The widely regarded FACT that 'the number of Marijuana deaths is zero' is based on the well observed historical precedent that no human has ever died directly from Marijuana Consumption. Yes of course if you count car accidents (like this study did, which i think weakens its arguments) that number is arguably non-zero, I say 'arguably' because every study i've read on the subject points out that all the accidents they looked at that involved marijuana consumption ALSO included alcohol consumption, making it unclear if it was the weed or the beer that caused the car crash
But back to that previous point, most substances have a toxicity level that will eventually kill someone. E.g. you can snort enough cocaine in one sitting to kill you. Ditto for alcohol, heroin, and most stimulants. But marijuana? The toxicity level is only theoretical. The theoretical number is so high no one has ever reached it. You can literally sit down at a table and non-stop smoke blunts your entire life and not die provided you don't smoke so much you suffer from oxygen deprivation no one in the history of mankind has EVER died DIRECTLY from smoking marijuana. Theoretically if i distilled THC (the active ingredient of cannabis) into a liquid concentrated enough, i could give you a shot that would kill you. They've done this to mice to prove it is possible, but no human has ever overdosed on weed.
If we limited copyright terms to instead of 3 LIFETIMES (life of author plus 150 years) to say... 10-20 years. The constitution, which doesn't directly mention copyright but "securing for limited time exclusive right to authors..." I don't think anyone would say three lifetimes counts as a 'limited' time.
Were we thought in the future everyone would be able to permanently own a copy of their favorite movie/tv show/album. We figured in the future artists would still be paid gratis (e.g. 'you are my faviorate here is $30 donation please make another album!') But the digital information would be free, in the future anyone would be able to access any movie ever made for free, and maybe only be 'forced' to pay if they wanted HD quality of the latest episode/release. We figured all this increased internet freedom would bring the copyright regime tumbling down, and finally we would have the necessary reform that would allow derivative works like fanfics/fanart and remixes to flourish on the interwebs instead of being shut down.
15 years later and you either need a subscription to Netflix, Amazon, Hulu etc. to maybe watch a couple of movies you might like that may or may not be available that month. Otherwise you are stuck with a box under your TV that demands you pay $5.99-$9.99 EVERY SINGLE TIME you want to watch your favorite action movie. The oppressive copyright regime marches on into new territories and countries, with the US government sending agents to arrest teenagers in countries where its not even illegal to share files online. Youtube continues to take down videos for using 15 seconds of video that is declared 'infringing' even when the included content is not even owned by the party that flagged it to be taken down. Heck this happens even when the content is in the public domain!
The same thing happened to music, with more people volunteering to pay for limited streaming access to a library instead of just sharing their favorite tracks with friends.
Instead of technology making us more free it helped the oligarchs to control us even more.
There is so much wrong with what you said, but instead of explaining it i guess i'll just go home and program my version of UBER that uses blockchain (and therefore has no 'centralized service' for you to ticket/fine) and then build in features into the app that helps users avoid under-cover cops, or allows drivers to flag riders as undercover cops so they can be identified and avoided by the other drivers.
Like the original poster said, the more you tighten your grip, the more will slip through your fingers.
its not that they haven't allocated enough money to the infrastructure, its that all that money is being lost to corruption and fraud. Calcified quasi-governmental corporations that have learned to game the bureaucratic system for maximum financial gain with no real increase in output/productivity. Honestly this is the one example where selling lines off to completely new companies (not the ones that are currently maintaining them with quasi-governmental protection/power) would actually help the entire system. But the city is to liberal/democratic if you just mention the word 'privatization' and you will be tarred and feathered
I've seen video's of subway personnel in japan 'shoving/packing' people into subway cars like cattle, cause the local government would rather pay people to shove others in dozens of stations instead of just increasing the number of cars running on the line so as to reduce congestion. So i don't think i would call that 'nearly perfect'
This is reuters, one of the oldest news reporting agencies around, so yes. These people (and what they think their most popular demographic is) probably couldn't hold a video game controller in their hands, let alone tell you weather the controller they are a holding is a PS4, Xbox One, or Steam Controller. So yes, to them cosmetic micro-transactions in a 'free-to-play' game along with the new PUBG game format is cutting edge latest technology that the 'tweens' are enjoying
Turns out there is a product called 'Hempcrete' but its better used for insulation than the kinds of things we would use concrete for. Hempcrete will float in a bucket of water
Well you already are first-to-market, so you already have a big advantage over your competitors. once they copy and release a similar app, yours has already had several weeks/months of exposure and advertising on the market as the only supplier of such an app. So if you complain about people copying you, your really just being an entitled asshole.
