You'd almost think handwriting involves more human senses than typing and that correlates with memory...

Garbage.

70-90 year old "science" is valid?!?!

70 years ago smoking was promoted as being healthy, plastics were a wonder product with no hazards, seat belts weren't required in cars, electronic circuits wouldn't get much smaller, there were only a handful of computers, satellites didn't exist.

" anthropogenic climate change" is a theory, not a fact. It's also very, very, very shaky because it's based on cherry-piking data. It's quite easy to "disprove" a theory which is based on accurate data from an incredibly small fraction of time. Every claim of temperature that's more than about 100 years old is an extrapolated guess. For that matter, the records of "accurate" measuring devices are very inconsistent because they don't account for plenty of changes around the measuring devices.

I have no idea what you think you saw "implicated" in what I typed.
My comments stand alone, there's no implication.

Logical fallacy much?

Seems like this is blaming the symptom, not the cause.

Perspective from a Gen X entrepreneur:

Most "employers" are staffed with people who do not understand the primary principle of long-term success, let alone productive culture.

Gen Zers don't want to entangle themselves with people who cosplay business with lousy personal lives and crushing debt.

Sam, I would have saved you 180 million USD if you'd asked how to meet the stated goal.

Tell you what, how about you cut me a check for 1 million USD because this will save even more waste and reach the stated goal:
.
U.S. average lifespan is about 10 years less than that of people who live in countries with stricter food purity laws.

Outlaw the food additives (6 months to phase out, not a year or two, which looks like the FDA trying to prevent change while giving lobbyists time to bribe cancellation of the changes) and move to local small-scale farming and baking, including smart hydroponics; not the electricity gobbling motorized tower buildings (which might have been a way to discredit hydroponics.)

Bonus: Create local jobs and reduce energy and pollution from long-distance transportation.

"Boo hoo for them!", say all the Mom-and-Pop stores and American-made manufacturing who were put out of business by economic manipulation and IP theft dragonboating.

"Climate Change"...uh..fraction of a degree of heat...IF the "corrected" data, selective editing, hyperbole, and computer models are correct...means less death and more food. Maybe Gaia worship isn't all it's cracked up to be...

World population is shrinking. Resources always become "scarce." There was a time worldwide doom was predicted because there were not enough wales from which to harvest fuel oil.

Here's an idea, instead of sourcing items from Chinese slavery and pollution then shipping them across the world, perhaps redirect all that to local production in the US where the pollution regulations, as enforced, are the best. Starve the communist slavery business and provide jobs for local people. What a concept!

" fines disproportionately affect the poor and disadvantaged in our society..." ...and people who are lazy and people who are irresponsible.", let's not forget them. The idea that "victims" are always the downtrodden pious is crap.

What happens when people don't return library resources? They are stealing opportunity from other people.

Let's see...public libraries are usually funded by taxes which is money forcibly taken from people who produce so...the "wealthy and advantaged" have already paid for the resource which the "poor and disadvantaged" get without cost.

What incentive is there for anyone to produce if they are "given" everything by forcibly taking it from someone else? None.

In the United States, public libraries are descended from Andrew Carnegie's investments to educate the populace. One of the fundamental differences of the United States was the intentional weakness of copyright law to create an educated populace. Public libraries = good.

STATIC math, not dynamic math. Removing fines changes the environment.

To illustrate: The "math" of the cost of prosecuting minor crimes was considered negative in San Francisco.

Removing penalty rewards undesired activity. Always has, always will.

That was exactly my point.

Political Science and Economics is worthless when the issues are manufacturing, logistical supply, distribution, and controlled use.

These are all theoretical blowhards with no real comprehension of that which they proclaim must happen.

Political Science and Economics are all loosey-goosey play math with aggregate numbers. All they really do is claim to know how things work...but they don't actually make anything.

Let's see, 20 million tests per day to "remobilize the economy."

Who, exactly, creates these tests? Where? How are they distributed? Where do the resources come from? Where does the money come from?

20 million per day is testing everyone in the US in about 2 weeks.

All this does is expose Harvard "experts" as being idiots and Business Insider people as having no bs meter.

These people would look at the classic cartoon of two scientists discussing equations where one scientist says to to the other, "I think you need a little more work here." while pointing to the text on the chalkboard which states "something happens here" and think the cartoon is an instruction of how to "advance."

"single use plastics are still stupid, and we can eliminate them, so we should"
Really? That's a GREAT idea! Cost and effect don't matter.
I suppose you've created the perfect bio-degrable flexible, shatterproff glass?
Plastic films are about 1/100 the mass of rigid containers but...what the heck...we CAN replace them with...metal? Oh, darn, that requires mining and they rust. Um..paper? No, that requires coatings which prevent recycling. Pottery? Yeah! That's the ticket! Obviously, there was no death, disease or destruction in ancient times so we'll live that way.
Who needs electronics, packaging, hygiene, or low cost/high performance structural materials.
It's POSSIBLE for people to live without comsuming much of anything so, therefore, ALL people SHOULD because...you want them to.
So...no plastics, electronics, plumbing, HVAC, hygiene, power, transportation or synthetic fibers.
Uh....yeah...
Don't bother replying. It'll just show you demand other people do what you won't since you'll have to consume power and use plastics to reply.

Uh....no.

Every tech increase creates new need for people. Somebody has to service the new things. Automation cannot replace a human brain, period. Forge the bs from Musk and the other AI people who peddle FUD as clickbait and the scam idiot hedge fund children.

Your idea only works if human thought stops. Queen Victoria knighted a guy for his research which "proved" the world economy would stop because there weren't enough wales to supply whale oil as fuel. Ethernally mythical human replacement AI/automation won't reduce the need for people.

The specific TASKS people perform are replaced by others. Did the world economy collapse when electricity and natural gas replaced physical delivery of coal to homes? Nope. Did the world economy collapse when mass production replaced one-off craftsman creation of shoes? Nope.

Free (to compete on equal terms) market economics has lifted more people out of poverty in the past 20 years than anything else in history. Did that REDUCE or INCREASE the need for labor? It increased it.

There is not, and never will be, any human-created machine that can replace a person. Automation can replace repetitive actions, it cannot communicate or adapt as a person.

Five major factors which HURT people during rapid tech change are:

1) Education systems based on political indoctrination and/or squashing human spirit to force them into being organic repetitive action machines
2) Protein deprivation, intentional or not, which hampers human cognitive ability
3) Population boom when a society's tech advances greater than the society adjusts to declining death rate
4) Evil people who want to control other people. Stereotypical local warlord who controls food supply is a good example.
5) Human stupidity combined with evil people who promote Socialism as a panacea when it is really a method to extort human charity and to steal. Venezuela, anyone?

"Climate denialists, both TV pundits and politicians -- which by the way are not scientists -- are by and large sponsored by polluting industries.

    Look at the donations these asshats receive, all from coal or fossil fuel, automotive and aviation organizations. They don't believe in their own propaganda, they just like the money in their pockets.

There is nothing wrong with conservation and there is nothing wrong with being safer rather than sorry. Whats the worst case if climate change somehow ends up being nothing. what would be the damage?"

so...you proclaim anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong then you ask them a question?!?!

Dogma much?

What harm could possibly come from bankrupting the entire world population and placing them under dictatorial control of non-elected non-representative government which destroys ability to transport, store, or communicate?

Yeah, let's try that. You first.