That answer makes no sense, seeing as how every society around the world in the last generation (or more) has been non-free. Nobody has been "enjoying the benefits of a free society" for a long time.
I've been enjoying freedom in my "non-free" society for my entire life. Sure, there are growing constraints on my freedom, but it's not as you say.
On this very website, which is "news for nerds", I can find quite a few commenters who still say things like "why was it cold today where I live if it's supposed to be GLOBAL warming?".
I'm sure that there's someone who genuinely believe that. But there's also people say that sarcastically because there's someone saying the opposite, "it's warm today therefore global warming". I recall that being a common problem when the Hurricane Sandy stories were working their way through Slashdot.
The problem is that many people are defiantly, stubbornly ignorant, and will actively resist information as if their lives depended upon not learning anything.
And maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass, you wouldn't be one of those people. There are people who argue based on facts and evidence, then there are people who misrepresent the entire public to fulfill some fantasy of theirs.
Yes, there are ignorant people. Yes, there are people who belong to groups whose primary membership requirement is to be deliberately ignorant on some subject or another. But representing everyone who disagrees with you as being members of that latter class ignores some very relevant things.
First, climatology isn't as firmly nailed down as claimed. As the story grudgingly notes, there is a fifteen year period of deviation from what has been predicted for global warming (it is more than just a 15 year cherry-picked "pause"). Note that the story patronizingly downplays the resulting concern as a psychology issue.
Now why does this matter? It is generally agreed that there is global warming and that humanity contributes to it to some degree. But the huge problem now is whether to respond to this global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The claim, based on these errant predictive models is that human-induced global warming is bad enough that we must do something, even though it will harm us in various other ways.
But we are seeing that in the short term, these models are failing to accurately represent climate trends. That indicates to me that it is likely that these also will fail to accurately model climate in the long term. Apparently, it looks that way to many other people as well. And I'd say that being told to make poorly thought out sacrifices on the basis of bad modeling doesn't sit well with a good portion of the population.
But as you say freedom of speech so those people opinion are as good as yours
That is not what freedom of speech means. Although it does mean that government doesn't get to pick favorites with respect to peoples' opinions.
sicne germany is considered a democracy with freedom, it seems those rule aern't as bad as you purport...
Well, sure it could be a lot worse. Getting shot for having insufficiently glowing praise of the Glorious Leader (or because someone had to make quota on their inspiring fear to-do list) is a bit worse than getting fined or whatever for having a fairly radical viewpoint for a rather slimy ideology which lost a big fight a lifetime ago.
By the way in some country like germany, the USA IIRC *requested* those banning rule.
Because the US never does the "Do as I say, not as I do" thing, amirite? All you need to know is that similar attempts to restrict such speech are heavily resisted in the US and have never been successful.
Why is this concept of freedom of speech so hard for some people to grasp, even as they enjoy the benefits of a free society?
I once asked the same question. The answer is because they've never been in a non-free society and don't understand how things can go wrong when you become too afraid to speak your mind any more.
Lol, hoe I understand it, the money that is spend is spend to mitigate climate effects (like CO2 scrubbing, higher dams etc.), it is not spend for research.
A cost is not merely the amount paid directly for the research. It's also the cost of societal actions which get rationalized (especially when actual cost/benefit analysis doesn't justify the actions) by that research.
That roughly 50% of large projects fail imply that, realistically, it's not an easy thing to pull off given inflexible deadlines and multiple vendors.
Or that the project managers are far too often inept which is the conclusion you finally reached as well.
I have lower (to me, realistic) expectations of large, multi-vendor projects so I don't see this an example of gov't ineptitude, but rather the typical limitations inherent in complex projects.
Don't worry, I had low expectations as well. I expected the administration to screw up and they delivered. I just didn't attribute this incompetence to the complexity of the project.
Nobody in a position of power cares what the constitution says, therefore it is ignored. And its pretty much been this way since the country was founded.
That's not true in practice. Sure, they don't care what the Constitution says, but they do end up caring about the constraints that it puts on their actions and power. They can't ignore that.
That's literally every reason apart from physical impossibility.
None of which makes the outcome impossible. Hence it is possible for a court to do just that. Supposedly, some Chinese courts have actually done these things, for example, despite the absence of a regulated market in organs.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
The original poster was suggesting that the existence of legal organ markets would magically spur courts to harvest organs of bankrupt people. I'm merely pointing out that most courts won't do those things in that scenario for the same reasons they won't do them now.
Ah yes, we can't eliminate murder, so let's make it legal.
Are you going to advocate that? No one else will.
I'm merely pointing out that people are dying because we as a society are too stuck up to create regulated markets in organs. We already have unregulated markets in such things so it's not like we're gaining anything on the legal or moral front by banning this.
Logical endpoint of libertarian philosophy
Not at all. I imagine if you had ever tried to understand the philosophy, then you'd find that you would have better things to do with your time than mischaracterize it.
Take money out of the equation (as in no need for money to get a transplant) and make people by default an organ donor, and the worst abuses won't probably happen.
And the moment someone takes a vital organ out of someone without their consent, even someone who will die anyway, and they die as a result, it becomes murder or perhaps some sort of manslaughter. There's a reason organ donation is opt in.
The original question was: how much is spent for "climate research".
The answer is all of it. They made this huge financial decision on the basis of modern climate research. You asked how much climate research can cost. I gave you the numbers you asked for.
Here is another one: In the poorest corners of the world will people have children for the purpose of eventually selling all their paired organs?
How is that any different from now?
Here's a hell of a problematic question: Who gets the money for a heart or any other single organ? And another: When it is legal to trade in some kinds of ivory it is hard to distinguish the legal stuff from the poached stuff. How will we prevent organ poaching? Do we really want to create a strong financial incentive to murder, or worse farm people for their organs?
If you really don't want to create a strong financial incentive to murder or "farm" people, then make organ transplants illegal to the point of executing people who benefit from the procedure. Nothing less suffices to prevent organ poaching.
OTOH, if you want to save lives, then implement regulated markets in organ donation.
Considering that china puts people in prison and harvests their organs, for nothing more than their religious affiliation, it seems reasonable that the market will lead to other "externalities".
That is a non sequitur since China isn't doing that via markets. And there's already huge incentives to steal other peoples' organs both for profit and survival.
Al Roth has done great work with market design
Great work that would be mostly unnecessary with a genuine market for kidneys. You might not have noticed but the medium for trade in the world is money. Why anyone thinks it'll somehow be better to create a market which doesn't use the best practices and standards of trade in the world today is beyond me.
however this is another chicago-school "free market fixes everything" nonsense
Note we have exactly the sort of situation that benefits from regulated markets: unmet needs to the extent of people dying and lack of incentives among those who could help.
Capitalism has a vested interest in keeping an underclass of desperate people, willing to work for rock-bottom, unlivable wages.
But it doesn't have the power to make that happen. In practice, when peoples' labor gets exploited, their wages go up.
"of course you can quit, we have ten people lined up to do your job for less, good luck finding a better job"
And in a society where the employment of people isn't actively discouraged, this threat doesn't have much teeth. The employer has to pay considerable funds to hire and train a replacement, only to have that replacement up and quit.
But a fine example of when is it acceptable to now have a court make you sell a kidney to pay a debt?
That can be done now. There's no reason except the laws of the land and the near certain outrage of the public why judges in bankruptcy court can't order a bankrupt party to be harvested for their organs in order to pay off a debt.
Making a market for it, something for rich people could pay (even for cosmetic or fashion reasons, you can drink a lot, because anyway you can replace your liver with a new one) a lot, and poor people on economical troubles, extortion, threats, or media manipulation (to name a few) would sell, is something that will become corrupted very fast.
And that's worse than the current system, how? Liver donation is unusual in that it is something you can do while you're still alive and can do more than once.
