Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Ask HN: How can we improve the world via creative, compassionate new ventures?
107 points by fogzen 7 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 70 comments
How can we...

• improve Fair Trade on the consumer or producer side?

• strengthen and expand non-profits or charities?

• educate or help the working conditions of labor (people who work for wages)?

• improve the ecological sustainability and environmental impact of supply chains?

• Expand access and convenience of healthy foods and diets?

• Improve democracy at the organization or government level?

If you're already part of an organization focusing on these things, tell us about it!

educate or help the working conditions of labor (people who work for wages)?

I have worked for a few years for a writing service that does this well. I have been trying for some time to encourage people to try to "clone" or borrow wisdom from the model for other types of work:


I got myself off the street in part by using the internet to develop a flexible earned income. I am trying to figure out how to spread that model for people like me who have barriers to regular employment:


Improve democracy at the organization or government level?

Improving independence and self reliance of individual workers should improve democracy. The founders of the US believed many independent small time operators were essential to the ability of the people to speak their mind and vote their conscience. Having played a few different roles, I think they are correct. Working for BigCo had a chilling effect on my ability to express myself freely and honestly for fear of losing my income.

Government is not wholly separate from the people and culture. We need independent earners to have independent minds to have real democracy.

I'm a manager at a nonprofit serving adults with developmental disabilities. We do a really good job, we work in supported employment, residential, getting out the community, helping with diet, groceries, supervising medications, etc. BUT what we pay our employees is hilariously low relative to the high quality of service we provide, and the standards we hold each other to. They could make the same money at any other entry level job, and often they come to us with 4-year degrees in psychology or something, work with diligence and care, and start at $10/hour. It makes no sense. They end up taking second jobs and putting stuff together to make everything work. Talented, smart, energetic people don't last in the nonprofit world unless they somehow have another source of wealth. They get pulled out into something more lucrative. It's really tough to generate innovation unless you can get the right people to spend years developing domain expertise and then pay them enough to keep pushing in that area. Many nonprofits are already doing the impossible just by existing. I don't know what the most practical way to help this is: everybody always needs more money. How can we pay our employees enough that working full-time for us is a reasonable life choice without them needing to find 20hrs a week elsewhere on top of it and have a shitty life? It's not just a little extra that’s needed. It’s a lot.

Caring work like this is vastly underpaid and very critical to people's well being. Maybe if someone could lobby for a specific tax credit for people formally working in caregiving for the elderly and disabled to make up for the lower income. Too often these jobs become jobs of last resort and unlike you, not everyone has high standards.

As long as dollars are created at interest, the only jobs that will be paid well are those that make more money. Any kind of social work will always be living off those scraps in terms of ability to pay a living wage.

One way to make life easier for underpaid people doing work that helps individuals but doesn't 'make' more money would be to let nonprofits issue a complementary currency and do the legwork to get it accepted for lifestyle-enhancing services that might not otherwise be available to those volunteers/employees. Wouldn't pay rent, but would let them save money on yoga classes or house cleaning or the like. Barter networks exist, as do non-profit service-based time-denominated currencies. Nobody's doing it in a clean, unified way, but that might be more likely to happen than a tax credit, given the current political environment. :-/

Wow, if the receiving businesses could write off those services provided as donations to that nonprofit, there could be some incentive on their side too to make some kind of credit/voucher system for social-good professions work out. I wonder if anything like that already exists (teacher/military discounts are close, maybe). But yeah there could really be something there if done right.

The overall benefits are huge: we also generate thousands of hours of volunteer service a year by helping people stay active by putting in time at foodbanks, cleaning thrift stores, what have you. Keeps everybody healthier, reduces cost to Medicaid on the back end taking care of these folks' medical needs.

Start a cooperative enterprise, owned by the workers at all levels, not just the techno-elite founders. With all given an equal vote. Establish small limits on pay disparities (say, never more than 2:1 to compensate for different schooling/certification requirements for doctors or the like).

I second the open source suggestion.

So you want to pay janitors way above the market rate or the doctors way below the market rate?

And where did the 2:1 ratio come from? It takes decades to become a surgeon. It takes maybe 20 minutes of training someone to mop a floor.

Agree... in this case, you'll have lots of janitors apply to the job, and no surgeon.

