Browsing social media, it’s apparent that people are quick to point out problems in the world, but what I see less often are suggestions for how to solve them. At best, I see vague ideas that might solve one issue but introduce new ones, which are rarely addressed.
Simply stopping the bad behaviour rarely is a solution in itself. The world is not that simple. Take something like drug addiction. Telling someone to just stop taking drugs is not a solution.
End capitalism before it ends humanity.
I’m all for capitalism, as long as we’re allowed to pick three at random from the richest ten every year, shoot them and redistribute their assets to the poor.
Yeah, I know this is as full of holes as I’d like the “winners” to be, but I think it could be made to work as well as capitalism does.
And replace it with what?
If we let capitalism run free without restrictions then we have major problems. As it is, most countries have found a balance between capitalism and setting restrictions on it.
When looking at economical systems, there aren’t many other options.
Previous attempts at communism have failed to the point that we either end up with dictatorships, or the country adopts a capitalist economy.
Economically, is there a system that would actually run better than what most countries today are using?
Temporary or straw restrictions. The EU has even more byzantine IP laws as the US and they’re just as draconian. Our societies teem with rent-seeking grifts and billionaires who will commit genocide to get their way.
Stopping the wealth accumulation at the top through taxes on property above a threshold.
And, supplementary:
Stopping tax evasion by implementing a global tax cooperative so nations can stop competing in a downward race on tax rates
Stopping tax evasion by implementing a global tax cooperative so nations can stop competing in a downward race on tax rates
You may or may not be aware that the OECD has already begun implementing something like that:
Being as that we have the tools now, any person who wants to run for a public office in a position of leadership, I.e mayor, vice mayor, sheriff, judge, Congress person or president, should have to undergo a psychological evaluation and if they show any of the three dark traits they should be rendered invalid and unable to participate in politics.
We don’t need any narcissistic psychopaths running the government, but narcissistic psychopaths are the ones that are the most likely to get elected because they’re the best at manipulating people into voting for them in popularity contests.
The reason psychopaths aren’t diagnosed frequently is that it’s simple for a psychopath to fool the test. They have to WANT an accurate diagnosis to get one.
Also, these tests would be gamed to keep specific people out of power. That’s why the restrictions on public office are so low. To prevent gaming.
Fuck all advertising and everyone involved in marketing.
I know how those marketing chicks look like, I volunteer as tribute for your plan.
The two-party system. Regardless of where you live, if it’s under a two-party system, you probably agree that it sucks.
Assuming we’re starting from “choose one” single-winner elections, you need to first switch your elections to Approval Voting. This would make it always safe to vote for your favorite candidate, and the full support for every losing candidate would be reflected in the vote totals. This will weaken the two party system, but no single-winner system can dismantle it.
After that, switch as many single-winner elections to multi-winner as you can (like city council or a legislative district) and use Sequential Proportional Approval Voting to award seats. This will enable minor party candidates to get into office after the major ones, and the seat totals will look a lot closer to the vote totals.
A few places already use approval (Fargo and St. Louis) and a few places are just begging for SPAV (Cincinnati City council).
Truth in advertising laws. Make it illegal to lie, mislead, or deceive in advertising. And I mean criminal, like jail time for the CEO, or they can specify an executive that must sign off on all ads if they like. That person takes the fall. And who decides if an ad breaks the law. A jury, or something more streamlined but still made up of regular Americans who decide.
deleted by creator
Mental health crisis -> housing
Anybody working in inpatient mental health right now can tell you that at any one time around 3/4 of our units are occupied by homeless people. Many of them will even fake or exaggerate symptoms of mental illness (usually psychosis or suicidal ideation) to avoid living on the street. Personally I don’t even blame them, I’d probably do the same thing. And it really highlights that housing is the primary driver of the modern mental health crisis.
The only solution to car traffic is building viable alternatives to driving. Alternatives also bring many environmental and societal benefits.
If we are realistic enough to put the fight against further global warming on a wartime basis, then we can operate things on a wartime basis. Which means planning things so that everything is focussed on winning the war. For example gasoline rationing would encourage people to plan their use of gasoline for maximum efficiency. It means people can get only as much as they can justify.
Rationing was used in the US during WW2. To see what that meant, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_States
That’s rather vague “solution”
What are the alternatives?
Fast & frequent public transport, safe cycling infrastructure, footpaths, just putting things closer together to reduce the need for transport
Is the issue here traffic or cars?
Because for traffic I can see how working public transit would atleast ease of the issue, but for the anti-car sentiment I often see here I don’t view public transit as a solution. Not to every car owner atleast.
That solution will still require the fat lazy selfish car drivers to choose to sacrifice a little of their personal comfort for the sake of the common good.
Yes, the alternatives need to exist, but there also has to be cultural change. Driving a private car in a city is antisocial. It’s exactly analagous to smoking in a restaurant or office and we need to begin to see it that way.
Clarification for the benefit of downvoters (easier to downvote than make a counter-argument, right?): The solution that I propose is clear: get private cars off the streets of cities by whatever means necessary. The detail is almost unimportant. Private cars, especially ones with combustion engines, are a scourge across the world. They are what make our cities unlivable. In any big city (at least outside North America) most people get around by public transport. Cars are almost never a necessity, people buy them for reasons of status and convenience. In cities they’re effectively a tool used by rich people to immiserate poor people.
