Some people have joked about methane, but for those concerned about greenhouse gases, this would probably be worse than burning coal. Methane from livestock is a major source of greenhouse gases, to the point where one's personal impact on greenhouse gases is greater from giving up animal products than giving up one's car.
Really, until some other nation lays claim to the moon or really starts being pushy in space our space program is going to be full of double talk and expectations.
It's neither a recent phenomenon, nor confined to the hard sciences. For example, Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations years after Anders Chydenius was writing about similar things.
He didn't forget it. The guy more or less said exactly what you're saying when he said that U.S. manufacturing wasn't being killed off by high wages and unions. Believe it or not, it's possible to recognize what a problem taxes are for a healthy economy without advocating that all the proletariat toil for 23 hours a day in the slave pits of the bourgeoisie.
If humans needed meat and other animal products, then vegetarians and vegans would all sicken and die, and that's obviously not what happens. I didn't say humans aren't capable of eating omnivorously, because we clearly are. But while we can digest meat, eggs, and dairy just fine, we don't have to; we can get everything we need from plant-based sources. Thus, it's a want, not a need.
#3 You are comparing killing other human beings with killing another animal. We are omnivores, that means meat, we require the proteins from it. Absolute best case scenario we resort to keeping them in pens for their Milk and Eggs in order to get the proteins we need which in my opinion is actually LESS humane than letting them live and frolick naturally until killed for food.
As a point of information, humans don't need protein (or anything else) from meat or even other animal products. Plenty of people live on an entirely plant-based diet, usually more healthily than their omnivorous neighbors. Even if you also skip dairy and eggs the only thing you're missing is vitamin B12, but you only need tiny amounts of that, and it's gleaned from plant-based sources and added to most multivitamins and to things like soymilk.
So you can say you WANT to eat meat, but you cannot truthfully say that you NEED it.
This guy is a politician that would do anything to get himself advanced in politics and it seems as if he would sell his first born to the devil if he could.
First and second born, actually, although on the other hand it's not like he's offering to name the kids William Gates Gaylord and Steven Ballmer Gaylord.
Okay, but seriously, while I agree that the American left would be considered center or even center-right in a lot of places, there are American socialists. There are just not a whole lot of them.
Many of them held quite socialist views in fact (this was back in the days when socialism wasn't a dirty word in the states).
It wasn't a word at all -- the word "socialism" wasn't in use until decades after the era we're discussing. And even the federalists wouldn't have held these views, and they were the founders who wanted a stronger central government. Someone quoted Madison here, and (relatively speaking) he was one of the statists during this period. If he and especially Hamilton wouldn't have supported this sort of thing, I don't think any of them would have.
If a nation can afford to trade liberty and money for their military, especially during a time of relative peace, then it can afford to provide at the very least a subsistent level of medical care to all of its citizenry.
Perhaps, but its debt-to-GDP ratio suggests that the U.S. really can't afford either of these things, much less both. As for specious trades for liberty, Americans have been doing that since the Whiskey Rebellion was put down in 1794.
Intangible payback? Where the heck do you think that money went? Why, into the economy. 400-500,000 people were employed in one way or another by the space program or spinoffs.
Yes, but more of it came out of the economy first, in order to pay for it. It's a net loss. But it's so common for people to see the obvious gain and not see the less obvious loss that economists even have a name for it -- it's called the broken window fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people have joked about methane, but for those concerned about greenhouse gases, this would probably be worse than burning coal. Methane from livestock is a major source of greenhouse gases, to the point where one's personal impact on greenhouse gases is greater from giving up animal products than giving up one's car.
Good examples, but FYI the word "née" works the other way around.
How unsurprising that this is slashdotted. I've heard the lie that "I only read it for the articles" before, but never thought it would apply here!
I recognize a tie-breaker when I see one. I concede defeat, sir. :-D
We said the same thing at the same minute? Hopefully this is a case of "great minds think alike" and not one of "fools seldom differ". :-)
I for one welcome our Autobot overlords.
Autobots don't fly, Decepticons do. Thus, we're doomed.
Treaties are diplomatic tools we use to end wars. Or avoid then.
The abuse of treaties as an excuse for governments to enact unpopular policy changes is common enough to have a name: policy laundering.