The market does regulate these things normally, if there's no coercion. That's why socialist countries are oppressive, to enforce a vision that goes against the will of some individuals, to the benefit of other individuals.

You can't have freedom if you refute freedom of choice.

You'll get surgeons who are motivated by things other than just money, which is who you want applying.

That's delusional. When a surgeon sees he can make $2M at one place and $40K at another to subsidize the janitors, only a complete moron would choose the second option.

Great point. We can start more cooperative enterprises. Are there good templates and software for the founding and unique management issues of a cooperative enterprise?

If you or anyone else has ideas on that, please share them :)

Mondragon Corporation, but probably not a good example as it's huge and formed a long time ago. That's where I got the idea for pay ratios. Theirs is 4:1 for doctors, I believe.

Here's a better example, a worker-owned engineering and manufacturing cooperative in Wisconsin: http://www.isthmuseng.com/company/worker-owned-cooperative/

...interestingly, they specialize in automation equipment.

The way to make it possible to pay everyone well is to use automation. The only way to achieve that shiny Star Trek future is through replicators (which are a stand-in for general automation tech), although you could always be like the Ferengi and charge for use of the replicator... Tech ENABLES high wages even for janitors, but it doesn't guarantee it. That requires an actual choice.

Related: Golder Associates is a canadian consulting engineering firm that is employee owned, Ive heard good things from people who worked there. Being employee owned really changes the politics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golder_Associates

This is in no way battle-ready, but I have been thinking about this throughout the year and jotting my ideas - http://madebykade.com/manifesto/profit-sharing/

Check out platform.coop it's a movement based specifically around forming co-ops in tech.

I think co-ops are the best approach right now to shifting our economy in a direction that is fair and equitable, rather than the capitalist economy of exploitation we are stuck with now.

There is never a situation in which it's a good idea to give every employee an equal vote. Employees of various seniority and talent provide varying levels of value to the enterprise.

1. Why should the newly hired janitor have equal voting rights to the CTO that envisioned and built the product or the Machine Learning PHD whose education cost him 10 years and half a million dollars?

2. Personnel counts grow at an exponential rate. If you double your personnel count over a year as plenty of startups do, what's stopping all the new employees from mutinying and kicking out the early employees that have been been working on the business for 5 years?

3. Where's the incentive for founders who face disproportionate risk in the startup stage to build an enterprise that they may eventually own 0.1% of?

If you have ever even thought of starting a business on your own, you would not think this is a good idea.

1. No co-op works this way. New hires almost never have the same privileges and voting rights as original members. There is usually a kind of "vesting" period for voting rights since members need to be sure everyone is committed to the mission of the co-op.

2. See my point on 1. In the long term however, the kind of mutiny you suggest could be a good and necessary thing. In a co-op, you are not starting "your" company, but a cooperative. The whole point is that it is owned and run by everyone, it's not the founder's special baby. If the founder can't see what's best for the company and its workers while everyone else can, then they should definitely be overruled.

3. The incentive is to be founding something that can change the exploitative nature of the economy we live in. You're not starting a co-op to get rich off the work of others in implementing your amazing idea for an ice-cream delivery app. You're making a product that a community is invested in, both in the production and consumption, where everyone truly benefits because they all have a share of power over the project. A co-op couldn't buy up entire city blocks because one small board decided on it, or pollute a water supply because one small group of investors didn't give a fuck. That is why we need co-ops.

I've been involved with starting businesses and I think co-ops are great.

Great points, thank you for sharing. I think a lot of people dismiss co-ops because they aren't aware of models to emulate.

Maybe there's opportunity there. An open question to all: What are some challenges with starting and managing co-op businesses?

> There is never a situation in which it's a good idea to give every employee an equal vote. Employees of various seniority and talent provide varying levels of value to the enterprise. >1. Why should the newly hired janitor have equal voting rights to the CTO...?

The reason why a single vote per person is fine is that more senior employees also have more influence in the organization just naturally. They can and will be able to persuade people, as long as they're doing their job effectively. Also, there can be a fairly long (months or years) on-boarding process where employees learn the culture and values of the organization.

If you are doing such a crappy job that you can't even convince the janitor that you know what you're doing, then I fail to see why you deserve a bunch of extra votes.

...and if your machine learning PhD cost you half a million dollars, I suggest you should get a refund. That's ridiculous.

