Climate Change

This forum is for anything not Reason related, if you just want to talk about other stuff. Please keep it friendly!
User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1042
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 02 May 2019

mashers wrote:
02 May 2019
bxbrkrz wrote:
01 May 2019
Exactly.
For some people it is not an excuse they don't do it. Maybe it is that they simply can't afford to do it.
Maybe if someone has a bit more money than other fellow humans then, rationally, that person could afford to be a better Nature lover. For all of us.
I've been thinking a lot about this since reading your response. I think you're right in some cases, maybe even a large number, where for some there is literally nothing they can change in their lifestyle due to being of such limited resources. But I think that for some, this becomes an excuse. I realise this isn't always the case, but I think even in the situations you described earlier on, there are changes that could be made. I'm not from the US, but I would assume that the McDonald's menus are similar. Here in the UK we have a 99p menu, and there are chicken and vegetarian options. So even if somebody is relying on McDonald's for all their food, I think there are options available. Also, I would question whether relying on 99p/$1 menus is really cost-effective. Assuming three meals a day, that's £2.97 per day. That works out at £20.79 per week. Currently, I spend about £40 per MONTH on food. So eating at McDonalds every day is double the price. Eating a non-mammal diet on a budget is pretty easy to be honest. You just keep things simple. My diet consists mainly of oats, bread, cheese, poultry ham, eggs, fresh chicken and fish, and fresh and dried fruits. Because I eat pretty much the same thing most days, it's easy to just buy as much as I need for the week and stick to it. It's not only cheap, but I feel more ethical as they are simpler foods which aren't excessively processed.

Having children is also a choice. I know this is not going to be a popular opinion, but I believe that if people cannot raise children ethically then they should be questioning whether they should have them. This extends to people living on benefits with no intention (despite the ability) to work. Personally I believe that people who an excessive number of children are behaving unethically. What constitutes an "excessive" number is debatable, but I think more than three is too many. We are already overpopulating the planet and consuming too many of its resources. We don't need more of us than are required to balance out the death rate.

Going to work on a bus would seem to be an advantage compared to individual vehicles on the road, and walking or cycling is even better. But yeah, of course not everybody has the option of reducing their workload or not commuting, I get that.

Not trying to nitpick your post, I just think it's important to consider whether changes really are impossible, or if we just tell ourselves they are.
bxbrkrz wrote:
01 May 2019
What you do to help the planet is amazing. Thank you.
I don't know about amazing. I wish I could do more. But I'm trying to be a better inhabitant while I'm here, for whatever good it will do.
When you are poor McDonald's is not just about food, especially for children. At their age it's an adventure. It's fun. They see Ronald McDonald on TV all day long. For all of them, parents and kids, it is about the memories, away from a small place they will never own. They live from paycheck to paycheck. Yes you save money compared to the poor eating at McD's, but children would never be able to follow your diet. They could if they were part of a bigger community. Not with their smart phones and facebook posts about eating cool stuff. Peer pressure. Maybe if they were Amish, and were grateful to God for the food they had everyday? But then they would see the food they would be killing too. Maybe something you don't want to be part of.

Regarding your diet. Maybe, just maybe you already tried (or bought?) the fancy salmon, the delicate sushi, the Petrossian's foie gras and caviar. You can tell the difference between an Australian Cabernet Sauvignon and a Californian Pinot Noir. It would not matter how you eat now because all of that data would've been part of your ROM. It cannot go away. You would still cringe a bit every time you see a poor man eating a nice turbot with red wine in a pint glass. The memory of past food will be enough for you not to care much about your everyday diet anymore. Another choice poor people cannot make because they cannot afford to have that memory 'built in'.

You cannot code humanity. The Chinese tried that already. The result? Millions of female babies ended up buried a few hours after their birth. It happened over and over again until the first boy was born. The result is obvious. Not enough women, too many men right now. Women being kidnapped into forced mariages all the time.
Yes you don't know the number, if 3 is too many, but 1 is fine. Maybe 2? 2 sounds fine. 2 sounds like a very ethical number. The State should nudge people to be ethical. Should someone come knocking on your door, telling you you better have 2 female children, in no less than 3 years, because the boy's quota has already been reached in your tiny house commune?

To be a true Nature lover is about making choices, even for others, 'for their own good'.


User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5410
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 02 May 2019

bxbrkrz wrote:
02 May 2019
To be a true Nature lover is about making choices, even for others, 'for their own good'.
Now hold up there, Chairman Mao - us "Muricans don't like having decisions made for us, you know. :puf_bigsmile: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live

User avatar
stratatonic
Posts: 949
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: CANADA

Post 02 May 2019

https://www.wired.com/story/the-plan-to ... ed-plants/

Chory believes the key ... is to train plants to suck up just a little more CO2 and keep it longer...

“Every year plants and other photosynthetic organisms take up an incredible amount of CO2—like twentyfold more than we ever put up when we burn fossil fuels—but then at the end of the growing season most plants just die, and they decompose, and it goes back up as CO2. That's been a real problem,” she told WIRED last week in Vancouver, British Columbia, at the TED 2019 conference, where she received an Audacious Project prize of more than $35 million to scale this project. It was the second-largest donation in the Salk Institute’s history. “We’re going to make them amazing.”

If she and her team can breed these plants and get them into the global agricultural food chain, Chory believes they can contribute a 20 to 46 percent reduction in excess CO2 emissions annually.
I think it's essential when purchasing software to understand that you are purchasing a license for the software as it is today, not necessarily some fantasy of what you want it to be, nor the ability to influence its future. J Frankel REAPER dev

mashers
Posts: 367
Joined: 05 Nov 2018

Post 03 May 2019

bxbrkrz wrote:
02 May 2019
When you are poor McDonald's is not just about food, especially for children. At their age it's an adventure. It's fun. They see Ronald McDonald on TV all day long. For all of them, parents and kids, it is about the memories, away from a small place they will never own. They live from paycheck to paycheck.
Sorry, but I don't accept that excuse. My family was extremely poor when I was a child. My mum was working three jobs, and my dad was working as a police officer. We hardly saw either of them because they were working to pay for everything we needed. We didn't get to go to McDonald's unless it was a really, really special occasion. Like, once a year. I never resented it. I didn't pine for McDonald's. I understood, and I accepted the situation. And it made the treats worth more because they were so rare. How are children supposed to learn the value of money if they don't learn this lesson? How are they supposed to value experiences if they are given them at any cost just because they want them?
bxbrkrz wrote:
02 May 2019
Yes you save money compared to the poor eating at McD's, but children would never be able to follow your diet. They could if they were part of a bigger community. Not with their smart phones and facebook posts about eating cool stuff. Peer pressure.
Tough shit. Again, parents need to learn to say no, and explain why the answer is no. I remember begging my mum and dad for a Game Boy year after year, because all the kids in the playground had them. We couldn't afford it, so I never got one. It was all I wanted as a child, but there was no way they could afford it. And that went for food too. Do you think we didn't have peer pressure when I was a child? I saw adverts on kids TV for the latest fad foods, and kids talked about them in the playground. I always wanted them, but we could never afford them. The answer was always no, but sometimes if we could manage it we would buy some ingredients and try to make it ourselves.
bxbrkrz wrote:
02 May 2019
Regarding your diet. Maybe, just maybe you already tried (or bought?) the fancy salmon, the delicate sushi, the Petrossian's foie gras and caviar. You can tell the difference between an Australian Cabernet Sauvignon and a Californian Pinot Noir. It would not matter how you eat now because all of that data would've been part of your ROM. It cannot go away. You would still cringe a bit every time you see a poor man eating a nice turbot with red wine in a pint glass. The memory of past food will be enough for you not to care much about your everyday diet anymore. Another choice poor people cannot make because they cannot afford to have that memory 'built in'.
Another way of looking at that is that you don't miss what you've never had. If you've never tasted Dom Perignon, you might be more satisfied with cheap fizzy vinegar-water. But once you've had a taste of the good stuff, you might never want to go back to the cheap stuff. It's all a matter of living within your means, either way you look at it.
bxbrkrz wrote:
02 May 2019
The State should nudge people to be ethical. Should someone come knocking on your door, telling you you better have 2 female children, in no less than 3 years, because the boy's quota has already been reached in your tiny house commune?
Quotas for male/female are unnecessary, since the figures are roughly 50% of each. Nature has dealt with that for us. Besides, breeding programmes favouring female children are an obvious attempt to grow a population. I am all in favour of people making their own choices, and I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it isn't harming anybody else. But overpopulation harms everybody, and everything. One family's civil liberty to more than two children has consequences for generations to come. Add that all up over the whole population and it's no surprise the human population on this planet is growing faster than we can keep up. As I said in an earlier post, I believe that lives don't matter, but life does. Preservation of life on this planet is paramount, and an ever-growing and always consuming population of humans is causing a crisis, which I believe makes state intervention entirely appropriate. Essentially, a "one child per parent" policy would work well for stabilising the population, as it would then mean each family could have two children, and there would then be no net population growth to cancel out the deaths of the parents. To be blunt, having more than two children is selfish. You don't need to have more than two to meet your biological need to reproduce or your social/emotional/mental need to raise offspring. People who have numerous children are doing so at the expense of other families because they are using more resources, and more broadly at the expense of the planet. I get that the biological imperative is to reproduce as often as possible at all costs, but we are not like other animals. We can see the bigger picture and the impact of our actions. Which renders us responsible for them, and in my view casts families with a large number of children as immoral.
:reason: Singer/songwriter exclusively using Reason 10 to write darkwave electro songs
:lightbulb: Latest songs: Space Invaders | Inklings | Hungry Animals | Terrorbytes
:post: More songs on my YouTube channel

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1042
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 03 May 2019

EnochLight wrote:
02 May 2019
bxbrkrz wrote:
02 May 2019
To be a true Nature lover is about making choices, even for others, 'for their own good'.
Now hold up there, Chairman Mao - us "Muricans don't like having decisions made for us, you know. :puf_bigsmile: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You got it: to be a true green, you need to be a true red. For their own good. :puf_bigsmile:

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5410
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 03 May 2019

mashers wrote:
03 May 2019
To be blunt, having more than two children is selfish. You don't need to have more than two to meet your biological need to reproduce or your social/emotional/mental need to raise offspring. People who have numerous children are doing so at the expense of other families because
I'll stop you right there. But before I begin, serious question: do you have any children? If so, how many?
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1042
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 03 May 2019

mashers wrote:
03 May 2019
bxbrkrz wrote:
02 May 2019
When you are poor McDonald's is not just about food, especially for children. At their age it's an adventure. It's fun. They see Ronald McDonald on TV all day long. For all of them, parents and kids, it is about the memories, away from a small place they will never own. They live from paycheck to paycheck.
Sorry, but I don't accept that excuse. My family was extremely poor when I was a child. My mum was working three jobs, and my dad was working as a police officer. We hardly saw either of them because they were working to pay for everything we needed. We didn't get to go to McDonald's unless it was a really, really special occasion. Like, once a year. I never resented it. I didn't pine for McDonald's. I understood, and I accepted the situation. And it made the treats worth more because they were so rare. How are children supposed to learn the value of money if they don't learn this lesson? How are they supposed to value experiences if they are given them at any cost just because they want them?
bxbrkrz wrote:
02 May 2019
Yes you save money compared to the poor eating at McD's, but children would never be able to follow your diet. They could if they were part of a bigger community. Not with their smart phones and facebook posts about eating cool stuff. Peer pressure.
Tough shit. Again, parents need to learn to say no, and explain why the answer is no. I remember begging my mum and dad for a Game Boy year after year, because all the kids in the playground had them. We couldn't afford it, so I never got one. It was all I wanted as a child, but there was no way they could afford it. And that went for food too. Do you think we didn't have peer pressure when I was a child? I saw adverts on kids TV for the latest fad foods, and kids talked about them in the playground. I always wanted them, but we could never afford them. The answer was always no, but sometimes if we could manage it we would buy some ingredients and try to make it ourselves.
bxbrkrz wrote:
02 May 2019
Regarding your diet. Maybe, just maybe you already tried (or bought?) the fancy salmon, the delicate sushi, the Petrossian's foie gras and caviar. You can tell the difference between an Australian Cabernet Sauvignon and a Californian Pinot Noir. It would not matter how you eat now because all of that data would've been part of your ROM. It cannot go away. You would still cringe a bit every time you see a poor man eating a nice turbot with red wine in a pint glass. The memory of past food will be enough for you not to care much about your everyday diet anymore. Another choice poor people cannot make because they cannot afford to have that memory 'built in'.
Another way of looking at that is that you don't miss what you've never had. If you've never tasted Dom Perignon, you might be more satisfied with cheap fizzy vinegar-water. But once you've had a taste of the good stuff, you might never want to go back to the cheap stuff. It's all a matter of living within your means, either way you look at it.
bxbrkrz wrote:
02 May 2019
The State should nudge people to be ethical. Should someone come knocking on your door, telling you you better have 2 female children, in no less than 3 years, because the boy's quota has already been reached in your tiny house commune?
Quotas for male/female are unnecessary, since the figures are roughly 50% of each. Nature has dealt with that for us. Besides, breeding programmes favouring female children are an obvious attempt to grow a population. I am all in favour of people making their own choices, and I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it isn't harming anybody else. But overpopulation harms everybody, and everything. One family's civil liberty to more than two children has consequences for generations to come. Add that all up over the whole population and it's no surprise the human population on this planet is growing faster than we can keep up. As I said in an earlier post, I believe that lives don't matter, but life does. Preservation of life on this planet is paramount, and an ever-growing and always consuming population of humans is causing a crisis, which I believe makes state intervention entirely appropriate. Essentially, a "one child per parent" policy would work well for stabilising the population, as it would then mean each family could have two children, and there would then be no net population growth to cancel out the deaths of the parents. To be blunt, having more than two children is selfish. You don't need to have more than two to meet your biological need to reproduce or your social/emotional/mental need to raise offspring. People who have numerous children are doing so at the expense of other families because they are using more resources, and more broadly at the expense of the planet. I get that the biological imperative is to reproduce as often as possible at all costs, but we are not like other animals. We can see the bigger picture and the impact of our actions. Which renders us responsible for them, and in my view casts families with a large number of children as immoral.
Do you think, since a mandatory, 100% enforced breeding program quota would be needed for all to have a maximum of 2 children, genetics and other tools of science should be used to thin out the herd? If parents can only have 2 children, why keep the children with 'problems'?
It looks like Nature is responsible for (randomly) Ebola, Dwarfism, Melanoma, etc. It looks like some people are not as 'intelligent as others', or 'smart' enough to work only 3 days a week. Nature has dealt with that for us. Can we make ourselves better animals through research, and eliminate the animals not useful to our Great Green Tiny Housing Utopia?
If saving the planet is the ultimate goal as you seem to describe (I could be wrong, of course), what are the steps, or solutions you and others like you would be willing to take to make sure sins like selfishness and immorality of parents be eradicated forever?

User avatar
stratatonic
Posts: 949
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: CANADA

Post 03 May 2019

Beyond Meat has now gone public. IPO went from $24 yesterday to around $70 this morning. Investors are betting on a new future for food.
Every burger replaced with a Beyond Burger has an impact on CO2 emissions, demand for factory farming, and demand for antibiotics https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019 ... nable-food

Beyond Meat retail product has just landed here in Canada as well.

$7.99CDN for 2 x 110g patties (110 g = 1/4 pound for you 'Muricans...)

That's $16 a pound.

I pay $6.99 a pound for pasture raised lean ground beef from a farm not too far from here.

Most pay 1.99-2.99 for regular ground beef.

The price of Beyond will have to come down somewhat for me to consider that option...
Currently, the pricing is like the iPhone X compared to everything else. There will be a certain segment of the population that will buy in of course.

Maybe they can sell these patties on a monthly plan...
I think it's essential when purchasing software to understand that you are purchasing a license for the software as it is today, not necessarily some fantasy of what you want it to be, nor the ability to influence its future. J Frankel REAPER dev

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 917
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 03 May 2019

My 2p here but last time I checked, poor people like to have kids and rich people tend to pass or have fewer. So many fun things to do, so little time to raise kids I guess.
So there was this idea that if you could turn the world into middle class people the population would drop.
Of course there's the problem of how to get em all there as the consumption of useless shit rate would go through the roof but I reckon we could tackle that.

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5410
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 03 May 2019

bxbrkrz wrote:
03 May 2019
Do you think, since a mandatory, 100% enforced breeding program quota would be needed for all to have a maximum of 2 children, genetics and other tools of science should be used to thin out the herd? If parents can only have 2 children, why keep the children with 'problems'?
It looks like Nature is responsible for (randomly) Ebola, Dwarfism, Melanoma, etc. It looks like some people are not as 'intelligent as others', or 'smart' enough to work only 3 days a week. Nature has dealt with that for us. Can we make ourselves better animals through research, and eliminate the animals not useful to our Great Green Tiny Housing Utopia?
If saving the planet is the ultimate goal as you seem to describe (I could be wrong, of course), what are the steps, or solutions you and others like you would be willing to take to make sure sins like selfishness and immorality of parents be eradicated forever?
I'm not sure if you're serious here, but I'll bite... :D :lol:
bxbrkrz wrote:
03 May 2019
Do you think... genetics and other tools of science should be used to thin out the herd? If parents can only have 2 children, why keep the children with 'problems'?
I know you mention "sin" later at the end of your post, but I feel it needs to be addressed here: "sin" is a religious idea that has no place in this discussion, IMHO. Human morality arguably is a thing that can be applied, though. Thinning the herd, as it were, is a concept that is flawed from the beginning. I realize the following is fictitious, but it's worth pointing out: in Avengers: Infinity War, the villain Thanos "thins the herd" (of all life in the universe) because he thinks it will balance things and afford the limited and finite resources that exist to be used better. This is a fallacy, however, as in the real world something like this would just cause endangered species to likely go extinct, and populations such as humans would just rebound to the exact same population number within a few decades.

Suggesting children with "problems" be Thanos-snapped out of existence is not only morally repugnant, it reeks of the horrible crimes against humanity a certain group of Deutsch folks tried over 80 years ago. Just say'n...
bxbrkrz wrote:
03 May 2019
It looks like Nature is responsible for (randomly) Ebola, Dwarfism, Melanoma, etc. It looks like some people are not as 'intelligent as others', or 'smart' enough to work only 3 days a week. Nature has dealt with that for us.
I'm not sure what you mean by "nature has dealt with that for us". Could you explain? I'm not sure how random genetic abnormalities or highly infectious disease translates to being "dealt with". In what way?
bxbrkrz wrote:
03 May 2019
Can we make ourselves better animals through research,
We've arguably been doing this for the better part of modern medical science: vaccinations, antibiotics, hygiene, education on the subject of microorganisms and their effects on health; etc. Totally agree! Let's extend human life and its quality for as long as possible.
bxbrkrz wrote:
03 May 2019
and eliminate the animals not useful to our Great Green Tiny Housing Utopia?
If saving the planet is the ultimate goal as you seem to describe (I could be wrong, of course), what are the steps, or solutions you and others like you would be willing to take to make sure sins like selfishness and immorality of parents be eradicated forever?
As I mentioned above, the term "sin" just seems misplaced, IMHO. But sure - it would be grand if we could all live in the Gene Roddenberry-utopia that we all wish humans would aspire to, but the reality is: our nature has not changed at all for tens of thousands of years, and I have been offered no evidence to suggest that our nature will change anytime soon. So the better approach would be: how do we balance human nature with the finite resources that our planet offers, while keeping a human morality compass in positive check?

Eugenics and culling populations just seems like a repugnant solution, and will certainly offer no long-term benefit.
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 917
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 03 May 2019

EnochLight wrote:
03 May 2019
Eugenics and culling populations just seems like a repugnant solution, and will certainly offer no long-term benefit.
Why do you think eugenics is repugnant?

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5410
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 03 May 2019

plaamook wrote:
03 May 2019
EnochLight wrote:
03 May 2019
Eugenics and culling populations just seems like a repugnant solution, and will certainly offer no long-term benefit.
Why do you think eugenics is repugnant?



Khan_Noonien_Singh,_2285.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 917
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 03 May 2019

EnochLight wrote:
03 May 2019
plaamook wrote:
03 May 2019


Why do you think eugenics is repugnant?




Khan_Noonien_Singh,_2285.jpg
Nope. You lost me.

Because revenge is a dish best served cold and it's very cold in space?

That's about all I remember from that flim.

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 917
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 03 May 2019

That and the weird ear thing.

User avatar
Zac
Posts: 1302
Joined: 19 May 2016

Post 03 May 2019

plaamook wrote:
03 May 2019
EnochLight wrote:
03 May 2019
Eugenics and culling populations just seems like a repugnant solution, and will certainly offer no long-term benefit.
Why do you think eugenics is repugnant?
I'll be much more direct.

Even though it has been thoroughly disproved to achieve its aims anyway, I still find it repugnant:

From Wikipedia; Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population by excluding certain genetic groups judged to be inferior, and promoting other genetic groups judged to be superior.

Who would prevent from breeding?

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 917
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 03 May 2019

Zac wrote:
03 May 2019
plaamook wrote:
03 May 2019


Why do you think eugenics is repugnant?
I'll be much more direct.

Even though it has been thoroughly disproved to achieve its aims anyway, I still find it repugnant:

From Wikipedia; Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population by excluding certain genetic groups judged to be inferior, and promoting other genetic groups judged to be superior.

Who would prevent from breeding?
Hmm. Ok, so I guess the Chinese breeding for boys is what we're talking about here. That was a real mess.

But I mostly find it repugnant becasue of it's previous failiures and the high potential for it going off course. Like population control, which wars disease and disaster are very good at, but any deliberate attempt should be avoided because of the ways it will almost certainly deviate. Fair enough. In principle, while it might be a tricky proposition to try to determine and agree on what 'superior' meant in this context there's still a reality behind the idea. Certain genetic disorders or a predisposition to certain illnesses. But even aknowledging superior qualities would be a shit storm living in a society where we're trying to tell eachother that it's ok to be whatever you are regardless of what a mess it may be creating, covering up, or perpetuating. If you can't aknowledge one thing is better than another how are we meant to improve or even address certain issues? That was how I reacted to the idea in my mind anyway. It would be a sad thing to have some situation where we had the ability to completely irraticate a particular negative quality or trait but we couldn't because we didn't want admit that such and such a quality was undesirable. We didn't want to hurt the feelings of existing people with that quality, we'd rather just keep inflicting it on future generations.

It reminds me of a situation years back where a deaf lesbian couple had a child who had this condition that would eventually make her deaf as well. The parents didn't want to correct the disorder because they felt it would create a gap between them and the child. They went on to argue that one could live a perfectly rich life even though one was deaf. The courts fortunately intervened (as my useless memory reacalls) but what kind of fucked up selfish reasoning is that? Imagine that happening on a large scale.
Probably is somewhere...
Last edited by plaamook on 04 May 2019, edited 2 times in total.

Jmax
Posts: 562
Joined: 03 Apr 2015

Post 04 May 2019

stratatonic wrote:
03 May 2019
Beyond Meat has now gone public. IPO went from $24 yesterday to around $70 this morning. Investors are betting on a new future for food.
Every burger replaced with a Beyond Burger has an impact on CO2 emissions, demand for factory farming, and demand for antibiotics https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019 ... nable-food

Beyond Meat retail product has just landed here in Canada as well.

$7.99CDN for 2 x 110g patties (110 g = 1/4 pound for you 'Muricans...)

That's $16 a pound.

I pay $6.99 a pound for pasture raised lean ground beef from a farm not too far from here.

Most pay 1.99-2.99 for regular ground beef.

The price of Beyond will have to come down somewhat for me to consider that option...
Currently, the pricing is like the iPhone X compared to everything else. There will be a certain segment of the population that will buy in of course.

Maybe they can sell these patties on a monthly plan...
Yes it's expensive. At Wendy's the beyond meat burger here in Canada is 8.46 or something compare to the regular 4 dollar burgers or what have you.
BUT it's freaking mouth watering good. Love the beyond burger. And I really can't bring myself to justify eating factory farmed meat these days. That's an animal that's been in misery it's entire life waiting to be murdered. I still eat chicken (trying to stop but it's hard). No beef or pig. Seafood yes.

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 917
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 04 May 2019

I had this idea once for cruelty free pig farm.
Figuring bacon and sausage and so on is the most important stuff we get out of a pig I reckon you can make it with old pigs.
So the idea was to get some land and then go rescue old breeders from the really horrid factories and let them live out their days in a field together where they could live happy natural lives and be well looked after. When they die of natural causes (usually strokes and heart attacks same as us) you get the emergency vet around to verify the cause of death and provided it's all ok, send it off to become bacon and sausage meet.
You could probably make other things from em as well, dunno.
The start up would be big as you'd be waiting for a load of pigs to die but once you were rolling you could provide cruelty free bacon to the world!

mashers
Posts: 367
Joined: 05 Nov 2018

Post 04 May 2019

bxbrkrz wrote:
03 May 2019
Do you think, since a mandatory, 100% enforced breeding program quota would be needed for all to have a maximum of 2 children, genetics and other tools of science should be used to thin out the herd? If parents can only have 2 children, why keep the children with 'problems'?
Of course not. If your intention is to attempt to entrap me into agreeing to eugenics, then you have seriously misunderstood my beliefs on this subject.
plaamook wrote:
04 May 2019
I had this idea once for cruelty free pig farm.
I think we can do even better than that. Beef has just been grown in a lab which is so convincing that the correspondent who visited couldn't tell the difference between a burger made from meat grown in a lab and a beef burger made from cow flesh. I think that if we have the ability to grow meat in a lab then it is immoral not to.
:reason: Singer/songwriter exclusively using Reason 10 to write darkwave electro songs
:lightbulb: Latest songs: Space Invaders | Inklings | Hungry Animals | Terrorbytes
:post: More songs on my YouTube channel

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5410
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 04 May 2019

mashers wrote:
04 May 2019
I think we can do even better than that. Beef has just been grown in a lab which is so convincing that the correspondent who visited couldn't tell the difference between a burger made from meat grown in a lab and a beef burger made from cow flesh. I think that if we have the ability to grow meat in a lab then it is immoral not to.
Even better, there's the impossible burger. There's a few restaurants around me that have it - tasted pretty much spot on as far as I could tell. Had it 2 different times. 100% plant based. No need for beef/cow.

So - you never answered my question. Any kids? ;)
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 917
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 04 May 2019

mashers wrote:
04 May 2019

I think we can do even better than that. Beef has just been grown in a lab which is so convincing that the correspondent who visited couldn't tell the difference between a burger made from meat grown in a lab and a beef burger made from cow flesh. I think that if we have the ability to grow meat in a lab then it is immoral not to.
Yeah but that only solves burgers and potentially sausage.
But chickens? How to you get the bones in there? And the bones add flavour! Rib of beef? Leg of sheep?!!!
Man, i'm getting hungry now... :lol:

Anyway my farming idea was also designed as a way to both use and save the concentration camp pigs. Obvs if we're going to evolve beyond intensive shitty farming the cruelty free farm would become obsolete. Which I hope it does.

mashers
Posts: 367
Joined: 05 Nov 2018

Post 04 May 2019

EnochLight wrote:
04 May 2019
Even better, there's the impossible burger. There's a few restaurants around me that have it - tasted pretty much spot on as far as I could tell. Had it 2 different times. 100% plant based. No need for beef/cow.
Oh wow, I had never heard of it! Thank you, I'll look into it. I do really miss beef since deciding not to eat mammals, so this could be a great tip for me. Thank you!
EnochLight wrote:
04 May 2019
So - you never answered my question. Any kids? ;)
Sorry I didn't see the question among all the other responses. No, I don't have children. I considered adopting, but after the first year of assessment decided it wasn't right for me. I'm glad now, as I've totally changed my mind on having children.
plaamook wrote:
04 May 2019
Yeah but that only solves burgers and potentially sausage.
But chickens? How to you get the bones in there? And the bones add flavour! Rib of beef? Leg of sheep?!!!
Man, i'm getting hungry now... :lol:
If we can grow cow flesh in a lab, why not pork and poultry? Hmm, the bones would be an added challenge... maybe 3D print them? :D Actually that could work. We are already capable of 3D printing tissue, so I don't see why bones shouldn't be possible. Then grow flesh around the bone to make a "leg" or a "rib".
plaamook wrote:
04 May 2019
Anyway my farming idea was also designed as a way to both use and save the concentration camp pigs. Obvs if we're going to evolve beyond intensive shitty farming the cruelty free farm would become obsolete. Which I hope it does.
Yeah I got that. But if lab-grown meat really takes off (which I sincerely hope it does), I would like to imagine that the animals remaining in farms would be able to live out their days naturally. But realistically, there isn't going to be a cut-off point where people shift overnight from farm reared meat to lab-grown meat; this would require an act of legislation, and I just can't see that happening. It will take time to develop the infrastructure to grow the meat, and a campaign to convince people to buy it. Traditional farms will just fade away as their business dies out, or they will move to arable.
:reason: Singer/songwriter exclusively using Reason 10 to write darkwave electro songs
:lightbulb: Latest songs: Space Invaders | Inklings | Hungry Animals | Terrorbytes
:post: More songs on my YouTube channel

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1042
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 04 May 2019

EnochLight wrote:
03 May 2019
bxbrkrz wrote:
03 May 2019
Do you think, since a mandatory, 100% enforced breeding program quota would be needed for all to have a maximum of 2 children, genetics and other tools of science should be used to thin out the herd? If parents can only have 2 children, why keep the children with 'problems'?
It looks like Nature is responsible for (randomly) Ebola, Dwarfism, Melanoma, etc. It looks like some people are not as 'intelligent as others', or 'smart' enough to work only 3 days a week. Nature has dealt with that for us. Can we make ourselves better animals through research, and eliminate the animals not useful to our Great Green Tiny Housing Utopia?
If saving the planet is the ultimate goal as you seem to describe (I could be wrong, of course), what are the steps, or solutions you and others like you would be willing to take to make sure sins like selfishness and immorality of parents be eradicated forever?
I'm not sure if you're serious here, but I'll bite... :D :lol:
bxbrkrz wrote:
03 May 2019
Do you think... genetics and other tools of science should be used to thin out the herd? If parents can only have 2 children, why keep the children with 'problems'?
I know you mention "sin" later at the end of your post, but I feel it needs to be addressed here: "sin" is a religious idea that has no place in this discussion, IMHO. Human morality arguably is a thing that can be applied, though. Thinning the herd, as it were, is a concept that is flawed from the beginning. I realize the following is fictitious, but it's worth pointing out: in Avengers: Infinity War, the villain Thanos "thins the herd" (of all life in the universe) because he thinks it will balance things and afford the limited and finite resources that exist to be used better. This is a fallacy, however, as in the real world something like this would just cause endangered species to likely go extinct, and populations such as humans would just rebound to the exact same population number within a few decades.

Suggesting children with "problems" be Thanos-snapped out of existence is not only morally repugnant, it reeks of the horrible crimes against humanity a certain group of Deutsch folks tried over 80 years ago. Just say'n...
bxbrkrz wrote:
03 May 2019
It looks like Nature is responsible for (randomly) Ebola, Dwarfism, Melanoma, etc. It looks like some people are not as 'intelligent as others', or 'smart' enough to work only 3 days a week. Nature has dealt with that for us.
I'm not sure what you mean by "nature has dealt with that for us". Could you explain? I'm not sure how random genetic abnormalities or highly infectious disease translates to being "dealt with". In what way?
bxbrkrz wrote:
03 May 2019
Can we make ourselves better animals through research,
We've arguably been doing this for the better part of modern medical science: vaccinations, antibiotics, hygiene, education on the subject of microorganisms and their effects on health; etc. Totally agree! Let's extend human life and its quality for as long as possible.
bxbrkrz wrote:
03 May 2019
and eliminate the animals not useful to our Great Green Tiny Housing Utopia?
If saving the planet is the ultimate goal as you seem to describe (I could be wrong, of course), what are the steps, or solutions you and others like you would be willing to take to make sure sins like selfishness and immorality of parents be eradicated forever?
As I mentioned above, the term "sin" just seems misplaced, IMHO. But sure - it would be grand if we could all live in the Gene Roddenberry-utopia that we all wish humans would aspire to, but the reality is: our nature has not changed at all for tens of thousands of years, and I have been offered no evidence to suggest that our nature will change anytime soon. So the better approach would be: how do we balance human nature with the finite resources that our planet offers, while keeping a human morality compass in positive check?

Eugenics and culling populations just seems like a repugnant solution, and will certainly offer no long-term benefit.
Eugenics and culling populations just seems like a repugnant solution, and will certainly offer no long-term benefit.

I am not the one pushing for tiny housing and saying it is the poor's fault if they are poor. Did you read what I was replying too? Of course not. You got the wrong dude.

I agree with you 100%. That was the point I was making, not supporting the ideology. Just copy paste your replies from my post to the other tiny house supporter. Thank you.
I see you did not include the original posting I was replying too. Obviously with such nice editing you did you could but chose not too. I wonder why. Sick.

User avatar
boingy
Posts: 208
Joined: 01 Feb 2019

Post 04 May 2019

plaamook wrote:
04 May 2019

Yeah but that only solves burgers and potentially sausage.
But chickens? How to you get the bones in there? And the bones add flavour! Rib of beef? Leg of sheep?!!!
Aw man, I've just had a horrible vision of the future where we pay a deposit on the fake animal bones in our plant-based version of ribs, wings and chops and then get the deposit refunded when we return the items to the automated machine in front of the supermarket. You'd be sucking on someone else's teeth marks.... :shock:

But seriously I don't think there is any chance at all that humankind can pull together to make enough difference in a sensibly short amount of time. You are asking folks to give up meat, gasoline, flying, gas heating, oil heating, plastic, badly insulated homes, inefficient offices, food out of season etc etc. You can get a certain percentage of people to do all or most of that but to get the masses to do it will take at least a couple of generations. In the meantime we need to prepare to deal with the consequences of the two degree temperature hike (or whatever it turns out to be).

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5410
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 04 May 2019

bxbrkrz wrote:
04 May 2019
I am not the one pushing for tiny housing and saying it is the poor's fault if they are poor. Did you read what I was replying too? Of course not. You got the wrong dude.

I agree with you 100%. That was the point I was making, not supporting the ideology. Just copy paste your replies from my post to the other tiny house supporter. Thank you.
I see you did not include the original posting I was replying too. Obviously with such nice editing you did you could but chose not too. I wonder why. Sick.
Well, you seemed to have skipped over this part where I said:
EnochLight wrote:
03 May 2019
I'm not sure if you're serious here
Perhaps I should have said "not sure if you actually feel this way"? My bad! :lol:

The point I was trying to make was to illustrate flaws in that apparent stance. I had no idea if you felt the same way or not. So, relax. ;) :thumbs_up: Go have some kids. Also, tiny houses rock. Great way to own a home without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars... :puf_bigsmile:
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests