31–40 of 84 posts
As a Spaniard, I know México used to do it fine 50, 60, 100 years ago. Ditto with Argentina, albeit the level of violence and social issues are nowhere close to México. What happened?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they're writing first for a UK audience, how they described the incident could be cultural. I can totally imagine some UK people I know writing or speaking about an incident that way. It doesn't mean they're less aware or capable than someone who would write of the same incident differently.
I'm sorry but it objectively reads as incompetence. There's no other way to read it.
i had a co-worker from another country talk about going somewhere in an american city, and we were all like 'dude you could have died', he shrugged, said it didn't seem bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is just that avocados farmed without regulatory oversight on illegally deforested (or otherwise occupied) land in regions with insufficient rule of law will be cheaper - same as with palm oil, marijuana ( https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-11/illegal-... ) and several other products...
People would pay extra for ‘conflict-free’ avocados I bet
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meat production is still significantly more resource intense, we are cutting down the rainforest to make more room for feed crops.
You don't need feed crops for meat. Historically people used marginal land where crops don't grow to graze animals. (And there is a lot of marginal land, even with modern fertilizers.) Anything else makes no economic sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meat production is still significantly more resource intense, we are cutting down the rainforest to make more room for feed crops.
You don't need feed crops for meat. Historically people used marginal land where crops don't grow to graze animals. (And there is a lot of marginal land, even with modern fertilizers.) Anything else makes no economic sense.
If you exclude environmental impact, basic human rights, animal welfare, and social stability, a lot of really short-sighted and destructive setups suddenly start to make “economic sense”.
As a Spaniard, I know México used to do it fine 50, 60, 100 years ago. Ditto with Argentina, albeit the level of violence and social issues are nowhere close to México. What happened?
She travelled mostly alone, spent many nights sleeping in a van on her own in Mexico and said she felt much safer than in the Buenos Aires area where she used to live before moving to Spain. And Buenos Aires is considered a safe city.
Last time I was in Mexico I never felt in danger[1] despite travelling in some hot areas. I was however told to only drive during daytime and using the main highways. I eructed at the face of a taxi driver who was cut me off while I was crossing a street in Yucatan, I wouldn't have done that in Guanajuato where I would have feared any driver could have pulled a gun.
The only conclusion I can do is that
- they are both very big countries full of contrasts
- there are objective statistical numbers
- but the perception of security/violence is very subjective
- these numbers can vary greatly over a specific time frame.
- the numbers can vary greatly geographically: Chiapas is not Michoacan or Sonora, Cancún is not Mexico City or Buenos Aires. And within big cities there can be a lot of contrasts between neighborhoods, sometimes even inside a single one.
[1] well I did felt in danger, but because of the general state of traffic. Huge trucks driven recklessly by drivers under influcence were my main concerns.
The ecological and political consequences of avocados appears harsh. The article touches on both of these points. But I have no idea how global consumption could be reduced without also causing harm.
What about all the foods that require more water / inputs than avocados?
Maybe the water is an excuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the kind of affirmative action I can fall behind.
"new state apparatus in place. Political parties were banned, and a governing council had been elected..a military force was chartered" Yeah, how does this work? This sounds more like civil war. Admittedly, one side of the war staying to themselves. But, also, break down of any overall government. If Idaho suddenly did this people would freak out, would call it communism, and attack.
Well, of course. People would start taking control of their own lives, and we don't want that. What would come next? The right to control their own body? How ludicrous.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/04/23/1246611...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the kind of affirmative action I can fall behind.
"new state apparatus in place. Political parties were banned, and a governing council had been elected..a military force was chartered" Yeah, how does this work? This sounds more like civil war. Admittedly, one side of the war staying to themselves. But, also, break down of any overall government. If Idaho suddenly did this people would freak out, would call it communism, and attack.
I like this setup. It's like an different take on "laboratories of democracy".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meat production is still significantly more resource intense, we are cutting down the rainforest to make more room for feed crops.
You don't need feed crops for meat. Historically people used marginal land where crops don't grow to graze animals. (And there is a lot of marginal land, even with modern fertilizers.) Anything else makes no economic sense.
And feed crops are often from questionable origins.