So what do you recommend telling people who believe a random immigrant is going to eat their pet? Install a fence and shoot anyone who knocks on your door because they're distracting you from the person sneaking in the back to grab a bite? I'm a man, I offer solutions not "Yeah, the world is a scary place."

Sure they have a lot of valid concerns, but just as many bullshit ones too. The bullshit ones are the only ones I ever hear anyone talking about as they're rarely self directed and instead about other groups. Few people handle self-reflection well. They're supposed to be the people pushing personal responsibility. Telling them they're incorrect by referencing real data should be enough to change their minds by their own ideology.

And when those things come together to combust without an external heat source, it's call spontaneous combustion. Though your analogy was fine and probably correct.

It'll become a yes because the aliens won't like us. Humanity, forever alone :'(

You can reject sewer and water? I can cancel any utilities except those.

That's because meat healed our chronic health issues so you can pull it out of our cold dead arms. Yet you tell us to our face that we're lying and the diet that clearly healed us is actually going to kill us and causes all the problems that it cured us of. We're not the ones denying reality.

In the mean time I drive an EV, generate less than a grocery bag's worth of trash a week, buy my clothing from Goodwill (only a few items a year, socks and underwear excluded), don't have packages being delivered every week to my home, don't randomly remodel my home, have heat set at 58F in the winter and AC at 87F in the summer (your tolerable temperature range expands), use a real leather jacket, have a porch made out of wood instead of plastic, don't need to water my native grass lawn, buy used whenever possible, etc... You need to eat something. You don't need to participate in fast fashion nor order new things online daily. Everything you do in life has tradeoffs. I choose to be healthy which means eating the most efficient food for humans. We're obviously not going to force people to walk everywhere nor ban electricity. There should be a similar decision with regards to producing food that's optimal for our species. There are far better things work on than something which is so useful to everyone and has no comparable replacement.

In other words it doesn't belong in a scientific journal. The paper cited unpublished research that isn't available to the public. That means it's claims can't be verified which means it's a bullshit paper.

"I'm the best person to have ever lived and everything I say is true. I'm citing 25 studies which shows that I'm right and that anyone who says I'm wrong is wrong themselves. I'm giving you the citations, but I won't let you read their papers." That's what they did. Complete bullshit. That type of fraud and false advertising should be criminal, doubly so when it's done to cover up harm you're knowingly causing others for your own personal profit. We used to execute mass poisoners.

Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities. Wiley.

DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 63–79.

Ekman, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46(9), 913–920.

Spence, S. H., & O'Sullivan, M. (1990). Detecting deception: The influence of motivational and emotional factors. Australian Journal of Psychology, 42(2), 147–161.

Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234.

Vrij, A., et al. (2010). Detecting deception using nonverbal behavior: A review. Psychology, Crime & Law, 16(4), 377–386.

For the rest, see: https://talkai.info/chat/

Some of what you're saying is true, but it's not the full story. My college from 15 years ago has nearly doubled in price. It hasn't doubled in quality. Professor salaries haven't risen a meaningful amount. Much of the money has gone to administrator pay, marketing, and making the place look grander. The quality issues students used to complain about are still complained about today. They sort of did improve housing for a couple years by building some 'luxury dorms', but neglected maintenance on the cheaper housing options which led to them being demolished (for fancy new administrator buildings). Now they're back to the prior levels of housing, but they both cost more and the school has more students.

The school does now have a MakerSpace in theory. In practice you have to contract with it's maintainers who do your projects for you because the students can't be trusted to learn how to use the tools properly unless you take the "Innovation Magic" class. My local public library has a similarly equipped MakerSpace (it's an amazing library, awesome TV DVD collection too) and theirs doesn't costs tens of thousands to run nor do you have to pay tuition to use it. Ask if you need help and someone monitors the space to ensure you're not going to seriously damage something. It's more usable than the school's space. You can pay the library to have someone else run your projects too. All vastly cheaper than the school's.

It's only self correcting when the signs are highly visible and visible before the infectious period starts. For an example, I won't be surprised if HIV rates start going back up despite us being able to control transmission now.

There's people with Crohn's who have gone on the carnivore diet and said they were able to stop getting Remicade. I don't have Crohn's so I can say how true those claims are, but I'll say it's worth looking into. Theoretically since it's immune related, hypnosis should have an effect on it as well, but I haven't researched that angle. Hypnosis is oddly good at dealing with immune related issues, you can cure your allergies using it.

(I have a relative with Chron's. She's not interested in trying carnivore, more likely to go vegan.)

Well if it doesn't work out, at least it'll be easy to flip them :)

Those dumps are then scavenged through by the poor looking for reusable or repurposable items and materials. I'm not saying it's great, just that being dumped isn't the absolute end of their lifecycle. Granted the vast majority will stay in that dump.

Err, maybe you're talking about China/India waste rather than USA waste shipped to those countries? I have no clue what happens to their local trash.