Because parents are cool with school administrators strip searching their kids? Bullshit.
so god is black? hmm...
Well, many Rastafarians think Haile Selassie I was an incarnation of god, and they're no less likely to be right than any of the others....
Wait, BobMcD as in Bob McDonnell? Get back to work, Governor!
On second though, you probably do less damage here. So never mind.
So in other words, like the old saying goes, you don't pay escorts to come over to your place, you pay them to leave afterward?
Really, until some other nation lays claim to the moon or really starts being pushy in space our space program is going to be full of double talk and expectations.
That's already happening ...sort of.
Because no one who uses Linux uses the default install of Ubuntu... got it.
It's neither a recent phenomenon, nor confined to the hard sciences. For example, Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations years after Anders Chydenius was writing about similar things.
He didn't forget it. The guy more or less said exactly what you're saying when he said that U.S. manufacturing wasn't being killed off by high wages and unions. Believe it or not, it's possible to recognize what a problem taxes are for a healthy economy without advocating that all the proletariat toil for 23 hours a day in the slave pits of the bourgeoisie.
If humans needed meat and other animal products, then vegetarians and vegans would all sicken and die, and that's obviously not what happens. I didn't say humans aren't capable of eating omnivorously, because we clearly are. But while we can digest meat, eggs, and dairy just fine, we don't have to; we can get everything we need from plant-based sources. Thus, it's a want, not a need.
#3 You are comparing killing other human beings with killing another animal. We are omnivores, that means meat, we require the proteins from it. Absolute best case scenario we resort to keeping them in pens for their Milk and Eggs in order to get the proteins we need which in my opinion is actually LESS humane than letting them live and frolick naturally until killed for food.
As a point of information, humans don't need protein (or anything else) from meat or even other animal products. Plenty of people live on an entirely plant-based diet, usually more healthily than their omnivorous neighbors. Even if you also skip dairy and eggs the only thing you're missing is vitamin B12, but you only need tiny amounts of that, and it's gleaned from plant-based sources and added to most multivitamins and to things like soymilk.
So you can say you WANT to eat meat, but you cannot truthfully say that you NEED it.
This guy is a politician that would do anything to get himself advanced in politics and it seems as if he would sell his first born to the devil if he could.
First and second born, actually, although on the other hand it's not like he's offering to name the kids William Gates Gaylord and Steven Ballmer Gaylord.
This is an urban legend perpetuated by petty anti-government types.
Praising the communists' approach is not anti-government pretty much by definition.
Hey humorless moderator, I thought that was actually pretty funny. Just because you don't get the joke doesn't mean it's overrated.
Wasn't transparent aluminum an episode of ST:TNG?
Not quite. It was an important plot point in Star Trek IV (the one with whales).
There are no "socialists" in US.
Wait, I thought you said you were in Berkeley?
Okay, but seriously, while I agree that the American left would be considered center or even center-right in a lot of places, there are American socialists. There are just not a whole lot of them.
Many of them held quite socialist views in fact (this was back in the days when socialism wasn't a dirty word in the states).
It wasn't a word at all -- the word "socialism" wasn't in use until decades after the era we're discussing. And even the federalists wouldn't have held these views, and they were the founders who wanted a stronger central government. Someone quoted Madison here, and (relatively speaking) he was one of the statists during this period. If he and especially Hamilton wouldn't have supported this sort of thing, I don't think any of them would have.
If a nation can afford to trade liberty and money for their military, especially during a time of relative peace, then it can afford to provide at the very least a subsistent level of medical care to all of its citizenry.
Perhaps, but its debt-to-GDP ratio suggests that the U.S. really can't afford either of these things, much less both. As for specious trades for liberty, Americans have been doing that since the Whiskey Rebellion was put down in 1794.
On a more serious note why are these douchebags even allowed to moderate based on their OS preference?
If moderating based on OS preference is ever stopped on Slashdot, will the last person to go please turn off the lights on the way out? Thanks!
Intangible payback? Where the heck do you think that money went? Why, into the economy. 400-500,000 people were employed in one way or another by the space program or spinoffs.
Yes, but more of it came out of the economy first, in order to pay for it. It's a net loss. But it's so common for people to see the obvious gain and not see the less obvious loss that economists even have a name for it -- it's called the broken window fallacy.