Every daylight savings time heart attacks increase by 25%, car crashes increase by 17% (2.75 billion cost over 10 yrs). The only reason people do daylight savings time anymore is because we've been doing it for so long we don't question it anymore. It never saved any daylight, I think a study after world war II showed the policy barely had its intended effect (increased productivity, energy savings) and came with a whole host of unintended consequences. For the love of god we need to quit this idiotic experiment!
Unfortunately at this point there are established interests that want to keep it going. Starbucks knows they get more business when the clocks change, and would resist any proposed law to get rid of daylight savings time. There are dozens of other companies in a similar situation.
sources:
https://www.reuters.com/articl...http://www.telegram.com/articl...
Venezuela, unfortunately, has a central bank like we do. The currency in that country has crashed, such that millions of citizens want to get out of the Venezuelan currency and use dollars/pesos/anything else. The government has prevented this by 'fixing' the currency to the dollar to ensure a very bad exchange rate, trapping the citizens into using a worthless currency that can't buy them much of anything. Bitcoin has been enabling transactions, allowing some of the poorest in that country to buy bread, milk, and other necessities, often on the border where a healthy 'black market' thrives and accepts other currencies, including bitcoin.
This action by the Venezuelan government is their attempt to completely squash any last monetary freedom present amongst their citizens.
It won't. Same as if we magically hit a switch and made racism disappear, there would still be inequality due to the historical racial injustices of the past. If suddenly we got rid of the Federal Reserve and had a stable currency (argue for either bitcoin, gold, or some basket commodity money, i don't really care which) then you get rid of this system that unfairly props up and bails out those who are already in the favor of the banking elite/politicians. Over time both of these magical solutions would lead to greater equality, but they wouldn't happen overnight.
to summarize what the core of the problem is:
I don't mind Richy Mc. Rich inheriting billions of dollars. But when he puts all that money into an investment firm and is incompetent/irresponsible with the money and makes bad investments and ends up bankrupt a few years later, he should get kicked to the curve and go out of business like the market demands. Instead our Federal Reserve system will have him bailed out with a 0% interest loan worth millions/billions and WAY more favorable repayment terms than you or I would get, essentially making the bailout as close as possible to 'free money' as you can get. And who gets bailouts, and how much, has waaay more to do with the people involved and their political connections than it has to do with the 'financial stability' of the firm
No one wants to get rid of the government to the extent that the chaotic evil people in the world can get away with, as you say, 'kill my neighbor, steal his sheep, and rape his daughter' they want to get rid of the government to the extent that the lawful evil people in the world can't get away using an anonymous tip to have the DEA show up at 4AM for a no-knock raid that ends up in your accidental death by police shooting, buy the loan on your farm and force it into foreclosure to get the sheep and sell the land, which then forces your daughter to get a job at the Diner in the morning and strip club at night where Mr. Lawfull evil can buy a few hours of her time....
The biggest lie ever told to Americans is that Big corporations want free markets with minimal government spending. Corporations love big government because it means big subsidies and bureaucracies they can capture and control to exert more power over the market. Corporations cower in fear of the Free Market, its what killed blockbuster, its what killed Kodak, and it almost killed a GM and a huge portion of our corrupt investment banking industry but the government stepped in and saved them via TARP
Unless you live in California or Texas or New York, your state rep probably lives in your neighborhood, goes to your local church, and would gladly talk to you in the entrance of the local grocery store just so she can be seen by other members of the community listening to citizen feedback. In those states with about 50,000 people per representative it doesn't cost much for a campaign (heck you could just go door-to-door yourself to dethrone the incumbent and get elected) so these state reps are far less likely to be beholden to campaign contributions, far more likely to be responsive to the will of the electorate, and less likely to accept contributions in the first place for fear that it will do more harm to their reputation in the local community than it would help.
