#economic impact of disposability

[monsterkong]

Rethinking Our Disposable Culture: How to Spend Wisely and Sustainably in the 21st Century 🌍💚

As we delve deeper into the 21st century, our society stands at a crossroads. The path we've been on—characterized by a growing throwaway culture fueled by increased disposable income—is unsustainable. It's time to consider how we might turn the tide.

The Economics of Disposability

Disposable income has undoubtedly improved living standards for many. Yet, this financial flexibility has also led to an increase in disposable products, fast fashion, and rapidly obsolete technologies. This trend is economically beneficial in the short term but environmentally and socially detrimental in the long run. 📉🌎

Rethinking Consumption

To mitigate the impact of throwaway culture, a shift in consumer mentality is essential:

Value-Based Spending: Align your spending with your values. If sustainability matters to you, support brands that prioritize eco-friendly practices.

Invest in Repairability: Choose products designed for longevity and that can be easily repaired, reducing the need to buy new.

Community Engagement: Get involved in or start local initiatives that promote sustainable living, from community gardens to tool-sharing libraries.

Policy and Change

Policy change can also drive significant shifts. Advocating for regulations that require producers to be responsible for the lifecycle of their products can decrease the volume of waste generated.

By adjusting how we view and utilize our disposable income, we can combat the rise of throwaway culture. It's about creating a future where we value what we own, understand the true cost of disposability, and choose a sustainable path forward. 🌍💚

Each of these posts could be adapted for platforms like WordPress, Medium, and Tumblr, considering the audience's preferences and engagement styles on each. For WordPress and Medium, a more formal and informative tone can be used, while Tumblr allows for a more casual and direct conversation style, incorporating relevant images, gifs, and interactive elements to engage the readers effectively.

[writers-potion]

I'm writing a sci-fi story about a space freight hauler with a heavy focus on the economy. Any tips for writing a complex fictional economy and all of it's intricacies and inner-workings?

Constructing a Fictional Economy

The economy is all about: How is the limited financial/natural/human resources distributed between various parties?

So, the most important question you should be able to answer are:

Who are the "have"s and "have-not"s?

What's "expensive" and what's "commonplace"?

What are the rules(laws, taxes, trade) of this game?

Building Blocks of the Economic System

Type of economic system. Even if your fictional economy is made up, it will need to be based on the existing systems: capitalism, socialism, mixed economies, feudalism, barter, etc.

Currency and monetary systems: the currency can be in various forms like gols, silver, digital, fiat, other commodity, etc. Estalish a central bank (or equivalent) responsible for monetary policy

Exchange rates

Inflation

Domestic and International trade: Trade policies and treaties. Transportation, communication infrastructure

Labour and employment: labor force trends, employment opportunities, workers rights. Consider the role of education, training and skill development in the labour market

The government's role: Fiscal policy(tax rate?), market regulation, social welfare, pension plans, etc.

Impact of Technology: Examine the role of tech in productivity, automation and job displacement. How does the digital economy and e-commerce shape the world?

Economic history: what are some historical events (like The Great Depresion and the 2008 Housing Crisis) that left lasting impacts on the psychologial workings of your economy?

For a comprehensive economic system, you'll need to consider ideally all of the above. However, depending on the characteristics of your country, you will need to concentrate on some more than others. i.e. a country heavily dependent on exports will care a lot more about the exchange rate and how to keep it stable.

For Fantasy Economies:

Social status: The haves and have-nots in fantasy world will be much more clear-cut, often with little room for movement up and down the socioeconoic ladder.

Scaricity. What is a resource that is hard to come by?

Geographical Characteristics: The setting will play a huge role in deciding what your country has and doesn't. Mountains and seas will determine time and cost of trade. Climatic conditions will determine shelf life of food items.

Impact of Magic: Magic can determine the cost of obtaining certain commodities. How does teleportation magic impact trade?

For Sci-Fi Economies Related to Space Exploration

Thankfully, space exploitation is slowly becoming a reality, we can now identify the factors we'll need to consider:

Economics of space waste: How large is the space waste problem? Is it recycled or resold? Any regulations about disposing of space wste?

New Energy: Is there any new clean energy? Is energy scarce?

Investors: Who/which country are the giants of space travel?

Ownership: Who "owns" space? How do you draw the borders between territories in space?

New class of workers: How are people working in space treated? Skilled or unskilled?

Relationship between space and Earth: Are resources mined in space and brought back to Earth, or is there a plan to live in space permanently?

What are some new professional niches?

What's the military implication of space exploitation? What new weapons, networks and spying techniques?

Also, consider:

Impact of space travel on food security, gender equality, racial equality

Impact of space travel on education.

Impact of space travel on the entertainment industry. Perhaps shooting monters in space isn't just a virtual thing anymore?

What are some indsutries that decline due to space travel?

I suggest reading up the Economic Impact Report from NASA, and futuristic reports from business consultants like McKinsey.

If space exploitation is a relatiely new technology that not everyone has access to, the workings of the economy will be skewed to benefit large investors and tech giants. As more regulations appear and prices go down, it will be further be integrated into the various industries, eventually becoming a new style of living.

[nico-esoterica]

How To Deal With 'Fans' If You Have a Celeb SP 👀

You're in control of your reality, first and foremost. Your person also only wants you. That's it.

But should shit get to you one day, here's some reminders approached from a business-like and detached perspective:

They are lining your sp's pockets. That BTS-fandom rich emotional currency that creates the memes, fanfiction, sold out shows, and economic demand in real time is just making your person richer. Think about how they're gonna spend all of that on you. Fan devotion is excellent soil to plant your dreams in.

Anyone who seems really obsessed, even if they're a spiritual girlie who thinks they have a connection w/ them will not have them in your reality. But you need to be firm on that. No one is going to successfully 'manifest away' your person unless you think it's possible. You need to start thinking of yourself as their only choice.

Said fans are in love with a projection of them. It's their industry image that's palatable and carefully tweaked to appeal to specific demographics. This also may sound harsh but most of those fans will not think they can successfully or functionally be with them. They believe in social limitations and work with limits you've decided you don't have. You will be in the 'unrealistic' 1%. They will not.

Super locked-in and obsessed fans will eventually get bored and stop wanting your sp or won't as intensely. The real world's going to get more demanding, lifestyles and obsessions change, and they will inevitably focus on something or someone else. Gen Z's attention span is notoriously short and non-committal. Someone that seems like a fandom vet can stop updating their socials at random because of work, school, etc.

Even stalkers, saesangs, etc, inevitably get bored or have real life obligations. Putting that much energy into being a criminal, weirdo, etc will take a toll on their mental health sooner or later. From a safety pov when manifesting, imo, I like to think of them from a human view so I can minimize/prevent any harm they can do in my reality. Even if you're unmedicated and running on fumes, your obsession w/ a celeb will negatively impact your health, funds, relationships, and is not sustainable long-term. Therefore, I don't consider any creeps in my sp's life to be effective enough to cause harm of any kind. It's good to think of your relationship as a fortress they can't penetrate. They don't have the energy or disposable income like the girls used to bc of the global economy lmao. Just keep some safety affirmations on deck and you're fine.

Like I've said, their negative assumptions work to your advantage. That's why I said before that most creep behavior won't be seen positively by your sp w/ them bc they're terrified they'd hate them. They're insecure, don't think they have a chance with them, that they're out of their league, and all of these limiting ideas that industries concoct for money. All of this is working for you. That's a home-grown defense.

But you need to pair that with reminding yourself of how in love with and infatuated your sp is with you and no one else. This is why, imo, so many wives married to famous men wind up with infidelity. Despite being chosen, they still thought there'd be someone waiting in the wild to snatch their men up..and it'd inevitably happen. They had incredibly limiting beliefs about their men and assumed that because, 1, they're men, and 2, limitless access to women as an option meant they'd automatically go for it. So you need to get your boss bitch game up and start reveling in how amazing your person is and how they'd choose you over a million ig models or groupies. You need to think of yourself as the magical exception at all fucking times. You are a unicorn. Act like it!

IF YOU DON'T THINK YOU ARE THE EXCEPTION, YOUR CELEB SP WON'T EITHER!