So we have a new avenue of wealth transfer from the haves to the have nots. Can't have that, I suppose.
Ah, yes, the "competent, old people are in the way of my career trajectory, so we need to kill them off" argument rears its ugly head once again. The solution to this "dystopia" is to privatize most functions of society and insure that barriers to competition are kept low. Then the businesses with "the fittest undead with semi-permanent tenure" die to the ones that don't do that.
I don't give a shit about your originalist interpretations of the Constitution, I prefer arguments based on sound policy, not worthless appeals to long-dead authority who can't be consulted let alone debated with about how wrong they were.
What's the point of law, if it can be safely ignored whenever "sound policy" arguments are trotted out? A genuine "sound policy" argument would have strong respect for existing law, including the "long-dead" Constitution.
And if the supreme court said it's constitutional- then it's constitutional.
No, it merely means that they said it's constitutional and official processes mostly stop - unless Congress cares enough to start removing Supreme Court justices. At this point, it'll have to be at the ballot box. Frankly, I think the process will take a long time, if ever, because resistance is diffuse and uncoordinated, and a lot of people are ok with unconstitutional law as long as it favors themselves.
but its unethical to expect to receive an organ when you yourself are unwilling to donate
Why?
We could just sell organs and get past bullshit "ethical" notions like this. Personally, I hope we soon get to the point where most organs can be grown artificially in part to loosen the hold of such primitive notions of morality on our lives.
if everyone was willing to give their organs, there wouldn't be a supply issue.
The number one reason people aren't willing to give their organs is because they're still using them.
Slashdot Mirror
That answer makes no sense, seeing as how every society around the world in the last generation (or more) has been non-free. Nobody has been "enjoying the benefits of a free society" for a long time.
I've been enjoying freedom in my "non-free" society for my entire life. Sure, there are growing constraints on my freedom, but it's not as you say.
On this very website, which is "news for nerds", I can find quite a few commenters who still say things like "why was it cold today where I live if it's supposed to be GLOBAL warming?".
I'm sure that there's someone who genuinely believe that. But there's also people say that sarcastically because there's someone saying the opposite, "it's warm today therefore global warming". I recall that being a common problem when the Hurricane Sandy stories were working their way through Slashdot.
The problem is that many people are defiantly, stubbornly ignorant, and will actively resist information as if their lives depended upon not learning anything.
And maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass, you wouldn't be one of those people. There are people who argue based on facts and evidence, then there are people who misrepresent the entire public to fulfill some fantasy of theirs.
Yes, there are ignorant people. Yes, there are people who belong to groups whose primary membership requirement is to be deliberately ignorant on some subject or another. But representing everyone who disagrees with you as being members of that latter class ignores some very relevant things.
First, climatology isn't as firmly nailed down as claimed. As the story grudgingly notes, there is a fifteen year period of deviation from what has been predicted for global warming (it is more than just a 15 year cherry-picked "pause"). Note that the story patronizingly downplays the resulting concern as a psychology issue.
Now why does this matter? It is generally agreed that there is global warming and that humanity contributes to it to some degree. But the huge problem now is whether to respond to this global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The claim, based on these errant predictive models is that human-induced global warming is bad enough that we must do something, even though it will harm us in various other ways.
But we are seeing that in the short term, these models are failing to accurately represent climate trends. That indicates to me that it is likely that these also will fail to accurately model climate in the long term. Apparently, it looks that way to many other people as well. And I'd say that being told to make poorly thought out sacrifices on the basis of bad modeling doesn't sit well with a good portion of the population.
On the "I could really care less"-oh-meter, it spikes the chart.
Citation please.
But as you say freedom of speech so those people opinion are as good as yours
That is not what freedom of speech means. Although it does mean that government doesn't get to pick favorites with respect to peoples' opinions.
sicne germany is considered a democracy with freedom, it seems those rule aern't as bad as you purport...
