Solutions

[El_Machinae]

Meat protein prevents me from bleeding into a toilet every day so I'd happily break that proposed ban.

It's the average damage that matters in the long run. I would happily cut back some of my meat so that a friend who needs meat could get some. My bitterness is cutting back so that my hedonist friends can overeat. And then the world continues burning

 

[Birdjaguar]

Where do you think cheese and milk comes on the scale of harm through beef and pork? I kind of assume that its impact is similar to beef, perhaps slightly better because of the better food conversion efficiency of milking cows but the 2 industries have so tightly bound together that if is hard to apportion the blame.

Dairy farming is nothing like ranching. Their dynamics are very different. And yes, both fart methane.

 

[Gorbles]

Heyo, if folks aren't familiar with me and my walls of text, uh, now's the time to get acquainted. Bon appetite!

The problem with this general line of thought around eating meat is twofold:

1. Personal choices on eating meat or not eating meat cannot be argued to have an impact on the raising and slaughtering of animals (specifically raised for food). It's a systematic thing; a capitalistic thing. Supply and demand is often a manufactured balance - one example is Amazon (The Times, paywall link) recently (alternative non-paywall link); there are others. This notably lead to Amazon making this announcement, but obviously a) how much this actually helps and b) why Amazon don't try literally any other form of disposal than landfill are both open questions (the latter can probably be chalked up to "they don't want to spend money", presumably).
2. More people than you think require some form of meat intake as a part of a healthy diet. It's not just meat proteins; red meat in particular contains a number of things like B12 (which is not iron) and of course iron. These can't always be supplemented by off-the-shelf vitamins and having iron-based remedies (like the popular branded Floradix, at least in the UK) also have their own drawbacks (relating to uptake of the iron itself, etc, the impact on your digestive system, and so on).

I'm not saying we can't try, or there's no point in making morally conscious decisions to the best of our ability. I have a balanced diet; I was raised on a balanced diet (red meat once or twice a week, vegetarian meal at least twice, fish once, etc, where possible). But we can't forget that a diet is an incredibly variant thing to try and pin across people as a whole, and our own activism in this regard isn't necessarily a solution that fits. It leads to value judgements like the one @Birdjaguar is making simply by pointing out meat consumption per capita, which also excludes availability of meat produce based on class. Sorry BD, that was a wordy way of saying I disagree

Personally, there are no easy answers. No easy solutions. I believe a lot of systems that exist in the modern Western world actively work against any solutions we would propose in this thread, but for the sake of not dragging the thread down that kind of ideological bent, I'll propose what I think is the best answer to everything that seems to be going wrong at the moment, short of more extreme solutions (not ruling them out, just running with my personal favourite):

Education.

This isn't meant in a "haha people are thick" kind of way. It also skips over support for mental health in first-world countries and other such systems which aren't supporting pepole be the best they can be. But I'm trying to simplify this solution so it fits on a page of A4. Maybe "informed discussion" is a better phrase. Or grassroots activism, with a focus in learning and education. I dunno.

Note before I go any further. This will not fix our ongoing climate emergency. I'm aware the meat discussion came out of that, but uh neither will people stopping eating meat. Emissions is probably a better target, and won't require changing the cultural mindset of most of the known world. That said emissions comes with its own set of problems (mainly ideological, sometimes logistical).

The biggest problem at the moment, given how slow law is to catch up with the innovations on the Internet and indeed with software (and to an extent, hardware) as a whole, is regulation. A dreaded word to some Americans (and possibly some Brits), I know. Companies like Amazon (I'm picking on them a bit, there are other examples, but hey Bezos deserves it) exemplify growth on an unsustainable scale (maybe Uber is a better example, but Uber are closer to collapsing so they don't really need my arguments against them). We can't fix regulation easily (it's getting to the point where people oppose regulation solely on ideological grounds, which is worrying). We can't halt the growth of software easily. Even education isn't exactly something that can be "fixed". But I consider it the best starting point, because it's something people can do on the Internet, for "free".

The biggest issue with this is certain folks have already figured out how to weaponise that. The field of expert knowledge is an incredibly tricky one, as a) there has been very effective messaging against expert knowledge in recent years, even from those in government (UK, US, another country, take your pick, I'm sure there are examples) and b) expertise has an expiration date, and proving that per field of knowledge is increasingly based on personal ideology and marketing rather than actual knowledge. We're bound by studies made between one and five decades ago because nobody's managed to make a more effective case since - is this because there is nothing better, or because of other reasons? It's an impossible tangent of tangents, that. How much knowledge has been intentionally lost to maintain historical power structures (mainly dictatorships, but I'm sure there are other examples closer to home)? The list goes on.

That said, I believe that laying out accessible information (with citations, where possible, or at least an observable chain of quotations that are easily Google-able) helps (especially in this day and age, and especially online) provide solid, reasonable facts to argue from that basically rule out non-constructive derails apart from the usual off-the-rails claims about Marxism, or whatever, which then over time would be able to be minimised in their impact because folks would (in serious discussions, where it actually matters) write these attempts at a non-sequitur off more easily. It's why when I get into what I semi-affectionately call "Debate Mode", I go all-in on numbered post links, external links, summaries, choice quotations, and the like. It helps I was kinda built this way. Not everyone is, and this idea of informed discussion (or even just dissemination via videos or training materials) is obviously not something everyone is comfortable with doing, or even has the time to do in the first place.

So you combine it with grassroots activism; pressure to change a local community. Get a school's curriculum changed. Do a local presentation about the Amazon basin. Point out how much CO2 the river itself aborbs, and how much (roughly) the rainforest is thought to contribute to our oxygen supply. Label the people literally setting it on fire (and often killing indigineous people inside it). Educate people about misinformation, about how productivity has massively outstripped wages; how money has been steadily moving up through society and remaining in the hands of people that literally sit on it. These are all pretty easy, Google-able facts that don't name anybody, or make big claims about people being bad people, or racist, or whatever (though: also a good topic for informed discussion).

Another important step would be to organise ways of spotting disinformation. Spot and react to bad faith arguments, concern trolling, whataboutisms. And the second step would be absolutely call that nonsense out for what it is - but try not to let it dominate the discussion (I'm not very good at that last part myself, but I'm just a guy who browses Internet forums because he likes video games and programming). These things have become an all-too-accepted part of online Discourse™, and this is bleeding over into the outside world as well. That's problematic. The other problem is that this is regularly presented as an ideological struggle, "left" vs. "right", or similar nonsense. Which is silly, because I've seen too many garbage people use various leftist in-groups as cover for their rubbish behaviour. The stereotype of "left" vs. "right" separates it into "good" and "bad", and this isn't strictly true (moreso when it comes to the cultural axis, which is what we refer to most online), but it also provides cover for actual crappy folks anywhere left-of-centre as well.

Now, I'm not stupid. None of this is a systematic fix. None of this is even a fast-acting or even possible "fix" for a number of scenarios across the UK and US alone. But it's why I'm such an avid forum poster, and why I'll never shy from an argument, and take a good while to give up on it either. Doesn't always work the right way, and sometimes prolonging the conversation isn't healthy either. But it's an idea, that if applied and by some miracle taken up in good faith, could see a real change in society. Of course, it'll likely not happen on a wide enough scale to matter and we'll all be trading stories in the Thunderdome in 30 years time, but hey. I have to remain optimistic.

PS: tax the rich.

PPS: seriously, tax the rich.

 

[Samson]

Dairy farming is nothing like ranching. Their dynamics are very different. And yes, both fart methane.

In the UK they are very tied together, in that you cannot produce milk without producing calves, and I think most beef calves are unwanted calves from dairy cattle.

 

[Commodore]

PS: tax the rich

The rich do get taxed. Last year the top one percent of income earners in the US were responsible for 37 percent of the total tax revenue collected by the government while the bottom 90 percent of income earners were only responsible for around 30 percent of total tax revenue collected by the government.

This idea that the rich aren't paying their fair share is simply a myth that isn't supported by the facts.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The rich do get taxed. Last year the top one percent of income earners in the US were responsible for 37 percent of the total tax revenue collected by the government while the bottom 90 percent of income earners were only responsible for around 30 percent of total tax revenue collected by the government.

This idea that the rich aren't paying their fair share is simply a myth that isn't supported by the facts.

The question is how many of the top 10% of earners (from all sources) pay zero tax? I wonder what the tax collection would be if the top 10% of earners paid a flat rate of 15% of gross earnings.

 

[Fippy]

Could use solutions against smartphone addiction (not me, but 90% of the peoples by now..).

I see mothers taking their babies for a walk, and instead of watching them (or the road..) they look into their phones.
I see peoples having lunch break with each other, instead of chatting or watching nature they look into their phones.
I see car drivers talking or looking into their phones at traffic light stops (most scary one, and there have been plenty accidents with this involved already)
I see metal concert crowds (my favorite music) where 33%+ only care about holding their phone up and filming.
I see humankind is heading straight for mass stupidity.

 

[Commodore]

Could use solutions against smartphone addiction (not me, but 90% of the peoples by now..).

I see mothers taking their babies for a walk, and instead of watching them (or the road..) they look into their phones.
I see peoples having lunch break with each other, instead of chatting or watching nature they look into their phones.
I see car drivers talking or looking into their phones at traffic light stops (most scary one, and there have been plenty accidents with this involved already)
I see metal concert crowds (my favorite music) where 33%+ only care about holding their phone up and filming.
I see humankind is heading straight for mass stupidity.

Airhorns. Everytime you see someone on their phone when they shouldn't be, blow an airhorn to scare the crap out of them.

I got that from a YouTube video of a guy that would constantly do that to his girlfriend until she stopped checking her phone so much.

EDIT: More seriously: Just be aggressive about engaging people. If they are checking their phone when they should be having a face to face conversation with you, just keep trying to get their attention or asking questions that require a narrative response to keep them from focusing on their phones.

 

[Dekker]

The rich do get taxed. Last year the top one percent of income earners in the US were responsible for 37 percent of the total tax revenue collected by the government while the bottom 90 percent of income earners were only responsible for around 30 percent of total tax revenue collected by the government.

This idea that the rich aren't paying their fair share is simply a myth that isn't supported by the facts.

But aren't corporations people?

As for the tax the rich idea, is that really the answer anyways? Is there not a more root cause for the problem even beyond education? Like you (Gorbles) said about meat, it is systematic. Our species keeps evolving for the better, but each system had it's expiry date. Feudalism, communism, now capitalism has had their time, surely we can come up with something better.

 

[Zardnaar]

The rich do get taxed. Last year the top one percent of income earners in the US were responsible for 37 percent of the total tax revenue collected by the government while the bottom 90 percent of income earners were only responsible for around 30 percent of total tax revenue collected by the government.

This idea that the rich aren't paying their fair share is simply a myth that isn't supported by the facts.

I think it's more tax the corporations, not the high income earners. Someone getting a million dollars in wages is going to pay a lot if tax, but there's a lot of ways to avoid it with perks and share options.

Here dairy farmers were paying less than a welfare beneficiary. While amassing millions in tax free assets. Just spend all your income on assets and pay your workers indirectly with low wages but provide a house, car, fuel card etc all of which can be used with pre tax income.

It's how you can own a McDonalds, get a modest wage but have a nice house, late model car etc while increasing your balance sheet.

Do your taxes right the only thing you're paying for is food and if you travel a lot it's a business expense.

 

[Gorbles]

The rich do get taxed. Last year the top one percent of income earners in the US were responsible for 37 percent of the total tax revenue collected by the government while the bottom 90 percent of income earners were only responsible for around 30 percent of total tax revenue collected by the government.

This idea that the rich aren't paying their fair share is simply a myth that isn't supported by the facts.

While this varies by state, the average (American) national income for the top 1% is apparently $1.32 million. The bottom 99% earn an average of around $50k.

Comparisons of "how much tax" supremely rich people should pay always seem to fixate on the percentage paid off, without illustrating the gigantic and huge gap between the relative incomes on display. The argument is then normally picked up like a set of goalposts and moved to "but rich people deserve their money", at which point I abandon the tangent because it's an obvious case of moving the goalposts

So. Tax the rich!

