Why do you say stick to protein? I understand for health reasons but emissions wise starches like wheat and maize are some of the most efficient per calorie, especially when compared to animal protein..
I guess you could argue there less filling so you’ll eat more but you’d need to eat a ton of potato chips to get to the same amount of emmisions as a steak.
That 80% may care, especially since climate change will hit them the hardest, but there’s a lot less they can do to lower emmisions. Ask them to:
stop flying
stop driving
stop buying cheap plastic clothes, toys etc.
eat less meat
don’t use as much AC
They’ll just reply OK, already doing all that…
The richest 10% globally (~$50,000) account for half of carbon emmisions while the poorest half only account for 10%. The problem isn’t that the top 20% are the only ones who care, the problem is there lifestyle is disproportionately causing this.
Decentralization in general is less efficient and therefore requires more resources. For example small scale farming has less yield per acre compared to large scale farming, thus you have to use more acres to produce the same yield leading to more environmental destruction. Or with the small local workshops, each of those workshops will require a vast array of machines and tools to handle every situation, some that may be rarely used if at all, so you need to produce thousands of copies of these tools for every shop that may not be used, using more resources, as opposed to having to only create one copy for a central repair facility.
The cost, including the environmental cost, of transport rarely exceeds the gains in efficiency from centralization. Working at an office for a computer job is the exception as theres very little gain. But working from home in a job where you cant send your work over a wire to the next worker would obviously lose a lot of efficiency from work from home.
We don’t want to spread people out, the more spread out they are the longer it will take to get places and the more likely they will use a car. We need people in dense centralized places because that’s where we get these efficiencies of scale. Public transportation becomes better with density, distribution of goods becomes easier, heating and cooling large complexes is more efficient than individual homes.
I agree but you should emphasize the positives of degrowth otherwise everyone either gets scared or dismisses it as a non-serious solution politically. The main one being more leisure and less work.
Stop straw manning, nobody said it will be the apocalypse or the end of the world, they said it would be a dystopia or at the very least pretty shitty to what we have right now.
This is like telling a Roman as the empire is falling: “don’t worry it’s not the end of the world, sure a barbarian horde might come through every couple years raping, burning and pillaging, but you’ll survive”
Natural disasters are gonna get worse, famine and food insecurity are gonna become more common, mass migration causes a lot of social strife. Again going back to the roman example a large reason for the fall was the huns moving into Europe causing cascading migrations that destroyed the empire. All of this sounds pretty dystopic to me, maybe not mad max levels, but definitely parable of the power levels.
Milk, given an unlimited supply i won’t have to worry about it spoiling. Gives a decent amount of nutrients and water and can use it to make cheese or butter eventually, And is a life without cheese and butter really worth living?
I understand people making choices despite popularity, it seems a lot of people here are of that category, I’m concerned with the people who are choosing not to join a cause because of its lack of popularity, leading to the issues mentioned above. I think this second group is a larger percentage of the population then the first group. I think we can agree that these causes gaining popularity is good, even though they can have value without popularity. So getting that second group into the cause would be good.
I think what your advocating is to just evangelize the benefits and then people will come. But I think there are a lot of people that even if I could explain every benefit of Linux, they’d still stay on windows citing one of the above benefits of popularity, same with a lot of the causes listed above. If we are to say evangelizing is the best/only method then we leave a lot of those people for which education is not enough.
I was looking for people who were at that point of being educated about a cause, but weighed it it less then those benefits of popularity and continued on in the capitalist consumerist system. Then maybe something else pushed those scales to the other side and they chose to join the cause. What was that experience? Was it having a child? Was it an experience with death, spiritual experience, revelation, drug trip, etc. I guess that’s the question.
I wouldn’t say Palestine is a losing cause. All the ones I listed are minoritarian, some in the low single digit percentage of people, especially in the US. A majority of people in the US and a large majority of the world want a ceasefire. It’s not failing due to lack of popular support, its failimg because a small minority of very powerful people really want this genocide.
What makes you think a given person prefers the capitalist options?
The fact that they vast majority of people choose the capitalist option. You could chalk some of it up to lack of awareness, but even those that are aware still tend to go for the default capitalist option. Out of every normal person you’ve explained Linux to in real life, how many do you think made the switch? Yes individuals may choose them but the vast majority of normal people aren’t.
vegans are not bothered by restaurants not catering to them because they simply won’t go
Speak for yourself, I’m a vegetarian and often get annoyed by the lack of options, and that’s in a very liberal city. Not everyone has your same moral conviction, my girlfriend is a vegetarian too but will eat meat if it’s the only option on the menu. You can say she’s a fake vegetarian or doesn’t truly believe in the welfare of animals, but she still cares a hell of a lot more than your average person, so if she’s is still occasionally eating meat then your never going to get rid of animal products for the average person who doesn’t give two shits about animal welfare.