[gothhabiba]

this kind of thing is also really necessary context when people start talking about "gendered socialisation" and claiming that "men" (often unclear exactly whom this includes) "aren't taught to communicate their feelings," with the implication that "women" (ditto) are...

in fact no one is taught to openly communicate much of anything. and "socialisation" is not a bifurcated process that ends in adolescence and produces two different "types" of people, but is better thought of in terms of a web of shifting, contextual responses of different people in different situations to your behaviours (due to how they read them against a framework of various gender categories including not only "man" and "woman" but "failed," "approximate" or "non-" versions of each that are also impacted by race and class...).

people are responded to differently (socially / economically 'rewarded' or 'penalised') in different contexts for different types of "communication"—

but basically never is this communication expected to be truly "open," on the part of anyone. communication can't be thought of as an on/off switch where you're either "communicating" or "failing to communicate," but must be considered in terms of, like, what are people communicating and how? how do the strategies they use in their communications align with or resist gendered expectations (and which ones)?

a lot of what people's responses to various communications is 'aimed at' is keeping various gendered systems and patterns in place (enforcing the performance of gendered and racialised labour in the home and in the workplace under threat of being thought of as lazy / a nag / not a team-player / being fired &c.; the social disposability and financial precarity of trans women, the expectation to accept abuse or else to be blacklisted that comes with exclusion both from "manhood" [whatever people claim to believe about trans women] and from the policed and protected category of "woman")—

why, in these types of situations, would women be "taught to communicate their feelings"? should we really frame precarious and fraught navigations of communication strategies that may or may not backfire on us in any situation as "open" communication? like, come on now.

[identifying-cars-in-posts]

I'd love to hear your thoughts on electric cars. ive been thinking of getting one myself, so ive been seeking out as many opinions as i can

ok so i personally really really don’t like them. i don’t think they’re as good for the environment as they’re made to sound - sure they have zero emissions but the amount of damage caused by lithium mining, producing the batteries, and then having to dispose of the batteries makes them far from ecological. they’re heavy, almost impossible to maintain on your own unless you’re super well versed in them, and as a result a slap in the face of right to repair. i think they have their purpose, and are good for super high performance cars and race cars, but the complete shift from gas power to electric really rubs me the wrong way.

i think the best way to lessen the environmental impact of cars, at least in the states, is to work more on less car centric infrastructure, lessening the impact of things like high traffic highways by not forcing everyone to own a car or drive it everywhere. trains are almost always the answer here. i love cars and want anyone who wants or prefers to drive to be able to, but i think the economic impact and financial impact for the individual would be far more greatly improved by implementation of accessible public transport than electric cars

and also yeah electric cars don’t go vroooom grumble grumble stutututututu and i like when cars do that lol i’m not gonna pretend that’s not part of it

[probablyasocialecologist]

Capitalist elites are driving the rationalities of overproduction while overconsuming and disproportionately intensifying extraction, commodification and usage of various resources, thereby threatening planetary systems and justice. Through media, advertising, influencer culture and control over means of production, they exacerbate not only inequities but perpetuate destructive growth models and logics of overproduction, overconsumption, disposal/wastage and disregard that crosses boundaries and borders. These global elites participate in accumulation by dispossession with disproportionate capitalist benefits from resource control and the promotion of neocolonialist policies via outsized policy influence. As a result, they contribute directly to ecological harms, biodiversity crises, water pollution, air pollution and climate breakdown that they themselves rarely experience firsthand, but which undermine wellbeing and safety of the majority, particularly BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and people of colour) communities everywhere. More insidiously still, socioecologically destructive and unfettered economic growth models and institutional policies shape the responses to the problems they create, influencing what desirable outcomes and solutions should be and what individuals should aspire to behave like to be modern. Instead of tackling the root causes of climate breakdown, the implication is that ideal global subjects should participate in particular notions of economic progress and consumption, even across the Majority World. As a result, the imperial modes of living of the globally-rich are promoted as global aspirations for all. The capitalist model of hyperconsumption, extractivism, commodification and a discard culture of increasing waste production are presented as signifiers of progress, while discounting their environmental consequences. This is affluence, but unsustainable affluence. The externalities are often overlooked, borne by the global poor who are simultaneously blamed for their poverty while being told they should support unsustainable capitalist models of progress. Rarely, by contrast, does the fact that the ever-expanding global billionaire class have carbon footprints thousands of times larger than average citizens feature in the models designed to curb the impacts of their behaviour. Yet this inequality is fundamental to climate breakdown. Ecological and planetary boundaries are being transgressed predominantly by capitalist elites in the Global North (or the high-energy industrialised economies), causing disproportionate social and ecological harms to large numbers of marginalised communities elsewhere. Extraction and discard culture are embedded in the economic models and processes which govern not just natural resources exploitation and commodification, but also the destruction of human lives and potentials, resulting in a disregard for the care economy and resilience of ecosystems. It also often involves lip service to basic welfare of billions caught in exploitative and neocolonial labour relations with global capital and extractive resource-based trade that causes irreversible harms, usually locally more profoundly.

[captaindibbzy]

Individualist mind set is a fucking plague on the environment. I swear to fuck.

If I buy a new item of clothing I don't really need it has less environmental impact than the tens of thousands of items that go from manufacture to landfill because being without as a corporation is a worse sin than over producing and writing it off as a tax loss. The clothing I buy doesn't last a season cause it's made cheep, disposable, and not made for it. There's, like, 3 shops in the entire city centre that carries clothes in my size. What fucking choice is that?

If I let some food go bad in my fridge cause I forget about it it's not got SHIT on places like fast food places not even letting their staff eat left over food, it all has to be tallied to see what is wasted and then disposed of in the bin.

If I leave a light on in a room while I go to pee it's got fuck all on all those skyscrapers in every city across the world being illuminated all night while they are completely empty. It's got shit on Times Square and Piccadilly Circus advertising in vibrant LCD screens all day every day.

What the FUCK does my TV on standby have to the fucking huge mega servers used exclusively for trading bitcoin and NFT's back and forth for theoretical money?

I light a barbecue with friends or family. The government debates opening a new coal mine in my country for the economic benefits it will bring. It will bring jobs! The kind of jobs that can disable you, shorten your life expectancy, make someone else rich, and set a country on fire with climate change. I should really consider that charcoal on the barbecue and the co2 I'm putting out, shouldn't I? Maybe I should plant a fucking tree.

Like yes, there are things we can do as individuals, but they don't work because an individual has done it. It works because 15,000 individuals have done it. It's not individual action. It's collective. Embrace your inner fucking ant and lift with your fucking knees bro.

[dailyanarchistposts]

E.3.2 How does economic power contribute to the ecological crisis?

So far in this section we have discussed why markets fail to allocate environmental resources. This is due to information blocks and costs, lack of fully internalised prices (externalities) and the existence of public goods. Individual choices are shaped by the information available to them about the consequences of their actions, and the price mechanism blocks essential aspects of this and so information is usually partial at best within the market. Worse, it is usually distorted by advertising and the media as well as corporate and government spin and PR. Local knowledge is undermined by market power, leading to unsustainable practices to reap maximum short term profits. Profits as the only decision making criteria also leads to environmental destruction as something which may be ecologically essential may not be economically viable. All this means that the price of a good cannot indicate its environmental impact and so that market failure is pervasive in the environmental area. Moreover, capitalism is as unlikely to produce their fair distribution of environmental goods any more than any other good or resource due to differences in income and so demand (particularly as it takes the existing distribution of wealth as the starting point). The reality of our environmental problems provides ample evidence for this analysis.

During this discussion we have touched upon another key issue, namely how wealth can affect how environmental and other externalities are produced and dealt with in a capitalist system. Here we extend our critique by addressed an issue we have deliberately ignored until now, namely the distribution and wealth and its resulting economic power. The importance of this factor cannot be stressed too much, as “market advocates” at best downplay it or, at worse, ignore it or deny it exists. However, it plays the same role in environmental matters as it does in, say, evaluating individual freedom within capitalism. Once we factor in economic power the obvious conclusion is the market based solutions to the environment will result in, as with freedom, people selling it simply to survive under capitalism (as we discussed in section B.4, for example).

It could be argued that strictly enforcing property rights so that polluters can be sued for any damages made will solve the problem of externalities. If someone suffered pollution damage on their property which they had not consented to then they could issue a lawsuit in order to get the polluter to pay compensation for the damage they have done. This could force polluters to internalise the costs of pollution and so the threat of lawsuits can be used as an incentive to avoid polluting others.

While this approach could be considered as part of any solution to environmental problems under capitalism, the sad fact is it ignores the realities of the capitalist economy. The key phrase here is “not consented to” as it means that pollution would be fine if the others agree to it (in return, say, for money). This has obvious implications for the ability of capitalism to reduce pollution. For just as working class people “consent” to hierarchy within the workplace in return for access to the means of life, so to would they “consent” to pollution. In other words, the notion that pollution can be stopped by means of private property and lawsuits ignores the issue of class and economic inequality. Once these are factored in, it soon becomes clear that people may put up with externalities imposed upon them simply because of economic necessity and the pressure big business can inflict.

