Nature, red in tooth and claw. The competitive drive is not uniquely human but it is human nature. Capitalism, for all its faults, tries to harness that nature for good. Every other system rests on an assumption of benevolence, either from the few (monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies) or the many (communism, anarchies). History has shown that assumption to be a fatal mistake.

If you’re going to propose a communist paradise as an alternative to human-sacrificing Bronze Age god-kings, I’m going to call you out as being a little bit unrealistic. Government isn’t just an idea, it’s a technology, and it relies on other technologies (communication, record-keeping, organization) to function.

The kinship networks of pre-agrarian indigenous groups worked just fine when everyone knew each other. Where things started getting difficult is when agriculture paved the way for population explosions.

The U.S. can’t build like China does. Too many stakeholders to satisfy. Labour too expensive. Too many regulations. The high-speed rail line from San Francisco to LA is going to cost more than all of China’s high-speed rail projects combined!

Millions of deaths compared to what alternative? The difficulty with attributing causes in history is that we have no ability to conduct controlled experiments.

Did they test the soil and plant a control crop of corn only in nearby similar conditions?

When it comes to gardening I’ve heard countless stories of people trying some intervention and declaring “it works for me” without ever having tested the conditions or using a control. Those kinds of results can be safely ignored as unscientific.

Heck, one thing I’ve noticed with gardening is that even if you attempt to plant a bunch of crops under identical conditions (as best as you can manage) there’s so much variability that you get widely varying yields from one plant to another for completely unknown reasons.

I’d really be interested to see a comparison between the costs of electrifying the rail network vs using synthetic diesel for freight throughout the US.

Unlike cars or semi trucks, diesel-electric locomotives are extremely efficient. On the other hand, electrifying the many thousands of miles of track that run through large, unpopulated areas of the US seems like a monumental challenge that would yield far fewer benefits over electrifying cars.

I delivered the newspaper when I was 13. Is that such an alien idea? I used the money to buy my first computer.

There is no Biden election gamble. US presidential elections happen every 4 years whether Biden (or any other president) likes it or not.

It’s a Macron election gamble because he actually called the election himself to try to benefit himself. This might turn out to backfire.

Is there any evidence that living legumes make the nitrogen they fix available to other plants nearby? I thought they locked it up in root nodules and it only becomes bioavailable if you chop and drop the legumes so that the nodules break down and release nitrogen into the surrounding soil. Otherwise the legumes are just going to use the nitrogen for their own growth.

Yes, it’s actually huge. Especially for maintaining a weapon as complicated as an Abrams tank. If it can be repaired close to the front lines then that has the potential to cut days off the turnaround time compared to towing it over to Poland.

Why not do that? Because of inflation, you lose money doing that. It’s the last resort of someone who has no other options for saving their money, such as low level drug dealers.

You mean by investing the stock market? Or literal cash under the mattress?

There are millions of people in the U.S. whose wealth comes from the increase in the property value of their family home. This is unearned wealth.

Of course, you’ll have a hard time convincing most people of that last bit. Which is why billionaires are the more popular enemy rather than the middle class.

Too broad. Wealth hoarder describes everyone with a mortgage as well as grandma Sally and her pension plan. Anyone who saves for retirement is a wealth hoarder.

I think that’s debatable. Personally, I went to university and had a great time there. Apart from learning, that phase of my life had lots of events, parties and spending time with friends. I always saw it as a priviledge that I had the opportunity to gather so much knowledge. Especially as school and university are paid for by the state where I live.

When I said no one, I didn’t mean literally zero people. I’m sure if you announced a project to launch a manned spacecraft into the sun you’d get people volunteering for the suicide mission. What I meant is that you’ll never get enough people to do it based on personal interest alone.

For every person like you who loved studying engineering in school (with all the 7 course per semester schedules, insane 8 hour days in classes plus 40+ hours of homework, “hell week” of nonstop midterms, and brutal “weed-out” final exams) there’s going to be thousands of others who just won’t bother because the pay is no better than what a janitor makes. Heck, why not study philosophy or medieval history instead?

And then when you get past school you get to the real problem: many of the jobs in these fields are incredibly dull. People might go to aerospace engineering school with big dreams of designing the next Concorde jet, yet find themselves doing nothing but paperwork review for Boeing. You think the Boeing safety scandals are bad enough in today’s capitalist world where the company is motivated by profit and the engineers are highly paid? Try getting anyone to take safety seriously when you pay everyone the same so there’s no real disincentive to avoid getting fired.

And that’s the other elephant in the room with engineering. In civil engineering the lead engineer has to sign off (and stamp with their professional seal) the plans for a project. If the building later collapses that engineer can be held criminally responsible (and face jail time) should the design be deemed unsafe by the investigation. Without paying the lead engineer any more than a junior engineer, how are you going to get anyone to accept that personal risk on themselves for no compensation whatsoever?

This applies to many other critical jobs where health and safety are on the line. Similarly for jobs where the worker is risking their own life. If you can’t compensate them for this additional personal risk (financial, criminal, or life and limb) then you’re going to have a very hard time finding people to take the job.

The other side of the coin is that some jobs will become extremely popular just because they are more fun to do. Since you can’t pay these folks any less to do the fun jobs, you’ll have a hard time deciding who is allowed to do the fun stuff and who gets stuck with the boring/dirty/dangerous/disgusting/undesirable jobs.

For example, actuarial science was a very popular major to study at my university. The field is competitive to get into and highly paid. However the job itself has a very high turnover due to people voluntarily choosing to leave! The work is so damn boring that even with high pay they can’t convince people to stay! With low pay the problem is going to be even worse. You’re going to have to lower the bar to let less intelligent/skilled people into the job but that is not likely to turn out well because the job is very technical to begin with.

*Uninstall Windows, problem solved.

FTFY

But if you tell people that everyone should make the same no matter if it’s room keeping or an engineer, they mostly get upset. Because **they** derserve better than those dumb, lazy fuckers who didn’t even go to school blahblahblah

That’s a pretty uncharitable take. Whether people get upset or not is irrelevant. What matters is what people’s incentives are and how they respond to them.

If you pay janitors the same as engineers then no one will bother going to school to study engineering. The whole incentive structure of your economy evaporates, leading to collapse.

That’s a philosophical question, not a scientific one, since it’s by definition beyond the ability of science to answer. It suffers from the infinite regress problem which many people invoke God to solve (the uncaused cause) but that’s not very satisfying, is it?

It makes me so depressed thinking about how many thousands of Ukrainian lives could’ve been saved by just giving Ukraine full and enthusiastic support immediately instead of dragging it out this long.

That’s just ridiculous to me. Why? I have had fries plenty of times which were way better than McDonald fries and all they were made of was potatoes, oil, and salt. The perfect French fry doesn’t need anything other than that. It’s all about choosing the right potato variety and then it all comes down to cooking technique.

The fact that McDonald puts anything else in their fries just makes me shake my head.