[mandmandam]

> On a practical level, some reliance on commentary is necessary, no?

Oh yes, very much so.

Which is why it's so deeply concerning that media has become terribly consolidated and controlled by capital. The shareholders interests diverge significantly from those of humanity and the planet, and they hire commentators who align with their views [0].

Examples: Illegal wars, the holocene extinction, climate change - in each case you can point to massive disparities in what media commentators present as important, and what genuine experts believe is important.

One very recent example is how media across the West presented Israeli football fans as victims of roaming gangs doing 'pogroms' in Amsterdam, when in fact, the footage shown was very clearly of the Israeli fans terrorizing residents: [1]

0 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQXsPU25B60

1 - https://x.com/DoubleDownNews/status/1857352815343210804

[DeathArrow]

>The shareholders interests diverge significantly from those of humanity and the planet, and they hire commentators who align with their views

How can we even be sure what are the interests of the humanity and the planet? Why shouldn't everyone ask if those interests are align to own goals?

[mandmandam]

> How can we even be sure what are the interests of the humanity and the planet?

Sometimes it's really easy, and yet we're still failing.

Say a community is deciding whether to clean up a polluted river, and prevent the polluter from dumping chemicals in it that are killing fish and leaving residents with foul water.

Person A says: "The polluter's interests conflict with the community's need for clean water."

Person B says: "How can we even define what the community needs? Maybe some people don’t mind foul water. Maybe a little PFAS pollution and pesticide runoff is fine actually. We've no firm evidence that these chemicals cause harm. There's no proof that the rise in cancers since GreenWashCorp moved to town isn't just coincidence.”

I would say that person B is ignoring a clear, shared need (clean water). The appeal to the status quo will do real harm to people if they listen to it.

... Flint still doesn't have clean water. Like many parts of the US.

Which collective goods do you consider disposable - clean air, water, food? A livable climate?

How sure do you think we need to be of what the "interests of humanity" are, before we defend them?

[maxerickson]

Flint has had clean water since ~2018 and there are ongoing state and federal efforts to remove all lead from water systems in Michigan (and the rest of the country of course).

Is there some specific criteria you have in mind when you say that Flint doesn't have clean water?

[mandmandam]

"Ongoing efforts". Great.

> a federal judge recently found Flint in civil contempt for failing to meet a deadline to remove all of the city's lead service lines.

> There are an estimated nine million lead service lines in need of replacement across the U.S.

- https://www.npr.org/2024/04/25/1247095068/its-been-10-years-...

> Flint residents have yet to see a penny of the $625 million class-action settlement that came from a lawsuit against the state

- https://eu.freep.com/story/news/local/2024/04/25/flint-water...

And it's not just Flint, like I said:

> CR and the Guardian selected 120 people from around the US, out of a pool of more than 6,000 volunteers, to test for arsenic, lead, PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), and other contaminants. The samples came from water systems that together service more than 19 million people.

> A total of 118 of the 120 samples had concerning levels of PFAS or arsenic above CR’s recommended maximum, or detectable amounts of lead.

- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/31/americas-tap...

Specific criteria you ask: How about just living up to our own standards, for a start. Holding polluters and enablers accountable.

Then we can get those standards up to where other, more densely populated, less wealthy countries already have them.

[maxerickson]

So that study uses limits set by consumer reports, it's a misrepresentation to use it to argue that water doesn't meet standards. And it's not clear if they included private wells (where things like arsenic levels may be naturally high).

[mandmandam]

The EPA hadn't even set limits for PFAS at that time.

They only got around to it earlier this year - after the "forever chemicals" were detected in the water systems of nearly 200 million Americans.

So I guess you're right - technically, you can't meet standards that don't exist. Not sure that helps your argument that we have safe water though!