Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Yesterday
  2. At the Genetic Literacy Project, Cameron English rightly calls out "anti-GMO 'rock star' Vandana Shiva" among others for their role in causing Sri Lanka's agricultural crisis:Sri Lanka ran an evil experiment on its citizens last year. Under the sway of nitwit organic-food activists, the government banned imports of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers as part of an effort to transition the country to all-organic agriculture, leaving the vast majority of farmers without access to the vital tools they use to grow the crops their country depends on. Polls taken at the time showed that most growers didn't know how to farm organically.English goes on to recapitulate the events that preceded and followed from the ban, calling them "predictable and tragic." He also reminds us that the country's leadership ignored the advice of its agricultural scientists while it devised its plan. At the same time, the story notes that organic apologists are deflecting blame. Regarding a recent statement about the crisis by the Soil Association (which frequently collaborates with Shiva), Cameron hits the nail on the head:If you recover, they'll tell you to step on it right, the next time. (Image by Albert Cahalan, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.)You see, they didn't do it right. Had Sri Lanka only taken a decade to retrain its farmers in organic production and primed its citizens for the massive yield drops that come with abandoning modern agriculture, then they'd be on their way to a green paradise. Please. This is a foolish, face-saving narrative. Take 10 years or take 100 years; it doesn't matter. The problem is not the transition period, but the production methods farmers are supposed to utilize. We know that organic farming alone cannot produce the amount of food we need to feed the globe. The research has been done, the evidence is in. This was all known long before the events in Sri Lanka unfolded. Agricultural scientists in the country knew it, and they were ignored. [links omitted, bold added]Central planners take this tack so often about the results of people attempting to implement their policies that the Babylon Bee once memorably parodied it under the headline, "Socialist Steps On Another Rake Insisting That 79 Previous Attempts Weren't REAL Stepping On A Rake." My thanks to Cameron English for calling this what it is, evil, and holding these modern Luddites to account with his well-documented piece. Sri Lanka will, sadly, not be the last time green meddlers wage war on modern agriculture. But with this article, at least the next target will have been warned on how the scheme will be put into motion, the results they can expect, and what the perpetrators will say when their policies are tested against reality. -- CAVLink to Original
  3. Last week
  4. Whether you sometimes had to do without meat during the height of the pandemic -- or found yourself going to the store at ridiculous hours like I did -- you might want to mosey on over to one of John Stossel's recent pieces. Within, he explains how this happened in a wealthy nation in which it is impossible to drive through the countryside without seeing cattle. And yes, if you suspected it is due to regulations in one way or another, you were correct to do so. In this particular example, meat inspection -- which for decades involved a technique that could spread disease -- is the major culprit:Image by Kurseong Carl, via Wikimedia Commons, license.Today, USDA inspectors do a better job. They test for bacteria. But the inspection process is so cumbersome and expensive, many small companies can't afford it. The result, complained President Joe Biden recently, is too much market concentration: "Four big corporations control more than half the markets in beef, pork, and poultry!" His remedy, sadly, is to give your tax money to some smaller meatpackers. Of course, such subsidies and regulations increase market concentration.Stossel's suggested remedy -- of allowing small packers to sell after state inspections -- does not go as far as I would, but it would make the supply chain less brittle. That said, it is as needless for the government to require this common-sense measure as it is wrong for it to issue rights-violating orders to individuals in the form of preventative law. I would have been happier had Stossel noted that no rancher or meat processor wants a reputation for sickening or killing customers: There are ample selfish, profit-seeking motives to support an entire competitive and profitable private industry in food safety inspection and certification. (Underwiters Laboratories is an example from a different sector.) And such an industry probably wouldn't have taken almost a century to get past the ridiculous "poke and sniff" method the government foisted on us in the name of saving us from ourselves and "greedy" businessmen who somehow don't understand that dead, dying, and sick customers are bad for repeat business. -- CAVLink to Original
  5. Is this the seventeen thousand four hundred eighty seventh attempt to finally, totally, once-and-for-all, get that bad Trump, or am I forgetting one? But this time will be different! This time they’ve really got him! This time it isn’t about lies they made up! This time he messed up real bad! Such excellent entertainment.
