I beg to differ. Non-organic vegetables are raised on depleted soil and only produce due to copious quantities of the chemicals N-P-K. These chemicals were derived during the war as they are ingredients used in making bombs. After the war, all this manufacturing capacity needed an outlet - "Think of the corporations! Have you no soul?!". So they discovered that adding these chemicals caused plants to grow vigorously et voila! Here we are with pesticide enhanced and chemically fertilized products. These vegetables look like real vegetables but are nothing more than a look-alike, completely poor in nutritive qualities. This book covers the topic well: https://www.amazon.com/Empty-H...
Organic produce is fed by the biota in the soil, which lives there and provides nutrients to the things that grow there. It makes nutrients available in a way that a plant can absorb them. In the pesticide laden soil, not much insect life other than spiders, same as my garage with its concrete floor.
Produce is a product that quickly loses nutritive value so speed from market matters. I really favor local rather than big-agriculture-type organic.
I would definitely support a solution that works, whatever it is. However, it would have to work for everyone and work reasonably well. It would have to be a progressive, not regressive solution. What advanced countries seem to have settled on is single-payer so that is the system to beat.
Thanks for all the details, you clearly have done a lot of math. I am going to surmise that you are not a nutritionist nor really aware of what an optimal diet looks like. If we are going to keep people healthy, and that has to be a goal else we are increasing the expense end due to medical complications, then healthy food must be predicated. Organic food costs about $3/lb for vegetables, that probably would drop if it were more prevalent. Grass fed beef and pastured poultry is $4/lb at best. Eggs, can be had for 0.50 each.
Food/nutrition is about a lot more than kilocalories and the kCal that you are hypothesizing (wheat, corn and their many abominable permutations) is the kind of "food" that makes people obese, diabetic, and generally unhealthy.
Living space too needs to be livable and promote mental well-being, it really sounds like you want people to feel miserable and be aware that they are worthless. This will only lead to despair and the kind of habitations that are seen only in movies about dystopian futures. Generally, bluefoxlucid, if you wouldn't want your children living that way, don't propose that. I really get the feeling that you are hostile to this population and want to make life listless, meaningless, and again, miserable.
I'm not proposing we would all live in mansions but, communal arrangements could be made, there could be communal farms, communal housing with shared kitchens, etc. It doesn't have to be shitty like you paint it with people living in a pathetic closet and only rolling out of it to go get a limb amputated or pick up some cheerios to make themselves even more obese.
Lol. So every Chinese billionaire will have a pet Englishman or two. The best restaurants will have human waiters, fine. I can believe both of those things. Yes, a very small, infinitesimal even, segment of the population will have these jobs, what about the other 95-97%?
You mean I dogmatically insist on the proven solution implemented by all advanced countries? Yeah. I guess I'm being dogmatic by strongly favoring a proven solution over conjecture and mindlessly plugging my ears and shouting that nothing will work. Yeah, I foe-d you, that's what I do to people who can't mount a reasonable argument and resort to insults meant to discredit valid thoughts or questions. I'm sure you're used to it.
As I pointed out, we're not starting from scratch so you could easily say: I favor Sweden's, or France's or Germany's mixed with England's whatever. It should be easy for you to look at what's out there and have some ideas. The utter lack of commitment indicates a lack of desire to move the ball forward. Not that we're going to solve big problems on/. but surely we can do better that bitch about nothing being good and sticking to that position obstinately.
Fair enough, even tRumpf agrees "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated." Some deep thought and analysis will have to be invested but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Going to the moon was difficult, so was/is developing computers and other technology that is so advanced as to seem like nothing short of magic. If not that, what would you propose? I'm all for UBI and single-payer health care, there are plenty of examples of successful single-payer health care (like every single advanced country on earth and even some less-advanced ones), UBI is still in early development even as a theory.
To those who are accustomed to a shitty impoverished life due to the greed and damage caused by corporations, there might not be much difference or a noticeable improvement.
That's just cause they needed stage filler. In a more real depiction those would not exist, or they'd have ulterior motives for being there, like sex, or sex, or the opportunity to make arrangements for sex later.
Yes! I'd vote for this. And more job-sharing. Like CEO jobs should be shared by about 100 people. Each one works half-a-week per year. This effectively spreads the obscenely high salary and we get less rapacious behavior mostly because psychopaths are so hard to find that probably at least a good 90 of them wouldn't be.
