251–260 of 380 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you look at the report, generally things are getting better in developed counties. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/1409030-ani... All the hit is coming in developing nations.
Or more accurately, destruction is slower in developed countries, largely because there's so little left to destroy. It is pretty hard to deforest Scotland any more than it already is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And meat animals use less resources per pound of protein that vegetable sources. What? There's literally hundreds of scientific articles out there that establish the opposite, e.g. [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding... Edit: Where do you think the protein in cattle comes from? Isn't it… plants? That the cattle eat? Once eaten, the cattle expend some energy to live and then we kill…
That premise is only accurate if you are planning to have everyone consume livestock feed. If that is the plan, then you shouldn't be fixating on beef, you should be going after almost all crops we grow, which produce just as few calories per acre as beef, and even lower protein per acre. Depending on where you draw the line, your argument effectively requires all farms to only grow a small number of very high calori…
Edit: I can't reply to child anymore, max comment depth reached. Anyway, I think my work here is done :) I am not demanding we stop growing lettuce, I am demanding we stop raising cattle for proteins. We can keep growing lettuce for vitamins / minerals. As for the so-called "absurd fake figure" for protein/meat land utilization, that figure is from 1970's. I'm willing to concede that number may have risen slightly with the use of antibiotics as growth stimulator ;)
P.S.: Legumes are a whole family of plants, divided into 11 major types.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No I did not. Read the statement carefully, the word "ethical" was added in your mind, it isn't in the statement I made. Black people have lower IQs. Expecting them to have population proportional representation in universities, medical professions, etc is holding them to a standard they can not achieve, through no fault of their own, and it causes serious racial animosity and conflict. This is a real problem. There…
Again, this is plain racism. This is the precise definition of judging a group of people solely based on their race. Refuse to see that things like IQs and crime rate can be affected by so much factors than race if you must. Say "black people exhibit higher crime rate, so it must be genetic" while overlook the mere spurious correlation behind it, but at least acknowledge it. You are racist.
No it is not. Racism is judging individuals based on their race. When someone assumes a specific black person has a low IQ because they are black, that is racism. When someone states the objective fact that black people have lower IQs than whites or Asians, that is not racism.
>Refuse to see that things like IQs and crime rate can be affected by so much factors than race if you must.
I did not say they are not affected by other factors. One of the factors is race. This is objective reality, your feelings do not change it. Correct for everything you can imagine, and you are still left with this reality. IQ is very heavily heritable, and different races evolved differently with different pressures, causing differences in racial IQ. Ignoring this reality and demanding that a nation with 15% black people have 15% of their doctors be black is harmful, not helpful.
>Say "black people exhibit higher crime rate, so it must be genetic"
I did not say it. You sure seem eager to put words in my mouth. If I am such a horrible racist, surely you don't need to invent things to pretend I said. You should be able to stick to the things I actually said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A fix or an end. It is said that without enough population to watch and repair the current nuclear systems, the problem would quickly scalate in a few years when nuclear plants in the planet would deteriorate, get out of control and explode one after one.
That would be devastating for individual organisms, but what would the large scale ecological impact be? Chernobyl is home to quite a bit of wildlife as I understand it. Also, if we're talking about a world after the exchange of thousands of ICBM's I'm not sure how much relative impact the melting down of the world's nuclear power plants would have. The problem has been considered before, though probably as a general…
Human Population has more than doubled in the same timespan (from 3.7 billion to 7.7 billion today). This is not sustainable. We only have one small planet to live on, and we are destroying it. We are overfishing the oceans, cutting down entire forests to make way for pastures, warming up the planet and acidifying the plastic-filled ocean. Even insect populations are plummeting. The consequences of this will not be f…
We need to end the use of coal and natural gas, thereby eliminating mountain top removal mining and fracking both of which destroy their surrounding environment and dump massive amounts of waste into the water supply harming the species that live there. Initiate a gradual tax on petroleum based cars and then use that tax to fund the adoption of electric ones. Provide tax incentives for switching to electric vehicles.
Add a gradual tax to beef and pork while slowly using that to subsidize organic farming startups. Widespread pesticide use in farming is decimating the insect population. Government subsidized closed system farm startups would help as they limit waste and encourage the reuse of water and soil.
