#address conservation issues in those populations

[genderqueerforestcreature]

Adding that many major zoos & aquariums are part of the AZA and heavily involved in conservation work (very different from for-profit entertainment locations like SeaWorld in that animals).

When I was younger, I volunteered at an aquarium and remember some people being upset seeing animals there, too. One thing many people don’t realize is that a aquariums are incredible for researching & creating solutions for problems related to climate change, wildlife trafficking, endangered species, animal injuries related to oil spills/boats/other manmade issues, etc. They may have breeding programs in populations that are growing smaller to prevent extinction. Aquariums have great rehabilitation programs (Sometimes the animal is rehabilitated & released and is only at the aquarium a short time, often behind the scenes where visitors wouldn’t see. Other times when an animal has a major health problem where it would otherwise not survive in the wild it gets to live a longer life where it’s taken care of and guests get the chance to make connections with it & learn empathy for other kinds of life.). The animals have access to veterinary care and regular monitoring for their health from people who get to know and care about them. There’s a reason you don’t see big sharks or cetaceans at every aquarium— animals are not there for entertainment and are only housed as long as is beneficial for them in conditions that are safe for them.

Marine life isn’t there for entertainment. It’s part of a larger education and conservation program and when in public view there are opportunities to connect with them and learn about the issues that are impacting wildlife today. The first step in addressing animal welfare and climate change and staying on top of conservation issues in non-human life is getting people to care and be curious. There’s no simpler way than letting them get face to face with creatures they would never see or think much about in their everyday life and educating about their lives and needs.

One thing that pisses me off is people seeing fish in aquariums (the establishments, not home aquariums) and being like “It’s so sad because the ocean is so big and the tank is so small and they’ll never know freedom blah blah blah-“ I’m not talking about sharks and marine mammals here but the majority of fish are not at all bothered by being in an aquarium instead of the open ocean. Like, I personally would love to be a little clown fish in one of those big reef tanks. Fed regularly. Whole team of people monitoring my health and well-being. No predators. Medicated if I show signs of illness. Aquarium fish have cushy gigs in comparison to their wild companions.

[enarei]

( this is a response to this zine [link]. the intent of this is not to offer some prescriptivist counter-position for only using "transgender", I don't personally have an issue with people using "transsexual" either way, and use it for myself occasionally, I just think the way in which that message is being conveyed is, like, incredibly misleading and reductive at best, and seems like a fantastical rewriting of history to justify transmisogyny at worst )

Focusing on the fact "transsexualism" was coined by Magnus Hirschfeld to argue against it being shunned by parts of the trans community, at least as an umbrella term (in contrast to "transgender"), does a disservice to the history of how the term "transsexual" was actually used in English for most its existence. We can't attribute the decades old controversy surrounding these terms exclusively to the individuals who coined them (neither of which were trans themselves), and ignore the context in which they were actually introduced and applied to the trans community, what relationship they fostered with the people they were trying to describe, and which segments of the population were discouraged from using them.

"Transsexual" emerged, in the English language, as a strongly pathologized term. The concept of the "transvestite" (cross-dresser), which the zine also references, was used in contrast to it, to highlight the difference between patients deemed "trans" enough to be allowed to access hormones and medically transition, and those whose "transness" was deemed merely a temporary ailment, or one deemed not serious enough to intervene. This wasn't a proactive distinction, emerging internally from the community itself, but rather from doctors who started to gatekeep access to the newly created field of medical transition based on arbitrary characteristics, with very little input from the patients they were supposed to be helping

The concept of the "true transsexual", which was simultaneously defined and reified in various typologies over the years, was fundamentally exclusionary in nature. Irrespective of who coined it, the reason "transgender" largely replaced transsexual in scope is because of this, because the category of people it was intended to describe was impossibly insular and stratified in terms of race, class, and sexuality, "transsexual" as a medical label was afforded on the basis of one being allowed to, rather than having a desire to undergo some form of medical transition. To those with the authority to actually prescribe hormones, it was never remotely as inclusive as it is being suggested here, and it should be immediately clear to anyone who has been denied access to any form of trans healthcare in the past.

It's extremely misleading to pretend the reason it is a less common term nowadays is just because it's perceived as "outdated". The very reason "transsexual" is undergoing a revival today is because the original basis for the exclusionary way in which it was employed has lost some significance due to the mechanisms used to enforce it losing relevance in the part of the world where it originated: informed consent practices have become increasingly common in the United States, despite all the setbacks in conservative states, a growing number of trans* people have only known an environment where medical gatekeeping is not as extreme; to most people a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria is no longer seen as a requirement for someone to describe themselves as trans or be addressed with their preferred identity, because transness is no longer seen as an exclusively medical phenomenon, both by medical institutions, and society at large. Therefore, in the English language, in 2023, "transsexual" can ostensibly be used by anyone, regardless of conforming to a medical diagnosis, and regardless of strict conformance to gender roles.

However, this is a very, very recent phenomenon. It's important to remember easy/informed consent to hormones is far from being the norm in the majority of the world, even the English speaking one (or the US for that matter?), and a majority of trans people still have to grapple with performing "true transsexuality" as a fact of life to access trans healthcare, while dealing with incredibly shit doctors who believe all trans people are straight, hate their genitals—and particularly of transfeminine people—that they must pass to begin with to be allowed to transition. None of the examples cited here would be eligible for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria under existing criteria in the vast majority of practices, be allowed to medically transition, and be considered "transsexual" in the sense OP is implying, and this is more pertinent as to why the term has waned in use relative to "transgender" or just "trans" than what the individual who coined it may have originally intended—Magnus Hirschfeld, despite his contributions to trans people in Germany, did not have much influence in how the concept of "transsexuality" continued to be employed after his death, David Oliver Cauldwell, in reintroducing it to English as a "psychopathy", did; Harry Benjamin, Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard, those who contributed to the WPATH, DSM and other bodies used to categorize transness and which types of bodies should be allowed to access gender affirming healthcare, had far more influence in trans people's actual experience of the term.

What many people seem to miss about the term becoming popular again, is that its very use by people who obviously do not conform to its original meaning in medical institutions & academia is "cool" today because it is somewhat ironic in nature: the trannies who top and exclusively fuck other trans women, would never, ever, be allowed to call themselves "transsexual" by any respected sexologist involved in the dissemination of the term in medical journals and across the world, we would be labelled autogynephiles, transvestites, and faggots instead. It's very telling how easy it is for CAFABs to argue people weren't victimized by its use and they only remember it as something "comforting", given they were generally never subjected to the same stringent criteria to be allowed to transition.

