Study Pinpoints Source of Banned Gas That Saps Ozone Layer: Eastern China(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Study Pinpoints Source of Banned Gas That Saps Ozone Layer: Eastern China
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/climate/china-cfcs-banned-chemicals-ozone.html
131 comments
And not to mention dumping radioactive waste into steel/other metal. That's how cadium and lead end up in pencil cases - dump waste into consumer goods, and then ship them to your house.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/the-growing-global...
"India and China were the top sources of radioactive goods shipped to the U.S. through 2008, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Bartley, a metallurgist who has tracked radioactive contamination since the early 1990s, said there’s no evidence the situation has improved."
It's not just reprehensible. It's down right psychopathic.
Sick.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/the-growing-global...
"India and China were the top sources of radioactive goods shipped to the U.S. through 2008, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Bartley, a metallurgist who has tracked radioactive contamination since the early 1990s, said there’s no evidence the situation has improved."
It's not just reprehensible. It's down right psychopathic.
Sick.
A lot of awful things happen because people are just negligent, desperate, and ignorant.
Perhaps a lot of the radioactive scrap is being created knowingly, I don't know. When there are well-documented incidents like this, I can imagine this happening in small ways all the time and stuff just entering the supply chain by accident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
Of course when organized crime gets involved your diagnosis of psychopathy is not too far off:
https://gizmodo.com/the-mob-is-secretly-dumping-nuclear-wast...
Perhaps a lot of the radioactive scrap is being created knowingly, I don't know. When there are well-documented incidents like this, I can imagine this happening in small ways all the time and stuff just entering the supply chain by accident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
Of course when organized crime gets involved your diagnosis of psychopathy is not too far off:
https://gizmodo.com/the-mob-is-secretly-dumping-nuclear-wast...
Do you think it's an accident China does not screen their export goods for safety? Nobody thought about it somehow for decades?
Organized crime runs all the way through the system in many places, not just China.
Organized crime runs all the way through the system in many places, not just China.
Does any country screen their exports for safety? Screening imports I've heard before, but never exports.
How can a random truck stop in Kentucky detect that radiation, but apparently goods passed through Chinese ports (and in fact the supply chain) without setting off anything anywhere?
Think about that for a minute.
Think about that for a minute.
Because your random truckspot has way lower throughput than any major port. You absolutely can do a full freeze-and-search on a German Autobahn (and it regularly gets done to check for driving clock records, overloading and insecure fastening of load), but in a port? No way. Only thing that's remotely practical is to check 1 of N containers with a drug dog or an x-ray and that's it.
[deleted]
it takes too much effort to get rid of it. so it gets passed around until someone dumps it, so everyone that handled it can claim that they're not responsible for it.
it happens in kentucky: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/tech/science/environme...
it's just human nature. the act is not much different from throwing a battery into the trash when you should really be recycling it.
lead paint is used in industry, probably in america too. a toy company can simply order it and use it to paint their toys. or they make more than toys or they have that paint from a long time ago so they're going to use it.
it's all about convenience and just doing the job that someone has hired you to do. i think most people can relate to that a little. I'll continue using straws until I can't get them or until they're illegal. And maybe making them illegal is the best option we have if we don't want them in our oceans.
it happens in kentucky: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/tech/science/environme...
it's just human nature. the act is not much different from throwing a battery into the trash when you should really be recycling it.
lead paint is used in industry, probably in america too. a toy company can simply order it and use it to paint their toys. or they make more than toys or they have that paint from a long time ago so they're going to use it.
it's all about convenience and just doing the job that someone has hired you to do. i think most people can relate to that a little. I'll continue using straws until I can't get them or until they're illegal. And maybe making them illegal is the best option we have if we don't want them in our oceans.
No, if cadmium and lead are turning up in pencil cases, it's probably because they were used in the paints or inks used for decoration.
Cadmium has been used for reds, yellows, and orange pigments since the 1840s. White lead pigments go back to the 4th century BC. Red lead pigments were used in ancient Rome. Yellow lead pigments (lead(II) chromate) were developed in the 1810s.
For the most part these have been phased out due to toxicity, but perhaps in China they are available cheap and in the case of cadmium pigments are really good, strongly colored, durable pigments, if you ignore the toxicity.
Cadmium has been used for reds, yellows, and orange pigments since the 1840s. White lead pigments go back to the 4th century BC. Red lead pigments were used in ancient Rome. Yellow lead pigments (lead(II) chromate) were developed in the 1810s.
For the most part these have been phased out due to toxicity, but perhaps in China they are available cheap and in the case of cadmium pigments are really good, strongly colored, durable pigments, if you ignore the toxicity.
America has the same business culture; what's saving (most of) us is our better-functioning regulatory culture.
Really not. Spend some time in China. It won't take long (hours to days) before you notice the utter callousness with which people habitually treat strangers and the environment around them.
It can't be believed until it's experienced.
It can't be believed until it's experienced.
Is there any place with comparable population density with a substantially better social environment? If so, have you any theories that could explain the difference?
The modern Chinese psyche has been sculpted in large part due to the Cultural Revolution.
People who have grown up in comfort do not fully comprehend the effect of widespread hunger on a large population. Natural selection rewarded those that put their families above everything. The families that did not died. Parents that did not do everything in their power to feed their children watched them starve to death in their hands.
