The problem is that these clowns have a lot of political and capital power so their stupid decisions will not blown up only in their faces, but in all of ours.
They have these reductionist beliefs that you can grow meat in vats and somehow have it be equally nutritious than real meat despite the fact that we don't even know basic things such as "are saturated fats bad or not" since each study contradicts the previous one.
Or setting delusional deadlines for electric cars without realizing it may not be possible and will just end up making cars 3x more expensive to own.
Or connecting to force untested vaccinations to everyone in tandem and when the results start coming in that the vaccines are not as safe as initialy thought they will just ping their media to "forget and move on" to the "next current thing".
So even if these clowns think that they're doing good they're gonna blow everything up due to their ignorance and naivety.
Studies that "show" that saturated fats don't have a negative impact on health are typically about tests where they replace saturated fats with sugar or refine carbs and show no impact or even a small positive impact. Replace saturated fat by unrefined carbs, poly and mono unsaturated fat or even protein and you get a huge jump in all positive health markers.
Eg for fake meat: if we don't know if saturated fats are good or not due to contradictive studies then what do we know of thousands of other substances in real vs fake meat which have not recieved not even 1% of the study/resources/research resoruces than "saturated fat good vs bad"?
How you can find that to be strawman or "wrong" is beyond me.
But then again, I've come to the sad conclusion that most researches in the field of nutrition and academia are complete morons incapable of grasping complexity.
Look at what legislatures do vs what "people" say. Lots of stupid stuff gets said, but in the end the only concrete measures are the continued subsidization of meat and making it illegal for vegan substitutes to be called "meat" or "milk" or similar.
That's one of your straw men, that the elite are working towards banning meat. In reality, 99/100 of the elite enjoy steak. They may pretend otherwise when giving speeches to certain crowds, but look at what they do, not what they say.
Not sure if that's true. Do you think billionaires and state leaders are going to eat vat meat? It's about planning how the majority of people (us plebs) are going to live, it doesn't necessarily mean they want to live like that. And however radical or authoritarian their ideology could possibly become, even someone like Kim Jong-un has plenty of luxury.
I think what most of us agree on, whether we're rich or poor is that there are massive environmental problems which are only get worse the more people there are - and in the last couple of generations there's been a population explosion. Now the question is how do we decide what to do about it. The problem with groups like the WEF is that they're elitist and fundamentally undemocratic, not that they're looking for alternatives to conventional meat. These people want to decide for us and rule over us. There is no plan to give regular people agency in deciding our future, it's rich folks, corporations and state leaders (many of whom are unelected or sham elected) planning global governance and the future of our world.
They are ignorant on how to fix the global economy. Want to remove capitalism for communism where everyone owns nothing and likes it. AI and robots will do the work while we sit at home with a basic income.
Most billionaires are terrified of unrestrained capitalism; they got where they were via government subsidies, regulatory lock-in, or simply measures came about at a time when they were big enough to afford regulations and their startup competitors could not.
Not that I'd completely advocate for taking the gloves off completely -- at some point, unrestrained capitalism has a tendency to devolve into absolute feudalism, unless certain non-aggression principles are adhered to. But in either case, you'd have fewer billionaires.
For what it's worth, capitalism and communism are entirely orthogonal. China for example is simultaneously a communist government at the moment whilst also being one of the biggest capitalistic nations. Capitalism is a form of monetarism whereas communism is a form of governance.
Communism is only partially a form of governance. Conceptually it also describes the ownership of the means of production.
If the people own the means of production, then the preferential distribution of profit to capital becomes non-sensical, and thus there is no capitalism.
China is a strange hybrid, that is neither fully communist, nor "fully" capitalist (in the sense of, say, the USA). This is what allows aspects of both systems to co-exist.
I completely agree. Each nation has it's own flavor of monetarism and governance that results in a unique outcome with varying degrees of real time control. China have more arbitrary control over business that results in greater real time arbitrary stipulation of monetary outcome. Governance over business is less arbitrary and more predictable in the USA, most of the time anyway.
> China is a strange hybrid, that is neither fully communist, nor "fully" capitalist
Typically this ‘strange hybrid’, where the people serve an authoritarian state which exerts arbitrary power over ostensibly capitalist industry, is referred to by the term, ‘fascism’.
I will need to read it myself, but this review gives me more confidence for a view I’d already had: the so-called leaders of the world are just morons filled with hubris, and usually bought off by rich, talented, executives from private industry. Accordingly, the rich get richer and they pull the ladder up behind themselves.
For me, the most surprising part of that article was that almost the entirety of the increase in the US inflation rate occurred before the invasion of Ukraine [0]. From reading mainstream news I had assumed the it had increased substantially since the invasion, but it appears that is not the case at all.