Personnel counts grow at an exponential rate.

Wrong usage of "exponential" seems to grow exponentially these days.

If you specialize on your core competencies you can avoid a lot of these issues. Does every 10+ person business need to have janitors, and other support personnel as employees? Does every large business need to own real estate?

If janitors work in a janitors company, and developers work in a developers company, and accountants in an accountants company, then there's no point in seeking equality anymore: because janitors conditions will be different to others conditions anyway. You'll achieve nothing but a caste system.

There is a cooperatively run janitors company in NYC that manages to pay its worker-owners much more than the going rate yet still gets enough business to survive. I believe this is probably due to not having overpaid management overhead in their costs.

By all means, if you don't care about improving the current caste system and reducing equality, then keep with the current system. It's working just fine for you...

...but that's hardly responsive to the topic at hand.

An issue not mentioned: Animal Welfare. According to the ASPCA (https://www.aspca.org/animal-homelessness/shelter-intake-and...) over 6.5 millions companion animals enter shelters in the US alone every year.

Family Pet Project is making it easier and safer to find resources as a struggling pet owner who may need to find an appropriate place to live, assistance with a pet's medical care, and even rehome a pet if there is no other option.


It's an issue that affects people more than they realize given that the average euthanasia for animals is around $300 and over 4 million animals are put down in shelters in the US every year. The US government could probably do better than spending ~$1.2B taxpayer dollars on euthanasia annually.

I've been working on a project I'm calling "Business in a Box" which is based on the idea that the consumer oriented interface to our economy has been radically optimized while the comercial interface has been obfuscated thereby artificially limiting participants.

Basically, we would offer packages designed to get someone up and running with a profitable business in a short time. This would include training, equipment and supplies. The goal would be profitability not complete financial independence.

Some examples would be carpet and upholstery cleaning, micro-farming, retail, micro-manufacturing and more.

Each business would be an open source franchise where anyone could utilize our training and business plans, but for a small annual fee they could use our name and supply chain.

If people are able to provide for themselves in some way they are much less likely to remain in a dead-end job living paycheck to paycheck.

Open source is the route to a more inclusive, compassionate world. https://opensource.com/life/14/8/does-open-source-boost-ment...

Some of the problems that I, personally, see/face in the world:

(They may just be problems with me and not necessarily the World™️, but I wish there were [better] services and tools to help with them.)

• It's too hard for [self-employed] people in "third-world" countries to relocate to and contribute to better countries if they don't have all the paperwork (employment and sponsorship from companies, college degrees), often not even if they do have the paperwork, even if they're willing to pay exorbitant money for long-term residency and can prove they can support themselves.

• It's too hard for introverted people, with no social life, to find partners.

• For quite some time, the amount of "content" – art, fiction, other media – available in the world has long since exceeded what one person can discover and peruse in the average human lifespan.

• The success and failure of everything is determined on how much money it makes. Too many good things get aborted because they can't make enough money fast enough, and the definition of "enough" keeps increasing at an unrealistic rate.

• Not enough people are asking "What are we doing to ensure that we expand beyond our home planet?" and "What are we doing to ensure we don't destroy ourselves?" – Questions I believe every intelligent civilization must keep asking itself if it is to be "successful."

I'm the founder and of Holdgreen (holdgreen.com), a not-for-profit that allows investors to offset the carbon produced from their equity portfolios. We're based in Australia, and there are 3 of us now.

The technology works and is scalable, but getting the opt-in tickbox on the websites of pension funds has been very difficult, mostly due to industry lethargy. We've been trying for 18 months to find a pilot fund who would be willing to put us on their site.

Holdgreen is my effort at the OP - preventing people from harming the earth in a way they're not presently conscious of, by giving them new information and an easy way to respond. It hasn't been easy in the slightest.

I run a company which provides a credit scoring system for banks which helps them include environmental and climate criteria in credit decisions. Our underlying motivation is that if we want to create sustainable supply chains, the incentives which shape them need to line up with our objectives for them. Credit scoring which compels businesses to behave more sustainably is a massive incentive towards this.

We have had recent success with big banks starting pilots with the system. But it's been a big struggle.

How would I encourage new ventures in this space. Very simple: make money available in the same way YC does. A veritable spigot of seed, early stage and growth capital that isn't always looking for immediate returns, but for new ventures to demonstrate their assumptions hold true.

