Because the habitable surface of the planet is less than 100 million square kilometers and only a fraction of that is suitable for subsistence farming. The only reason we can accommodate 8 billion is that the majority of them live in high-density settlements and that food is grown on an industrial scale elsewhere.
This is obviously not a reversible trend. People having close proximity to one another, creating economies of scale where everyone does what they are best at instead of everyone doing everything for themselves is what allows big cities to be possible.
I'm sure all of this was inevitable as there likely hasn't ever been a time where humans were not getting together to form communities when it was beneficial to do so.
Which goes back to the shame thing, really. Few people are willing to stand up and advocate for common sense laws because they don’t want to be associated with anything regarding sex. Politicians, whom are not generally noted for being averse to hiring sex workers, sure as hell don’t want to be advocating for them for fear of losing elections.
> Politicians [...] don’t want to be advocating for them for fear of losing elections.
This assumes that the politician plans and has a chance to become re-elected. If this is not the case, the arguments for not advocating for such laws become much less important for the respective politician.
Is there anywhere with one term limits for law makers with no staggered terms? If every member of a parliament is yoloing it, I'm not aure if things would be better or worse.
People don't think anymore, they just react... Im pretty sure Im done engaging on this platform for that reason. Nearly every comment is met by some crass remark that clearly demonstrates the person didn't actually understand the comment, just reacted to the trigger words within it.
This is best exemplified by all the comments (on varying posts) saying: 'I misread the title, and interpreted as X, haha!'. HN has unfortunately slid in the direction of Reddit (despite the HN Guidelines' denial of this).
I figured my wording was clearly sarcastic but I should’ve added a “/s”. Extrajudicial slaughtering is not something I’d support regardless of civilian casualty rate.
We know what he meant, and he's being obtuse. Thinks thousands of deaths due to rampant crime somehow aren't or shouldn't be part of the discussion when the collateral cost of law enforcement efforts are discussed. Very dumb.
I figured my wording was clearly sarcastic but I should’ve added a “/s”. Extrajudicial slaughtering is not something I’d support regardless of civilian casualty rate.
Dozens of innocents (5% of 1250 = 63) killed "extrajudicially" (i.e., illegally) by the drones that are the subject of the article, and those deaths were dismissed by the rationalization in the comment they replied to.
I just wanted to tell you that I read your comment immediately after writing mine and it's almost eerie how similar they are. There's the proof, if we needed any!
It might not mean much, and it won't lead to an interesting conversation, but here's one that has read your comment, and every single word resonated like a tuning fork.
I find that a little faith goes a long way here: assume that you have a higher audience and speak to them accordingly.
Don't let the loud ones confuse you: normal, reasonable people (with normal, reasonable thoughts, just like yours) might not always reply, but they also read you.
The irony of such an unnecessarily hostile opening line is ... Absolute cinema
(It's ok if you don't get it, Jeff. This comment is for other people)
reply