A large part of the poor handling of waste, is that developments in the field are severely hampered by politics.
There's a large amount of ignorant good intentions. Ironically, those that pseudo-scientific bandwagons have probably caused more dangerous storage than they prevented through their loud, blind denouncement of nuclear.
I've seen so many posts, even in this thread, asking for examples of one thing or another--and if there are none, then well, aren't they right? But somehow missing the point that maybe such rhetoric and sophistry is the reason why the examples are lacking. How far would solar or wind have come, if facing the immovable wall of entire populations of ignorance?
The unfortunate reality is that most of the people who win the lottery of life, and luck their way into high levels of the financial industry are essentially untouchable.
Reaches for bailouts with one hand, and then does million dollar refurbishments. Then cracks jokes about it later, after moving on to being a shill wasting space on Ubers board, essentially wasting the time and resources of Uber, by being a paid voice of Kalanick.
His decision to piss money so thoughtlessly, and get precisely nothing as punishment is depressing.
My friends from Eastern Europe share stories of outrageously corrupt politicians, that everyone knows is corrupt. I sometimes wonder, if many parts of the western world are really so different. Instead of politics, the corrupt parasites congregate at the head of large businesses. It does seem to work out better for them.
I find your concluding statements intriguing, and suspect I'm missing part of your point.
From my interpretation, your initial thesis is that speech should, for valid reasons, be curtailed so as to spare certain groups the very real trouble of dealing with, say, racism. Seems reasonable - my main disagreement would be that such a protection would be better applied universally (apologies if I have misunderstood, and you do too).
In your closing statement, you highlight that people just want to be respected and believed. I think most people would agree that's fairly accurate.
Unfortunately, the second point often intersects the first. In that often people will seek to silence others, usually with honest intentions. This part, the idea of good intentions, is where the wheels come off. By way of analogy, look at something like religion. How many arguments and wars, personal and multinational, have, if nothing else, used differing opinions to promulgate hate?
It feels almost impossible, in my eyes, to bridge that gap. One persons well meaning censorship, is another persons disrespect.
I likely have a coloured view of this, based on a few sour personal experiences, which I've seen mimicked elsewhere. For one example, I've been abruptly and sharply belittled for offering my thoughts on the impact of rape. I was told that I shouldn't comment, and it's not something that relates to me. I actually took it quietly at the time, but later, quietly, shares with the person that I have, in fact, been a victim of rape. Twice (over twenty years apart).
If we are talking about being believed and respected, I felt anything but. But simply because I didn't fit the stereotype, I was belittled and shamed. It was effectively discrimination, but noone found issue with it, because it was perpetrated by an acceptable person.
I guess the point I'm getting at is that it would be great if people could just not he assholes (sorry for the language) and forego the need for censorship at the same time. But reality, at least for me, seems to be the ideas are mutually exclusive to some extent
Countries don't generally operate on the myopic principle of addressing issues one at a time.
When America first began the Apollo program, it was almost a full decade before the United States addressed a lot of the racial issues that have plagued it since its inception.
By many measures, such as access to healthcare, incarceration rates, and even basic literacy, the United States still has severe equality issues. If the United States was operating according to this principle, they would still be waiting to send anyone to space. I'd be happily surprised if there was actually any country that had fully conquered this issue.
Point being that every country, all the way up to the largest economy in the world, has unresolved issues. Issues which are fundamental to human rights and equality.
Is your umbrage with India specifically, or are you promoting the idea of singular focus as a global concept? If the latter, I'd be interested (genuinely!) in seeing your reasoning and evidence. If the former, I'd encourage you to reflect on what you are saying, and discover why you are (I assume, and hope, inadvertently) applying your criticism in a discriminatory manner
By definition, any model is basically bound to be discriminatory. Taking data, extracting common key features, and discarding the rest is essentially generalisation.
But the model is amoral. It's (morally) neither good nor bad for utilising certain features.
If it turned out that race was the most accurate attribute for a particular situation, it would be nonsensical ignore it.
The current trend of trying to paper over biases, while generally born of noble sentiment, probably only perpetuates the problem. Because it's usually done far down stream, and doesn't necessitate change at the source. Functionally, it's like a cover up by a large corporation
Most economies use representative currency. In many places, notes and coins are largely worthless.
Cryptocurrencies differ mainly by being virtual. Given that notes are usually used to represent the larger sums of money, the virtual aspect becomes mostly semantic. Given that most people store their money in banks, who don't have all that money on hand at any point in time (hence why they collapse), then the virtual factor begins to matter even less.
I don't use bitcoin (or equivalent) for pragmatic reasons. Your point however seems to be about its collective abstraction. If you were being consistent, you would have to be against most mainstream currencies as well. This is not a pragmatic or scalable method of commerce. It very quickly become tedious to trade with items that are of only concrete, immediate value to both parties. Try to imagine how online purchases, or warehouses, would function. There's a good reason why virtually every civilisation swapped to representative currency after reaching a certain size.
Within a developed and healthy economy, corruption is ideally minimised and caught by regulation.
Poorer developing countries are more prone to corruption and fraud, because there are not as many pooled resources to stop it.
The grandparent post is pretty clearly taking umbrage with those people attempting to circumvent the few systems in place. A motivation for doing that, is because a shifting their resources to a stable and developed economy legitimises their assets.
Those assets are often the result of raping their own country. People literally die, as money is stolen and taken from them.
This has nothing to do with accepting competition as a result of globalisation. It is however correlated with it, as open borders and trade makes it possible.
In a lot of ways, it mimics 19th century imperialism, where small countries were raped for their assets by foreign powers. The key difference being that, in these cases, the abuse and exploitation comes from within
There's a large amount of ignorant good intentions. Ironically, those that pseudo-scientific bandwagons have probably caused more dangerous storage than they prevented through their loud, blind denouncement of nuclear.
I've seen so many posts, even in this thread, asking for examples of one thing or another--and if there are none, then well, aren't they right? But somehow missing the point that maybe such rhetoric and sophistry is the reason why the examples are lacking. How far would solar or wind have come, if facing the immovable wall of entire populations of ignorance?