OpEd in NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/opinion/sunday/the-next-genocide.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
QuoteThe Next Genocide
New Haven — BEFORE he fired the shot, the Einsatzgruppe commander lifted the Jewish child in the air and said, "You must die so that we can live." As the killing proceeded, other Germans rationalized the murder of Jewish children in the same way: them or us.
Today we think of the Nazi Final Solution as some dark apex of high technology. It was in fact the killing of human beings at close range during a war for resources. The war that brought Jews under German control was fought because Hitler believed that Germany needed more land and food to survive and maintain its standard of living — and that Jews, and their ideas, posed a threat to his violent expansionist program.
The Holocaust may seem a distant horror whose lessons have already been learned. But sadly, the anxieties of our own era could once again give rise to scapegoats and imagined enemies, while contemporary environmental stresses could encourage new variations on Hitler's ideas, especially in countries anxious about feeding their growing populations or maintaining a rising standard of living.
The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science. Hitler's alternative to science was the idea of Lebensraum. Germany needed an Eastern European empire because only conquest, and not agricultural technology, offered the hope of feeding the German people. In Hitler's "Second Book," which was composed in 1928 and not published until after his death, he insisted that hunger would outstrip crop improvements and that all "the scientific methods of land management" had already failed. No conceivable improvement would allow Germans to be fed "from their own land and territory," he claimed. Hitler specifically — and wrongly — denied that irrigation, hybrids and fertilizers could change the relationship between people and land.
The pursuit of peace and plenty through science, he claimed in "Mein Kampf," was a Jewish plot to distract Germans from the necessity of war. "It is always the Jew," argued Hitler, "who seeks and succeeds in implanting such lethal ways of thinking."
As exotic as it sounds, the concept of Lebensraum is less distant from our own ways of thinking than we believe. Germany was blockaded during World War I, dependent on imports of agricultural commodities and faced real uncertainties about its food supply. Hitler transformed these fears into a vision of absolute conquest for total security. Lebensraum linked a war of extermination to the improvement of lifestyle. The chief Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, could therefore define the purpose of a war of extermination as "a big breakfast, a big lunch and a big dinner." He conflated lifestyle with life.
To expand Germany's Lebensraum, Hitler aimed to seize Ukraine from the Soviet Union, starve 30 million Eastern Europeans and transfer the food to Germany. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, the campaign had two major aims: the control of fertile Ukrainian soil and the destruction of Jews living there. It was this invasion that placed defenseless Jewish children at the mercy of the murderous Einsatzgruppen.
Climate change threatens to provoke a new ecological panic. So far, poor people in Africa and the Middle East have borne the brunt of the suffering.
The mass murder of at least 500,000 Rwandans in 1994 followed a decline in agricultural production for several years before. Hutus killed Tutsis not only out of ethnic hatred, but to take their land, as many genocidaires later admitted.
In Sudan, drought drove Arabs into the lands of African pastoralists in 2003. The Sudanese government sided with the Arabs and pursued a policy of eliminating the Zaghawa, Masalit and Fur peoples in Darfur and surrounding regions.
Climate change has also brought uncertainties about food supply back to the center of great power politics. China today, like Germany before the war, is an industrial power incapable of feeding its population from its own territory, and is thus dependent on unpredictable international markets.
This could make China's population susceptible to a revival of ideas like Lebensraum. The Chinese government must balance a not-so-distant history of starving its own population with today's promise of ever-increasing prosperity — all while confronting increasingly unfavorable environmental conditions. The danger is not that the Chinese might actually starve to death in the near future, any more than Germans would have during the 1930s. The risk is that a developed country able to project military power could, like Hitler's Germany, fall into ecological panic, and take drastic steps to protect its existing standard of living.
How might such a scenario unfold? China is already leasing a tenth of Ukraine's arable soil, and buying up food whenever global supplies tighten. During the drought of 2010, Chinese panic buying helped bring bread riots and revolution to the Middle East. The Chinese leadership already regards Africa as a long-term source of food. Although many Africans themselves still go hungry, their continent holds about half of the world's untilled arable land. Like China, the United Arab Emirates and South Korea are interested in Sudan's fertile regions — and they have been joined by Japan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in efforts to buy or lease land throughout Africa.
Nations in need of land would likely begin with tactfully negotiated leases or purchases; but under conditions of stress or acute need, such agrarian export zones could become fortified colonies, requiring or attracting violence.
Hitler spread ecological panic by claiming that only land would bring Germany security and by denying the science that promised alternatives to war. By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites. These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler's.
The full consequences of climate change may reach America only decades after warming wreaks havoc in other regions. And by then it will be too late for climate science and energy technology to make any difference. Indeed, by the time the door is open to the demagogy of ecological panic in the United States, Americans will have spent years spreading climate disaster around the world.
THE European Union, by contrast, takes global warming very seriously, but its existence is under threat. As Africa and the Middle East continue to warm and wars rage, economic migrants and war refugees are making perilous journeys to flee to Europe. In response, European populists have called for the strict enforcement of national borders and the end of the union. Many of these populist parties are supported by Russia, which is openly pursuing a divide-and-conquer policy with the aim of bringing about European disintegration.
Russia's 2014 intervention in Ukraine has already shattered the peaceful order that Europeans had come to take for granted. The Kremlin, which is economically dependent on the export of hydrocarbons to Europe, is now seeking to make gas deals with individual European states one by one in order to weaken European unity and expand its own influence. Meanwhile, President Vladimir V. Putin waxes nostalgic for the 1930s, while Russian nationalists blame gays, cosmopolitans and Jews for antiwar sentiment. None of this bodes well for Europe's future — or Russia's.
When mass killing is on the way, it won't announce itself in the language we are familiar with. The Nazi scenario of 1941 will not reappear in precisely the same form, but several of its causal elements have already begun to assemble.
It is not difficult to imagine ethnic mass murder in Africa, which has already happened; or the triumph of a violent totalitarian strain of Islamism in the parched Middle East; or a Chinese play for resources in Africa or Russia or Eastern Europe that involves removing the people already living there; or a growing global ecological panic if America abandons climate science or the European Union falls apart.
Today we confront the same crucial choice between science and ideology that Germans once faced. Will we accept empirical evidence and support new energy technologies, or allow a wave of ecological panic to spread across the world?
Denying science imperils the future by summoning the ghosts of the past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flBpsyFbEOs
Yes. It is far from unimaginable. It's just that we no longer could say "We didn't know", because someone would film it with his iPhone.
Everybody knew about the genocide of Christian minorities by the Unionist Young Turks, yet that did not change its course, so colour me skeptical about the iPhone factor.
I wasn't around then. Sorry.
Grumbler was.
Yeah, aren't we close to a genocide on the Kurds? Either Turkey or ISIS, or both.
See, we can work as a team, Duqhead.
ISIS is trying right now to do this, how is this even a question?
Quote from: Norgy on September 14, 2015, 06:17:00 AM
See, we can work as a team, Duqhead.
I'll be the head then. :)
I suggest Squeelus to take care of the remaining Armenians in Constantinople, before Erdogan, well you know...
I'd also like to preserve the last Ladino speakers there as well. Lovely archaic "Castilian" (quite close to Galaico-Portuguese in fact).
Liep
Yezidis first for Daesh, then Christians. Erdogan won't be as harsh against Kurds, though very nasty.
Quote from: Norgy on September 14, 2015, 05:34:53 AM
Yes. It is far from unimaginable. It's just that we no longer could say "We didn't know", because someone would film it with his iPhone.
Yeah, it would be a little harder to look the other way, but we'll manage.
Could easily see it happening in India as the Hindu's solve their, "Muslim problem". I doubt many would really care.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2015, 10:07:35 AM
Could easily see it happening in India as the Hindu's solve their, "Muslim problem". I doubt many would really care.
What a bunch of bullshit. India is pluralistic and tolerant.
Many if not most historical genocides did not, in fact, have the object of increasing food production or standard of living.
The Ukrainian starvation, the Khmer Rouge massacre, the Armenian genocide - while these may have benefitted some individuals, they weren't specifically designed to increase food production or standards of living, as to specifically eliminate disfavoured minority groups (such inconvenient potential nationalist sympathizers and 'enemy' social classes). The ultimate purposes are often terror for the sake of maintaining the terrorists in power.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2015, 10:14:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2015, 10:07:35 AM
Could easily see it happening in India as the Hindu's solve their, "Muslim problem". I doubt many would really care.
What a bunch of bullshit. India is pluralistic and tolerant.
Is this a joke? :huh:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2015, 10:17:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2015, 10:14:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2015, 10:07:35 AM
Could easily see it happening in India as the Hindu's solve their, "Muslim problem". I doubt many would really care.
What a bunch of bullshit. India is pluralistic and tolerant.
Is this a joke? :huh:
Do Indians shit in the street?