The thing that isn’t perhaps generally understood is that the ruling classes, i.e. the plutocratic and political classes, got there by accident.
We tell ourselves tales of their merit and struggle, and indeed they generally tell themselves the same tales, for it makes the world seem a more virtuous and just place.
In the past, the arbitrary nature of leadership was self-evident, with a hereditary aristocracy - you could have a cocker spaniel on the throne and you’d still have to call it “your majesty”.
Now, in our meritocratic world, it’s possible for anyone to ascend to lofty heights - but the path is not “work hard”, rather “be in the right place at the right time”.
The chances of the latter are enhanced by accidents of birth - but ultimately, who makes it into the upper echelons of society and who does not is largely driven by pure luck, rather than any particular virtue.
And QED, you have a gaggle of rather average people who believe in their own superiority engaging in mutual backslapping at the WEF.
Rather than think of this in terms of us and them.... just follow the money Big Pharma, Military Industrial Complex, investments in stock market by politicians and so on.... I find it ironic that so many on this web site become antiepileptic at the fact we had for the 1st time in decades a President that was anti war and the major complaint was he tweeted badly
Few notes: for some reasons we actually really need a paradigm shift, something who happen to be strongly opposed by most regardless of reasons, designs and implications.
Unfortunately the WEF public design, who is very poor in details, seems actually really similar to hitler mein kampf and it's well-known not a theory that modern economic theory root themselves in nazism and communism economic models (yes, both, at once). If you hear the not so long speech of the WEF president https://youtu.be/DQjXODh0TOg at last G20 you can CLEARLY see the same ideas of nazism and historical bankster-socialism like the VERY-hard-to-find Clinton Roosevelt "The Science of Government Founded on Natural Law" from the far 1841.
His points are essentially:
- Industrie 4.0 who is NOT additive manufacturing vs modern CNCs, witch means a potential revolution of neatly nullify waste, but instead the IoT revolution who happen to be "you do not own any tools you bought, the OEM own them from remote";
- Sharing Economy who happen to be NOT a social economy where PUBLIC resources are fairly shared but a private corporatocratic model where very few own anything and "they allow" most access those services, who are scarce, in a shared way;
- Corporatocracy or companies who replace States, so autocracy who replace Democracies since a company is not a Democracy.
That's the clearly and undeniably nazi part of the scenario. But there is also a technical one.
Electrification of anything means a (potential) big simplification of so many industrial manufacturing. For instance EVs demand far less component, far less special alloys, far less precision than ICEs, or they are DAMN CHEAP in industrial terms. Having all electric stuff at home means having a single "power" network and a "signal" network witch is already converged to IP. The same network can power any appliance. Similarly at State level there are just electrical, roads, water and signal networks instead of various kind of pipelines for gas, gasoline, diesel, crude oil, ... witch means a far simple infra to maintain and extend. Similarly a CERTAIN KIND of IoT, the one who happen to be nearly nonexistent so far on sales potentially can trigger big leap ahead in our lives.
Some revolutions are formally already there but they fail to scale because of FUD and reactionary-ness of most: for instance WFH might work beautifully well if well done but too many on both sides hesitate and the results are far beyond a positive paradigm shift. Computerization is another: potentially we can hyper-simplify bureaucracy but in 99% of the cases bad design, business interest and ignorance create monsters who complicate instead of simplify. Change that demand a kind of "social reset".
The problem lie at management level: such "reset" can be designed by some teachers, philosophers, high culture people, from PUBLIC academic and research bodies with the SOLE target of improving our society or can be designed by a small cohort of nazi thieves for their own personal interests against most AND marginally to ensure social evolution.
36 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 95.7 ms ] threadIt’s a sad statement on the delusional mental state of our “leaders”.
https://www.newsweek.com/were-bill-gates-world-economic-foru...
They have these reductionist beliefs that you can grow meat in vats and somehow have it be equally nutritious than real meat despite the fact that we don't even know basic things such as "are saturated fats bad or not" since each study contradicts the previous one.
Or setting delusional deadlines for electric cars without realizing it may not be possible and will just end up making cars 3x more expensive to own.
Or connecting to force untested vaccinations to everyone in tandem and when the results start coming in that the vaccines are not as safe as initialy thought they will just ping their media to "forget and move on" to the "next current thing".
So even if these clowns think that they're doing good they're gonna blow everything up due to their ignorance and naivety.
And this still keeps on happening...
Check these videos https://www.youtube.com/@NutritionMadeSimple/search?query=sa...
If you find a study that you think is worth investigating contact the author, he reviews medical studies for a living and as a passion.
Eg for fake meat: if we don't know if saturated fats are good or not due to contradictive studies then what do we know of thousands of other substances in real vs fake meat which have not recieved not even 1% of the study/resources/research resoruces than "saturated fat good vs bad"?
