We should at least acknowledge the "trolley" problem here. You have two bad choices: join the marines or live in poverty. The US has a "volunteer" force but "volunteer" is a stretched euphemism in my mind. There aren't many people with options "volunteering" for the marines.
Marines are the most prestigious branch of the military, by a huge margin. Plenty of people willingly join the Marines, specifically because they know they get to spend the rest of their life saying they're a Marine and with that comes (near universal) respect.
The fact that the military lifts people out of poverty is a great thing. It's a damned hard life being in the military, especially if you make a career out of it. But four years of service with a decent shot at an education and solid employment when you get out is a fair trade.
That's exactly my point. You join the Marines and you get all of the benefits and drawbacks you enumerated. You don't and you get to live in poverty. I think that can be described as coercive.
To be clear, I'm not against the Marine corps or their vaccine policies. I just don't think coercion (even if it originates outside the Marine Corps) can be removed from _some_ people's choice to join.
It's not coercive because there are other options. I grew up in poverty and took the free money given to me to go to school (then dropped out, went back later - it's a whole ordeal). My friend from grade school did the military -> college route.
We both landed in largely the same spot. My friend just gets a ton of extra benefits from his service that have really added up over time. He hated being in the military, but he straight up says it's the best decision he's ever made.
My younger brother took the Navy enlisted -> retirement route (just hit rank where he can get 20 years, E6 I think), and while it's been hard, he says the same thing. Despite the injuries, moving constantly, deployments away from family, pay fuckups, and garbage housing, he loves it. And he'll retire at 42 or something with a pension and paid health care, after which, he'll get paid to go back to school then get a cushy tech gig at a DoD contractor.
Having seen people go through it, I think it's a good deal. Not just for people in poverty, but middle/upper class people too. I'm the last person you'd take for a "support our troops" guy, but I'd absolutely encourage my kids to do military service.
> Marines are the most prestigious branch of the military, by a huge margin.
I hope it lasts. Surely every generation has faced the challenge to uphold the same principles as The United States Marine Corps but, just as certainly, the struggle of today seem more perilous than before.
I often think of how the British refused to burn down a Marine Corps barracks during The War of 1812 out of respect for an honorable opponent.
By this logic people are also forced to work for Uber/Amazon/other exploitative employers of low-skill labor. This undermines many arguments against unionization, treating "gig" workers as employees, or in favour of "right to work" laws. Yet the political leanings of those opposed to vaccination are often anti-union, pro "right to work", etc. So this doesn't help illuminate what they mean by "forced", unless this is a framing used out of convenience to justify their opinion in this specific case.
People can absolutely be "forced", "coerced", or "compelled" into doing something with no understanding on how to stop it. Or perhaps they do understand how to stop it but don't want the trade-offs a potential solution implies.
Either way, the coercion in the equation is constant. And that doesn't have to be a bad thing. But it is something we can acknowledge and then determine if X degree of coercion for Y outcome was moral, valid, justifiable, etc. But the coercion existed regardless of our conclusion of its utility.
> Yet the political leanings of those opposed to vaccination are often anti-union, pro "right to work", etc.
The fact that they have the most to gain from unionization, socialized healthcare, excellent public education, etc. yet seem to support the politics most beneficial to the wealthy and powerful seems like more than a coincidence to me.
Sure but we're talking about if people were forced to take a vaccine. Social pressure, conditions of employment, mandates by government agencies. All of these things can muddy what it means to make a "voluntary" choice.
I had more than one remote co-worker reach out to ask me about or commiserate over whether or not the business would fire them for not being vaccinated. I can certainly say people _felt_ coerced and manipulated which might be the most important part at the individual level.
I also watched a lot of people get vaccinated and rack up multiple infections in the following year.
My wife convinced me to do it but I was very conflicted internally. I ended up fine and still haven't had an infection, as far as I know.
My brother desisted and wore a mask all the time at work, he cought it once, maybe twice.
Whatever the results are in the end, the damage to people's trust in the government, pharmaceuticals, and media may never be repaired, pro or anti mRNA vaccine.
"equity" is being used as though it's a magic key word and as though it's not the road to hell. Is it getting confused with "equality"?
Equality: Equal opportunity, everyone treated the same
Equity: Equal outcomes, people treated differently in order to achieve equity
The only way you get equity is through extreme top down authoritarian control and force. Think about what you'd have to do to enforce equity with one's own relatives, or even brothers and sisters, let alone society wide.