  6. Or he declassified the material while in office and took 'hardcopies' and any actions by DOJ or FBI to force him to return would blow up in their faces and he let them blow up their faces. Garland already had to go on tv to explain that AG don't talk about this stuff and this stuff isn't over yet .
  7. Over at Hot Air, Allahpundit does a fine job of answering Donald Trump's threatening question to the Attorney General regarding how his followers -- Trump's term! -- might react to the Mar-a-Lago raid. What I like about the list is that it lays out for all just how ridiculous Trump's behavior has been on the matter of the classified documents every step of the way. I'll simply duplicate the list below:Trump knows good and well how to turn his hand in the opposite direction. (Image by Kwon Junho, via Unsplash, license.)He could have returned all of the documents the first time the National Archives asked for them back.He could have returned them later when the DOJ subpoenaed them.Having failed to return them, he could have kept the search of Mar-a-Lago a secret. Remember, it wasn't the feds who announced it. Trump announced it on Truth Social because he recognized that the incident would benefit him politically. The FBI even carried out the search dressed in civilian clothing so as not to alert bystanders as to what was happening. Trump alerted the country because he wanted to raise "the heat."He could now call on his followers to chill out before one of them kills someone, as nearly happened a few days ago in Cincinnati.He could, at the very, very least, refrain from further inflaming the situation... [links omitted]This man's half-calculated, half-erratic behavior before, during, and after the 2020 election should alarm people across the political spectrum. It is a disgrace that the Republican Party seems content to remain his lapdogs. Furthermore, if the current administration has legal grounds to bar Trump from running for office and fails to pursue them, it will be at least equally wrong. On that last score, I am afraid they will be tempted to stop short of doing so, as I have explained before. The fact that the Democrats specialize in inciting riots does not mean that the proper response is to do the same thing. Not, at least, for anyone who values the freedom and prosperity that come with law, order, and government protection of individual rights. -- CAVLink to Original
  8. ... meanwhile, the world population expected to hit 8 billion, 2022. If not scorn, perhaps a measure of disbelief?
  9. As to conspiracy, the fact that public pro-depopulation figures are instrumental in if not policy making at least promotion of policies put into play doing the pandemic is notable, at the very least. But noticing only brings scorn from proper people.
  10. The part I liked the best in the essays was where the author was discussing how the west’s reaction related to changes in the societal zeitgeist, philosophy and how it shows the weakening of Lockean based view to a more Hobbes focused frame.
  11. It struck me as a conspiracy piece, and I did not read it in depth, just to the extent that the Ivermectin was not being allowed for CoViD treatment, then queried the drug along with the disease for some studies. If it strengthens your views, that is fine. The multiple conflicting stories on different aspects of CoViD floating about reveal more about the epistemological disintegration. Also this is not the first time I've heard of a conspiracy of CoViD being a vehicle used to depopulate the world.
  12. dw The title of the piece is not the part I found fantastic, it was the essays cited in the article. The results of the study you referenced claimed in the Backround portion to be unclear, so not definitive. Thst study also used participants that had symptomatic disease for 7 days, the effectiveness of an anti-viral as prophylaxis or early treatment after exposure could not be evaluated in such a study. Picking that as a 'rebuttal' , makes the 'meat' of the article I linked, more prescient.
  13. Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19 CONCLUSIONS Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424. opens in new tab.)
  14. https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/ivermectin-why-is-the-administrative A fantastic piece .
