all you silly kids getting degrees for stuff nobody needs is hilarious.
I don’t think they’re anywhere near as silly as you think they are. The top most popular degreese are:
Business - I don’t typically think of these as useful degrees, but if the U.S. is going to stay competitive, then there needs to be people to run our industries and companies.
Health professionals - I would hope that you see this as a valuable type of degree
Social sciences and history - (Ex: Anthropology, criminology, economics, geography, history, legal studies, political science, social work, sociology) - All of which are important for a healthy society.
Biological and Biomedical sciences - Same as above
Psychology - This one is definitely oversaturated, but it isn’t a silly degree, and it’s a very high need given how prevelent our country’s mental health problems go
Communication and Journalism - (Ex: Advertising, editing, marketing, media communication, public relations, technical writing, translation, writing) - These all have varying degrees of importance. The journalism related ones are easily the most important here. The advertising/marketing ones I would like to see disappear, but again, they aren’t exactly silly.
Visual and Performing Arts - A healthy society should have a decent bit of this. I’d rather have a cultured society.
Computer and Information Sciences - Our world is built on computers, so another self evidently valuable set
Education - Same as above
And that makes up the majority of fields/degrees that people are getting. They aren’t silly.
Sociology is important to maintain the health of our society. If we don’t study the ways in which our society is failing people, how can we expect things to get better? And as for gender studies, those fill a similar role.
News flash, there’s only two genders
How do you know this?
We aren’t voting to destroy the planet, we’re voting to keep our careers, livelihoods, traditions, morals, etc.
Conservatives absolutely are doing so. Any time there is any legislation put to vote that would reduce our emission it gets shot down by conservatives. If we continue on this course the end result will be our planet becoming uninhabitable. If you work in a field reliant upon the fossil fuels that are destroying our planet, then you should pull yourself up by your bootstraps and find a job that won’t kill the planet. As for the traditions/morals, any tradition that destroys our planet deserves to die, and it isn’t moral to kill the planet.
Nothing we as a species can do will change the natural course of the planet.
We absolutely can. During the pandemic, global emissions droped like a rock. It is absolutely in our capability to build a society in which we maintain our freedoms while getting rid of fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels have enabled us to save countless lives from unavoidable, natural disasters.
And that was cool for the 1900s, but we need to move past it because they are actively killing us, and it’s only getting worse. Currently, 7 million people a year are dying from reckless pollution. The polluters/fossil fuel industry needs to be held accountable for their actions.
Nothing you vote for will detour third world countries from continuing the path of destruction.
We have clean technologies that we can invest in within third world countries. We absolutely can and should do so to avoid this disaster from getting worse and/or unrecoverable.
Private research has been instrumental in the development of groundbreaking drugs, aerospace technology, internet and communication technologies, agricultural biotechnology, transportation systems, financial innovations, and energy production. While many private ventures have been absorbed by the government or heavily subsidized in modern times, renewable energy technologies still require substantial upfront investments compared to fossil fuels. The existing energy infrastructure is designed for centralized fossil fuel power generation, making the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources a challenge. Transitioning to renewable energy requires changes in infrastructure and workforce skills.
Renewable energy is expected to become increasingly mainstream in the future, but at this point in time, it is simply unreliable and under developed. It’s not about policy reform, it’s about reliability.
Secondary point, the government is inefficient and under performing at almost everything they do and it’s up to the populous to get shit done.
renewable energy technologies still require substantial upfront investments compared to fossil fuels.
Actually, let me help YOU out buddy. The upfront cost of renewable energy is nothing in comparison to the long term cost of continued fossil fuel usage. It’s ultimately cheaper to fix the problem than to let it fester.
The existing energy infrastructure is designed for centralized fossil fuel power generation, making the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources a challenge
A challenge to which we have the solution. We have the tech to build nuclear reactors, the most reliable type of power, and we have reliable storage options that make intermittent sources easy to deal with.