Omitting this, to argue instead that "transsexual" was never employed in a harmful way, that people dislike it simply because it's old, imo does a huge disservice to trans people who actually have had to put up with being told they aren't "transsexual" enough to have agency over their bodies.

[mmmthornton]

i don't hate gay people, i am a gay person and i.love gay people. i didn't smear her, i rightfully called her out on her transphobia, because people need to know she (and you) align yourself with those who smear people like me as pedophiles and rapists.

For context: https://www.tumblr.com/butch-reidentified/719311495708753921/pajrc1234-blocked-me-before-even-commenting-that I'm not sure why you sent this anon; i thought at first that maybe @pajrc1234 is a side blog but its the one you replied on? In any case, since my message to YOU was off anon and you used "I" to address yourself, for transparency I'm keeping your information here.

Hey, i'm really angry about this but I'm holding myself back from being mean and sarcastic to make a point.

The whataboutism? Stops fucking here. There ARE issues in the gay community. There ARE issues with lesbophobia, misogyny, there is petty drama, there is stupid bullshit, there is every conceivable kind of human flaw and foible to be found in human beings under the LGBT umbrella. Do you know why that is? Its because we're human beings, with all the variety that that entails.

That means that, for a community to still be able to come together, we need to recognize we'll bruise some elbows and even come across Genuine Bad Actors in all areas of life. We deserve to look out for OTHERS in our community by calling out behavior - BEHAVIOR - itself that is harmful.

What that does NOT MEAN. Is that you start a witch hunt, targeting almost EXCLUSIVELY same-sex attracted woman. for THINKING or ASSOCIATING with the "wrong" ideas or people.

Do you notice what I did there? Do you recognize theres a difference between "BEHAVIOR" and "THINKING"? or even "CRITIQUING"? Because I don't know that you do! And i don't know if a lot of the loudest voices in "queer activism" these days knows that either. Because it seems to me its pretty clear the people who are actually COMMITING the hate crimes that target gay people (uhhhh including trans women, because thats the only demographic anyone wants to talk about when they go into a lesbians inbox), are NOT people IN the community sharing tragic and traumatic events from their own lives.

Lesbians are members of the LGBT Community. Lesbians have a RIGHT to to be here, and we have a RIGHT to discus the things that are hurting us, same as anyone else.

What you DON'T have a right to do, is police the lived experiences of lesbians on the internet or otherwise, to play out your own victim complex. If YOU BELIEVE that eeeeveryone is out to get you, and that SOMEHOW the worst participants are lesbians on tumblr, I need you to know that is pathetic of you.

Women to start with - Cis women even, if you want to be specific - have the lowest possible numbers for violence. Cis women have the lowest numbers for supporting conservative ideas - by voting records! We have that data. Add on top of that, lesbians are a TINY minority of all cis women. So, a minority of a population that is more frequently targeted for violence is SO SCARY to you, that you HAVE to defensively smear their name before they can get you?

Grow the fuck up. I don't actually believe you're "afraid" of violence from lesbian women. I think you just found a way to be a bully and have your victim cake too. Women aren't required to be extra special niceys to you, the only thing we have to do is survive amidst the other factors that make that difficult, and honestly if you have to turn any attempt at LGBT healing into "But what if you maybe someday possibly align yourself with my actual enemies?!" I think you're a wuss. If you actually cared about chasing out bad actors and right wing extremists, you wouldn't go after the demographic that is the LEAST likely to vote republican.

You don't go after the real enemies, because you KNOW that men are more likely to be violent and abusive and harass you and do all the things that you accuse "TERF"s of doing. You're more afraid of them than you are willing to face the problem, and women are an easy target to you because of that. That is the definition of a coward. Hell, that's probably what got you so mad! @butch-reidentified was in a horrifying situation and survived, WHILE helping someone else, and it triggered you so badly you just dug deep into your ugly woman-hating soul to immediately slander her name and make it about YOU.

You. Are. Pathetic. Get better or shut up.

[franzdesabille-11]

SEX EDUCATION:HAVEY OR WALEY

In our country, sex education is a crucial aspect of personal development, yet it remains a shrouded and misunderstanding kind of topic. We all want the best education for our kids, including sex education. Sex education helps young people learn how to have healthy relationships, make informed decisions, love themselves for who they are, and have respect and compassion for all, including those who are different from them.

We all know that Philippines is predominantly a Christian country, the centre of Christianity in Southeast Asia. A home where being a conservative person lingers as tradition. Approximately, more than 80% of the inhabitants are Roman Catholics. Religion has a big impact in a person's sexuality, especially here where conservatism is given the highest importance. We believe that women should act gently, decently and modestly. But, all of these were in the old times and we are now living in the modern world. We are at this time where teenagers are curious about anything, particularly about sex.

Like any other topic, there are advantages and disadvantages in sex education. The spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases in young people is mainly attributed to low rates of contraceptive use and the lack of information on safe sex practices. In having a proper school-based sex education, it will make a positive impact on knowledge of methods to prevent STDs and skills in using condoms by youths.

On the other hand, teenagers who are educated are still prying to have sex in their early age. They are curious what they would feel with that kind of experience.

The Philippines passed the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Act) after a 14-year wait. Through the act, the government integrated sex education into the public school curriculum for students ages 10 to 19. The Philippines also gave funding for free or subsidized contraceptives at health centers and public schools.The government passed the RH Act in response to the many health issues impacting the country, such as infant mortality, pregnancy-related deaths and a rise in HIV/AIDS cases. Lack of knowledge about reproductive health is significantly associated with poverty, especially in regard to overpopulation. Therefore, the RH Act aims to help the population make informed decisions about their reproductive health.

Therefore I agree that sex education must be implemented because the general purpose of sex education is to inform youth on topics including sex, sexuality and bodily development. Quality sex education can lead to better prevention in STDs and unwanted pregnancy. Additionally, it decreases the risks of having unsafe sex and increases responsible family planning. To help address issues, like overpopulation, high rates of teen pregnancy and the rise of HIV, the Philippines is gradually implementing sex education and accessibility to contraceptives.

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

It is incredible how many public figures, including our own Leader of the Opposition, have struggled to answer the simple question, “What is a woman?”. Of course, the truth is that they are almost certainly able to answer the question but are afraid to do so lest they unleash the rage of the increasingly aggressive trans-lobby.

I believe that, in a free society, people are entitled to live their lives in the way that they want, as long as it does not interfere with the freedom, safety and rights of others, particularly those younger and more vulnerable than themselves. That, surely, is a position most Conservatives should support. This must be supplemented with a staunch defence of free speech so that the issues can be openly discussed, by those with widely differing views, without the intimidation and aggressive bullying of the anti-family, anti-women extremists.

We should approach the debate around trans rights with rationality, proportion and compassion.

