My friend borrowed a tent from Frome's equivalent over the summer. When he unpacked it at the site there were no pegs. He managed to borrow pegs off other campers and got it set up. It rained heavily that night and he quickly discovered the waterproofing had worn off and his tent was actually absorbing instead of repelling water. The water pooled in their tent and gradually soaked all the bedding and possessions. He gave up and went home in the morning.
No, straight up, that's what needs to be done. I think that the current population-management fantasy supported by the WEF and quite a few on Hackernews -- building enormous arcologies in which to warehouse much of the world's citizenry -- is going to run into technical challenges that threaten the entire project, before they even get to the massive "people hate living there" problems.
We can get to actually zero carbon emissions if we adopt simple living without any industrial technology, but we lose the capacity to feed eight billion people without Green Revolution style agtech, so we will have to make do with fewer people. We have to face up to the reality that industrial civilization is widely regarded, by people with deep understanding of the issues, as a bad move.
This is a pretty mean-spirited comment, I don't even know where to start. Homeless people are just people like you and me. If you'd been born in their shoes, with their inherited genetic make-up, raised by their parents, surrounded by their friends, living their life experiences etc you'd very possibly be homeless too and 'spewing bullshit' as you put it
I don't know that I agree that "the primary cause of homelessness is the tendency to spew bullshit", I but I definitely don't agree with the implication of the assertion "homeless people are just people like you and me". It's true that they're homo sapiens, but this cuts both ways--Donald Trump is just a person like you or me, so is Vladimir Putin, and yet I don't necessarily feel sympathy for either. At some point it behooves us to order ourselves around a set of behaviors or beliefs, and actually begin to make value judgements on what people do, or how they choose to behave.
(This includes mental illness and addiction--even if we mentally those people as being in the grip of something beyond themselves, if a peaceful, non-grifting society is desired someone needs to make choices about how to restrict their freedom.)
I happened to watch the 'Ecstacy' documentary on Prime last night. I was surprised to see the guy who brought MDMA to the world was sad that it had become a party drug as he believes it's primary purpose could have been to help people psychologically. Definitely worth a watch.
There's no mismatch between being a party drug and helping people psychologically [1]. The only people who think so are the same kind of sad, dull people who were upset at the Finnish prime minister dancing - and since MDMA turned out to be an awesome party drug they had to ban it and punish the ones who had fun.
[1] For me, for example, I didn't have any major traumas before I tried MDMA (so therapy would have been pointless), but I were really shy. MDMA at a party setting helped me realize deeply that there's no reason for being scared of talking and connecting with people.
I wouldn't expect to have professional development overtly included in a short term contract, either. I'd expect a much higher hourly rate to pay for it though, amongst other things.
I'd expect if the plumber worked for a plumbing company they'd probably invest some time and money into skills growth, and pay for it out of the money they charge you.