Many things about modern China can be directly linked to this shared national pain.
The absolute, obsessive drive of Chinese parents to have their children study and reach a higher station of life is a direct result of the culture of hustle instilled by their parents and grandparents. Devotion to families, incredible work ethic, creativity and innovation can all be traced back to the skills necessary to survive the Cultural Revolution.
However, many of the problems in modern China can be linked to this phenomenon. Bribery, open piracy, corruption are common in every walk of Chinese life. Chinese people put themselves, and their families, first and they've never had a compelling argument against it. People in the West believe in their institutions in a way that doesn't exist in China.
But, time will change this. There is clear precedent in the West that each successive generation that grows up outside of poverty will be less and less cutthroat compared to the generation prior.
People who have grown up in comfort do not fully comprehend the effect of widespread hunger on a large population. Natural selection rewarded those that put their families above everything. The families that did not died. Parents that did not do everything in their power to feed their children watched them starve to death in their hands.
Many things about modern China can be directly linked to this shared national pain.
The absolute, obsessive drive of Chinese parents to have their children study and reach a higher station of life is a direct result of the culture of hustle instilled by their parents and grandparents. Devotion to families, incredible work ethic, creativity and innovation can all be traced back to the skills necessary to survive the Cultural Revolution.
However, many of the problems in modern China can be linked to this phenomenon. Bribery, open piracy, corruption are common in every walk of Chinese life. Chinese people put themselves, and their families, first and they've never had a compelling argument against it. People in the West believe in their institutions in a way that doesn't exist in China.
But, time will change this. There is clear precedent in the West that each successive generation that grows up outside of poverty will be less and less cutthroat compared to the generation prior.
Thanks for your reply. I just quibble with calling that selection "natural".
India, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia - quite literally anywhere else.
Cultural Revolution selected for these traits, survival at any cost.
Now you have a billion people that have no regard whatsoever for lives of others.
Cultural Revolution selected for these traits, survival at any cost.
Now you have a billion people that have no regard whatsoever for lives of others.
Japan
Some say the genocides of Communism and the Cultural Revolution wiped out a lot of the old civilized ways and made the survivors callous.
Japan, Korea. It is like a different world.
Why, I don’t have a clue. Maybe it is the last 200 years in China, civil wars, then Communists and Mao. It is weird because there is not much violent crime at all. You won’t get kidnapped or mugged outside your hotel or anything like that.
Why, I don’t have a clue. Maybe it is the last 200 years in China, civil wars, then Communists and Mao. It is weird because there is not much violent crime at all. You won’t get kidnapped or mugged outside your hotel or anything like that.
Any city?
State socialism/communism.
Everything is provided, decided, controlled, influenced, reviewed, rethought by and via the state (in some representation, the party, the government, the local government, some group or other, an official, someone with connections, the police, or even just a faceless automated system/website/machine). This reminds people that everything is temporary, effort is futile, etc. This makes people simply not care much about common stuff. (Environment, roads, streets, houses, etc.)
Source, I'm from a post-soviet country, and we're dealing with huge swaths of the population who are still very much thinking like this.
See also:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9eXi3RL8q4 (why everything is falling apart)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XopSDJq6w8E (what about new buildings, quality, maintenance?)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxP2fAqamZQ (about powerlessness, apathy)
Everything is provided, decided, controlled, influenced, reviewed, rethought by and via the state (in some representation, the party, the government, the local government, some group or other, an official, someone with connections, the police, or even just a faceless automated system/website/machine). This reminds people that everything is temporary, effort is futile, etc. This makes people simply not care much about common stuff. (Environment, roads, streets, houses, etc.)
Source, I'm from a post-soviet country, and we're dealing with huge swaths of the population who are still very much thinking like this.
See also:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9eXi3RL8q4 (why everything is falling apart)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XopSDJq6w8E (what about new buildings, quality, maintenance?)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxP2fAqamZQ (about powerlessness, apathy)
This is actually something Hank Paulson comments on in his book "Dealing with China": the Chinese have a huge government, but they actually have something like a half to a third as many government workers per capita. And their comms infrastructure, despite the Huewai bruhaha, is severely lacking in comparison, so those additional people don't stretch as far.
What about their comms infrastructure is lacking? I got full high-speed cellular internet reception even in the deep countryside when I visited there last year.
Don't recall, feel free to read the book.
> America has the same business culture; what's saving (most of) us is our better-functioning regulatory culture.
The difference in America is it's not good business practice to hurt your own customers. i.e. reputation matters. You mess up just once, and it takes years for your brand to recover (this includes non-brand brands, like store brands or generics).
In China it seems like there's a never ending supply of new names constantly.
The difference in America is it's not good business practice to hurt your own customers. i.e. reputation matters. You mess up just once, and it takes years for your brand to recover (this includes non-brand brands, like store brands or generics).
In China it seems like there's a never ending supply of new names constantly.
Sometimes the backlash can be catastrophic in China though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
Reputation is just as important in China.
For now at least.
and legal system too.
This is real. Try buying the good types of baby formula in Australian supermarkets or pharmacies; you quickly learn the need to have a buffer of several lest your baby goes hungry.
