Some seem to sincerely believe that renewed immigration law enforcement is morally evil.
I'm not sure why since it was enforced this way for decades before except for a few years recently. Now, I think that one can argue that ICE is overly aggressive, that it casts too wide a net, that too many mistakes are made, that it should focus on specific violations instead, etc. But these are arguments that can be made for any law enforcement agency, and have been for over 100 years in the USA. Sometimes, IMO, they were even justified.
That said, however, it also seems that many have latched onto ICE enforcement actions as a bell-weather pre-cursor to additional actions that will lead to a dystopian outcome. Or is in the process of doing so as we speak.
Thus, if one believes this to be true, then one can see why actions taken to fight/oppose/slow down the process can be viewed in a morally good light and something to be celebrated.
> Some seem to sincerely believe that renewed immigration law enforcement is morally evil.
No one believes that, this is a strawman. Notice how there were no large protests, no continual protests, and no widespread outrage before ICE's tactics were changed and a bunch of insurrectionists were hired? Yes, you do notice that "except for a few years recently".
Is there anything that may have changed in the past few years that may have caused people to be against ICE?
I was just watching a video the other day of ICE protestors blocking NYC bridge traffic. Tons of people coming out of their vehicles pleading with them to move so they could get to their job, drop their kid off, deliver a DoorDash order, etc.
I'm all for fighting against your enemies, even if I don't see it exactly the same way. But when I see stuff like that, it just seems totally disconnected from doing anything meaningful towards their enemies (besides making more of them, I guess).
Those sort of tactics seem to come from the belief that "awareness" is an important precursor to socio-political change. Which, I guess is technically true. But I agree that this particular sort of awareness building is detrimental to their stated cause.
The "we're all a big family" narrative is a psychological ploy to try to exploit the need by most people to feel like they belong to some group. This need is deeply interwoven into our psyche. And as more traditional structures of society (extended family, churches, social clubs, etc) erode, it leaves a void that many cannot really understand. IMO, this particular message is almost never true.
Company "mission statements" and such are a similar tactic. Though I think it's a bit less cynical, because the company leadership sometimes (rarely IMO) believes in the mission to a minor degree.
"The pitch was that AI would give us our time back." <= this was never the case. The pitch is that AI will either augment people to make them much much more productive or replace them altogether.
That's the point. GP deceptively suggests that what the EU escapes in gun deaths, it makes back in spades in heat deaths, providing GP with great ideological schadenfreude. Except this doesn't actually follow, in part because these are fundamentally different mortality categories indeed (and in part because the counting methodologies involved are drastically different, etc).
We do know the consequences. Wealthier nations have essentially eliminated 99%+ of the population of the few species of disease carrying mosquitoes in many broad areas. The effect on the ecosystem was not noticeable. Using cheaper methods to help poorer areas will save 10's of millions of lives and eliminate billions of cases of disease. It's overwhelmingly worth it even if it caused ecological harm. To not do this is, to even fight against doing it is, IMO, immoral.
Probably because those ecosystems were not here anymore, as they were bulldozed to remove the mosquitoes.
The whole aquatic ecosystems were destroyed. There is hardly anything more noticeable than that. You believe that there was not any effects on survival of migrant aquatic birds, local fisheries, extinction of endemic fishes, frogs and aquatic plants, local microclimate, or management of water reservoirs?
Then why wealthier nations are massively trying to restore this habitats again to protect themselves from floods, restore biodiversity and assure their water supply?
The impact would be saving the lives of thousands of people in the short term and millions of people in the long term.
Even if it is somehow true that mosquitoes play an important part of some ecosystems, to me, it's worth the ecological damage to save the lives of millions of men, women and children in the future and prevent the suffering millions more.
hm, you're right. looks like they just take the official figure and slap a constant on it. regardless, I still think the official figure is fundamentally flawed and doesn't reflect the health of the job market ~ underemployment, workers that gave up looking, etc
I think that's pretty blatantly obvious there are other ways to live. After all, there are still millions of people surviving on subsistence agriculture in fairly primitive conditions. Still people leading mostly-pastoral lifestyles herding animals. Still millions living in small isolated villages with few modern amenities. Still millions of people living in crowded dirty cities and working in dangerous factories for long hours the way people did in London of the late 1800's. And everything in between. It's funny how so few people voluntarily leave the wealth post-industrial regions to live in any of those, eh?
And the other key theme of the book is that our current trajectory is seemingly heading us straight toward ecological disaster, regardless of how comfortable our current way of life might be.
Besides, his point is not that we need to return to barely living off the land, but to live with the land and with nature, not against it.
I'm not sure why since it was enforced this way for decades before except for a few years recently. Now, I think that one can argue that ICE is overly aggressive, that it casts too wide a net, that too many mistakes are made, that it should focus on specific violations instead, etc. But these are arguments that can be made for any law enforcement agency, and have been for over 100 years in the USA. Sometimes, IMO, they were even justified.
That said, however, it also seems that many have latched onto ICE enforcement actions as a bell-weather pre-cursor to additional actions that will lead to a dystopian outcome. Or is in the process of doing so as we speak.
Thus, if one believes this to be true, then one can see why actions taken to fight/oppose/slow down the process can be viewed in a morally good light and something to be celebrated.
reply