I'm mostly ok with your proposal but minimum wage is insufficient to live on so that part is still a stick which is not what UBI should be. Universal social security should be at a minimum, a livable wage. You have to understand that most (then quickly virtually all) menial jobs will be automated away, so proposing such a low wage as an incentive to work makes no sense in the face of a non-existent labor market. A more generous wage allows more spending on stuff (like food) so that will keep the economy moving. If people are mostly content with their jobless state due to their basic needs being met, rather than feeling they're being unfairly castigated, a more peaceful society will result. Otherwise, unrest and guillotines for the necks of the upper-classes. So, I think you need to adjust your thesis a bit.
So, less jobs as care-takers, food raisers, chicken raisers and butchers? No need for house-cleaners, either. How do you even begin to think that these suggestions are interesting or helpful? It's a good thing you posted as ac, otherwise I'd insult your intelligence.
Perhaps, but, at least in the USA, the new jobs are mainly McJobs. Inflation adjusted wages have been flat and declining since the 70's. That is a true fact, unlike what you hear from the giant cheeto.
You have forgotten the automation problem/solution. All of those jobs will be automated away, literally, all of them. The only job that might still be done better by humans is probably sex toy, maybe. Bed-making, drink-making and delivery, baking, cooking, cleaning, greeting at desk, etc. All done better by robots than meat-bags. Humans might be given "jobs" but they'll primarily be window dressing, just there to give a local ambience. What do we do with all the humans in a world where even serfs aren't needed?
He just suggested "simple Medicare for all". This was the second sentence in his response paragraph. How did you manage to miss it? Is it because you simply wanted to avoid a substantive discussion with an ac? Because you have no response? What are your thoughts on "simple Medicare for all"?
I don't see those two ways as mutually exclusive. There are also numerous other ways it could work out, it is interesting that you see all roads as dark. Is there any way in your view in which it ends up roses and rainbows?
In short, tell me how all it all gets "better" when you and the other 40% of the human race find yourselves unemployable.
I gather you're an optimist, or you're thinking relatively short term, say 10-20 years out. Because I'm thinking we'll end up with close to 90% "unemployment". I put it in quotes because I'm sure we'll find ways to fill our time but it sure won't be slaving to make some corporate fuck rich. The 10 percent employed will be probably plumbers, and electricians to maintain the old infrastructure that can't be efficiently served by robots. That too will be short-lived (say 100 years max) as new infrastructure is replaced by more easily maintained versions.
Yes, the true problem to solve is greed, the solution will be nice and smooth, or bumpy. I'm going to go dust off my guillotine designs from my mechanisms class...
Thanks for the tips I'll definitely look into options. However, to me, some of the more compelling features of the Tesla cars was their seemingly incredible safety specs, as per the oatmeal comic I poster earlier. That will be a strong consideration for me. Here is some interesting information I came across today, saves me some work digging out and compiling information, thought you might like it too unless you already made a better version of it.
Both the V10 and rat will consume gas voraciously and probably weigh about the same, maybe LS is lighter so better performance? No matter which way you go, you're sticking those beasts into a skateboard so you will definitely be going fast. How well you'll handle on anything other than a straightaway remains to be seen. I'm guessing there's a subset of people who do this kind of thing so you probably already know what to expect.
Enjoy the parts and dinosaur juice! Dinosaur juice for dinosaurs!;-) Yay!
I hear you brother, me too. I'm seriously thinking I can swing a $35,000 car though. Like this: https://www.tesla.com/model3
I started thinking about it because I'm getting solar panels installed soon, along with a Power Wall and I figured, hell, maybe I can also avoid buying gas, and all I probably need to do is add another panel to my solar system. No more stinky dinosaur juice for me!
I prefer 9 hours, there's a lot of down time during which laundry could be folded. Can also watch TV, go do some exercise, cook a nice meal, knock it out, clean the yard, take the kids to the park, etc... The washing time is mostly down-time while a machine does the work. I would really,really, really not want clothes coming out that quickly, they just end up accumulating and wrinkling at the next choke point, usually folding.