Oh and the NYT appears to be confused.
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2015, 10:43:23 AM
Do Indians shit in the street?
They have a high tolerance for the smell of shit. :yes:
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2015, 10:33:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2015, 10:17:34 AM
Is this a joke? :huh:
I am quite serious.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/03/dozens-muslims-killed-ethnic-violence-north-east-india-assam
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2015/01/muslims-burned-death-india-attack-20151190514458644.html
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/india.600.violent.attacks.on.christians.and.muslims.since.may/50574.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots
These seem like fringe attacks and mostly in isolated areas. I do not think a wide scale massacre would happen in India.
And if there is another major genocide, it will be in Europe. Either by or against Europeans.
Does holocaust scale means the number of dead or the way it was organize?
Quote from: Jaron on September 14, 2015, 11:09:05 AM
These seem like fringe attacks and mostly in isolated areas. I do not think a wide scale massacre would happen in India.
Calling the Gujaret riots fringe and isolated is like calling the Odessa pogroms an outlier.
I find a repetition of a Rwanda or Armenia or Cambodia style genocide more likely than the repetition of the industrialised holocaust.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2015, 11:15:43 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 14, 2015, 11:09:05 AM
These seem like fringe attacks and mostly in isolated areas. I do not think a wide scale massacre would happen in India.
Calling the Gujaret riots fringe and isolated is like calling the Odessa pogroms an outlier.
That was 13 years ago. It hasn't happened on that scale since. All of your other examples are activities in rural villages and those do not support your case.
If you buy into near-apocalyptic global warming predictions (and, unfortunately, you probably should) I think genocides are very likely, although more like colonial genocides than directed efforts to wipe out specific internal groups. Permanently closing mouths at home is bound to be less popular than securing food and resources abroad at the expense of out-of-sight outgroups.
Quote from: Zanza on September 14, 2015, 11:26:17 AM
I find a repetition of a Rwanda or Armenia or Cambodia style genocide more likely than the repetition of the industrialised holocaust.
Yup. Of those, Rwanda most likely IMO.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2015, 04:33:20 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 14, 2015, 11:26:17 AM
I find a repetition of a Rwanda or Armenia or Cambodia style genocide more likely than the repetition of the industrialised holocaust.
Yup. Of those, Rwanda most likely IMO.
Well, DAESH use blades a lot.
grumbler most likely is Adam, but won't admit to it. :hmm:
We Westerners eat too much. If we learned to love less food then we'd have enough food on hand to last for generations. As is, everyone must have seconds...and thirds...
Quote from: Jaron on September 14, 2015, 09:49:53 PM
We Westerners eat too much. If we learned to love less food then we'd have enough food on hand to last for generations. As is, everyone must have seconds...and thirds...
The food just gets thrown out if we don't eat it.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2015, 11:15:43 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 14, 2015, 11:09:05 AM
These seem like fringe attacks and mostly in isolated areas. I do not think a wide scale massacre would happen in India.
Calling the Gujaret riots fringe and isolated is like calling the Odessa pogroms an outlier.
That happened 12 years ago and have been roundly denounced. These things may happen again on a small scale in India but you are never going to see some kind of mass genocide of Muslims.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2015, 09:31:36 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 14, 2015, 09:49:53 PM
We Westerners eat too much. If we learned to love less food then we'd have enough food on hand to last for generations. As is, everyone must have seconds...and thirds...
The food just gets thrown out if we don't eat it.
France just recently introduced a law that prohibits grocery stores from throwing away food - any food they no longer want to sell must be given away to food banks and charities. This is a great idea, imo, and should make them think twice about over-stocking.
Anyway, to answer the OP question, where there's a will, there's a way.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2015, 09:53:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2015, 11:15:43 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 14, 2015, 11:09:05 AM
These seem like fringe attacks and mostly in isolated areas. I do not think a wide scale massacre would happen in India.
Calling the Gujaret riots fringe and isolated is like calling the Odessa pogroms an outlier.
They happened 12 years ago and have been roundly denounced. These things may happen again on a small scale in India but you are never going to see some kind of mass genocide of Muslims.
You see smaller things happen fairly regularly. Terrorist attacks, riots, murders etc. These often kill like a dozen people apiece. I'd say there is a strong atmosphere of hatred there. It doesn't help that a Hindu nationalist is the head of the government there.
Where do you get the idea that they are India is particularly tolerant?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2015, 10:04:42 AM
You see smaller things happen fairly regularly. Terrorist attacks, riots, murders etc. These often kill like a dozen people apiece. I'd say there is a strong atmosphere of hatred there. It doesn't help that a Hindu nationalist is the head of the government there.
Where do you get the idea that they are India is particularly tolerant?
More than 20 official languages. Untold dozens of ethnic groups. Three major religious groups (And many many minor ones). India could collapse almost immediately if they went all Hindu nationalist. It would be so against their national interest, and basic ideology, I just do not see it happening.
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2015, 09:58:53 AM
France just recently introduced a law that prohibits grocery stores from throwing away food - any food they no longer want to sell must be given away to food banks and charities. This is a great idea, imo, and should make them think twice about over-stocking.
Interesting. If it works everybody should copy that. Food insecurity in the US would disappear over night.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2015, 10:04:42 AM
Where do you get the idea that they are India is particularly tolerant?
Gandhi.
Indira Ghandi was such a model of tolerance :P
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2015, 10:18:02 AM
Indira Ghandi was such a model of tolerance :P
She isn't one of the leaders in Civ.
Asoka's pretty friendly too. :sleep:
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2015, 09:31:36 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 14, 2015, 09:49:53 PM
We Westerners eat too much. If we learned to love less food then we'd have enough food on hand to last for generations. As is, everyone must have seconds...and thirds...
The food just gets thrown out if we don't eat it.
As callous as that may sound it is true. The problem isn't food production but food distribution.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2015, 10:23:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2015, 09:31:36 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 14, 2015, 09:49:53 PM
We Westerners eat too much. If we learned to love less food then we'd have enough food on hand to last for generations. As is, everyone must have seconds...and thirds...
The food just gets thrown out if we don't eat it.
As callous as that may sound it is true. The problem isn't food production but food distribution.
Reminds me of the old "eat what's on your plate - remember, there are people starving in [country with terrible problems]".
To which the kid's reply is some variant on "please, send people in [country] my broccoli".
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2015, 09:58:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2015, 09:31:36 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 14, 2015, 09:49:53 PM
We Westerners eat too much. If we learned to love less food then we'd have enough food on hand to last for generations. As is, everyone must have seconds...and thirds...
The food just gets thrown out if we don't eat it.
France just recently introduced a law that prohibits grocery stores from throwing away food - any food they no longer want to sell must be given away to food banks and charities. This is a great idea, imo, and should make them think twice about over-stocking.
Fully agree. In most cases, date labelling is completely arbitrary. Eggs are perhaps the best case. Eggs do not spoil for months if stored coolly. Not sure if that applies to the EU's chlamydia-ebola-e-coli-salmonella-infested eggs, but it certainly does here in Socialist Paradise.
Quote from: Norgy on September 15, 2015, 01:39:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2015, 09:58:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2015, 09:31:36 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 14, 2015, 09:49:53 PM
We Westerners eat too much. If we learned to love less food then we'd have enough food on hand to last for generations. As is, everyone must have seconds...and thirds...
The food just gets thrown out if we don't eat it.
France just recently introduced a law that prohibits grocery stores from throwing away food - any food they no longer want to sell must be given away to food banks and charities. This is a great idea, imo, and should make them think twice about over-stocking.
Fully agree. In most cases, date labelling is completely arbitrary. Eggs are perhaps the best case. Eggs do not spoil for months if stored coolly. Not sure if that applies to the EU's chlamydia-ebola-e-coli-salmonella-infested eggs, but it certainly does here in Socialist Paradise.
The cynic in me suspects that any attempt to
legislate that all expired food must go to foodbanks and charities will result in foodbanks and charities being buried in tons of rotting garbage. :D
Quote from: Malthus on September 15, 2015, 01:43:27 PM
Quote from: Norgy on September 15, 2015, 01:39:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2015, 09:58:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2015, 09:31:36 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 14, 2015, 09:49:53 PM
We Westerners eat too much. If we learned to love less food then we'd have enough food on hand to last for generations. As is, everyone must have seconds...and thirds...
The food just gets thrown out if we don't eat it.
France just recently introduced a law that prohibits grocery stores from throwing away food - any food they no longer want to sell must be given away to food banks and charities. This is a great idea, imo, and should make them think twice about over-stocking.
Fully agree. In most cases, date labelling is completely arbitrary. Eggs are perhaps the best case. Eggs do not spoil for months if stored coolly. Not sure if that applies to the EU's chlamydia-ebola-e-coli-salmonella-infested eggs, but it certainly does here in Socialist Paradise.
The cynic in me suspects that any attempt to legislate that all expired food must go to foodbanks and charities will result in foodbanks and charities being buried in tons of rotting garbage. :D
The thing is, most of the expired food is not even remotely rotting - and most grocery chains would just throw away food near expiration date because people do not want to buy it. So the idea is still great. John Oliver had a segment on this recently (it seems as if John Oliver is the conscience of the West these days :P).
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2015, 01:48:45 PM
The thing is, most of the expired food is not even remotely rotting - and most grocery chains would just throw away food near expiration date because people do not want to buy it. So the idea is still great. John Oliver had a segment on this recently (it seems as if John Oliver is the conscience of the West these days :P).
This assumes that the food reaches the food banks in some sort of reasonable time after it is expired.
Sure just expired food is likely okay ... The problem lies in the "free" distribution to where the food is needed.
The joking example of the kid's broccoli is apropos - there is nothing wrong with leftover broccoli, but it is unlikely that the poor or starving would benefit if a law was passed legislating that leftover broccoli must be gifted to the poor - unless they were hanging about outside your door.
Obviouly, for some things this will be less of a concern- canned goods and the like. For others, like stuff that has to be kept in a cold chain ...
Quote from: Malthus on September 15, 2015, 01:43:27 PM
Quote from: Norgy on September 15, 2015, 01:39:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2015, 09:58:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2015, 09:31:36 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 14, 2015, 09:49:53 PM
We Westerners eat too much. If we learned to love less food then we'd have enough food on hand to last for generations. As is, everyone must have seconds...and thirds...
The food just gets thrown out if we don't eat it.
France just recently introduced a law that prohibits grocery stores from throwing away food - any food they no longer want to sell must be given away to food banks and charities. This is a great idea, imo, and should make them think twice about over-stocking.
Fully agree. In most cases, date labelling is completely arbitrary. Eggs are perhaps the best case. Eggs do not spoil for months if stored coolly. Not sure if that applies to the EU's chlamydia-ebola-e-coli-salmonella-infested eggs, but it certainly does here in Socialist Paradise.
The cynic in me suspects that any attempt to legislate that all expired food must go to foodbanks and charities will result in foodbanks and charities being buried in tons of rotting garbage. :D
they can then sell it at profit to community-gardens. The stuff makes for rather good compost
anyways: given enough time it is inevitable.
So we should have the poor eat our garbage? What a modest proposal.
Quote from: The Brain on September 15, 2015, 03:52:22 PM
So we should have the poor eat our garbage? What a modest proposal.
Well, not only the garbage, thanks to a recent French law. Food about to expire (24-48h before for instance) may be sold with a heavy discount, at the grocer's discretion.
Preferably the (working?) poor will eat it before it really gets garbage.
Quote from: The Brain on September 15, 2015, 03:52:22 PM
So we should have the poor eat our garbage? What a modest proposal.
Don't they already? Taco Bell?
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2015, 10:10:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2015, 10:04:42 AM
You see smaller things happen fairly regularly. Terrorist attacks, riots, murders etc. These often kill like a dozen people apiece. I'd say there is a strong atmosphere of hatred there. It doesn't help that a Hindu nationalist is the head of the government there.
Where do you get the idea that they are India is particularly tolerant?
More than 20 official languages. Untold dozens of ethnic groups. Three major religious groups (And many many minor ones). India could collapse almost immediately if they went all Hindu nationalist. It would be so against their national interest, and basic ideology, I just do not see it happening.
What three major religions do they have? It's 80% Hindu 15% Muslim and there is considerable violence between the two groups. I seriously doubt India would collapse if they went all Nationalist, and let me remind you they did tear their country apart on Indian-Muslim lines once so even if that was an issue it's not likely to stop them. Genocide is a familiar concept to them, and they didn't turn away from mass killing and ethnic cleansing in 1947.
India is a country that sees constant ethnic and religious fighting, murders, riots, bombings, and outright pogroms between people divided by religion, tribal, ethnic, and even caste differences. I don't know what kind of ideology is their "basic" ideology. They have fascists and reds and democrats and theocrats. Right now Indian Nationalism is the most powerful force in their politics and their particular flavor has a strong fascist outlook.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2015, 04:47:57 PM
What three major religions do they have?
Sikhism (though Wiki suggests that there are more Christians in India than Sinkhs).
And Jainism.
And Buddhism?
This isn't the EU series, Mongers.
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2015, 01:48:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 15, 2015, 01:43:27 PM
Quote from: Norgy on September 15, 2015, 01:39:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2015, 09:58:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2015, 09:31:36 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 14, 2015, 09:49:53 PM
We Westerners eat too much. If we learned to love less food then we'd have enough food on hand to last for generations. As is, everyone must have seconds...and thirds...
The food just gets thrown out if we don't eat it.
France just recently introduced a law that prohibits grocery stores from throwing away food - any food they no longer want to sell must be given away to food banks and charities. This is a great idea, imo, and should make them think twice about over-stocking.
Fully agree. In most cases, date labelling is completely arbitrary. Eggs are perhaps the best case. Eggs do not spoil for months if stored coolly. Not sure if that applies to the EU's chlamydia-ebola-e-coli-salmonella-infested eggs, but it certainly does here in Socialist Paradise.
The cynic in me suspects that any attempt to legislate that all expired food must go to foodbanks and charities will result in foodbanks and charities being buried in tons of rotting garbage. :D
The thing is, most of the expired food is not even remotely rotting - and most grocery chains would just throw away food near expiration date because people do not want to buy it. So the idea is still great. John Oliver had a segment on this recently (it seems as if John Oliver is the conscience of the West these days :P).
Jesus, you want to fuck John Oliver. We get it.
I think the law will most likely backfire to the extent it has an effect at all. The reason stores over order is because that is the most cost effective strategy. Making it more expensive to dispose excess inventory is going to add costs to the businesses, and ultimately consumers. So the poor person not getting food from a food bank will have higher costs to bear.
I doubt the effect will be very big though.
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2015, 04:55:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2015, 04:47:57 PM
What three major religions do they have?
Sikhism (though Wiki suggests that there are more Christians in India than Sinkhs).
Yeah, the other groups are pretty small. I think Valmy is basing his impressions on Indians living in the US or other Western countries. I don't think those people are very representative of the general population there. It's like Dguller. He's not a good representative of the typical Russian. For instance he's not completely psychotic.
I think another genocide is likely, actually I think it is only a matter of when and where. But my chance of being killed in a genocide is pretty small. The chance of developing cancer or being hit by a car is much greater, so I am not going to worry about this.
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 05:55:41 PM
I think another genocide is likely, actually I think it is only a matter of when and where. But my chance of being killed in a genocide is pretty small. The chance of developing cancer or being hit by a car is much greater, so I am not going to worry about this.
Do you worry that you might take part in a genocide?
Or for that matter, might any of us in some way enable one perhaps?
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 05:55:41 PM
I think another genocide is likely, actually I think it is only a matter of when and where. But my chance of being killed in a genocide is pretty small. The chance of developing cancer or being hit by a car is much greater, so I am not going to worry about this.
I dunno, Mono. The CONPLAN's probably been amended by now to include Hong Kong.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2015, 05:51:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2015, 04:55:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2015, 04:47:57 PM
What three major religions do they have?
Sikhism (though Wiki suggests that there are more Christians in India than Sinkhs).
Yeah, the other groups are pretty small. I think Valmy is basing his impressions on Indians living in the US or other Western countries. I don't think those people are very representative of the general population there. It's like Dguller. He's not a good representative of the typical Russian. For instance he's not completely psychotic.
:blush:
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2015, 06:03:35 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 05:55:41 PM
I think another genocide is likely, actually I think it is only a matter of when and where. But my chance of being killed in a genocide is pretty small. The chance of developing cancer or being hit by a car is much greater, so I am not going to worry about this.
I dunno, Mono. The CONPLAN's probably been amended by now to include Hong Kong.
Nukes don't discriminate, so not genocide.
Quote from: mongers on September 15, 2015, 06:01:25 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 05:55:41 PM
I think another genocide is likely, actually I think it is only a matter of when and where. But my chance of being killed in a genocide is pretty small. The chance of developing cancer or being hit by a car is much greater, so I am not going to worry about this.
Do you worry that you might take part in a genocide?
Or for that matter, might any of us in some way enable one perhaps?
I probably can't lift a gun, so no :lol:
Unless you define enabling as not stopping it, not taking action against it. I refuse to accept such a definition though.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2015, 06:17:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2015, 06:03:35 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 05:55:41 PM
I think another genocide is likely, actually I think it is only a matter of when and where. But my chance of being killed in a genocide is pretty small. The chance of developing cancer or being hit by a car is much greater, so I am not going to worry about this.
I dunno, Mono. The CONPLAN's probably been amended by now to include Hong Kong.
Nukes don't discriminate, so not genocide.
I actually spent some time worrying about WWIII as a kid. I have gotten over my fear of nuclear weapons already. I am far more likely to die in a traffic accident or some sort of ailment.
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 07:17:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 15, 2015, 06:01:25 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 05:55:41 PM
I think another genocide is likely, actually I think it is only a matter of when and where. But my chance of being killed in a genocide is pretty small. The chance of developing cancer or being hit by a car is much greater, so I am not going to worry about this.
Do you worry that you might take part in a genocide?
Or for that matter, might any of us in some way enable one perhaps?
I probably can't lift a gun, so no :lol:
Unless you define enabling as not stopping it, not taking action against it. I refuse to accept such a definition though.
Genocides need paper pushers.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2015, 07:24:18 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 07:17:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 15, 2015, 06:01:25 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 05:55:41 PM
I think another genocide is likely, actually I think it is only a matter of when and where. But my chance of being killed in a genocide is pretty small. The chance of developing cancer or being hit by a car is much greater, so I am not going to worry about this.
Do you worry that you might take part in a genocide?
Or for that matter, might any of us in some way enable one perhaps?
I probably can't lift a gun, so no :lol:
Unless you define enabling as not stopping it, not taking action against it. I refuse to accept such a definition though.
Genocides need paper pushers.
/shrug. There are a gazillion of things to worry in life. I am going to be selective and not worry about something as remote as this. I may as well worry about an alien invasion. I better spend my time and attention to worry about something worthwhile, like stock market movements.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2015, 07:24:18 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 07:17:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 15, 2015, 06:01:25 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 05:55:41 PM
I think another genocide is likely, actually I think it is only a matter of when and where. But my chance of being killed in a genocide is pretty small. The chance of developing cancer or being hit by a car is much greater, so I am not going to worry about this.
Do you worry that you might take part in a genocide?
Or for that matter, might any of us in some way enable one perhaps?
I probably can't lift a gun, so no :lol:
Unless you define enabling as not stopping it, not taking action against it. I refuse to accept such a definition though.
Genocides need paper pushers.
Yes, the accounting can be a bitch.
Oh, look, Raz is off his meds again.
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2015, 06:17:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2015, 06:03:35 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 05:55:41 PM
I think another genocide is likely, actually I think it is only a matter of when and where. But my chance of being killed in a genocide is pretty small. The chance of developing cancer or being hit by a car is much greater, so I am not going to worry about this.
I dunno, Mono. The CONPLAN's probably been amended by now to include Hong Kong.
Nukes don't discriminate, so not genocide.
I actually spent some time worrying about WWIII as a kid. I have gotten over my fear of nuclear weapons already. I am far more likely to die in a traffic accident or some sort of ailment.
I lived right next to a prime target. STOP WITH THE BOMBING RUSSIA JOKES MR. PRESIDENT.
I was in the die very quickly area.
Quote from: Norgy on September 15, 2015, 08:07:23 PM
Oh, look, Raz is off his meds again.
Oh is there something objectionable I said here?
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 15, 2015, 08:49:00 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2015, 06:17:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2015, 06:03:35 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 05:55:41 PM
I think another genocide is likely, actually I think it is only a matter of when and where. But my chance of being killed in a genocide is pretty small. The chance of developing cancer or being hit by a car is much greater, so I am not going to worry about this.
I dunno, Mono. The CONPLAN's probably been amended by now to include Hong Kong.
Nukes don't discriminate, so not genocide.
I actually spent some time worrying about WWIII as a kid. I have gotten over my fear of nuclear weapons already. I am far more likely to die in a traffic accident or some sort of ailment.
I lived right next to a prime target. STOP WITH THE BOMBING RUSSIA JOKES MR. PRESIDENT.
I was in the die very quickly area.
When they dug up those Minuteman missiles back in the 1990's one was only about 20 miles from my house. I was in the "not a fucking chance zone".
I'm living in what the British thought the Soviets would consider a high priority target (highest outside Central London) for nuking but apparently the Soviets didn't consider here a target.
In one of the last WP exercises published in the papers in the 90s, my old hometown was a first strike tactical nuke target; probably due to its stockpile of nuclear artillery munitions.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2015, 09:01:18 PM
Quote from: Norgy on September 15, 2015, 08:07:23 PM
Oh, look, Raz is off his meds again.
Oh is there something objectionable I said here?