The first area to discuss is inequalities in wealth and income. Not all economic actors have equal resources. Corporations and the wealthy have far greater resources at their disposal and can spend millions of pounds in producing PR and advertising (propaganda), fighting court cases, influencing the political process, funding “experts” and think-tanks, and, if need be, fighting strikes and protests. Companies can use “a mix of cover-up, publicity campaigns and legal manoeuvres to continue operations unimpeded.” They can go to court to try an “block more stringent pollution controls.” [David Watson, Against the Megamachine, p. 56] Also while, in principle, the legal system offers equal protection to all in reality, wealthy firms and individuals have more resources than members of the general public. This means that they can employ large numbers of lawyers and draw out litigation procedures for years, if not decades.

This can be seen around us today. Unsurprisingly, the groups which bear a disproportionate share of environmental burdens are the poorest ones. Those at the bottom of the social hierarchy have less resources available to fight for their rights. They may not be aware of their rights in specific situations and not organised enough to resist. This, of course, explains why companies spend so much time attacking unions and other forms of collective organisation which change that situation. Moreover as well as being less willing to sue, those on lower income may be more willing to be bought-off due to their economic situation. After all, tolerating pollution in return for some money is more tempting when you are struggling to make ends meet.

Then there is the issue of effective demand. Simply put, allocation of resources on the market is based on money and not need. If more money can be made in, say, meeting the consumption demands of the west rather than the needs of local people then the market will “efficiently” allocate resources away from the latter to the former regardless of the social and ecological impact. Take the example of Biofuels which have been presented by some as a means of fuelling cars in a less environmentally destructive way. Yet this brings people and cars into direct competition over the most “efficient” (i.e. most profitable) use of land. Unfortunately, effective demand is on the side of cars as their owners usually live in the developed countries. This leads to a situation where land is turned from producing food to producing biofuels, the net effect of which is to reduce supply of food, increase its price and so produce an increased likelihood of starvation. It also gives more economic incentive to destroy rainforests and other fragile eco-systems in order to produce more biofuel for the market.

Green socialist John O’Neill simply states the obvious:

”[The] treatment of efficiency as if it were logically independent of distribution is at best misleading, for the determination of efficiency already presupposes a given distribution of rights … [A specific outcome] is always relative to an initial starting point … If property rights are changed so also is what is efficient. Hence, the opposition between distributional and efficiency criteria is misleading. Existing costs and benefits themselves are the product of a given distribution of property rights. Since costs are not independent of rights they cannot guide the allocation of rights. Different initial distributions entail differences in whose preferences are to count. Environmental conflicts are often about who has rights to environment goods, and hence who is to bear the costs and who is to bear the benefits … Hence, environmental policy and resource decision-making cannot avoid making normative choices which include questions of resource distribution and the relationships between conflicting rights claims … The monetary value of a ‘negative externality’ depends on social institutions and distributional conflicts — willing to pay measures, actual or hypothetical, consider preferences of the higher income groups [as] more important than those of lower ones. If the people damaged are poor, the monetary measure of the cost of damage will be lower — ‘the poor sell cheap.’” [Markets, Deliberation and Environment, pp. 58–9]

Economic power also impacts on the types of contracts people make. It does not take too much imagination to envision the possibility that companies may make signing waivers that release it from liability a condition for working there. This could mean, for example, a firm would invest (or threaten to move production) only on condition that the local community and its workers sign a form waiving the firm of any responsibility for damages that may result from working there or from its production process. In the face of economic necessity, the workers may be desperate enough to take the jobs and sign the waivers. The same would be the case for local communities, who tolerate the environmental destruction they are subjected to simply to ensure that their economy remains viable. This already happens, with some companies including a clause in their contracts which states the employee cannot join a union.

Then there is the threat of legal action by companies. “Every year,” records green Sharon Beder, “thousands of Americans are sued for speaking out against governments and corporations. Multi-million dollar law suits are being filed against individual citizens and groups for circulating petitions, writing to public officials, speaking at, or even just attending, public meetings, organising a boycott and engaging in peaceful demonstrations.” This trend has spread to other countries and the intent is the same: to silence opposition and undermine campaigns. This tactic is called a SLAPP (for “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”) and is a civil court action which does not seek to win compensation but rather aims “to harass, intimidate and distract their opponents … They win the political battle, even when they lose the court case, if their victims and those associated with them stop speaking out against them.” This is an example of economic power at work, for the cost to a firm is just part of doing business but could bankrupt an individual or environmental organisation. In this way “the legal system best serves those who have large financial resources at their disposal” as such cases take “an average of three years to be settled, and even if the person sued wins, can cost tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Emotional stress, disillusionment, diversion of time and energy, and even divisions within families, communities and groups can also result.” [Global Spin, pp. 63–7]

A SLAPP usually deters those already involved from continuing to freely participate in debate and protest as well as deterring others from joining in. The threat of a court case in the face of economic power usually ensures that SLAPPS do not go to trial and so its objective of scaring off potential opponents usually works quickly. The reason can be seen from the one case in which a SLAPP backfired, namely the McLibel trial. After successfully forcing apologies from major UK media outlets like the BBC, Channel 4 and the Guardian by threatening legal action for critical reporting of the company, McDonald’s turned its attention to the small eco-anarchist group London Greenpeace (which is not affiliated with Greenpeace International). This group had produced a leaflet called “What’s Wrong with McDonald’s” and the company sent spies to its meetings to identify people to sue. Two of the anarchists refused to be intimidated and called McDonald’s bluff. Representing themselves in court, the two unemployed activists started the longest trial in UK history. After three years and a cost of around £10 million, the trial judge found that some of the claims were untrue (significantly, McDonald’s had successfully petitioned the judge not to have a jury for the case, arguing that the issues were too complex for the public to understand). While the case was a public relations disaster for the company, McDonald’s keeps going as before using the working practices exposed in the trial and remains one of the world’s largest corporations confident that few people would have the time and resources to fight SLAPPs (although the corporation may now think twice before suing anarchists!).

Furthermore, companies are known to gather lists of known “trouble-makers” These “black lists” of people who could cause companies “trouble” (i.e., by union organising or suing employers over “property rights” issues) would often ensure employee “loyalty,” particularly if new jobs need references. Under wage labour, causing one’s employer “problems” can make one’s current and future position difficult. Being black-listed would mean no job, no wages, and little chance of being re-employed. This would be the result of continually suing in defence of one’s property rights — assuming, of course, that one had the time and money necessary to sue in the first place. Hence working-class people are a weak position to defend their rights under capitalism due to the power of employers both within and without the workplace. All these are strong incentives not to rock the boat, particularly if employees have signed a contract ensuring that they will be fired if they discuss company business with others (lawyers, unions, media, etc.).

Economic power producing terrible contracts does not affect just labour, it also effects smaller capitalists as well. As we discussed in section C.4, rather than operating “efficiently” to allocate resources within perfect competition any real capitalist market is dominated by a small group of big companies who make increased profits at the expense of their smaller rivals. This is achieved, in part, because their size gives such firms significant influence in the market, forcing smaller companies out of business or into making concessions to get and maintain contracts.

The negative environmental impact of such a process should be obvious. For example, economic power places immense pressures towards monoculture in agriculture. In the UK the market is dominated by a few big supermarkets. Their suppliers are expected to produce fruits and vegetables which meet the requirements of the supermarkets in terms of standardised products which are easy to transport and store. The large-scale nature of the operations ensure that farmers across Britain (indeed, the world) have to turn their farms into suppliers of these standardised goods and so the natural diversity of nature is systematically replaced by a few strains of specific fruits and vegetables over which the consumer can pick. Monopolisation of markets results in the monoculture of nature.

