Like evasive chimpanzee said we need to poop INDIRECTLY in crops. Hot aerobic composting for example has excellent nutrient retention rates and eliminates nearly all human borne diseases. The main problem would be medication since some types tend to survive.

Also urine contains almost all of the water soluble nutrients that we expel and is sanitised with 6-12 months of anaerobic storage. So that’s potentially an easier solution if we can seclude the waste stream. Again the main issue would be medications.

I don’t have the answer, if it was easy we would have done it already. The main issue is we don’t have a lot of people working on the answer because we’re still in the stage of getting everyone in the world access to sanitation. Certainly the way we’re doing it is very energy and resources intensive, unsustainable in the living term, and incredibly damaging to the environment. We’ve broken a fundamental aspect of the nutrient cycle and we’re paying dearly for it.

The other problem is, like recycling, there isn’t a lot of money in the solution, so it’s hard to move forward in a capitalist system until shit really hits the fan.

1. We mine and manufacture nutrient dense fertilizer at massive environmental cost.
2. We use the nutrients to grow plants
3. We eat the nutrients in our food
4. We expel 95% of these nutrients in our waste
5. We dump our waste into the rivers and oceans with all the nutrients (often we purposefully destroy the nitrogen in the waste since it causes so much damage to rivers and oceans)
6. We need new nutrients to grow plants

Before humans there was a nutrient cycle. Now it’s just a pipe from mining to the ocean that passes through us. The ecological cost of this is immeasurable, but we don’t notice because fertilizer helps us feed starving people and waste management is important to avoid disease.

We need to close the loop again!

If 5 people including a janitor produce 1mil in profit. And having 4 people, no janitor makes 600k in profit due to having to work in filth and taking breaks to clean up then the janitor is worth 400k. It’s not really that complicated. Capitalists like to pretend these things are complicated when they’re not. Companies have a damn good idea of what their janitors are worth because it’s constantly compared with what they cost to see if they can do without them or outsource them to a contractor.

When it comes time to PAY them they don’t care what they’re worth anymore, just how little they can pay someone to do the job.

Just because no one gives you the number doesn’t make it imaginary. It’s just kept from you by the person who profits off your labour.

I chose NOT diddling kids!

We all get frustrated some days, I appreciate that you deleted your comment, no worries.

The painting is 44"x66" … It’s HUGE, so it’s a lot easier to make bold crisp lines than in a smaller painting for sure.

Good. We need to protect parliament from the moral decay of the conservative party. Ad homonym attacks are not part of civil discourse and we shouldn’t accept it just because the conservatives want to lower parliamentary proceedings to the rhetoric level of a barroom brawl.

If dying of dehydration try to find an elephant. There are often drips of water in leftover in their trunks. Elephants don’t mind sharing and are often grateful have a dry trunk as it avoids trunkrot.

I’m generalizing here, but men’s lib looks VERY different to women’s lib. Women started from a position of very low power, liberation was nearly a continuous improvement for all but the most privileged women.

Men’s lib requires first giving up a lot of patriarchal power before gaining the benefits of men’s lib, which in my opinion far surpass those of patriarchal power. There are a lot of barriers to this. First, most “online” feminists talk only about giving up patriarchal power. This feels hostile to most men and has bolstered misogynist influencers like tate et al. Second real life men and women are typically both complicit as men in enforcing patriarchal views of what a man is supposed to be. You can see experiences of men crying or expressing real emotion in front their prospective significant others as a prime example of this. Third there is no easy to access popular description of the benefits to men of men’s lib. There are great examples, but they aren’t as culturally relevant as patriarchal influencers yet.

The path to men’s lib is complex and has very different challenges than women’s lib. I think we’re getting there, but it’s certainly a slow process and at this time I think the counter reaction is more prevalent and popular.

That income is high enough to be taxed more, but I agree more granularity would be better. I hope that they increase taxes on the rich mostly by closing loopholes that favour the 1% at our expense. A billionaire that pays no taxes now isn’t going to owe more if we increase the tax rate. 3 times 0 is still 0. It’s the loopholes we have to close.

It’s not usually the doctors making 250-400k that are shirking their fair share of taxes, but the use of loopholes certainly starts in that range and accelerates exponentially with higher wealth and income.

Usually in North America bidet refers to a modified insert or toilet seat that includes a sprayer and a lever to control. It doesn’t take up any space at all. Definitely a stand alone bidet takes up a lot of space but they’re visually non existent in North America, although I certainly would prefer that to the sprayers.

It’s never throwing your ballot in the garbage though. I used to think the same way, but every vote on the left, even if for the lesser evil, even if they lose, moves the conversation to the left. When we all stay home you get maga nutjobs stealing the show running unchecked.

Last thing is that gerrymandered states are the EASIEST to upset by increasing voter turnout. To gerrymander effectively you have to put your opponent in dense areas they’ll win by a large margin, then spread your side so that you barely win the rest of the districts. That means that a 5% increase in votes on the left can take you from a loss to a nearly complete victory in a gerrymandered state.

Vote splitting on the other hand is a trickier beast, but in the end if all the left votes go to a moderate then that gives the left a lot of leverage because if the moderate candidate doesn’t bend to the left then they’ll lose the next election.

Always vote.

Removed by mod

This is the vaguest comment ever. Are you happy about the reduction of international flights? Are you suggesting people should stay in their own countries? Or just Chinese tourists?

This is the goal of the Ontario conservatives. They literally sat on billions of federal COVID funds instead of funding healthcare. They WANT the publicly funded healthcare system to fail so that they can sell Ontarians on US style private healthcare and enrich their business donors.

It’s disgusting behaviour.

LMAO… ‘Despite’ the devastation…

That’s like if your dog bit the neighbour, but then the neighbor killed your whole family and burned your house down and a journalist said “despite the loss of of everything he owned and everyone he loves, he now says he was happy his dog at least got one in first”

What kind of degenerate reporting uses obvious normal human reactions to tragedy to score political points and dehumanize innocent civilians.

I love the caption! 6 people holding a seance but they have 22 hands lol

Jokes aside the fact that people put the effort to caption their images for accessibility is awesome!

I’m sorry, I just have a hard time agreeing with you on the definition of progressive taxation here. Sure SOME rich people will pay more than SOME poor people. But even that statement is tenable at best. Certainly MOST rich people will pay less than an average family farm. Most rich people will pay less than an average person who owns a self sufficient rural homestead lot.

It’s not as bad as the libertarian “15/15/15 flat tax” that was making the rounds a few years ago, but that’s the best that can be said about it.

I like a lot of consequences of the LVT, like that if famously solves the downtown parking lot problem. But I’d never call it progressive. A progressive tax should tax people who own more wealth more than those who own less. If you tax someone who owns a multi million dollar hotel the same as someone who owns an empty lot next door all you’re doing is making it so that only the rich can afford lots. Then when they improve the lot to make more money you reward them by effectively taking a smaller percentage of their new found wealth.

It’s not progressive.

How much land does Musk or Bezos own? How much land does an average farmer own?

Amazon warehouses are built on the unimproved equivalent of farmland or worse. The Amazon warehouse generates millions in annual profit. The same parcel of land gets a farmer a meager income and we should tax BOTH THE SAME???

If you come up with a tax that has any chance of taxing an old farmer more than it taxes Musk or Bezos, don’t come tell me it’s progressive.

Also I’m sick of hearing that somehow this tax “can’t be passed down to the consumer”. If every plot of land nearby is taxed the same, all the owners will shrug and say “sorry that’s just what it costs”. It’s the very definition of things that will be passed down to the consumer. Take your libertarian BS out of here.