Well, sure it could be a lot worse. Getting shot for having insufficiently glowing praise of the Glorious Leader (or because someone had to make quota on their inspiring fear to-do list) is a bit worse than getting fined or whatever for having a fairly radical viewpoint for a rather slimy ideology which lost a big fight a lifetime ago.
By the way in some country like germany, the USA IIRC *requested* those banning rule.
Because the US never does the "Do as I say, not as I do" thing, amirite? All you need to know is that similar attempts to restrict such speech are heavily resisted in the US and have never been successful.
Why is this concept of freedom of speech so hard for some people to grasp, even as they enjoy the benefits of a free society?
I once asked the same question. The answer is because they've never been in a non-free society and don't understand how things can go wrong when you become too afraid to speak your mind any more.
Lol, hoe I understand it, the money that is spend is spend to mitigate climate effects (like CO2 scrubbing, higher dams etc.), it is not spend for research.
A cost is not merely the amount paid directly for the research. It's also the cost of societal actions which get rationalized (especially when actual cost/benefit analysis doesn't justify the actions) by that research.
That roughly 50% of large projects fail imply that, realistically, it's not an easy thing to pull off given inflexible deadlines and multiple vendors.
Or that the project managers are far too often inept which is the conclusion you finally reached as well.
I have lower (to me, realistic) expectations of large, multi-vendor projects so I don't see this an example of gov't ineptitude, but rather the typical limitations inherent in complex projects.
Don't worry, I had low expectations as well. I expected the administration to screw up and they delivered. I just didn't attribute this incompetence to the complexity of the project.
If the supreme court said it's constitutional, then it's constitutional.
Welp, they didn't get my sign off on that assertion. So I disagree.
Nobody in a position of power cares what the constitution says, therefore it is ignored. And its pretty much been this way since the country was founded.
That's not true in practice. Sure, they don't care what the Constitution says, but they do end up caring about the constraints that it puts on their actions and power. They can't ignore that.
That's literally every reason apart from physical impossibility.
None of which makes the outcome impossible. Hence it is possible for a court to do just that. Supposedly, some Chinese courts have actually done these things, for example, despite the absence of a regulated market in organs.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
The original poster was suggesting that the existence of legal organ markets would magically spur courts to harvest organs of bankrupt people. I'm merely pointing out that most courts won't do those things in that scenario for the same reasons they won't do them now.
Ah yes, we can't eliminate murder, so let's make it legal.
Are you going to advocate that? No one else will.
I'm merely pointing out that people are dying because we as a society are too stuck up to create regulated markets in organs. We already have unregulated markets in such things so it's not like we're gaining anything on the legal or moral front by banning this.
Logical endpoint of libertarian philosophy
Not at all. I imagine if you had ever tried to understand the philosophy, then you'd find that you would have better things to do with your time than mischaracterize it.
The potential for abuse is too high
We could always make such abuse illegal.
Take money out of the equation (as in no need for money to get a transplant) and make people by default an organ donor, and the worst abuses won't probably happen.
And the moment someone takes a vital organ out of someone without their consent, even someone who will die anyway, and they die as a result, it becomes murder or perhaps some sort of manslaughter. There's a reason organ donation is opt in.
The original question was: how much is spent for "climate research".
The answer is all of it. They made this huge financial decision on the basis of modern climate research. You asked how much climate research can cost. I gave you the numbers you asked for.
Here is another one: In the poorest corners of the world will people have children for the purpose of eventually selling all their paired organs?
How is that any different from now?
Here's a hell of a problematic question: Who gets the money for a heart or any other single organ? And another: When it is legal to trade in some kinds of ivory it is hard to distinguish the legal stuff from the poached stuff. How will we prevent organ poaching? Do we really want to create a strong financial incentive to murder, or worse farm people for their organs?
If you really don't want to create a strong financial incentive to murder or "farm" people, then make organ transplants illegal to the point of executing people who benefit from the procedure. Nothing less suffices to prevent organ poaching.
OTOH, if you want to save lives, then implement regulated markets in organ donation.