This process is at work in all capitalist nations. In American, for example, the “centralised purchasing decisions of the large restaurant chains and their demand for standardised products have given a handful of corporations an unprecedented degree of power over the nation’s food supply … obliterating regional differences, and spreading identical stores throughout the country … The key to a successful franchise . .. can be expressed in one world: ‘uniformity.’” This has resulted in the industrialisation of food production, with the “fast food chains now stand[ing] atop a huge food-industrial complex that has gained control of American agriculture … large multinationals … dominate one commodity market after another … The fast food chain’s vast purchasing power and their demand for a uniform product have encouraged fundamental changes in how cattle are raised, slaughter, and processed into ground beef. These changes have made meatpacking … into the most dangerous job in the United States … And the same meat industry practices that endanger these workers have facilitated the introduction of deadly pathogens … into America’s hamburger meat.” [Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation, p. 5 and pp. 8–9]

Award winning journalist Eric Schlosser has presented an excellent insight in this centralised and concentrated food-industrial complex in his book Fast Food Nation. Schlosser, of course, is not alone in documenting the fundamentally anti-ecological nature of the capitalism and how an alienated society has created an alienated means of feeding itself. As a non-anarchist, he does fail to drawn the obvious conclusion (namely abolish capitalism) but his book does present a good overview of the nature of the processed at work and what drives them. Capitalism has created a world where even the smell and taste of food is mass produced as the industrialisation of agriculture and food processing has lead to the product (it is hard to call it food) becoming bland and tasteless and so chemicals are used to counteract the effects of producing it on such a scale. It is standardised food for a standardised society. As he memorably notes: “Millions of … people at that very moment were standing at the same counter, ordering the same food from the same menu, food that tasted everywhere the same.” The Orwellian world of modern corporate capitalism is seen in all its glory. A world in which the industry group formed to combat Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulation is called “Alliance for Workplace Safety” and where the processed food’s taste has to have the correct “mouthfeel.” Unsurprisingly, the executives of these companies talk about “the very essence of freedom” and yet their corporation’s “first commandant is that only production counts … The employee’s duty is to follow orders. Period.” In this irrational world, technology will solve all our problems, even the ones it generates itself. For example, faced with the serious health problems generated by the industrialisation of meat processing, the meatpacking industry advocated yet more technology to “solve” the problems caused by the existing technology. Rather than focusing on the primary causes of meat contamination, they proposed irradiating food. Of course the firms involved want to replace the word “irradiation” with the phrase “cold pasteurisation” due to the public being unhappy with the idea of their food being subject to radiation.

All this is achievable due to the economic power of fewer and fewer firms imposing costs onto their workers, their customers and, ultimately, the planet.

The next obvious factor associated with economic power are the pressures associated with capital markets and mobility. Investors and capitalists are always seeking the maximum return and given a choice between lower profits due to greater environmental regulation and higher profits due to no such laws, the preferred option will hardly need explaining. After all, the investor is usually concerned with the returns they get in their investment, not in its physical condition nor in the overall environmental state of the planet (which is someone else’s concern). This means that investors and companies interest is in moving their capital to areas which return most money, not which have the best environmental impact and legacy. Thus the mobility of capital has to be taken into account. This is an important weapon in ensuring that the agenda of business is untroubled by social concerns and environmental issues. After all, if the owners and managers of capital consider that a state’s environmental laws too restrictive then it can simply shift investments to states with a more favourable business climate. This creates significant pressures on communities to minimise environmental protection both in order to retain existing business and attract new ones.

Let us assume that a company is polluting a local area. It is usually the case that capitalist owners rarely live near the workplaces they own, unlike workers and their families. This means that the decision makers do not have to live with the consequences of their decisions. The “free market” capitalist argument would be, again, that those affected by the pollution would sue the company. We will assume that concentrations of wealth have little or no effect on the social system (which is a highly unlikely assumption, but never mind). Surely, if local people did successfully sue, the company would be harmed economically — directly, in terms of the cost of the judgement, indirectly in terms of having to implement new, eco-friendly processes. Hence the company would be handicapped in competition, and this would have obvious consequences for the local (and wider) economy.

This gives the company an incentive to simply move to an area that would tolerate the pollution if it were sued or even threatened with a lawsuit. Not only would existing capital move, but fresh capital would not invest in an area where people stand up for their rights. This — the natural result of economic power — would be a “big stick” over the heads of the local community. And when combined with the costs and difficulties in taking a large company to court, it would make suing an unlikely option for most people. That such a result would occur can be inferred from history, where we see that multinational firms have moved production to countries with little or no pollution laws and that court cases take years, if not decades, to process.

This is the current situation on the international market, where there is competition in terms of environment laws. Unsurprisingly, industry tends to move to countries which tolerate high levels of pollution (usually because of authoritarian governments which, like the capitalists themselves, simply ignore the wishes of the general population). Thus we have a market in pollution laws which, unsurprisingly, supplies the ability to pollute to meet the demand for it. This means that developing countries “are nothing but a dumping ground and pool of cheap labour for capitalist corporations. Obsolete technology is shipped there along with the production of chemicals, medicines and other products banned in the developed world. Labour is cheap, there are few if any safety standards, and costs are cut. But the formula of cost-benefit still stands: the costs are simply borne by others, by the victims of Union Carbide, Dow, and Standard Oil.” [David Watson, Op. Cit., p. 44] This, it should be noted, makes perfect economic sense. If an accident happened and the poor actually manage to successfully sue the company, any payments will reflect their lost of earnings (i.e., not very much).

As such, there are other strong economic reasons for doing this kind of pollution exporting. You can estimate the value of production lost because of ecological damage and the value of earnings lost through its related health problems as well as health care costs. This makes it more likely that polluting industries will move to low-income areas or countries where the costs of pollution are correspondingly less (particularly compared to the profits made in selling the products in high-income areas). Rising incomes makes such goods as safety, health and the environment more valuable as the value of life is, for working people, based on their wages. Therefore, we would expect pollution to be valued less when working class people are affected by it. In other words, toxic dumps will tend to cluster around poorer areas as the costs of paying for the harm done will be much less. The same logic underlies the arguments of those who suggest that Third World countries should be dumping grounds for toxic industrial wastes since life is cheap there

This was seen in early 1992 when a memo that went out under the name of the then chief economist of the World Bank, Lawrence Summers, was leaked to the press. Discussing the issue of “dirty” Industries, the memo argued that the World Bank should “be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries” to Less Developed Countries and provided three reasons. Firstly, the “measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality” and so “pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages.” Secondly, “that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City.” Thirdly, the “demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity.” Concern over pollution related illness would be higher in a country where more children survive to get them. “Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates … Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.” The memo notes “the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that” and ends by stating that the “problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution” in the third world “could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalisation.” [The Economist, 08/02/1992]

While Summers accepted the criticism for the memo, it was actually written by Lant Pritchett, a prominent economist at the Bank. Summers claimed he was being ironic and provocative. The Economist, unsurprisingly, stated “his economics was hard to answer” while criticising the language used. This was because clean growth may slower than allowing pollution to occur and this would stop “helping millions of people in the third world to escape their poverty.” [15/02/1992] So not only is poisoning the poor with pollution is economically correct, it is in fact required by morality. Ignoring the false assumption that growth, any kind of growth, always benefits the poor and the utter contempt shown for both those poor themselves and our environment what we have here is the cold logic that drives economic power to move location to maintain its right to pollute our common environment. Economically, it is perfectly logical but, in fact, totally insane (this helps explain why making people “think like an economist” takes so many years of indoctrination within university walls and why so few achieve it).

Economic power works in other ways as well. A classic example of this at work can be seen from the systematic destruction of public transport systems in America from the 1930s onwards (see David St. Clair’s The Motorization of American Cities for a well-researched account of this). These systems were deliberately bought by automotive (General Motors), oil, and tire corporations in order to eliminate a less costly (both economically and ecologically) competitor to the automobile. This was done purely to maximise sales and profits for the companies involved yet it transformed the way of life in scores of cities across America. It is doubtful that if environmental concerns had been considered important at the time that they would have stopped this from happening. This means that individual consumption decisions will be made within an market whose options can be limited simply by a large company buying out and destroying alternatives.

Then there is the issue of economic power in the media. This is well understood by corporations, who fund PR, think-tanks and “experts” to counteract environmental activism and deny, for example, that humans are contributing to global warming. Thus we have the strange position that only Americans think that there is a debate on the causes of global warming rather than a scientific consensus. The actions of corporate funded “experts” and PR have ensured that particular outcome. As Sharon Beder recounts in her book Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism, a large amount of money is being spent on number sophisticated techniques to change the way people think about the environment, what causes the problems we face and what we can and should do about it. Compared to the resources of environmental and green organisations, it is unsurprising that this elaborate multi-billion pound industry has poisoned public debate on such a key issue for the future of humanity by propaganda and dis-information.