I believe the EPA value does take into account the full product lifecycle, feed, and secondary emission sources. However it's a USA based number. It doesn't include rainforest deforestation because our industry isn't clearing the rainforest. If you care about that, don't buy Brazilian meat (we do need better labeling laws). The global emissions for meat production is higher than our USA number, I don't remember what it is. Buy local.

Thanks for pointing out the current market %. I hadn't thought of that. The value does matter when comparing total emissions across industries.

My understanding of vegan diets is they also tend to be lower carb, or at least slower digestion of carbs. Our SAD diet is one of the worst diets. I don't agree much with vegans, but I do agree it's better than SAD.

Overall I agree with you that meat production is far from perfect. However I took the original point as we should simply swap that with eating plants. My point was that's far more complicated than it seems at first glance. The two industries are intertwined. I did diverge a bit from that point as I've found the carnivore diet to be highly beneficial.

Cut it out? This is a discussion board. If you can't handle people providing their own opinion about your content, especially when it was a single post that wasn't attacking you, then stop posting. With the time you save, learn to meditate. You'll live longer.

The environment is a global issue. Every little bit helps or at least slows down the damage. Every slow down is meaningful, or do you not try to apply the breaks when your car is about to hit something?

Considering how bad we are at dealing with environmental issues, every environmental issue matters. Those people need to take any win they can get.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

That study compares 4 countries to 5 other countries. You can't make a specific claim about USA because it doesn't break the data down that far. Even if you could, that claim would still be poor because it would need to take into account if the USA has an overall more negative outlook over everything. Until you normalize for that, the result is near meaningless. Further, there's a ton of investment in AI in the US and from US focused companies. How does that compare with those other countries? If they aren't investing as much, it doesn't matter to them if it fails to live up to its hype. You can't take the conclusions of most of what you find, no matter where you find it, for granted.

Is AI really a left vs right issue? I haven't seen any indication of that. Mainly just artists and tech literate people vs CEOs and investors. I guess you can sort of view that as left vs right, but politics isn't why those groups have those opinions on AI.

That's magical thinking. The real world is way, way more complex than that. First of all, the nutrition between those cows and the other items differs significantly. You can healthy live off 1.5lbs of beef a day and that results in very little food waste. You can use nearly the entire cow and can consider the cow a renewable resource. You can't do the same with vegetables nor grains and they aren't renewable resources. In the past we used to use the entire cow. The green movement now has us throwing away perfectly good leather in favor of oil-backed fake leather that's shown to be toxic to the environment. Switching further from cows means relying on more artificial products at the expense of renewable ones.

Second, cows mostly eat grain because we stuff them full of grains to fatten them up (just like we're doing to ourselves). They're perfectly fine eating natural growing grasses that we can't eat. You can raise animals on lands not suitable for farming human editable plants and feed them plants and parts of plants not graded as human quality.

Third, farming plants requires fertilizing them. That fertilizer either comes from oil or comes from the animal industry. Get rid of that industry and you significantly increase the environmental impact of plant farming. Further, plant waste goes back into the animal industry as feed. Again, get rid of that industry and now you have a ton of rotting waste you need to deal with. Cows self-fertilize the fields they're eating (and thus can be considered a renewable resource).

Fourth, farming requires poisoning the area to kill off all the insects and rodents (which in turn kills everything in the surrounding area that feeds on them too). Raising animals doesn't require that. We'd need to kill off even more of our natural habit if everyone turned to plant foods. We're already at dangerous levels of that. Modern farming is a style of striping mining nutrients from the soil. It's not sustainable. The animal industry are the guys putting nutrients back into that soil. They're regenerating ecosystems which restores the natural life cycle instead of turning the area into a desert (well, at least the better run farms are doing that).

Fifth, animals do require a lot of water but the majority of that water comes from local rain. The majority of farmland water is processed water. We already have water issues. Moving towards more plant foods makes those situations worse.

Sixth, farming animals is vastly easier than farming plants. Yes tons of people have small gardens. None of those provide enough food to live off of. You only need to raise one cow per person per year. Small families do manage that. It's significantly less work as nature does most of the work for you and is being accomplished all over the world. To feed yourself in a healthy manner only on locally grown plants takes significant knowledge of nutrition and isn't even possible everywhere. Doing it through animals means you only need to care about eating enough fat to avoid rabbit starvation. The animal contains everything else you need in the right ratios you need as the animal needed the same things itself. Our digestive systems differ in how we extract those resources from what we eat, but we're made of the same parts.

Seventh, the USA EPA states our animal industry contributes 3-4% to our climate impact. There's far, far more impactful things we could be arguing over. The debate between plants vs animals is a distraction from things that actually matter.

Eighth..., I could go on but there's no point. There's tons of things that can be factored in. If you care about our future then you have to look at everything and then at the things those things impact and so on. What's the impact of diabetes? You can prevent/resolve most cases of diabetes though low carb diets. You have to factor things like that into your equation too.

I don't know. I should have written that post more inquisitively than declarative as I was hoping someone who knew more would reply. I was looking up how legal it is for commercial recording in public (you need model release forms when that person's image is being used to convey something) and found the false light thing. I hadn't heard of it before.