You forgot to mention the part where EU model is to export demographic deficit which is "purchased" by the young generations of other countries stiffling their growth and displacing the dwindling younger european generations.
"Dont buy cheap tshirts from bangladesh just bring its youth in" is apparently morally superior model
> Your picture of the friendly villagers might be true in your experience, but in reality a lot of those people are nasty when they encounter any kind of cultural diversity or difference.
Cities are all the things you describe, including the myopic perspective and the inflexibility on display in this quote.
And thats why city states - which is what effectively those you describe are - eventually collapse into "dark ages" and future generation of people can't understand why
As a rare non-ideological vegetarian (I just really don't like the taste) you've got the market for this completely backwards. Beyond meat is for ideological vegetarians and vegans who like the taste. Non-ideological ones who would really prefer not to have a meat substitute.
At something like 6% of the world the market the population of ideological vegetarians and vegans is huge. With another handful of percent who are ideologically opposed to eating meat on certain days but not entirely vegetarian.
PS. Your claim that "most people are not ideologic with their food"... Not all food ideology is related to vegetarianism so it's not terribly relevant but I think this claim is just wrong. Islam + Hinduisim + Buddhism make up nearly half the world and all have pretty strong religious ideological beliefs about food, and a non-trivial fraction of the quarter of the world that is christian has at least a few scruples like avoiding meat during lent. And that's just people preaching religious beliefs not less documented ideologies like believing real men eat their steak raw or whatever.
> Beyond meat is for ideological vegetarians and vegans who like the taste.
I must be in bubble or have a very different definition of "idiological": of the dozens of vegans/vegetarians I know none would actively seek the "taste" of industrialized "ready-made" "meat replacement". They may put up with it if must be, but seek it? Desire it?
By definition, if you're a vegan or vegetarian for strictly ideological reasons, you still like the taste and feel of meat. So, compared to a vegetarian or vegan who is doing it for other reasons, you're statistically far more likely to seek meat substitutes.
Now, this relies on considering people "ideological vegans/vegetarians" if their only motivation for not eating meat is ideology. This means that the huge amount of Hindu Indians who are ideologically opposed to eating meat don't count, since even without this ideological motivation, they would still have traditional and social and supply reasons to not eat meat.
> Lets be real: unless fake-meat products become at least the same price as equivalent meat options what's the point?
If you were to make fake plant-based products that were (a) noticeably healthier than meat, and (b) indistinguishable from meat taste-wise (or better-tasting), I'm quite confident a lot of people would pay a premium for that.
The problem is the current products just don't deliver that. All they deliver is eco-friendliness at a premium, at which point they're basically offering something more akin to the optional climate fee on flight tickets.
To me your basically describing a climate fee in your paragraph.
You can already eat healthy, better and more sustainably but doing what humans have done for millions of years. You dont need an industrialized, packaged, convenient and standardized flavour.
Honestly, i have come to see beyond and impossible as a variation of soylent. Its for a very specific and narrow market of people that I'd rather not describe
I read alot against monetization in the comments. I think because we are used monetization being so exploitative, filled with dark patterns and bad incentives on the Big Web.
But it doesnt need to be thia way: small web can also be about sustainable monetization. In fact there's a whole page on that on https://indieweb.org/business-models
There's nothing wrong with "publishers" aspiring to get paid.
I also think equating good = "no monetization" is exactly how we've ended up in a situation where everything is controlled by a few giant mega corps, hordes of MBAs, and unethical ad networks.
We should want indie developers, writers, etc to make money so that the only game in town doesn't end up being those who didn't care about being ethical. </rant>
Most orders are issued assuming compliance, or they'd be more considered (and less of them) or costly to enforce. To say there's "no exception" it's to say "we've done NO analysis whatsoever to understand if there should be any exception so, we'll cross that bridge later".
You did well, because someone with actual some skin in the game considered you irreplaceable at that moment.
The erosion of trust in democracies isn't about the act of corruption, but the nature of the promise. Democracies operate on high-resolution, precise contracts that attempt to surgically separate the Office from the Person. Ironically, democracies try to build machines out of people, while autocracies simply accept that the machine is a person.
Autocracies are low-resolution systems trading on vague promises of 'order' and the explicit assumption of prerogative. In that framework, an official favoring their own isn't 'breaking' the machine; they are exercising it. You can't lose trust in a promise of impartiality that was never made. For the democratic actor, corruption is a breach of contract; for everyone else, it’s just the weather.
Internet monolithic social services are run by private companies with TOS that no one reads and change, services that barely anyone pays for (except through their data).
We should definitely normalize this so that people see what the internet actually is for the vast majority of people.
reply