#seriousposting

You can find a variety of studies on this topic, I'm going to link some here.

This study addresses the argument: "democracies are more environmentally friendly". "Democracy" in this context is referring to primarily wealthy liberal democracies. Although I have problems with essentially every mainstream method of calculating democracy (lol...) the study still proves the issue of pollution outsourcing:

We hypothesize that democracies can improve their record and become “greener” not only through genuinely domestic environmental protection, but also through outsourcing environmental impacts of their consumption to other countries. Analyzing data on greenhouse gas emissions, pollution offshoring, and democracy for more than 160 countries since the 1990s, we report evidence that the offshoring of environmental pollution contributes to the superior environmental record of democracies. The main policy implication is that democracies, per se, may not have a better environmental record than autocracies when considering global environmental impacts. This implies that democratic countries, in particular, should re-orient their environmental protection efforts from merely domestic to global environmental consequences of local economic activity.

For the record, the above study uses the V-Dem dataset for "democracy". If you choose to look that up, it looks about how you'd expect: US, UK, Western Europe, Australia, and Japan are perpetually in the freedom democracy zone for the most part each year.

The New York Times posted an article on pollution outsourcing in 2018 that includes some studies:

The United States, for its part, remains the world’s leading importer of what the researchers call “embodied carbon.” If the United States were held responsible for all the pollution worldwide that resulted from manufacturing the cars, clothing and other goods that Americans use, the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions would be 14 percent bigger than its domestic-only numbers suggest.

Between 1995 and 2015, the report found, as wealthier countries like Japan and Germany were cutting their own emissions, they were also doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide they outsourced to China.

But when I say "pollution outsourcing" I am not exclusively referring to carbon emissions. I mean literally all forms of pollution are being outsourced. From Waste Colonialism: A Brief History:

Exporting trash involves more than just environmental harm; it reflects systemic inequality and a historical pattern of exploitation. The term draws a direct line between historical colonialism, where natural resources and labor were stripped from colonized regions, and the current waste trade, where the burden of environmental damage is once again pushed onto those least responsible for it.

The logic is elementary: when consumption – primarily of plastic – continues to rise, there are only two solutions to eliminate the waste: incineration or dumping. Incineration becomes the only plausible alternative if a country does not allow large-scale dumping within its borders. The problem? Incinerating plastic carries a significant carbon footprint, which most countries responsible for plastic waste are trying to reduce. As a result, some choose to avoid both options and instead export their waste elsewhere, preferably to a country with weaker waste regulations.

For years, high-income countries, especially across Europe, in the US, Japan, and Australia, have been exporting plastic waste abroad under the claim that it will be recycled, but the reality is far more complex. A report by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) published last year revealed that in 2023, the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, Belgium, France, Italy, the US, Japan, and Australia were among the top waste exporters to non-OECD countries.

For over 20 years, China was the world’s biggest importer of plastic and other waste. Since it lacked local resources, starting in the 1980s–90s, the country accepted trash from richer countries to use as raw materials for its industries. However, this mechanism led to serious pollution, health risks and illegal dumping in the country. In 2018 China banned the import of plastic waste with its National Sword Policy. Since then, Western countries have been redirecting their exports to other parts of Asia and Africa. Countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, and the Philippines have taken up much of the imports, many arriving illegally or misdeclared. As for Africa, Ghana is slowly becoming a dumping ground, and Mexico and Peru in Latin America are following its steps.

i've outlined in a past post my opinion on the concept of pedophilia (thanks to tumblr's useless search function I can't find the post) but regardless, I subscribe to the model of human sexuality that goes as follows: it is so obviously socially constructed and conditioned there is really no point in arguing it is innate, and innate/'biological' arguments feed directly into reactionary sentiment surrounding sexuality. probably preaching to the choir here but felt the need to clarify regardless.

patriarchal societies (and resulting "family units") have widespread issues with child sexual abuse and sexuality. it has been stated before that incestuous abuse is an inevitable result of patriarchal family structure--especially with the role of the father. at the same time, there exists this persistent sexual shame and repression that--especially when coupled with entitlement--is a breeding ground for depravity. these things seem contradictory on the surface: everyone knows of the nefarious pedophile, but victims of sexual abuse (especially children) (especially if the perpetrator is a family member) are so often failed by law enforcement and peers alike when they try to do everything 'correctly'. everyone insists they hate pedophiles and rapists but the second that shadowy cartoon villain image is shattered by reality, they refuse to accept it. the reality is simple: perpetrators of such crimes are more likely to be someone you know, someone you trust, even someone you love. there are also common misconceptions about csa that I do hold the "innate" model of pedophilia accountable for: not enough people are aware that an adult can sexually abuse both children and adults, and be "attracted" to both. while some offenders may have a preferred age, they are still opportunists, and not all are wealthy or respected enough to have preferences in victims like those in the epstein files. I put "attracted" in quotes earlier because the way people who commit sex crimes are approached in most related research is frankly stupid as hell and it's very hard to take any of it seriously. or "interviews with pedophiles". to me this is about as useful and insightful as true crime content. oh well, it'll still be taken far more seriously by society at large than anything i'm saying here will, because terms like "feminism" and "social construct" are scary buzzwords to many.

now this is where I may upset people. a lot of discourse surrounding incest and pedophilia is extremely online. like i'm going to be so completely honest, I do not give a fuck if someone watches an anime with incest in it, or engages in some sort of sexual roleplay with another adult. do I think lolicon and shotacon are particularly helpful additions to society? no. but these did not appear out of nowhere as some sort of conspiracy to make people abuse children. rather, they feed into already existing power structures. cart before the horse type of situation. anime in particular gets a lot of flack for its themes but the men making whatever media you find acceptable will form secret societies, blackmail each other, and even travel internationally for the opportunity to rape children so perhaps the reality is capitalism and patriarchy reward this behavior universally.

the current attitude towards victims of csa/incest is hostile and far removed from reality and my recommendation is reading about how average people and the legal system actually react to these cases in real life. about how there are entire organizations whose purpose is defending child abusers. it's ironic, isn't it? how the fuck do you get to such a point, where "pedophile" is such a horrible thing to be, but the money and legal power sure seems to paint a very different picture? this is again where I mention the 'very online' phenomenon. a lot of outrage you see online is performative. I feel like as social media use becomes more common, this will be more and more of an issue. we have a unique ability today to hear from and communicate with more people than ever before. with that comes consequences if you do take internet algorithms driven by engagement as accurate portrayals of wider communities offline. remember outrage drives engagement. you are more likely to see something online that pisses you off. maybe it'll even be this post today.

father-daughter incest is the most commonly reported. this is only as "natural" as the concept of the nuclear family.