The meat and dairy industry receives vast amounts of subsidies which would be better allocated to plant based food sources. Meat is an inefficient way to feed the general population. I’m vocal about this because of two reasons: animal suffering and climate/pollution.
I’m not naive enough to say we should just cut subsidies to animal farming cold turkey, because I understand people’s livelyhoods depend on it. But I would want to see a progressive public divestment from meat in favour of plant based whole food proteins (not fake/lab meats, those can survive on private investment alone).
At the same time, I’m also vocal about fixing farming. We need to stop destroying nature to grow food. Fortunately the divestment from animal farming will already significantly improve this because it’s more efficient to eat soy directly than to grow soy, feed it to pigs, and then eat the pig. However we need to fix monocultures by moving to regenerative farming and agroforestry.
The soy that’s fed to pigs is almost entirely the byproduct of pressing soy for soybean oil. about 85% of the soybean crop is pressed for oil. if we didn’t feed the byproduct to livestock, it would just be industrial waste.
I’d challenge that. The whole bean is edible by humans. Tofu is literally just the protein of soy beans without the oil and the startch. I’m sure, if we wanted to, we could just make tofu or TVP out of soy meal.
I also just dislike this “it’s a byproduct” argument. It’s like how whey powder is a “byproduct” of of cheese making. It’s not a good argument. We could also do with less soy oil in the world anyway.
but we DO make tofu and tvp. and they have higher profits per pound than animal feed. but we produce far too much soybean oil for the amount of byproduct people want to consume. giving it to livestock makes sense
It makes sense because we don’t eat enough of the soy and TVP. And we also stuff soy oil is tons of shit. I’m not saying it’s an easy problem to solve, but it all comes down to our over-consumption and refusal to do anything even mildly inconvenient. Eat more whole foods and less meat and a lot of that solves itself.
If lab grown meat becomes cheaper than “real” meat while keeping the taste and texture of it or even improve on that, I can totally see that replacing factory farmed meat rather quickly. It’s like with electric cars; people don’t switch if we force / shame them to do so but they will once those vehicles became better than the dirty alternative.
But my point is that we are keeping meat artificially cheap with lots of subsidies. Meat would be a luxury food if people paid the real cost of it, let alone if we paid the long term costs on the environment. I think maybe your analogy would be better with bicycles than electric cars. Bikes are more versatile and convenient than cars in short distances (10km), but most cities have been and continue being developed as car centric. If we used taxes to improve bike infrastructure, people would feel safer to ride bikes more often.
This exactly. I would say one of the main reasons a lot of people don’t currently drink plant milk is that per unit volume, it tends to be more expensive. This is seemingly starting to even out as the plant milk industry expands, but the most dirt-cheap dairy milk and the most dirty-cheap plant milk are still nowhere near each other on price. I’m willing to bet that if all subsidies were taken away altogether, plant milk would be cheaper, and moreover, if it were flipped in such a way that existing dairy subsidies went to plant milk, it would be game over for dairy milk. Plant milk prices would be through the floor, and dairy milk would be seen as a luxury product. There are a ton of good reasons for this:
- Dairy milk is far worse for the environment than every kind of plant milk by every conceivable metric.
- The dairy industry is one of the most absurdly cruel institutions in the world. (NSFL)
- Plant milk is generally better for you than dairy milk. The downsides to plant milk health-wise are lack of protein (this is only 8g per serving, though, out of the 0.8g/kg/day that you need, and some plant milks are beginning to add protein) and the fortification with D2 instead of fortification with D3. It makes up for this however by generally having more calcium and Vitamin D, the potential to not have any sugar (compare ~8g of the sugar lactose), mono- and polyunsaturated fats without saturated fat and LDL cholesterol, and substantially fewer calories.
- Plant milk takes months to go bad, whereas dairy milk that’s not ultrapasteurized (and therefore dramatically more expensive) takes maybe a couple weeks at most from the date of purchase.
- Plant milk has an enormous amount of variety compared to dairy milk – there are so many types that enumerating them becomes exhausting, and for the most part (not you, rice milk) they’re all good. You can get essentially whatever you want, compared to dairy milk, where you’re basically stuck with that (subjective) weird, slightly sour aftertaste.
your BBC link actually just relies on poore-nemecek 2018, which abuses LCAs and myopically focuses on distilling other studies into discrete metrics without understanding the system holistically. in short, your claim about the environment may be true, but the source that you use to support it is incapable of providing that support.
Okay, link to the academic paper refuting it. Or is your source just a shitty, Z-tier disinformation outlet called “Farmers Against Misinformation”? “your claim about the environment may be true” 💀 Don’t muddy the waters here: it is true. This was the only error noted in the paper, and the erratum correcting it still comports with the authors’ original findings that dairy is abysmal for the environment when compared with the alternatives.
Is your entire purpose on Lemmy to spread anti-vegan, pro-animal agriculture disinformation?
