I don’t agree. Some (but not all) locally native species are already starting to struggle in today’s climate. They will be in dire shape in 50 or 100 years. We should start phase these out of plantings in favor of native species from warmer or drier climates.

And this is ignoring the fact that native species isn’t even a scientific concept in the first place but most people aren’t ready to question the nature of their reality yet ;)

Instead of making a snarky comment like this, maybe you could make a contribution based on how this issue affects Ireland? DED is certainly present there, and European chestnuts have been impacted severely by blight. EAB is also present in Europe and may reach Ireland eventually. The spread of novel pests and pathogens through global trade is a global problem that certainly applies to Ireland as well.

But it sounds like you don’t have much knowledge of the goings on in your own area to contribute.

Sometimes trees defy all attempts to kill them. This is certainly not a good idea but based on the faded paint it looks like it’s been in place for some time now, and the tree is still healthy. Eventually it might choke the tree as the trunk expands but it looks to be surviving so far.

Overrated: dandelions… yeah I know lots of people hate them but I still think they deserve an even worse reputation lol.

Underrated: poison sanicle. Because I’m the only one who isn’t scared of the name.

Also using a specific preparation. I don’t believe they are edible raw.

Yeah I wanted to come up with a better example because a lot of right-libertarians have bizarre anti-libertarian views on many things. But in terms of the party platforms that one does seem to be the closest, and it doesn’t really match the platforms of the major parties.

Libertarians probably. Not super close to either main party here.

I disagree actually. The main problems of both stem from the concentration of power in a ruling class and a lack of freedom and decision-making power among ordinary people.

But there is hope to build a better system, yes. As long as we learn the correct lessons from history. Which most don’t seem to have done, unfortunately.

Maybe. But many of us disagree that the USSR and its successors are meaningfully similar to what people are actually proposing when they say socialism. So I reject the premise.

The USSR is a good example of what ML theory leads to, which is a good reason to reject that school of thought. I don’t think it’s particularly meaningful in rejecting all schools of socialism, unless you can demonstrate how those theories would lead to this style of government despite being very different and often openly in opposition to ML governing structures.

A lot of people seem to want to reclaim the word socialism but part of me thinks that this concept that socialism = repressive state-run capitalism is so ingrained in the popular discourse that we just need to pick a new and completely different term for the more libertarian branches of socialism. Most people can’t seem to get past the name to understand the important differences.

This is like the least scientific post I’ve ever seen on this sub and that’s saying a lot.

I think there is an interesting conversation to be had on this topic but we won’t be having it here because of the way you started the discussion. In general the fields of economics and political theory are not very scientific compared to other sciences. This allows lots of people to make all sorts of wild claims about what is or isn’t scientific. This is a problem that needs to be addressed and is the ultimate source of much of the confusion and debate on this topic.

Better is a relative term. Do you want shitty dystopian government A or B? No wonder there is divided opinion. The two systems are not as different as people like to pretend for ideological reasons.

They were a disaster. But their modern governments are also a disaster. It’s pretty simple to understand why people feel this way.

Well, capitalist societies do this also, and for good reason. Many transactions that may be completely voluntary between those engaging in the transaction have large negative impacts on other people. In economics this is referred to as an externality, and is one of the main causes of market failure. Some obvious examples from today’s society would be fencing, which on a micro level is a completely voluntary purchasing agreement, but if one looks beyond those two people we can clearly see that it supports and encourages theft. Another would be dumping—a property owner may consent to toxic waste being disposed of on their property but we do not allow this because this waste may have very serious negative health consequences on nearby people.

The logic that critics of capitalism bring is that extreme accumulation of wealth is itself a similar type of transaction—perhaps voluntary on its face (though in reality this is also questionable) but having very large negative effects on society as a whole. These negative effects are extensively described by socialist theorists as well as modern political scientists, public health researchers, and even many left-leaning capitalists, so I won’t get into them here since I assume most are already familiar.

I was mainly pushing back against this charitable view of Lenin which I find ahistorical and far too widespread. The revolutionary movement in Russia actually had a strong democratic ethic but it was co-opted and then suppressed by Lenin rather than allowed to develop into an independent institution. If revolutions are to succeed in instituting substantially better societies, they need built in ethics and norms to prevent this type of seizure by authoritarian leaders. Abrupt transitions like this are particularly susceptible because there is often a lack of consensus among people about what the new system should look like—only that the old one should go. Lenin’s party wasn’t even particularly popular but through various schemes he was able to seize and maintain power by electoral chicanery and then violent repression.

How to avoid this problem is a bit of an unsolved question in my view, but I am curious which violent revolutions you would view as successful? Most that I can think of devolved, either quickly or slowly, into having a new ruling class, often enforced by even more violence than the old system.

It could be yeah. The viruses themselves should be harmless to humans since they’re specific to fungi. However, you’d need to find a virus that is effective in infecting and killing the target fungus, which could require extensive research. While most viruses weaken their hosts at least a little, most are not deadly to them, partly because killing the host inherently reduces the available hosts in the future.

Well, I’m not going to claim these programs will totally transform our society and completely eliminate crime. But I think the evidence shows they can move the needle in significant ways.

Maybe. They don’t grow as well in heat and humidity. But it could be worth a try.

Bet all you want, that’s what the research shows.

