186 karma · joined June 4, 2009
Are you saying that poor people are poor because of their own ignorance or poor behaviours? And therefore if you give them money they'll just piss it away?
I was trying to say that a) you were massively off about the relative quantities of unarmed shootings and that b) in any case; I would imagine people are more upset - i.e. it's in the national news - about e.g. [0] than; e.g. Brett Luengo, because there's a huge difference in the circumstances surrounding their deaths, something which cannot be interpreted from the statistics you cited.
Further, my admittedly limited & poor knowledge of the situation caused me to infer that the op was talking about this qualitative difference, although you are correct in saying that if you take the statement "we cannot seem to stop shooting unarmed black men" absolutely, strictly, literally; without applying any context whatsoever, then talking about quantities is completely valid.
So - my apologies.
"On Thursday, officials revealed that in seven of 102 cases involving children under 5 separated from their guardians, the adult was determined not to actually be the parent."
So ok, you're only slandering ~95% of those 102. If you don't like the term "slander" how about "generalisation" or "prejudice".
Forgive me if these words have negative connotations, or "trigger feelings" - but what term would you use, to describe declaring 100% of a group to have attributes that only apply to - by your very own research - 5% of that group?
Completely citation & evidence free assertions - smells like slander to me.
I visited your link and could not see a matching statistic.
Filtering by "unarmed" and hovering over "Race" I got a count of 19 White, 15 Black, 4 Hispanic.
I then also had a quick look at the article for "Brett Luengo", [0] (White) which states i.e. "Luengo attacked a woman first..." etc. etc.; I mean it goes on for quite a while. So seems like there's a big variation in the definition of "unarmed man" shooting that doesn't preclude other kinds of violent or aggressive activity/indications.
Looks to me like the statistics are not really telling the whole story there so maybe that's why you don't hear them "covered in the national news".
[0] https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/cleveland-met...
Op said "You can make a predictable scheme for the next 20 years (i.e. fuel will raise about 4% per year,...)"
So how about investing in Cornwall now, borrowing against the 20 year revenue stream from the tax.
- Invest in (or even set up, if you've got the skills) crowd funded solar projects like http://www.burnhamandwestonenergy.co.uk/ - as a charity or "community interest company"
- Donate/contribute to charities supporting reforestation - for example https://onetreeplanted.org/ or buy land, something like this: http://www.buybrazilland.com/rainforest-property-for-sale/
So there are existing organisations which offer these kinds of services; but there's no reason why a "charity startup" couldn't form to provide these kinds of services in a different way; more focussed on the climate change issue and with more of a social/viral element; to try and build the scale that would be necessary. If every twitter user contributed $10...
While it is true that global inequality might be decreasing, localised levels are important, especially when existing in regions which might be considered "economic drivers"; because it has important implications for the stability of those regions, and this is highly likely to affect the continuation of the global trend for reduced inequality.
How about a societal/practical problem? Is an unequal society sustainable?
What actions can be taken to mitigate the ethical and practical problems presented by inequality?
Those shifts - i.e. the industrial revolution - were enormously disruptive!
Assuming that this is happening; or going to happen, how can we smooth it out a bit?
And of course; that is on the basis that this is not a science fiction AI special; in which case an even more thoughtful approach might be required to minimise the damage and maximise happiness; or whatever variable you prefer.
If technological unemployment is not a large factor; but inequality within advanced economies is rising, then what other factors are at play? Are the changes necessary to deal with those causes the same changes that would be needed to deal with an all-knowing AI in 2150?
That is, if 75% of the population has no job in 2150 you have a huge ethical and societal problem.
this is by definition "increasing productivity" isn't it?
> All that will happen will be again a shift away from many kinds of jobs (the easily automatible ones) to different kinds.
If that's true, then what will the shift be to? These are interesting questions. And how long will the shift take? Because I think there is a general feeling that current levels of inequality - the "hollowing out" of the middle class - are due to trends in automation.
If there are people who are left behind; what do we do about it?
"Speed" is almost directly exactly analogous to "increased productivity" isn't it?
Also accuracy - reducing scrap means more can be produced with less materials in less time.
"working with more unknowns" - doing things that couldn't be done before.
These all seem to be kinds of "getting more work done".
But forgive me in also indulging in the idea that a physical location can also bring a sense of atmosphere or prestige - belonging - that is important in any human activity, and can add a relevance which is not immediately obvious.
Which is not to say that such an atmosphere can't dissolve quite quickly.
I don't think that's true. Imho this would be more correctly stated as "it can't last forever in theory".
It can't last forever where there is perfect information, or perhaps equal opportunity. But as you say it is "impossible for everyone to know everything" so this is never the case in the real world.
Thus the need for interventions (i.e. by the state) to correct asymmetries such as institutional inequality. These are failures of "pure capitalism" that need to be corrected by other means.
You can find bugs in bugzilla (firefox) or github (servo) that are labelled as suitable for newbies, my advice is to try and build it first then pick one up and go for it!
I think a good way of thinking about this is food laws - i am happy to pay for enforcement of laws that make sure when i buy beef it is not, in fact, horse meat, rather than having to carry round a testing kit or rely on reputation/brand etc.
Occasionally some work might be required to check new technologies are applied in a constructive way, e.g. that a new bleach used to whiten bread is safe.
Oh yes, and also there is a power imbalance between the individual consumer and corporations/market forces. Think of regulatory bodies as a "consumers union". Would it be possible to organise efficiently without the force of government?
I read your comment as saying that most people choose a job based on maximising utility; one component of which is financial reward; and that top-class sports is one industry in which there is generally a consensus that "people are paid too much" - i.e. that there is a distortion; that perhaps their love of playing and the positives they contribute to society are already well priced in to their wages.
Also, it seems entirely reasonable to me that any market distortion implies an opportunity cost - that aggregate happiness; over time, would be greater; if we spent a little less on footballers and a little more on e.g. imho; carbon capture!
You even explicitly state that it would be extremely judgemental to blame individuals - i.e. footballers - for maximising their individual happiness at the expense of human society as a whole; and that instead this should be blamed on a market or political failure.