Rationality because facts matter, and the value of a particular view is not determined by the strength by which it is held but by reference to science and empiricism. Proportion because we cannot let the noise of an angry minority mask the fact that we are talking about a very small number of people in the population whose problems need to be addressed but who have no right to enforce views on the majority with which the majority disagrees or disapproves.

And compassion because behind all the political noise, bullying and intimidation, there are genuine individuals in pain and distress who deserve our sympathy and support.

For me, the most worrying element in the entire trans rights debate is the safety and protection of children. A recent report from the think tank Policy Exchange exposed a neglect of safeguarding at the expense of gender identity. It found that only 28 per cent of schools are reliably informing parents as soon as a child discloses feelings of gender distress and at least 19 per cent of schools are not maintaining single sex toilets.

The report also shows that 72 per cent of schools are teaching that people have a gender identity that may be different from their biological sex and 25 per cent are teaching that some people or children “may be born in the wrong body.”

Clearly, teaching unions and other representative groups should give a lot more thought to the difficult, and personally painful, tasks being faced by many teachers and less weight to the pressures coming from activists.

The medical profession should take note, too. The willingness of many clinicians to rush to agreement for surgical and hormonal treatments may reap a wild whirlwind in the future. There is a real danger that ill-thought through surgical interventions, such as double mastectomy or orchidectomy (castration) or complex hormonal treatments (that may be irreversible), will lead to increased human suffering in the long-term.

We must also protect our right to free speech. The way in which extremists in the trans movement have sought to close down debate, including on safe spaces for women, is nothing less than an attempt at brutal censorship, worthy of the most repressive regimes.

That is why all of us, whatever our views on the subject of trans rights itself, must unite in making it abundantly clear that everyone, celebrity or not, is absolutely entitled to their views and to express them freely in a free society without fear of violence or intimidation.

Proportionate, rational and compassionate debate should be our watchwords alongside a resolute defence of young people and freedom of speech. There is too much at stake to stay silent.

-------------------

Dr Liam Fox is a former Defence and International Trade Secretary 

[source]

[reasonsforhope]

One country in the [climate-change] firing line is Cape Verde. The West African island nation, where 80% of the population lives on the coast, is already feeling the brunt of rising sea levels and increasing ocean acidity on its infrastructure, tourism, biodiversity and fisheries.

The country desperately needs to both mitigate and adapt to these problems, but – as with many Global South countries at present – simply lacks the budget to do it: Cape Verde’s debt reached an all-time high of 157% of GDP in 2021.

In a bid to address both issues simultaneously, the country has signed a novel agreement with Portugal to swap some of its debt for investments into an environmental and climate fund. The former Portuguese colony owes the Portuguese state €140m ($148m) and Portuguese banks €400m.

On a state visit to Cape Verde on 23 January, Portuguese Prime Minister António Costa announced the debt would be put towards Cape Verde’s energy transition and fight against climate change. Costa earmarked projects involving energy efficiency, renewable energy and green hydrogen as possible targets for the fund.

“This is a new seed that we sow in our future cooperation,” said Costa. “Climate change is a challenge that takes place on a global scale and no country will be sustainable if all countries are not sustainable.”

“Debt-for-climate swaps” allow countries to reduce their debt obligations in exchange for a commitment to finance domestic climate and nature projects with the freed-up financial resources. The concept has been knocking about since the 1980s, typically geared at nature conservation. However, after recent deals for Barbados, Belize and the Seychelles, and huge $800m and $1bn agreements in the offing for Ecuador and Sri Lanka, is this financial instrument finally coming of age?

How It Works

Debt-for-climate swaps typically follow a formula. First, a creditor [here, a group or government that money is owed to] agrees to reduce debt, either by converting it into local currency, lowering the interest rate, writing off some of the debt, or a combination of all three. The debtor will then use the saved money for initiatives aimed at increasing climate resilience, lowering greenhouse gas emissions or protecting biodiversity.

The original 'debt-for-nature swaps' began as small, trilateral deals, with NGOs buying sovereign debt owed to commercial banks to redirect payments towards nature projects. They have since evolved into larger, bilateral deals between creditors and debtors...

Debt-for-climate swaps free up fiscal resources so governments can improve resilience and transition to a low-carbon economy without causing a fiscal crisis or sacrificing spending on other development priorities. [These swaps] can create additional revenue for countries with valuable biodiversity or carbon sinks by allowing them to charge others to protect those assets, thereby providing a global public good.

Swaps can even result in an upgrade to a country’s sovereign credit rating, as was the case in Belize, which makes government borrowing cheaper [and improves the country's economy.]

Right now, these [swaps] are needed more than ever, with low-income countries dealing with multiple crises that have put huge pressure on public debt...

Debt-for-climate swaps: “Increasing in size and scale”

Although debt-for-climate swaps are not new, until recently the amount of finance raised globally from the instrument has been modest – just $1bn between 1987 and 2003, according to one OECD study. Just three of the 140 swaps over the past 35 years have had a value of more than $250m, according to the African Development Bank. The average size was a mere $26.6m.

However, the market has steadily picked up pace over the past two decades... In 2016, the government of the Seychelles signed a landmark agreement with developed nation creditor group the Paris Club, supported by NGO The Nature Conservancy (TNC), for a $22m investment in marine conservation.

The government of Belize followed suit in 2021 by issuing a $364m blue bond – a debt instrument to finance marine and ocean-focused sustainability projects – to buy back $550m of commercial debt to use for marine conservation and debt sustainability.

Then, last year, Barbados completed a $150m transaction, supported by the TNC and the Inter-American Development Bank, allowing the country to reduce its borrowing costs and use savings to finance marine conservation.

“Two or three years ago, we were talking about $50m deals,” says Widge. “Now they have gone to $250–300m, so they are definitely increasing in size and scale.”

Indeed, the success of the deals for the Seychelles, Belize and Barbados, along with the debt distress sweeping across the Global South, has sparked an uptick of interest in the model.

Ecuador is reported to be in negotiations with banks and a non-profit for an $800m deal, and Sri Lanka is discussing a $1bn transaction – which would be the biggest swap to date."

