1d22a

This may be a perfectly coherent philosophical position, but speaks to an extraordinary level of privilege - many of these "crises" are real threats to the lives or livelihoods of people around the world, with outcomes hugely dependent on collective action of people who may not feel the first order effects.

Squirrels can't solve the problems they face, we, however can do more than "flap around and eat the fucking seed".

Privacy, however, is (or should be) a human right.

Living on land with care and stewardship as indigenous peoples often did is very different to clear-felling for agriculture or monoculture forestry, the strongest plausible interpretation would be that by "directly disturbed", the GP meant the latter.

To copy a previous comment of mine:

Carbon capture is physically unable to be as effective as we need it to be. To an approximation, growing a tree is able to capture as much carbon as burning the wood from that tree. If most of our released carbon came from burning wood, we would just need to re-grow that amount of wood (unfortunately it's not even that simple, as the soil stores carbon long term in a way that just growing the tree doesn't capture, and is also released over time when old growth forests are cut down). Instead, the carbon we're burning comes from processes which efficiently concentrated the carbon from plants and microorganisms over millions of years to create coal, oil, and gas.

Carbon capture technology would have to artificially replicate these millions-of-years-long processes, and do it on a scale of years to decades. The scale of carbon capture we need is entirely unfathomable, requiring processes that don't exist, because they have to work against entropy itself.

Carbon capture at the point of burning fossil fuels to abate further emissions might be economical. Capturing already released carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (concentration of ~0.04%) is a fiction pushed by fossil fuel companies to muddy the debate and distract from the urgency of immediately stopping the burning of fossil fuels.

> Why should there be any asymmetry behind creation vs destruction?

Entropy?

It should! The public (through taxes) shouldn't be forced to subsidize the cost of a parking lot. If the parking lot was valuable to the market, the opportunity cost of the land not being used for some other purpose would be priced in (either through consumers paying more for parking, or businesses subsidizing the cost for consumers as it's profitable for them to do so). Parking lots paying lower property taxes subsidizes economic inefficiency.

I'm already able to use tap to pay on GrapheneOS, just only with banking apps which use Android Pay, rather than Google Wallet.

Switzerland has prescription heroin to provide a safe supply to people addicted, as Diaphin (diacetylmorphine) 200mg. This dosage is huge and lethal for for someone without a tolerance.

How do you feel about laws, enforced by the state? There are likely plenty of moral things you aren't free to get up and do on any given day due to the state dictating what you can and cannot do on a given day.

See my sibling comment to the parent. Doubling forests won't do near enough, because the carbon we've burnt comes from millions of years of forests compacted into coal (among other sources). We'd need to grow millions of years worth of forests, which we just physically don't have the surface area for.