The ecological impact of an pre-industrial community is generally much smaller than that of an industrial one.

they’ve only been there since the 1300s

So? Please finish that thought.

Or the fact that they are not white gives them special privileges.

You know what, YES! It does! Now go cry about it.

human habitation on New Zealand has a history of less than a thousand years

I know. My point is that cats (or the Maori) have a minuscule impact on the environment when compared to settlers.

the word “aborigines” in that part of the world carries a potentially problematic connotation.

I see. What would be a more respectful alternative?

The ruling class will makes sure they are insulated from the consequences of war. It’s always the poor who are sent out to die.

Yes, but I think we need to distinguish between the native population, which has proven capable of co-existing with the local ecosystem, and the settlers, who’ll need to be culled.

Maybe we can be a little animale and let the aborigines adopt the more tame settlers. Find them nice, loving homes, you know? The rest will unfortunately need to be euthanised.

You know, I can think of one species that’s a lot more harmful to the environment. Maybe the cats of NZ should start hunting non-native members of that species.

That’s the real reason. All the talk of drug smuggling is just a distraction.

I think it’s a lot simpler than that. Venezuela has oil.

I don’t think the government will risk significant increases in fuel prices on the eve of the Bihar elections. On the other hand, it is quite possible that they agree to stop buying Russian oil from Russia as a compromise - it could be bounced off a third country so we can technically agree to the US demands.

Pretty sure he had them buried long before he died. (Well, that’s the story anyway. For all we know, it could have been completely made up by the Han to discredit the Qin.)

Because the real power of the US isn’t the ICC exemption or the UN SC veto, but their six thousand nukes and the biggest navy in the world.

Nobel prizes cannot be given to the dead.

They just recognized that selling solar pannels and stuff to othercountries is very profitable.

If it was very profitable, countries and companies would be falling over each other to do it.

Exactly.

Ah, my eyes!

They are trying to get greater control over the US economy / resources / society. Such an oligarchy is inefficient, so the US will get outcompeted by China. But that is a price they are willing to pay, as long as they benefit personally.

Put another way, the cake will become smaller, but they’ll get a bigger slice of it.

because it historically has never done so

This is an extreme position. Yes, the cards are stacked, and yes, the thieves will fight tooth and nail to preserve their privileges, but there have definitely been examples of a certain election result making things better. My country got independence[1], and the British people got public healthcare, because they voted Labour in 1945. We kicked out a strongwoman in 1977, and reined in a strongman last year. These are just examples from my country.

[1] I’m aware that there were other causes as well, but Churchill would probably have tried to hold on even after the British position became logistically and economically unviable.

What is best for the public is not necessarily what is best for the ruling class.

But those labour, machinery and materials could be used for more productive uses. I agree that you need some nukes to protect your country, but both Russia and the US already have enough nukes to send humanity back to the stone age. Why build even more?