There are enough responses on this thread that sound like "only a psychopath or an artist could have come up with this." or "It sounds like prison! Gosh" or "This is like living in a nightmare tbh." that if anyone does find this helpful, they're going to have a hard time mustering the courage to admit it. This is especially if true of the sort of more junior people who might struggle to know when to ask for help vs when to avoid interrupting someone.
I would advise reaching out to https://www.focusmate.com/, whose users would likely also find this product useful.
No, we allowed people to change their own dietary habits and they chose to do so.
> There's no reason we couldn't change them back.
There is a reason: The probability that they would respond with violence that would spiral into a massive humanitarian crisis.
Remember that the Syrian civil war was kicked off in large part by the prices of food in the Arab world putting pressure on pre-existing fault lines.
> Going back to a mostly vegetarian food supply would liberate so much land mass that you would have fewer issues feeding the world.
You're not wrong about the destination...but the path to get there matters if you want to avoid making things worse. Also, there is a massive difference between freeing up the alfalfa fields of California and the grazing lands of Afghanistan or Pakistan.
The word "just" in this sense is a signal that you might easily be underestimating the difficulty or cost of something.
> We just need to make meat cost prohibitive enough to force the majority of people to eat the majority of their meals vegetarian.
If you were talking about persuasion, this would be fine.
When you start talking about forcing people to change their habits, it is time to take a step back and get curious about those other people's perspectives. In this case, you're talking about the daily or weekly dietary habits of more than 2 billion people.
Before moving forward, you should have a clear answer to the question of how many megadeaths you are willing to cause through war and famine.
It is rather uncommon to believe that people in a society where everyone can publish their opinions must be artificially manipulated into conflict and dissent. I’d think that harmony and consent must instead be artificially manufactured. I’m curious about your life experience here.
> that everyone forgets about the most significant problem in the USA - the top 5% of the country own over 80% of the wealth
I’ve heard this problem discussed on Joe Rogan’s podcast (the most popular podcast) and by Jordan Peterson (who is fairly popular among the center-right). What percentage of Americans would you say are unaware that wealth inequality is a problem?
> and the engineers and capitalists don’t pay much attention to the environmentalists, much like the frackers before them.
Because many environmentalists are so unwilling to accept a massively imperfect solution that getting their buy-in would be as futile as trying to build affordable housing in San Francisco.
It is directed towards a person who would write some software with clear expectation of money and release it for free.
It is directed towards himself.