Glad you already learned this is probably nonsense. The wrong reasoning is very similar to much thought about overpopulation. The amount of people that makes for a place to be overpopulated is a function of how societies work and the technologies they have at hand. One extra issue there is that improvements in technology usually lead to population growth, so much progress gets cancelled out.

Isn’t it as much about showing up to vote than about changing minds who to vote for?

Do as the other poster said. The Benelux is also a place where you could probably work with just English. Bonus points if you manage to get a job where you’re allowed to work from, say Portugal (for the weather and the low living costs) Good luck on the job hunt!

Have you looked into the European job market? From what little I know, I have the impression here that kind of profile can pick among any number of jobs.

Someone should invent a game, that while playing demonstrates how much monopolies suck for everyone involved (except the monopolist)

If you use median, removing or not of 1000 people from a pool of millions indeed has zero impact. My guess is that they worded it like that because they assume people don’t knownwhat a median is, so they describe the practical effect

They are not excluded, it’s just the the number of people is used, not the amount of money

For Harris, yes. For Biden: just “not anymore”. Which can happen when you have geriatric folks doing this kind of job.

I’m pretty sure they’ll do increasingly farcical votes for some time after.

Electric cars do charge when braking. Obviously the energy recuperated is less then waht was needed to drive that fast in the first place. Using driving wind would just increase the energy needed to drive that speed and would be net negative.

And here I am with 35 days, which we’re expected to take.

“Made unusable”: that’s not how it works. Even with occasional vandalism, there’s so much more people positively contributing, that overall the map just keeps on getting better and better.

I don’t know, there’s lots of things I would risk doing at home that I wouldn’t try on a spaceship. It’s also a metaphore that can hopefully speak to the kind of people who think a fresh planet would be the solution.

No matter how much we fuck it up, this rock will always be more liveable than anything we can realistically find elsewhere. This planet is our spaceship, we better start treating it like one.

Depends on the molecule. The ones used in vaccines are nit dangerous. See for example https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100244467/

Buffalo weren’t eaten to almost extinction. And they don’t give birth to 10 calves at a time.

That’s just convenient defeatism. People are part of societies and are sensitive to choices others make. It does not save the sharks if you stop eating shark fin soup. But when there was a campaign against shark fin soup in China, and people actually chose to eat less of it, then that does have an impact on the shark population. Things can change surprisingly fast. It’s just a drop in the bucket, but we’re several billion people dripping into it. The collective impact of significantly reducing animal product consumption is important enough to try for it.

In general, drop the “this is a nonsense solution, we should do this other thing instead”. We need to do all the things to survive this. Focus on making others with the same goal stronger, convincing them to do this other thing too, instead of ridiculing their efforts.

…any economic system that does not take externalised costs into account. This is not unique to capitalism.