Yeah I was wondering the same. For all the threads in which you post crazy shit, this one is pretty much normal.
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 07:17:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 15, 2015, 06:01:25 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 05:55:41 PM
I think another genocide is likely, actually I think it is only a matter of when and where. But my chance of being killed in a genocide is pretty small. The chance of developing cancer or being hit by a car is much greater, so I am not going to worry about this.
Do you worry that you might take part in a genocide?
Or for that matter, might any of us in some way enable one perhaps?
I probably can't lift a gun, so no :lol:
what about a machete?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 16, 2015, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 07:17:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 15, 2015, 06:01:25 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 05:55:41 PM
I think another genocide is likely, actually I think it is only a matter of when and where. But my chance of being killed in a genocide is pretty small. The chance of developing cancer or being hit by a car is much greater, so I am not going to worry about this.
Do you worry that you might take part in a genocide?
Or for that matter, might any of us in some way enable one perhaps?
I probably can't lift a gun, so no :lol:
what about a machete?
I think a machete is even more difficult to use than a gun.
Quote from: Monoriu on September 16, 2015, 05:44:11 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 16, 2015, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 07:17:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 15, 2015, 06:01:25 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 15, 2015, 05:55:41 PM
I think another genocide is likely, actually I think it is only a matter of when and where. But my chance of being killed in a genocide is pretty small. The chance of developing cancer or being hit by a car is much greater, so I am not going to worry about this.
Do you worry that you might take part in a genocide?
Or for that matter, might any of us in some way enable one perhaps?
I probably can't lift a gun, so no :lol:
what about a machete?
I think a machete is even more difficult to use than a gun.
How do you know that? :tinfoil:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2015, 05:51:57 PM
Yeah, the other groups are pretty small. I think Valmy is basing his impressions on Indians living in the US or other Western countries.
Small? There are millions of them. I am basing my impressions on how actual Indian society and government functions instead of seeing a few headlines when things go wrong and start dreaming up wet dreams of constant ethnic violence. Imagine if somebody did that regarding headlines about Missouri.
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2015, 04:55:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2015, 04:47:57 PM
What three major religions do they have?
Sikhism (though Wiki suggests that there are more Christians in India than Sinkhs).
Right right. I meant Christians. Percentages do not really work when discussing religion in India. Even religions with small national percentages could totally dominate a region or state politically.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2015, 08:31:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2015, 05:51:57 PM
Yeah, the other groups are pretty small. I think Valmy is basing his impressions on Indians living in the US or other Western countries.
Small? There are millions of them. I am basing my impressions on how actual Indian society and government functions instead of seeing a few headlines when things go wrong and start dreaming up wet dreams of constant ethnic violence. Imagine if somebody did that regarding headlines about Missouri.
Er they have done that about Missouri. One kid was shot and Missouri has become a byword for a racist police state. These "few headlines" about India are constant occurrences. Indian society and government do not function very well. Corruption is endemic and poverty is atrocious. I'm not sure why these things are true, but they are. India's economy is often compared to South Korea's. They both started at around the same level after decolonization but South Korea became a first world economy and India stagnated. India also has Maoist rebels for some reason. They manage to launch some fairly spectacular attacks.
In short, the fact that India exists should not be an indicator that ethnic violence is not a serious problem. India's society is defective, it's government incompetent, and it's leading political party is rancid.
Quote
The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science. Hitler's alternative to science was the idea of Lebensraum. Germany needed an Eastern European empire because only conquest, and not agricultural technology, offered the hope of feeding the German people. In Hitler's "Second Book," which was composed in 1928 and not published until after his death, he insisted that hunger would outstrip crop improvements and that all "the scientific methods of land management" had already failed. No conceivable improvement would allow Germans to be fed "from their own land and territory," he claimed. Hitler specifically — and wrongly — denied that irrigation, hybrids and fertilizers could change the relationship between people and land.
The author takes pains to correctly point out that Hitler was wrong in his assessment, but then goes on to ask if similar pressures will make it happen again. Nazi Germany couldn't feed its people because of dogmatic, archaic and somewhat romantic view of agriculture. Their ideal farm was a quasi-feudal fantasy.
I think it's wrong to say it was based on the denial of science. I mean people were concerned about overpopulation then and still are. Serious people take these ideas seriously. In the 1970's the Population bomb was an influential book. I wouldn't call it a "denial of science". Fortuntaly everyone from Malthus to Ehrlich have been dead wrong and efforts to combat overpopulation have proven worse then the "disease".