The way we treat the destruction of species and habitat at our hands as a necessary side effect of progress is alarming.
Removing a species from the planet is like removing a screw from an airplane in flight - you can probably remove a lot of screws before there's a problem, but you will eventually crash catastrophically if you keep at it.
I want to push against the narrative that selfishness and greed is inherent. The currently dominant society might socialize its people to prioritize selfishness and greed but not all societies do and not all societies must.
Selfishness and greed is at the heart of humanity. Just look at every lawn covering every plot of land. They are examples of pure greed. Almost no one uses parts of their lawn regularly, and so they only exist for vanity purposes.
There is a reason why many restoration and native plant proponents teach about empathy. One needs to gain empathy for plant and wildlife struggle before being able to enact change.
We could solve a lot of problems almost immediately if we had even a modicum amount of collective empathy.
The amendment that was ratified in 1992 was proposed in the 1700s.
The amendment prior to that was from 1971, over fifty years ago. We're rapidly approaching the point where we can say the constitution hasn't been updated with new ideas in generations.
The world today is wildly different from the world of the 1970s, and yet we've made no changes to the constitution. We used to update it every decade (at least). Something has changed, culturally, that makes it harder to change.
>The world today is wildly different from the world of the 1970s, and yet we've made no changes to the constitution.
No, it isn't. I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights is still a pretty good set of basic rights. Would you be willing to roll the dice on throwing a random out to get a new one? That is what can easily happen when you make changing it easy enough to be done quickly.
Also, why would you want to change the root of all laws at any crazy rate? There is a reason Congress makes new laws, and states make new laws, every single year. You should not need to make drastic changes to the base legal framework just because someone invented an internet - you should be able to apply current legal frameworks, and if that is not enough, make small changes to address such changes. Even small legal changes at the Federal and local levels have significant cost to make needed changes throughout society. Now allow tinkerers to make constitutional changes willy nilly, and guess what the cost will be.
Or do you think it would be better for short-lived political trends to simply rewrite major sections of the Constitution every few years? That seems like an absolutely terrible way to plan a stable society.
>We used to update it every decade (at least). Something has changed, culturally,
Conversely, maybe the overall framework is pretty good, despite each subgroup not getting their way, so it doesn't need changed to add amendments for every tiny whim.
If you believe the world of today isn't materially different from the 70s, I don't know that we're going to agree on much.
On social issues, you could be arrested for being gay. You could legally be denied housing loans based on your race. It was considered impossible to rape your spouse. I could continue this paragraph, but the point is we're fundamentally different with our understanding of humanity on a social level.
On a technological level, what we have today is unthinkable to someone in the seventies. The internet, cell phones, personal computers, autonomous vehicles and drones, machine learning, predictive policing... All these things have major impacts on our way of life.
The world has changed too. Militarily, economically, socially, religiously, politically, etc.
>On social issues, you could be arrested for being gay. You could legally be denied housing loans based on your race. It was considered impossible to rape your spouse. I could continue this paragraph
Yet all of those were given protection based on Constitutional arguments, right? With no change needed to specifically add a new tiny rule to the Constitution for each single change in societal beliefs, right?
>If you believe the world of today isn't materially different from the 70s
People still work, buy houses, live by most of the same desires, needs, goals, interactions. Contract law is still useful. The Bill of Rights is still pretty useful.
In fact, I'd expect the vast majority of concepts in US law from the 1970s are still useful today. I think you overestimate the need to legislate every change in technology more than any country does.
>the point is we're fundamentally different with our understanding of humanity on a social level
I seriously doubt that. Not a single issue you raised was not an issue in the 70s with a significant amount of people working on those issues. And fundamentally changed would mean things considered part of humanity in the 1970s are now gone, which I don't think is true at all. At best we've added some features and beliefs we now think are better. But we still care about people, about life, about dreams, about relationships, about dreams, about love, and death, and right to pursue happiness, and on and on.
If your system of laws is so weak as to been updating at a Constitutional level because someone invented a drone, then that system is fundamentally flawed, because it will break and never be able to be applied to life in any reasonable way. A good system has at a Constitutional level high level concepts that provide guidelines and boundaries that are refined by local, easier to change, and less system-breaking laws. That is the one we have.
Didn’t Thomas Jefferson advocate to throw out the constituion every 20 years and rewrite it to reflect the current generation? How do you think about his position, seems like at least one person thought it would be good to re randomize…
It sounds like an absolutely terrible idea. How could you possibly plan for any future with that much constant upheaval? Businesses couldn't function, since contracts across complete rewrites would not work. You may not own any of your property across a rewrite. Maybe things you did today become felonies tomorrow, and you get jailed, buy then maybe get freed in the next rewrite....
Having stable long term laws is a pre-requisite for any modern economy to function.
Most modern, developed nations regularly update their constitutions. The US is somewhat anomalous in holding on to an ancient document and considering it sacred.
>The US is somewhat anomalous in holding on to an ancient document and considering it sacred.
The Constitution was amended 12 times in the 1900s, the last being 1992. There are still multiple pending amendments.
And, as a Union of States, each also with constitutions and amendments, how do you treat the overall legal entity? Most developed nations are about the size of a US state - and some are slowly banding into larger groups like the EU.
So how is this anomalous? Do you have some list of developed nations rate of constitution updates? Are any of the structure like the US as a union of semi-autonomous states?
It's missing state constitutions. The US is a United States of America - a union of semi-autonomous states.
Picking only a high level misses that there are higher levels (such as world treaties and laws we are entered into) and ignores that the US is a conglomeration. When you'd pick Germany, but ignore EU rules, it's somewhat like picking Texas, and ignoring US.
It seems you're not really comparing frameworks very well.
Don't know why you are downvoted, you're 100% correct. Police do not exist to help individuals, they exist to maintain the state monopoly on violence and to protect capital.
If individuals get any benefit from this it's either accidental or police trying to protect their image.
Giving it less funding won't make it better, nor would it magically make something else appear. You'd need more funding to have a program like "actually firing them if they don't do their jobs".
Police forces were literally created to protect capital, and then back ported to supporting local communities. The parent poster is correct, police exist primarily to protect the interests of capital - that's literally their history.
Police in the US exist to protect themselves. They don't care if you're rich or the embodiment of capital or not. They won't do things that would put themselves at risk, and they won't get fired for not doing their jobs.
Saying "thing A was originally B therefore A is secretly B now" doesn't seem to usually be true.
Honestly! This is such a good initiative that it bothers me that this is flagged. Housing issues for queer people is one the biggest issues across the world. I mean the first things we consider before even booking a hotel across most of the world is "am I going to be thrown out of this?"
And you face life or death situation violence outside Japan. Not exactly a good alternative either despite all the rights and freedom LGBTQ are supposed to enjoy.
LGBT housing is safe for LGBT folks, particularly because it is either shared by or run by queer folks who are much less likely to discriminate or do violence against you because you are queer.
Regular housing offers no such guarantees. Maybe it's fine, maybe it's dangerous.
Removing a species from the planet is like removing a screw from an airplane in flight - you can probably remove a lot of screws before there's a problem, but you will eventually crash catastrophically if you keep at it.