Or is your source just a shitty, Z-tier disinformation outlet called “Farmers Against Misinformation”
your link doesn’t seem to align with anything i’ve said. are you sure you used the right link?
link to the academic paper refuting it.
seems like an appeal to authority, but i encourage you and anyone interested to look into how LCAs were abused, and how much cottonseed is weighed in the water use and land use of dairy milk, despite cotton being grown for textiles.
I’m sorry, I’ve read the paper, seen absolutely nothing wrong with it (and seemingly neither have other experts in the field, as I’ve yet to see any peer-reviewed rebuttal of its findings), and definitely trust an expert on food sustainability from Oxford and an agroecology expert from Agroscope as well as their publicly available and well-reasoned findings compared to some rando on the Internet who just whines with zero elaboration that LCAs are “abused” and can’t seem to figure out that they could’ve said all this in one comment instead of four.
I bet Poore and Nemecek would’ve figured out how to use the “edit” button. (And yes, I did link to the correct article, as the only attempt I could find to debunk this paper was from, again, a disinformation outlet whose lies are explored in that AFP article.)
the authors’ original findings that dairy is abysmal for the environment when compared with the alternatives
cannot be substantiated with the methodology used in this metastudy.
Is your entire purpose on Lemmy to spread anti-vegan, pro-animal agriculture disinformation?
this reads like pigeonholing. my “purpose” is to keep conversations honest and challenge bad science and reasoning.
cold turkey
Mmmm, I love cold turkey sandwiches after Thanksgiving
I meant cold tofurky sorry.
There’s a lot of “billionaires shouldn’t exist” and “eat the rich” sentiment out there. I often suggest jokingly that it should be legal to murder someone once they reach a certain level of wealth. It might motivate them to limit their greed at some point, perhaps be less exploitative of those who are working to generate their wealth or share more of it. And even if they pass the threshold, they may give more concern to how they treat people and how they are perceived.
Maybe not murder, but it should be legal to steal from people who have more wealth than they know what to do with. They’re hoarding wealth while some people are struggling to make ends meet.
Each year, sacrifice the 5 richest billionaires and distribute their estate to the public fund. Bam, so many problems immediately solved.
Or uh, idk, tax them properly and you achieve the same outcome without any killing.
Not that it’d ever happen though.
That’s a pretty fucked up thing to say. Is that really the world you wan’t to live in?
No, it is not the world I want to live in, but I am not convinced it would be worse than the current world.
Big corporations begging taxpayer bailouts and then using them on bonuses and dividends. It’s a humongous waste of money that does nothing but enrich the wealthy. Most of the time it doesn’t even save jobs.
If, as a large corporate, you want a bailout from the taxpayer, then the government/state will take a portion of your shares in escrow, equivalent in value to the amount of money you’re asking for or getting. Those shares (in case of publicly traded companies) are withdrawn from the stock market, become non-voting shares and are frozen at their price at that time. Within a to-be-determined time period (five years maybe) the corporation, if it gets profitable again, can buy back all or part of the shares from the government at that price per share - thus returning money to the taxpayer. Anything that’s left after five years, the government can do with as it sees fit - sell them at market price (thus recovering the spent money), or keep them use them to vote/control the company.
There probably is a lot wrong with this proposal. But something needs to be done to discourage big business from hoovering up taxpayer money like it’s going out of fashion. Most of the time the taxpayer is getting absolutely no value from that spend.
No bailouts without an equivalent equity transfer to the public. If you want a bailout you need to grant the same amount of stock to the government in exchange.
Isn’t that pretty much the short version of what I said?
deleted by creator
We’re too many humans for what the planet is able to sustain, we need to reduce our use of resources but we also need to be fewer than 8 billions
Actually, this is not true (yet). There is enough space and food for all people if we stay humble. The distribution is what is wrong. We just need a socialist world government and get rid of this capitalism shit.
Overpopulation is something that’ll take care of itself over the next 50 years or so. The more immediate issue is to figure out who will pay the pensions of the aging population.
No, it’s not. Social security is not a failing program.
Yes it is when there’s more people receiving those payments than working. The money has to come from somewhere.
That’s a simplistic reduction. They’ve been saying it’s going to run out for 30 years.
That’s what they’ve been saying about climate change as well. Think and you’ll see why: people are trying to solve it, and then the beneficiaries suddenly think it’s not a problem anymore. The year of exhaustion had recently moved from 2036 to 2035.
And, if Congress had not given themselves interest-free loans out of social security to bolster the economy then we wouldn’t be having any worry about whether or not we can afford to pay social security.
The real danger is that the money for social security that would have been growing and earning interest as it was properly invested was not properly invested.
They have phrased it as they didn’t expect people to live so long, but it’s not that. It’s because they don’t know where they’re going to get the money to repay social security, when the reason why there’s any danger of social security running out is that the money was mismanaged.
There are bigger problems that I agree need to be solved but I’m not personally that verbal about them. But the one I complain about the most has got to be potholes.
In the UK farmers are responsible for maintaining the hedgerows between the road and their fields so I feel like they should also be responsible for filling in the potholes caused by their heavy machinery and the cow shit left behind when they’re moving cattle.