Scalpers go in and get what they can, then sell to China for a massive profit. If they're hit by the "max one per customer" they'll come in again and again until they're kicked out of the store.
I feel bad for parents in China who can't trust the products in their own stores.
Scalpers go in and get what they can, then sell to China for a massive profit. If they're hit by the "max one per customer" they'll come in again and again until they're kicked out of the store.
I feel bad for parents in China who can't trust the products in their own stores.
And yet Australian dairy farmers constantly complain about low prices and going bankrupt. This has been going on for years. The complaint doesn't add up.
There's more than enough milk powder to go around, people are fighting over the premium ones.
There's more than enough milk powder to go around, people are fighting over the premium ones.
Baby-food powder is probably too small a market for milk producers to matter. (And usually the cost of the milk is not that big of a factor in the final consumer price.)
>fake eggs
I haven't seen any evidence that these were ever sold to the general public. It seems very unlikely to me, because eggs are cheap, and the alleged manufacturing process is labor intensive. If you're willing to take the risk making fakes there are many other more profitable options. See:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070518092606/http://www.tian.c...
https://www.hoax-slayer.net/fake-eggs-from-china/
I haven't seen any evidence that these were ever sold to the general public. It seems very unlikely to me, because eggs are cheap, and the alleged manufacturing process is labor intensive. If you're willing to take the risk making fakes there are many other more profitable options. See:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070518092606/http://www.tian.c...
https://www.hoax-slayer.net/fake-eggs-from-china/
I’ve read these articles as well. However, I don’t think one can infer generalisations about the culture of > 1 billion people by reading a few articles online.
I also don’t think that a ‘culture of dishonesty’ is an actual thing, or at least an appropriate application of the word ‘culture’. More close to reality is that China has a system of incentives which, perverse or otherwise, make ‘dishonesty’ more likely. This operates in Western culture as well, for example the activities of investment banks in the subprime loan crisis.
The distinction is important because it is difficult to change a culture but incentives can change overnight.
I also don’t think that a ‘culture of dishonesty’ is an actual thing, or at least an appropriate application of the word ‘culture’. More close to reality is that China has a system of incentives which, perverse or otherwise, make ‘dishonesty’ more likely. This operates in Western culture as well, for example the activities of investment banks in the subprime loan crisis.
The distinction is important because it is difficult to change a culture but incentives can change overnight.
There's plenty of precedent for this sort of thing in the West's industrial past. Being a fast-growing economy and also keeping a strict eye on product purity, has it ever successfully been done before?
Not to say that as an excuse, but it's not at all an uncommon pattern.
Not to say that as an excuse, but it's not at all an uncommon pattern.
I think it's pretty much what we'd expect when markets are allowed to operate unhinged; it doesn't necessarily speak to a point in time in an economy's development—it moreso speaks to the fact that less developed economies are less strictly regulated because they've yet to develop the case law and obituaries on which protective regulations are formed.
With that in mind it's a bit hard to ignore the irony in the regulatory uncoupling that's happening in the US right now. We have learned from our own past and from the aforementioned stories that greed and self interest will always produce externalities that trump a society's well-being; it seems that the lawmakers have too perverse an incentive structure and their constituents have too short a memory to realize which regulations are necessary to protect the greater good.
With that in mind it's a bit hard to ignore the irony in the regulatory uncoupling that's happening in the US right now. We have learned from our own past and from the aforementioned stories that greed and self interest will always produce externalities that trump a society's well-being; it seems that the lawmakers have too perverse an incentive structure and their constituents have too short a memory to realize which regulations are necessary to protect the greater good.
> it seems that the lawmakers have too perverse an incentive structure and their constituents have too short a memory to realize which regulations are necessary to protect the greater good.
while reading your post half way i was thinking to reply saying the exact same thing
this gives me much pause, because it means that even if more and more these deregulation’s hurt society, they would get drowned out by the (increasingly sensational) daily news cycle
while reading your post half way i was thinking to reply saying the exact same thing
this gives me much pause, because it means that even if more and more these deregulation’s hurt society, they would get drowned out by the (increasingly sensational) daily news cycle
Yeah; I think it just speaks to the fact that there is no substitution to being a well-informed individual. If you're cognizant about understanding the world around you, you're generally pretty good at weeding bad information out and bringing good information in. Unfortunately, I think the internet has a siloing effect and the most sensational voices rise to the top. People get caught in their silos and don't have an easy way to peek outside. Misinformation spreads; and that's scary when trying to quantify the future of our society.
Unsurprisingly given the proximity, Vietnam is just as bad in this respect. It is crazy, anything to make some money.
[deleted]
> It's reprehensible.
You mean something like this - Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19986910
You mean something like this - Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19986910
I have no evidence of this, and I am not proposing it is true...
more like a plot for a novel or something, but
What if a nation that produces almost everything purposely contaminates their products with slow poisons and heavy metals so that the enemy consumer population slowly becomes stupid and ill, and unable to compete effectively on the international stage.
more like a plot for a novel or something, but
What if a nation that produces almost everything purposely contaminates their products with slow poisons and heavy metals so that the enemy consumer population slowly becomes stupid and ill, and unable to compete effectively on the international stage.
