leicsmac

Glad for the additional economic argument here to add to the manifold others for progress rather than Paleolithic regression on this matter.

When it comes to UK specific long-term infrastructure projects, there has to be a better way of ensuring their completion without money drain and party political flip-flopping than the current one. Any ideas, because there's far too many essential big jobs that either don't get done or get done late and massively over budget because of the politicking?

On this topic, it still rather baffles me how the idea of demographic mutability worries, and therefore intimidates and angers, so many people. It's almost like they have to have humanity dispersed into easily defined groups so there's always an "out-group" to exert power over, isn't it? It'll be an auspicious day for our species when that kind of discrimination is rendered utterly obsolete, through whatever method.

... it's like they truly, honestly don't understand where the pathway they want to go ends, do they? Or they're so sociopathic they simply don't care about a future they may not be involved in. Or both.

I think that the differences in levels of personal freedoms in a place like China and like North Korea are rather large, but each to their own. My earlier points about the UK trade policy and China (as much as their government appears to be horrible) being best placed among the leading powers to meet the coming future still stand.

The UK already does business with a lot of governments that might be considered abhorrent, without the benefit that China has of actually being forward-looking as well as objectionable in terms of style of government. I don't really see a reason to clutch pearls without being a hypocrite there. Their ambitions, I think, are the long game. Their massive energy infrastructure investment in many places shows this. The West can either look to match them in kind on that, or fall behind and let them have the power that will come from being best-placed in the world that is changing and will change more - no matter how much people bask in their own denial about the laws of thermodynamics. Edit: pedantry here, but North Korea is totalitarian. China is authoritarian.

It's darkly funny how a lot of the West continue to look down their noses at China while they're currently accelerating away from us on almost every metric concerning progressive infrastructure to guarantee the future. The same hubris from the other side - "we're no.1 so why try harder" - was one of the key reasons that led to the Opium Wars and the "Century of Humiliation" for China. Something to consider before we keep thinking they're somehow inferior.

I must admit I was looking for something more along the lines of Lynas et al involving an assessment of the peer reviewed literature and showing clear consensus of data on the chromosomal definition of sex as an absolute arbiter (if that's what we're using) as well as what was said in that article, but I appreciate the time and effort taken. Glad there's agreement there. It's unfortunate, however, that quite a few folks appear to have a great deal of trust in scientific findings (such as they are) on this matter, but a remarkable lack of trust on other matters where an even greater scientific consensus exists - to the point of affecting policy decisions in a negative fashion for most everyone. It would be interesting to know the reasoning behind that particular dichotomy.

Agreed. So there should be no problem showing the scientific consensus of data that proves this reality, right? Additionally, the same consensus of data should be trusted in other cases when it comes to policymaking, right? Asking for the sake of clarity because sometimes there does seem to be a certain element of... cherry-picking regarding exactly what defines a scientific consensus and whether that consensus should be used to craft policy and decision making or not. And of course, some decent people simply trying to live their lives without actually harming anyone are viewed as at best a laughable anomaly and at worst a degenerate target of violence by many.

Nah, they won't escape consequences. Not for long, anyway.

It is, but at least when the shit hits the fan (which if the liars get their way, it inevitably will), at least the liars will be in it with everyone else and with any luck those wanting to know who killed the world will know who those liars are and who to hold accountable.

The very worst thing about this horrible tragedy was that it was preventable.

Honestly, it's very mid-tier. It's unfortunate to ladies like KA Applegate whose Animorphs series was so much higher in standard but much less popular, for whatever reason. Fair point well made regarding the economic contributions. I'm pretty sure there are better ways to address the issue. Would need a better mind than mine to give the idea, though. Addressing inequality isn't just about some abstract idea of fairness, it's also practical from the standpoint that in times of such inequality, people tend to become more tribal, more divided, and there tends to be a fair bit more blood on the street by the end of it all. And as Sollozo in The Godfather once said, blood is itself a big expense.

It is scary, and doesn't end well. Which, again, is why a solution is required rather promptly.

He made up for it by actually caring about every single human being, rather than being selective about it. And wrote about such critical issues in a way that put most other authors, Rowling included, in the shade. The Harry Potter series is mediocre writing with an excellent marketing team, nothing more. But that's a rather fraught discussion, so I'll leave that one there.

I agree, and I'm still looking for a way to address that which doesn't involve doing things that the super rich might not like. But they don't appear to be contributing much to a solution if results at the present time are any judge, either. And yes, it's their responsibility to do that, along with everyone else.

Depends whether they actually use those services and keep money in circulation or just hoard. And as per above, increasing inequality is a massive driver of social disorder and we really should be looking to address that however possible.

FYP. But on the general point being made here, there's a lot of scare stories about wealthy people upping sticks when taxes go up but firstly there are places where there are higher tax rates and a better standard of living all round where that doesn't happen, and secondly addressing inequality is a massive concern and I'd be interested in hearing other ways it might happen.

https://phys.org/news/2025-10-paris-agreement-offset-economic-growth.html Interesting analysis on the current state of things.

That sounds about right. It also sounds like a reason why the rules are rather flawed.

No harm anyone does in the name of "net zero" will be as bad as what will happen should we ignore the problem. I'm not sure how that isn't obvious. That's often true. And now, such desensitised behaviour is allowing actual fascists, racists and bigots to begin pulling the levers of power in various places. At the end of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, the wolf does actually come.

Well, judging by that article on the previous page, the benefit fraud and errors, tax gaps and bank bailouts, to name but three, are greater strains on the exchequer. (The MoD budget is too, but the funding of that is a whole other debate.) I'm inclined to think that none of them carry the same space in the public consciousness than some idea of "foreigners" getting a "free ride" - even when those three things above cost the average UK citizen far, far more. The single-minded hyperfocus on one policy area doesn't actually end up helping anyone long term. Or even medium term.

And quite a bit of Latin America and South Asia, too. Of course, they'll have other problems of their own at a similar time.

I think that it won't just be the Western world that falls if there is some kind of digital catastrophe. All these systems are codependent. Another reason nationalism is becoming outmoded.

There are bigger problems, much bigger problems - to the exchequer, to social discourse, to the future itself - than the migration of people into the UK. It's deeply frustrating, and detrimental, that it appears to have a focus of singular importance that it simply does not deserve among so many. It's about time more was done to either disabuse or treat that focus with the attention it deserves. I would say facts help, but the discussion above appears to indicate otherwise.