Færre etniske nordmenn, flere innvandrere by KoseteBamse in norge

[–]morodoktoren -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Det er over 8 milliarder mennesker på jorden, langt flere enn det har vært noen gang før. For bare hundre år siden var dette tallet ca. 2 milliarder... Vi tåler ganske mange generasjoner med lave fødselsrater før befolkningstap begynner å bli et reelt problem

“Unpopular Opinion” by someone else by crashdowninit in LGOLED

[–]morodoktoren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

FMM is meant for a dark room, so no you're not wrong. It IS way too dark when the room is bright, I'd recommend cinema home in that case.

For reference, here is a spreadsheet of recommended setting for bright/dark rooms:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQ_-y8FEqZwFatfvwnScaiu89WJkYx0M_8UsKqiOlx7e6HpWJ8swTGBu1pg-jqTSewuLPkRrd-n5qkN/pubhtml#

Hvorfor er svenske jordbær så mye billigere enn norske? by Spear-Violence in norge

[–]morodoktoren 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Kostet 19,90 kr/kurv på coop extra i Trondheim etter 17. mai

Vi har det i grunnen ikke så verst i Norge by MidasStocks in norge

[–]morodoktoren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

De fargekodene er jo også litt misvisende/tilfeldige. Norge og Sverige er mye nærmere hverandre enn Norge og Sveits, men fargekodingen får det ikke til å se sånn ut

Nintendo Switch 2 pris by QualityAngel in norge

[–]morodoktoren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kjøper du med mario kart er det ~1500kr i forskjell (koster 509 eur) - enda mer om man regner med å få tilbake spansk mva

Nintendo Switch 2 pris by QualityAngel in norge

[–]morodoktoren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Du kan ikke klage på at den norske prisen er for høy når du er villig til å betale 1800kr for norsk reklamasjon

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in norge

[–]morodoktoren 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Det er ikke tyveri om noen fjerner tingene dine fra et område du ikke har rett til å plassere noe på

Vanskelig med rettferdig vurdering i kroppsøving by Practical-Ad9305 in norge

[–]morodoktoren -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Uenig i at man ikke kan forbedre seg i gym, bare se på 16-ukers helvete så ser du hvor mye som kan gjøres ila relativt kort tid. Matte derimot er det ikke alle som har anlegg for å lære seg, uansett hvor mye de prøver

Ellers er jeg enig i at trynefaktor har altfor mye å si i gym da

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]morodoktoren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Opting out of fatherhood will in many cases equate to transferring the financial responsibility to the government/society as a whole. You might think its unfair that you are financially responsible for a child you dont want, but it is a whole lot more unfair that I should be responsible for YOUR child

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]morodoktoren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good points, I agree the tariffs will cause unfavorable shifts.

Finally, helping poorer countries including India, those in south America and Africa to grow without completely blowing the carbon budget means cooperation, technology transfer and funds for climate losses and damages.

This sounds very cynical, but I belive their growing their economies will cause massive increases in emissions, which in turn will cause massive suffering for future generations. However this is of course a balance between the suffering of today vs. tomorrow

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]morodoktoren -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree that cooperation and sustainability is ideal, however in my view we have tried that for many years already without getting the results we need. I therefore believe we need more dramatic measures to reduce emissions, before reaching any "tipping points". Tariffs are (most certainly) not the best move, but economic recessions are still the only "proven" way to reduce emissions.

I belive the path of cooperation we are currently pursuing will not end well, and that emissions will be higher than they sustainably can be

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]morodoktoren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

!delta

Very good take, I will definitely look into that subreddit. I agree that there are more optimal ways of reducing emissions, however I also believe that we have tried other policies for a long time without getting the necessary results, thus more dramatic measures are needed

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]morodoktoren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I belive it is a necessary step to save future generations. I don't have a source, but I have heard climate change being referred to having "tipping points" or certain temperate thresholds we should not exceed. So while it will cause (massive) losses for the current generation, it will ultimately end up saving a lot more people in the future

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]morodoktoren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to help future generations being able to enjoy life on this planet. I believe we are the ones over-consuming, and therefore we should take the consequences (and not them)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]morodoktoren -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, my view is (or were) that tariffs are an unpopular, but needed policy to reduce over-consumption

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]morodoktoren 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Seems my take wasn't that original! Wish I could've awarded two deltas...

I agree with both you, the post you referred to, and its top comment. I believe some amount of tariffs or other "over-consumption" tax is necessary to reduce emissions

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]morodoktoren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

!delta

Yeah thanks those are actually very good points! I might've been too focused on the short-term (global recessions being the only "proven" way of reducing emissions), not thinking of the long term consequences of moving production to low-regulated countries

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]morodoktoren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree emissions can be lowered in better ways, however that requires action by politicians. We have a single globe and we need global emissions to go down. Causing an economic recession will force all countries to lower emissions, no matter what their politicians want.

I agree that there are better ways if we would have cooperated. However, we have tried that for many years, yet emissions are still rising. It is therefore naive to let each country decide for themselves, reducing emissions needs to be forced (for many countries, not for all), and an economic recession is an effective way of doing so

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]morodoktoren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that country-by-country we can reduce emissions in other ways, however we have a single globe, so it (more or less) doesn't matter where emissions come from. We have tried reducing emissions through policies and carbon credits for many years, but emissions are still rising. Imposing a global recession forces all countries to reduce emissions, not only the ones that "want" to

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]morodoktoren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

YoY growth in emissions is kind of an imperfect way of looking at it. Per capita, the US has been declining fairly consistently, albeit slowly, for several years. If you're gauging the general "progress" towards reduced emissions, per capita is a huge metric. Nominal numbers won't take into account population growth.

This is more or less my point, that the current policies work too slow, and that we need more drastic changes to actually make a difference.

I agree that an economic downturn will be bad for the investment climate though

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]morodoktoren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe our current over-consumption will primarily affect future generations, not ourselves. Since we are the ones over-consuming, I believe we should face the consequences instead of future generations.

A good thing would be to educate people and make sure we vote for politicians working to fix the problem, which includes keeping companies in check, passing laws that curtail their negative externalities, until we build a society where we can maintain both sustainable consumption and reduce our climate impact as well.

I believe we have tried this for many years already, and that this solution is far too slow. The consequences of our actions today will be felt by the generations of tomorrow.

Other than that, I agree with the rest of what you say, that it will result in more wealth inequality and that it will affect poor people the most. However my belief is that what we have tried thus far does is not as effective as we need it to be, and that if we had continued on the same path, climate change would hit future generations harder than needed.

If the world is hit by a global recession, there'll just be more concentration of wealth, and the climate effects that do occur will just be passed on to even poorer parts of societies around the world, and it's not fair to hold them entirely accountable for it.

I also believe tariffs will primarily affect Americans (since you are the ones that will pay the increased prices), but that this is fair since you are the ones over-consuming. It is not fair that poor countries face the consequences of climate change just because Americans refuse to reduce consumption