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm fine with tax the rich I just think the upper limit is 40 to 50%.

In the good old days when the upper limit was 90% I don't think very many people actually paid it.

Tax ing sharemarket speculation isn't a bad idea.
You still need to reward innovation in even fine with billionaire s as long as it's making and selling popular products while paying taxes and decent wages.
Financial paper shuffling not so much.

 

[Akka]

The rich do get taxed. Last year the top one percent of income earners in the US were responsible for 37 percent of the total tax revenue collected by the government while the bottom 90 percent of income earners were only responsible for around 30 percent of total tax revenue collected by the government.

This idea that the rich aren't paying their fair share is simply a myth that isn't supported by the facts.

Emphasis mine. The top one percent pay 37 % of the tax revenue, but just how much of the total wealth to they own ? Because if they own 30 % of the total wealth and pay 37 % of the total taxes, to me they aren't paying their FAIR share. They are just paying the same as everybody, which is certainly not fair when they own so much more above what they need and which allows them to have a disproportionate power relative to their number.

I'm fine with tax the rich I just think the upper limit is 40 to 50%.

Wasn't it up to 90 % when the USA were actually in a better situation than they are now ?

 

[Zardnaar]

Emphasis mine. The top one percent pay 37 % of the tax revenue, but just how much of the total wealth to they own ? Because if they own 30 % of the total wealth and pay 37 % of the total taxes, to me they aren't paying their FAIR share. They are just paying the same as everybody, which is certainly not fair when they own so much more above what they need and which allows them to have a disproportionate power relative to their number.

Wasn't it up to 90 % when the USA were actually in a better situation than they are now ?

Yes but I don't think many actually paid that.

Here I think it was around 66% or 70%. Very few people earnt that much and even fewer paid.

Taxes disproportionately fall on the middle class and lower upper class. The really rich can usually dodge it the poor don't pay much.

I can translate political talk with taxes.

"The average American" this is code for the top 30% or so. American can be replaced with whatever. Polititians don't use median wages often.

Sales, VAT, GST taxes fall disproportionately on the poor.

Inheritence and capital gains taxes effect the upper classes more.

The highest tax rate I know of that people actually paid was 95% on Russian serfs.

Go back far enough the rich paid most of the tax, the poor either didn't or paid in kind to the local Lord. The state provided nothing though even basic stuff like roads and sewage.

 

[Hygro]

The ants are back though....googling new strategies now. They have also found a way into my bathroom as well.

Orange oil spray.

 

[Zardnaar]

The societies where the elite don't pay tax or very little tax usually collapse. Normally through foreign invasion.

 

[Hygro]

I'm starting to reconsider because it could backfire pretty badly but for a minute I was thinking we should only let banks pay out bonuses during recession years so that they couldn't cash out on liar's loans, while still incentivizing performance.

 

[MaryKB]

The rich do get taxed. Last year the top one percent of income earners in the US were responsible for 37 percent of the total tax revenue collected by the government while the bottom 90 percent of income earners were only responsible for around 30 percent of total tax revenue collected by the government.

This idea that the rich aren't paying their fair share is simply a myth that isn't supported by the facts.

That's nowhere near fair ... the top 10% hold more than 75% of the wealth, they need to be taxed waaaayyyyy more than they are now to bring us anywhere close to equitable. Top 1% should be paying like 90% tax rate, like they used to.

 

[Snerk]

Tax wealth progressively and tax it hard. Taxing income isn't enough as the top percentiles can cook the numbers to appear as zero income earners. No point in taxing the bottom, it's pennies. If we're talking myths then we should look closer the notion that you need the the super rich for jobs creation.

 

[Samson]

No point in taxing the bottom, it's pennies. If we're talking myths then we should look closer the notion that you need the the super rich for jobs creation.

I agree that you should not be taxing the bottom, but it is not pennies. If you include sales taxes and particularly "sin" taxes (principally alcohol and tobacco) the bottom pay a lot of taxes, and they should not.