People don't talk about world population because population growth is mainly happening in the developing world where environmental damage is small per capita compared to the developed world, particularly the U.S. The environmental benefits of not having kids in the developed world are however commonly discussed, for example https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-....
There's also a long history of people using environmental concerns related to overpopulation as cover for racism or other bigotry, so bringing up world population without qualification can feel, unfairly or not, like a racist dog whistle people are reluctant to engage with.
>There's also a long history of people using environmental concerns related to overpopulation as cover for racism or other bigotry, so bringing up world population without qualification can feel, unfairly or not, like a racist dog whistle people are reluctant to engage with.
Well you are absolutely right, what i mean is, we are to many peoples, seen from the point of a planet and not country's, just look at something big like oceans/fish, how many more people can we feed with that source without "drying" it out? Fish-farming? Where comes the food for the fish then from? I don't even touch the land farming, wheat etc.
We can probably feed everyone given expected population growth through 2050 with a lot of work, unless there is some huge disaster: https://www.wri.org/insights/how-sustainably-feed-10-billion.... Item 4 talks about encouraging people to voluntarily lower fertility rates and items 14-15 are about fishing.
But we'll have to treat the entire planet as a tool for our use and that's sad, putting it mildly. The ocean used to be brimming with life and now we treat it like a food factory and a road for our ships and talk about dead zones and garbage islands. There's no humane way back but we can mourn what we've lost.
"Asylum seeker" is a specific term, for example see this UN glossary: https://www.unhcr.org/449267670.pdf. In particular it's not about huddled masses, it's about people escaping violent situations and active persecution. Putting "asylum seeker" in scare quotes and conflating it with general immigration is a right-wing thing to do. If you don't want people to mistake you for a right-wing partisan then consider just saying "immigration" of whatever type you mean.
I'm sure I'm somewhat imprecise with my terms (I didn't realize I was speaking to a group of immigration lawyers). I've been as clear as I can be, and I can't force anyone to understand against their will. Good day.
A lot of barber/cosmetologist training is hands-on with customers while an instructor watches.
Also keep in mind that a lot of work on hair can be complicated using dangerous chemicals. If you're a guy who just gets a trim or buzz cut every month you may not appreciate this. A relaxer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxer appointment can take a couple hours and cost well over $100 not including tip even at a run-of-the-mill place. The chemicals can burn skin, or damage hair that took years to grow. Now consider hairdressers need to learn this, and colorizing, and a ton of other things, for many different hair types. This all takes time.
The idea that barber/cosmetologist training is some kind of cartel situation is absurd. They make around $20-30/hour.
You still need some licensing to ensure people understand the basics, like hygiene, since everyone has an interest in making sure hairdressers won't spread lice or accidentally cut their customers with dirty tools.
Most of the money in hairdressing is in the complicated stuff. People do this because they want to make a career of it. Maybe you're imagining some kind of two week training program which outputs someone who does nothing but run a clipper over people's heads all day for $5 each. The economics and incentives for that don't make sense to me. People who want ultra cheap cuts will probably just buy their own clippers anyway.
There aren't people regularly dying or winding up in the ER in states that don't require 10 months of expensive training to cut hair, so there is obviously a more reasonable line to draw.
A lot of the training is hands-on. It's a trade school. You're not spending a entire month studying the theory of scissors, you're spending a lot of that time working on many customers under supervision. Even a simple haircut for a man might take a professional 20 minutes. A more complex cut can take longer. A student can take twice as long as a professional. It all takes time. It's a lot of work. I don't know what you can cut out without reducing quality. The fact that all states have converged on similar requirements supports that.
To check that someone can give a haircut safely you have to check that they can give a haircut at all, which means the haircut needs to be at some minimal level of quality.
If you can't give a haircut then you can't give a safe haircut.
Specific example: most people expect a basic haircut for a man to trim around the ears. If I never trim around the ears then maybe I'm being safe, but you can't say I give a safe haircut because I'm not even giving a haircut as most people expect it. In particular I'm avoiding one of the most dangerous parts. You need to watch me trim around the ears in a minimally correct way to make sure I know how to do it safely.
I never said a good job, I said a minimally correct job. You can't evaluate whether someone can trim around the ears safely if their haircut is so bad they don't trim around the ears at all. I'm not sure how else to say it.
I'm not trying to convince you that a hairdresser needs 1500 hours of training to give a buzz cut.
I'm not trying to convince you that your barber needs to be able to do every possible hair procedure to give you a buzz cut. We could have barbers who are only licensed to do buzz cuts. We don't have them though because no one wants them to exist, not the barbers, schools, salons, public or government. Consider that being a barber who only gives buzz cuts is like being a programmer who only writes web-scraping scripts on freelance sites. They could exist though, theoretically.
>We don't have them though because no one wants them to exist, not the barbers, schools, salons, public or government. Consider that being a barber who only gives buzz cuts is like being a programmer who only writes web-scraping scripts on freelance sites. They could exist though, theoretically.
We don't know that because it is illegal. Most men cut use Clippers and scissors. There are businesses that operate all day doing these haircuts. You can teach someone how not to cut an ear off, poke an eye out with scissors and clippers very quickly. There is no regulatory middle option. Even if there is no demand, there could still be a regulatory middle option.
* Idaho has "Barber – Barber-stylist 1800 hours; Barber (no chemicals) 900 hours"
* Wyoming has "Barber – 1250 hours with chemical services, 1000 without chemical services"
Maybe 900 or 1000 hours still seems like a lot to you, I don't know. Given the politics of these states it's unlikely their governments are being strong-armed by labor cartels or over-regulating on general principle.
