Thank you, @mark-carney.bsky.social
10.03.2026 22:05
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Thank you, @mark-carney.bsky.social
Canada will 'never participate' in Iran offensive, Carney says nationalnewswatch.com/2026/03/10/c...
Regulatory oversight is not prohibition. 🛑
Today I addressed the House to clear up the misinformation on #C233. My bill doesn't stop exports; it ensures that ALL military exports—including those to the U.S.—undergo the same human rights assessment.
Watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHRJ...
Hey @mark-carney.bsky.social you now are going to completely walk back your initial support for the fascist American war of aggression in Iran because you have belatedly recognized that fascist American wars of aggression aren't going to stop with Venezuela, Iran, and then Cuba, right? Right??
And you should be paying a lot more if that's the case.
Now, my friend, I'm afraid I've run out of time.
But thank you, it was a good conversation. If I get a moment to sit down, I'll respond to your most recent points.
Also, I would like to point out, just in case it wasn't clear, that I was never claiming that VFs should be our only method of food production.
I tend to favor synergistic systems where we use multiple parallel approaches to food production, power generation, etc.
And if you're worried about that, I should point out to you that the income disparity from the very top to the very bottom went from about 40:1 in the 1960s to roughly 400:1 now.
For the immediate future, looking at the high likelihood of mass starvation due to agricultural shortfalls...
Perhaps VFs (or some superior agricultural system) need to be publicly owned and funded through taxation.
The idea I would like you to consider is that the necessary solutions to solve our most pressing problems (global warming, land loss, power generation) may not be monetizable.
What if the only scientific/technically sound solutions cannot generate profit?!
I mean, I criticized the prospect of Monsanto owning VFs and you said "well some hippie commune isn't going to build them."
As if those are the only two options.
More to the point the issue isn't cost so much as it is profit.
If you limit yourself only to those solutions that can generate a profit, you're going to use only those solutions that destroy the ecosystem.
... It often fails to account for the fact that lower short-term costs lead to much higher long term costs in the form of environmental devastation.
But it doesn't approximate real inputs -materials, energy etc. Not to the degree you're claiming.
Costs can be artificially inflated by any number of factors. And when used as a primary metric for the viability of a project...
Look, friend, I told you, the objections that I received were primarily in the form of "building those kinds of robots is impossible."
Now I didn't say that in the first tweet because I'm stuck with a 300 character limit.
And what that illustrates is that capitalism is *not* an efficient system. In fact, it exposes the whole lie of market efficiency.
We have an option that uses less water and will feed more people. But it costs more.
Because cost efficiency and technical efficiency are not the same thing.
I suspect that as arable land becomes scarcer due to global warming, you will see vertical farms implemented at scale.
The problem is they'll be owned by Nestle or Monsanto and the food they grow will only find its way to the super rich while everyone else lives on scraps.
My point is that these solutions, which have been proposed years ago as long term projects always remain "pie in the sky" until some rich asshole decides he can make another few hundred million.
We would need to upgrade our power grid. But as luck would have it, we have to do that anyway.
However, you've missed the point. I'm not here to argue for the feasibility of vertical farms. If a better option comes along, by all means, let's do that.
You're right. The technology has not been implemented on that level.
But that's not because there's a problem with the technology. VFs consume less water and produce higher crop yields than traditional farms
They do, however, use a great deal of electricity.
Vertical farms already exist, my friend.
And no, they were talking about the automation. The most common complaint was "oh, you can't build robots that will do that."
I would like Americans to stop and seriously consider how America itself may be the problem here.
Consider how the chest-thumping "greatest country in the world" bullshit you internalized without one second of critical thought leads directly to Trump.
Trump isn't new. He's just more. #Iran #uspoli
Everything on Leyria is possible. But when I said we should have automated vertical farms, what did I always hear? "That's pie in the sky stuff."
But when some rich fucks want to displace farm workers, suddenly it's quite doable.
#AI #UBI
@newsynonsense.bsky.social
Uh, I really want this work automated. We need universal basic income and if farmers still want to farm with UBI, and pickers still want to pick with UBI, then great, and that food can just cost more and have a label like organic but to show it was human grown and picked.
We didn't ruin the economy.
We didn't get you laid off.
We didn't replace you with AI.
We didn't raise gas prices.
We didn't foreclose your home.
We didn't cause your divorce.
We didn't get your kid snatched by ICE.
We aren't in the Epstein files.
Leave us the fuck alone.
it’s cargo-cult pragmatism. ”sometimes politics requires us to make hard choices“ mutated into “the cruelest and most cynical choice is always the correct one”
That is a very astute observation.
If you want to stop the war, you should be pragmatic by not stopping the war, thus attracting the very nuanced votes of centrists who do not want to stop the war.
It won't work, and you won't get elected or anything by doing this, but on the other hand it won't stop the war either.
So many people have now unconsciously adopted the politics-savvy "pragmatic" stance of beltway insiders that they don't seem to have any true sense where that ersatz pragmatism has led us. It's allowed moral and institutional rot that normalizes everything, even insane death-cult fascism.
If an official commits an impeachable offense and nobody acts to impeach, it is no longer an impeachable offense.
People who oppose impeachment as “pointless” because it seems unlikely to result in removal do not understand this very simple point and seem unwilling to even try to understand it.
Anyways, in the meantime, consider chipping in to help us beat AIPAC!
Election Day is in one week! secure.actblue.com/donate/abu-b...