The fact is the more good vegan options there are the more people will be vegan, or at least partially vegan. Most people value taste and there food preferences more then animal welfare, environment etc. But if there’s an item on the menu that is tasty and they prefer and its vegan then they’ll choose it, and that’s a win. But most chefs aren’t putting there time into making a variety of tasty vegan food because the markets not there. Yes there are people with a higher moral conviction that value welfare over taste but that is a slim minority who won’t be able to stop all the abuse the industry causes.
Also you don’t always select where you go to dinner, a lot of times the friends or family your going to dinner with will select it. Some are kind and will check the menu for options but a lot of the time they can forget and just pick one. Am I supposed to not go to dinner after my cousins graduation because it’s at a steakhouse?
Can you elaborate on this one?
A platform like this benefits from having more and more diverse communities to keep people engaged. Lemmy, as it stands right now, only has a couple broad communities, mostly about these causes I mentioned: FOSS, socialism, etc. If your not interested in those communities at all you probably won’t find lemmy very valuable. Even if you are somewhat interested in those things you may still stay on reddit because it has the other communities your interested in along with those that are on lemmy. This is especially true for niche interests but even some broader interests like sports in general are completely absent from lemmy. This is self fulfilling to a certain extent, as less people talk about sports, less people post about sports, less people come here for sports etc. So for a person who wants a feed of say 50% socialist memes and 50% baseball they’re gonna go to reddit because they can get that, even if the socialist memes and discussion is better over here, now we’re missing out on that person’s discussion in the socialist meme communities and that’s a loss for everyone in that community.
You’re all cowards I’m rolling the dice on C and I’ll be chilling in Tokyo with my waifu body pillow while yall get eaten by snakes in K.
Yeah but since it’s population based it’s a coin flip of whether you end up in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan instead, which are kind of the opposite of what you mentioned.
If you really want to live in China, pick E. The population is probably dominated by large Chinese cities anyway (chongqing, Wuhan, Hong Kong and shenzhen) so you’d probably end up there.
The old division was nato/capitalist block was first world, soviet/communist block was second world and everything else was third world.
The soviet union may be gone, but a lot of the countries that used to be a part of it are still at the same relative standard of living between the developed west and the underdeveloped global south, so could be considered “second world”. The biggest example is, of course, russia; yeah, not the best standard of living but a lot better than what a lot of the world is getting.
I’ve never been to Alabama but I’ll still shit on it because I’ve seen statistics and stories about how bad it is there. Same with Republicans. California is definitely one of the better states to live in by most metrics but it does have huge wealth inequality combined with its large population means there’s no shortage of people in poverty and statistics and stories from that group that fox News can shove in the face of there audience and pretend that’s how everyone in California is living.
I think the events op mentioned probably happened in the last couple hundred years too. It’s more that the U.S. has been more stable over the past 2 centuries compared to most other countries. There’s only been 3 mass wars in defense of the country, the revolution, the civil war and WWII. Compare that to say France which has had 3.5 revolutions and 3 giant continent spanning wars in that same time period.
Usually walk once a week to a grocery store 2.25 km away to stock up, but I’ll supplement that with a trip every other day to the smaller grocery store 0.5 km away. I don’t own a car and walk/scooter most places and I’d say that’s a decent trek. I mostly walk it instead of taking my scooter because I go with my girlfriend and we’ll talk, also can carry more back, and it gets us our steps which we like to track.
If it was just me and it was 30C I’d probably just take my scooter or the bus which is decent for getting there most times.
I don’t think your understanding how this works, the loan is on the co-op as an entity, not the individuals. A single person or group of people can form a co-op, just like how they form an LLC. That co-op can then take out a loan just like a company can take out a loan. That loan is the co-ops liability, not any of the members. If any or all of the original members leave that loan will still be on the co-op, the original members will not be responsible.
I think you have a misunderstanding of limited liability in general, per wikipedia:
Limited liability is a legal status in which a person’s financial liability is limited to a fixed sum, most commonly the value of a person’s investment in a corporation, company, or joint venture. … A shareholder in a corporation or limited liability company is not personally liable for any of the debts of the company, other than for the amount already invested in the company and for any unpaid amount on the shares in the company, if any—except under special and rare circumstances that permit “piercing the corporate veil.”
