"many children died before the could contribute to society" is just about the most disgusting thing ive heard. sure, thats the reason child mortality is bad.
Honestly I can't describe how pro nat I am. Like I'm honestly nat-pilled I feel like Nat is the most lovely grounding presence and she thinks so deeply and is extremely empathetic and I've seen how supportive she is of Sophie in so many situations. This is just a nat appreciation comment.
I love Nat! She always has the best additions to the discussion. And I can't help but think I've seen so many great people with mates that I think, really you two? But Sophie and Nat seem like such equals. It's lovely to see.
It's very telling where they stop telling the story of Semmelweis, because after he figured out that washing hands saved lives, the midwives he worked with accepted it easily, but when he presented it to male doctors, they were angrily offended at the idea that it was their fault patients were dying and it ruined his career. Semmelweis ended up in an asylum after having his reputation and career ruined by offended doctors and he died there. His discoveries were ignored for years. The split in acceptance fell pretty clearly on gendered lines, but it says a lot about how science channels like Kurtzgesats want to position data and facts as the only thing worth looking at when very clearly the problem was as social and political as it was medical. But a social analysis of the problems of the third world wouldn't look so favourably on imperialist capitalists like Gates, so they do a lot of work to devalue it. The use of just looking at numerical data as a means of willful ignorance that reinforces the liberal mainstream is rife in IFLS-type science internet and it makes my blood boil
This is such an underrated point. Especially because midwives had been using salves, washes etc with incidental infection control for a long time so adding this step to their practice was relatively natural and not an attack on their ego 😂
The German version of kurzgesagt was published under public broadcasting until recently. Including the Gates founded videos. If you didn't watch one specific video where it's explained, you wouldn't know that it wasn't just a public broadcast webseries.
58:00 this is actually a good criticism,my wife who is a Sociologist speaks on how there is continuous dialogue about how certain institutions will not fund Sociology Departments that do qualitative work or will fund more to departments that emphasis is on Quantitative work and this isn't just sociology, all of the Humanities and Social Sciences are in this crisis right now. Qualitative work is extremely important to synthesize with Quant work. It provides context and voice to the numbers.
One thing I would add to the discussion of how Kurzgesagt's values align with those of the B&M Gates Foundation is that that does not actually rule out a different sort of influence. After all, growing up in a society where some flavour or other of liberalism is the dominant ideology, a lot of people will start out from a place where their values roughly align with the sort of values propagated by the billionaire-funded NGO ecosystem, but at least some of us come to question those values and ultimately reject them fundamentally. If one has a relationship with an organisation like the Gates Foundation, that creates an incentive not to grow beyond those values, or, if one comes to doubt them, not to be particularly visible about that doubt.
all the discussion of Africa has reminded me of the most horrendous convo i overheard in a history class. some arse randomly said to his mate "if you could blow up one continent which one would it be?" and WITHOUT HESITATION this guy goes "Africa". and to make it worse the guy who asked the question responded "nah but its got loads of resources" !!!!! (mildly unrelated to the video but like WILD STUFF like truly gross)
I remember taking an economics class in high school and I absolutely hated the Idea of the pig principle. I am pretty sure People don’t want an unlimited quantity of food at all times!
Just the fact that 19th century doctors would go from an autopsy, their hands dripping with gore, to the maternity ward and not even want the gore off first. I'll never get it.
You'll never get it because it simply isn't true. They didn't run around with gore. They washed off any visible(!) dirt, they even washed their hands with soap. What they didn't do was desinfect(!) their hands and utensils after examining bodies and patients. Come on guys. Doctors (or people in general) didn't just around covered in blood and gore and puss without being grossed out by it.
I think it’s valuable to remember that maternal fetal mortality /increased/ when doctors took the responsibility from midwives and wise women and only decreased after a dude was like “oh maybe gore and yuck is bad for mum and bub?”
And that Doctor was marginalised in his time, because the other doctors didn't like being made to wash their hands and felt offended by the idea that they were carrying the disease, despite the evidence that they very clearly were. Despite the evidence that washing their hands very literally did improve mortality rates. He eventually left that hospital, trying to spread his "radical" idea and was mostly dismissed. Doctors at his former hospital stopped washing their hands, deaths increased again, and it wasn't until after his death that the medical consensus turned and washing hands became accepted as good and necessary. It's not just that they ignored the wisdom of primarily women and marginalised communities until a man could show evidence. Even the evidence didn't actually change anything. I can't remember the driving cause behind the actual change, but just showing evidence did next to nothing.
I was thinking maybe the docs were as disgusted to handle vaginas as to be handling corpse-guts. Didn't even realize that of course they were probably all men at the time, which makes that even more likely.
Would like to say that, as someone living long-term on benefits (the Naruto to UBI's Boruto), UBI does not seem like a bright future lmao. In the UK there are limits on the amount of money you are allowed to save if you need to claim benefits. If I ever have more than £6000 in savings I must report it to the government so they can reduce my income, if I have more than £16000, Universal Credit stops altogether, if I fail to report any of this I am committing benefits fraud. The function of this system is to keep people like me on the edge of poverty while ensuring that we continue to consume as much as possible. I am not empowered by this arrangement.