We also know the source of the plastic in the ocean... turns out it boils down to a very small number of rivers, in a very specific region of the world. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluti...
Likely to change soon. Those areas have stopped buying plastic waste from the rest of the world.
Having seen the trash coming down several of these rivers in person, everything I could identify seemed to be of local origin. I certainly didn't see non-local languages written on plastic bottles, for example.
It's just fashionable to blame everything on the West.
The East isn't any different.
The East isn't any different.
So absolutely nothing was coming from upstream? Or, at least, it seemed local trash was dominating the area and perhaps staying put?
Perhaps when it gets too full of local trash, some of it gets moved to the ocean?
Perhaps when it gets too full of local trash, some of it gets moved to the ocean?
Why would that change anything? This is local trash in the rivers not recycling.
Tarrifs proportionate to percentage of pollutants in river outflow should work great.
I've heard they say you tax things you don't want to see? why not tax pollution at the source, the rivers?
I've heard they say you tax things you don't want to see? why not tax pollution at the source, the rivers?
Tried that but the river had no money.
Having been an expat traveled to over 25 countries, I can confidently say our natural world is fucked. Modern industrialism has given the third world too much manufacturing power. And they aren’t aware of the consequences and don’t care, because “fuckit I want kids toys and double ply toilet paper for my family too, not just the Westerners”
All currently rich "sophisticated" countries were in a similar phase when they were fighting their way out of poverty.
Once countries get rich enough, they can afford to care about the environment. China seems to advance much faster than others did historically, so I'm hopeful.
Once countries get rich enough, they can afford to care about the environment. China seems to advance much faster than others did historically, so I'm hopeful.
All the rich countries consume a few Earth's worth of resources per person though, while visible things like plastic pollution and environmental regulations are generally solved, other issues like emissions are at unsustainable levels if everyone on Earth lived at the consumption level of the first world.
It's a very real contradiction the West has to face in the next few decades as these places modernize.
It's a very real contradiction the West has to face in the next few decades as these places modernize.
We also assumed as countries became more rich/industrialized/advanced they would become more democratic, and more concerned with human rights, and less zero-sum adversarial in dealing with the United States.
I think those hopes are no longer mainstream thinking in regards to China.
How confident should we be about the prediction that China will adopt similar policies to the US in regards to the things you are mentioning?
I think those hopes are no longer mainstream thinking in regards to China.
How confident should we be about the prediction that China will adopt similar policies to the US in regards to the things you are mentioning?
USA democratic system is one step away from China's one party system: it's a two party system in USA which hasn't changed much for centuries.
Europe, Australia, etc, have more than two parties in government. More choice, more representation.
Europe, Australia, etc, have more than two parties in government. More choice, more representation.
“There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.”
― Gore Vidal
― Gore Vidal
We should be quite confident because there are signs they're already adopting environmentalist policies. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2014/a...
China has definitely become much better on human rights.
It's not often mentioned in polite company, but the Chinese communist government killed ~65 million of its own citizens under Mao.
I don't want to downplay the current regime's many and serious human rights violations, but they are thankfully on a much more modest level.
Internationally, China has focused strongly on peaceful trade, not military confrontation.
It's not often mentioned in polite company, but the Chinese communist government killed ~65 million of its own citizens under Mao.
I don't want to downplay the current regime's many and serious human rights violations, but they are thankfully on a much more modest level.
Internationally, China has focused strongly on peaceful trade, not military confrontation.
They didn't kill them. They went through a government change, a revolution where they were experienced in fighting, not farming. The alternative was living under the old government that they hated.
It's like in Zimbabwe, they kicked out the white farmers and suddenly they're no longer the bread state.
It's like in Zimbabwe, they kicked out the white farmers and suddenly they're no longer the bread state.
You're saying the deaths were from incompetence in ruling, not deliberate murders.
There was plenty of that, but it's not the dominant factor: https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/the-legacy-mao-zedo...
There was plenty of that, but it's not the dominant factor: https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/the-legacy-mao-zedo...
I completely agree. We just happened to do it first.
But someone in the first world does have a much larger ecological footprint compared to people in developing countries. So the problem isn't solved at all.
I don't blame them, we in the developed countries have a duty to develop cost efficient carbon neutral growth strategies for our/their future...
We would be hypocrites if we tried to suppress their development after we've had our turn on the ride.
We would be hypocrites if we tried to suppress their development after we've had our turn on the ride.
Where's the problem with toilet paper? That stuff degrades really really fast even if simply dumped somewhere.
IDK, you have to clear the whole Amazon if 7bio people want toilet paper?
Don't count me in - I've already stored up 4 decades of tp.
Should they be under international sanctions for polluting our commons and destrying the planet?
Simpler is to return production to countries that have proper environmental regulations. Right now we outsource pollution production to China.
Really, moving a supplychain is easier than punitive tariffs/sanctions?
Requiring companies to not do business in countries (or use specific industries in those countries) based on some specific goal is a form of sanctions.
"International" sanctions by whom? Most of china's pollution is manufacturing for the west.
The biggest polluters ( in total and per capita ) in the world today are still europe and the US.
Almost all the pollution and environmental destruction the past 200 years were by europe and the US. Should there be "international" sanctions on us?
There ain't no saints this world. And those who claim to be saints are the worst villains.
The biggest polluters ( in total and per capita ) in the world today are still europe and the US.
Almost all the pollution and environmental destruction the past 200 years were by europe and the US. Should there be "international" sanctions on us?
There ain't no saints this world. And those who claim to be saints are the worst villains.
Sincerely, all this environmentalist's manifestations we are seeing in EU, would actually make sense if they where in front of the Chinese embassies here.
Instead they keep demanding local actions from the EU, as if the EU hasn't been in the forefront of environmental protection for almost half a century now. This way they are just diverting the attention away from the real main issue: China.
Instead they keep demanding local actions from the EU, as if the EU hasn't been in the forefront of environmental protection for almost half a century now. This way they are just diverting the attention away from the real main issue: China.
Tragedy of the commons. If there is a shared resource, let the people act in their self interest and sap away all of it.
[deleted]
Not only banned flourocarbons, China and Asia are the main source of plastics entering the oceans through their rivers.
Some are calling for environmental mercenaries, like Earth First! or GreenPeace, who will reek havoc on those who pollute or endanger the planet, ourselves included.
Some are calling for environmental mercenaries, like Earth First! or GreenPeace, who will reek havoc on those who pollute or endanger the planet, ourselves included.
As much as I hate to see the environment getting destroyed, eco-terrorism is not the way forwards.
Every normal person is empowered to help: purchase from people whose ideals you agree with, win the hearts and minds of those around you, re-use everything you safely can.
Every normal person is empowered to help: purchase from people whose ideals you agree with, win the hearts and minds of those around you, re-use everything you safely can.
And perhaps there should be tariffs on Chinese goods to prevent them from dumping poisonous products on the market.
Some of these things like lead and cadmium in children's pencil cases made me wonder if this was intentional.
Some of these things like lead and cadmium in children's pencil cases made me wonder if this was intentional.
So how do you propose we deal with psychopaths that dump radioactive waste into steel that then goes into your napkin box?
Ask them nicely again?
Ask them nicely again?
Bans. Sanctions. Diplomatic action. Force their government to crack down on them.
Terrorism is basically narcissistic. It never, ever helps anything, but it feels so good to lash out at bad people, so you convince yourself that you're a hero when all you're really doing is turning people against your cause.
Terrorism is basically narcissistic. It never, ever helps anything, but it feels so good to lash out at bad people, so you convince yourself that you're a hero when all you're really doing is turning people against your cause.
Apparently, returning fire in an economic war is wrong. It's terrorism according to you.
Shipping radioactive waste into your house - not terrorism, according to you.
Nobody will be against punishing people for allowing willfully contaminating products and then decieving you about their safety.
Shipping radioactive waste into your house - not terrorism, according to you.
Nobody will be against punishing people for allowing willfully contaminating products and then decieving you about their safety.
Just to be clear, we're talking about killing people, yeah? "Environmental mercenaries...who will reek havoc on those who pollute or endanger the planet," as stevespang put it. That is, literally, terrorism, even if the goal is laudable. Knowingly selling toxic, deadly products out of greed is a horrible thing, but it is literally not terrorism.
You seem to think that "terrorism" means "anything dangerous that bad guys do."
> Nobody will be against punishing people for allowing willfully contaminating products and then decieving you about their safety.
Absolutely not true. When you turn to terrorism, you lose the moral high ground in the eyes of most of the international community. It's so easy to spin that against you to discredit your entire cause; to convince people who might have been sympathetic that you're just a violent psychopath after all.
Do these bastards deserve to die? Maybe. I wouldn't shed a single tear if they were killed. That doesn't mean it's a good way to achieve your goal, if your goal is long-term change instead of short-term vengeance.
You seem to think that "terrorism" means "anything dangerous that bad guys do."
> Nobody will be against punishing people for allowing willfully contaminating products and then decieving you about their safety.
Absolutely not true. When you turn to terrorism, you lose the moral high ground in the eyes of most of the international community. It's so easy to spin that against you to discredit your entire cause; to convince people who might have been sympathetic that you're just a violent psychopath after all.
Do these bastards deserve to die? Maybe. I wouldn't shed a single tear if they were killed. That doesn't mean it's a good way to achieve your goal, if your goal is long-term change instead of short-term vengeance.
How much choice do you really have if literally all of your choices are from China?
We can bring about political change which makes these practices financially non-profitable. Simply use regulation to price them out of the market.
I agree we can and should do what we can to prevent the worst outcomes and labeling direct nonviolent action as terrorism is a bit much / counterproductive
I think it's certainly borderline either way [1]. The point at which you're using relatively extreme criminal actions to scare people into considering your political agenda, you become a form of terrorist (in this case an eco-terrorist).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism
Greenpeace etc have their hearts in the right place... sabotage though doesn’t help. Japan pays lip service and mostly ignores them. China will not take kindly to any interference. I can’t see them even trying.
If people won't respond to reason, should they be reasoned with? The danger of ego and the id.
Yet still the danger grows nearer.
Yet still the danger grows nearer.
how does Japan pay lip service? I can only see that in terms of whaling, otherwise they seem to be a fairly clean country? Please point to more information.
I’m only speaking to the interaction between Greenpeace and Japan, which is mostly concerning whaling. Japan kind of reluctantly puts up with their behavior. China won’t. They have near zero chance of making any impact in China.
Perhaps a Greenpeace ship needs to be attacked by Chinese on live TV in order to gain momentum?
We need eco-martyrs too.
We need eco-martyrs too.
It won’t affect them just like when Russia poisons defectors abroad on foreign soil. Lots of noise and complaining but nothing can come of it. They’re too big.
Not just too big, they are outside of the US sphere of influence, while Japan is a client state really.
We should still shame reprehensible behavior.
We should still shame reprehensible behavior.
mises(1)
Oh god, I’d love to see some environmental mercenaries go after China. Look at how they treat their own Muslim citizens! You think they’d hesitate to lock up/beat/kill them?
Yet lawmakers want to take away my plastic straws. Sad.
Every revolution starts small.
Just because it's a baby step doesn't mean we shouldn't take it to move forward.
Which are probably made in China.
They're also recycled* in China.
*: In this context recycled means shipped to China and then dumped into the ocean.
*: In this context recycled means shipped to China and then dumped into the ocean.
Is that actually what happens to our recycling? I was just wondering today how all this plastic gets repurposed. Does it get shipped overseas then dumped?
Some plastic is used to make polyester clothing, but the latter can't be recycled any further. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyF9MxlcItw
so what happens to that? burned?
Which is why it's better to have cellulose/paper straws.
Paper/cellulose straws are inferior and maddening to use. Yes, I need to use a straw.
There are reusable silicone, glass, metal, etc straws if you absolutely must use a straw.
I used to have a collapsible silicone cup. Downvote me for that too.
I used to have a collapsible silicone cup. Downvote me for that too.
I drink a milkshake. I must now clean a reusable straw. I have to deal with a sticky mess. That's more than I want, particularly when the alternative is pitching said sticky mess.
One of the best things about eating out is that there is no clean-up.
One of the best things about eating out is that there is no clean-up.
TFA made me think of Dr. Mehmet Oz' interview of Dr. Jordan Peterson [1] from last year (2018). I've transcribed part of the interview below:
Dr. Jordan Peterson:
> "I've always been obsessed with totalitarianism and authoritarian governments whether they're on the Right or the Left for years--decades really. I spent almost all of my free time thinking about what happened in Nazi Germany and in Russia during the Soviet era; but also when Mao was [in] China--there were other places as well. [I was] trying to understand how it was that we could have got off the rails so absolutely terribly. I started studying that at the collectivist level, looking for political or economic reasons. But as I investigated further those levels of analysis [...] weren't providing the answers that I wanted--I think partly because I was really interested in the notion that there's something to learn from what happened, say in Nazi Germany: but there's something to learn at an individual level. That's my estimation. I don't think that there were innocent masses of people led astray by a single malevolent leader. I don't think the fundamental motivations for what happened in Nazi Germany were economic and I don't think they were in the Soviet Union either. As I read more and more about the situation, I realized that the proclivity of individuals to avoid responsibility and to lie, especially about their own lives and about their own experience, were really the reasons that those systems went so far astray."
> "[...] The lessons there for me were psychological and that taught me an awful lot about the role of the individual: people like Viktor Frankl, for example, who wrote Man's Search for Meaning, a perennial classic and a great book--insisted that a large part of the reason that Germany went off the rails so badly was because individual Germans were so willing to falsify their own experience. Alexander Solzhenitsyn who wrote the Gulag Archipelago, the best document on what happened in the Soviet Union, also made exactly the same argument."
> "So I got interested in the psychological causes of catastrophic governance and that taught me a lot. It taught me about responsibility. About the responsibility of the sovereign individual. We have an idea in our [Western] culture, it's a very powerful idea: that each of us is of intrinsic value. But associated with that value is a responsibility: we have a responsibility for our own integrity and for that of our families but also of the state."
This begs the question: are Chinese business men and women willing to falsify their own experience at the expense of the {environment,personal integrity} to make a buck and/or survive?
The business culture of dishonesty (borrowing from HN user docker_up) can't persist forever.
[1] https://youtu.be/AscPHmLWo-M?t=322
Dr. Jordan Peterson:
> "I've always been obsessed with totalitarianism and authoritarian governments whether they're on the Right or the Left for years--decades really. I spent almost all of my free time thinking about what happened in Nazi Germany and in Russia during the Soviet era; but also when Mao was [in] China--there were other places as well. [I was] trying to understand how it was that we could have got off the rails so absolutely terribly. I started studying that at the collectivist level, looking for political or economic reasons. But as I investigated further those levels of analysis [...] weren't providing the answers that I wanted--I think partly because I was really interested in the notion that there's something to learn from what happened, say in Nazi Germany: but there's something to learn at an individual level. That's my estimation. I don't think that there were innocent masses of people led astray by a single malevolent leader. I don't think the fundamental motivations for what happened in Nazi Germany were economic and I don't think they were in the Soviet Union either. As I read more and more about the situation, I realized that the proclivity of individuals to avoid responsibility and to lie, especially about their own lives and about their own experience, were really the reasons that those systems went so far astray."
> "[...] The lessons there for me were psychological and that taught me an awful lot about the role of the individual: people like Viktor Frankl, for example, who wrote Man's Search for Meaning, a perennial classic and a great book--insisted that a large part of the reason that Germany went off the rails so badly was because individual Germans were so willing to falsify their own experience. Alexander Solzhenitsyn who wrote the Gulag Archipelago, the best document on what happened in the Soviet Union, also made exactly the same argument."
> "So I got interested in the psychological causes of catastrophic governance and that taught me a lot. It taught me about responsibility. About the responsibility of the sovereign individual. We have an idea in our [Western] culture, it's a very powerful idea: that each of us is of intrinsic value. But associated with that value is a responsibility: we have a responsibility for our own integrity and for that of our families but also of the state."
This begs the question: are Chinese business men and women willing to falsify their own experience at the expense of the {environment,personal integrity} to make a buck and/or survive?
The business culture of dishonesty (borrowing from HN user docker_up) can't persist forever.
[1] https://youtu.be/AscPHmLWo-M?t=322
Dr Oz[1]? That quack? Please. He's an astrologer not a doctor.
1: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2018/06/07/a-...
1: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2018/06/07/a-...
The transcript (and linked video) is only Peterson speaking.
Your feelings regarding Oz and any associated controversy are irrelevant, unless you're indirectly implying that Oz is unfit to conduct an interview, in which case, I think you've got your work cut out for you. It would be impertinent and premature to dismiss an interview simply because you dislike the host: I can easily name any number of hosts I dislike or have a general disdain for yet found the discussions interesting and/or thought-provoking.
That being said, if it's not crystal-clear at this point: it's discussion around Peterson's ideas I'm interested in, in the context of China (and the TFA). Would you care to respond to Peterson's thoughts directly?
Your feelings regarding Oz and any associated controversy are irrelevant, unless you're indirectly implying that Oz is unfit to conduct an interview, in which case, I think you've got your work cut out for you. It would be impertinent and premature to dismiss an interview simply because you dislike the host: I can easily name any number of hosts I dislike or have a general disdain for yet found the discussions interesting and/or thought-provoking.
That being said, if it's not crystal-clear at this point: it's discussion around Peterson's ideas I'm interested in, in the context of China (and the TFA). Would you care to respond to Peterson's thoughts directly?
Love to see a fraud interviewing a fraud
"I realized that the proclivity of individuals to avoid responsibility and to lie, especially about their own lives and about their own experience, were really the reasons that those systems went so far astray."
That connects so directly to social media and contemporary "fake" "news". Not just in the obvious ways, but in how people lie through Pinterest images to make their life look more glamorous, or lie on resumés, school applications, exams, dating sites, faked hate crimes, faked crime reports, faked police reports, faked government investigations, faked scientific studies, etc....
We interact with the internet through diverse environments that change so fast that humans can't keep up with an accurate way of figuring out what reality looks like, or, rather, the average difference between the images of reality held in the minds/brains of any two people is expanding.
I think I might see 2 things Peterson didn't address in your quotes:
1. Deteriorating material / or otherwise not originally psychological conditions around a person could also independently increase the chance that they falsify their own experience. He may have cause and effect at least partially flipped.
2. Does telling the truth heal the psychological trauma? Is there an empirical basis for John's claim that "the truth will set you free"? In my memory of Man's Search for Meaning, I remember his theory was that finding a meaning to keep fighting to live often made the difference for survivors of the Holocaust. People who let the situation sink into them did better than those who held onto dreams that could hardly seem possible, given the circumstances. But that could indicate that "Hope", that thing with feathers, is only dashed when abashed by the most painful of truths - and is sometimes shielded from the storm by our so willing to "falsify" our own experience.
Our family and friends used to be a local pocket with its own local social weather sheltered from the tumult of wider society. Social media tore down the ability to keep family and politics and religion as separate spheres woven together by individuals capable of different modes in different spaces in different times. But the internet in the pocket collapses spaces and times together. And so, our local social weather is no longer sheltered into a friendlier micro climate, but just one point in a massive cultural climate zone.
That connects so directly to social media and contemporary "fake" "news". Not just in the obvious ways, but in how people lie through Pinterest images to make their life look more glamorous, or lie on resumés, school applications, exams, dating sites, faked hate crimes, faked crime reports, faked police reports, faked government investigations, faked scientific studies, etc....
We interact with the internet through diverse environments that change so fast that humans can't keep up with an accurate way of figuring out what reality looks like, or, rather, the average difference between the images of reality held in the minds/brains of any two people is expanding.
I think I might see 2 things Peterson didn't address in your quotes:
1. Deteriorating material / or otherwise not originally psychological conditions around a person could also independently increase the chance that they falsify their own experience. He may have cause and effect at least partially flipped.
2. Does telling the truth heal the psychological trauma? Is there an empirical basis for John's claim that "the truth will set you free"? In my memory of Man's Search for Meaning, I remember his theory was that finding a meaning to keep fighting to live often made the difference for survivors of the Holocaust. People who let the situation sink into them did better than those who held onto dreams that could hardly seem possible, given the circumstances. But that could indicate that "Hope", that thing with feathers, is only dashed when abashed by the most painful of truths - and is sometimes shielded from the storm by our so willing to "falsify" our own experience.
