41–50 of 311 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This aging topic is very important. Re: stock markets, economies need to shift from eternal $ growth to share holder wallets, to providing equitable outcomes for all people and the planet - that will be very interesting to watch, i can’t see it going well.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This aging topic is very important. Re: stock markets, economies need to shift from eternal $ growth to share holder wallets, to providing equitable outcomes for all people and the planet - that will be very interesting to watch, i can’t see it going well.
[flagged]
Why is meritocratic more "fair" than equitable? Perhaps more precisely, why do you deem meritocratic to = fair? Someone could just as easily (and supportably) deem equitable to = fair.
Hearts!
Reports released by IPCC and other organizations [0] indicate that we have 15 years to take drastic action on the environment. This tracks with the extremely accurate prediction from The Limits to Growth [1] published in 1972. If we do not take action on climate _now_ then _nothing_ is going to matter. We will enter into an irreversible feedback loop that causes human extinction, yet it won't be apparent until it is…
We know what needs to be done. Build nuclear! But unfortunately anti-growth “green” parties and activists (like you I presume) have been pushing anti-nuclear propaganda for decades, stopping progress.
Nothing can be done on an individual level, so quitting your job or not having kids is completely pointless. Only top-down action (less regulation) can solve the problem. So vote!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
"Fair" is just an arbitrarily-applied constant in your sentence. Why is meritocratic more "fair" than equitable? Perhaps more precisely, why do you deem meritocratic to = fair? Someone could just as easily (and supportably) deem equitable to = fair. Hearts!
We have an aging population and many places have a flat birthrate. We need to solve how to deal with this consequences. Who will care for these people? How will we deal with the consequences of flat population growth? How will we deal with the stock market's expectations of perpetual growth when the underlying population itself is not growing (and especially since productivity has also been relatively flat)?
This aging topic is very important. Re: stock markets, economies need to shift from eternal $ growth to share holder wallets, to providing equitable outcomes for all people and the planet - that will be very interesting to watch, i can’t see it going well.
is a collection of essays published in 1973 by German-born British economist E. F. Schumacher.
The title *Small Is Beautiful* came from a principle espoused by Schumacher's teacher Leopold Kohr (1909–1994) advancing small, appropriate technologies, policies, and polities as a superior alternative to the mainstream ethos of "bigger is better".
Overlapping environmental, social, and economic forces such as the 1973 energy crisis and popularisation of the concept of globalisation helped bring Schumacher's *Small Is Beautiful* critiques of mainstream economics to a wider audience during the 1970s.
In 1995 The Times Literary Supplement ranked *Small Is Beautiful* among the 100 most influential books published since World War II.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This aging topic is very important. Re: stock markets, economies need to shift from eternal $ growth to share holder wallets, to providing equitable outcomes for all people and the planet - that will be very interesting to watch, i can’t see it going well.
[flagged]
The biggest problem domain worth pursuing is figuring out fusion. If we can unlock what is effectively limitless power a lot of problems become far more tractable. Everything else is a distraction. We need cheaper and more available power. Every physicist and engineer in the world should probably try dedicating at least one or two month of their life to figuring out fusion. If humanity could pay a trillion dollars to…
Based on your requirements, this is already solved. Pull more oil out of the ground. Burn more trees.
AND, throwing money at a problem will definitely solve fusion.
Give people cheap energy and people will use it up. Just look at cryptomining. Then you are back to needing more energy. People will do just fine with expensive energy. They will adapt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Fair" is just an arbitrarily-applied constant in your sentence. Why is meritocratic more "fair" than equitable? Perhaps more precisely, why do you deem meritocratic to = fair? Someone could just as easily (and supportably) deem equitable to = fair. Hearts!
Because “equity” (communism) requires violence. Taking away from those who create more and giving to those who create less. Something that is non-consensual and requires violence is by definition unfair (unless you’ve a wicked moral compass).
The biggest problem domain worth pursuing is figuring out fusion. If we can unlock what is effectively limitless power a lot of problems become far more tractable. Everything else is a distraction. We need cheaper and more available power. Every physicist and engineer in the world should probably try dedicating at least one or two month of their life to figuring out fusion. If humanity could pay a trillion dollars to…