So yes you can just make an LLC , take out a huge business loan then leave and wipe your hands of it. The bank knows this and that’s why when they give out loans they evaluate whether the company can pay it back, not an individual. The loan will also probably come with stipulations ensuring some sort of corporate governance so you personally can’t just drain the company account and walk off with the money. Doing that would be embezzlement.
As for the communist question, were soviet style communist countries perfectly equal, no, but the situation your describing of a poor underclass and super rich upper class rulers is way more reflective of capitalist countries then communist ones. Yes there were high ranking beuracrats at the top but they weren’t living in the lap of luxury, the highest ranking soviet officials lived in the house on the embankment where the largest sized unit was 3,200 square feet and the average unit was 2,000 square feet. Compare that to a millionaires mansion in the u.s. Communist societies were far more equal then capitalist societies and the idea that there’s some gang of rich exploiters at the top hoarding all the resources is your projection.
only one person takes out the loan
No, a group of people would form a co-op, just like how people form a company, and the co-op would take out the loan. Entities can take out loans just like people can
but this is the same as all of the employees having stock in the business
No, stock is transferable and sellable, and not equal. If every employee got stock then one of them could / would sell it to someone with cash upfront. Now that new person is now getting money from the business without contributing any labor. They can then use that money to buy more stocks and make a passive income off the company. This leads to capital accumulation and a class of people making money off other people’s labor just because they have more money, or had more money at the start.
As for Amazon the average employee would be making a lot more then they are right now but they wouldn’t be billionaires. Billionaires never make there billions off working, they make it off capital gains, and since the shares aren’t sellable, and thus have no monetary value, there’d be no idea of capital gains for a worker in a co-op.
For the restaurant example I agree they may want to start a business for economic security, but thats not the same as getting rich. Economic security can be provided by a social safety net.
I also agree they may want to start one because they lack autonomy, but I’d say that’s largely the result of the alienation of working in normal stock owned companies where the owners make the decisions. If you are working in a co-op and get to have a say in all the decisions that alienation is partly ameliorated. If you want a hand in more decisions then you can “run” for a managerial position and get elected, administrative work would still be necessary in a co-op.
For the communist question most communist countries were more equal then the capitalist countries before the cold war ended. They were poorer, that’s partially due to inefficiency, but also due to the fact that most of them developed later then the capitalist countries there often compared to. If you look at one of the last hold puts in Cuba it could be argued that the quality of life for the poorest there is better then the poorest in the u.s. as they have better access to food, housing and healthcare. I’m not going to defend the oppressive political regimes of those countries, but the standard of living wasn’t as bad as a lot of people make it out to be.
Could you explain what financial risk is still there if you make an LLC? My understanding was the whole point of an LLC was to guard someone’s personal assets from risk if the company goes under.
why would anyone take out loans to start a business if there’s no way to pay the loan back?
The co-op would pay the loan back and treat it like any other cost of doing business, like buying components / ingredients or paying rent.
where is any profit from the business going
It would go to the employees. There would be no profit in the typical sense of revenue - costs - payroll, any excess after costs just goes to payroll
without ownership of the company there’s no reason for anyone to start a company and take on all the risk.
People start companies / organizations all the time where there main motivation isn’t profit. Your average restauranter is not doing it for the money, if they are they’re delusional. They do it because they like cooking / food or want to create a space for people to gather. Sure some people are motivated by making a profit and we’d miss out on there businesses, that’s the cost of a more equitable society. Marx himself praised the dynamism and creativity of capitalism but didn’t think it was worth it for the working class who could get far more of the pie if they weren’t giving a cut to the owners. This is becoming more true as that dynamism and creativity is going towards AI garbage and crypto and financial schemes
As for the risk, most of the financial risk of owning a business is shed when you create an LLC. The other risk of making no income while the business is getting off the ground can be mitigated by a social safety net that allows people to pursue these enterprises without worrying how they’re gonna eat or pay rent.
if they went underwater
Bankruptcy would work the same as it does with a stock company. Since Bankruptcy is just liquidating all a companies assets then forming a queue of people with claims to that money, with secured debt holders at the front of the line and stock holders at the back, you’d just remove the stock holders at the back, maybe replace them with the employees to give them a sort of “severance”
Lately it’s been the waymos (driverless cars) in San Francisco, assume it’s the same in the other couple cities there going. They’ve been going a couple years now so they’ve been normalized for locals but every so often I see people taking pictures of them or waving there hands in front of them trying to fuck with them.