  15. To represent what the protagonists of Rand's novels are like, one needs to discuss how they are in the novels. Reading and reporting instead musings the novelist jots down in her journals about a future character she is working on does not get you a satisfactory grade in a literature class. But the point of this smear-article was not to read and report the literature or the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Behind all such personal attack-pieces like this one is simply the favor of politics or religion opposed to Rand-quarter positions concerning politics or religion. It is easier to vilify persons, such as Rand or her fictional protagonists, than to argue ideas. The latter would mean reading and accurately representing what were the ideas of Rand that she argued and that she illustrated in fictional stories. After accurate representation, one would go on to argue against those ideas, making counter-arguments in support of one's opposing views. (Which is what is in my writings concerning Rand or any other thinker I take up.) If someone is already in the church of the author of this personal-smear approach to morals and politics of Rand or libertarianism, one can get bolstering by reading this article. One does not get accurate information from it, only distortions. But there are readers who think that is fine, if only they get their church and political beliefs defended, however cheaply and slovenly. Precision respecting reality and life may not be their thing. But people who are after truth, including truth about what is Rand's philosophy, what is right in it and what is wrong with it, people like that read people like me.
  16. Blog Roundup 1. Over at Thinking Directions, Jean Moroney discusses mental blankness, why it occurs, and what to do and not to do about it. The last is common enough that what she says about it should motivate the reader to find out what to do instead:Image by Mike Tinnion, via Unsplash, license.Sometimes people criticize themselves for not knowing the answer right away. Maybe they are embarrassed that it takes themselves a minute to collect their thoughts. Or they call themselves "dumb" for not remembering right away. Or they jump to the conclusion that they're ignorant -- and leave that first "I don't know" as their only answer. They never realize that they do know or that, given half a chance, they could figure it out. Self-criticism is both unfair and impractical. Instead of warming up relevant information, it distracts you from the topic by triggering self-doubt.There is a better way, and Moroney draws on Rudyard Kipling to make that way memorable. 2. Jason Crawford comments on the cautionary tale about what Wired called "the longest-running vaporware story in the history of the computer industry." His parting thoughts:[T]he deepest lesson, I think, is to value real-world results. [Ted] Nelson and [Mark] Miller didn't fail to notice the Web, they failed to care about its success or even to recognize it as a success. Its epic, world-changing status in the history of technology is meaningless to them beside the fantasy system they had dreamed up. In the end, despite the title of the WIRED article, Xanadu was not, in fact, cursed. It achieved exactly what its originators wanted: theoretical perfection in a Platonic realm of forms so idealized that it can never quite be brought to Earth.I think Crawford is absolutely correct and, although the WIRED piece clocks in at about 20,000 words, it makes for an interesting and instructive read. 3. At How to be Profitable and Moral, Jaana Woiceshyn reviews and briefly debunks "Confusions About Capitalism." I think the following is a good, succinct explanation for why such tired old tropes enjoy such wide currency:People's own experiences are not of capitalism but of a mixed economy, where significant cronyism can and does exist, exploitation can go unpunished, and the state interventions -- such as making energy deals with authoritarian regimes (Germany) or banning fertilizers (Sri Lanka) -- lead to human suffering. This makes us prone to believe claims that physical force initiated in a mixed economy is a feature of capitalism. Because today's dominant morality prescribes self-sacrifice for the sake of others and condemns self-interest as immoral, we believe the distortion that exploiting others is in one's self-interest and that therefore the capitalist pursuit of self-interest is immoral.In her next paragraph, she does something many who have debunked such misconceptions fail to do: Explain to the reader why he should seek the truth. 4. At Value for Value, philosopher Harry Binswanger outlines "A New Proposal on Gun Danger after first explaining how his thinking on the issue has evolved to see the issue as one of "preventative vs. proper law." Here's a novel suggestion. Assume that a certain object really shouldn't be sold to a certain kind of buyer. E.g., assume that the regulations you want to write would have illegalized selling the AR-15 used in Uvalde to the shooter, Ramos. Assume that the wrongness of this 18-year-old boy getting such a weapon is obvious. Okay, then the parents could sue the gun dealer who sold it to [Salvador] Ramos. Don't illegalize the object. Don't even illegalize the sale of the gun to a kid... Just let the seller know that he will be held liable for any wrongful use of the weapon, provided it is shown in court that he was negligent to have made that sale.Rather than making objects illegal, we should make acts illegal. -- CAVLink to Original