When I sell my business, which is my aim, this is what my profits will fund.


TLDR - new investment models / Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation originally was designed as a vehicle for pure charity and changed their investment model such as offering loan guarantees versus one time donations. https://hbr.org/2012/01/a-new-approach-to-funding-social-ent...

There is a need for social ventures to seek these types of investments to fuel their revenue / impact growth such as through social impact bonds and more.

Having an "alternative market" or marketplace in this sector for SMB's would go a long way to improving the world in my opinion. What are your thoughts? Does anyone know of such a marketplace?

Donate to (trully) effective charities: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities

"High impact giving opportunities that are supported by in-depth charity research."

We're working on building tools and knowledge for people without access to electricity, so that they can make their own electricity supplies using recycled motors.

Key idea here is giving people tools rather than solutions.



To answer your first question, we can improve the world by helping with the evolution of consciousness. This unfolding of wisdom is what underpins all other good endeavours.

These are also a good start:

> On September 25th 2015, countries adopted a set of goals to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure prosperity for all as part of a new sustainable development agenda. Each goal has specific targets to be achieved over the next 15 years.

> For the goals to be reached, everyone needs to do their part: governments, the private sector, civil society and people like you.

>Do you want to get involved? You can start by telling everyone about them. We’ve also put together a list of actions that you can take in your everyday life to contribute to a sustainable future.


One word. Housing. Do something. It's getting bad.

its only bad for knowledge workers in boutique cities. It's actually dirt cheap to own housing in many areas otherwise. It costs 500k just to get a condo in flushing, ny, where a 3 bedroom house in many CT areas is 100k. The issue is wealth should not concentrate as near as it does geographically, and we need to get over the idea of packing everyone into cities and spread out into towns more.

People do like their house to be close to the place they work and dense cities attract knowledge workers but also need maintenance workers, teachers, firefighters, janitors, cooks, and police. Housing for those people is the problem which the real estate market does not seem to be able to solve, and local governments have not found efficient regulation for except for social democrat systems like sweden and norway.

There's a simple solution... build dense cities. San Francisco feels like country side if you've lived in an actual dense city.

I used to live in Paris which is definitely a dense city, and even though there is much more subsidized housing there than in San Francisco, it is still a tough place for working class people to live.

Sorry, but no. It's a serious problem for lower class individuals and families in many cities across the US. Housing assistance programs are often a non-starter, public/affordable housing waitlists are years-long, and rents in the inner city are not meaningfully lower than in other parts of the city. Which means an absurdly high percentage of your income goes to rent, leaving little else for other basics like food and medical coverage.

And if you don't have stable housing, you probably don't have a stable income, and you/your kids probably don't have a stable school life.

Spreading out seems like an inefficient use of resources until journeys become quicker. If I can go from my place in SF to a supermarket in Sacramento in 10mins - that would change everything.

Some kind of Hyperloop-like network in a Musk-ian future.

500k for a 1 bedroom condo? sounds fair to me.

You forgot the /s

Not really. I'm a native New Yorker, living in Queens, so perhaps I'm biased. But $500K is fairly reasonable for Queens. Of course it'll be more expensive than Connecticut, since you're living in a major city with lots of things to do, etc.

I hope others will share if they find this totally silly. It’s more of a response to observations.

I am from Portland, OR writing from eastern kentucky, where I have family. This region is feeling the hurt. I put a lot into a hobby of media and culture studies, and am unconvinced of many platitudes from libertarian or liberal academics, but am open to all perspectives. In so many words, impacts of culture in a broad sense continues to undermine nearly any efforts like these listed. Whether the measurements are misled, or new problem is exacerbated, or the effort just completely falls flat, I am going on what continues to stand in the way: problems in broad cultural discrepancies that amount to fear. I can’t overlook the cultural fabrics of religious communities (I am far from religious myself) and the lack of any counterpart in contemporary American life. How can this help us now?

I think it’s no secret rural communities are being ‘left behind’ but the last thing they (seem to) want is your charity. They don’t want urban education and they don’t want urban food, but they are all addicted iPhones. So what do we change if we can’t change them?

Urban/Coastal America can change itself. Our efforts to boost lives we look down on are well-intentioned but continue to fail.

