the ecology? Yes, but maybe not THAT bad. I postulate two situations.
-
There might be aspects of ecology that would have been ripe for eventual human exploitation that have not yet been industry-ized. What if the Gros Michel banana specifically contained some protein that could have been turned into a low-carbon-emission fuel source using 2025 technology? Well, then we are out of luck in exploiting that fuel source as a new industry. However, this still doesn't impact current industries, only potential future ones. We may never realize what we could have achieved and what we lost the opportunity to do had that banana not gone extinct, and as such this isn't viewed as a catastrophe.
-
There might be negative effects to the environment that are so detrimental that there is no mitigation possible, and it will make non-viable even other related industries that might have come in and filled the gap. This is the catastrophe scenario that is typically pushed by environmentalists to make laymen worried. But really, I'm not certain I know of any examples of this catastrope scenario coming to pass (not that that means it cannot happen in the future). I guess I've heard that in pre WWII France, they had the technology to farm truffles, and the decimation of France in the war resulted in them somehow losing that capability. As such, truffles need to be hunted and gathered these days by specially trained pigs, and the price of truffles went sky high. I'm not too clear on how this happened, and I'm not sure if it has to do with ecology or just loss of human knowledge.
I speculate that this model of "ingrained industries as a shield" may also apply to other non-agricultural scenarios as well.
haroldbkny
9mo ago
it's been 12 hours and people need to post more. (Seriously, post a top level comment. Do it now.)
Last time I just posted a top level comment, I got threatened-to-be-modded at. Perhaps people have too high expectations for these threads.
What's something that you were wrong about?
I was wrong to let politics run my life. It almost ruined the best relationship I've ever had, because I kept grinding away at the political differences between us, trying to finally show once and for all that leftists have gone crazy and were destroying everything. I kinda still sort of think that is true, but I learned that to be happy you gotta put this aside. Once I did that, I have had the best years of my life.
I was also wrong that there would be no end to the feminist escalation, 10 years ago, and for many years afterward, I thought that the future would be a boot stomping on men's faces for eternity, because both men and women feel more sympathy for women. I still can't stand feminists, but for what it's worth over the past couple of years there has seemed to be some return to normalcy, where not absolutely everything needs to be framed in terms of female oppression and we need to constantly be walking on eggshells for fear of being called out and fired from work.
haroldbkny
9mo ago
Surely there is a sampling bias here, but I do get the general sense that this closer to the norm than not.
You mean that the norm is the 50th percentile for disproportional violence within police interactions? So you think that these interactions account for at least the 25th percentile of police interactions, as in, 1 out of every 4? I can't prove you wrong, but I personally disagree. This sounds to me to be a direct case of the Chinese Robber Fallacy. With the number of cops in the country, you can cherry pick these examples all day and never stop. What is the reason you think the sources you're watching aren't playing that numbers game?
haroldbkny
10mo ago
Yeah, I have no clue myself, but I think it'd be interesting to know. I'm guessing based on OP's post that the diary sheds no light on it, though, or else it might have been a bigger deal.
haroldbkny
10mo ago
I didn't have great interest in this story, but I do have one question.
Obviously it's really rare for a biological female to commit a mass shooting. I thought I remembered some level of discussion surrounding whether testosterone treatments drove this person crazy, or more towards the kind of crazy that causes some men to commit mass shootings. I think the hypothesis would be that there are many things which cause crazy men to do this but that hopeless sexual desperation is not an insignificant factor, and the truly intense feelings that drive that kind of sexual desperation are correlated with testosterone. Is there anything in the manifesto related to that?
Also, RLM skewered girlGhostbusters ,Star Trek Discovery and Last Jedi/Rise of Skywalker, the originators of 'fans hate their white male.heroes being replaced with strong women and blacks!' anti-criticism card
That's true, but they frequently call out people as garbage, who are anti these movies on the basis of hating feminism/woke ideology. And I remember when they were excusing a lot of what Brie Larson said in her rant as "she didn't really mean that, she just put her foot in her mouth". That's not to say I think they're progressives, I think they really try to take a middle ground most of the time, or are just kinda checked out.
Edit: see time 13:00 here https://youtube.com/watch?v=9pQNYeOEFJc&t=780
haroldbkny
10mo ago
Even Tolkien himself didn't like orcs being irredeemable. You might already know about this, but if you don't, you might find it interesting. Look up Tolkien letter 153.
The more recent series have felt like they were written by writers who resent this optimistic view of the future - specifically, the idea that a largely Western, liberal democratic society could actually produce something good
I think it's worth mentioning that this shift is probably largely because progressivism or leftism itself has shifted. Back in the 60s, I think people were more optimistic on the left, and less of the view that the west sucked. There were those people and those themes, but they weren't the majority. More liberal themes dominated, and people were more into the idea that we can all live together in utopia, less that the West is responsible for dystopia. It wasn't until the 2010s that the "West sucks" crowd became the majority.
haroldbkny
10mo ago
I'd agree with that. But I don't think he seems right wing. He is always talking about how much he loves the Star Trek next gen liberal "positive future" values. There's a lot of progressivism that is kinda baked into that worldview.
haroldbkny
10mo ago
Ah ok, you got me there. I don't remember their star trek next gen movie reviews being that popular, but I wasn't really paying attention to them back then so you're probably right.
haroldbkny
10mo ago
Lots have people have already criticized Star Trek over the years, most notably the RedLetterMedia guys who kinda got famous from it. But I associate most of them with the online right.
This will be a bit of a nitpicky response since I'm a huge RedLetterMedia fan. But I just wanted to call out that they got famous for their Star Wars reviews. They did a lot of Star Trek reviews, but that was mostly of the next gen movies, and I don't think those reviews are too famous.
Also, they are definitely not right-wing. They're pretty centrist/apolitical, while sometimes mentioning that other people care about politics, but sometimes they definitely lean more towards liberal points. For example, they frequently talk about diverse casting as not necessarily a bad thing. But half of their members lean more liberal (Rich Evans and Jack) and half of them are slightly closer to the center.
haroldbkny
10mo ago
No black organized crime groups have ever managed to capture popular imagination.
Ever see Predator 2? That had some black organized crime groups, though it was like Jamaican vs Puerto Rican, or something
haroldbkny
10mo ago
After this exchange happened earlier this year, I joked with my wife about making a sign that says "in this house we believe the Beatles are good music".
I think that is the closest thing I have to religion, in that I was raised with my family praising the Beatles all the damn time, and I got sick of them and branched out musically, rebelling against my family. But my family still ultimately instilled this value in me that I do fundamentally think the Beatles are good music, and I'm willing to fight to defend them.
haroldbkny
10mo ago
I've heard it mentioned here that Democrats game the system by having Hispanic be a race, not an ethnicity, on demographic surveys. I have long felt it was stupid that Hispanic or not Hispanic is is own separate dimension, but I'm not sure I know how it concretely has an upside for the Democrats. Can anyone explain it?
haroldbkny
10mo ago
Well, I can't speak for everyone. But I can definitely say that I've seen more introspection from some, and many fewer spouting their opinions like they're the only logical ones. Three months ago, I don't remember nearly as many Dems doing that sort of behavior as, say in 2020, when it singled you out if you didn't act with no awareness that others might disagree
haroldbkny
10mo ago
But that's the thing, I don't really see those anymore. I think the median Dem learned a lesson, maybe. But I'm not too hopeful
haroldbkny
10mo ago
That was three months ago.
I'm not sure why that matters.
Also, the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict's been going on since October 2023, and internal tensions in the Democrat party regarding the two factions have been high since then.
I see that, too, but I'll be frank, the people who show their support for Trump come off like loonies. They're often the ones who deck out their cars and lawns with Trump signs like they're decorating for Halloween. I think the crazy conservative conspiracy theorists are the only ones with little enough self awareness these days that they feel comfortable broadcasting their political beliefs to all neighbors. Sometime between 2020 and now, I think the leftists learned not to need to tell everyone all of their political beliefs. Maybe it was the internal Israel Palestine divide in the Democrat party that taught them that lesson.
haroldbkny
10mo ago
Since typical bras accentuate and highlight breasts, rather than minimize them
Hard disagree, here. IME, bras standardize the form of breasts under the shirt, thus drawing attention away from them, by making them more uniform. They also hold them in place and tuck them away, once again drawing attention away.