Actually a big fan of watching the two of you tear into Kurzgesagt To anyone else in the comments, I'd highly recommend the channel Think That Through's vids about Kurzgesagt too
2:09:16 Indeed, it's precisely why Milton Friedman came up with UBI in the first place. The whole idea was to privatise the social safety net and then give people a certain amount of cash with which to buy the services they previously would have been able to access free at the point of need, whilst at the same time allowing employers to cut wages (much as they're able to do thanks to the tax credits/Universal Sanctions system in Britain). It was never going to be capable of improving working-class bargaining power, and it was never meant to do so in the first place.
The discussion seemed to be incomplete, probably because that wasn't the point of the stream in the first place (valid), but what social safety net? What free stuff at the point of need? As a disabled person who survives at the whims of a government whom I need to constantly convince my permanent disability is permanent, my understanding is that UBI would help me *not die*, by removing that constant risk. Does this critique invalidate or outweigh that? (Genuine question. This feels wildly different from my understanding of UBI, so I'm concerned and interested.)
@@AlbeyAmakiir The point is that the amount you get in UBI is never going to be as much as the amount you lose in health care, housing benefits, disability benefits, and everything else. Essentially, the purpose is that every single public service that people rely on now is meant to be put on the market, and they can use their UBI to choose whether this month they want to pay rent or see a doctor or heat their homes or whatever. As for the constant risk of dying, UBI maintains that, which is why studies of pilot projects always praise the fact that it does not 'disincentivise work'. If you look at the political parties that propose UBI, and you check out their manifesto pledges, you'll find that this always combines with cuts in the welfare state that, for many, if not most people, will leave them worse off in net terms. You can find a good detailed discussion of what gets left out of the concept of UBI in this very thorough piece by a leftist economist based in Britain: www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/14/1560093/-Anti-Capitalist-Meetup-Thoughts-on-the-Universal-Basic-Income
I have been reading (or more accurately listening) to Shock Doctrine and I just want to say that I want to strangle the entire concept of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)… in Minecraft.
They never explain why more africans is bad..... the video just takes it as a given . watching white people explain why more of us is a bad thing is fucking infuriating.
Question I'm guessing won't be asked by Kurzgesagt: 'Why is it that "sub-Saharan Africa" just happens to have cornered the market in all sorts of resources indispensable for modern capitalism, and yet that market position does not benefit the population there?'
1:37:43 Also, copying the modern economic powers necessarily means shielding domestic industry from foreign competition with tariffs, direct subsidies, and the like (as well as by reverse engineering any technology that seemed useful, as Britain did with India's textile, steel, and shipbuilding industries). That's how the imperial core countries developed the industries that allowed them to become dominant in the first place, and it just happens to be the model of economic development that is banned by 'free trade' agreements.
1:25:16 And another thing about the white birthrate discourse is that one of the key factors in the constant redefinition of 'white' across time and place has been the maintenance of a white majority or at least the biggest possible white minority (which is why South Africa, for example, was the first European/European-colonised country to fully include Jews within the definition of 'white'). When new groups of people are absorbed into (conditional) whiteness, it is almost always in response to a perceived need to create the largest possible united 'white' front against indigenous populations in the colonies or marginalised populations (whether recent migrants or otherwise). Whiteness is, in no small part, a mechanism of statistical manipulation to begin with.
Ok,no, I have to point this out… the doctors doing autopsy and then helping women to give birth is a distinctively early modern/industrial era European thing. Everybody knew you had to be clean when assisting someone in labour, even in Europe before the early phases of the industrial revolution. Of course there was no germ theory and it was not that easy to clean properly, so there where plenty of health concerns, but it was “common knowledge” everywhere not to touch deaths or not to touch open wounds. And it was common knowledge because societies who didn’t know that died out, because, you know… When we look at the ‘700 or ‘800 and see they do shit like doing an autopsy and then touching newborn babies we think “ah ah in the past everybody was so stupid” assuming it was the same in the centuries before, but it’s not the case. And it’s a very victorian era’s liberal thing to do, you know, that thing when they claim to be on the right side of history (to be proven morally right even when there is nothing to prove it) and that the ancient regime, before liberalism and the enlightment was really bad, you know, medieval times, they had iron maidens, chastity belts and the ius prime noctis, so, now it’s better! (Of course, the things I listed are all victorian era historic falsehood…) In fact birth wasn’t even doctors’ job for very long time, midwives assisted the birth and doctor assisted sick people. Then a king of France during absolutism (if I remember correctly it was le Roi Soleil, but it may have been his son) decided he didn’t trust enough the midwife and that his close friend (as far as an absolute monarch can have friends) who was his court doctor should do it. And what the king does everybody has to do (especially an absolute monarch) so it became “the norm”. Furthermore, the “mixing” emerged with the birth of hospitals as we know them today, as it was easier to have a single place where doctors and their patients could gather, which now included women in labour. Of course, you can see how this idiocy (touching dead bodies and then children) became normal, many new theories, many new doctors studying medical novelty, not enough time for each single patient… not ideal. In fact we are still having women giving birth in the same building of people with disease… now, we can disinfect etc., so the danger is very low, but it’s still a bit stupid, don’t you think? In many places maternity ward is in a different wing of the building, but do we really need to have all in the same place? Do we really need to consider pregnancy as a disease?