C
Slashdot Mirror
I beg to differ. Non-organic vegetables are raised on depleted soil and only produce due to copious quantities of the chemicals N-P-K. These chemicals were derived during the war as they are ingredients used in making bombs. After the war, all this manufacturing capacity needed an outlet - "Think of the corporations! Have you no soul?!". So they discovered that adding these chemicals caused plants to grow vigorously et voila! Here we are with pesticide enhanced and chemically fertilized products. These vegetables look like real vegetables but are nothing more than a look-alike, completely poor in nutritive qualities. This book covers the topic well: https://www.amazon.com/Empty-H...
Organic produce is fed by the biota in the soil, which lives there and provides nutrients to the things that grow there. It makes nutrients available in a way that a plant can absorb them. In the pesticide laden soil, not much insect life other than spiders, same as my garage with its concrete floor.
Produce is a product that quickly loses nutritive value so speed from market matters. I really favor local rather than big-agriculture-type organic.
I would definitely support a solution that works, whatever it is. However, it would have to work for everyone and work reasonably well. It would have to be a progressive, not regressive solution. What advanced countries seem to have settled on is single-payer so that is the system to beat.
Then we're in violent agreement! :-)
Thanks for all the details, you clearly have done a lot of math. I am going to surmise that you are not a nutritionist nor really aware of what an optimal diet looks like. If we are going to keep people healthy, and that has to be a goal else we are increasing the expense end due to medical complications, then healthy food must be predicated. Organic food costs about $3/lb for vegetables, that probably would drop if it were more prevalent. Grass fed beef and pastured poultry is $4/lb at best. Eggs, can be had for 0.50 each.
Food/nutrition is about a lot more than kilocalories and the kCal that you are hypothesizing (wheat, corn and their many abominable permutations) is the kind of "food" that makes people obese, diabetic, and generally unhealthy.
Living space too needs to be livable and promote mental well-being, it really sounds like you want people to feel miserable and be aware that they are worthless. This will only lead to despair and the kind of habitations that are seen only in movies about dystopian futures. Generally, bluefoxlucid, if you wouldn't want your children living that way, don't propose that. I really get the feeling that you are hostile to this population and want to make life listless, meaningless, and again, miserable.
I'm not proposing we would all live in mansions but, communal arrangements could be made, there could be communal farms, communal housing with shared kitchens, etc. It doesn't have to be shitty like you paint it with people living in a pathetic closet and only rolling out of it to go get a limb amputated or pick up some cheerios to make themselves even more obese.
Lol. So every Chinese billionaire will have a pet Englishman or two. The best restaurants will have human waiters, fine. I can believe both of those things. Yes, a very small, infinitesimal even, segment of the population will have these jobs, what about the other 95-97%?
You mean I dogmatically insist on the proven solution implemented by all advanced countries? Yeah. I guess I'm being dogmatic by strongly favoring a proven solution over conjecture and mindlessly plugging my ears and shouting that nothing will work. Yeah, I foe-d you, that's what I do to people who can't mount a reasonable argument and resort to insults meant to discredit valid thoughts or questions. I'm sure you're used to it.
Way to have an intelligent discussion. You dickwad.
As I pointed out, we're not starting from scratch so you could easily say: I favor Sweden's, or France's or Germany's mixed with England's whatever. It should be easy for you to look at what's out there and have some ideas. The utter lack of commitment indicates a lack of desire to move the ball forward. Not that we're going to solve big problems on /. but surely we can do better that bitch about nothing being good and sticking to that position obstinately.
Fair enough, even tRumpf agrees "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated." Some deep thought and analysis will have to be invested but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Going to the moon was difficult, so was/is developing computers and other technology that is so advanced as to seem like nothing short of magic. If not that, what would you propose? I'm all for UBI and single-payer health care, there are plenty of examples of successful single-payer health care (like every single advanced country on earth and even some less-advanced ones), UBI is still in early development even as a theory.
To those who are accustomed to a shitty impoverished life due to the greed and damage caused by corporations, there might not be much difference or a noticeable improvement.
That's just cause they needed stage filler. In a more real depiction those would not exist, or they'd have ulterior motives for being there, like sex, or sex, or the opportunity to make arrangements for sex later.
Yes! I'd vote for this. And more job-sharing. Like CEO jobs should be shared by about 100 people. Each one works half-a-week per year. This effectively spreads the obscenely high salary and we get less rapacious behavior mostly because psychopaths are so hard to find that probably at least a good 90 of them wouldn't be.