Considering that china puts people in prison and harvests their organs, for nothing more than their religious affiliation, it seems reasonable that the market will lead to other "externalities".
That is a non sequitur since China isn't doing that via markets. And there's already huge incentives to steal other peoples' organs both for profit and survival.
Al Roth has done great work with market design
Great work that would be mostly unnecessary with a genuine market for kidneys. You might not have noticed but the medium for trade in the world is money. Why anyone thinks it'll somehow be better to create a market which doesn't use the best practices and standards of trade in the world today is beyond me.
however this is another chicago-school "free market fixes everything" nonsense
Note we have exactly the sort of situation that benefits from regulated markets: unmet needs to the extent of people dying and lack of incentives among those who could help.
Instead they're prevented by the society.
Not actually.
Capitalism has a vested interest in keeping an underclass of desperate people, willing to work for rock-bottom, unlivable wages.
But it doesn't have the power to make that happen. In practice, when peoples' labor gets exploited, their wages go up.
"of course you can quit, we have ten people lined up to do your job for less, good luck finding a better job"
And in a society where the employment of people isn't actively discouraged, this threat doesn't have much teeth. The employer has to pay considerable funds to hire and train a replacement, only to have that replacement up and quit.
This then creates an incentive to transition people from the state of living to the state of dead.
That's probably the number one reason why people don't check off the organ donor box in the first place.
But a fine example of when is it acceptable to now have a court make you sell a kidney to pay a debt?
That can be done now. There's no reason except the laws of the land and the near certain outrage of the public why judges in bankruptcy court can't order a bankrupt party to be harvested for their organs in order to pay off a debt.
Making a market for it, something for rich people could pay (even for cosmetic or fashion reasons, you can drink a lot, because anyway you can replace your liver with a new one) a lot, and poor people on economical troubles, extortion, threats, or media manipulation (to name a few) would sell, is something that will become corrupted very fast.
And that's worse than the current system, how? Liver donation is unusual in that it is something you can do while you're still alive and can do more than once.
So we have a new avenue of wealth transfer from the haves to the have nots. Can't have that, I suppose.
Ah, yes, the "competent, old people are in the way of my career trajectory, so we need to kill them off" argument rears its ugly head once again. The solution to this "dystopia" is to privatize most functions of society and insure that barriers to competition are kept low. Then the businesses with "the fittest undead with semi-permanent tenure" die to the ones that don't do that.
I don't give a shit about your originalist interpretations of the Constitution, I prefer arguments based on sound policy, not worthless appeals to long-dead authority who can't be consulted let alone debated with about how wrong they were.
What's the point of law, if it can be safely ignored whenever "sound policy" arguments are trotted out? A genuine "sound policy" argument would have strong respect for existing law, including the "long-dead" Constitution.
but really, why is everyone taking this as proof of US Gov't ineptitude?
Because it is a demonstration of US government ineptitude.
Anyone with experience in large projects should know it's, at best, a 50-50 chance that any given project will succeed.
Why do you think such failure is not a sign of ineptitude just because it is common?
And if the supreme court said it's constitutional- then it's constitutional.
No, it merely means that they said it's constitutional and official processes mostly stop - unless Congress cares enough to start removing Supreme Court justices. At this point, it'll have to be at the ballot box. Frankly, I think the process will take a long time, if ever, because resistance is diffuse and uncoordinated, and a lot of people are ok with unconstitutional law as long as it favors themselves.
...Americans cheered...
Didn't happen. Looks to me like your definition of "cheering" is so loose that even you can be considered to be "cheering" for these things.
but its unethical to expect to receive an organ when you yourself are unwilling to donate
Why?
We could just sell organs and get past bullshit "ethical" notions like this. Personally, I hope we soon get to the point where most organs can be grown artificially in part to loosen the hold of such primitive notions of morality on our lives.
if everyone was willing to give their organs, there wouldn't be a supply issue.
The number one reason people aren't willing to give their organs is because they're still using them.