Gloomy @ Gloomy @mander.xyz

A buddhist vegan goth with questionable humour.

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

432

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'd suggest that they already are in the process. For example lots of companies have stopped their DAI programms due to eight wing pressure.

This is btw one main reason why milk is murder, because many of those calves are often killed for their meat. The other reason is that cows stop beeing productive and are killed way before their natural death, since the replacement calves are rdy to go (I think it was something like after 5 years with their natural life span beeing around 25, but I'm not sure if I remember correctly).

A bit oversimplified, but just to add a bit more context why vegans don't drink milk.

Where have I heard this one before?

France? Sweden? Italy? US? Netherlands?

God, I hate the world rn.

That is of course possible and ultimately we will never know.

I don't have hard data on this, but if interbreeding between slaves / sex-slaves and whites would have been widespread I think there would be a lot more interracial people in the US. As it is the black and white ethnicities remain still notably separated, with laws up into the 1960 making it a crime to have partner that is not one's own race.

And yes, 1865 to now is a vastly smaller time frame than 45.000 years, and if we make it that long one the picture would be a different one.

or assimilation of the hot ones into Sapiens I should say

Why the hot ones only? Having a warrior brute around sounds sensible too. Or just a refugee family of neanderthals who's children interbred with the sapiens after a generation.

I think violence is a very valid theory in the process of interbreading, given how humans tend to be a violent species. But the fact that children resulted out of that interbreeding that were aloud to interbreed themselves speakers for at least some level of peacefully integration.

The talking point this time around seems to be that they are just destroying those chemical gas weapons and military infrastructure. Can't have that with Islamists. I have seen one person call this "forward defending" unironically.

They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with Cheese?

What revolution would that have been? From my limited understanding universal healthcare emerged as a byproduct of the industislistation, when states where confronted with a fast growing population of poor citizens that flocked to the cities and needed caring for in some sense. Bismarck intruduced the first European Healthcare system with the goal of keeping workers alive and healthy.

So, to answer my own question, if anything then the industrial revolution (aka capitalism) gave us healthcare.

Somehow I don't think that's where you were going with your comment.

After several days of what I can only describe as ill-informed pro crab propaganda posts all over lemmy I realy needed this. Thank you.

Most, as you put it, "experts" point to inflation as a consequence, but I know shit about economics and don't know the mechanism behind it.

https://www.newsweek.com/what-does-rubles-sharp-fall-mean-russias-economy-1992933

Spoiler much?

Great question! The reason why I was using the 2017 report is that the Guardian arrival you originally referred to was from 2017, so I looked at the report they were working off of.

That is sensible, yes.

I regards to the graph you posted, it shows how emissions from private comps is have fallen and emissions from nations and nation owned companies have rissen. I think this is a relevant distinction to make, because the meme and the report as they are show a one sided picture (capitalism is the sole drive of climate change) whilst, looking at the complete data, a more nuanced picture emerges (like the role of nations in upholding the capitals system).

Looking at the numbers you should maybe include Chinas Coal Industry in there, since it is responsible for about 25 % of global emissions alone, according to the up to date report.

And the people at Gazprom also deserve a prominent spot in that line.

Why are you using data from the 2017 report?

You are referring to page 15, which shows emissions in 2015. In the up to date 2024 report this has been replaced with emissions after the Paris climate agreement, so 2016 till 2022.

As you can see, the same picture emerges as I stated in my first post: the top actors are Nations or state owned producers. The contribution to global Co2 emissions is listet, but still only refers to fossil fuel and cement Co 2 emissions.

https://mander.xyz/comment/15166141

I'll refer to this comment where I showed why the article quoted here is very missleading.

This meme is not true and missleading. I know it fits the narrative of "companies bad". But it's not based on fact.

It's based on an article by the guardian.

Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says

The article is based on the Carbon Major Report.

It describes itself like this:

Carbon Majors is a database of historical production data from 122 of the world’s largest oil, gas, coal, and cement producers. This data is used to quantify the direct operational emissions and emissions from the combustion of marketed products that can be attributed to these entities.

As you can see, they speak about "entities", not companies. Who are said entities?

75 Investor-owned Companies, 36 State-owned Companies, 11 Nation States, 82 Oil Producing Entities, 81 Gas Entities, 49 Coal Entities, 6 Cement Entities

As one might realize, only 75 are Companies. Most of them are either States, or producers of Oil, Gas, Coal and Cement.

The 71 % is not at all about global emissions. This is wrong.

72% of Global Fossil Fuel & Cement CO2 Emissions

So it's 100 entities that are responsible for 72 % of the world's fossil and cement Co2 emission.

https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/05dfb9e1-ace2-4072-9fc5-7ed6f6eddfb2.png

Looking at them you can see how the top emitter are very much not companies. Also, it's historical Co2, a fact made prominent by the former Soviet union beeing the top emitter.

Let's look at some more findings:

The Carbon Majors database finds that most state- and investor-owned companies have expanded their production operations since the Paris Agreement. 58 out of the 100 companies were linked to higher emissions in the seven years after the Paris Agreement than in the same period before. This increase is most pronounced in Asia, where 13 out of 15 (87%) assessed companies are connected to higher emissions in 2016–2022 than in 2009–2015, and in the Middle East, where this number is 7 out of 10 companies (70%). In Europe, 13 of 23 companies (57%), in South America, 3 of 5 (60%) companies, and in Australia, 3 out of 4 (75%) companies were linked to increased emissions, as were 3 of 6 (50%) African companies. North America is the only region where a minority of companies, 16 of 37 (43%), were linked to rising emissions.

Here the report mixes state and private companies. The rise is most prominent in countries with state owned companies. Privote companies, as seen in Europe and North America, haven't increased that much.

So, all in all: The idea that 100 companies are responsible for the destruction of earth is plain wrong.

I know the ideas that companies are responsible and to blaim for the current state of affairs fits our world view (it fits mine!!), but please don't run into the trap of believing everything you read just because it does.

Then we talk magic mirrors, they have evil rocks in them that get in our rivers and we don’t contain well. That aside, we show tradition to our ancestors by making much of them with slavery.

Sure, because mining uranium is total helaty and no problem at all.

https://genesenvironment.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41021-015-0019-3

No worries. I heard it a more common problem then one would think.

If 21 % can't read (are Illiterate) then it makes sense that 79 % can read (are literate). So yes, nationwide and in the US are the same thing.

Besides that, I agree. No sources is a no go and no moderated comments is a fucking biohazard.

Okay, I'll not downvotes but try to engage.

The right I activly holding back information from their echo chamber that can objectively view as factual (climate change is the most prominent example that comes to mind). So they are indeed ignoring reality in a messuarable way. Why do you think the right is not perseved as a thread then? For example the thread of ignoring climate change or science in general? Do you think "the middle" doesn't see that as a problem?

How, in your option has the left removed itself from reality? Can you provide some concrete examples please?

I can think of examples for the silencing both on the right or the left. In regards to the left I'm thinking of speakers at university's beeing canceled or yelled over. And I do see how speach controll might be seen as silencing. Is it a thing? Where I am from it seems to be more of a right wing point pretending that they are speach-controlled while nobody is forcing speech on anybody, just suggesting more inclusive ways of speaking (let's use pronouns as an example).

So I guess what I am saying is: Is the perception of the left grounded in reality or has it been crafted by right wing propaganda? And since the answer has to be "yes to both", do you think it's more grounded in reality than it is constructed by the right?