I exist or something probably

  • 0 Posts
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 8th, 2023


  • It’s extremely easy to disturb asbestos, it does not take a large chronic exposure to get health consequences, it takes a very small amount of acute exposure or even less chronic exposure. Generally you will be fine from incidental one-off exposures, but if you live in a home with say, asbestos tiles in your kitchen, or asbestos in the paint or drywall, it can be very easy to build exposure from reno or damage from normal home wear. Not to mention it’s extremely expensive to modify because of the required controls, meaning it disproportionately effects low income households, who both struggle to afford preventative maintenance, and struggle to afford the reno.

    There’s a reason asbestos ppe is decon controls roughly equivalent to mercury, lead, and beryllium.

  • And caloric deficit is only true on a fictitious notion of metabolism via a simplified system model of a human as a black box. As far as weight loss strategies go, calorie counting is extremely ineffective, and often leads to worse quality of life.

    If your goal is however to shame people with a highschool level understanding of metabolism by making the problem into something “simple” they are failing to do with your actively bad advice, it’s effective.

  • The subsidies have an ontological value in that they improve the quality of life for the child. So removing subsidies will actively perpetuate and increase the very systemic issues that many antinatalists care about in the first place. You address this too, I’m just expressing agreement that simply removing chiodcare subsidies is not ethically simple even for staunch antinatalists.

    In general governments ought to be working to support the people they represent. To me it seems an antinatalist who’s goal is to reduce suffering would want to introduce things like a basic income or some such to improve the quality of life of those who do exist, not further take from those who have yet to be.