  17. [...]"Current U.S. and NATO proxy warfare in Ukraine isn’t sufficient to defeat Russia, or even to stop Putin from continuing to capture territory in eastern Ukraine. All it’s sufficient for is making the war costly for Moscow while Ukrainians keep dying. That’s because this is exactly what the empire wants. “I care about Ukrainians, so I support a negotiated settlement” is a morally coherent position. “I care about Ukrainians, so I support direct hot war with Russia” is also morally coherent, if insane. “I care about Ukrainians, so let’s keep doing what we’ve been doing” is not morally coherent at all. It makes sense to support a negotiated peace settlement if you want to save Ukrainian lives. In a twisted, deranged sense it also makes sense to support direct NATO intervention against Russia to save Ukrainian lives. But continuing with the current plan clearly does not make sense as a strategy for saving Ukrainian lives, because it just keeps getting them killed. I of course point this out not to advocate a third world war, but to show that the western empire does not care about Ukrainian lives and isn’t doing what it claims to be doing with its proxy warfare in that country. If the empire cared even the slightest whit about Ukrainian lives it would be drastically changing its approach, one way or the other. The fact that it’s just maintaining the status quo of continuous death is their confession that they only care about grand chessboard maneuverings for global control, not the actual people who are fighting and dying". [...] Caitlin A. Johnstone
  18. Yes. Did you? I read both articles. The article you linked to after saying "The aricle includes a link ( this first "clickable" thing) that directs to this" says nothing about vaccination.
  19. Did you read the article? Or you’ve decided that it is not worth looking at or using your own judgement on their conclusions, because Wikipedia ?
  20. Talking about authoritarianism. Physical coercion is not all that exists, freedoms aren't lost only with the "barrel of a gun". Modern governments have at their disposal a power to non-violently coerce minds (and therefore, bodies), through propaganda techniques not fully realized and practiced by the complicit media, until lately. By that means, a population conditioned to automatic obedience through its feelings and emotions allows an authoritarian government to expand, one seldom needing to resort to force, so, may congratulate themselves on - their 'democracy'. "Why?"- is what everybody had to ask and seldom do. Why defend Ukraine? at its own human destruction, and the huge economic (etc.) costs elsewhere - and after the Kyiv Government was indeed partly responsible for the raw consequences committed upon their country - and - why steer them away from the early solution, peace negotiations - and- why prolong hostilities - to "weaken Russia"? Why was it so hard to give Putin/Russia his, not unreasonable, demands for "security guarantees"? In that same situation, any nation would be neurotic for its future security. Why lock down entire populations, the healthy/young together with the vulnerable, in a pandemic that was known to be non- lethal to the former? Why impose (untested) vaccines on all? (for the same rationale, healthy v. vulnerable?) These past few years, cowed into submission and conditioned to dependence on "the authorities" to provide us with 'safety at zero risk' like never before, it was that orchestrated propaganda campaign during a virus, then an invasion that's 'coerced' masses of minds. It only had to shift gears, for this senseless and avoidable conflict.
  21. The aricle includes a link ( this first "clickable" thing) that directs to this https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending22july2022
  22. SL, it is good writing, and the cause for which she had assembled was right, regardless of who else agrees with her. Getting the statue away from its place of public adulation was right. The racist young man, now in prison, who charged the people with his vehicle was wrong. His deed was evil. Hers and her sharing this episode of her life is not. We have a public statue here in Lynchburg also erected by white supremacists early in the 20th century. Ours is not a likeness of a specific Confederate leader, but an anonymous Confederate soldier and with the inscription "“to commemorate the heroism of our Confederate soldiers”. The prominent official who made the address for the inauguration of our statue was about to leave for a Constitutional Convention for Virginia whose express purpose was to disenfranchise Black voters. It succeeded in reducing the number of Black citizens who were allowed to vote to one-tenth the previous number. In our case, I prefer the story of what our statue stands for, when and why it was erected, be displayed on a plaque at the statue, rather than having the statue taken down. The disgrace of this part of American history (and the slavery era preceding it) should be on prominent show.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...