Our family and friends used to be a local pocket with its own local social weather sheltered from the tumult of wider society. Social media tore down the ability to keep family and politics and religion as separate spheres woven together by individuals capable of different modes in different spaces in different times. But the internet in the pocket collapses spaces and times together. And so, our local social weather is no longer sheltered into a friendlier micro climate, but just one point in a massive cultural climate zone.
This quote reeks of self-righteousness. Western corporations have done as much harm as they could get away with to make a quick buck as well.
Jordan Peterson is an individual who seems like he struggled to make sense of the world according to his Christian/Pure-Capitalistic view of the world and decided to concoct wild self-righteous theories to justify his bias rather than change his viewpoint. The only thing he has going for him is that he speaks with extreme confidence. My advide to you: choose a better messiah to save you from whatever disillusionment you are going through.
Jordan Peterson is an individual who seems like he struggled to make sense of the world according to his Christian/Pure-Capitalistic view of the world and decided to concoct wild self-righteous theories to justify his bias rather than change his viewpoint. The only thing he has going for him is that he speaks with extreme confidence. My advide to you: choose a better messiah to save you from whatever disillusionment you are going through.
> Western corporations have done as much harm as they could get away with to make a quick buck as well.
I'm in agreement (for the most part)--historically speaking. I never said that this was purely relegated to China, although the topic of the article is indeed China.
I'll also take this opportunity to remind you about HN commenting guidelines [1], specifically when disagreeing to try to "reply to the argument", as opposed to calling names--or in your specific case implying emotional states or assumptions on worship.
I will share that I find it unfortunate that you seem generally opposed to Dr. Peterson's works: his Maps of Meaning (1999)[2], for instance, contains powerful ideas that cannot be easily dismissed.
Finally, humans are complex creatures. We can easily find an argument intrinsically stimulating and academically fascinating whilst simultaneously not feeling disillusionment.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [2] https://www.amazon.com/Maps-Meaning-Architecture-Jordan-Pete...
I'm in agreement (for the most part)--historically speaking. I never said that this was purely relegated to China, although the topic of the article is indeed China.
I'll also take this opportunity to remind you about HN commenting guidelines [1], specifically when disagreeing to try to "reply to the argument", as opposed to calling names--or in your specific case implying emotional states or assumptions on worship.
I will share that I find it unfortunate that you seem generally opposed to Dr. Peterson's works: his Maps of Meaning (1999)[2], for instance, contains powerful ideas that cannot be easily dismissed.
Finally, humans are complex creatures. We can easily find an argument intrinsically stimulating and academically fascinating whilst simultaneously not feeling disillusionment.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [2] https://www.amazon.com/Maps-Meaning-Architecture-Jordan-Pete...
Anyone should be opposed to his works, he's a dog whistle artist and his brand of intellectual pablum really shouldn't be quoted in an intellectual forum.
This comment adds very little to the discussion. Could you provide some examples?
> decided to concoct wild self-righteous theories to justify his bias rather than change his viewpoint
To what? Is there a "right" answer that would serve someone better? It's always going to appear self-righteous when you justify your own worldview. The utility of JP's views, is why other people adopt it, not some fictional "messianic cult". JP's reasoning has flaws and gaps as with all people. Even the utility is from other historical wisdom, not his own, repackaged into a story. Easily digestable and as rational as any other I have seen.
To what? Is there a "right" answer that would serve someone better? It's always going to appear self-righteous when you justify your own worldview. The utility of JP's views, is why other people adopt it, not some fictional "messianic cult". JP's reasoning has flaws and gaps as with all people. Even the utility is from other historical wisdom, not his own, repackaged into a story. Easily digestable and as rational as any other I have seen.
> Even the utility is from other historical wisdom, not his own, repackaged into a story. Easily digestable and as rational as any other I have seen.
but that doesn’t necessarily make them true
but that doesn’t necessarily make them true
What does "true" mean in this context? A belief system isn't true in any sense, nor is it practical to have a full knowledge of reality (enough to have rigid axioms about human behavior), so what's the goalpost here?
There's a business culture of dishonesty throughout the country that is unprecedented. Their food supply is poisoned by factories that simply don't care about life and only care about money. There have been articles about how cooking oil is recycled from waste, and how fish are fed feces instead of food and packed in ice from polluted waters. Fake milk, fake baby formula, fake eggs for crying out loud. They add poisonous chemicals to pass tests, but those chemicals killed hundreds of pets in the US. And when the FBI went to investigate, the factory has already been burned to the ground to eliminate evidence. My friend worked at Uber and she said that the amount of fraud perpetrated within China was staggering, more than any other country on a per capita basis.
There was an article on HN recently talking about how some Chinese products on Amazon have 40x the safe amount of lead and 30x the safe amount of cadmium in children's products. How does lead and cadmium get into a Spider-man pencil case for fuck's sake?
It's so bad that even Chinese citizens simply don't trust the products made in China. When Chinese citizens go abroad they buy things like baby formula because they know they can't trust Chinese baby formula. It's sickening. I'm teaching my children to completely stay away from cheap Chinese products because we seriously have no way to know if it's safe, and our government has cut funding time and time again so it doesn't have enough resources to test the goods coming in.
It's reprehensible.