Also, when local state reps DO take money for campaign contributions, it is usually from the local buisnesses e.g. local car dealerships, local restaurant chains, not exactly the Haliburtons or GoldmanSachs that we see with federal reps.
Except you are NEVER going to accomplish #2 unless you tear away government's control over the currency. That is its #1 power that prevents meaningful reforms from taking place (you might wonder why, but thats a BIG list, just read up on the ties between fed reserve chairmen and the companies/banks that get 0% interest loans, and remember that is the START of the rabbit hole) Also the currency now i would debate is far from stable (in all countries) with its value fluctuating widely due to the incompetence of those who are managing it. Many people owe their financial status to their circumstances of being born in to the right family (which i argue would happen less with a free market in money and no central bank) and again, this terrible system isn't going to bend to reforms until we take its greatest power away.
Forget politics, study economics. Then you'll understand both how the world works, and how politicians manipulate it for their advantage.
If you don't think that your county/city government is doing the exact same thing (or something analogous) in your town, you are incredibly naive. Also we know from studies that red light camera's cause more accidents than they prevent (unintended consequence of people slamming on breaks at a yellow lights in order to avoid a ticket) Camera's at intersections do nothing but fleece the population of money.
I'm glad the pendulum is swinging the other way towards freer labor markets and less occupational licensing, since study after study shows all it does is hurt those worst off in society who have a valuable skill they can use to earn money, but don't have the money to pay for the license to legally use that skill. Also these licenses mean that we as consumers pay more for the services, be it barbers, plumbers, nurses, doctors, etc.
I don't care how well you did on some state-issued exam which may or may not be relevant to your job. All I care about is 'can you do the job i'm paying you for' and I determine that the same way most consumers do, Relying on the 'reputation market' of repeat business, branding, word-of-mouth, and review sites like yelp
OR... couldn't we just outlaw proprietary code? If all was forced to be open source, then all the apps could be programmed to be compatible with each other.
Actually, the whole criticism of 'private companies only care about short-term profit' mostly didn't exist prior to the 1950's. In the 1800's (not the 1900's where government flat out gave land and money to the corporations) it was private industry that planned years in advance to invest in railroad infrastructure. Firms would establish, do market research, gather 50+ sometimes 100+ year investment vehicles to finance the project, build the railroads, maintain them for 20-40 years until they finally paid off the loans they took to construct, and start all over again. Often using the last rail line as collateral to finance new ones. Some rail lines where maintained and owned by the same company for over a hundred years. You saw this in shipping and mining industries as well. Coporations where always thinking long-term, and some of them flat out said to the public 'we don't make money in a year, we make money in a decade'.
As usual, what changed wasn't the free market, it was the government. 100+ years of federal reserve meddling with interest rates and corporations can no longer obtain 50+ or 100+ year investment vehicles. Loans are rarely provided for more than 30 years. In the past shareholders could determine at what rate companies would report their financials. The companies that released financial reports every 2 or 3 years tended to operate more long-term But since WWII the SEC mandates every corporation file quarterly reports, this is what incentivises corporations to favor short-term profit over long term gain. Legally if they don't turn a profit every single quarter they can be held legally liable and the whole shareholder community has steered the corporations to posting a profit every single quarter or the CEO's will face dire consequences
Oh but its the evil CEO's fault for firing thousands of workers just to make the Q3 report look better. Once again free markets get blamed for government failures.
well as a libertarian I have to disagree a 100% on top-down actions (presumably taken by governments) that will 'solve' this problem. You say the regular everyday people are too busy with thier own lives to do anything to stop this problem, and yet we have seen articles here on slashdot about the surprisingly fast adoption of solar cells in America alone, the amazing progress we have made with the adoption of hybrid and electric vehicles, low-power light bulbs, not to mention the 'sustainability movement' that has been massively successful in getting companies to reduce carbon emissions by focusing on cost savings in the sales pitch instead of environmental concerns.