Hello, I have thoughts about this I'd like to share. Please don't mind me if you would prefer not to, my brain wanted to write out thoughts. I'm in my own head arguing some stuff about the logic of having people give birth in the place where diseases are treated. It does seem like a continuation of pathologizing anything associated with "womanhood", but I can't help but consider the risks associated with birth. Hospitals don't just treat disease, they treat injuries too. But then again, Is the risk of injury great enough to have everyone give birth in a place where they are treating injuries? Would it just be better to have a different place to have the baby and transfer anyone who needs help to a hospital afterwards? What do they do in places where people do give birth home and/or with midwives now? I don't know where I would find this information.
@@asquirreltv we have some good data that show home birth in appropriate homes (I.e places that can be clean and private) with option to transfer if absolutely needed have as good or better outcomes for families both at birth and postpartum. So you’re right- in a place where you aren’t giving birth in a home without a floor it probably isn’t necessary for everyone to give birth in hospital, freeing up more hospital space for high risk births that really need constant medical care.
So, I have to point something out as well: Even in Europe during the early stages of the industrial revolution did people know that you had to be clean when assisting somebody in childbirth (or examining them in the days and weeks afterwards). Contrary to popular belief they washed their hands, washed them with soap even, after cutting open dead bodies and even (though probably not as consistent as they should have) in between patients. No doctor ran around with blood or puss or gore or dirt or other bodily fluids on their hands. The issue was that people wrongly believed that visibly clean hands were actually clean. Nowadays we understand that clean doesn't equal sterile. Doing autopsies before examining patients also wasn't the main problem. Dead bodies don't cause infections (as Semmelweis wrongly assumed) - germs do. Bacteria do. And those can live on and in living people as much as in dead ones. Semmelweis didn't demand that doctor wash their hands, he demanded that the disinfect them with a chlorine solution when entering the maternity ward after doing autopsies to get rid of "decaying matter". Infections did indeed fall. Until the admission of a woman with a infected uterine tumor. Within the maternity ward people only had to wash their hands with soap and water (as was absolutely costume) and thus virtually all women examined after the sick patient once again developed childbed fever. The admission of a woman with an infected wound on her knee also caused cases to spike. Since people didn't disinfect anything within the ward, infections were still spread. You are right that the reason that women under the care of midwives were far less likely to develop childbed fever was that midwives simply didn't touch as many sick people as doctors did. Imagine a doctor examining a person with an active infection, for example the cervix of a woman currently suffering from childbed fever, washing his hands afterwards, thinking they are perfectly clean, only to unknowingly transfer bacteria straight into the uterus of a healthy woman he examined next. Or using their utensils on sick people and then using them on healthy ones without disinfecting(!) them. It doesn't really matter whether the infection was picked up on a dead or living person. The autopsies really weren't the main issue, that is a misconception, even if doctors never touched a single dead body their proximity to sick people alone would have sufficed. Having touched a dead body doesn't cause danger to a child, having touched an infected body (dead or alive) does. Furthermore women giving birth without a doctor present did, and still do, develop childbed fever too. It can be caused by bacteria already present in the body. Childbirth was incredibly dangerous before doctors got involved too. More dangerous even. And while a pregnancy isn't a disease, childbirth still carries lifethreatening risks. People giving birth in hospitals, in close proximity to operating rooms and ICUs, under the care of doctors, has saved more mothers and children than it has killed. It's not "idiocy" it has saved countless and countless and countless of lives.
@@occupyvenus4868 thanks for pointing out some imprecisions in my comment, I got a bit triggered and rushed it, focusing on the autopsy part, but yeah, infection and not being able to disinfect were the main issues. This was what I referred as “idiocy”, not the part on doctors doing it. On the midwives/doctor part, now all the knowledge body and pregnancy related are learned by doctors, so of course it’s more safe. In fact we’re already moving toward what I was suggesting: obstetrician are basically a field on it’s on, further removing contacts between disease and pregnancy. However we also can see women and pregnancies treated as a pathology, often with a patronising approach, not by all doctors, of course, usually by “old school” doctors. A maternity ward doesn’t really need to be a hospital, even in case of emergencies. Having all the in the same place is not necessary, we still do it because we’re used to do it like this. Now, I’m not saying everybody should give birth to home with only a modern midwife, obstetricians are a type of doctor and they are definitely the best at it. My point was “it’s not really out of necessity, but costume” and “by doing this we easily end up pathologising the condition”. I realised by your comment it may came across as mystic magical anti-doctors argument that are getting a bit too popular on social. That was not my point, I probably did not express my self properly😅
Super early watching the stream, though I have to say the first vid's idea of how data can make the world better is a bit of a problem in a world wherein private entities own data and control both access to it and what it may or may not be used for
I feel you were way to easy on the financial incentive piece once they showed their numbers. Got to remember how easy numbers can be manipulated. For example, If I'm remembering correctly, they said those finances were over a 8 year period. But what if the vast majority of the gates foundation videos were given over a 2 year period. That other 6 years could easily skew the numbers. Also, it's important to consider what proportionality. So yes, if I remember correctly, the sponsorships were only about 10% of revenue but what if they were only 2% of their labor. Lots of ways that data could have been selected the way it was. And sure, they would have had to make a much longer video to cover the many different angles but then maybe they shouldn't have just covered the topic at all if they were not going to be thorough, especially about something as serious as finances.
