Best way to fight climate change, eliminate all vaccines. The human population will plummet thus ensuring we have reduced the amount of waste. Human remains can help bring nutrients back to the soil. Other species will be able to repopulate naturally.
This won't happen, because we want to live forever or that very least certain technological elites are trying to make that happen. We want to have all the latest technology regardless of the transportation costs (shipping containers). Be able to eat that latest restaurant. I could go on.
Climate change is real. How much is man-made? I don't know and I don't really care. On a personal level I attempt to keep my carbon footprint low, though I drive to work and eat meat daily - I bought half a cow and whole pig and store them in a deep freezer. At the same time I have had the same flip-phone for 3 years, and the prior to that I didn't have one. Have one TV in my house and a record player.
Reduce your consumption to your needs and a few wants, rib-eye steaks. Earth will prosper long after we are gone.
Italian food is simple in general. Purchase the best ingredients, allowing the flavors to emerge. A general rule, if a dish has more than 6 ingredients it probably isn't Italian, and if it has more than 10 ingredients it certainly isn't Italian.
Under your logic all those who eat fast food for lunch everyday and don't exercise should have to pay extra for medical insurance for not taking care of themselves.
If we had universal healthcare I'd believe that would be an appropriate response. Much like you can turn your home into a garbage dump and live in that if you have acres of empty land around you, but you can't in a dense city you are allowed to destroy your body but not at everyone else's expense
> Under your logic all those who eat fast food for lunch everyday and don't exercise should have to pay extra for medical insurance for not taking care of themselves.
Err, that's exactly what happens. Your premiums would definitely be higher if you live a riskier and less healthy lifestyle because you would require more costly health care at a younger age.
And as another poster pointed out, we're now also coming around to the idea of disincentivizing poor food choices for the same reasons, like taxes on sugary drinks.
So this is not "my logic", but in fact the prevailing logic of most people.
Water, power, communication, unemployment and other poverty support, mail, law enforcement. Everything. Are you arguing rural living comes with cheaper services and less environmental harm, in the typical case? That'd be great, if true.
[EDIT] Transportation. Worth including on the list, in particular.
Having lived in small communities all my life, I would say they are cheaper as far less is required. Water, power and communication I am uncertain, though internet appears better in certain smaller communities. You need far less law enforcement as crime is typically lower. Mail might cost more, but that is factored into shipping costs.
Smaller towns when done correctly can be more self-sufficient. Within an hour and half driving radius (minimum) from where I live, it is entirely farm land. I believe 90% of the food my family eats comes from these farms and is cheaper. I purchased half a cow recently from a local rancher - 295 lbs of grass fed beef for $1400 total, butcher fees included. Also purchased a whole pig from a local farmer ~250 lbs for $750, butcher fees included. From the same farmer I purchased 8 chickens a month from them at $12 - 15 per chicken from May - September, not cheaper but worth the money. We can get produce, raw milk, cheese and eggs from all the farmers here as well.
It takes money up front, planning and a deep freezer but we are supporting the local economy, reducing transportation costs and have locally sources food. If we didn't purchase our meat from the farmers I would hunt, but there isn't a need to do both as a family of four can only eat so much in a year.
These are some of the benefits when you downsize to small communities you can know your consumption patterns easier. We haven't been able to do this for everything but this year we have finally figured out the food issue. We still purchase spices, tea and coffee which at the store but those were the first items traded at a global scale if memory serves me correctly.
One would think there is enough land in the US to do this, but it would take a major cultural shift in eating patterns and the way we operate - feasible in theory but probably not reality.
You should look up the costs of supporting rural living. They're heavily subsidized, at least in the US. Living in rural communities is cheaper to the individual right now, but significantly more expensive to society overall. If you can find data to the contrary I'd be interested in it.
Lots of utopian plans for city designs and such revolve around spreading people out farther and having lots of "green space" and farmland interspersed with living and business districts, but fail on closer examination because it's really hard to be more efficient (cheaper) and more environmentally friendly than having very dense cities yielding, as quickly as possible (i.e. minimizing sprawl and low-density suburbs/exurbs) to farmland. If you can find data supporting the case for lower-density living as cheaper (overall) and more environmentally friendly than denser living, again, I'd be very interested in seeing it. People come up with those spread-out hypothetical cities for a reason—agrarian (even faux-agrarian) living is appealing, if difficult to advocate given the economics of it.
