Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democracy is mostly a facade anymore, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, we haven't gone completely south to a dictatorship--there are many protections in place to keep things from falling apart but nonetheless I feel as though we're in the decline in the respect of being democratic. The underlying failed assumption in our representative democracy was that representatives would represent their constituents' interests…
Democracy is more alive today than it ever has been in history. What you are seeing is democracy. I think in the west we've been taught that 'democracy' is by definition good, and therefore anything bad is 'not democracy'. But the reality is that people are voting for this.
U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report
201–210 of 413 posts
Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think democracy was always problematic. Its original form, direct democracy, was vulnerable to the tyranny of the masses. Representative democracy, long described as the solution, really isn’t. Representatives are self-interested, just like everyone else, and so we cannot expect them to be purely faithful executors of their respective mandates. What we did not expect, and perhaps are now beginning to, is that human…
> tyranny of the masses Seeing California's proposition process, I agree. It also shows how disfunctional representative democracy is.
Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds very much like something communist Russia did during the Chernobyl incident. Why are our governments so corrupt?
Nitpicking: Chernobyl happened in Ukraine, so initially communists in Ukrainian Soviet Republic covered things up, not Russian. But I imagine they did consult with Central Party Buro in Moscow.
Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
RO will still have some chemicals it can't remove. Per the CDC: >Reverse Osmosis Systems will remove common chemical contaminants (metal ions, aqueous salts), including sodium, chloride, copper, chromium, and lead; may reduce arsenic, fluoride, radium, sulfate, calcium, magnesium, potassium, nitrate, and phosphorous. https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/home-water-treatme...
A lot of RO systems come with a sediment filter, carbon filter, and UV as part of the package. Seems about as close as you can get to completely clean water.
Hilariously inefficient use of energy, but I think the only contaminants you are likely to encounter would be... nitrous oxide (N2O)?
Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democracy is more alive today than it ever has been in history. What you are seeing is democracy. I think in the west we've been taught that 'democracy' is by definition good, and therefore anything bad is 'not democracy'. But the reality is that people are voting for this.
The original democracy was actually designed to appoint random representatives. What we are seeing is not democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Democracy is mostly a facade in the US anyway. But I agree, the US government isn't functioning 1) as originally intended or 2) for the benefit of the majority of the people it 'represents.' Although it's worth noting that 'as the forefathers intended' carries more weight than it typically should. Their intentions were mostly based on philosophical guess work, as they didn't have a whole lot of empirical data or exi…
> Although it's worth noting that 'as the forefathers intended' carries more weight than it typically should. Their intentions were mostly based on philosophical guess work Not to mention they're just some random people, nation building or not. No rational reason to treat their work like some higher command centuries later.
I think the "rational reason" over time really is that no one has come up with better ideas.
My theory is that we look at the past through the filter of a lens, and this lens typically only lets the brightest shine through. Like them or not, Jefferson, Hamilton and Franklin left behind writings that were objectively superior in utility to many of the other founders. If you ever had the misfortune of being obliged to do an analysis of something like the Lincoln-Douglas transcript, you really can see that one set of ideas is so much better thought out than the other. American blacks had numerous leaders, but the reality was that MLK had ideas that were simply objectively superior to many other black american leaders. Throw in the almost Periclean eloquence of most of the guys I highlighted there, and you end up with a bar that's impossibly high to get over. It takes a generational type of steward to meet that kind of a standard.
Which is why, over time, that standard starts to seem like a "higher command".
You can set new standards that are in opposition to the established ones. However, you really would need well thought out ideas. Those ideas would have to grow the segment of people benefiting from the current ideas in a society. Finally, to top all that off, you'd need a steward for those ideas with a fervent commitment to them, an almost Socratic wisdom, and a Periclean eloquence. All these conditions are difficult to meet. In fact, it's only natural that all these conditions will rarely be met simultaneously.
On balance I think this is good. I mean, at the other extreme we'd have the ideas of some user named MonkeyAnal on Youtube being taken as seriously as the ideas of Jefferson. Stability demands Jefferson's ideas carry the weight in that situation. At the same time, it is possible to attack Jefferson's ideas and change the standards he set. You just have to be Lincoln writing to Ripon, and not MonkeyAnal ranting on Youtube. Again, an almost impossibly high bar, I'll grant you that, but at the same time that bar provides certain safeguards.
Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report
#207A reminder that you can remove these and many other contaminants from your water with a simple undersink RO filter. They are quite inexpensive and start at about $160 on Amazon for a lifetime of clean drinking and cooking water. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/list-of-household-filters-appr...
Shifting the costs to the consumer -- standard externality game.
Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report
#208Yeah PCB's are a big thing in North-East Wisconsin. Papermills just added a new chemical to papermaking and dumped in the river for like 50 years before the government even bothered saying you can't do that anymore. Now the Fox River has a base layer of PCB's and all the papermills declared bankruptcy or dissolved so as not to foot the bill for cleanup.
Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democracy is mostly a facade anymore, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, we haven't gone completely south to a dictatorship--there are many protections in place to keep things from falling apart but nonetheless I feel as though we're in the decline in the respect of being democratic. The underlying failed assumption in our representative democracy was that representatives would represent their constituents' interests…
Democracy is more alive today than it ever has been in history. What you are seeing is democracy. I think in the west we've been taught that 'democracy' is by definition good, and therefore anything bad is 'not democracy'. But the reality is that people are voting for this.
Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report
#210If there was a magical way of convincing every single person in the U.S. to stop buying X, what would we have to stop buying to stop this pollution?
Industrial pollution like this is the lived reality of Capitalism and it’s inability to meaningfully account for the environmental degradation and destruction it causes. The problem isn’t “stop buying X” it’s that we need to “stop buying.”