How you can find that to be strawman or "wrong" is beyond me.
But then again, I've come to the sad conclusion that most researches in the field of nutrition and academia are complete morons incapable of grasping complexity.
That's one of your straw men, that the elite are working towards banning meat. In reality, 99/100 of the elite enjoy steak. They may pretend otherwise when giving speeches to certain crowds, but look at what they do, not what they say.
My point was tied to NUTRITION not to what politicians do vs say.
You don't even know how to use "strawman" correctly.
I think what most of us agree on, whether we're rich or poor is that there are massive environmental problems which are only get worse the more people there are - and in the last couple of generations there's been a population explosion. Now the question is how do we decide what to do about it. The problem with groups like the WEF is that they're elitist and fundamentally undemocratic, not that they're looking for alternatives to conventional meat. These people want to decide for us and rule over us. There is no plan to give regular people agency in deciding our future, it's rich folks, corporations and state leaders (many of whom are unelected or sham elected) planning global governance and the future of our world.
Not that I'd completely advocate for taking the gloves off completely -- at some point, unrestrained capitalism has a tendency to devolve into absolute feudalism, unless certain non-aggression principles are adhered to. But in either case, you'd have fewer billionaires.
If the people own the means of production, then the preferential distribution of profit to capital becomes non-sensical, and thus there is no capitalism.
China is a strange hybrid, that is neither fully communist, nor "fully" capitalist (in the sense of, say, the USA). This is what allows aspects of both systems to co-exist.
Typically this ‘strange hybrid’, where the people serve an authoritarian state which exerts arbitrary power over ostensibly capitalist industry, is referred to by the term, ‘fascism’.
[0] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi
We tell ourselves tales of their merit and struggle, and indeed they generally tell themselves the same tales, for it makes the world seem a more virtuous and just place.
In the past, the arbitrary nature of leadership was self-evident, with a hereditary aristocracy - you could have a cocker spaniel on the throne and you’d still have to call it “your majesty”.
Now, in our meritocratic world, it’s possible for anyone to ascend to lofty heights - but the path is not “work hard”, rather “be in the right place at the right time”.
The chances of the latter are enhanced by accidents of birth - but ultimately, who makes it into the upper echelons of society and who does not is largely driven by pure luck, rather than any particular virtue.
And QED, you have a gaggle of rather average people who believe in their own superiority engaging in mutual backslapping at the WEF.
PS please flag this comment
Unfortunately the WEF public design, who is very poor in details, seems actually really similar to hitler mein kampf and it's well-known not a theory that modern economic theory root themselves in nazism and communism economic models (yes, both, at once). If you hear the not so long speech of the WEF president https://youtu.be/DQjXODh0TOg at last G20 you can CLEARLY see the same ideas of nazism and historical bankster-socialism like the VERY-hard-to-find Clinton Roosevelt "The Science of Government Founded on Natural Law" from the far 1841.
His points are essentially:
- Industrie 4.0 who is NOT additive manufacturing vs modern CNCs, witch means a potential revolution of neatly nullify waste, but instead the IoT revolution who happen to be "you do not own any tools you bought, the OEM own them from remote";
- Sharing Economy who happen to be NOT a social economy where PUBLIC resources are fairly shared but a private corporatocratic model where very few own anything and "they allow" most access those services, who are scarce, in a shared way;
- Corporatocracy or companies who replace States, so autocracy who replace Democracies since a company is not a Democracy.
That's the clearly and undeniably nazi part of the scenario. But there is also a technical one.
Electrification of anything means a (potential) big simplification of so many industrial manufacturing. For instance EVs demand far less component, far less special alloys, far less precision than ICEs, or they are DAMN CHEAP in industrial terms. Having all electric stuff at home means having a single "power" network and a "signal" network witch is already converged to IP. The same network can power any appliance. Similarly at State level there are just electrical, roads, water and signal networks instead of various kind of pipelines for gas, gasoline, diesel, crude oil, ... witch means a far simple infra to maintain and extend. Similarly a CERTAIN KIND of IoT, the one who happen to be nearly nonexistent so far on sales potentially can trigger big leap ahead in our lives.
Some revolutions are formally already there but they fail to scale because of FUD and reactionary-ness of most: for instance WFH might work beautifully well if well done but too many on both sides hesitate and the results are far beyond a positive paradigm shift. Computerization is another: potentially we can hyper-simplify bureaucracy but in 99% of the cases bad design, business interest and ignorance create monsters who complicate instead of simplify. Change that demand a kind of "social reset".
The problem lie at management level: such "reset" can be designed by some teachers, philosophers, high culture people, from PUBLIC academic and research bodies with the SOLE target of improving our society or can be designed by a small cohort of nazi thieves for their own personal interests against most AND marginally to ensure social evolution.