Note that I'm excluding push-up bras from this category, since those are the case where they unequivocally exist solely to accentuate and highlight breasts. But they're also not the norm.
haroldbkny
10mo ago
and I'm not convinced they do anything to promote modesty at least for those of us whose nipples scream "fed babies!
Can you elaborate on this more? Why does the state of your nipples have anything to do with whether or not bras are related to modesty? I'm not sure I'm following there.
I'm not a woman, but I have spoken about bras with my woman friends. A common theme I have heard from them is that when they were given a talk by their moms about why they should wear bras, modesty was brought up. I could see this being true. After all, it conceals more of the form, leaves more to the imagination, makes them less "in your face".
Hell, don't take it from me. Seinfeld had a character who's entire schtick was that she didn't wear a bra and as a result ends up stealing Elaine's boyfriend and perpetually attracts attention to herself, bugging the hell out of Elaine.
haroldbkny
10mo ago
Well, I wasn't offended. Though you have offended me with your reply.
If you're going to warn me, warn me, or else, you're just implying threats because you personally don't like this topic. I'm already well-aware of how you feel about the subject of the responsibilities of women with regard to society and sexuality, and needless to say, I disagree with you. So be it.
I think it's an interesting subject, that the social contract of how women relate with society is being renegotiated on the fly over the last decade (in more ways than just bras, though I think bras may be a canary of the greater forces at work), and certainly it is part of the culture war. I put forth my observations and theory, and I'm interested in others as well. I fully accept I may be wrong. Some people are replying saying they don't even think this is a trend, and I don't doubt their experience or interpretations. They may be right, I may be wrong, but either way, I'm interested to hear what people have to say.
haroldbkny
10mo ago
That's a tough question. The short answer is, nothing I can't handle, though I get irritated with feminism saying EVERYTHING is female oppression, so I'd be annoyed if my hypothesis is right.
I have an idea for an invention that will revolutionize the fashion industry in the Northeast. It's a garment that women can wear underneath their shirts that will support their fleshy bosoms. This invention would have the benefit of further concealing the breasts, but making them appear firmer and fuller, and preventing sagging when women approach old age.
Seriously, I feel like the modern urban world has forgotten about the bra. When I'm in big Northeast cities riding public transit, I rarely see a single woman wearing one. What's with this development? Is it some feminism thing? Is it fashion? Is it just that it's hot these days? Was the bra always worthless but women wore it out of modesty, but now there's no more modesty? I would guess that is some feminist notion that bras are a relic of patriarchy, and that has influenced fashion over the last decade to make it less fashionable. And that this has enabled the more lazy women out there to just not bother wearing it, and in turn, the link between bras and female modesty is disappearing (along with maybe the modesty itself, or the idea that women should be modest).
haroldbkny
10mo ago
There is a fundamental disconnect between libertarians and progressives. In my debates with progressives, I've basically come to the conclusion that they don't view supply and demand the way I do. I, a libertarian-leaning centrist, believe it to be a fundamental law of the world, which follows very quickly from a few basic facts regarding limited supply and how people respond to financial incentives. That's not to say I buy it hook line and sinker, I know there are some economist notions about free markets that don't make sense in most real world situations, like that everyone has complete knowledge and will act accordingly.
Progressives seem to believe supply and demand to be something changeable, or a specific viewpoint of a situation, or at worst, a Western colonial system rigerously enforced to privilege white men over marginalized groups. Once might argue that this falls into the post modernist progressive track record of believing that human nature and/or reality itself is all malleable, and we can change it if we try hard enough.
I don't have enough debates with modern conservatives to know whether they have what I would consider to be a realistic view of supply and demand, or if they have their own fantasy picture of what the would should be like in their heads. I'd be interested to hear what they think.
Well, I'd certainly never heard of this before, but I am still wondering, after quickly skimming the article, what the catastrophe is.
This also might depend on your definition of what a catastrophe is, but I guess I'm referring to large loss of human life, or drastically decreased living conditions for tens of thousands of humans, as the end-result of an event like this in order for me to consider it a catastrophe.
More options
Context Copy link