Nat: This is how science based politics turns into Eugenics Sophie: Oh fuck we hit 42069!!!! Just jabbing you Sophie. Your voice has helped me through a panic attack, and you look so beautiful.
I wonder why the studies looking into education on the African Continent only started in the early 90s. It's almost like something really big happened then that suddenly allowed Western countries to put THEIR spin on things.
What's so striking to me about Kurzgesagt's videos is the complete unwillingness to do any analysis or like, *thinking.* Like not just that Kurzgesagt doesn't think about these things the way a communist would, but one gets the impression that they are just stringing together facts they found in smart sounding sources without asking any questions. It's especially noticeable when it looks like the sources don't agree on something, because all Kurzgesagt can say is "this is very complicated! We don't have the time to get into this!" But just in general these videos have the feeling of a disjointed, incoherent list.
The big trick here is that 10% is from 2015-2023. It doesn't say how much of their income in 2022-2023 is from institutions. It could be 20-30% since they no longer have some of the revenue streams like agencies that were at 9%.
Also, of all the cutesy animations, there was a lot of things that were icky or frightful, but the one that really got me to my core was the bit where like these polls came and took away several children and replaced that family's house with one that supposedly looks nicer. How can you make something like that and not consider what it is you're doing? wth?
And let me tell you, as one unfortunate enough to be a leftist in Israel, I know demographic projections all too well. This place is obssessed with "maintaining an ethnic majority" and it's deeply fucked stuff.
"Think That Through" did some videos about Kurzgesagt. They made the point that Bill Gates isn't trying to change their stance through funding, but chose to fund them because they already agree with him and he wants to increase their reach.
I must admit that you changed my mind on Kurtzgezagt. I used to think their work was just pretty unremarkable lib stuff. Nothing radical, but nothing offensive. Now I realise that there’s an insidious bent to a lot of their stuff, maybe apart from the videos that just explain astrophysical concepts, it all reeks of that liberal techno-optimistic, science-fetishism that is Gates’s whole deal.
I have the wonderful distinction of being a mere 4 days older than Melon Husk, and yet... while I went to school, and got jobs as soon as I was "allowed" to, and then subsequently worked most my life, I am currently stuck in a small bedroom, shared with a +70 y/o man, and have no way to escape this situation (by myself) The only real difference between us being, I wasn't born into wealth. Most everything else maps out one to one.
1:49:00 ish. They were "ethnically homogenous," meaning "they were all black, and there's no ethnic difference between black people from one side of the continent and the other. Because black is the only ethnicity of black people." Surprised you two didn't catch the implication, or at least didn't mention it.
2:14:25 - I find it really confusing how supposed online "leftists" and "anarchists" act angrily baffled when they hear basic leftist and anarchist ideas for what can only be the first time.
I'm on a "UBI" of sorts (SSI) (finally!) yet I'm to literally sign the entire amount over to my sister (because reasons, plz help) and I do not benefit from any of it. IOW, I finally received assistance, yet my material conditions have not changed, not in any way.
I think population discourse works because theres an intuitive logic that many billions of people will exhaust resources in a variety of ways. I think this intuitive logic is right, but it obscures vastly larger issues with how we use our resources and the way racism and colonialism uses this topic to promote themselves.
Игры
"many children died before the could contribute to society" is just about the most disgusting thing ive heard. sure, thats the reason child mortality is bad.
if you don't gleefully feed yourself to the meat grinder of capitalism you are less than chaff on the grain
What a tragic waste of labour force.
As a disabled person it's a nice, healthy reminder that most liberals think it would be better for society if I just died.
Honestly I can't describe how pro nat I am. Like I'm honestly nat-pilled I feel like Nat is the most lovely grounding presence and she thinks so deeply and is extremely empathetic and I've seen how supportive she is of Sophie in so many situations. This is just a nat appreciation comment.
Nat gang
Being Nat-pilled is based actually
I love Nat! She always has the best additions to the discussion. And I can't help but think I've seen so many great people with mates that I think, really you two? But Sophie and Nat seem like such equals. It's lovely to see.
oh, same
A wild Sophie appears! 7:14
actual stream start 9:48
Liberal slop streams are amazingly educational. I love them.
It's very telling where they stop telling the story of Semmelweis, because after he figured out that washing hands saved lives, the midwives he worked with accepted it easily, but when he presented it to male doctors, they were angrily offended at the idea that it was their fault patients were dying and it ruined his career. Semmelweis ended up in an asylum after having his reputation and career ruined by offended doctors and he died there. His discoveries were ignored for years.
The split in acceptance fell pretty clearly on gendered lines, but it says a lot about how science channels like Kurtzgesats want to position data and facts as the only thing worth looking at when very clearly the problem was as social and political as it was medical. But a social analysis of the problems of the third world wouldn't look so favourably on imperialist capitalists like Gates, so they do a lot of work to devalue it.
The use of just looking at numerical data as a means of willful ignorance that reinforces the liberal mainstream is rife in IFLS-type science internet and it makes my blood boil
This is such an underrated point. Especially because midwives had been using salves, washes etc with incidental infection control for a long time so adding this step to their practice was relatively natural and not an attack on their ego 😂
The German version of kurzgesagt was published under public broadcasting until recently. Including the Gates founded videos. If you didn't watch one specific video where it's explained, you wouldn't know that it wasn't just a public broadcast webseries.
58:00 this is actually a good criticism,my wife who is a Sociologist speaks on how there is continuous dialogue about how certain institutions will not fund Sociology Departments that do qualitative work or will fund more to departments that emphasis is on Quantitative work and this isn't just sociology, all of the Humanities and Social Sciences are in this crisis right now.
Qualitative work is extremely important to synthesize with Quant work. It provides context and voice to the numbers.
The voice actor for these videos has the tone of a man with a pith helmet on his way to “The Orient”
One thing I would add to the discussion of how Kurzgesagt's values align with those of the B&M Gates Foundation is that that does not actually rule out a different sort of influence.
After all, growing up in a society where some flavour or other of liberalism is the dominant ideology, a lot of people will start out from a place where their values roughly align with the sort of values propagated by the billionaire-funded NGO ecosystem, but at least some of us come to question those values and ultimately reject them fundamentally.
If one has a relationship with an organisation like the Gates Foundation, that creates an incentive not to grow beyond those values, or, if one comes to doubt them, not to be particularly visible about that doubt.
Pokemon go [redacted] a pipeline
all the discussion of Africa has reminded me of the most horrendous convo i overheard in a history class. some arse randomly said to his mate "if you could blow up one continent which one would it be?" and WITHOUT HESITATION this guy goes "Africa". and to make it worse the guy who asked the question responded "nah but its got loads of resources" !!!!! (mildly unrelated to the video but like WILD STUFF like truly gross)
I remember taking an economics class in high school and I absolutely hated the Idea of the pig principle. I am pretty sure People don’t want an unlimited quantity of food at all times!
Just the fact that 19th century doctors would go from an autopsy, their hands dripping with gore, to the maternity ward and not even want the gore off first. I'll never get it.
more than that, being stained in blood and dripping with gore was seen as a sign of prestige and professionalism
You'll never get it because it simply isn't true. They didn't run around with gore. They washed off any visible(!) dirt, they even washed their hands with soap.
What they didn't do was desinfect(!) their hands and utensils after examining bodies and patients.
Come on guys. Doctors (or people in general) didn't just around covered in blood and gore and puss without being grossed out by it.
I think it’s valuable to remember that maternal fetal mortality /increased/ when doctors took the responsibility from midwives and wise women and only decreased after a dude was like “oh maybe gore and yuck is bad for mum and bub?”
And that Doctor was marginalised in his time, because the other doctors didn't like being made to wash their hands and felt offended by the idea that they were carrying the disease, despite the evidence that they very clearly were. Despite the evidence that washing their hands very literally did improve mortality rates.
He eventually left that hospital, trying to spread his "radical" idea and was mostly dismissed.
Doctors at his former hospital stopped washing their hands, deaths increased again, and it wasn't until after his death that the medical consensus turned and washing hands became accepted as good and necessary.
It's not just that they ignored the wisdom of primarily women and marginalised communities until a man could show evidence.
Even the evidence didn't actually change anything.
I can't remember the driving cause behind the actual change, but just showing evidence did next to nothing.
I was thinking maybe the docs were as disgusted to handle vaginas as to be handling corpse-guts. Didn't even realize that of course they were probably all men at the time, which makes that even more likely.
Would like to say that, as someone living long-term on benefits (the Naruto to UBI's Boruto), UBI does not seem like a bright future lmao. In the UK there are limits on the amount of money you are allowed to save if you need to claim benefits. If I ever have more than £6000 in savings I must report it to the government so they can reduce my income, if I have more than £16000, Universal Credit stops altogether, if I fail to report any of this I am committing benefits fraud.
The function of this system is to keep people like me on the edge of poverty while ensuring that we continue to consume as much as possible. I am not empowered by this arrangement.
Actually a big fan of watching the two of you tear into Kurzgesagt
To anyone else in the comments, I'd highly recommend the channel Think That Through's vids about Kurzgesagt too
seconding this,
also, i swear i was subscribed to them but somehow wasnt?
got some stuff to catch up on after their first two videos
2:09:16 Indeed, it's precisely why Milton Friedman came up with UBI in the first place. The whole idea was to privatise the social safety net and then give people a certain amount of cash with which to buy the services they previously would have been able to access free at the point of need, whilst at the same time allowing employers to cut wages (much as they're able to do thanks to the tax credits/Universal Sanctions system in Britain). It was never going to be capable of improving working-class bargaining power, and it was never meant to do so in the first place.
