Peacepath

I think it would be interesting to present the numbers of death and heavily injured people while specifying the ones who were not at all in charge. I mean, the passengers, the pedstrians, the ones in some vehicles that were not responsible of the accident.

This, because most drivers believe they drive that well that it would not happen to them ; and that make them blind to the fact good drivers and non-drivers may be involved and hurt in accidents.

For sugar, it seems to be more effective than cocain if you want to make some food addictive…

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000698

Also it had started prior to that, the “mad cow” has been a huge trigger here. Not only it has forced to reconsider the things done by industrial farms (like “may it is not nice to feed cows with flour made of dead animals”) ; but also it has pushed consumers to avoid low cost meat and accept to pay more for some secure meat from good farms. Without big surprises, when the focus is made on quality rather than on cost reduction, the quality is better. That made more demand for both quality and safety, and so for better farming. In the same time, farmers were also willing to go for better practices, for many of them ; industrial practice were reducing their land’s quality, they could not be proud of their doing, and the cost reduction logic was also pushing on their selling prices making it hard for them to make a living of their production. So both producers and consumers easily agreed to rise quality even if it rises prices.

Low quality at low price still exists here, but some even try to pretend to do not be that low thanks to “quality labels”…

Yet if you ask to those meat eaters who claim they really love meat, most will also tell you they even prefer hunt animal’s meat. And it should soon be obvious for them that the fact an animal had a real life (eat its natural food, at will but without excess, and has a natural space to evolve in, with enough space) makes a better quality of meat. Most of them should easily admit that they do not really want to eat bad quality meat, especially not with health risks for themselves. The fact that it makes agriculture substainable for future generations, that it may rise their pride at supporting good and local farmers, and that it is better on a moral point of view are just bonus on top of it.

More recently, it became clear that we (european) eat too much meat for our health. It increased the desire to reduce the quantity and rise again the quality. The trend is at trying to find producers selling directly to consumers, to pay farmers more while not paying supermarkets margin, but also because so we can see the farm. The idea being that if we prefer to eat the products of those farmer proud of their practices.

Also, if we accept to live in little homes, to move to few, and to eat whatever cheap premade food home delivered, would we not be putting ourself in living conditions weirdly similar to animals in industrial farms? Not yet the exact same, sure, ours is still far better… but I think we should consider respecting ourself better than we actually do, to be less productive, less cost effective, and to give more time to our needs of walking in natural environments, and preparing real food from scratch.

I guess I understand, even if in my view the fight against consumerism and (the linked) productivism seem to be more effective. But I live in a place where ethical rising is turning into a norm, while industrial farming is regarded as a very low quality ; and may it shapes my point of view…

It seems we at the very least agree that industrialization of agriculture comes with an environmental cost which is too high (and probably not substainable on the long run).

Also, we seem to agree to do not let farm animals survive by selselves in the wild, but keep some human rise some (in good conditions).

But so, I am not that sure on what we disagree. I would guess that vegans in your place may allow rising animals? Here, they had many movements to free some farm animals from their fields claiming it is better for them to die early and free than to live in slavery… While I see the beauty of the aim, I find the consequences scary.

I think we don’t have the same thing in mind behind the concept of a “conventional farm”. You seem to have in mind something I would call industrialized, while I have in mind something you may call traditional.

For your aliens story, if you want to make it match our relationship with farm animals, you have to let them first breed humans into races that are dedicated to some of their needs so they specialize us. For thousands of years they should not care about how we would survive without them, but make some specialized for our meat, some for our hair, some for our milk, some for what ever matter to them but has no chance to help us in any way. And after thousands of years of total alienation of those of our kind, some would suggest to keep industrialize their process, some would suggest to release us in some corner of wild they may let us (but they don’t know which yet) and some would suggest to keep take care of us but in a better way. The second’s wish is very beautiful, but has great chances to leed to our extinction if we aren’t able to take care of ourselves anymore. The third’s wish is the one in which we would have a chance to gain back an existence as animals without race, without a specialization nor optimization to serve others ; as animals able to live for ourselves. Choice would not be ours, but does the second really seems obviously better to you?

Well, without rising farm animals, many of them would not survive. We could let more wild spaces for them, but even so we would still have to accept some extinctions. And I don’t think we would really let them enough space for their needs. So I see veganism as an acceptation of this extinctions. As the vegan contributor said earlier, they see animals who don’t live or are killed very early as the luckiest.

I agree that we do not anymore have an absolute need to keep rising animals. Thanks to our technological progress, due for a significant part to our exploitation of animals. But so we would now fire them and let them die? This sound heartless to me.

Yes of course! Many farmers actually love their animals and take good care of them. And yes, some people have chicken, gooses, or some other farm animals as pet. For some, such as donkeys, they are rised despite a lost of material interest ; mostly to maintain exsitant some animals who served us since forgotten times.

I don’t understand how some people can be vegan without be heartless. I can understand vegetalian, but I think keeping alife a wide diversity of farms animals is a duty for humanity.

Lucky animals are those who don’t live?

Vegan are so scary.

AI slop commissioner is so cute, how do I become one?

But so, do adult toys go to heaven too, or to hell?

In that universe, all toys are willing to be that they are ; and to be played with the way they were supposed to be by their designer…

Are there really people transphobe enough to wish there would be some employees working as genital checkers in the public restrooms? With bottom surgery becoming more common, the only way would be a carefull inspection of all users…

I know a few cisgender people who would not like to have their genitals checked by some random people who would wonder if they are “natural”… Especially, many cis women I know would clearly prefer to use the men’s room than to be inspected in that way.

But so, isn’t it better to make universal public restrooms?

who doesn’t love cunts?

I would say that the good answer is “mox” (not sure of its english name, but it is likely similar. Used uranium is extremly dangerous for a very long time (millions of years). Yet it could be recycled and used again, and the result would be extremly dangerous for about 500 years (which is still far too much, but less crazily impossible to manage).

We already have enough used uranium to cover the next 200 years of needs, at least… And so it would be a lesser harm for future generation if we use mox than new uranium…

(But the true answer is we need new bombs, so new uranium…)

sorry, I am not a native english speaker… what does the sentence mean?

Yes, it is so new… Alexander the Great is adready known as bisexual, but he is no one…

That is great !

I hope the starbucks around me will close too!

Let independant coffee places replace them and invest on being good places rather than on advertisings.

I am a big fan of other theories answering the question. Yet also, both being trans and using linux come with a way of thinking where you accept to challenge the “one per default” solution, in order to find something better even if it is less comfortable at first.

So trans people are likely to use linux, BSD, (maybe Hurd) or other system that matched their needs. Because they value more the reality than the convenience. They know very well the social incentives to do as “normal people” do, but they can’t make it to lie to themselves well enough to pretend it would be ok to do as if it was ok.

At some point, most cis genders using linux are transgenders who happen to be born with some genitalia that fit their mind: their hardware got delivered with their favorite operating system, so they don’t need to install nor to set a dual boot ; but they feel so after considering different options and making their own choice.

Did he deserve to die that fast and to suffer that few? Or are gun still not the best tools even in his case?