Having substantial resources available means that the media can be used to further an anti-green agenda and dominate the debate (at least for a while). Take, as an example, The Skeptical Environmentalist, a book by Bjørn Lomborg (a political scientist and professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark). When it was published in 2001, it caused a sensation with its claims that scientists and environmental organisations were making, at best, exaggerated and, at worse, false claims about the world’s environmental problems. His conclusion was panglossian in nature, namely that there was not that much to worry about and we can continue as we are. That, of course, was music to the ears of those actively destroying the environment as it reduces the likelihood that any attempt will be made to stop them.

Unsurprisingly, the book was heavily promoted by the usual suspects and, as a result received significant attention from the media. However, the extremely critical reviews and critiques it subsequently produced from expert scientists on the issues Lomborg discussed were less prominently reviewed in the media, if at all. That critics of the book argued that it was hardly an example of good science based on objectivity, understanding of the underlying concepts, appropriate statistical methods and careful peer review goes without saying. Sadly, the fact that numerous experts in the fields Lomborg discussed showed that his book was seriously flawed, misused data and statistics and marred by flawed logic and hidden value judgements was not given anything like the same coverage even though this information is far more important in terms of shaping public perception. Such works and their orchestrated media blitz provides those with a vested interest in the status quo with arguments that they should be allowed to continue their anti-environmental activities and agenda. Moreover, it takes up the valuable time of those experts who have to debunk the claims rather than do the research needed to understand the ecological problems we face and propose possible solutions.

As well as spin and propaganda aimed at adults, companies are increasingly funding children’s education. This development implies obvious limitations on the power of education to solve ecological problems. Companies will hardly provide teaching materials or fund schools which educate their pupils on the real causes of ecological problems. Unsurprisingly, a 1998 study in the US by the Consumers Union found that 80% of teaching material provided by companies was biased and provided students with incomplete or slanted information that favoured its sponsor’s products and views [Schlosser, Op. Cit., p. 55] The more dependent a school is on corporate funds, the less likely it will be to teach its students the necessity to question the motivations and activities of business. That business will not fund education which it perceives as anti-business should go without saying. As Sharon Beder summarises, “the infiltration of school curricula through banning some texts and offering corporate-based curriculum material and lesson plans in their place can conflict with educational objectives, and also with the attainment of an undistorted understanding of environmental problems.” [Op. Cit., pp. 172–3]

This indicates the real problem of purely “educational” approaches to solving the ecological crisis, namely that the ruling elite controls education (either directly or indirectly). This is to be expected, as any capitalist elite must control education because it is an essential indoctrination tool needed to promote capitalist values and to train a large population of future wage-slaves in the proper habits of obedience to authority. Thus capitalists cannot afford to lose control of the educational system. And this means that such schools will not teach students what is really necessary to avoid ecological disaster: namely the dismantling of capitalism itself. And we may add, alternative schools (organised by libertarian unions and other associations) which used libertarian education to produce anarchists would hardly be favoured by companies and so be effectively black-listed — a real deterrent to their spreading through society. Why would a capitalist company employ a graduate of a school who would make trouble for them once employed as their wage slave?

Finally, needless to say, the combined wealth of corporations and the rich outweighs that of even the best funded environmental group or organisation (or even all of them put together). This means that the idea of such groups buying, say, rainforest is unlikely to succeed as they simply do not have the resources needed — they will be outbid by those who wish to develop wilderness regions. This is particularly the case once we accept the framework of economic self-interest assumed by market theory. This implies that organisations aiming to increase the income of individual’s will be better funded than those whose aim is to preserve the environment for future generations. As recent developments show, companies can and do use that superior resources to wage a war for hearts and minds in all aspects of society, staring in the schoolroom. Luckily no amount of spin can nullify reality or the spirit of freedom and so this propaganda war will continue as long as capitalism does.

In summary, market solutions to environmental problems under capitalism will always suffer from the fact that real markets are marked by economic inequalities and power.

[indizombie]

At its core, sustainability entails, “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the next generation.” This all-encompassing concept involves the harmonious integration of environmental, social, governance, and economic considerations. From the responsible use of natural resources to the ethical treatment of workers, sustainability aims to minimise negative impacts throughout the production process, ensuring the well-being of future generations. The complexity of the multi-layered fashion industry’s supply chains cannot be underestimated. The journey of a single product involves an intricate network of suppliers, ranging from raw material producers and processors to certifying bodies, subcontractors, logistics providers, and retail outlets, before reaching the consumer. Each supplier performs a specific function within defined tiers, transforming raw materials into the final product, and charting its journey from procurement and production to retailers. The key areas of concern in this journey include the irresponsible use and disposal of chemicals and water, human rights abuses, and deforestation for increased farmland. To truly embrace sustainability, luxury brands must prioritise supply chain transparency. Having visibility over the entire supply chain enables brands to identify and address environmental and social risks effectively.

Radhika Purohit, ‘Towards sustainable fashion apparel supply chains’, Observer Research Foundation

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Brazil dumps 1.3M tons of plastic into the ocean every year

Brazil ranks eighth among the world’s biggest polluters when it comes to dumping plastic in the ocean—and first in Latin America. The nation dumps 1.3 million tons of plastic every year, a report by NGO Oceana says. The volume represents eight percent of this type of pollution on the planet.

Oceanologist and Oceana General Director Ademilson Zamboni said the study was designed as a tool to measure the problem of plastic pollution in Brazil and is expected to spur a transition that overcomes the environmental, economic, and social challenges caused by the current model.

“The plastic that pollutes our seas gets there because of a production and disposal model that needs to be replaced urgently,” he pointed out.

The impact of this pollution on ecosystems and even on human nutrition was observed by the researchers, who found plastic ingestion in 200 marine species, 85 percent of which are at risk of extinction. Of these animals, one in 10 specimens died as a result of problems such as malnutrition and reduced immunity after exposure to chemical compounds harmful to the species, the text reads.

Continue reading.

[pinkberrypocky]

pmmm rewatch live notes: ep 9

wough. ep 9. wough. the design of sayaka's labyrinth. the way kyoko chooses to die with sayaka. screaming crying throwing up.

THE WAY SAYAKA’S LABYRINTH IS MUSICAL

Earlier when she was in despair but not a witch she was floating in symbolic waves of sadness that looked kinda like music waves

In sayaka’s labyrinth the sword as the conductor wand is SO CRAZY

Bc the conductor is the one who decides how everything goes and what the rules are and sayaka was determining the rules for the world as a warrior of justice but she was wrong

The bugs around the lamps when madoka is on the way to find sayaka !!!

madoka is walking on a railroad track when she comes across homura and kyoko carrying sayaka

There is a railroad motif in her labyrinth

The silence of the train and then the sudden sound of the train as madoka comes to the realization of what happened to sayaka

“From now on for every person she has saved she will curse another” really ties back into the idea that hope and despair cancel out to zero

Homura isn’t able to comfort madoka bc she has been through what madoka is going though countless times and knows crying is pointless

Homura saying that she doesn’t consider herself human and kyoko shouldn't either is so AAAA

Madoka small on her bed with her knees to her chest and kyubey’s giant shadow on the curtain as he looms over her

Why are there so many empty chairs in madoka’s room?

For the past versions of her?

For everyone she will save?

Madoka asks kyubey if the magical girls are just disposable energy sources

Which is exactly what it is

They are a natural resource for the incubators to manipulate, reshape, and commodify with no regard for their humanity

Kyubey moves to sit on a chair… What does this/the chairs represent?