Long-term research studies have shown that quality early childhood programs help prevent later criminal behavior, particularly for at-risk children; for example, at-risk children who did not receive quality educational child care in Chicago's Child-Parent Centers were 70 percent more likely to commit violent crimes by the age of 18 than similar children who attended the program.

Humans don’t just murder people for no reason. You only think that because we live in a society that allows huge numbers of children to grow up in awful conditions simply because we don’t care enough to prevent it. Humans forged in awful environments grow up to be awful. Humans forged in caring, supportive environments, grow up to be caring and supportive. That’s how humans human.

Well, it depends on the exact behavior Jeff Bezos pursues and what my needs are. As individuals in a larger society, his direct effects on my well-being are not especially obvious. But they are there. And keep in mind that I am speaking of relative wealth here—Bezos’s fluctuating wealth only matters in in relation to the purchasing power of ordinary people. If our purchasing power also declines, then we are no better off then before.

But, fundamentally, ordinary people are competing for resources against the ultra-wealthy, and their incredible wealth means that even a tiny inconvenience for them will be valued higher than life or death for me.

Now, free-market ideologues like to imagine that Jeff Bezos’s wealth is only being used to produce more goods that can then be used to meet my needs indirectly. And there is some truth to this. Certainly the economy is pretty good at providing me with adequate food, clothing, and other inexpensive mass-produced goods. The fact that Jeff Bezos can buy a wardrobe far more expansive and showy than mine is not a major problem for me. If he consumes more clothes, the cost of clothing may come down due to economies of scale and I may even benefit from his purchases.

However, this is not the only type of need I have. There are other human necessities and services that are more fundamentally limited. For example, land in cities is fundamentally scarce. I cannot afford to live in San Francisco or Manhattan because the ultra-wealthy have bid up the price beyond what I can pay. Even more critically, the rich can purchase vast amounts of human labor—in fact, this is the basis of our current economy. The majority of people work in service to the wealthy, and the rest of us are left with scraps. If my community wants to build a train line, there is no way to do this because materials and labor are monopolized by projects that benefit Bezos and members of his class. Political power works similarly. Sure, I get a vote, but do I really have the same say as Bezos does? The answer is obvious, and this contradicts the ideals of democracy as well.

Ultimately, markets as a means of maximizing human well-being can only be justified if purchasing power is relatively equal between people. It is unjust to spend millions entertaining Bezos with space travel while other people are literally dying from lack of resources. As long as the ultra-wealthy exist, this problem continues. Which is why I think their wealth must be redistributed or dismantled.

In a sense you are right—the vast majority of people are going to pursue their own self interest at the expense of collective society. This is a classic example of game theory—as individuals we may need to pursue strategies that leave us worse off even individually than if everyone cooperated on a different strategy. Even though I dislike this impulse, I think it’s a natural outcome of the interplay between our economic system and human nature, and so I don’t seek to chastise people for behaving this way. As I said, it is only natural, and you are probably right that I do behave similarly when filing my own taxes (though I have sometimes chosen to donate to some state programs I support). So rather than seeking to moralize people into changing their behavior, I think it will be more effective to imagine and implement a system where the individual interest better aligns with the collective good. What exactly this looks like is a larger topic, and I don’t claim to have a final answer, just some vague principles and strategies that could move us in that direction.

Regarding tax policy, it sounds like you know more than I do about the ins and outs of avoiding tax liability, so I will accept your correction on capital gains taxes. I am not ideologically tied to any particular tax—but I do maintain that extreme wealth inequality is very damaging to society, and so progressive taxation is an important strategy in not only funding beneficial programs, but also keeping this gulf from widening further or faster than it already is. If a given sales tax can be proven to be progressive enough, then I would support it, but most sales taxes I have read about fail this test. I also like sin taxes. While they aren’t inherently progressive, they do have other benefits in disincentivizing activity that is collectively harmful—taxes on drugs or pollution would be classic examples of this sort of idea. But they need to be crafted carefully so as not to worsen poverty as a side effect. Income tax is ideal in some respects because it can easily be designed to minimize the burden on the poor.

Look into the way Lenin seized and maintained power during the Russian revolution. It is so far from democratic that I have a have a hard time anyone could be naive enough to believe this strategy would lead to any level of democracy.

Well I’m not going to try to convince you not to pursue your own self interest because that would be unlikely to work. But your response points to a pitfall in all such taxation schemes. The rich have far more time and resources to pursue tax loopholes and similar efforts. In my opinion, the simpler the tax code, the more easily these loopholes can be closed. The ideal system is both simple and progressive, but most simplified tax schemes I have seen are far more regressive than the current system.

Capital gains taxes don’t seem too easy to avoid currently, since they are executed through large financial institutions that keep good records. They are also fairly progressive, which is why I like them. But I am open to suggestions on how they can be more consistently applied if anyone has them.

Cutting taxes on top earners is the last thing we should be doing. If anything they should be increased. The rich do more harm than good in society simply by existing. Even if we took some of their money and burned it the economy would be healthier. Using it for public services is a no-brainer.

That said, volatility is an issue here. Why not have the tax be based on a rolling average to even out some of this volatility?

Thank you. This is interesting to me since I was wanting to record phone calls for work (for personal use, nothing nefarious) but didn't feel like asking every person for permission each time haha.

Edit: Or maybe this only applies in public spaces? That seems to be the implication after reading. But I'm not lawyer.

Really? Link?

You’re going to need a better picture for an accurate answer. It is certainly some type of spruce or for but that won’t be enough information to purchase it.