I'm mostly ok with your proposal but minimum wage is insufficient to live on so that part is still a stick which is not what UBI should be. Universal social security should be at a minimum, a livable wage. You have to understand that most (then quickly virtually all) menial jobs will be automated away, so proposing such a low wage as an incentive to work makes no sense in the face of a non-existent labor market. A more generous wage allows more spending on stuff (like food) so that will keep the economy moving. If people are mostly content with their jobless state due to their basic needs being met, rather than feeling they're being unfairly castigated, a more peaceful society will result. Otherwise, unrest and guillotines for the necks of the upper-classes. So, I think you need to adjust your thesis a bit.
So, less jobs as care-takers, food raisers, chicken raisers and butchers? No need for house-cleaners, either. How do you even begin to think that these suggestions are interesting or helpful? It's a good thing you posted as ac, otherwise I'd insult your intelligence.
Perhaps, but, at least in the USA, the new jobs are mainly McJobs. Inflation adjusted wages have been flat and declining since the 70's. That is a true fact, unlike what you hear from the giant cheeto.
You have forgotten the automation problem/solution. All of those jobs will be automated away, literally, all of them. The only job that might still be done better by humans is probably sex toy, maybe. Bed-making, drink-making and delivery, baking, cooking, cleaning, greeting at desk, etc. All done better by robots than meat-bags. Humans might be given "jobs" but they'll primarily be window dressing, just there to give a local ambience. What do we do with all the humans in a world where even serfs aren't needed?
He just suggested "simple Medicare for all". This was the second sentence in his response paragraph. How did you manage to miss it? Is it because you simply wanted to avoid a substantive discussion with an ac? Because you have no response? What are your thoughts on "simple Medicare for all"?
I find it socially acceptable.
I don't see those two ways as mutually exclusive. There are also numerous other ways it could work out, it is interesting that you see all roads as dark. Is there any way in your view in which it ends up roses and rainbows?
In short, tell me how all it all gets "better" when you and the other 40% of the human race find yourselves unemployable.
I gather you're an optimist, or you're thinking relatively short term, say 10-20 years out. Because I'm thinking we'll end up with close to 90% "unemployment". I put it in quotes because I'm sure we'll find ways to fill our time but it sure won't be slaving to make some corporate fuck rich. The 10 percent employed will be probably plumbers, and electricians to maintain the old infrastructure that can't be efficiently served by robots. That too will be short-lived (say 100 years max) as new infrastructure is replaced by more easily maintained versions.
Yes, the true problem to solve is greed, the solution will be nice and smooth, or bumpy. I'm going to go dust off my guillotine designs from my mechanisms class...
Thanks for the tips I'll definitely look into options. However, to me, some of the more compelling features of the Tesla cars was their seemingly incredible safety specs, as per the oatmeal comic I poster earlier. That will be a strong consideration for me.
Here is some interesting information I came across today, saves me some work digging out and compiling information, thought you might like it too unless you already made a better version of it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
Yup! I'm not there yet but it is is a goal.
Both the V10 and rat will consume gas voraciously and probably weigh about the same, maybe LS is lighter so better performance? No matter which way you go, you're sticking those beasts into a skateboard so you will definitely be going fast. How well you'll handle on anything other than a straightaway remains to be seen. I'm guessing there's a subset of people who do this kind of thing so you probably already know what to expect.
Enjoy the parts and dinosaur juice! Dinosaur juice for dinosaurs! ;-) Yay!
I hear you brother, me too. I'm seriously thinking I can swing a $35,000 car though. Like this:
https://www.tesla.com/model3
I started thinking about it because I'm getting solar panels installed soon, along with a Power Wall and I figured, hell, maybe I can also avoid buying gas, and all I probably need to do is add another panel to my solar system. No more stinky dinosaur juice for me!
Mine has both as well
I prefer 9 hours, there's a lot of down time during which laundry could be folded. Can also watch TV, go do some exercise, cook a nice meal, knock it out, clean the yard, take the kids to the park, etc... The washing time is mostly down-time while a machine does the work.
I would really,really, really not want clothes coming out that quickly, they just end up accumulating and wrinkling at the next choke point, usually folding.
C