and even though our president refused to sign the paris climate accord, dozens of cities have taken the torch and run with it to push for initiatives that reduce carbon emmisions. If anything, the climate change treaty failure has galvanized the public even more to 'take action' and reduce waste, thereby proving that top-down government forced 'solutions' are completely unnecessary to stop this problem. Especially when you consider that the only 'government solutions' to this problem have been either a) A carbon tax that would vastly punish small time producers way more than giant co-orporations, because that’s how all the taxes in America work or b) 'carbon credits' from the same people who brought you 'sub-prime mortgages and derivatives' and would have the same incentives for corruption and back-room dealing
Lets consider the things we may need to actually tackle this problem. We need humans to improve and build more solar cells. We need more researchers and engineers to design fusion reactors that are reliable and safe. We need construction workers to build the fusion reactors. We may need to start mining asteroids for materials instead of mining the earth, that will take humans to design and build rockets, humans to mine the asteroids, and humans to build the mining machines that we use. Humans are a valuable resource, economists call it the 'labor force' more humans means more inventions, more discoveries, and more laborers to turn those inventions into products and discoveries into opportunities.
By taking measures to reduce the population we may actually reduce the technological advancement of the human race. That might prevent us from solving this crisis we face. The population exploded in the last 100 years because we developed new farming, distribution, and construction methods that allows us to support more humans with even less resources. I expect this trend to only continue. Just like the people of 1800's new york couldn't fathom a city with a population greater than 1 million, because they wouldn't have enough horses for all those peple and the pollution caused by the horses would be insurmountable, so to do we look at our current predicament and assume that population increases on this planet will ruin everything. The people in 1800's new york couldn't fathom the automobile that would enable a greater population, so too we cannot fathom or predict the tech advances that will sustain even more humans on this planet without destroying the environment
Slashdot Mirror
The widely regarded FACT that 'the number of Marijuana deaths is zero' is based on the well observed historical precedent that no human has ever died directly from Marijuana Consumption. Yes of course if you count car accidents (like this study did, which i think weakens its arguments) that number is arguably non-zero, I say 'arguably' because every study i've read on the subject points out that all the accidents they looked at that involved marijuana consumption ALSO included alcohol consumption, making it unclear if it was the weed or the beer that caused the car crash
But back to that previous point, most substances have a toxicity level that will eventually kill someone. E.g. you can snort enough cocaine in one sitting to kill you. Ditto for alcohol, heroin, and most stimulants. But marijuana? The toxicity level is only theoretical. The theoretical number is so high no one has ever reached it. You can literally sit down at a table and non-stop smoke blunts your entire life and not die provided you don't smoke so much you suffer from oxygen deprivation no one in the history of mankind has EVER died DIRECTLY from smoking marijuana. Theoretically if i distilled THC (the active ingredient of cannabis) into a liquid concentrated enough, i could give you a shot that would kill you. They've done this to mice to prove it is possible, but no human has ever overdosed on weed.
If we limited copyright terms to instead of 3 LIFETIMES (life of author plus 150 years) to say... 10-20 years. The constitution, which doesn't directly mention copyright but "securing for limited time exclusive right to authors..." I don't think anyone would say three lifetimes counts as a 'limited' time.
Were we thought in the future everyone would be able to permanently own a copy of their favorite movie/tv show/album. We figured in the future artists would still be paid gratis (e.g. 'you are my faviorate here is $30 donation please make another album!') But the digital information would be free, in the future anyone would be able to access any movie ever made for free, and maybe only be 'forced' to pay if they wanted HD quality of the latest episode/release. We figured all this increased internet freedom would bring the copyright regime tumbling down, and finally we would have the necessary reform that would allow derivative works like fanfics/fanart and remixes to flourish on the interwebs instead of being shut down.
