BodyBySisyphus [he/him]

Just a spontaneous exothermic reaction, that’s all.

The sheer chutzpah of “Not only are we arresting you for trying to clean up our mess, but it’s not like you brought enough mops anyway.”

Which is ultimately a self-defeating ambition, just a question of how much collateral damage gets done in the process.

“There will be a ChatGPT moment for biotechnology, and if China gets there first, no matter how fast we run, we will never catch up,” the bipartisan Congressional commission said in the report, referring to the transformative chatbot released by U.S.-based OpenAI.

“Our window to act is closing. We need a two-track strategy: make America innovate faster, and slow China down,” the commission said. It recommends that the U.S. government spend at least $15 billion over the next five years to support the domestic biotech sector.

It’s weird how brazen this is - research shouldn’t be a competition, but even if it was this article would read like “we need to do two things to win this race: run faster, and kick all our opponents in the shins.” WE COULD BE COLLABORATING, YOU ASSHATS.

And so you’re going to reduce the military budget and start approaching diplomacy with an eye for mutual benefit and international cooperation, right?

Assuming they ever start collecting the tariff.

Comrade Trump is fighting climate change by reducing demand for fossil fuels?

His language is uncharacteristic of a politician governing on behalf of all Americans irrespective of race, ethnicity, or citizenship status

How would you know in the absence of the counterfactual?

Whoops, fixed!

People’s Temple (the Jonestown folks) moved to Guatemala Guyana. There’s also Colonia Dignidad in Chile and Joao de Dios in Brazil, although he’s homegrown. Then there’s all the Mennonites currently setting up farming communes in the Amazon.

Inquiring minds want to know how the science wing of the center for science and international affairs recruits control groups and conducts experiments.

Preaching to the choir here, but the US has never led on this. Paris was a joke before the ink on the signatures even dried. The bedrock of our economy is fossil fuels and unless someone’s willing to do some percussive maintenance on our ruli- I mean, our economy, we’re stuck.

It kinda amazes me how thoroughly the dems were able to get away with selling the IRA as a climate investment, and, now that Bad Cop is back in charge, they get to pin the failures of the US to genuinely decarbonize on him.

It’s a reference to a genre of tweet that was floating around back when the blockade started. After the US announced that it was deploying a carrier group to the area, some very confident idiots posted “[Ansarallah] is about to find out why Americans don’t have free healthcare.” And they sure did, but probably not in the manner the posters intended.

The reasons for why Americans don’t have healthcare just keep getting dumber.

I think they get it, they just don’t think they’ll ever experience consequences. They can always move somewhere comparatively insulated from harm or don’t see a point in worrying about anything that happens outside of their own lifetimes or are techno optimists and assume we’ll crack fusion or invent efficient carbon scrubbers

Murdering the climate was really their first priority all along, wasn’t it?

Removed by mod

I am well aware of what you are talking about. I am just trying to create a general understanding without resorting to ideology.

Why are you assuming that hunger has ideologically neutral solutions?

I already assumed we had enough technological capability

We do

that humanity as a whole shares the interest to solve this problem

It most certainly does not

What else remains?

The fact that some very powerful and very rich people stay powerful and rich by keeping other, less powerful and less rich people hungry

The inability to translate those capabilities into achieving the desired goals

We have the ability. The cost of addressing global hunger is in the billions. We could do it tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. The calories are there, the funds exist.

How else would you be able to make sense of the results without resorting to specifics of human history?

I don’t understand the question. How do you make sense of the results without resorting to the specifics of human history? Everything is the way it is now because of things that happened then.

But if you manage to work this general model, whatever answer you get albeit general would apply to every context.

There isn’t a model here. There’s a very facile understanding of the problem that leaves out its major driver. Researchers have already progressed well beyond this level of thinking and have proposed solutions. The reasons the solutions are still not being implemented is obvious, and people have pointed that out as well. This whole train of thought is like walking into a dark room and trying to figure out why it’s dark without looking at the switch. “Gosh, we’ve changed the bulb, we replaced the fixture, we’ve checked all the wiring, we’ve ensured the house has power, we’ve done everything! Why won’t the light turn on?” If you insist on leaving ideology out of it you’re never going to get to the answer because ideology is the answer.

How do you reconcile that with the fact that before the slave trade and colonialism, famine and malnourishment in Africa were comparatively rare? Why, despite the increase in technology and food production capability do these problems exist now when they didn’t then?

Hoo boy wait til you see what Zelenskyy was up to.