Definitely! If you want nutritional food, focus on the stuff that’s really cheap and easy to grow and makes the best use of land anyway, whether you’re doing it or consuming it after other people have done so: fresh veggies. Greens, squashes, tomatoes, various tubers, etc. (varies depending on your region, of course).

I was just talking about the focus on protein. It is absolutely not the thing to worry about if you’re interested in “nutritious”. You’re being completely counter-productive if you do that. It leads opposite to the goal you just described.

Just grow and eat veggies and grains. If you’re worried about protein, you’re worried about the wrong thing (you should instead be worried about getting vitamins, minerals, and a generally varied diet). Everything that made people worried about protein on vegetarian or vegan diets is based on a study purposefully misinterpreted by the meat-and-dairy industry, where that misinterpretation was parroted for decades and disowned by the original author of the study. Just because you can fulfill the same protein profile as meat using plant proteins doesn’t mean you need to. The human body evolved to allow us to eat meat opportunistically, not to require it.

Unless you’re on an all-fruit diet, you’re getting enough protein if you’re getting enough calories (literally no matter your exercise regimen). And if you’re not getting enough calories, you’re starving and protein is one of the last of your concerns anyway.

I mean, we’ll never do it under capitalism, Gore. So you good with dismantling capitalism?

(Crickets, I’m sure.)

I mean, yeah. Not only do they have all the people under them doing all the actual work, but the fewer authorities you have over you and the fewer peers you have, the less you are accountable. CEOs have no peers, and the only authorities over them are the board of directors and the capitalists (major shareholders). And a CEO who is also one of the capitalists circumvents the board, has no authorities above them, and has only the other capitalists (if there are any) as peers. Its a great position to be in…if only the people doing the actual work could share that position (socialism) rather than being victims of it (capitalism).

Elon can literally do nothing. He should do nothing. Everything he does do simply fucks people over. And that’s true in general of CEOs and capitalists. Their only real job is to discipline the labor they are exploiting under them, in order to maximize that exploitation. Everything else can (and generally does) take care of itself.

deleted by creator

Illegal anti-union actions are a problem for the Democratic party coalition.

This guy doesn’t know Democrats very well. But generally a good article.

Bonus points for the best bit:

If the most-clever users got to run Twitter, then Dril would be Twitter CEO!

SickoHaHaHaYesExclamationPoint.png

I know. Instead of doing what we know needs to be done, let’s come up with an over-complicated geoengineering solution that we absolutely do not have the capacity to manage or even predict the outcomes of!

LOL. That was hilarious. Poor idiotic propertarians accidentally invited a real anarchist, when they probably thought they’d invited one of their fake ones who thinks he’s going to abolish the state by creating a private one.

Flat taxes are regressive and a really, really, really bad idea. We have too many of them as it is.

REVOLUTIONARY!!!

A worker controlled company will be just as profit focused

First off, you’re wrong. Capitalist-owned companies have a mandate to grow due to the ever-increasing demand for return on investment, and those who control the company have no disincentive for the maximization of profit (this shit is as old as the field of economics itself, so you might want to read some leftist literature and catch up). Worker-owned organizations can choose to grow or not, as they wish. And they have built-in disincentives against the maximization of profit, as they are the ones who must labor to produce it, and they also must suffer the consequences of bigger and more complicated work environments. So while capitalist organizations will ALWAYS be forced to the limit, worker-owned companies have much more room to choose, and to consider factors like how their behavior affects their communities, their environment (externalities), and the rest of their quality of life.

Second, I wasn’t talking about a single capitalist company. I was talking about a whole economy built around them (capitalism). That, by the way, inherently includes talking about government (the modern nation-state is built to protect, uphold, and enhance capitalism, for capitalists). And it also inherently is about culture, which as I already pointed out is influenced by economics every bit as much as the other way around (far more so, in fact).

Consumerism is a cultural problem, not a supply chain issue.

It is both. Capitalism encourages supply chains to be formed based purely on metrics such as cost on the production side. Nothing is planned further than what will minimize the cost to the company, so that profit is maximized. While roughly the same amount of consumption is done by the working class in its consumptive capacity, this does lead to greater consumption and waste by corporations as part of the production process. When we take control of our workplaces, we will be much better able to account for and make rational decisions regarding such externalities.

And to some degree, it’s also pointless to try to separate “culture” from “economics”. They influence each other. People don’t consume simply to consume, but because of the pressures put on us by the system. We drive not just to drive, but because we need to get to work and school, and because capitalists have destroyed our public transportation options. The reverse—our affect on the system of capitalism—is much less powerful these days, as we’ve allowed ourselves to become powerless and subjugated ourselves more and more to the class war. Certainly cultural elements will be necessary to overcome this, like building a culture of loyalty to one’s fellow workers and the unions which empower us, and eschewing advertising’s daily effects on our habits. But to imply it is “just cultural” is missing a lot.

Euclidian geometry is used for things on a globe.

non-euclidian spaces are those that are not spherical. Such as a flat earth.

This is incorrect. Euclidean geometry deals with planar geometry such as that which cartesian coordinates are used to describe. I mean, here’s a quote from Wikipedia:

More generally, n Cartesian coordinates specify the point in an n-dimensional Euclidean space for any dimension n.

Spherical surfaces are even used as kind of the classical example of non-Euclidean geometry. For example, you can form a triangle along great circles on the surface of a sphere and have all three angles be right angles (90-90-90); something not possible in Euclidean/planer geometry. See the linked text.

That aside is both a nitpick (the curvature of Earth is small enough on the local scale of a city that the differences are negligible) and it is wrong, as cartesian coordinates are planar and aren’t useful for accounting for spherical curvature. “Euclidean” and “cartesian” are basically synonyms for this purpose.

Supply chains have become ridiculously complex, though. Like 20 years ago a cell phone manufacturer talked about how just about every piece of a phone was ultimately shipped back and forth across the Pacific about 6 times before being sold in the final product. As raw materials, as base components, as more complex components built from others, after branding, packaging, etc. And although perhaps more and more manufacturing has moved into Asia, I doubt the complexity has decreased or that any particular mind to this kind of waste has been designed into our system generally.

I’m sure there are things to fix about the container ships themselves, as others have pointed out. But another solution is simply to use them MUCH LESS!