15 years later and you either need a subscription to Netflix, Amazon, Hulu etc. to maybe watch a couple of movies you might like that may or may not be available that month. Otherwise you are stuck with a box under your TV that demands you pay $5.99-$9.99 EVERY SINGLE TIME you want to watch your favorite action movie. The oppressive copyright regime marches on into new territories and countries, with the US government sending agents to arrest teenagers in countries where its not even illegal to share files online. Youtube continues to take down videos for using 15 seconds of video that is declared 'infringing' even when the included content is not even owned by the party that flagged it to be taken down. Heck this happens even when the content is in the public domain! The same thing happened to music, with more people volunteering to pay for limited streaming access to a library instead of just sharing their favorite tracks with friends.
Instead of technology making us more free it helped the oligarchs to control us even more.
There is so much wrong with what you said, but instead of explaining it i guess i'll just go home and program my version of UBER that uses blockchain (and therefore has no 'centralized service' for you to ticket/fine) and then build in features into the app that helps users avoid under-cover cops, or allows drivers to flag riders as undercover cops so they can be identified and avoided by the other drivers. Like the original poster said, the more you tighten your grip, the more will slip through your fingers.
its not that they haven't allocated enough money to the infrastructure, its that all that money is being lost to corruption and fraud. Calcified quasi-governmental corporations that have learned to game the bureaucratic system for maximum financial gain with no real increase in output/productivity. Honestly this is the one example where selling lines off to completely new companies (not the ones that are currently maintaining them with quasi-governmental protection/power) would actually help the entire system. But the city is to liberal/democratic if you just mention the word 'privatization' and you will be tarred and feathered
I've seen video's of subway personnel in japan 'shoving/packing' people into subway cars like cattle, cause the local government would rather pay people to shove others in dozens of stations instead of just increasing the number of cars running on the line so as to reduce congestion. So i don't think i would call that 'nearly perfect'
This is reuters, one of the oldest news reporting agencies around, so yes. These people (and what they think their most popular demographic is) probably couldn't hold a video game controller in their hands, let alone tell you weather the controller they are a holding is a PS4, Xbox One, or Steam Controller. So yes, to them cosmetic micro-transactions in a 'free-to-play' game along with the new PUBG game format is cutting edge latest technology that the 'tweens' are enjoying
Turns out there is a product called 'Hempcrete' but its better used for insulation than the kinds of things we would use concrete for. Hempcrete will float in a bucket of water
source: http://www.americanlimetechnol...
Well you already are first-to-market, so you already have a big advantage over your competitors. once they copy and release a similar app, yours has already had several weeks/months of exposure and advertising on the market as the only supplier of such an app. So if you complain about people copying you, your really just being an entitled asshole.
Nice to see the house of mouse loosing at least one copyright battle
Every daylight savings time heart attacks increase by 25%, car crashes increase by 17% (2.75 billion cost over 10 yrs). The only reason people do daylight savings time anymore is because we've been doing it for so long we don't question it anymore. It never saved any daylight, I think a study after world war II showed the policy barely had its intended effect (increased productivity, energy savings) and came with a whole host of unintended consequences. For the love of god we need to quit this idiotic experiment!
Unfortunately at this point there are established interests that want to keep it going. Starbucks knows they get more business when the clocks change, and would resist any proposed law to get rid of daylight savings time. There are dozens of other companies in a similar situation. sources: https://www.reuters.com/articl... http://www.telegram.com/articl...
From my cold dead hands
literally the first search result i got for 'bitcoin venezuela': https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...
Venezuela, unfortunately, has a central bank like we do. The currency in that country has crashed, such that millions of citizens want to get out of the Venezuelan currency and use dollars/pesos/anything else. The government has prevented this by 'fixing' the currency to the dollar to ensure a very bad exchange rate, trapping the citizens into using a worthless currency that can't buy them much of anything. Bitcoin has been enabling transactions, allowing some of the poorest in that country to buy bread, milk, and other necessities, often on the border where a healthy 'black market' thrives and accepts other currencies, including bitcoin.
This action by the Venezuelan government is their attempt to completely squash any last monetary freedom present amongst their citizens.
