I'm sure this headline has nothing to do with the massive supply of expiring vials that pharmaceutical companies are desperately hoping to turn a profit on.
We had a choice to make things government control without a profit motive, to ignore IP law and have a Trips waiver, to nationalize healthcare, and we said no to all of them and the result is a system where there's supposed to be a profit motive reason behind everything.
Isn't this what everyone wanted? Everything being run "like a business" to maximize profits? Wasn't that how we all intentionally set it up? Shouldn't y'all be feverishly shaking the pom poms and doing backflips and squad cheers for capitalist efficiencies and the free market?
This very clearly wasn't a study conducted by Pfizer. And there are a bunch of other studies that indicate the same thing.
If you really think that they're capable of completely falsifying results of multiple studies performed by various governments and research institutions around the world by way of bribing _everyone_ involved, you have a lot more confidence in their ability to successfully pull of a giant, complex, illegal operation without getting caught than I do.
This isn't to say that pharmaceutical companies don't engage in shady tactics when it comes to performing their own studies and bribing doctors, but this is a vastly different circumstance. They don't control these studies.
You can tell how close we are to complete collapse by how hard they agitate for outright wealth confiscation, and how sloppy they are with their attempts at intellectual sleight-of-hand.
IIRC the actual level of change we need to achieve long-term stability is something like 99%-99.9% reduction (depending on the gas, CH4 != CO2). If so, we’d have to eliminate about half of shipping emissions even if we eliminated 100% of the emissions in every other sector, but that’s even worse for your argument as it also means we have to eliminate 5/6ths of all livestock & manure emissions if we eliminated 100% of everything else.
Also: while I wasn’t thinking of this when I wrote the previous post, if carbon capture powered by non-fossil sources turned out to be useful (but not so useful to give us the exact opposite problem), that’s still a success.
not impossible at all. we just have to wait for the oncoming economic collapse, famine and mass migration. the great part of this whole thing is that the more we double down on the systems that brought us here, the more they will be undermined.
I wish people would stop pretending we have a choice to do nothing because the whole thing is just going to be too inconvenient.
> I wish people would stop pretending we have a choice to do nothing because the whole thing is just going to be too inconvenient.
But we do? There's no pretension here, no action is always a choice. That doesn't mean that we will be free from the consequences of course. I think many people are betting, consciously or not, on the fact that we can keep going like this until the day they die and then they won't have to care about the consequences.
> we just have to wait for the oncoming economic collapse, famine and mass migration. the great part of this whole thing is that the more we double down on the systems that brought us here, the more they will be undermined
Uhuh, we just need to wait until you stop reading dystopian books and will leave your basement.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Not cool.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
How do you conclude that people consuming soy are "easier to control"? Are women "easier to control"? Are you also saying that becoming more woman-like is problematic?