I don’t have a quote on hand but Tyler Cowen suggests we ‘mix it up’ closer to home. Defend weirdos and affect your own culture for the better, in sometimes uncomfortable ways.

Off the top of my head:

MBAs, start investing in young artists, like in the Renaissance. Unapologetically enforce your opinions and even politics on them. Have fun with it. Anything could happen.

Wanna teach programming? Rent out a rural community center for your class and make the drive (or flight) each week. The impact will justify the investment. Maybe don’t make it fun for everybody.

Campaign in rural communities against social media use. Use billboards and flyers, like the locals. Use scare tactics (honest ones) that override cultural discrepancies.

Actually hire people outside your “cultural fit” and people from rural areas. If you can’t believe in anyone outside a given character mold, why expect others to?

Well, it would help if assistance isn't conditional on nor about spreading the holy gospel of Portlandia to the savages in the lower provinces. A little less cheekily, how much of what you want to do is actually helping their real needs as opposed to what your idea of their needs and behavior are or should be, and is about transmitting your culture onto theirs to replace it.

Cultural imperialism is an issue in the USA, for all of the lack of focus on it. The portlandian thinks the solution to rural problems is programming, bike lanes, and electric vehicles.

I hope it’s clear I couldn’t agree more on the gospel of Portlandia. As for how much of what I want to do is actually helping “their” real needs, I think I would just have to repeat myself:

Economic disparities are undeniable and charity isn’t helping. Hire different people, and accept cultural differences, beyond mere sightly identification.

Don’t ignore the impact of culture comforts which undermine relationships necessary for sustainable societies. Be honest, put business second.

In short, do the stuff churches did, if that’s even possible.

One rather general suggestion I have is to pick a company to work for that does some of the requested points. It doesn’t have to be non-profit or volunteer work only.

A few years ago I joined a company called Sunfunder [1]. They (we) provide financing to solar energy companies in Africa and SE Asia. Lack of financing is a major blocking factor there to get clean energy out.

I can honestly say I’ve never been more happy in my life than now, knowing that my entire workweek is contributing to something good.

[1] http://www.sunfunder.com

Build local high speed internet. Some wireless version would be good. WiMax?

This might sound overly simplistic but I believe we need to do more to incentivise the best talent in the world to work on socially conscious projects. I found Wendy Kopp's episode on the How I Built This podcast particularly insightful on this topic: http://pca.st/episode/68275e4c-8d1d-4a86-be7c-e45b1eb7c738

> improve Fair Trade on the consumer or producer side?

If you live in the UK, a simple no-effort thing you can do is buy fairtrade food and drink at the supermarket. These goods have the Fairtrade foundation logo (http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/).

Some of the cheaper supermarkets (e.g. Lidl, Aldi) tend to have the least number of fairtrade goods. But other supermarkets have a much wider range of fairtrade items and source fairtrade goods for their own label brands.

Sometimes, the fairtrade price of a good is only a little more expensive than items without the fairtrade logo (e.g. bananas).

The fairtrade scheme has faced criticism but I still think it's worthwhile supporting the scheme by choosing fairtrade goods when you can.

One thing that I would love to see is more effective development practices at non profits. Obviously some are doing very well, but others that I've worked with have been heavily encumbered by beauraucracy and a lack of knowledge about how to best build software.

It's tricky, because justice can be a more complicated goal than profit, and being careful and intentional and working with limited resources can all make software development more challenging, but I still think it's possible to do better.

I'm trying in my own small way, having entered the field, but I would love to see some of the experts out there take some time to spread their knowledge in the non profit community. That way existing ventures can be more efficient and effective, and new ones are more likely to succeed.

I strongly believe that we all need to crawl out of out boxes [1] and get a heart at peace [2] so that we have the strength to be vulnerable and innovative [3].

1 https://www.amazon.com/Leadership-Self-Deception-Getting-Out...

2 https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1626564310/ref=pd_aw_fbt_14_i...

3 https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00IIBAE5E/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?ie=...

Check out platfotm.coop for a movement that is trying to remake the tech economy for social good through cooperative ownership of companies, infrastructure, and data.