I don’t think madoka truly saw kyubey as an enemy until this episode when he says he doesn’t understand why they are upset about a few people dying

Before that she tried so hard to understand him bc she wants to see the best in everyone and find a path forward together but this is a fundamental difference they can’t meet on

Kyoko is seen eating a shit ton of food right after the whole sayaka thing

Reminding herself that she’s not back in the situation she was with her dad

She’s not poor she is safe and can eat when she is hungry

False sense of security in food

The reason she is always snacking is bc it brings her comfort

Kyoko tells madoka that until they knows for sure that sayaka can’t be saved she wants to try

She isn’t trying to put up the facade that she doesn’t care about others anymore

She is doing something selfless blatantly and doesn’t seem upset about it either

Kyoko says that it was sayaka who reminded her why she became a magical girl in the first place (to save others)

So its so narratively tasty that she dies to “save” sayaka in the only remaining way she can

Kyoko tried to teach sayaka the truth about the horrors life but in turn she was reminded of the good parts by sayaka

In the building kyoko and madoka break into to get to sayaka’s labyrinth is lit in yellow

So interesting how mami dies first but her color shows up the most in setting/objects

Her influence living on and continuing to have an impact on the actions of all of them

Kyoko does what mami tried to do in terms of educating about the magical girl reality 

She tells madoka to wait to make a wish until she has no choice

She is always talking about how tough it is and doesn’t sugar coat anything 

She is seen as an opposite to mami but in reality they are so similar

They are also the only two who have experienced economic hardship

Sayaka’s witch form wears a suit of armor like a knight (like she wished to be)

All the people playing the violin in time perfectly no matter what is happening around them bc sayaka’s whole thing is making sure things play on (and literally that kyosuke can play violin)

The red and blue sayaka and kyoko in kyoko’s internal monologue of talking to/with sayaka is SO AAAAAAA

The only time in this fight that kyoko gets mad is when sayaka attacks madoka 

Bc that shows that sayaka is truly gone bc protecting (esp her loved ones) is everything to her

Kyoko tells homura to focus on the one thing that matters to her most to the end

Homura looks at her with madoka in her arms

Kyoko takes down her hair and kisses her soul gem before breaking it to die w sayaka

In context w the quote from above she is apologizing to herself, what mattered most to her, bc she has found something else that she isn’t willing to give up on, even if it means giving up on herself 

The first time we see homura’s nameplate for her house when she talks w kyoko its red bc they aren’t a team yet then the next time it's lit in yellow bc they are a team now but then when kyoko dies it is just gray

[fumblingmusings]

You ready for the most niche thing ever but hey this is what we do here you just have to bear with me as I take 3,000 years to get to the point because learning more about the repeal of Britain's Corn Laws in the 19th Century the more it's just a microcosm of that oh so blessed North American Triangle of Britain and America making deals and Canada going hey wait a second dynamic. Poor Mattie playing second fiddle at... nearly every interaction involving these two.

So. Corn. The Corn Laws were passed after the Napoleonic Wars by Britain to keep prices high for domestic producers, of course making lovely profits for landowners, rather than the farmers who actually grew the stuff. It also prioritised colonial grains, so Canada got a boon with its wheat and flour. Nice example of Mercantilism right there.

The problem wassssssss by the 1840s you have the Irish Famine, food prices are too gosh dang high, no-one has disposable income because factory owners are cutting wages wherever they can, and it's so blatantly obvious that this system only profits the top 10% of British Society. There's no shortage of food, it just costs too fucking much. Ireland is starving and the government is sitting on their hands being useless.

A lot of pressure later, Free Trade is favoured over Mercantilism, and the Corn Laws are dropped. Britain can start importing wheat, barley and other cereals form the cheapest supplier: the US. This is not coincidental that the main MP pushing for their repeal - Richard Cobden - was a massive fan of the USA, doing a lot to try and get the two countries to be friendlier to each other. He subscribed to the 'the more economically entangled you are with another country the less likely you are to fight them' which... has its truths.

So... cheap bread good? So that's one thing.

EXCEPT Canada got completely screwed over since they had gotten priority for any externally grown grain for most of the 1840s - causing a bubble in their market. So when the Corn Laws got repealed and it was open season to the cheapest supplier much of Canada's businesses went bankrupt and following series of unfortunate events semi related to corn people burnt Montreal's Parliament and the capital moved to Toronto and it gave yet another push towards Confederation in the 1860s.

So that's a second thing.

It also kind of screwed over the domestic UK farming industry as the age old 'why buy domestic expensive if foreign cheap?' came into play and another wave of emigrants move to the US and the Dominions in the second half of the 19th century because being an agricultural labourer ain't what it used to be (like 100,000 of people with those jobs 'vanish' from the census within ten years, going to the city of abroad). The fact that, compared to 1830 where Britain imported just 2% of its grain, to the 1880s where it was 45%, (65% for wheat)... Uh-oh.

So that's a third thing.

ALTHOUGH, this did have another side affect of ensuring Britain could not get involved in the American Civil War like okay yes the South was very much banking on the need for cotton to push Britain to intercede but psych! The working class people of Lancashire are braver than any Confederate solider and refuse to work with cotton picked by enslaved peoples and would literally rather starve. Especially as, at that point 40% of the wheat people ate came from Northern US states. What's more important? Bread or cotton?

So... that's a fourth thing.

Anyway. Corn.

Sorry I had to make use of an out of date meme.

I'm just fascinated by how domestic actions can still massively impact other nations... Arthur doing the right thing for his people by lowering bread prices indirectly fucks over Matthew but also protects Alfred down the line. Like... urGH! You know?

[neonravengames]

What is the political structure of Tir Arandor like? How much power do nobles have compared to the crown?

The crown holds a strong central authority, but its power is limited by the nobility’s influence, both politically and economically. Nobles rule vast estates and influence the court, but ultimately, it is the monarch who makes the key decisions, albeit with considerable input from advisors, military leaders, and influential families. The balance of power in Tir Arandor is delicate, with the kingdom’s stability often resting on the crown’s ability to maintain alliances within the political landscape.

The political structure of Tir Arandor is a monarchy with a strong centralized crown, but the influence of noble families plays a significant role in the kingdom's governance. Here’s a breakdown of the system:

The Crown At the top of the hierarchy sits the King or Queen, who holds ultimate authority over the kingdom. The monarch’s power is largely absolute, though there are checks from various factions and advisors. The King or Queen is not only the head of the government but also the symbolic protector of the kingdom’s people. While they technically have the final say on all matters, they are deeply involved in maintaining peace with the noble houses and other influential factions, like the magical advisors and military orders.

The monarchy follows a primogeniture system (typically passing down through the eldest child, though non-binary heirs like Taryn are also respected in succession). The crown is not just a political position but also holds immense magical significance, particularly tied to the Veilstones, which are central to both the kingdom's power and the royal lineage’s ability to rule. The King or Queen is often advised by a council of trusted figures, including the magical advisor, military leaders, and royal family members. These advisors hold substantial sway over royal decisions, though the monarch retains the final word.

Noble Houses While the crown holds ultimate power, noble families exert considerable influence, particularly in matters of land, trade, and law within their regions. The nobility acts as a feudal class, controlling vast estates and serving as the bridge between the crown and the common folk.

Nobles, especially those with extensive land holdings, can be quite powerful, with armies and wealth at their disposal. They often govern provinces or regions and have control over local laws, taxation, and sometimes military forces. However, they still must answer to the crown for matters that impact the kingdom as a whole. The kingdom is divided into regions, each ruled by a noble house, with the most influential families—such as the Duchy of Ashenvale (Where Ali is from)—holding more sway in the court. While these families technically owe allegiance to the crown, many nobles have a level of autonomy that allows them to make decisions without royal interference. At court, the nobles jockey for power, trying to increase their influence at the expense of rivals. Some nobles have personal connections with the crown, like marriage ties or military alliances, giving them extra sway in the royal decisions. The crown’s need for noble support often shapes royal policies, especially when it comes to military or land disputes.

Military and Religious Influence The military (especially the Kingsguard) and the religious institutions also hold considerable influence in the kingdom’s politics, though they answer directly to the crown. The Kingsguard, for example, is made up of elite warriors typically chosen from the most trusted families, and their loyalty is absolutely crucial to the monarch’s reign.

Kingsguard: This elite group is loyal directly to the crown, not to individual nobles, and is tasked with protecting the monarch and ensuring the kingdom’s security. Their role, however, places them in frequent political battles with powerful noble families who wish to see their own forces rise to prominence. The order is considered the top of the military orders in the kingdom (so the actual standing army, navy, and the capital guard systems like the castle guard and town guard), excluding personal forces of the nobility (who should not have a standing army but do have their own small forces like town guards and militias). Religious Institutions: While the monarchy does not necessarily govern with religious authority, the Clerics of Elyndra (the majority religion), hold sway over the kingdom’s people and politics. Their doctrines influence law and royal decisions, particularly those tied to magical practices or matters involving the supernatural.

Political Tension and Balance of Power The power balance in Tir Arandor is a careful one, constantly shifting between the crown, nobility, and military. The kingdom’s prosperity hinges on alliances, often through marriages, military service, and political deals. The monarch’s ability to maintain these alliances is critical in preventing rebellion or unrest from the nobility, especially those who feel disenfranchised or overlooked.

Some powerful noble families push back against the monarchy, particularly as tensions rise over issues like the exploitation of the Veilstones or the crown’s stance on peace with the Fae. These dissenters might seek alliances with foreign kingdoms or rebellion, although such actions are dangerous without the support of the majority of the nobility. While not as powerful as the crown, the nobles hold considerable sway in court politics and can sway decisions in their favor, especially when it comes to trade, military support, or land use. They act as a counterbalance to the monarchy’s more centralizing tendencies.

