So called ethical treatment impacts the speed and scope of research that can be done, and in doing so delays or prevents the benefits of conducting that research. That means that people who could be saved by animal tested medicines instead die in the time taken to find an alternative.
What’s gross is condemning people to die for the sake of some pigs
I would see a million pigs die before one human.
It’s neither of those things. Words have meanings, and legal terms have very specific meanings.
Better mod tools and more quickly
In the west there are laws about public indecency which legislate what people may wear outside and these rules demand women wear shirts but do not demand the same of men.
In some western countries, there are ones that do not make a distinction
The law covers that also. All visible religious garments are forbidden.
“The law in it’s great magnanimity prohibits poor and rich alike from sleeping under bridges and stealing bread.”.
A law can be applied equally to everyone and still target a specific group of people.
There will of course be different sources of information, but that does not mean that they will present a fair and balanced spread of ideas. The capitalist class will push their own interests. A single owner is not required for that to occur
8 billion people is absolutely sustainable, we could support significantly more at a modern standard of living with just the resources we use today. The problem is the way we organise how and where we live, and a parasitic owner class using and abusing vastly more resources than they could ever need.
- Education
- Opportunity
- Help those who don’t want to give birth not to give birth
- Reduce the influence of religion that promotes childbirth and irresponsible family planning
- Reduce the influence of pressure to grow in every way that is likely exacerbated by capitalism
And if after all that people still want to have children?
Nature will bring our numbers to sustainable levels if we don’t do it. Nature will not be so kind.
Let it try, we’ll see who wins.
The axis is authoritarian-libertarian, not liberal. The definition might be different in common parlance, but people not understanding terms in political science through ignorance is not a reason not to use them.
A liberal socialist is a subset of liberals, the same as social democrats and social liberalism.
You cannot seek to preserve capitalism and also be a socialist.
And to Germany’s communist party, fascists were also distasteful, bigots, and extremists, and they would lead to the collapse of capitalism.
This would be a good mirroring response if it had any amount of truth to it. To the Communists in Germany, the fascists were their mortal enemy. The two parties were fighting in the streets. The Communists saw the fascists as a capitalist system, they certainly were not under the impression that fascism would bring about the end of capitalism.
A declaration by the Communists that the Fascists would collapse under their own contradictions is not evidence to the contrary, or evidence that the German communists tolerated the fascists.
Liberal and libertarian are not the same thing and cannot be conflated, and authoritarianism isn’t anything with a state.
I swear, the political compass has rotted people’s brains.
Under capitalism, the capitalist class controls the media, and can use their wealth to control the political class.
A democracy can only make choices so far as it’s voters are informed, and when a group controls most sources of information, it can control the democracy as a whole.
Firstly, liberals are not left of centre, they are the original capitalists, the ideology that socialism was built in opposition to.
Secondly, Liberals will always side with fascists when push comes to shove. To liberals, Fascists are distasteful, bigots and extremists, however, fascism does not threaten the liberal system. It does not threaten the liberal ruling class, at least inherently, whereas socialism is an existential threat to that class. To a liberal economy, to a liberal nation.
The pyramids have chambers that were unopened for over four thousand years, bone dry inside. Pick an area with very little rainfall, surround it with rock and the problem will stop existing on human timescales.
Not hugely. Actual nuclear waste, not just mildly radioactive uniforms and similar material, is extremely small and compact for the amount of energy generated.
The source you linked talks about uranium reserves. Mineral reserves, known and unknown deposits, refer explicitly to the known amount of economically minable supplies of that mineral.
Discussion around them can be misleading, especially for a growing industry, because as a resource becomes more scarce, it becomes more economically viable to mine difficult deposits, this growing the reserve. On top of that, the effort and technology tend to yield new methods of both mining and refining that increase yields.
Eco-fascist outcomes come from Eco-fascist methods. How do you propose to accomplish this degrowth without subjecting the world’s population to genocide and privation?
Human nature is to strive, to fight for a better life for themselves and their communities. The preservation of agrarian lifestyles and “harmony with the planet” a bunch of backwards romantics push is not more important than the betterment of the species, no matter how much people cry about it.
If people need to live in dense cities, then they will live in dense cities.
Build one then
We brought pigs into existence for the benefit of human conditions, we will take them out of it if and when it becomes necessary.