Start a Bank

A credit union

I've been thinking about the ecological sustainability thing thanks to today's news, but it's actually not about supply chains, per se. The news is that China has tightened restrictions on importing foreign waste. (We recycle very little of our own "recycling" in North America; we ship it to Asia where they do it, at least in theory.) Anyway, we have tons of cardboard and plastics on ships already headed for China that will probably be shipped back.

This is a many-sided problem. A few stray thoughts: it's not just a matter of buying recycled materials, it's whether you can recycle stuff after using it. A "demand chain" more than a supply chain, if you will. There's a pendulum aspect to this, where China has tolerated environmental atrocities in the name of growth for decades, and now rather than embarking on a measured reform plan, they're essentially rejecting all foreign waste. Maybe we should have seen it coming. There's also the domestic and international differences in the way we deal with trash. I have lived all over the US and spent time in most states. When I walk down the street in Austin, most of the recycling bins on the street are larger than the trash bins. That's standard in places like Austin and the Bay, but still exceptional in America at large. In much of Europe, you essentially buy permits for recycling, and costlier ones for trash. American consumption has been unbridled by the waste issue throughout the 20th century, but that's likely to change as we run out of places to put it, whether those places be landfills or other countries.

So, how to build a venture out of this mess? There are a few ideas. Recycling technologies are big. I read recently about a startup (funded by MassChallenge, I think?) that was trying to turn waste plastic into diesel fuel. The biggest process problem with recycling is contamination— how do you get it below, e.g., 0.5%? (China's new threshold amount.) Better AI, more dextrous robots? Maybe. Microbes or insects that just eat the food off plastic or cardboard pulp?

Thinking outside little processes and at larger scale, we should probably start recycling our own waste on our own shores. It would seem more efficient than shipping all our opened Amazon boxes to China, it would create some jobs, and based on both culture and governance, the environmental side-effects would probably be much lighter than shipping the same waste to Vietnam or Thailand. But the scale necessary to do this is massive. China's waste importers are worried that their businesses will become insolvent, because they have built economies of scale for recycling that require more waste than their billion-man domestic economy currently produces. Do we have either the capital or political will to build that?

If you're not a garbage person, fine. Materials, then: get it before it becomes trash. The world is shopping online more, which means more individually boxed items and more cardboard. How do you use less of it per package, or make it break down more easily? The rules of the game are that it can't increase the cost of shipping and it needs to be hygienic enough that you don't give any infants botulism or something. Do you think Amazon's already optimized that problem, or is there a step change to be had?

Organizations like this often simply end up as graft and PR.

I'm with Peterson: clean up your own room first.

My room is clean. You’re right that non-profit or charitable organizations sometimes waste money or aren’t effective. If you have ideas on how to improve that, or improve transparency and efficiency then please share.

One of my favorite quotes: "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime".

I agree education can have a huge impact. If you have ideas on how to improve education, please share!

The importance of education is unparalleled in the current state of world.

Looking at the unrest in recent college pass outs, I would prefer if we could bring Apprenticeship back. In current times we have a variation of it called internship, but for most people they still have to go through a full fledged college education to become eligible for that internship.

Of course, Apprenticeship is not the answer for all fields but it would be good if companies also got into the business of educating people ( for money ) but treating them not just as a student but more like an apprentice.

An alternative would be to have collaboration between businesses and educational institutions to reduce the gap between learning and applying what you learned.

This can be relatively easily applied in developed nations and a bit hard to apply in developing / underdeveloped countries.

I graduated 3 years ago from a college in India. Luckily, I was interested in my field enough to start researching about how things we learned in college, worked in real life. But for most of my fellow classmates, it was just for the sake of getting a degree and supposedly becoming employable right after passing out. So when they actually passed out, the world was quite different than what they had expected.

Those are my 2 cents.

YCombinator too believes in the power of education. This was posted in September 2016 - https://www.ycombinator.com/rfs/#education

Thanks for sharing!

BTW, I think your terminology of "passing out" for graduating college is confusing (at least for Americans?). I've never heard the term used in that way. Passing out is more commonly used to mean fainting or falling asleep.

More like: "Teach humanity how to fish, and they will deplete the oceans".

To provide some context he is referring to Jordan Peterson https://youtu.be/BBR5v89L6gk

Thank you! :)

You can't clean your room with a dirty mop. The system itself is what is harmful and only system-wide change will help. Individual action is nice and all but it can't solve the real underlying problems.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact