151–160 of 401 posts
I really tried to get through this. But sentences like this were confusing to me: In simple terms, the ocean surface anomalies are just the surface footprint of this massive subsurface warm core.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be just easier to not wage war by the way. Can't think of many countries besides Canada and US that would not starve in NATO if such a necessity arose, and that's because they produce lots of cereals. All the other countries in NATO are major food importers.
>All the other countries in NATO are major food importers. All apart from France, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Turkey, Italy and Ireland. Interestingly the US is borderline now depending on how you measure food imports and exports.
The average ribeye steak you serve in your barbecue joint can feed a family of 4 in war time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world is bigger than your relatives. I'm sure he was referring to already food insecure places. The rich countries will have food available, probably at elevated prices. In places where there's actual famine people will do crazy things to get their hands on food.
If the plan isn't to stockpile food communally through a big corporation making a tidy profit for being well prepared in a disaster, and it isn't to stockpile it personally... what is the plan? There won't be any food. There are very limited options here. Those two are, by far, the two best ones for reliably being able to access food. Someone has to build up a reserve. Literally, you should to be able to point someon…
Stockpile food communally NOT through a big corporation making a tidy profit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the plan isn't to stockpile food communally through a big corporation making a tidy profit for being well prepared in a disaster, and it isn't to stockpile it personally... what is the plan? There won't be any food. There are very limited options here. Those two are, by far, the two best ones for reliably being able to access food. Someone has to build up a reserve. Literally, you should to be able to point someon…
"Communally" and "through a big corporation making a tidy profit" are at odds. It's either for and by the community or it's for and by a big corporation profiteering off the misfortune of the community. It can't be both at the same time. The big corporations aren't "going to keep people fed", they will hoard and ration by wealth, not by need. The billionaire will get their twenty course fine dining experience, the be…
Not really. Corporations are social by essence, and on a much bigger scale than anything that came before. That’s precisely what makes socialism possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world is bigger than your relatives. I'm sure he was referring to already food insecure places. The rich countries will have food available, probably at elevated prices. In places where there's actual famine people will do crazy things to get their hands on food.
If the plan isn't to stockpile food communally through a big corporation making a tidy profit for being well prepared in a disaster, and it isn't to stockpile it personally... what is the plan? There won't be any food. There are very limited options here. Those two are, by far, the two best ones for reliably being able to access food. Someone has to build up a reserve. Literally, you should to be able to point someon…
Governments are also actors in this, and have incentivises on a different scale than "how much money this year?"; this remains true even when those governments are literally dictatorships, though as history has shown neither businesses nor governments (democratic nor dictatorship) are correct at all times, so it's nice we've also got super-national aid programs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have come to the same conclusion, but let me ask you, how can you still be a capitalist having had that insight? Why would you support a system that you recognize makes it impossible to do the right thing even as we're dying from its consequences?
You're not going to do anything at all without money as a fungible exchange mechanism (a sometime measure of 'value'). Capitalists see value in things and try to generate that value. Yes, politicians and the rest of us have the job of regulating that process and sometime fail to do a good job. Do you know the right thing to do? I doubt it. You seriously do not see this as an immensely complicated issue? Finally pleas…
Value for who? Value as determined by who?
> Finally please give chapter and verse for the 'dying'.
You're commenting on it right now. Rivers here are drying out. Glaciers are melting. Forests are burning. How long do you think we can keep going like this?
> Maybe compare the world of 2026 with that of 1900 and the quality of life for people in general and our concern for the life on this planet.
You can compare the results of those 126 years right here: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/01/23/learning/GlobalTe...
Regarding your quality of life claim, let me refer back to the burning forests, drying rivers etc. Would you call that an improvement?
Clearly, its not going great. And action is actively being sabotaged by the most capitalist major power: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/climate/trump-climate-int...
So how do we proceed with all this in mind?
How long can we keep optimizing for capital self-reproduction at the expense of the base conditions we survive on? The incentive structure does not allow for making the systemic changes required for continued thriving of humanity. What good is it then? How is it anything but a suicide pact?
I really tried to get through this. But sentences like this were confusing to me: In simple terms, the ocean surface anomalies are just the surface footprint of this massive subsurface warm core.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another reason why most countries subsidise their agriculture is because in times of war you don't want your enemy to starve you. That's mostly about high calories foods, not fancy salads though.
It would be just easier to not wage war by the way. Can't think of many countries besides Canada and US that would not starve in NATO if such a necessity arose, and that's because they produce lots of cereals. All the other countries in NATO are major food importers.
Wars do not start by mutual agreement of all belligerents. If anything, usually the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be just easier to not wage war by the way. Can't think of many countries besides Canada and US that would not starve in NATO if such a necessity arose, and that's because they produce lots of cereals. All the other countries in NATO are major food importers.
>All the other countries in NATO are major food importers. All apart from France, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Turkey, Italy and Ireland. Interestingly the US is borderline now depending on how you measure food imports and exports.
Italy is not food self-sufficient, it relies heavily on imports of cereals, animal feed, oils, and other.
We add value up the chain (with hams, cheese, etc), but bar fruits and vegetables where we are okay-ish, we cannot feed ourselves. Its been decades that even our own pasta is made out of canadian and us cereals. We simply don't have enough, let alone we don't have good quality cereals.
On top of that, our production is super reliant on imported fertilizers and chemicals. We would borderline starve in case of isolation.