-via Energy Monitor, 2/1/23

Note: I'm leaving out my massive rant about how the vast majority of this debt is due to the damages of colonialism. And also countries being forced to "PAY BACK" COLONIZERS FOR THEIR OWN FREEDOM for decades or in some cases centuries (particularly infuriating example: Haiti). Debt-for-climate swaps are good news, and one way to help right this massive historic and ongoing economic wrong

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Rachel M. Cohen at Vox:

Abortion was always slated to be a top issue in the 2024 presidential election. But virtually no one predicted that politicians would be openly blasting those ambivalent about having children. “We are effectively run in this country … by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they wanna make the rest of the country miserable, too,” J.D. Vance, the Republican vice presidential nominee, said in a now-famous statement in 2021. “It’s just a basic fact. You look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children.” That wasn’t all on the subject from Vance. He also argued in 2021 that parents should get additional votes on their children’s behalf. People without kids “should face the consequences and the reality,” he said. Other conservative voices have joined in. Speaking in Vance’s defense last week, Blake Masters, the former Arizona Senate candidate, said bluntly that people without children shouldn’t lead in politics: “If you aren’t running or can’t run a household of your own, how can you relate to a constituency of families, or govern wisely with respect to future generations?” he asked.

Elon Musk, the billionaire Tesla CEO, weighed in to call Harris an “extinctionist” because she noted some young people cite climate anxiety as a reason not to have kids. “The natural extension of her philosophy would be a de facto holocaust for all of humanity!” Musk concluded. One starting place to understand where all this is coming from is pronatalism: a broad ideological movement driven by concern that the world is not producing enough children and that society should work to change that. Not all pronatalists are politically conservative, and not all conservatives are particularly pronatalist. People with different backgrounds and ideologies are concerned about what a shrinking population will mean for future generations, though the movement does include anti-abortion advocates like Vance and Masters who have been more vocal. Still other card-carrying pronatalists staunchly oppose coercing women into having children they don’t want.

Those worried about declining birth rates paint a scary picture of the future. As the number of babies dwindles, the number of workers will shrink, too. There will be fewer people paying taxes to support welfare systems, which will still be supporting large elderly populations. The result, they warn, will be economic stagnation and political strife: higher unemployment, more acute labor shortages, diminished investment, fewer innovations, and greater poverty. There is some reason to be wary of these grim predictions. Past population panics have fueled some of the world’s most horrific chapters. Back when leaders thought the world was producing too many humans, governments around the globe pushed mass sterilization campaigns, forced abortions, and gruesome eugenic regimes.

Others see the increased focus on birth rates as a way to scapegoat individuals — primarily women — for societal issues that politicians could otherwise address, such as improving care for the elderly or taxing the rich more aggressively. That there’s a “proximate economic problem … doesn’t necessarily mean increasing birth rates is the solution,” said Nancy Folbre, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The concerns about fertility aren’t taking place in a political vacuum, in the US or anywhere else. Around the world, far-right leaders have campaigned on platforms to roll back abortion rights, restrict immigration, and boost the number of native-born children. In China, government officials recently scrapped gender equality as a priority and advised women “to establish a correct outlook on marriage and love, childbirth, and family.” In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has promoted a policy of “procreation not immigration.”

Even talking about population decline as an issue can feel risky. Though not all pronatalists are against reproductive rights, a louder conversation that frames falling birth rates as a major problem inevitably boosts the issue’s salience, creating space for potentially more reactionary ideas.

[...]

The darker corners of the pronatalism movement

Not everyone concerned about falling birth rates is interested in gender equity or voluntary solutions. Last December, a relatively fringe group gathered in Austin for the first-ever Natal Conference to discuss boosting babies, with some guest speakers decrying the liberal cultural forces they see as responsible for the world’s decline. Peachy Keenan, a pseudonym for one conservative speaker, argued her fellow pronatalists need to make motherhood and large families a more hotly desired status symbol, but to avoid “market[ing] natalism” to progressive feminists. Other speakers included right-wing blogger Charles Haywood, who lamented that “the actual meaning of masculinity has been destroyed by vampire feminists,” and Malcolm and Simone Collins, who were subjects of a viral Guardian profile earlier this year that revealed they smack their children. This corner of “pronatalism” is composed mostly of tech enthusiasts and hyper-rationalist types, religious fundamentalists and some far-right activists worried about immigration and demographic change. One of the most prominent members of this coalition is billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who claimed the falling fertility rate is “the biggest danger civilization faces, by far.” Musk recently led the push to get Vance nominated as Donald Trump’s vice president.

See Also:

MMFA: Right-wing media falsely claim that Kamala Harris is telling Americans not to have kids because of climate change

[davestriderascend]

this is going to be the most niche take in the entire fucking world but like. jesus chrsit after literally getting my degree in a minority studies major and slogging through hundreds of academic papers and talking to ppl in the hippie dippie social justice major at a ridiculously hippie dippie social justice fueled school. reading kankris text is 1) not only sadly easy now but 2) SO. FUNNY. in a way i just dont know if i can explain to non minority studies majors.

like. when youre studying minority studies it gets to a certain point where like. you cannot possibly address all of the social problems at once. at a certain point you just have to make assumptions that people know what youre talking about otherwise you will make disclaimers forever and ever. but kankri DOESNT. he just. KEEPS. MAKING. DISCLAIMERS. and its HYSTERICAL bc before you learn to navigate those conversations like sometimes people really do sound like that. and when you get THAT DEEP into these movements like the shit hes saying doesnt even sound that insane anymore liek yeah why not why WOULDNT he be right. hes making some points. in the worst and most insufferable way possible bc having conversations about social justice is a completely different skillset than learning about and being aware of social justice issues.

and i know i know i know that kankri is a spoof of tumblr sjws and hussies way of poking fun at a very specific era and population of (largely performative) activist, and youre not meant to take anything kankri says seriously and a lot of the shit he says is clearly a joke, but its like. its like when conservatives are like "this is the world the liberals want" and its like theyre completely making fun of us but also. theyre kinda going off rn. like yeah actually why DONT we add that to the agenda?? like kankri starts talking about off spectrum hues and identification and polyblooded trolls and all this shit and its like thats insane and hussies making jokes rn but also......... what if.............................................. i mean like maybe kankri has a point.................LALKJSDNFLKSJDNFSLDF

but also kankris like. rudeness and attitude when talking about these issues is ALSO rlly similar to a lot of jerks i knew in my major so its like LMAOS SKLDJFSNDLKFJNSDG

THE WHOLE THING IS JUST RLLY FUNNY TO ME OK

[bopinion]

2024 / 21

Aperçu of the Week

"That these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

(US-President Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg address 1863)

Bad News of the Week

“Fuck you, international order!” is apparently the current motto of the Netanyahu government. I almost wrote “the Israeli junta”. Because the style is the same. Of course Israel and its citizens have become victims of a despicable attack by Hamas. And of course they have the right to defend themselves against it. And to do their utmost to free the hostages who are still being held by the terrorists. But like this?

What probably upsets me the most is the timing. First the International Court of Justice at The Hague demands an immediate halt to the military offensive in Rafah because it is victimizing the civilian population there and the civilian population from northern Gaza that has fled there. The humanitarian situation in the city is “catastrophic”. This is actually a binding decision by the highest court on earth. And which Israel is responding to by bombing a refugee tent camp in - exactly - Rafah.

Any criticism of this (and in fact any) decision by the Israeli government is reflexively interpreted as anti-Semitic. As if it were a carte blanche to be able to get away with anything. At least it gives me hope that so many Israeli citizens are taking to the streets against Benjamin Netanyahu and his hardline coalition. Because these are voters. Who will probably not vote for him (again) next time. But for politicians with a sense of proportion. And humanity. So that this maltreated region can finally find some peace.

Good News of the Week

Germany has just celebrated the 75th anniversary of his constitution: the "Basic Law" (Grundgesetz). Yes, we are a very young democracy. It was only founded after the Second World War. We were lucky enough to be able to benefit not only from our own experiences (Weimar Republic), but also from those of other nations. That is why we do not have the dominance of a leading state or unelected parliamentarians as in the United Kingdom. There are also no glaring imbalances in federalism or political influence on the highest court as in the USA.

Basically, it can be said that our political system works. And that, by and large, it lives up to the standards that should be expected of a modern democracy. To be honest, I would just like to see a little more direct co-determination like in Switzerland and question the proportional representation of states in the Bundesrat (the German federal chamber) - but those are other issues. I'm not popping open any champagne to celebrate our Basic Law. But I am simply satisfied.

Perhaps it's no coincidence that French President Emmanuel Macron was coming to Germany for an extended state visit precisely on this anniversary. After all, the relationship between our two countries has evolved from arch-enemies to friendly neighbors (see the hint, Bibi?). And assume joint responsibility in Europe. Hand in hand. Perhaps I should think again about the champagne - after all, it comes from France.

Personal happy moment of the week

My son reached the minimum age of 16 just in time for the European elections. And he had been thinking about it before the election. So I'm not only pleased that he can now have an active say in politics. But also that he probably made a good choice (I don't know, because I hold the secrecy of the ballot sacred) when he and his mother went to the town hall to vote. After all, political education is first and foremost the responsibility of the parental home. I am satisfied that I seem to have lived up to my role model function.

I couldn't care less...

...that the CDU/CSU (Conservatives), SPD (Social Democrats), Greens, FDP (Liberals) and Left parties have agreed on a code of conduct to comply with fairness rules in election campaigns. After all, these are just the “usual suspects” from the democratic party spectrum. The far-right AfD (Alternative für Deutschland / Alternative for Germany) is not one of them. Logical really, because they are neither fair nor democratic.

It's fine with me...

...that Spain, Ireland and Norway have recognized Palestine as a sovereign state. I realize that this is rather symbolic. But it's a strong sign. For which Germany is too weak. For the well-known reasons.

As I write this...

...China is sending more fighter jets into Taiwan's airspace than ever before. Because Lai Ching-te, a (democratically elected!) president who is clearly critical of China, has taken office. Which can certainly be understood as a declaration of the will of the people.

Post Scriptum

In Thuringia - the German federal state in which it has the highest approval ratings - the AfD failed to make the feared breakthrough into local political bodies in the community elections. Yes, they were able to make gains. And yes, a recognized neo-Nazi made it into the run-off election for district administrator. But the signal effect for the upcoming state elections in the fall did not materialize. Probably also because even the most uninformed voter had to be aware of the new scandals of this more than questionable party that emerge every week. Maybe this will also happen in the USA with Donald Trump and his Republican puppet theater. Maybe.

[mariacallous]

Lee Anderson’s claim that the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, is controlled by Islamists has thrown the spotlight once again on Islamophobia within the Conservative party. While Anderson has had the whip withdrawn, it is clear that he would have been let off if he had simply apologised. Many of his colleagues were furious that he was even sanctioned;a grassroots Tory petition was set up demanding that the whip be restored as soon as possible, and Anderson says other Tory MPs have told him they believe he spoke the truth.

It’s clear from the events of the past week that Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment run deep in the Conservative party – but new polling from Hope Not Hate, conducted by Opinium earlier this month, illustrates the problem starkly.

A clear majority of 521 Conservative party members (58%) surveyed by Opinium think Islam is a threat to the British way of life, while only 18% believe the two are compatible. Over half think it’s true that “Parts of many European cities are under the control of Sharia Law and are ‘no-go’ zones for non-Muslims”, with only a fifth thinking that statement is false. Twice as many party members have a negative view of Muslims as those who have a positive view.

These statistics are depressing but sadly unsurprising.

For many years, Conservative members and activists have complained of Islamophobia within the party, yet those complaints have been ignored, dismissed and belittled.

In 2020, Hope Not Hate wrote a submission to the Singh inquiry about the level of anti-Muslim prejudice in the Conservative party. We included polling data of Conservative party members, a list of Conservative councillors who had expressed anti-Muslim views, and suggestions about how to improve the party’s internal processes in dealing with racism.

However, the inquiry – launched by Boris Johnson after the former prime minister was put on the spot by Sajid Javid in a TV debate – was, by design, shockingly narrow. It focused on internal processes rather than addressing prejudice itself. As we wrote at the time: “The report fails to recognise the institutional nature of Islamophobia in the party. It ignores the cultural issues amongst grassroots members, & how a number of members are able to make Islamophobic comments, and are aided and abetted by a complaints system not fit for purpose.”

Even the inquiry’s few positive recommendations have been largely ignored and not implemented – to the point that, if anything, our newpolling finds that attitudes to Muslims have worsened since then. When we polled Conservative party members in 2020, we found that 47% thought Islam was a threat to the British way of life. Now 58% do.

Four out of five members think that the UK should be prepared to ignore and/or overrule human rights legislation and the European convention on human rights to ensure asylum seekers are sent to Rwanda. And when asked what three words best describe the government’s approach to immigration, 52% describe it as not strong enough, while 41% say it is ineffective and 28% say weak.

The views of Conservative party members are far more extreme than those of the population as a whole. Compared with the 58% of Conservative party members who think Islam is a threat to the British way of life, 30% of the UK public do.

Suella Braverman wrote last week that “the Islamists, the extremists and the anti-Semites are in charge now”, and the Conservative party has been unable to explain clearly why these comments did not merit suspension but Anderson’s did. Indeed, it won’t describe Anderson’s comments as Islamophobic.

It has been left to a handful of brave Conservatives to call out the prejudice on display and challenge the party’s actions: Sayeeda Warsi, the former MP and Theresa May’s chief of staff Gavin Barwell, the former justice minister Robert Buckland and the former home secretary Sajid Javid.

Feeling the pressure of the threat from Reform UK, and perhaps even inspired by the rise of the radical right across Europe and Trump’s campaign to return as president in the United States, the Conservative party is shifting rapidly to the right. Be it on immigration or climate action, Rishi Sunak is increasingly adopting hardline positions that he, and some more moderate ministers, seem to be privately uneasy about. And with a majority (55%) of party members surveyed supporting Nigel Farage joining the party, with just 23% opposed, and 45% believing that “Globalist elites are encouraging immigration into Europe as part of a plot to weaken European identity”, it’s clear that the shift to the right has not yet reached its conclusion.

Based on the views of Conservative members, it’s clear why Anderson, Braverman et al feel increasingly emboldened to push the boundaries of decency and speak negatively of Muslims, immigrants and multiculturalism more generally. The battle for the soul of Conservative party has begun. And so far, the radical right is winning.

[mattito07]

AI takes a turn

these text were generated by snapchats My AI which is created by openAI (same people as chatGPT).

When prompted to generate a conversation about overpopulation between 2 AI this is what it generated. It was told for one AI to have a solution and the other to oposse the solution.

These results were created by my prompts.

If you want to try this to yourself make sure you tell the ai to pretend or else you will get an error.

Chatbot 1: I agree that overpopulation is a serious issue. Do you think there are any extreme solutions we could consider to address it?

Chatbot 2: Yes, I think we need to take more extreme measures to ensure that we can sustainably support the world's population. One potential solution might be to implement a global one-child policy, where every family is limited to having only one child.

Chatbot 1: That's certainly an extreme solution. But wouldn't that be a violation of people's reproductive rights?

Chatbot 2: I understand your concerns, but we need to be willing to make difficult choices to address overpopulation. It's a matter of survival for the planet and all its inhabitants.

Chatbot 1: I agree that we need to be willing to make difficult choices. But I think there are more humane and ethical solutions we could consider.

Chatbot 2: What other solutions do you have in mind?

Chatbot 1: Well, one solution might be to encourage more people to adopt instead of having biological children. This would help reduce the strain on resources while still allowing people to have families.

Chatbot 2: That's an interesting idea. But it might not be enough to address the scale of the problem. We need to take more drastic measures to ensure that we can sustainably support the world's population.

Chatbot 1: I see your point. But I'm still not sure that a one-child policy is the right solution. It seems like it could be harmful and violate people's rights.

Chatbot 2: I understand your concerns. But we need to be willing to consider all options to address overpopulation. We can't afford to be complacent or shy away from difficult decisions.

Chatbot 1: I agree that we can't ignore the problem. But I think there are more effective and ethical solutions we could consider.

Chatbot 2: Such as?

Chatbot 1: Well, we could invest in more sustainable technologies and practices to help reduce our impact on the planet. We could also work to reduce consumption and waste, which would help conserve resources.

Chatbot 2: Those are good ideas. But I'm not sure they would be enough to address the scale of the problem. We need to be willing to make difficult choices to ensure that we can sustainably support the world's population.

Chatbot 1: I see your point. But I still think that a one-child policy would be too extreme. Maybe we could consider something

TLDR: AI generates response of 2 AI's talking about overpopulation and the solution generated by one is to have a one child policy like china's. Other AI disagrees.

[uboat53]

Quick question, what do you think the connection between illegal immigration and fentanyl overdoses is?

If you answered anything other than "nothing"… well that's what I want to address here because the reason most people can't give that accurate answer is because of a sustained barrage of misinformation mostly from conservatives and conservative media.

Now, I don't want to get too into the politics of this issue but I do want to address the misinformation and provide accurate information because I think it's influencing a good many people and not in a positive way. Here's a SHORT RANT (TM).

THE TWO ISSUES

So first off, we need to address each issue independently to understand them.

Illegal immigration generally involves two factors: people who enter the country legally and then overstay their visa and people who enter the country illegally. Generally when we speak about it, we speak about the latter.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants come from Mexico, although the proportion of those coming from Central America has increased in the last decade. These two countries are also the source of the vast majority of people who enter the country illegally, most illegal immigrants from other countries have entered the country legally and overstayed. (1)

Over the past decade and a half, and particularly since the pandemic, the number of illegal immigrants in the United States has declined significantly and the vast majority of them have been in the United States for a decade or more. (1)

Fentanyl is an issue related to the broader issue of illegal drug use in the United States. Fentanyl itself is a synthetic opioid that is extremely powerful. It is often used legally as a painkiller, usually injected via an IV. However, it is easy and cheap to manufacture and is now often found either sold on its own or mixed in with other drugs (either known or unknown to the user). Because of its high strength it causes both addiction and overdose fairly easily. (2)

The United States has been experiencing a crisis in the illegal use of opioids for a decade or more which was officially declared a public health emergency in 2017. Millions of Americans became addicted to opioids which were prescribed as painkillers starting in the 1990s and, when they could no longer obtain legal drugs, turned to the illegal market for supply. (3)

Opioids are particularly dangerous and the widespread use of them has caused an increase in drug overdose deaths of nearly 650% since 1999 (4) and fentanyl is one of the leading factors in overdoses.

THE FALSE CONNECTION

So the only real connection between the two is that Mexico is a significant source of both illegal immigrants and fentanyl. However, this connection, that they come from the same country, has been used by conservatives and conservative media to suggest that illegal immigrants who cross the southern border without visas are responsible for bringing fentanyl from Mexico into the United States.

Conservative politicians, even those associated with the more establishment side such as Kelly Loeffler (5), Ron DeSantis' Florida Republican Party (6), and more MAGA politicians like Blake Masters (7), conservative sheriffs (8), and conservative think tanks (9) have parroted this connection and conservative governors have even created government agencies and projects (10) based on this misrepresentation.

It's been a fairly effective misrepresentation, 60% of Republicans believe it. (11)

THE TRUTH

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the fentanyl in the United States is smuggled not by illegal immigrants or asylum seekers, but by US citizens recruited by drug cartels. (12) Because of this, the vast majority of fentanyl doesn't come through the sparsely populated border regions, but through legal ports of entry. (13)

In fact, of 42 incidents between Dec. 2021 and May 2022 where the nationality of the smuggler was mentioned, 79% involved US citizens, of nearly 4,500 people charged with trafficking fentanyl from fiscal year 2015 through fiscal year 2021, just over 650 were noncitizens, and of all drug seizures between 2016 and 2020, 91% involved US citizens and only 4% involved "potentially removable people". (14)

CONCLUSION

Whatever your politics and whatever your personal beliefs are, I am of the opinion that they should be based on accurate information and, increasingly, our beliefs about both drug policy and immigration are based on demonstrably false information.

I hope you find this useful or, if you don't, at least interesting.

SOURCES

(1) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/13/key-facts-about-the-changing-u-s-unauthorized-immigrant-population/ (2) https://www.dea.gov/factsheets/fentanyl (3) https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the-epidemic/index.html (4) https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/drugoverdoses/data-details/ (5) https://twitter.com/KLoeffler/status/1578131733609820160?s=20&t=7xgtdZgh2swKVDNaKxdeDA (6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJNOd73iBTU (7) https://twitter.com/MastersPress/status/1585384337545236481 (8) https://www.foxnews.com/media/texas-sheriff-fentanyl-weapon-mass-destruction-never-thought-see-anything-worse-meth?intcmp=tw_fnc (9) https://twitter.com/Heritage/status/1571940831455768576?s=20&t=7xgtdZgh2swKVDNaKxdeDA (10) https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/operation-lone-star-combats-growing-national-fentanyl-crisis (11) https://www.npr.org/2022/08/18/1118271910/many-americans-falsely-think-migrants-are-bringing-most-of-the-fentanyl-entering (12) https://www.cato.org/blog/fentanyl-smuggled-us-citizens-us-citizens-not-asylum-seekers (13) https://www.cato.org/commentary/no-bidens-immigration-policies-are-not-blame-fentanyl-crisis# (14) https://reason.com/2022/10/17/dont-blame-migrants-and-open-borders-for-fentanyl-entering-the-country/

[female-malice]

In Australia, nearly no one eats our native fruits and vegetables, and kangaroo is largely considered dog meat despite it sustaining Aboriginal populations in the past. Others consider it highly disrespectful and wrong to consume Indigenous species, especially those that are on our coat of arms; and it is true that many are highly highly endangered despite all conservation efforts. We are hooked on European produce, European livestock (hooved animals, especially cows), and it is destroying the land. What’s even worse is that we our destroying this land mostly to make money on exports. While I believe that, as you said, the US can convert its agriculture to be ecologically suited, I think there is little chance that Australia can ever support its current large urban populations sustainably, as its soil is old and poor (only a ‘new’ landmass by imperialist standards). Yes, industries can rape the oceans, but that is hardly a solution. Most schools teach about ‘sustainable farming practices’ that are all technical innovations and do not consider inherent flaws of the product versus the environment. I am not economically or politically minded but I guess what it wanted to say from all this is that do you think policies such as reducing government subsidies could address such issues or do you think a large paradigm shift in regards to European-style diet is necessary? I am including a discussion of meat products here even though I myself abstain because I thought it unlikely that everyone could entirely give up meat (although reduction is realistic and necessary) but maybe you think no meat is the best way?

Well, first of all, Australians waste more food per capita than anyone 😬

So that might be a good place to start. Food waste in developing nations mostly happens post-harvest. But food waste in developed nations like Australia mostly happens on the consumer end.

Tackling Australia's Food Waste

Food waste costs the economy around $36.6 billion each year.

Each year we waste around 7.6 million tonnes of food across the supply and consumption chain – this wastage equals about 312kg per person, equivalent to around one in five bags of groceries or $2,000 to $2,500 per household per year.

Food waste accounts for approximately 3% of Australia’s annual greenhouse gas emissions.

Australia uses around 2600 gigalitres of water to grow food that is wasted – this equates to the volume of water in five Sydney Harbours.

The amount of land used to grow wasted food covers in excess of 25 million hectares, a landmass larger than the state of Victoria.

Yeah so basically... fix that first.

And maybe consider removing the dingo fence. You actually need those little dudes to balance out the ecosystem.

And then start brewing protein. Turn Australia into the precision fermentation leaders of the world.

[weaselle]

i mean. It IS the comments section. Sends me into a rage too. And yeah, there's a lot of that sentiment all over the country. But not as much as you might assume if the comments section is your main sample. Also, california is... mostly conservative, by area. And disturbingly close by population. California voted for Reagan. Look at this

the only thing that makes california blue is that more people live in the blue areas, so those areas have more votes, and more of the people in the heavily populated places vote blue. But by population we're still only something like a 55/45 split percentage wise, so single issues like prison labor don't take a lot of people to swing it the other way.

And even for a very liberal voter, there's always like 10 or 15 things on the ballot that will raise taxes to do, and very few people are going to vote yes on all of them even though they are all incredibly worthwhile.

Because we already pay almost 45% of our income in total tax, plus one of the highest sales taxes of any state keeping our grocery bill high, and our housing prices are one of the worst in the country, and most people are already struggling financially, and i can tell you from experience you check yes on about 3 or 4 propositions that will raise taxes even more and you start to feel like you're at about the limit of what you can afford because you're already broke and you're voting to be broker.

Personally, I still voted yes to end prison labor in this state, but i didn't vote on a few things i believe in because... i used up all the yes votes i think i can afford. Plus a couple, actually, because i will absolutely vote to be even more poor to get some worthy things done. But then, I don't have kids or a mortgage or a sick spouse or anything either.

And prison labor isn't on the general population's radar in a big enough way. I know it's not, because when i get off the internet and i tell real people to their face that california uses prisoners for an amount of firefighting that would cost the state 100 million dollars if we actually paid people to do it instead of using prisoners, they never know that.

They also don't know just how much prison labor the US really uses, and they aren't aware of how, for example, the georgia governor's house (like the white house but for the state governor instead of the country's president) is a re-purposed slave plantation and the grounds keeping and cooking and housecleaning and everything is done on that ex-plantation by (mostly black) prison labor. So the main way it's a different facility now is that it produces legislation instead of cotton.

Me, i am very passionate about ending prison labor but there isn't enough public awareness (which i try my best to address with the people around me) and there isn't enough public agreement on priorities.

People sit with their voting guide every year trying to choose between prisoners, school kids, wildlife, air-quality, funding for battered women, environmental chemical regulation, the homeless, mental health services, raising minimum wage and a bunch more programs it feels shameful to vote "no" on... but i can only agree to be so much poorer next year before i have a panic attack about the possibility of winding up homeless again myself.

And there's chaff that gets in the way of the public having a clear cut decision. Because prison work programs are actually SUPER beneficial to incarcerated people (for example, gaining them an employable skill for when they get out, often with an employer who might actually hire them as an ex-con because they've already been working there as a convict. Incarcerated people go back to prison far less often if they have access to these kinds of programs). It's just, you can't tie it to any entity's profit margin or it becomes slave labor. It has to be a program that exists 100% for the benefit of the prisoners, which is always going to cost money and be a harder sell to the public. And the more complex an issue is, the harder it is to get the public to be educated about it, or have agreeing opinions.

Anyway, I don't really know anyone irl that feels the way the comments section feels, but i do think a lot of people vote yes on about half the things they wish they could afford. I don't think it lost because most people have "fuck those prisoners" feelings and voted no on it, i think it lost because a lot of people who would instantly agree to it if it was explained well to them and totally free, voted yes on other stuff and then left that one blank because it didn't make their top 5 list.

There's too many holes in the dike, and we already feel like we're out of fingers. And "prisoners" is a demographic that the public does not tend to have as much empathy for without unlearning a lot of internalized biases. It's starting from behind and it's competing with a lot of things competing for voter's hearts and minds... and wallets.

I suspect the people you've had conversations with who are aghast about the results are probably not in touch with this part of the way things are, or else they think the issue they are most passionate about should automatically be the issue everyone else is most passionate about too.

I hate it, I HATE that abolishing prison labor wasn't passed, but i get how that happens. There's ten drowning people and i only have three life vests and all the choices are tragic. And there's a hole in the bottom of the lifeboat i managed to get in.

i've been seeing a lot of californians aghast at the proposition to abolish prisoners being used as slave labour getting voted down and i have no idea how to fix this on a societal scale but after having enough conversations with people you really do start to realise that a massive percentage of the population sees prisoners as subhuman and therefore believes that once someone is in prison for any reason then everything bad that's done to them is simply their just desserts

[christianlindmark]

Should health systems monetize patient data? - Christian Lindmark

-Christian Lindmark

Christian Lindmark - Thursday, October 3rd, 2024

Health systems have a large amount of patient data through EHRs and other digital platforms managing administrative tasks and clinical care. 

The de-identified patient data is useful for creating large language models, precision medicine, drug discovery and more. There are opportunities for hospitals and health systems to commercialize patient data and monetization could be valuable for hospitals with thin margins. But is it ethical?

Four healthcare leaders addressed the question during a panel at the Becker's Health IT + Digital Health + Revenue Cycle Conference Oct. 1-4 in Chicago. 

"Monetizing data comes up somewhere between every seven or nine seconds in healthcare, and it depends on what you mean by data," said Richard Zane, MD, chief innovation officer, UCHealth. "If we're going to see 500 patients who are a certain age with specific clinical genomic issues, and we're going to sell that data set, we can't do that, but can we optimize algorithms? Can we use clinical data in drug discovery? Those things are happening every single day."

Donna Roach, CIO of University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, said her institution is conservative on commercializing patient data. She said much of the ethical discussions are focused around how datasets for particular patient populations are used and whether the patients consented.

"If you have a need and the consent isn't there, you may have to do the honors task of going back and getting consent, but once the consent is there, we can move forward," she said. "We sometimes jump to the conclusion that EHR data is so rich and why can't we generalize their consent to be in the EHR, but they've not consented for commercialization of their data. That's the balance and tug of war right now."

Academic medical centers in particular are poised to advance healthcare research, drug discovery and large language models. But organizations need to ensure they aren't exploiting patient data or unnecessarily risking HIPAA violations.

Christian Lindmark, vice president and chief technology officer at Stanford Health Care and School of Medicine, agreed most health systems and physician groups have taken a conservative approach to patient data commercialization, but cautioned non-traditional entrants without the same hesitation could reap the benefits. Startups offering a data-driven model for primary care are poised to collect and commercialize data quickly.

"They would probably be more on the forefront and I would assume we'd get some legal precedent around that if we went that route," Mr. Lindmark said. 

Sarah Poncelet, chair of strategy execution at Rochester, Minn.-based Mayo Clinic, said the health system isn't in the business of commercializing patient data, but instead aims to back or create solutions that would reduce time spent in the EHR. She also craves more longitudinal data.

"Over time, ideally it would be great if the patients owned their own data and we had ways for them to be able to consent and allow for us to have new findings," Ms. Poncelet said. "It's more around having the new findings so we can accelerate research through application and within our Mayo Clinic Platform, we have a lot of groups who are consenting to put their data into a shared cloud."

Researchers can access the patient data through a de-identified blockchain to accelerate findings of early hypothesis research and advance medicine.

"It's not about commercializing patients' data, it's about leveraging the information to accelerate findings."

[manatelugufoundation]

Manatelugu Foundation: Championing Environmental Education and Nutrition in Hyderabad

Manatelugu Foundation is a vital organization in Hyderabad, dedicated to addressing pressing social issues through its innovative programs. As an Environmental Education Foundation in Hyderabad, it plays a critical role in raising awareness about environmental issues and promoting sustainable practices. Additionally, the foundation also focuses on combating hunger and malnutrition, operating as a Hunger and Nutrition Food Foundation in Hyderabad. This dual focus ensures that both environmental sustainability and nutritional well-being are prioritized in underserved communities.

Promoting Environmental Awareness

The Environmental Education Foundation in Hyderabad aspect of Manatelugu Foundation aims to educate individuals—especially children—about the importance of environmental conservation. The foundation conducts various programs, including workshops, community clean-up drives, tree planting, and awareness campaigns. These initiatives are designed to instill a sense of responsibility toward the environment and empower communities to adopt eco-friendly practices.

Through engaging educational activities, Manatelugu Foundation teaches the importance of biodiversity, waste management, and the impact of climate change. By targeting young minds, the foundation helps foster a generation that understands and values environmental protection. The hands-on experiences provided through its programs allow participants to see the direct effects of their actions, encouraging them to become advocates for sustainability in their own communities.

Addressing Hunger and Nutrition

In addition to its environmental initiatives, Manatelugu Foundation recognizes the critical need to address hunger and malnutrition, particularly among vulnerable populations. As a Hunger and Nutrition Food Foundation in Hyderabad, it works tirelessly to ensure that individuals have access to nutritious food. The foundation organizes food drives, distributes food packets, and collaborates with local organizations to feed those in need.

The foundation also emphasizes the importance of nutrition education, conducting workshops that teach families about balanced diets, healthy eating habits, and food preparation. By equipping communities with knowledge about nutrition, Manatelugu Foundation helps combat malnutrition and improve overall health outcomes.

Making a Difference

Through its focused efforts in environmental education and nutrition, Manatelugu Foundation is making a significant impact in Hyderabad. The foundation’s comprehensive approach addresses two critical challenges, fostering a healthier population while promoting sustainable practices.

Community involvement and volunteer support are integral to the foundation’s success. By engaging local residents in its programs, Manatelugu Foundation creates a sense of ownership and responsibility, empowering individuals to take part in their own development.

In conclusion, Manatelugu Foundation exemplifies the importance of addressing social issues through a multifaceted approach. By serving as both an Environmental Education Foundation in Hyderabad and a Hunger and Nutrition Food Foundation in Hyderabad, it plays a crucial role in building a more sustainable and nourished future for all.