> Unless you [...] provide them transportation, you're still going to get inequalities of outcomes.
I think you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Rich people buy homes near good schools. Poor people live in homes they can afford next to bad schools. Removing the option for poor parents to drive their kids is not equity. Its damnation.
I live in a state where you can _pay_ (yes not a voucher - you PAY) to attend a school outside your district. I knew several poor families which took advantage. I don't know of a single middle-class family which did the same.
Not a scientific study. But it seems to me totally excluding the possibility of going to a better school is not kindness or progress or equity. Infantilizing poor people who "don't have time to drive" is silly. Some don't but there's always car pooling. When you're desperate you make it work.
This is proof that vampires are real and they walk among us. You need to prune slurs more than two centuries old. Otherwise the mortals will catch on to you.
The Guardian may or may not consider it a problem. They don't explicitly state. However, the Scottish government _does_ consider it a problem.
> Last month, a major review conducted by the Scottish Land Commission, a government quango, found that big landowners behaved like monopolies across large areas of rural Scotland and had too much power over land use, economic investment and local communities. The quango recommended radical reform of ownership rules.
I'm an American and am totally divorced from this subject so I don't really understand why your response is so argumentative. It seems to me a description of who owns what land is a mild enough "accusation". The Guardian doesn't make mention of farming or food security. They just says who owns what and quote concerned institutions and individuals.
Who would I be arguing with exactly? I think you may be reading tone where none was given.
Are you under the impression people are buying land (land being rural land, not an acre in central London) in the UK for the sake of it? It's not priced in the same league as the USA, it's expensive, if it's not earning a return then it's not happening. So unless you're starting a some sort of windfarm or solar farm, it's generally going to be for farming.
Also, do you realise the opposition party in the UK, Labour e.g. the Guardian, are seriously contemplating pushing a LVT. So they aren't pushing these stories to punish their own. They're pushing these stories to justify what they'll do. And that adds to why would anyone buy any real chunk of land in the UK right now.
As an FYI - a quango is a nonsense lobbying group, it's not independent, anything they come out with can be considered nonsense. Doesn't matter who they work for, it's always doctored stats and the taxpayer getting rinsed.
A land value tax is very common and is universal in the United States. It seems appropriate that those who own the exclusive right to use a parcel of land should pay a tax to the society who enables that exclusive right. If this land is as productive as you say ("if it's not earning a return then it's not happening") then it should be well within their ability to pay the tax. And if its not productive then you'll see land distributed from ineffective landlords to more productive individuals and businesses which can effectively manage the land.
You said it yourself Jeremy Clarkson's farm has only generated $2. If he paid a tax proportionate to his ownership of land he might consider selling that property to someone who could better steward it.
I pay LVT in the United States. I've owned three different plots of land in my life. At no point did this tax prevent me from acquiring land. In fact, it seems like it enabled me to buy this land because in the UK land ownership is significantly lower than in the US.
If land costs _nothing_ to own then it costs nothing to hold as an investment _forever_.
I'm confused. Do you support LVT? I'm under the impression you don't. If England has no LVT and unequal distribution of land wouldn't that imply that LVT is not a prerequisite for that sort of distribution?
Doesn't methane break down in the atmosphere relatively quickly? I think the goal of this proposal is to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Producing hydrogen doesn't contribute to that goal (which isn't to say its a bad idea only that the hydrogen production facilities can exist independently of this proposal).
If you turn 100kg of CO2 into Methane you get about 36kg. Methane is somewhere around 25x (potentially 31x) worse for global warming than CO2 by weight, so you end up with 909kg of "Carbon Dioxide equivalent", or CO2e. Let's say 2% of that leaks to atmosphere, and you burn the other 98%. Burning the 98% gets you back 98kg of CO2 (it's just the reverse process), plus 2% of that 909kg CO2e, and you end up with 116kg of CO2e, starting with 100kg. You've made global warming worse.
In fact any percentage leaking back to atmosphere (and it will) makes the numbers look pretty bad. You need a significant portion going to plastics or some other sequestered use for this to actually be a net benefit.
Thank you. This is the calculation I was looking for.
2% leakage is very conservative. The amount of additional pipeline infrastructure necessary to achieve this at scale is daunting. It will have a lot of leaks.
A possible solution is to make the hydrogen by electrolysis of brine. This can make hydrogen and chlorine (and alkali) instead of hydrogen and oxygen.
If the chlorine is released into the troposphere during the day, it is quickly photolysed (in about 10 minutes at noon) into chlorine radicals, which near instantly react with methane, extracting a hydrogen atom. It should be possible for this to more than make up for small leaks of methane (or to counteract other independent sources of methane).
> almost any other carbon source is much more available
Two things: the author addresses this by saying these other sources will become more scarce in the future (undeniably true as they're non-renewable however who knows how the economics of this will actually shape up).
The second thing I'll say is that despite the availability of alternatives there are externalities to burning it (i.e. climate change). Air extraction may be less efficient but that inefficiency may be worth it to A) prevent continued CO2 pollution and B) reverse existing CO2 pollution.
The air is the most limited source of carbon we have. There is probably more of it in coal, and certainly more in fossil fuels.
But anyway, a huge part of the Earth's crust is composed of carbon-rich rocks. If we ever take the carbon from the air, it will be to regulate its amount. Taking it from rocks is much easier and requires a comparably tiny amount of infrastructure.
Please won't you think about the economic utility of this arrangement? There's more to life than "concern" and "care" for your relatives, neighbors, and the "next generation". What about money? We can make _more_ money this way. I know _you're_ not making more money but have you considered that you just didn't work hard enough? Maybe if you immigrated to Bangladesh you could re-tread tires while you studied computer science. One day you might earn yourself an H1-B visa in the UK. I hear that's a nice country.
We should shift our perspective on our native-born citizens. Because they're such a massive economic drain we should _stop_ investing in them completely. I know it sounds radical but hear me out. We can realize higher economic utility for our society if A) we stop all investments in non-skilled, non-working-age citizens and B) export those people who are a burden on our society (children, the elderly, the sick, people who enjoy EDM, you get it).
In this way Canada can achieve higher economic utility for itself. I'm imagining a system where everyone in the society is brought in on a temporary basis. They are imported after their post-secondary education and exported maybe 10 years before their retirement. In this way we avoid all the costs associated with having "people" in our country and instead we reap the economic reward of their labor!
I guess I shouldn't say "our" country. I would be exported fairly quickly... But! To those glorious (and brave) few on the executive committee entrusted to leading Canada Inc. through these difficult times, the society they get to inhabit will undoubtedly be the economic envy of the world!
And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.
You think our government respects people taking time to rear offspring? Of course not! They're not contributing their labour to our economy while being parents so we've structured the incentives to start families in such a way that they're driven back to work ASAP. Strictly speaking: having children is bad for our labour force and should be avoided.
This is the paradox of the child in modern society.
In terms of across the board consumption, there is nothing as productive as a modern child. Clothes, consumable goods, travel sports, recreations, hobbies, and diversions all lead straight to the consumption that is so vital to our economy.
And yet, with sicknesses, evening activities, and other problems, there is nothing that disrupts an individual worker's productivity as a child.
I'm not sure I am smart enough to come up with an equation, but, it's in there somewhere to tell us whether a child is a net positive or negative influence on our Economy than the other.
> there is nothing that disrupts an individual worker's productivity as a child.
I have two kids and it isn't that bad at all. Very small loss of productivity for me except when I took parental leave for 3 months. I have grandparents that live nearby and they can help with sickness and other babysitting though.
I have a feeling a lot of people don’t have that kind of support network. I certainly don’t. If someone’s taking care of my kids, it’s me (or I’m paying them).
Just so happened that my family had to move for work, health, etc. I love raising my kids so it’s fine. It has been the equivalent of drop kicking my career against a brick wall occasionally, if I’m being honest.
My country quite literally needs every able bodied man or woman in the workforce.
People with university degrees sitting at home raising kids is almost treason at this point considering it was the government who paid for their education.
Can I ask which country you’re in? That’s an interesting consideration when education is publicly funded like that. Where I am, it’s a bit of a both… Public money is a major factor up until post secondary school, then it’s part of the picture but there’s also substantial private tuition — especially for international students. I’m not sure anyone considers a duty to their country really, despite how much public money makes their education possible.
For all those taking this seriously, the parent comment was sarcastic and this comment is almost a direct quote from Dr. Strangelove about how to repopulate the Earth after a nuclear apocalypse.
This is one of those situation where I wish there was a good loan-word like "schadenfreude": The dilemma of choosing whether to explain a joke/reference for those who aren't getting it, versus playing along and extending it.
@babyshake, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Fully agree on it. Kids are another great source of profit center that have not been fully utilized. Also we need to explore if un-exportable olds can be mined for parts. That would another win-win.
The person in the article applied because of health problems.
>Denise said she hasn’t cancelled her MAID application because she still suffers from painful chronic health problems that haven’t been properly handled.
She's not going around doing cartwheels, but in a civilized country she wouldn't be applying for medically assisted dying. Her health problems are, at least arguably, manageable in fairly straightforward ways via a rational medical system.
She'll never have healthy-millionaire quality of life, but this isn't what medically-assisted dying is meant for.
In this case what she recognized as the treatment is managed by something other than the medical system. I would assume this is the same in other places, unless doctors in Europe can write prescriptions for apartments.
Given the current zeitgeist, I feel there's only a 70% chance that's an autocorrupt of Alzheimer's.
Or did, until I saw the alternative font in the comment box and realised that's a lowercase L not a capital i.
My mum died of that. Technically liver or kidney failure from dehydration, but that in turn was from refusing food in the care home and not having the awareness to get liquids separately.
I think it was worse for us than it was for her, overall, though there were a few occasions where her self-awareness of the nature of her condition caused her unhappiness.
Happy we are making progress with that and other degenerative diseases. I just wish we all had the opportunity to choose how our life ends, not just for our own suffering but also for those that suffer for us.
There is a far gap between the conservatives fixated on vaccines and the people pointing out that they have a physical handicap and otherwise want to live but are not being given disability benefits to pay for rent and food and feel forced into signing up to be euthanized.
Nobody is being Forced into Euthanasia. I sincerely hope you and no one close to you ever has to consider this as an option, but if they did should they not have the dignity to choose?
I'm not disagreeing that there's problems to be solved around how to support our sick and disabled.
But the recent outrage over it is definitely an overreaction, and is being brought up by the same people that were complaining about vaccines and masks 2 years ago.
I think, in your response of sarcasm you are brushing over a lot of valid points the OC is making.
They're not saying that we should get rid of natural-born folks. They're just saying that often times the people who most want their nation to not allow other folks in, don't appreciate all of the things that those other folks provide for them. i.e. Immigration is subsidizing a lot of the things you probably enjoy about your life, and we should probably be considering it more as a blessing than a curse.
Nobody is trying to replace you. They're just trying to help you, and provide a better opportunity for their children once they've bought into the same system your parents bought into.
I'm trying to replace me! Humans are first and foremost economic units. Fungible and replaceable. There's absolutely no reason to prefer any one human over another -- except for their ability to produce economic output.
Society is a vain illusion for the true foundation of civilization -- economic produce. Things like care for the elderly or education of children only exist to maximize the future labor of the young and to deceive the middle-aged. We should cut these vestiges from our society and embrace a new future where only the economically gifted are permitted to remain.
I know at first this is hard to accept but its only through this radical, but sensible, plan that every citizen in Canada will be able to afford a Netflix account with password sharing.
There's a meaningful point at which I think humans are going to have a reckoning. I think the cause of that reckoning will probably be Climate Change, but maybe I'm wrong.
Regardless, we don't currently see ourselves as the same as everyone else on this planet. We're too stuck on competition and being better than everyone else that we don't realize the only way forward is gonna be to accept people for who they are. There are ways to be selfish that don't mean making everything worse for everyone else. We need to have a symbiotic relationship with ourselves that's at least commensalist, and ideally mutualist. The parasitism that has been our goto for all of human existence isn't going to cut it.
This type of immigration is strictly for economic and quality of life purposes.
It’s pretty bonkers to say people who immigrate to the US on H1-B visas are doing so out of an altruistic desire to “help” anybody but themselves and their families (not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
People seem to still prefer immigrating to the United States over Canada even though Canada’s immigration system is far more reasonable. They’re trying to scoop people up with policies like this but I think it’s worth taking a step back and reflecting on why that is. I think a big part of it is Canada’s cost of living especially wrt housing is even worse than the US’s and salaries are lower.
And I say this as an expat currently living in Mexico with a fair amount of Americans and Canadians. So this isn’t a pro United States comment, it’s just a reality check. The US has draconian immigration rules and hoops to jump through… but it seems like the demand is such that they can get away with it.
Yeah, I knew there'd be someone on here still terrified immigrants are trying to replace them. IDK what TF that even means, but I can promise you no one thinks that if they just remove all of the existing Canadians that they're somehow, ship of Theseus-style, going to have a brand new Canada.
And while they may not explicitly be trying to help you, their goals are such that "helping Canada helps themselves." Way more than you give them credit for. But that's okay, please join the fear-mongering of "the great replacement."
It's precisely the immigrants who come to a country like Canada, education already completed who pay for the investments for others. An adult Indian programmer costs the Canadian taxpayer nothing but contributes immense amounts, and is even more likely to start a business than a native.
This notion that Bob from Podunk rural Canada with an IQ of 80 competes with an immigrant with a PhD makes no sense. The latter finances the welfare of the former. You need to create wealth first before you can redistribute it and keeping the strongest wealth creators out of the country is one of the stupidest damage you can inflict on yourself.
This sarcasm drenched replacement fantasy is the exact opposite of reality. Only if you have a strong economy you can continue to maintain public welfare.
That's incorrect, Canada has literally published data on the question:
"Garnett Picot and Yuri Ostrovsky revealed based on data from 2016 that immigrants are 41.7 per cent more likely than Canadians who were born in Canada to either start a business or be self-employed.[...]Leaving aside self-employment, immigrants were found to be 30 per cent more likely to own a privately-incorporated business that provided jobs for others than were native-born Canadians."
And maybe even more important, from US data:
"Immigrants have started more than half (319 of 582, or 55 per cent) of America’s start-up companies valued at $1 billion or more,"
IIRC among AI related startups the number of immigrant founders or co-founders is even close to two-thirds. Attracting top tier human capital is pretty much North America's greatest advantage.
I'm referring to Indian Programmer who came to Canada to start their own company to stay with the context.
Not "in general, Immigrants formed corp more than Canadians born in Canada".
US is different. Cost of business in Canada is high due to red-tapes and lower RoI than US (plus less Capital to go around).
The romanticization of Indian programmers creating a successful tech company in Canada (just like they did in US) is just that for now, romanticization.
Indian, specifically Punjabis, done better as Entrepreneur in non-tech in Canada.
You kid, but it’s a valid argument. I’ve known a good few Canadians over the years who went down to the U.S. for work experience and some have even lost their PRs because of some newer policy requiring that they spend half their time in Canada. It’s something that really backfired hard. I’m actually really sad and disappointed for Canada that it is like this. Historically it’s much easier to leave the country than enter it if you’re a skilled person.
This is a big deal. Back in the early 2010s, software developers moving to SF pretty much willed into existence the tech industry up there. Before then, companies would start in SF and move down to the valley. If skilled folks want to move to your area, it can be a boon, and if I’m not mistaken, Canadian tax policy is better suited to redistribute the gains from that than U.S. tax policy.
> some have even lost their PRs because of some newer policy requiring that they spend half their time in Canada.
Not a new policy. Gotta put in your time as a PR to qualify for a citizenship (that mostly can’t be taken away from you ever).
It anything, the physical presence requirements have been diluted because politicians realize they’re more likely to get your vote if they have you citizenship.
So the point your making is that the government shouldn't concern itself with increasing the number of citizens that are net contributors to the system?
I have two words for you. Tundra. City. That's right; we did it. We took the Canada you love and made it _more_ Canada. Up to _twice_ as cold as the previous generation of cities. More that _six_ times as remote. No other competitor is offering this kind of performance. I want to be clear this is a _generational_ leap over the competition. We're at least five years ahead of other major countries. And, boy, you better believe we patented it!
I'm picturing a rail line that just goes north, and in every town along the way the people are a few years older than the last. You can still live wherever you want, but the subsidies for your age group make it a sweet deal to keep moving down the line toward Centenarian City. Known for its large glue factory and landfills.
> How can you export the people who are a burden? You can’t leave them stateless.
Sure you can. The only reason nations avoid allowing people to become stateless is an appreciation of the burden that places on those people. But if we're pursuing a modest proposal where the government shifts its perspective to focus on "realize[ing] higher economic utility for" itself, that becomes less a concern.
At the very minimum you can "export" those low-economic-utility people by sticking them them on a barge and towing it to well into international waters where the currents will take it away (and if you're a nice government, just outside the territorial waters of some other country).
As you know, its impossible to prove a negative, so who's to say they won't wash ashore a luxurious beach resort where they will be welcomed with daiquiris and sexual favors?! I say give them this once in a lifetime chance!
I hear Britain is taking all types and putting them up in 4 star hotels, as long as you land on a British beach by a boat. Just chuck em all that way, problem solved.
"A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout."
Obligatory "I'm pro vaccine".