It won't. Same as if we magically hit a switch and made racism disappear, there would still be inequality due to the historical racial injustices of the past. If suddenly we got rid of the Federal Reserve and had a stable currency (argue for either bitcoin, gold, or some basket commodity money, i don't really care which) then you get rid of this system that unfairly props up and bails out those who are already in the favor of the banking elite/politicians. Over time both of these magical solutions would lead to greater equality, but they wouldn't happen overnight.
to summarize what the core of the problem is: I don't mind Richy Mc. Rich inheriting billions of dollars. But when he puts all that money into an investment firm and is incompetent/irresponsible with the money and makes bad investments and ends up bankrupt a few years later, he should get kicked to the curve and go out of business like the market demands. Instead our Federal Reserve system will have him bailed out with a 0% interest loan worth millions/billions and WAY more favorable repayment terms than you or I would get, essentially making the bailout as close as possible to 'free money' as you can get. And who gets bailouts, and how much, has waaay more to do with the people involved and their political connections than it has to do with the 'financial stability' of the firm
No one wants to get rid of the government to the extent that the chaotic evil people in the world can get away with, as you say, 'kill my neighbor, steal his sheep, and rape his daughter' they want to get rid of the government to the extent that the lawful evil people in the world can't get away using an anonymous tip to have the DEA show up at 4AM for a no-knock raid that ends up in your accidental death by police shooting, buy the loan on your farm and force it into foreclosure to get the sheep and sell the land, which then forces your daughter to get a job at the Diner in the morning and strip club at night where Mr. Lawfull evil can buy a few hours of her time....
The biggest lie ever told to Americans is that Big corporations want free markets with minimal government spending. Corporations love big government because it means big subsidies and bureaucracies they can capture and control to exert more power over the market. Corporations cower in fear of the Free Market, its what killed blockbuster, its what killed Kodak, and it almost killed a GM and a huge portion of our corrupt investment banking industry but the government stepped in and saved them via TARP
Unless you live in California or Texas or New York, your state rep probably lives in your neighborhood, goes to your local church, and would gladly talk to you in the entrance of the local grocery store just so she can be seen by other members of the community listening to citizen feedback. In those states with about 50,000 people per representative it doesn't cost much for a campaign (heck you could just go door-to-door yourself to dethrone the incumbent and get elected) so these state reps are far less likely to be beholden to campaign contributions, far more likely to be responsive to the will of the electorate, and less likely to accept contributions in the first place for fear that it will do more harm to their reputation in the local community than it would help.
Also, when local state reps DO take money for campaign contributions, it is usually from the local buisnesses e.g. local car dealerships, local restaurant chains, not exactly the Haliburtons or GoldmanSachs that we see with federal reps.
Except you are NEVER going to accomplish #2 unless you tear away government's control over the currency. That is its #1 power that prevents meaningful reforms from taking place (you might wonder why, but thats a BIG list, just read up on the ties between fed reserve chairmen and the companies/banks that get 0% interest loans, and remember that is the START of the rabbit hole) Also the currency now i would debate is far from stable (in all countries) with its value fluctuating widely due to the incompetence of those who are managing it. Many people owe their financial status to their circumstances of being born in to the right family (which i argue would happen less with a free market in money and no central bank) and again, this terrible system isn't going to bend to reforms until we take its greatest power away.
Forget politics, study economics. Then you'll understand both how the world works, and how politicians manipulate it for their advantage.
If you don't think that your county/city government is doing the exact same thing (or something analogous) in your town, you are incredibly naive. Also we know from studies that red light camera's cause more accidents than they prevent (unintended consequence of people slamming on breaks at a yellow lights in order to avoid a ticket) Camera's at intersections do nothing but fleece the population of money.
THIS. I don't think the general public is aware of how petty and power-hungry local politicians are.
Now just imagine what the federal politicians are like behind closed doors
I'm glad the pendulum is swinging the other way towards freer labor markets and less occupational licensing, since study after study shows all it does is hurt those worst off in society who have a valuable skill they can use to earn money, but don't have the money to pay for the license to legally use that skill. Also these licenses mean that we as consumers pay more for the services, be it barbers, plumbers, nurses, doctors, etc.