Attempting to limit population via government mandate at this stage can only lead to a dystopian bitter society and IMO is not the route to go as it attempts to override natures prime directive driving discord and civil unrest unless we are willing to also accept enforcement along the lines of the Chinese model; which personally I am not.
Dumping chemical waste into streams and rivers should be politically removed as an option.
If all of this took place only in the US it would have a massive affect as we are essentially tied with China as the worlds largest polluters. Our scientific advances in attaining the green economy would trickle down into the developing nations, especially if we stopped exporting coal.
Some bright spots: Solar & wind are getting cheaper & more common AR & VR will hopefully decrease travel Lots of research going on in creating beef in labs instead of fields to reduce the over abundance of cattle Medical Marijuana is becoming legal in just about every state in the USA. One nice side effect I'm hoping for is that it's price & method of growing will help improve technology & lower costs for growing pla…
Most of what you said is relevant and correct, but: >Medical Marijuana is becoming legal in just about every state in the USA. Feel like this was just thrown in there. I don't see how wasting millions of gallons of water on a useless plant is representative of the human population taking sacrifices to luxuries in order to prolong the life of the planet. In fact - it sounds like quite the opposite. >AR & VR will hopef…
You're starting from a flawed premise. Marijuana obviously has uses, claiming it doesn't takes a Trump-level ability of ignoring reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no evidence that any acceptable behavioral alteration will help. The kind of behavioral modification needed is horrifying dystopian nightmare stuff, people naturally resist things like that. The population is going to be reduced no matter what. The question is purely "are we going to do it by lowering birth rates, or are we going to wait until India or Africa unleashes an antibiotic resistant super plague on…
Rethinking our property system need not be draconian. The economic solutions to a steady state economy have been on the shelf for years. The ideology of growth will need a humiliating defeat, and then folks will be ready to accept alternatives.
I've started a meetup group for the purpose of discussing how a grassroots effort could shift some of the resources of the growth-economy to a steady-state economy while the former is still in place, but interest has been miniscule in my midsized college town.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970" isn't an ecological disaster?
It simply isn’t true. That would have catastrophic effects on food supply and observed wildlife, and that hasn’t been the case at all. You’d see a drastic reduction in the population of game such as deer and bear and sport fish, but those populations thrive. I should see fewer snakes and birds and rabbits in my yard yet that hasn’t happened. So that tells me it’s nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kindergarden is not an organization. If you want to decree that people who commit wrongthink offenses are by definition incorrect in everything they ever say, you need to provide a list of wrongthink offenses. I don't even know what you think is racist about that comment, much less how anyone could logically extrapolate that everything I say is wrong as a result.
From what I can tell, people have a problem with the fact that you said that "blacks are genetically incapable". Why do you think it's genetic? Why not cultural, social, economic?
Some bright spots: Solar & wind are getting cheaper & more common AR & VR will hopefully decrease travel Lots of research going on in creating beef in labs instead of fields to reduce the over abundance of cattle Medical Marijuana is becoming legal in just about every state in the USA. One nice side effect I'm hoping for is that it's price & method of growing will help improve technology & lower costs for growing pla…
Most of what you said is relevant and correct, but: >Medical Marijuana is becoming legal in just about every state in the USA. Feel like this was just thrown in there. I don't see how wasting millions of gallons of water on a useless plant is representative of the human population taking sacrifices to luxuries in order to prolong the life of the planet. In fact - it sounds like quite the opposite. >AR & VR will hopef…
Travel is a huge pollution issue. I believe AR/VR will become an incredibly addictive technology down the road.
Short Term (1-5 yrs) - It'll chip away small amounts by offering another form of entertainment to keep people happy. I think it'll help improve business meetings in the near future as well.
Long Term - I could see it becoming a form of entertainment that reduces the amount of traveling we do. People go to the zoo to see animals because it's easier & cheaper than finding them in the wild. You can also get closer without them eating you or running away. VR will let you do a lot of things you couldn't do or would have to suffer a lot of hardship to do. I think it will also create false expectations of what the real world is like. So ya, I do think as VR graphics & physics get better, it'll replace a large chunk of traveling.