> [T]he business press has a different incentive to get the facts right, Chomsky says, which is why the FT is his regular read. “Those who Adam Smith called ‘the masters of the universe’ have to understand the universe. They have to have a tolerably realistic understanding of the world that they are managing and controlling. That’s true of political elites as well, but the business world particularly. Also, the business press essentially trust their audience. They don’t have to impose propagandistic illusions to keep the rabble under control.”
> Advocating for higher wages to fight inflation is non-sensical. It just exacerbates inflation and requires even further wage gains to keep even.
By exacerbate I suppose you're imagining a cycle where higher wages result in higher prices which result in higher wages and so on. However wages are just another price in the market and it's not clear why the cycle needs to be broken after all prices have gone up except wages. We don't need to let workers end up holding the bag yet again.
In practice in the U.S. the early part of a PhD program can be very similar to a master's. It's relatively common for people who leave PhD programs to walk away with a master's degree they didn't intend to get. It's called "mastering out."
I'm vegetarian and not vegan partly because the full purity and ingredient checking and all that is not good for my mental health. So maybe I understand where you are coming from, sort of, in a secular way.
That said I think it's important to remember that eating meat is not about you or me, it's about the animals we are (not) eating. The animal doesn't care about our reasons. If you imprisoned a cat and some days you tortured it and some days you left it alone, the cat would not care why. It could not even understand why and causing it pain for one's own spiritual growth seems, respectfully, prideful to me. There is no ethical middle path between sometimes torturing a cat and sometimes not. Probably if you told your priest about an imprisoned cat you were sometimes torturing he would tell you to release it immediately.
I trust 2,000 years of accumulated wisdom in my spiritual tradition more than I trust my own judgement. I don't completely disregard my own judgement, but I also recognize that I am easily deceived, I lack discernment, and that I cannot always trust my own motives, nor am I always aware of the consequences of my actions. That's why I have a priest, and why I rely on the traditions of my faith.
There is plenty of meat available that is almost cruelty-free. A factory farmed broiler chicken lives its entire 60,480 minutes (six weeks) in agony, while a hunted deer or pastured cow might only suffer a few minutes, and for the deer you might be saving it from an even worse fate. Maybe you are already buying meat that way.
I'm sorry that I compared what you feel to be a religious necessity to eat meat to torturing a cat. That was disrespectful. Discussions on eating meat should be less all-or-nothing. For example there is a tremendous amount of food wasted in the U.S., including animal products: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22890292/food-waste-meat-.... Reducing food waste is something I think everyone can support.
My meat intake all comes from locally raised meat where I physically go to the farm and can see how the animals are being treated.
I also agree that the "all or nothing" kind of tone that many people who advocate against eating meat takes is a hard line to sell. A "try a plant-based meal once a week" would be a much easier sell.
Do you really need 200g protein at 2500 calories? Those numbers seem off to me, 200g protein is what a big guy trying to gain a lot of muscle might eat to make absolutely sure he's getting enough, but 2500 calories is what a big guy would eat to maintain or even lose weight. Everyone is different, but you might need either less protein or more calories than you think you do.
If 200/2500 really is the goal then I'm not sure you can do it without meat, or at least without lots of protein powder supplements. The highest protein/calorie ratio for normal food I can think of is from soy milk or lentils, which are both roughly the same at around 1g/protein per 11-13 calories, and you'd have to eat those exclusively.
I'm skeptical of evolutionary psychology in general but if we think about prehistory a lot of work was doing stuff that had deadlines but you could easily understand what needed to be done. You have to go out and collect a bunch of nuts and berries, and there's a deadline because you'll starve if you don't get the food, but you know the food is out there and it's just a matter of getting it. Your ancestors have lived off food from this land for thousands of years, you know you will too. Similarly for simple crafting, you need to make the clothing or the clay pot but there's no barrier to doing it, you just have to do it. In these cases you could also have a boss, that is, some person with authority directing and judging you, but it's someone you know and someone whose role you will inevitably fill.
I think the key difference in the modern world is that success is not guaranteed, for reasons that may be well out of your control, and failure is scary with unknown consequences. We can imagine a world with pretty much the same jobs and the same work, but with more security removing the intense stress people feel.
Success wasn't guaranteed in the ancient world either. Even if you were cultivating crops, a drought you couldn't control could wipe out your crops. Or baddies could invade and steal your stuff and kill your people en masse.
Overall, we have way more security than the ancient world did. Droughts are still a problem as the western US has been seeing, but at least we're at a point today where it just means food prices go up rather than food vanishing entirely and requiring migration to other countries or something.
As for stress, largely European workers don't seem to feel the pressures that American workers do, which probably boils down to in part a mix of higher taxes leading to better safety nets as well as generally much more vacation time from work. Also politics in European countries generally isn't as polarized, though by no means is it perfect.
Farming as a necessity didn't happen until late prehistory and early history. Before that people hunted, fished or foraged for their daily food. They had nothing worth stealing or killing for or that couldn't be rebuilt quickly after an earthquake or other disaster. In the worst case they could just move a few miles away. Dying from a drought wiping out your crops or from being attacked by raiders from the mountains or from a warlord or pharaoh that claimed to rule over you didn't happen until later. Even then your own life was still simple to understand: being a farmer or shepherd or what have you.
I don't mean to say this was all perfect, but instead that when we talk about the stress of modern jobs, we should go beyond saying no one likes deadlines or bosses, because the real problem is the, for some people literally daily, uncertainty.
There's also a long history of people using environmental concerns related to overpopulation as cover for racism or other bigotry, so bringing up world population without qualification can feel, unfairly or not, like a racist dog whistle people are reluctant to engage with.