I don't care how well you did on some state-issued exam which may or may not be relevant to your job. All I care about is 'can you do the job i'm paying you for' and I determine that the same way most consumers do, Relying on the 'reputation market' of repeat business, branding, word-of-mouth, and review sites like yelp
OR... couldn't we just outlaw proprietary code? If all was forced to be open source, then all the apps could be programmed to be compatible with each other.
Actually, the whole criticism of 'private companies only care about short-term profit' mostly didn't exist prior to the 1950's. In the 1800's (not the 1900's where government flat out gave land and money to the corporations) it was private industry that planned years in advance to invest in railroad infrastructure. Firms would establish, do market research, gather 50+ sometimes 100+ year investment vehicles to finance the project, build the railroads, maintain them for 20-40 years until they finally paid off the loans they took to construct, and start all over again. Often using the last rail line as collateral to finance new ones. Some rail lines where maintained and owned by the same company for over a hundred years. You saw this in shipping and mining industries as well. Coporations where always thinking long-term, and some of them flat out said to the public 'we don't make money in a year, we make money in a decade'.
As usual, what changed wasn't the free market, it was the government. 100+ years of federal reserve meddling with interest rates and corporations can no longer obtain 50+ or 100+ year investment vehicles. Loans are rarely provided for more than 30 years. In the past shareholders could determine at what rate companies would report their financials. The companies that released financial reports every 2 or 3 years tended to operate more long-term But since WWII the SEC mandates every corporation file quarterly reports, this is what incentivises corporations to favor short-term profit over long term gain. Legally if they don't turn a profit every single quarter they can be held legally liable and the whole shareholder community has steered the corporations to posting a profit every single quarter or the CEO's will face dire consequences
Oh but its the evil CEO's fault for firing thousands of workers just to make the Q3 report look better. Once again free markets get blamed for government failures.
well as a libertarian I have to disagree a 100% on top-down actions (presumably taken by governments) that will 'solve' this problem. You say the regular everyday people are too busy with thier own lives to do anything to stop this problem, and yet we have seen articles here on slashdot about the surprisingly fast adoption of solar cells in America alone, the amazing progress we have made with the adoption of hybrid and electric vehicles, low-power light bulbs, not to mention the 'sustainability movement' that has been massively successful in getting companies to reduce carbon emissions by focusing on cost savings in the sales pitch instead of environmental concerns.
and even though our president refused to sign the paris climate accord, dozens of cities have taken the torch and run with it to push for initiatives that reduce carbon emmisions. If anything, the climate change treaty failure has galvanized the public even more to 'take action' and reduce waste, thereby proving that top-down government forced 'solutions' are completely unnecessary to stop this problem. Especially when you consider that the only 'government solutions' to this problem have been either a) A carbon tax that would vastly punish small time producers way more than giant co-orporations, because that’s how all the taxes in America work or b) 'carbon credits' from the same people who brought you 'sub-prime mortgages and derivatives' and would have the same incentives for corruption and back-room dealing
Lets consider the things we may need to actually tackle this problem. We need humans to improve and build more solar cells. We need more researchers and engineers to design fusion reactors that are reliable and safe. We need construction workers to build the fusion reactors. We may need to start mining asteroids for materials instead of mining the earth, that will take humans to design and build rockets, humans to mine the asteroids, and humans to build the mining machines that we use. Humans are a valuable resource, economists call it the 'labor force' more humans means more inventions, more discoveries, and more laborers to turn those inventions into products and discoveries into opportunities.
By taking measures to reduce the population we may actually reduce the technological advancement of the human race. That might prevent us from solving this crisis we face. The population exploded in the last 100 years because we developed new farming, distribution, and construction methods that allows us to support more humans with even less resources. I expect this trend to only continue. Just like the people of 1800's new york couldn't fathom a city with a population greater than 1 million, because they wouldn't have enough horses for all those peple and the pollution caused by the horses would be insurmountable, so to do we look at our current predicament and assume that population increases on this planet will ruin everything. The people in 1800's new york couldn't fathom the automobile that would enable a greater population, so too we cannot fathom or predict the tech advances that will sustain even more humans on this planet without destroying the environment