The discussion seemed to be incomplete, probably because that wasn't the point of the stream in the first place (valid), but what social safety net? What free stuff at the point of need? As a disabled person who survives at the whims of a government whom I need to constantly convince my permanent disability is permanent, my understanding is that UBI would help me *not die*, by removing that constant risk. Does this critique invalidate or outweigh that?
(Genuine question. This feels wildly different from my understanding of UBI, so I'm concerned and interested.)
@@AlbeyAmakiir The point is that the amount you get in UBI is never going to be as much as the amount you lose in health care, housing benefits, disability benefits, and everything else. Essentially, the purpose is that every single public service that people rely on now is meant to be put on the market, and they can use their UBI to choose whether this month they want to pay rent or see a doctor or heat their homes or whatever.
As for the constant risk of dying, UBI maintains that, which is why studies of pilot projects always praise the fact that it does not 'disincentivise work'.
If you look at the political parties that propose UBI, and you check out their manifesto pledges, you'll find that this always combines with cuts in the welfare state that, for many, if not most people, will leave them worse off in net terms.
You can find a good detailed discussion of what gets left out of the concept of UBI in this very thorough piece by a leftist economist based in Britain: www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/14/1560093/-Anti-Capitalist-Meetup-Thoughts-on-the-Universal-Basic-Income
I’m still wondering who would advocate for urinary bladder infections.
I have been reading (or more accurately listening) to Shock Doctrine and I just want to say that I want to strangle the entire concept of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)… in Minecraft.
The IMF must be abolished - Nat
The Africa video radicalised me against kurzgesagt
They never explain why more africans is bad..... the video just takes it as a given . watching white people explain why more of us is a bad thing is fucking infuriating.
1:28:35 'Boost the economy' is a phrase that's doing a whole lot of unacknowledged labour in this overpopulation video
Question I'm guessing won't be asked by Kurzgesagt: 'Why is it that "sub-Saharan Africa" just happens to have cornered the market in all sorts of resources indispensable for modern capitalism, and yet that market position does not benefit the population there?'
1:37:43 Also, copying the modern economic powers necessarily means shielding domestic industry from foreign competition with tariffs, direct subsidies, and the like (as well as by reverse engineering any technology that seemed useful, as Britain did with India's textile, steel, and shipbuilding industries). That's how the imperial core countries developed the industries that allowed them to become dominant in the first place, and it just happens to be the model of economic development that is banned by 'free trade' agreements.
1:25:16 And another thing about the white birthrate discourse is that one of the key factors in the constant redefinition of 'white' across time and place has been the maintenance of a white majority or at least the biggest possible white minority (which is why South Africa, for example, was the first European/European-colonised country to fully include Jews within the definition of 'white'). When new groups of people are absorbed into (conditional) whiteness, it is almost always in response to a perceived need to create the largest possible united 'white' front against indigenous populations in the colonies or marginalised populations (whether recent migrants or otherwise).
Whiteness is, in no small part, a mechanism of statistical manipulation to begin with.
So you're saying the solution to white replacement is to redefine the term white so everyone is white? /s
i'm no big city chicken lawyer but that video on africa sure seems like it's always about to drop the shoe and turn into open great replacement stuff
Ok,no, I have to point this out… the doctors doing autopsy and then helping women to give birth is a distinctively early modern/industrial era European thing. Everybody knew you had to be clean when assisting someone in labour, even in Europe before the early phases of the industrial revolution. Of course there was no germ theory and it was not that easy to clean properly, so there where plenty of health concerns, but it was “common knowledge” everywhere not to touch deaths or not to touch open wounds. And it was common knowledge because societies who didn’t know that died out, because, you know…
When we look at the ‘700 or ‘800 and see they do shit like doing an autopsy and then touching newborn babies we think “ah ah in the past everybody was so stupid” assuming it was the same in the centuries before, but it’s not the case. And it’s a very victorian era’s liberal thing to do, you know, that thing when they claim to be on the right side of history (to be proven morally right even when there is nothing to prove it) and that the ancient regime, before liberalism and the enlightment was really bad, you know, medieval times, they had iron maidens, chastity belts and the ius prime noctis, so, now it’s better! (Of course, the things I listed are all victorian era historic falsehood…)
In fact birth wasn’t even doctors’ job for very long time, midwives assisted the birth and doctor assisted sick people. Then a king of France during absolutism (if I remember correctly it was le Roi Soleil, but it may have been his son) decided he didn’t trust enough the midwife and that his close friend (as far as an absolute monarch can have friends) who was his court doctor should do it. And what the king does everybody has to do (especially an absolute monarch) so it became “the norm”.
Furthermore, the “mixing” emerged with the birth of hospitals as we know them today, as it was easier to have a single place where doctors and their patients could gather, which now included women in labour. Of course, you can see how this idiocy (touching dead bodies and then children) became normal, many new theories, many new doctors studying medical novelty, not enough time for each single patient… not ideal.