And at scale, renewables are very reliable.
Transitioning to renewable energy requires changes in infrastructure and workforce skills.
Good. That means it will provide lots of good paying jobs.
but at this point in time, it is simply unreliable and under developed. It’s not about policy reform, it’s about reliability.
Let me break it down for you buddy. These problems don’t ultimately mater, because we simply cannot afford to fuck around anymore. The literal monetary cost as well as the cost of people’s livelihoods is way higher if we do nothing.
You have this unrealistic expectation that the solution must be flawless. The survival of our species very well may be at stake, and at a minimum the livelihoods of billions of people is at stake. We can’t afford to be so picky. Millions, potentially billions will die.
Secondary point, the government is inefficient and under performing at almost everything they do and it’s up to the populous to get shit done.
That’s like saying “fire extinguishers are terrible! They can’t put out all fires, they’re inefficient. We should instead use kids water guns from the dollar store”
The government is inefficient, but the population is far worse.
While some college degrees are useful, I wasn’t addressing all of them specifically, nor are their specifics relevant to the argument. The argument is against sociology and gender studies.
If we don’t study the ways in which our society is failing people, how can we expect things to get better?
Our society is failing because we’re shifting a child’s dependence from their parents to the government. Adults too who are in desperate need of assistance no longer seek out their neighbors or local religious establishments, they instead depend on the government. Both of these aspects require excessive taxation and social goods to be either bolstered or built from the ground up.
Sociology doesn’t provide practical skills that directly translate into specific careers. The job market is very limited, with many graduates failing to find jobs related to their degree. The study of society and human behavior is subjective, theories and findings are influenced by the researcher’s perspective, making it difficult to establish definitive truths. These biases are often disconnected from real-world applications.
Almost all the same things can be said about gender studies, because it’s irrelevant to practical applications in the real world.
How do you know this?
Men don’t menstruate and cannot get pregnant. Women cannot produce sperm and don’t have prostate glands. Try all you might, ingesting what you shouldn’t, you’re still going to be bound by the chromosomes you were born with.
Lefties are all about “trust the science, bro” yet when it comes to basic biology, often they’d rather rewrite the literature to fit some asinine ideology. HRT isn’t gender affirming, it is gender contradicting.
Any time there is any legislation put to vote that would reduce our emission it gets shot down by conservatives.
You see emissions, we see livelihoods.
If you work in a field reliant upon the fossil fuels that are destroying our planet, then you should pull yourself up by your bootstraps and find a job that won’t kill the planet.
Simply suggesting that people switch jobs overlooks the economic realities faced by millions of individuals. Are you going to build the businesses that employ all the people who have no jobs? Probably just expect the government to do it.
Drive a car powered by oil drilled by Americans, or drive a car who’s resources were mined by child labor and other unethical work forces… The choice is yours.
it isn’t moral to kill the planet
Scientific consensus suggests reversing global warming is impossible. While some tactics might slow down the process, you’re just beating a dead horse. The planet will die eventually, with or without human intervention.
Telling coal and wood fired pizza shops in NYC to reduce their emissions isn’t going to do anything compared to the military, the over seas shipping industry, the private jets, etc. Beating a dead horse.
You think you’re helping, but you’re just making millions of lives more difficult, both the people you’re telling to get new jobs that don’t exist and the people you’re supporting overseas who have much less ethical employment practices.
During the pandemic, global emissions droped like a rock. It is absolutely in our capability to build a society in which we maintain our freedoms while getting rid of fossil fuels.
Not sure which freedoms you think you still have when you’re being told to not leave your house, not get close to people, cover your face to muffle your voice and expressions… But it feels like that just circles back to my original statement regarding chatting on the internet all day… Maybe you’re content with interacting with people over video and text chat. Maybe you like sitting at a computer all day doing fuck all. Most people don’t.
Gloomy clouds indicate upcoming rain, reducing the number of vehicles on the road improves air quality. Profound.
We have clean technologies that we can invest in within third world countries.
Assessment of a technology’s environmental impact should consider its entire life cycle, including the extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, operation, and disposal. Large-scale deployment of renewable energy projects lead to habitat destruction and harm to local ecosystems. Similarly, the increased demand for certain raw materials, such as lithium and cobalt for batteries contributes to environmental degradation and human rights issues.
No technology is “clean”, the sooner you face the facts the better off we’ll all be.
We absolutely can and should do so to avoid this disaster from getting worse and/or unrecoverable.
You absolutely should do the things that make you feel better about yourself and the impact you have on the world. You absolutely shouldn’t try to infringe on your neighbor by forcing them to follow you. Forcing me and mine through legislation to invest in your capital ventures through taxation is immoral theft.
The argument is against sociology and gender studies.
Then you have even less of an argument to stand on, because those degrees make up a tiny minority of degrees.
Our society is failing because we’re shifting a child’s dependence from their parents to the government.
You can believe whatever you like about the failures of society, that’s a different question.
Men don’t menstruate and cannot get pregnant. Women cannot produce sperm and don’t have prostate glands. Try all you might, ingesting what you shouldn’t, you’re still going to be bound by the chromosomes you were born with.
Those are things related to sex, but the question is about gender, a different concept. So that doesn’t answer the question, how do you know that there are only two genders?
Lefties are all about “trust the science, bro” yet when it comes to basic biology, often they’d rather rewrite the literature to fit some asinine ideology. HRT isn’t gender affirming, it is gender contradicting.
Science always re-writes itself to become more accurate than what it once was. It’s better to change to something less incorrect than to stay bolted down to something that isn’t close to being correct.
As for HRT, it is gender affirming because as I previously said, gender and sex are two different things. You are born with an assigned sex, but gender is performative.
You see emissions, we see livelihoods.
This is just taking a page out of Don’t Look Up.
Simply suggesting that people switch jobs overlooks the economic realities faced by millions of individuals.
Tough tities, maybe you should have thought about that before killing the planet. Your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose.
Are you going to build the businesses that employ all the people who have no jobs? Probably just expect the government to do it.
I expect both the government and the free market to do so. The government needs to stop giving socialist handouts to the fossil fuel industry and instead put us on an exit path for our use of fossil fuels. The market needs to provide the replacement jobs.
Telling coal and wood fired pizza shops in NYC to reduce their emissions isn’t going to do anything compared to the military, the over seas shipping industry, the private jets, etc. Beating a dead horse.
That’s true. But that doesn’t change the fact that ALL of those sources of emissions need to cut down.
You think you’re helping, but you’re just making millions of lives more difficult, both the people you’re telling to get new jobs that don’t exist and the people you’re supporting overseas who have much less ethical employment practices.
So between:
Reducing emissions - making millions of lives more difficult
Doing fuckall - making billions of lives more difficult, millions more deaths, potential food chain collapse, and possible mass extinction level event
Between those options the second one is somehow the more favorable one? How does that make sense? And I sincerely have no clue what you’re talking about with oversea employment practices. When discussing with people it is best not to just assume what the other person supports.
Not sure which freedoms you think you still have when you’re being told to not leave your house, not get close to people, cover your face to muffle your voice and expressions
The neat part is, all of those things weren’t the source of the reduced emissions. So it is absolutely within our power to replicate the parts that reduce emissions without doing the things you just listed here that hurt people’s freedom.
But it feels like that just circles back to my original statement regarding chatting on the internet all day
I spend maybe a half hour on this at most, over the course of a few days, every few months. It’s nowhere near all day.
Assessment of a technology’s environmental impact should consider its entire life cycle, including the extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, operation, and disposal. Large-scale deployment of renewable energy projects lead to habitat destruction and harm to local ecosystems. Similarly, the increased demand for certain raw materials, such as lithium and cobalt for batteries contributes to environmental degradation and human rights issues.
No technology is “clean”, the sooner you face the facts the better off we’ll all be.
The resources our society needs to continue to exist far surpass what is possible to collect without habitat and ecosystem destruction. I am well aware that there is no such thing as perfectly clean technology. But we have technology that is far, far cleaner than fossil fuels. As for the lithium/cobalt mining issues, I don’t think we should be using those kinds of batteries for storage anyways. Hydro electric is clearly the cleanest form of energy storage we have, and should be the primary source of energy storage for electrical grids.
As for cars, we need to drastically reduce our dependence on them and focus on better city planing to reduce the number of long trips. We need that, and better public transportation. And for the times when cars are absolutely needed, electric cars are still overall better for the environment than ICE cars even if they aren’t perfect.
You absolutely shouldn’t try to infringe on your neighbor by forcing them to follow you.
I’m not forcing anybody to follow me. I’m just pointing our how absurd it is that we continue to rely on fossil fuels, and how absurd it is to claim that conservatives are the ones holding everything together. Conservatives are the ones responsible for our planet dying from fossil fuels. And given how much you’ve argued for their continued use, I think you’ve proven my point for me.
Forcing me and mine through legislation to invest in your capital ventures through taxation is immoral theft.
I have no such capital ventures. None of what I have suggested is new technology.
I don’t think they’re anywhere near as silly as you think they are. The top most popular degreese are:
Business - I don’t typically think of these as useful degrees, but if the U.S. is going to stay competitive, then there needs to be people to run our industries and companies.
Health professionals - I would hope that you see this as a valuable type of degree
Social sciences and history - (Ex: Anthropology, criminology, economics, geography, history, legal studies, political science, social work, sociology) - All of which are important for a healthy society.
Engineering - Again, pretty self evidently valuable
Biological and Biomedical sciences - Same as above
Psychology - This one is definitely oversaturated, but it isn’t a silly degree, and it’s a very high need given how prevelent our country’s mental health problems go
Communication and Journalism - (Ex: Advertising, editing, marketing, media communication, public relations, technical writing, translation, writing) - These all have varying degrees of importance. The journalism related ones are easily the most important here. The advertising/marketing ones I would like to see disappear, but again, they aren’t exactly silly.
Visual and Performing Arts - A healthy society should have a decent bit of this. I’d rather have a cultured society.
Computer and Information Sciences - Our world is built on computers, so another self evidently valuable set
Education - Same as above
And that makes up the majority of fields/degrees that people are getting. They aren’t silly.
https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/most-popular-college-majors/
Sociology is important to maintain the health of our society. If we don’t study the ways in which our society is failing people, how can we expect things to get better? And as for gender studies, those fill a similar role.
How do you know this?
Conservatives absolutely are doing so. Any time there is any legislation put to vote that would reduce our emission it gets shot down by conservatives. If we continue on this course the end result will be our planet becoming uninhabitable. If you work in a field reliant upon the fossil fuels that are destroying our planet, then you should pull yourself up by your bootstraps and find a job that won’t kill the planet. As for the traditions/morals, any tradition that destroys our planet deserves to die, and it isn’t moral to kill the planet.
We absolutely can. During the pandemic, global emissions droped like a rock. It is absolutely in our capability to build a society in which we maintain our freedoms while getting rid of fossil fuels.
And that was cool for the 1900s, but we need to move past it because they are actively killing us, and it’s only getting worse. Currently, 7 million people a year are dying from reckless pollution. The polluters/fossil fuel industry needs to be held accountable for their actions.
https://ourworldindata.org/data-review-air-pollution-deaths
We have clean technologies that we can invest in within third world countries. We absolutely can and should do so to avoid this disaster from getting worse and/or unrecoverable.
https://youtu.be/Uo5Bi_cs2AU
Is there some point you were trying to make here?
If you don’t see the relevance to parts of our ongoing conversation, I don’t know what to tell you.
I see the relevance, but no point.
Alright, lemmy help you out, buddy…
Private research has been instrumental in the development of groundbreaking drugs, aerospace technology, internet and communication technologies, agricultural biotechnology, transportation systems, financial innovations, and energy production. While many private ventures have been absorbed by the government or heavily subsidized in modern times, renewable energy technologies still require substantial upfront investments compared to fossil fuels. The existing energy infrastructure is designed for centralized fossil fuel power generation, making the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources a challenge. Transitioning to renewable energy requires changes in infrastructure and workforce skills.
Renewable energy is expected to become increasingly mainstream in the future, but at this point in time, it is simply unreliable and under developed. It’s not about policy reform, it’s about reliability.
Secondary point, the government is inefficient and under performing at almost everything they do and it’s up to the populous to get shit done.
Actually, let me help YOU out buddy. The upfront cost of renewable energy is nothing in comparison to the long term cost of continued fossil fuel usage. It’s ultimately cheaper to fix the problem than to let it fester.
A challenge to which we have the solution. We have the tech to build nuclear reactors, the most reliable type of power, and we have reliable storage options that make intermittent sources easy to deal with.
And at scale, renewables are very reliable.
Good. That means it will provide lots of good paying jobs.
Let me break it down for you buddy. These problems don’t ultimately mater, because we simply cannot afford to fuck around anymore. The literal monetary cost as well as the cost of people’s livelihoods is way higher if we do nothing.
You have this unrealistic expectation that the solution must be flawless. The survival of our species very well may be at stake, and at a minimum the livelihoods of billions of people is at stake. We can’t afford to be so picky. Millions, potentially billions will die.
That’s like saying “fire extinguishers are terrible! They can’t put out all fires, they’re inefficient. We should instead use kids water guns from the dollar store”
The government is inefficient, but the population is far worse.
My previous comment was too many characters apparently.
*, and the government subsidizing education
Education is the backbone of a society as technologically advanced as ours. Without it, our society will slip.
While some college degrees are useful, I wasn’t addressing all of them specifically, nor are their specifics relevant to the argument. The argument is against sociology and gender studies.
Our society is failing because we’re shifting a child’s dependence from their parents to the government. Adults too who are in desperate need of assistance no longer seek out their neighbors or local religious establishments, they instead depend on the government. Both of these aspects require excessive taxation and social goods to be either bolstered or built from the ground up.
Sociology doesn’t provide practical skills that directly translate into specific careers. The job market is very limited, with many graduates failing to find jobs related to their degree. The study of society and human behavior is subjective, theories and findings are influenced by the researcher’s perspective, making it difficult to establish definitive truths. These biases are often disconnected from real-world applications.
Almost all the same things can be said about gender studies, because it’s irrelevant to practical applications in the real world.
Men don’t menstruate and cannot get pregnant. Women cannot produce sperm and don’t have prostate glands. Try all you might, ingesting what you shouldn’t, you’re still going to be bound by the chromosomes you were born with.
Lefties are all about “trust the science, bro” yet when it comes to basic biology, often they’d rather rewrite the literature to fit some asinine ideology. HRT isn’t gender affirming, it is gender contradicting.
You see emissions, we see livelihoods.
Simply suggesting that people switch jobs overlooks the economic realities faced by millions of individuals. Are you going to build the businesses that employ all the people who have no jobs? Probably just expect the government to do it.
Drive a car powered by oil drilled by Americans, or drive a car who’s resources were mined by child labor and other unethical work forces… The choice is yours.
Scientific consensus suggests reversing global warming is impossible. While some tactics might slow down the process, you’re just beating a dead horse. The planet will die eventually, with or without human intervention.
Telling coal and wood fired pizza shops in NYC to reduce their emissions isn’t going to do anything compared to the military, the over seas shipping industry, the private jets, etc. Beating a dead horse.