The Common Folk and Nobility Commoners in Tir Arandor generally have limited political power, though they can occasionally rise through service to the crown or military. In the larger cities, there is more urban influence, particularly in merchant guilds and trade associations, but these groups are often at odds with the nobility’s interests.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from EcoWatch:

Napa Valley, a famous wine region in northern California, is facing pollution risks from a local landfill. 

The Clover Flat Landfill, which has been operating since the 1960s, is located near two streams that flow into the Napa River. According to a news report by The Guardian, the landfill may be contributing to pollution runoff into the nearby waterways. 

The Napa River is an important source of water for local agriculture, including vineyards, as well as for recreation.

“The Napa valley is amongst the most high-value agricultural land in the country,” Geoff Ellsworth, the former mayor of St. Helena, a city in Napa County, and a former employee at the landfill, told The Guardian. “If there’s a contamination issue, the economic ripples are significant.”

Emails and reports from former employees and regulators have raised concerns over contamination from the landfill and waste company Upper Valley Disposal Services (UVDS), both of which were once owned by the Pestoni family, according to The Guardian.

As Waste Dive reported in 2022, the landfill and waste disposal service companies were acquired by Texas-based Waste Connections.

Christina Pestoni, the former chief operating officer for Upper Valley Disposal & Recycling and current director of government affairs for Waste Connections, previously shared a statement contradicting the claims made against the landfill and the waste disposal company, asserting that the companies complied with regulations and operated at the “highest environmental standards.” The statement specified that no waste from the Clover Flat Landfill reached or impacted the Napa River.

[elsa16744]

Why is ESG Intelligence Important to Companies? 

Human activities burden Earth’s biosphere, but ESG criteria can ensure that industries optimize their operations to reduce their adverse impact on ecological and socio-economic integrity. Investors have utilized the related business intelligence to screen stocks of ethical enterprises. Consumers want to avoid brands that employ child labor. This post will elaborate on why ESG intelligence has become important to companies. 

What is ESG Intelligence? 

ESG, or environmental, social, and governance, is an investment guidance and business performance auditing approach. It assesses how a commercial organization treats its stakeholders and consumes natural resources. At its core, you will discover statistical metrics from a sustainability perspective. So, ESG data providers gather and process data for compliance ratings and reports. 

Managers, investors, and government officers can understand a company’s impact on its workers, regional community, and biosphere before engaging in stock buying or business mergers. Since attracting investors and complying with regulatory guidelines is vital for modern corporations, ESG intelligence professionals have witnessed a rise in year-on-year demand. 

Simultaneously, high-net-worth individuals (HNWI) and financial institutions expect a business to work toward accomplishing the United Nations’ sustainable development goals. Given these dynamics, leaders require data-driven insights to enhance their compliance ratings. 

Components of ESG Intelligence 

The environmental considerations rate a firm based on waste disposal, plastic reduction, carbon emissions risks, pollution control, and biodiversity preservation. Other metrics include renewable energy adoption, green technology, and water consumption. 

Likewise, the social impact assessments check whether a company has an adequate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policy. Preventing workplace toxicity and eradicating child labor practices are often integral to the social reporting head of ESG services. 

Corporate governance concerns discouraging bribes and similar corruptive activities. Moreover, an organization must implement solid cybersecurity measures to mitigate corporate espionage and ransomware threats. Accounting transparency matters too. 

Why is ESG Intelligence Important to Companies? 

Reason 1 – Risk Management 

All three pillars of ESG reports, environmental, social, and governance, enable business owners to reduce their company’s exposure to the following risks. 

High greenhouse (GHG) emissions will attract regulatory penalties under pollution reduction directives. Besides, a commercial project can take longer if vital resources like water become polluted. Thankfully, the environmental pillar helps companies comply with the laws governing these situations. 

A toxic and discriminatory workplace environment often harms employees’ productivity, collaboration, creativity, and leadership skill development. Therefore, inefficiencies like reporting delays or emotional exhaustion can slow a project’s progress. ESG’s social metrics will mitigate the highlighted risks resulting from human behavior and multi-generational presumptions. 

Insurance fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, preferential treatment, hiding conflicts of interest, and corporate espionage are the governance risks you must address as soon as possible. These problems introduce accounting inconsistencies and data theft issues. You will also receive penalties according to your regional laws if data leaks or insider trading happens. 

Reason 2 – Investor Relations (IR) 

Transparent disclosures can make or break the relationship between corporate leaders and investors. With the help of ESG intelligence, it becomes easier to make qualitative and manipulation-free “financial materiality” reports. Therefore, managers can successfully execute the deal negotiations with little to no resistance. 

You want to retain the present investors and attract more patrons to raise funds. These resources will help you to augment your company’s expansion and market penetration. However, nourishing mutually beneficial investor relations is easier said than done. 

For example, some sustainability investors will prioritize enterprises with an ESG score of above 80. Others will refuse to engage with your brand if one of the suppliers has documented records of employing child labor. Instead of being unaware of these issues, you can identify them and mitigate the associated risks using ESG intelligence and insights. 

Reason 3 – Consumer Demand 

Consider the following cases. 

Customers wanted plastic-free product packaging, and e-commerce platforms listened to their demand. And today’s direct home deliveries contribute to public awareness of how petroleum-derived synthetic coating materials threaten the environment. 

The availability of recharging facilities and rising gas prices have made electric vehicles (EVs) more attractive to consumers. Previously, the demand for EVs had existed only in the metropolitan areas. However, the EV industry expects continuous growth as electricity reaches more semi-urban and rural regions. 

Businesses and investors care about consumer demand. Remember, they cannot force consumers into buying a product or service. And a healthy competitive industry has at least three players. Therefore, customers can choose which branded items they want to consume. 

Consumer demand is one of the driving factors that made ESG intelligence crucial in many industries. If nobody was searching for electric vehicles on the web or everybody had demanded plastic packaging, businesses would never switch their attitudes toward the concerns discussed above. 

Conclusion 

Data governance has become a popular topic due to the privacy laws in the EU, the US, Brazil, and other nations. Meanwhile, child labor is still prevalent in specific developing and underdeveloped regions. Also, the climate crisis has endangered the future of agricultural occupations. 

Deforestation, illiteracy, carbon emissions, identity theft, insider trading, discrimination, on-site accidents, corruption, and gender gap threaten the well-being of future generations. The world requires immediate and coordinated actions to resolve these issues. 

Therefore, ESG intelligence is important to companies, consumers, investors, and governments. Properly acquiring and analyzing it is possible if these stakeholders leverage the right tools, relevant benchmarks, and expert data partners. 

[plaguery]

indepth discussion of my qualms with/reaction to a youtube video about incest porn below. read at your own discretion (mentions of other paraphilias, csa, cnc & rape)

"What's with all the incest porn?"

The video in question first defends the existence of incest porn by attempting to defend consensual incest itself. (read what I had to say about the creator's definition of incest here, warning for mentions of csa) To the creator, consensual incest is another social construct that we hold too much reserve for and constrain ourselves in our inherent reactions of disgust, rather than engaging with the truth of it's impact. Historically, incest has occurred across cultures and economic lines, often with little fanfare involved. They examine how inbreeding only fosters negative genetic effects after several generations and how it can be easily "rectified" in just a couple generations with the reintroduction of genetic diversity. Our inherent disgust towards incest is claimed to be unfounded against the evidence of how severe and reoccuring inbreeding must be to create tangible effects. Outside of those genetic effects, what else can excuse this nearly "universal" feeling of disgust? Well, that is a question quickly ignored and driven into the ground in this video.

It is often mentioned in the video that incest, even consensual, is a taboo across the many cultures of the world. But I must ask, why is it a taboo? What causes the instinctual feeling of disgust? And my favorite question, why is this taboo in particular popular to fantacize about?

Taboos are often culturally unique, many taboos found in one culture are readily engaged in with little question in another. Yet, there are some "universal" taboos (said with a grain of salt as there really can't be anything Universal about cultures but. we'll say almost here). These typically concern death and the dead. It's easy to connect these to basic fear and sanitary reasons: death will come for all of us, it ends us, we live to defy death until we can no longer, we must properly dispose of/treat the dead to avoid catching it and avoid inflaming the spiritual dead for own peaceful afterlife. But in our modern world, incest has grown close to being one of these near "universal" taboos, especially the closer the relation. It can be quite hard for most to say exactly why. We feel the revulsion, the writhing barriers of transgression around it. It feels obvious, yet just outside full comprehension.

The video explains the common evolutionary explanation that we evolved to feel disgust towards a practice that puts our genetic legacy at a disadvantage. It addresses how this doesn't quite explain why single instances of consensual incest feel just as disgusting as mass occurrences of it over time. Just once is enough to cross the line. Additionally, they claim that it isn't too clear whether scientific evidence supports this or not. And they move on.

But I come back around to the why of it, what is at the heart of this social phenomenon? Even the creator themself laughed at the evolutionary concept, calling evolutionary psychology "astrology for men". So, if that isn't a sufficient answer, what is?

Humans move past basic survival once they can accomplish a feeling of safety and security. I reckon that this can't be achieved alone, at least a small grouping of people is necessary to watch your back when you're at rest or occupied. Shelter becomes property once other people are involved. We start to say that "this is mine" and "this is yours" and "this is ours". And we create the rules amongst each other to respect this. We build trust and camaraderie until our closest network of people becomes our family. Typically, we find this with our blood relations, with parents who are biologically attached to us, with siblings we are raised alongside, with grandparents and aunts/uncles who watch and help us grow up. Your grandparents had the biological hardwiring to care for your parents and their siblings and now by association they build similar care for you, even if its no longer a biological process. And as centuries upon centuries have passed, family has come to mean many things, blood involved or not, but we attach this meaning of utmost security, trust and reliability unto it. Human survival, as a social species, is reliant on the building and operation of a "family", no matter how dysfunctional, no matter the size, no matter who is necessarily involved (meaning blood relation isn't necessary, although extremely typical).

Sociologically, we've created particular ideas of the family, but they do typically involve certain socially ordained sub-groupings where sexual relations are allowed. In many cultures today, this means that of a monogamous committed couple, but different groupings of different sizes can and do exist. Yet, an individual member finds their matches for their sexual sub-groupings by moving out of the family sphere and into the community, where they are allowed to move past mere safety and survival into building the self through integration with the world outside the family. Here, you build larger community with friends, coworkers, neighbors, etc. And it is also where you find sexual partners, potentially building a socially ordained sexual sub-grouping that can either absorb into or create a family.

Within the sect of the family, sexual interaction is not meant to exit those socially ordained sub-groupings. My thought is that this is to ensure our safety. I believe that the incestual taboo and our revulsion to it stems from the fact that we have built the family to be this place of ultimate security and fortitude, yet still so fragile and precarious. The sect of the family asks you to play out very specific roles and play them well, yet human fallibility shows we often fail at this. Dysfunction amongst families is common, if not nearly ubiquitous, as members fail to play their roles and force others to play the wrong ones. Outside of the socially ordained sexual sub-groupings, sexual contact is not part of these roles. Socially, we have moved sexual need from the realm of survival and into the realm of self-realization. We survive in the family and realize ourselves outside it. Something could be said for how we need to socially reorganize ourselves into accepting sexuality as a survival need and how that might change our ideas of family. But at this point, it is very socially ingrained in us to separate sexuality from family, outside of the socially ordained sexual subsects.

I figure that we are more prone to digust towards incest rather than, let's say, parentification (as another kind of family role transgression), due to both the visceral nature of it and the fears we have towards general sexuality. Again, something could be said for how our cultural views of sexuality need to be dismantled and reenvisioned and how this might change our feelings towards all kinds of sexual transgression. Even amongst consenting adults, the fear of incest is one of survival threatening role reversal, general sexual taboo, and a violation of what we consider to be nature (this is where the negative effects of inbreeding would come into play, mixed with typically religious ideas about procreation) all wrapped in one.

I did mention points where even I would agree that our cultural ideas of sexuality need to be reexamined and how they may impact our ideas of family and what sexuality can or cannot be limited to. And we are in an era where many cultural ideas, particularly around sexuality, are being questioned and revolted against. We often will hear that cultural constructs are just that, cultural inventions that served a certain purpose at a certain point in time that are not inherent to the human race. But this doesn't necessarily demean their worth. Should the social sect of the family be abolished or should it be reimagined? Should socially ordained sexual sub-groupings exist or should we find new avenues for engaging with sexuality? What will these things say about our future views of incest? I don't aim to answer these, but I leave it to you to find your own answers.

So, now I concern myself with my favorite question. Why is it this taboo in particular that has found popularity?

The video brought up how the rise in popularity of consensual incest/"fauxcest" (step-) porn happened around the time that Game of Thrones found large cultural purchase. But let me ask you this. If next month, a new show filled with necrophilia blew up "Game of Thrones style", do you think that necrophilia fantasies and porn would follow suit? I must say that I really don't think so. There is merit in that the mass exposure of the American masses to incestuous sex scenes probably helped make them aware of this as a possible fetish, but the exposure alone doesn't explain the whole of it.

I figure taboos exist on this kind of linear continuum of least taboo to extreme taboo. Different cultures will place certain things in different positions from other cultures. For Americans, consensual incest would be more on the extreme side, yet not so extreme as my earlier example of necrophilia. What I posit is that there is a "point of titillation" that is unique to the individual, rather than their culture.

Taboos create a sensational atmosphere around them and many people find themselves intrigued with some taboo or another, while rebuking others. By drawing an uncrossable line, they dare us to cross them and reap the possible rewards and/or consequences. There is a socially constructed danger that thrills and kills all the same. I think as a species, we are enamoured with the idea of transgression (to an extent), and we seek to push ourselves physically, emotionally, and psychologically, some more than others.

What I see as the "point of titillation" is a point in the linear continuum of taboo severity where the individual finds satisfaction in the idea of transgression itself, of engaging with the taboo, regardless of the content of said taboo. The proximity to the taboo, to a perceived extremity of physical/emotional/mental experience, is the core principal. This point does not engage with anything outside the near limits of it, meaning that just because someone finds satisfaction in transgression around this idea of taboo, it does not mean that they will also find satisfaction in any and every taboo that precedes it in severity. The point is only concerned with itself.

I would argue that, for those engaged with incest fantasy and pornography, their "point of titillation" is likely matched up quite well with the cultural marking of incest on the taboo severity continuum, whereas something like necrophilia is too far and thus, merely disgusting.

I believe that most people engaged with incest fantasies are not aroused by the actual idea of incest itself, but rather the transgression around it. Most of them would not be aroused by the idea of actually finding a sexual partner within their family sect and prefer to find sexual engagement in the outer community, as is socially acceptable. In this way, the "point of titillation" is not so much a demarcation of where exactly they're willing to "cross the line" but where they find intrigue in the mere idea of it.

And we come to my other point: it's quite easy.

People are intrigued by the danger of transgression, yet are either unknowledgable or negligent of how to mitigate these dangers while actually practicing the act of transgression. The kink scene is full of players who love dangerous practices and have built the proper protocols and conversational templates to create safe spaces for these transgressions to take place. They've put work and dedication into building their communities and dungeons and scenes. It takes consistent effort. But the average sexually engaged person, with partners or alone, is not particularly interested in all the non-sexy bits of safe transgressive sex. Hell, it's hard enough to get people on board with plain safe sex. They look for the easy routes to get their fix.

If you want to roleplay an incestuous encounter with a partner, it's as easy as calling them by certain titles. If you want to produce a pornographic video, it's as easy as scripting your actors to call each other certain titles. If you're looking for pornography a little more transgressive than usual but not too "out there", it's as easy as watching all the easily made incest fantasy pornographic videos flooding the sites.

A lot of fetishes and kinks take a lot of work and communication to happen safely, especially the more transgressive you go, but this is a rarer case of pretty high transgression, little danger (in the fantasy/fictional realm). For example, consensual non-consent (CNC) can be very endangering to its participants without the proper protocols and communication. Just roleplaying the fantasy of rape alone has a whole host of dangers, whereas roleplaying the fantasy of consensual incest (in cases where no engaging party has a history of the literal thing) is felt to be just another new way to spice things up.

Incest, in the American imagination, has become something to joke and gawk at. While it is still deeply taboo to many, including those who fantacize of it, it has been turned into an oddity, something those "poor Southerners" do and something that "silly" old royals used to protect the "bloodline" with. It is only real in the very fringes of society, if we ignore the CSA. It's a "funny" thing that occasionally shows up in books and movies. It's fanservice, it's fiction, it's simply "not real", if we don't want it to be. We like it because it's taboo and we don't want to talk about it more than that because it's precisely so. Afraid of our own shadow. Ask us about it past the freakshow and we'll laugh, not yet ready to discuss our real fear.