In fact we are still having women giving birth in the same building of people with disease… now, we can disinfect etc., so the danger is very low, but it’s still a bit stupid, don’t you think? In many places maternity ward is in a different wing of the building, but do we really need to have all in the same place? Do we really need to consider pregnancy as a disease?
These are some GREAT points made!
Hello, I have thoughts about this I'd like to share. Please don't mind me if you would prefer not to, my brain wanted to write out thoughts.
I'm in my own head arguing some stuff about the logic of having people give birth in the place where diseases are treated. It does seem like a continuation of pathologizing anything associated with "womanhood", but I can't help but consider the risks associated with birth. Hospitals don't just treat disease, they treat injuries too. But then again, Is the risk of injury great enough to have everyone give birth in a place where they are treating injuries? Would it just be better to have a different place to have the baby and transfer anyone who needs help to a hospital afterwards? What do they do in places where people do give birth home and/or with midwives now? I don't know where I would find this information.
@@asquirreltv we have some good data that show home birth in appropriate homes (I.e places that can be clean and private) with option to transfer if absolutely needed have as good or better outcomes for families both at birth and postpartum. So you’re right- in a place where you aren’t giving birth in a home without a floor it probably isn’t necessary for everyone to give birth in hospital, freeing up more hospital space for high risk births that really need constant medical care.
So, I have to point something out as well: Even in Europe during the early stages of the industrial revolution did people know that you had to be clean when assisting somebody in childbirth (or examining them in the days and weeks afterwards). Contrary to popular belief they washed their hands, washed them with soap even, after cutting open dead bodies and even (though probably not as consistent as they should have) in between patients. No doctor ran around with blood or puss or gore or dirt or other bodily fluids on their hands.
The issue was that people wrongly believed that visibly clean hands were actually clean. Nowadays we understand that clean doesn't equal sterile. Doing autopsies before examining patients also wasn't the main problem. Dead bodies don't cause infections (as Semmelweis wrongly assumed) - germs do. Bacteria do. And those can live on and in living people as much as in dead ones.
Semmelweis didn't demand that doctor wash their hands, he demanded that the disinfect them with a chlorine solution when entering the maternity ward after doing autopsies to get rid of "decaying matter". Infections did indeed fall. Until the admission of a woman with a infected uterine tumor. Within the maternity ward people only had to wash their hands with soap and water (as was absolutely costume) and thus virtually all women examined after the sick patient once again developed childbed fever. The admission of a woman with an infected wound on her knee also caused cases to spike. Since people didn't disinfect anything within the ward, infections were still spread.
You are right that the reason that women under the care of midwives were far less likely to develop childbed fever was that midwives simply didn't touch as many sick people as doctors did. Imagine a doctor examining a person with an active infection, for example the cervix of a woman currently suffering from childbed fever, washing his hands afterwards, thinking they are perfectly clean, only to unknowingly transfer bacteria straight into the uterus of a healthy woman he examined next. Or using their utensils on sick people and then using them on healthy ones without disinfecting(!) them. It doesn't really matter whether the infection was picked up on a dead or living person. The autopsies really weren't the main issue, that is a misconception, even if doctors never touched a single dead body their proximity to sick people alone would have sufficed. Having touched a dead body doesn't cause danger to a child, having touched an infected body (dead or alive) does. Furthermore women giving birth without a doctor present did, and still do, develop childbed fever too. It can be caused by bacteria already present in the body. Childbirth was incredibly dangerous before doctors got involved too. More dangerous even.
And while a pregnancy isn't a disease, childbirth still carries lifethreatening risks. People giving birth in hospitals, in close proximity to operating rooms and ICUs, under the care of doctors, has saved more mothers and children than it has killed. It's not "idiocy" it has saved countless and countless and countless of lives.
@@occupyvenus4868 thanks for pointing out some imprecisions in my comment, I got a bit triggered and rushed it, focusing on the autopsy part, but yeah, infection and not being able to disinfect were the main issues. This was what I referred as “idiocy”, not the part on doctors doing it.
On the midwives/doctor part, now all the knowledge body and pregnancy related are learned by doctors, so of course it’s more safe. In fact we’re already moving toward what I was suggesting: obstetrician are basically a field on it’s on, further removing contacts between disease and pregnancy.
However we also can see women and pregnancies treated as a pathology, often with a patronising approach, not by all doctors, of course, usually by “old school” doctors. A maternity ward doesn’t really need to be a hospital, even in case of emergencies. Having all the in the same place is not necessary, we still do it because we’re used to do it like this. Now, I’m not saying everybody should give birth to home with only a modern midwife, obstetricians are a type of doctor and they are definitely the best at it. My point was “it’s not really out of necessity, but costume” and “by doing this we easily end up pathologising the condition”.
I realised by your comment it may came across as mystic magical anti-doctors argument that are getting a bit too popular on social. That was not my point, I probably did not express my self properly😅
Super early watching the stream, though I have to say the first vid's idea of how data can make the world better is a bit of a problem in a world wherein private entities own data and control both access to it and what it may or may not be used for
I feel you were way to easy on the financial incentive piece once they showed their numbers. Got to remember how easy numbers can be manipulated. For example, If I'm remembering correctly, they said those finances were over a 8 year period. But what if the vast majority of the gates foundation videos were given over a 2 year period. That other 6 years could easily skew the numbers. Also, it's important to consider what proportionality. So yes, if I remember correctly, the sponsorships were only about 10% of revenue but what if they were only 2% of their labor. Lots of ways that data could have been selected the way it was. And sure, they would have had to make a much longer video to cover the many different angles but then maybe they shouldn't have just covered the topic at all if they were not going to be thorough, especially about something as serious as finances.
Nat: This is how science based politics turns into Eugenics
Sophie: Oh fuck we hit 42069!!!!
Just jabbing you Sophie. Your voice has helped me through a panic attack, and you look so beautiful.
I wonder why the studies looking into education on the African Continent only started in the early 90s. It's almost like something really big happened then that suddenly allowed Western countries to put THEIR spin on things.
watched already but comment for the algorithm - liberal slop streams are my guilty pleasure and also really really informative~
Miss when that channel just posted cool shit about, like, black holes.
At least we have Second Thought going the opposite way
@@clark523 thanks for the rec
> _The Human Development Index measures the development of humans_
That was my holyshit moment of the week. Rest of the stream was great.
No way
What's so striking to me about Kurzgesagt's videos is the complete unwillingness to do any analysis or like, *thinking.* Like not just that Kurzgesagt doesn't think about these things the way a communist would, but one gets the impression that they are just stringing together facts they found in smart sounding sources without asking any questions. It's especially noticeable when it looks like the sources don't agree on something, because all Kurzgesagt can say is "this is very complicated! We don't have the time to get into this!" But just in general these videos have the feeling of a disjointed, incoherent list.
The big trick here is that 10% is from 2015-2023. It doesn't say how much of their income in 2022-2023 is from institutions. It could be 20-30% since they no longer have some of the revenue streams like agencies that were at 9%.
I thought this stream was going to be about kierkegaard and I was very confused for the first couple of minutes.
me toooooo 😆
If trends continue
IF TRENDS CONTINUE
!!!IF!!! !!!TRENDS!!! !!!CONTINUE!!!
Sorry for shouting, I just hate demographic projections SO MUCH.
Also, of all the cutesy animations, there was a lot of things that were icky or frightful, but the one that really got me to my core was the bit where like these polls came and took away several children and replaced that family's house with one that supposedly looks nicer. How can you make something like that and not consider what it is you're doing? wth?
And let me tell you, as one unfortunate enough to be a leftist in Israel, I know demographic projections all too well. This place is obssessed with "maintaining an ethnic majority" and it's deeply fucked stuff.
I really appreciate Nat’s comment
"There was a time Ethiopia had a socialist revolution. You won't believe what happened next..."
"Think That Through" did some videos about Kurzgesagt. They made the point that Bill Gates isn't trying to change their stance through funding, but chose to fund them because they already agree with him and he wants to increase their reach.
Which you also made here, naturally.
I must admit that you changed my mind on Kurtzgezagt. I used to think their work was just pretty unremarkable lib stuff. Nothing radical, but nothing offensive. Now I realise that there’s an insidious bent to a lot of their stuff, maybe apart from the videos that just explain astrophysical concepts, it all reeks of that liberal techno-optimistic, science-fetishism that is Gates’s whole deal.
They've got good science content, the problem comes when they try to talk about politics.
Nat's Roma? Knew she was cool
I have the wonderful distinction of being a mere 4 days older than Melon Husk, and yet...
while I went to school, and got jobs as soon as I was "allowed" to, and then subsequently worked most my life, I am currently stuck in a small bedroom, shared with a +70 y/o man, and have no way to escape this situation (by myself)
The only real difference between us being, I wasn't born into wealth. Most everything else maps out one to one.
1:49:00 ish. They were "ethnically homogenous," meaning "they were all black, and there's no ethnic difference between black people from one side of the continent and the other. Because black is the only ethnicity of black people." Surprised you two didn't catch the implication, or at least didn't mention it.
2:14:25 - I find it really confusing how supposed online "leftists" and "anarchists" act angrily baffled when they hear basic leftist and anarchist ideas for what can only be the first time.
That's just normal first world "leftist" behavior
?
I'm on a "UBI" of sorts (SSI) (finally!) yet I'm to literally sign the entire amount over to my sister (because reasons, plz help) and I do not benefit from any of it. IOW, I finally received assistance, yet my material conditions have not changed, not in any way.
A pizza is now more than £20???
All I am saying is, it would be a good thing that Nat and Sophie ONLY eat pizza, because our studies show that...
You could just pay the people who come over who send money back more what with the whole remittance thing.
I think population discourse works because theres an intuitive logic that many billions of people will exhaust resources in a variety of ways. I think this intuitive logic is right, but it obscures vastly larger issues with how we use our resources and the way racism and colonialism uses this topic to promote themselves.
🛡💪🫅FOR GARLIC BREAD 🧄🍞🫡🫡🫡🫡