You think you’re helping, but you’re just making millions of lives more difficult, both the people you’re telling to get new jobs that don’t exist and the people you’re supporting overseas who have much less ethical employment practices.
Not sure which freedoms you think you still have when you’re being told to not leave your house, not get close to people, cover your face to muffle your voice and expressions… But it feels like that just circles back to my original statement regarding chatting on the internet all day… Maybe you’re content with interacting with people over video and text chat. Maybe you like sitting at a computer all day doing fuck all. Most people don’t.
Gloomy clouds indicate upcoming rain, reducing the number of vehicles on the road improves air quality. Profound.
Assessment of a technology’s environmental impact should consider its entire life cycle, including the extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, operation, and disposal. Large-scale deployment of renewable energy projects lead to habitat destruction and harm to local ecosystems. Similarly, the increased demand for certain raw materials, such as lithium and cobalt for batteries contributes to environmental degradation and human rights issues.
No technology is “clean”, the sooner you face the facts the better off we’ll all be.
You absolutely should do the things that make you feel better about yourself and the impact you have on the world. You absolutely shouldn’t try to infringe on your neighbor by forcing them to follow you. Forcing me and mine through legislation to invest in your capital ventures through taxation is immoral theft.
Then you have even less of an argument to stand on, because those degrees make up a tiny minority of degrees.
You can believe whatever you like about the failures of society, that’s a different question.
Those are things related to sex, but the question is about gender, a different concept. So that doesn’t answer the question, how do you know that there are only two genders?
Science always re-writes itself to become more accurate than what it once was. It’s better to change to something less incorrect than to stay bolted down to something that isn’t close to being correct.
As for HRT, it is gender affirming because as I previously said, gender and sex are two different things. You are born with an assigned sex, but gender is performative.
This is just taking a page out of Don’t Look Up.
Tough tities, maybe you should have thought about that before killing the planet. Your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose.
I expect both the government and the free market to do so. The government needs to stop giving socialist handouts to the fossil fuel industry and instead put us on an exit path for our use of fossil fuels. The market needs to provide the replacement jobs.
That’s true. But that doesn’t change the fact that ALL of those sources of emissions need to cut down.
So between:
Reducing emissions - making millions of lives more difficult
Doing fuckall - making billions of lives more difficult, millions more deaths, potential food chain collapse, and possible mass extinction level event
Between those options the second one is somehow the more favorable one? How does that make sense? And I sincerely have no clue what you’re talking about with oversea employment practices. When discussing with people it is best not to just assume what the other person supports.
The neat part is, all of those things weren’t the source of the reduced emissions. So it is absolutely within our power to replicate the parts that reduce emissions without doing the things you just listed here that hurt people’s freedom.
I spend maybe a half hour on this at most, over the course of a few days, every few months. It’s nowhere near all day.
The resources our society needs to continue to exist far surpass what is possible to collect without habitat and ecosystem destruction. I am well aware that there is no such thing as perfectly clean technology. But we have technology that is far, far cleaner than fossil fuels. As for the lithium/cobalt mining issues, I don’t think we should be using those kinds of batteries for storage anyways. Hydro electric is clearly the cleanest form of energy storage we have, and should be the primary source of energy storage for electrical grids.
As for cars, we need to drastically reduce our dependence on them and focus on better city planing to reduce the number of long trips. We need that, and better public transportation. And for the times when cars are absolutely needed, electric cars are still overall better for the environment than ICE cars even if they aren’t perfect.
I’m not forcing anybody to follow me. I’m just pointing our how absurd it is that we continue to rely on fossil fuels, and how absurd it is to claim that conservatives are the ones holding everything together. Conservatives are the ones responsible for our planet dying from fossil fuels. And given how much you’ve argued for their continued use, I think you’ve proven my point for me.
I have no such capital ventures. None of what I have suggested is new technology.