Canuck_Cat: Thanks for clarifying ... the wrong idea.
Shouldn't the context of the rest of my posts been enough? I guess maybe not if you also don't know my posting history, which is reasonable.
Yes, they're inefficient ... effectiveness based on the issue.
The issue is, iefficiency and waste ultimately lead to pollution even if it's not immediately apparent, and this happens at multiple levels depending on the nature of the waste. And this isn't even controversial, as the simplest examples are energy inefficient equipment or vehicles which we regularly address as the simplest form to look at.
You might have to elaborate on where these incentives are coming from - if it's coming from governments through tax credits or subsidies, it's a form of regulation.
I believe that, here in the west, we still have plenty of room for arguments to be effective. I believe that the powers that be are ultimately a reflection of common folk, thus society at large needs to address issues to be most efficient. Law seems to be society's least efficient control mechanism, yet simultaneously one of it's most powerful weapons, while still managing to allow society to shoot itself in teh foot (as seen from the primary subject of the thread).
Anyway, providing financial incentives ... regulations to tackle issues of biodiversity.
The one thing that's nice about the culture war, is that if the signalling turned to reflect more practical concerns instead of shallow representations that do more good for corporate interests than the proposed concerns, it would actually have a practical impact, and it would less likely appear as an actual war. The problem is, who controls the conversations?
Separate for the environment, for a second, to reflect "the US southern border issue," and how pretend concern for the individuals coming across is doing more harm than good. I think anyone who's taken the time to see a conversation with both sides on the issue have seen the usual economic arguments beat to death, so there's no point in mentioning that. However what's less known is that lack of information these individuals often have before "starting the journey." A good portion of them make the journey thinking it's entirely legitimate and sactioned by both the US government and the general US population, which i think we can all agree isn't true. Moreover, once they start this path, they're often extorted to go the rest of the way, and this often does not end well for these individuals (and a number of them have their journies ended in horrible ways due to their own ethical inhibitions as any US Border Patrol agent will tell you [you'd be surprised how often these officers end up saving lives because someone didn't want to be a drug mule or something]). Of course, all this would be obvious to anyone who actually talked to (hell, at least watch a long interview with) either a border patrol agent and/or one of the migrants (a surprising number of them end up learning english or already speak english). But, you see, it's easier for the average person on social media or more profitable for the average corporation to simply state an opinion or join the conversation without actually involving themselves with any of the people in the actual situation.
Now, back to the environment, how do you think that looks on an issue that is clearly more complicated? Anyone who thinks the "green technology" and such is a net loss for the corporate system needs to re-examine how they believe the whole system works. A corporation itself may take losses, but CEOs, politicians, and your high level players on the market don't take loses, you (the individual who was forced by the government to put money into the stock market through a
401k mandate) do.
This was my source...animals than from the lab.
There was also stuff coming from the common citizenry, as well, including the frontline healthcare workers. You might have heard of
this guy who got in hot water simply for being one of the individuals behind what's now cosidered the official story. Good luck finding much of anything else as main "town square" of facebook, twitter, etc largely scrubbed what they could from their platforms, which is pale in comparison to
what happened here, which i'm sure makes everyone comfortable coming forward at this point in China.
I'm not sure how this news ... from avoiding conflict and war.
If that which you're placing into the war isn't valuable (or not as valuable as it should be), it's not a negative-sum game for you, which is precisely the point I'm making. If it was exclusively negative-sum for both parties, why ever participate? Obviously you believe you have something to gain. So, those most anxious to start wars have the least concern for human life (generally speaking, of course, as it's not hard to come up with reasonable exceptions that are yet not the general rule).
I'm not sure how you think it's anti-vaxxer propaganda.
It's common anti-vaxer propaganda that you're being given a live dose of a virus. While this can actually be true, it's almost never the case, and aside from certain vaccines like the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, it's patently false. The Moderna and Pfeizer vaccines, for example, inject part of the virus into your body, and by definition it isn't life (even if it still goes through some of the process).
This all sounds like good info and you have a good idea of what you're talking about, but it's going above my head as a layperson not in epidemiology, public health, or a politician.
I'm a layperson, too. This is all stuff (or based on stuff) that's more or less introductory to the field. Yes, this actually highschool (american standards) level biology, so I expect the average gog user to either remember enough to follow along or be able to some simple research on their own to reacclimate themselves with this material, then use deductive reasoning. Dare I say it's our responsibility for those of us in countries where voting is the case, during a situation of this magnited with this much gravity on our lives, to actually take the time to learn about this. We're wondering why people can't wear masks, why so much information is being spread and believed, etc, but then look at the attitude people on both sides are actually approaching this with. If there's something I'm missing, I'm happy to be corrected, but I don't expect it to be something astronomically complex. And the thing is, alot of this is also basic info for things like cancer, other viral disease, genetic disorders, etc, which is why the basics of things like the functions of the cell are disseminated to as part of the mandatory courses for the lowest certificate of education in the US of all places. I understand most adults would have forgotten the explanation of how viruses work, but the idea that people actually believe that the mRNA vaccines permanently alter your DNA should be an insult to every highschool biology teacher.
Though I am skeptical there were more reasons not to ban all air travel because of virtue-signalling anti-racism. If you have educational sources on this, would appreciate it.
If there were, the arguments were horridly disseminated to the public. Just looking right now, i can find
this article and a New York Times article that's blocked with a paywall. Apparently
Biden was one of them, too, which should come as no surprise. While not quite the same, and in a different country,
we had this going on, which has aged ever so well.
I'm not sure how you'd go about isolating culture from raw data even if you did look as much historical data as possible, especially if diets are tied to culture especially in the past.
Therein lies the point. It's like the Race and IQ studies, you can't consider that scientific when there's so many oustanding correlations in addition to race that could very much play a role (culture, location, etc). There inlies a problem with alot of our studies into certain issues, because we're not able to maintain enough controls and instead have too many variables. While this information might be useful, I have to stress that it's fundamentally unscientific. This stuff is not going to be considered rigorous science 100 years from now, let alone 500.