Schools need good teachers and administrators. Hospitals need good doctors and nurses. Housing needs construction labor and assurance for the developer that their investment will pay off.
We as a nation do not produce many good teachers. We do not produce enough doctors period.
This isn't SimCity. Can't just plop a school or hospital down for a fixed sum and expect things to sort themselves out.
I live in a small town 30k population. Good teachers and doctors. Living in a city doesn't automatically indicate there are goods schools or doctors. You have greater choice, but that is all.
I grew up on island in Alaska. Completed my last two years of high school in a small farming community in North Carolina. Joined the military and after ten years separated from southern Turkey, yet, somehow I was able to land a job as a data scientist.
I joined the military due to a lack of academic discipline though I still was accepted to the state schools in North Carolina, just choose otherwise. I have friends who did the same, though one did attend Chapel Hill on academic scholarship he received while graduating in Alaska. I have another friend who is now an anesthesiologist who graduated from University of Washington's medical school.
A few remote workers will do wonders for rural America in the short and long term. Saying you need to live in a major city to be successful is hogwash.
I never meant major cities, just any city. In another post in this thread I give examples of Indianapolis, Chattanooga, and St. Louis. They could hardly be described as major cities (at least compared to ny/la/sf). But the rural areas beyond those cities' suburbs are highly impoverished. Infrastructure costs are higher in rural areas. It makes more sense to subsidize efficient urbanization than to spend far more on inefficient ruralization. My other post in this thread has better detail in this regard.
Why would the US give a Top Secret clearance to an immigrant?
edit - You can't immigrate to a country then expect to receive a Top Secret clearance regardless if it is the US or any other country. I don't suspect Russia will give me a clearance if I were to immigrate and find employment at a tech company. There would be a major national security incident waiting to happen.
2. Do you have to be a U.S. citizen to receive a security clearance from the State Department?
As outlined in Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information, eligibility for access to classified information may only be granted to employees who are United States citizens. However, an exception is allowed in specific situations wherein there are compelling reasons for limited access to be granted to an immigrant alien or foreign national employee who possess a special expertise that is needed for specific programs, projects, contracts, licenses, certificates, or grants.
5. Are non-U.S. citizens eligible for a personnel security clearance?
No. However, under rare circumstances, a non-U.S. citizen may be issued a Limited Access Authorization for access to classified information. Specific criteria and limitations are provided in the NISPOM. You may also contact your IS Rep for additional information.
I don't really know the details. I just know my ex husband was career military and he once kind of hand waved off the importance of some security clearance label in, probably, some TV show with the factoid that basically, if you are in the military at all, you have some level of security clearance.
I don't know the nomenclature. I don't know if "Top Secret" is really super duper special or if that is, like, anyone above the rank of E-1. But I also know that, for example, one path to citizenship in the US is to serve in the military. So, if all members of the military have some degree of clearance and some are not citizens, then 1+1=2, I think.
But I googled to find a reliable source rather than give that anecdotal evidence. FWIW.
> ...one path to citizenship in the US is to serve in the military.
True statement.
> So, if all members of the military have some degree of clearance...
False assumption. Jobs that fall under services, personnel, public affairs, medical, contracting, vehicle maintenance, and supply come to mind. This is far from an exhaustive list and will vary in scope between branches of service.
I have personally met foreign nationals who were infantrymen. It is possible my statement is overly broad. But if being in the infantry, like my ex was, grants some degree of clearance, then I have personally known foreign nationals in the US military who must have had a security clearance to do their job at all.
I based my remarks on a remark my ex made. I spelled that out as clearly as I could.
My conclusion is correct that my background knowledge suggests, yes, it is possible for immigrants to have some degree of security clearance. But, hey, I googled it just to be sure and posted that. And it is correct that it is possible for foreign nationals to have a clearance.
People are confusing 'security clearance' with 'background investigation'. Non-citizens very rarely have any US security clearance.
It is normal for Army units to have many non-SECRET cleared members. It is one of the challenges of distributing ISR information to frontline units. Signals (communications) will tend to have clearances, and they couldn't progress if they couldn't get one. Officers are cleared.
