The moral justification for upending people’s lives or worse based on the circumstances of their birth and what paperwork they’ve been able to complete?

Is the tower of London still an option?

Were it really true that letting people move between countries unrestricted causes some kind of serious problem, one might expect a similar kind of issue to arise from internal migration within a particularly large country like the US, and yet, one can freely move between states without it causing some kind of government failure. I don’t really believe modern society actually is different in a manner that makes larger populations disadvantageous, since demand for goods and services increases with population size, having more people in an economy should organically increase the number of jobs required to meet their needs, it’s not like we dig jobs out of the ground like oil such that a given place has a fixed number.

I do get that unrestricted immigration isn’t as popular with, say, the democrats or such, as anti-immigrant people like to claim. However, I am in favor of unrestricted immigration. For me to say that I want ICE abolished isn’t to misrepresent my stance on that matter; I can only truly speak for myself and whenever I say that I desire that organization dismantled, I mean it entirely literally.

I could see customs, but immigration? Honestly the more I think about it the more I conclude that the entire concept of immigration enforcement and a distinction between citizens and noncitizens is unethical

Then if we want fission in 2035, we’ll have to start now. If we want fusion by 2035, we’re probably out of luck because we haven’t even got the tech to the point where we can produce net electricity with it yet (net energy from the reaction yes, but that’s not good enough for a power plant), and once we get that we need to refine it enough to produce enough energy to be worth the cost, and then we have to actually build the power plants. If we want neither, then we’ll probably still be using fossil fuels for a significant percentage of power generation by then, because while solar is cheap and should probably be the bulk of our future energy mix, is isn’t good for some use cases

While I do agree that we should research fusion, it doesn’t really address all the issues of fission. It still has some nuclear waste generation; not from spent fuel but from the reactor walls being bombarded with neutrons, causing some of that material to become radioactive, and it will likely require even more complex facilities and so have the “you need to spend a massive amount of time and money to get a reactor online” economic issues fission has, but possibly even worse. The physics technically give you more energy per amount of fuel and the fuel is more abundant, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the resulting electricity will be cheaper, especially when both systems use so little fuel anyway.

It does avoid the possibility of a runaway reaction/meltdown I guess, but modern reactors are pretty good about avoiding that anyway. For that matter, newer (relatively speaking) fission reactor designs exist that can process waste into more fuel (not forever obviously, the fuel can’t be infinite, but enough to greatly extend the fuel supply and deal with much of the waste issue at the same time). The fission waste issue is also a bit overblown; the actual volume is very low, so just digging a handful of very deep storage facilities to stick it in is a viable option for an extremely long time.

The biggest issue for fission, imho, is that we simply don’t build very much of it. The less of it we make, the smaller the pool of people and facilities that are equipped to run it, maintain it, build the components etc, and the more expensive running it or building more becomes.

How exactly do you extinguish a cult with reason and fact? They’ll just ignore you or use your public debunk as a way to gain publicly with members of your audience that had never heard of them.

I don’t imagine that would be enough time for someone to even process the various stimuli enough to realize that what just happened was a gunshot, tbh, let alone consider the implications of that.

Assuming the time wasn’t an exaggeration that is, I’m fairly squeamish so I don’t think I’ll be watching that video to see how long it really was.

60 cents? You may have confused “billion” for “million” somewhere, unless I’m misunderstanding you, in which case we’d be talking closer to $600

I dont know the economic stats on what percentage of companies have unions, but theyre not exactly non-existent, I know people that work unionized jobs, a place I used to work for had one (not that I saw it do much, but I wasnt there that long), and the business I work for has them for some of the countries it operates in (mainly ones in Europe I think). They might not exactly be the norm in the US right now, but they’re not some fantasy either. And I would imagine most companies with one have the resources to deploy something like this if they have a use case where it would actually make any sense to. Maybe not train a leading AI model from scratch given the expense numbers I keep seeing reported on that, but that doesnt sound like what this kind of application requires.

I know that. My point wasn’t that automation will make companies behave differently, but that the maximum demand that can be forced upon a business by things like unions is increased if the pool of money they can demand from before the business can’t operate anymore is larger. What I said is applicable for economic systems beyond capitalism, for that matter, since it’s just a more specific way of saying that the average person can theoretically have more things when the average number of things made per person increases.

You misunderstand my point then. There are ways to force a corporation to pay people more (unionization, minimum wage laws, sufficiently bad labor shortages etc). There is a maximum amount of wage that these things can extract out of a company, because if the labor costs grow enough to make a business unprofitable and they’re unable to either raise prices or cut things enough to compensate, then that business will shut down instead. Increasing the amount of revenue per employee raises this theoretical ceiling on what can be paid. The method to actually get them to pay that wage is beyond the scope of my point, just that whatever method one might prefer has a higher maximum on what it can get when productivity is higher.

Literally how. I brought up that a corportation wont just pay people more just because more money per person is available, and it isnt exactly a novel concept that a given amount of money split fewer ways results in a higher number after the split.

If anything, having fewer employees to produce a given amount of revenue theoretically allows for the employees that remain to be paid a better wage. Not saying that they will be, since, you know, corporation, but any pressure that can later be placed on them to raise wages will go further if the available revenue per employee is higher.

Because being born on one side of an arbitrary line on the dirt gives a person some kind of responsibility to risk death that is not shared by people born on the other side of said arbitrary line in the dirt?

“saving children’s lives? we can’t have that!” -maga, apparently

Executing someone for being delusional or heavily propagandized strikes me as morally dubious, removing a politician from power achieves a similar effect without having to embrace capital punishment.

Sounds like someone pulled a Mike Waltz

The leader of a country referring to it as “Greater (country)” is rarely a good sign.

We can print DNA iirc, and I’d imagine that tech will only improve with time, so if we really needed to keep some DNA from before some event that degrades all DNA afterwards, it might just be kept around as a computer file and synthesized as needed rather than frozen in living cells.