killerofa23
Well-known member
Devastating la ports will dry up overnight and supply chain issues get worst
Things get worse in The Southwest
- Thread starter Cherico
- Start date
Well, what portion of the Port of LA & Port of Long Beach does UP handle? Can the other rail companies take up the slack?
1. BNSF is the ONLY other rail carrier that services these Ports. BNSF and UP handle 35% of the volume that comes through both ports at a minimum. UP is responsible for 60% of that typically...so UP handles 20% of the total volume handled by the Ports of LA & Long Beach.
2. I don't see ANY way that BNSF is prepared to handle that cargo in the short term, and no other rail company has any sort of infrastructure nearby that I've found.
So, IF Union Pacific up and left...1 in 5 containers would NOT be serviced in the short term. That would cripple West Coast supply, even beyond what's currently happening. I don't really see this as a likely scenario simply b/c UPs job is to make money with their services.
I could see UP staging delays as they refuse to have trains loiter in the area where they are getting robbed. This would mean further delays, but not as crippling as stopping rail handling of 20% of LA/Long Beach capacity. This would probably mean UP slow rolls their trains in more rural areas where this type of behavior is harder to do, and MUCH easier to stop. Plus, you'd have a different DA to deal with the criminals.
So why aren't they handing them over to the Feds instead?
Because there's no way those packages aren't traveling between states, which makes interfering with their delivery a federal level crime.
The Feds have to want them.
and that's the problem the feds are more interested in attacking political eneimes then doing their stated jobs.
Man that is screwed up. If only there was someone in charge who could take responsibility for this mess...
*Looks around like Gavin Newsome*
Darn these
killerofa23
Well-known member
But that would require Gavin to admit some people just want to take the easy path in life and get stuff without working hard for it
Such people should be paid not to breed or at least not to breed as much. This should make the next generation more inclined to work hard.
the entire planet is starting to be hit with a demographic drought.
were going to need people soon.
People is only part of the problem. Fertility is partly heritable, so that problem should eventually be successfully dealt with in any case. What's more important is getting smart people by encouraging smart people to breed more and encouraging dull people to breed less.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
This is a ridiculously simplistic take, and leads to some very nasty eugenic lines of thought.
Wisdom is more important than intelligence. Both is better, of course, and you still do want a fair chunk of intelligence, but wisdom is definitely a higher priority.
Wow...you are jumping into territory that leads to horrible things. This is exactly the road the eugenicists went down along with Margaret Sanger.
Who gets to decide who's smart?
What if they decided that all anti-vaxers are automatically on the dull people side?
Because it doesn't matter how noble your intentions are. The tools you create will end up in the hands of those with evil intent, and they will use it to destroy their enemies.
Hell, the very idea of the population bomb has been a favorite of the left as a means of forcing change. I have not doubt that if we need more people...we can get more people. Unless of course all the paranoia about the new MRNA vaxes and fertility proves horrifically true.
Last edited:
Yup.
However, there is a mirror problem of this, and unfortunately it is less theoretical than being merely lead to, its already there.
The definition of eugenics is to apply principles of selective breeding (which are a practice developed by farmers since prehistory, and taken to the next level by modern biological science) with an aim of spreading desirable and curbing undesirable traits in said population.
You could also separate a kind of incidental eugenics, which are policies designed to do something not related to such long term demographic planning, but something far more down to earth, yet incidentally achieving an eugenic effect.
Denmark's Down Syndrome elimination is a good example of "incidental" eugenics:
Down syndrome elimination in Denmark is "Just another day at the office"
Down syndrome elimination in Denmark is "Just another day at the office"
But then lets go back to the mirror version of eugenics - after all, if it is possible for certain policies to promote obviously positive traits in population (like, say, physical fitness, resilience, intelligence), or neutral traits (like, say, hair color), is there any reason why it would be impossible to promote negative ones in the same way?
The answer obviously is no, the science of biology does not make a valuation here, and such a phenomenon is called dysgenics.
But why would anyone want to do that? After all such idea combines the worst aspects of both eugenics and lack of eugenics, with no saving graces of either, one would have to be some kind of comic book grade supervillain to do this.
But then again, there were the incidental eugenics i've mentioned.
Can there also be incidental dysgenics?
Quite a few thinkers think that the modern setup of welfare state affecting economics, middle class lifestyle with its effect on fertility ratios, and some other minor factors are incidentally dysgenic.
Everyone abhors eugenics, on account of more and less tenuous connection with Third Reich's abuse of it, some expanding that thinking even to incidental eugenics, but why is no one outraged about incidental dysgenics even half as much?
The sentiment @WolfBear seems to be expressing here is that perhaps we should consider those something abhorrent too.
Wisdom needs to be developed. Not just in a theoretical, educational setting, but also by creating a relevant system that sets examples. For example, the justice systems that have, over centuries, turned Europe from Dark Age barbarian lands to the kind of societies where even the poorer and less intelligent parts of society don't commit many crimes, were radically enthusiastic about the feature of making examples of criminals. Which let's be honest, is the exact opposite of how any remotely left wing politician these days wants to deal with criminals.
Last edited:
Are you against people choosing sperm/egg donors based on desirable traits of theirs? Because that's also a form of eugenics. People don't just select sperm/egg donors randomly, after all. Maybe we should prohibit people from finding out any information about sperm/egg donors that could have a eugenic effect, such as their intelligence/IQ, level of education, criminal record, et cetera?
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
The difference between "People can choose donors" and "Breeding programs to promote desired genes" is basically the same difference as between employment and slavery.
Those are the most obvious, classic cases.
But what do you do with more complicated cases of incidental eugenics?
Most obvious and traditional one would be to reform criminal law in such a way that young men, say 16-25, involved in a string of violent and/or organized crime shall get a bullet, or for you more soft hearted types, life imprisonment with no ifs and buts.
Either way, they won't breed. At least not more than they already did.
This is an eugenic policy, whether you like that fact or not, no matter if you even know it or not, because some states had similar policy long before even the country Darwin was born in existed.
Except I'm not talking about force here, but rather about incentives. I do think that the government has a vested interest in encouraging people with desirable traits to breed more, for instance. And also in encouraging people with undesirable traits to breed less. Do we want a smarter, more hardworking population in the future? Or do you want a duller, lazier population in the future? The choice is yours.
Yep, mass incarceration is a great way to prevent people with undesirable genes from breeding, especially if they stay in prison for a long time. Though some might try to get around this by claiming to identify as women, but even then, it won't make a difference if castration will be a part of the requirements before a biological male would actually be allowed to move into a women's prison. Castrated males can't breed, after all.
Yes, and frankly, I don't see a problem with that because I don't view all traits as being equal. To be honest, I'd also favor strongly discouraging Woke people from breeding if at all possible. And BLM thugs as well.
BTW, @Marduk, immigration policy is also a type/form of eugenics because you're deciding who exactly gets to move to a particular country based on various desirable traits of theirs--and also using force/coercion to keep out the undesirables. Thus, one could say that immigration restrictions are considerably more cruel than giving people incentives to breed/not to breed.
I would point out that while the American eugenics movement took a huge PR hit after WWII due to its direct ideological and personal connections to the Nazis, it was never actually made illegal; indeed, its legality was explicitly upheld by the courts at every level. It only quietly faded from use as the public became more and more aware of how widespread abuses were and how inadequate the checks and balances in the system were.