You're letting your prejudices jump you to wrong conclusions about what's going on.
While it might be politically pleasurable to imagine a bunch of ivory tower idiots, the real reason driving dam removal isn't salmon, it's preventing catastrophic dam collapse. That's why there's state and federal funding for a lot of dam removal.
The dams being removed are old, obsolete, and end of life. They were usually put in place before we had a power grid.
Leaving them in place isn't an option, they will eventually fail. Spending money to replace or repair a dam that doesn't do anything is a waste.
Removing them also has a ton of environmental benefits, and improves the area for current and future residents.
It really is a win-win situation in that everyone benefits: conservation groups, tribal groups, fishing and hunting groups and taxpayers.
I'm not pretending to be an expert on this specific situation. That's mostly weighing in on The insider outside her conflict and the question of skin in the game, which plays out frequently in the situations.
Maybe it was a no-brainer in this situation, but that certainly isn't the picture that the article painted, with 20 years of activism to persuade the damn owner and operator to take them out instead of refurbishing them.
Similarly, if it's such an obvious win-win, why do 80% of the locals not view it that way? Do you think they're simply wrong and have nothing to lose?
No. Dam removal is driven primarily by practicality.
The environmental piece is a lovely bonus, but the truth is these dams are obsolete, end-of-life and will eventually fail. Leaving them in place is not an option, they either need to be replaced or removed.
Replacing a dam with no purpose is a waste of money, and the (ahem) downstream benefits of a healthier environment benefits both existing folk and improves land for future generations.
No, it's different. Brain zaps feel like a little unpleasant jolt of static electricity in your brain. They're hard to describe. It's not exactly painful but it's not pleasant.
For all the doom and gloom of SSRIs, I haven't had any real side effects and they've helped a lot
These people act as those cost analysis doesn't exist. It costs close to nothing to provide a radio, but the benefits can be huge.
Our government should step in when it makes sense. We determine if it makes sense via cost analysis and risk analysis. This is why the communism slippery slope argument doesn't work.
For example, banning public smoking along with other measures have saved millions of lives in the long run. Of course smoking is a personal choice, but it's also addictive and dangerous. It is sometimes beneficial to override people's "personal choice" if the benefit is big enough and the cost low enough. Ultimately, pretty much everyone is now grateful public smoking is gone.
That's a risibly untenable idea for several reasons.
For one, the company presumably finds out you were lying when you got hurt or died. So you -- the person who made the contract -- are not the one who gets punished for lying.
Instead, it's your family who's punished, because they don't get the monetary support after you die or to help take care of you, and likewise society is, because if you're still alive you're likely bankrupt and therefore fall into social support systems.
Second, putting something in a contract doesn't make it magically happen. If the company wanted to recoup anything for you lying, they'd have to take you or your estate to court. That's both extremely expensive for everyone involved and also overtaxes the courts, an already overtaxed public resource.
The damage to individual freedom is negligible (the right to die by windshield strike is not well-recognized) and the damage to innocent parties and society is much higher.
I don't see how you can say it's not well supported with a straight face.
> For one, the company presumably finds out you were lying when you got hurt or died. So you -- the person who made the contract -- are not the one who gets punished for lying.
> Instead, it's your family who's punished, because they don't get the monetary support after you die or to help take care of you, and likewise society is, because if you're still alive you're likely bankrupt and therefore fall into social support systems.
Huh, that's exactly the same situation as lying to your life insurance, eg about prior conditions or whatnot. And they handle that just fine.
> Second, putting something in a contract doesn't make it magically happen. If the company wanted to recoup anything for you lying, they'd have to take you or your estate to court.
They'll just don't pay out. No need to recoup anything.
> The damage to individual freedom is negligible (the right to die by windshield strike is not well-recognized) and the damage to innocent parties and society is much higher.
There's no damage to third parties. The damage is approximately all to the guy who's dumb enough to not wear his seat belt.
Education level is less important than equality is.
Marriage is traditionally a terrible bargain for women, but it was the only choice they were allowed to make. Now, they can make their money and buy property and have kids on their own.
A lot of men haven't realized the era of the provider is over and dead, and they're now optional. They have to make women want to be with them, and a lot of women just aren't willing to compromise on equality these days.
It may seem like this makes sense, but in most places it's the opposite. Low income women are single mothers at a higher rate than women with high salaries.
In most western countries, low income women do not become much poorer if they become single mothers. In some places, it increases their living standards. But for upper middle class families, a breakup tends to be costly.
Also, there seems to be shared causal factors that lead to both stable relationships and financial stability. Such as impulse control, mental/physical health and the ability to postpone gratification.
You don't need a house to have kids. Plenty of people don't and they do just fine. And if they're choosing to have a kid on their own, they've planned out finances, too. Fertility treatments aren't cheap.
>lot of men haven't realized the era of the provider is over and dead, and they're now optional.
Cool, child support and alimony optional now. Right? Because it's always easy to be independent with OPM. People forget single moms became far more practiced after the state incentivized breaking up families.
Whether they have a marriage certificate might not matter, but the stats are clear that children raised by single moms are correlated with a lot of bad outcomes including far more likely to end up victims of the prison industrial complex. If you only give a shit about yourself and not your offspring, maybe that doesn't matter
They were usually put in place before we had a power grid.
reply