I specifically disputed your assumption that all members of the military have some degree of clearance by pointing to select jobs which explicitly do not require any level of security clearance whatsoever. Nothing more.
Specifically addressing infantrymen (Army MOS 11x, Marines MOS 03xx), it's not difficult to imagine a case enlisted immigrant on a defined path towards naturalization being granted iterim clearance to train and perform basic routine duties, but is constrained to non-deployable status and can neither participate in classified briefings nor handle classified material pending valid JPAS investivation disposition...which is all theoretical motherhood and apple pie, except a security clearance isn't actually mandatory for many infantry MOSs.
That is not my assumption. That is my recollection of what I was told by a knowledgeable individual whose word I trust on the subject.
It may be inaccurate. It is fine to share what you know. But, if you want to nitpick the hell out of a comment based on accuracy, you need to at least read the comment accurately and frame your objection or criticism with precise accuracy. If you cannot even accurately read and frame my comment while critiquing it, it basically gives me the impression that the whole point is to try do some kind of ugly social pecking order negging rather than improving accuracy of information in the discussion. And that generally does not go over well with me.
I am 100% fine with pedantry. If you know more than me, totes cool. But the inaccurate framing -- which suggests sloppy thinking on my part -- looks awfully suspicious from where I sit.
I was in the military with a secret clearance (standard I believe) and you are correct it is very mundane, nothing exciting. There were a few times I had to cover documents when people would come in and couldn't talk about certain projects, but it was nothing exciting. I believe intelligence is worthy at the aggregated level, not at the individual level most of us experience.
I misinterpreted the statement then. Naturalized citizens are different, I thought it was in reference to those who come here for a job, then require a security clearance. That would create conflict in my opinion.
As an Australian who lives in our national capital, I can assure you that our friendly local FVEY agency will happily employ Australian citizens at a Top Secret Positive Vetting level who are naturalised immigrants or dual citizens (a huge chunk of this country are dual British citizens, in particular). I get the impression that it makes your life a bit more difficult, but it's definitely achievable.
I have thought about that often. The conclusion I have reached is this Earth's way of keeping the population of a species at a natural state - droughts, plagues etc... At first this appears harsh based on our preconceived notions of humanity. Many people will die due the environmental conditions in which they live - regardless of pollution levels.
Earth does not have a bias towards one species, such as political/economic policies will have. Mother Nature's laws determine the strongest/fittest will survive, but our current system puts wealth that leads to power as the strongest.
Switching to a system which does not value materials, money and power over others but focuses strictly living off the land such as the African Tribe will result in a drastically different social construct than we see today.
Most able to adapt, most responsive to change. Not the strongest / fittest.
It's an extremely important distinction.
Wealth isn't the ultimate strength or source of power. It's #2 on the list behind political power, which is backed up by armies in most cases. Just ask rich people in authoritarian nations who is in charge (in recent times see: China, where rich people are routinely disappeared, or Russia where their wealthiest person was put in a gulag for opposing their dictator; all Russian oligarchs are universally terrified of said dictator).
Does anyone actually question whether Xi Jinping is weaker than Jack Ma? He could disappear Jack Ma tomorrow and nobody would do anything about it. Just look at what has been done to Wang Jianlin, his business is being diced up piece by piece by edict of the State (which arbitrarily cut off bank funding access for his business, forcing Wanda Group to being liquidating its holdings).
Was Sergey Brin more powerful than Barack Obama while Obama was president? The notion is laughable. Obama was not an especially rich man when he took over the Presidency, his power was entirely political in nature.
If you want a convenient example in the West, see what happened when tech companies ran up against the US military in the form of the NSA. They all lost universally across the board. All were forced to comply, or else. If the military didn't get what they wanted up front, they illegally circumvented the front door and tapped the link between data centers anyway. Qwest's CEO was put in prison when he attempted to disobey. Yahoo was threatened with vast fines [1] over trying to resist PRISM (they could trivially destroy any given tech company in this manner). It's clear who has the greatest position of power: the people with the stealth bombers, tanks and FISA court.
True and I agree, but you can't have political power without wealth. It is a catch-22 in my opinion, which came first the chicken or the egg type scenario.
Why don't we work remotely 90% of the time already?
There are deep seated biological and cultural reasons why current technologies don't replace physical proximity.
Some of the more important ones, such as networking, remote technologies can't even try to address. It's terrible for job seeking, lateral career changes and building connections.
I don't know what the case is in NE US, but in my town in British Columbia, the deer population is out of control in the metropolitan area, and every time a cull is mentioned, animal rights activists put a stop to it through loud and effective lobbying. It's quite irritating.
The grizzly, as a top predator, was not really very afraid of humans and many people were killed by them in California before they were hunted to extinction. I would definitely not want them around as a farmer in the 1800's. With antibiotics, helicopter transport, and ER rooms today, I might support a reintroduction of grizzlies to the state. There is one on the state flag, after all, and are amazing creatures. On the other hand, I like how relaxed I can be hiking in the California Sierra without them. Hiking and camping in the Canadian Rockies feels a lot different.
Mountain lions (at least the ones evolved when we hunted them for the last 12,000 years) are much less hazardous to humans than grizzlies or wolf packs.
We have an urban coyote population in Vancouver. It's very strange seeing a coyote in the city. I was 20 feet away, once. They are amazingly beautiful creatures.
Even if they were allowed to hunt deer, it probably wouldn't help. So much of the land deer graze over in the Midwest is suburban and have laws in place regarding setting off a firearm.
This limits hunting to public lands, of which, there might be 2-3 within an hour drive of the city. So no matter how much the hunters kill, they aren't likely to effect the populations in the surrounding suburbs.
There are more hunting spots in the rural areas, but those areas are also populated by natural hunters, like wild dogs and large cats.
You can still bowhunt, or at least you ought to be able to...
It makes me very sad to go south and see the huge numbers of roadkills on the side of the highway. Where I'm from, we try real hard to inflate the deer population, since the winters and the coydogs keep the population down so much that the hunting isn't real easy.
This problem is widespread in the urban areas of my rural, pro-firearms home state. They solved it by hiring sharpshooters to kill the deer with rifles at night within city limits. It worked really well and they gave a ton of meat to the food bank.
Which state is this? I'm surprised anyone would authorize hunting in an urban environment at all, given the risk of collateral damage. Just because you've shot the deer precisely doesn't guarantee the bullet isn't going to fully penetrate and keep on going.
Where are these animal rights activists? I'm from PA, the state with more deer than any other, where the white-tailed deer is the official state animal, and I've never seen anyone shed a single tear over a deer hunt.
It's not a simple solution, because it's not very effective. In areas with limited open space, hunting is very much an exclusionary activity. In Staten Island, the NYC Parks Department is performing an experiment in deer sterilization: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/nyregion/deer-vasectomies...
In NJ there's a restriction from hunting within 450 feet of a building. In Idaho that's probably laughable, but here it leaves a lot of space where you can't discharge any weapons.
There's a parallel with the charge that the "Drug Free School Zone" laws discriminate against minority communities because everywhere you go in cities, you're within 1000 feet of a school.
The hunting restrictions are basically why the deer population recovered to the absurd levels they have. They need some tuning the other way, maybe extend the season (eg, shorten the exclusive bow-hunting season and lengthen the regular hunting season).
If you're not allowing hunting on your property, it would also be good (albeit expensive) to fence it, so deer cannot easily move through, to reduce their available forage.
Wolves kept the deer population in check for eons before humans ever showed up. The real reason the deer population is out of control is because we've extirpated their natural predator. Unfortunately for the forest's sake, it will never be politically tenable to have wild wolves roaming the exurbs of New England.
Mentioned it above but I live in the northern Idaho region. We've grown our wolf population for awhile. Now we are at the point of having too many wolves that we are opening hunting to them.
This won't happen, because we want to live forever or that very least certain technological elites are trying to make that happen. We want to have all the latest technology regardless of the transportation costs (shipping containers). Be able to eat that latest restaurant. I could go on.
Climate change is real. How much is man-made? I don't know and I don't really care. On a personal level I attempt to keep my carbon footprint low, though I drive to work and eat meat daily - I bought half a cow and whole pig and store them in a deep freezer. At the same time I have had the same flip-phone for 3 years, and the prior to that I didn't have one. Have one TV in my house and a record player.
Reduce your consumption to your needs and a few wants, rib-eye steaks. Earth will prosper long after we are gone.