If just 1/3 of the cattle grazing ground were switched to producing vegetable crops, such as soybeans, starvation in the world would be wiped out. there is no need to genetically alter anything. People just need to be less reliant on an unecessary food source.
eesh, give me a break. I always hear this argument. The problem is NOT the amount of food in the world. The problem is distribution. There is enough food on this planet to feed everyone, there have been plenty of studies on that. The problem is getting all this food to every part of the world, and still making a profit (no money => no food).
I didn't even read this whole article, it was just the first one that I googled...
http://www.ifpri.org/2020/briefs/number19.htm
hmm... I have had friends who raised chickens, those things are running on auto-pilot, trust me. They are truly stupid creatures. Cages started originally to keep other animals and people from stealing them. As long as you keep feeding them, the chickens will stay around on their own.
As far as vegetarianism goes I can see how people could have ethical problems with corporate-run farms. Pressure to feed our stupidly bloated population has led to certain liberties being taken as far as humanitarian treatment.
you have put the argument aganst vegitarinism that ive had in my mind all these years into words better than i could have
I find it the fact that people feel the need to argue against vegetarianism more strange than the act of vegetarianism itself. On the other hand, I do enjoy a good debate...
Humans, unaided by tools, could catch and eat an occasional small mammal, but that's about it. You couldn't even bite your way into larger animals.
Humans, unaided by tools, would have a pretty hard time farming too... Hunter/gatherers (you know, what we all used to do for a living) do that, they hunt and gather, tools or no....
But it takes a somewhat complex nervous system to be possessed of consciousness. I can wire a very simple circuit to respond to stimuli, but that's not sentience.
observe a chiken some time, really look into it's eyes. Then we can talk about sentience vs simple circuitry.
What exactly are the alternatives you propose if the current system is so bad?
how about any system that doesn't give the OVERWHELMING advantage to whoever has more money. Maybe we should all have to use public defenders/ prosecutors and nobody can hire a fancy lawyer. Maybe we should make it harder to file frivolous lawsuits. Make punishment for filing frivolous lawsuits more severe. Maybe we could be awarded the actualy damages caused by being named in a frivolous lawsuit instead of an apology and a million dollar bill from your attourney. These are all just off the top of my head. There are a million simple, common sense ways to improve the system. It almost seems like it is in someone's best interest to keep the system fucked up like this.....oh wait... it is.... just not mine or yours or almost any average citizens
I have to wonder if spam is maybe the price we have to pay for allowing anybody to do whatever they want on the internet.
As far as I see it a good filter and spam doesn't have to be a huge pain in the ass.
As soon as we try and control e-mail the framework for control of the internet is laid down. We could try and be all clever and justify ddos'ing or purposely slashdotting, but if it works how long until governments with a lot more money for hardware realize they can do the same thing?
No shit. I though about building and selling them back in the day but figured I would get my ass sued or in jail or something. I guess a big add campaign adds legitimacy or something.
I guess no one takes the druggie special interest groups very seriously otherwise we wouldn't be having a very different discussion.
We do listen to the druggie special interest group. The pharmaceudical industry couldn't charge $20 for an aspirin if you could just grow a painkiller in your backyard.
I don't want to claim that music copyright infringement is moral but, you can hardly claim that these are similar when the effects of the two "crimes" are poles apart!
The latter might reduce the income of an otherwise quite rich bunch of people but does relatively little damage to the perpetrator.
The former, OTOH, tends to make the perpetrators quite rich at the expense of generally completely screwing up the lives of others.
wait.....wich one is the RIAA and which is the drug dealer??
Got any proof of that? Not to be one of the asshole you are retarded unless your post has a million links, but that just doesn't sound like it would work.
Slashdot Mirror
If just 1/3 of the cattle grazing ground were switched to producing vegetable crops, such as soybeans, starvation in the world would be wiped out. there is no need to genetically alter anything. People just need to be less reliant on an unecessary food source.
eesh, give me a break. I always hear this argument. The problem is NOT the amount of food in the world. The problem is distribution. There is enough food on this planet to feed everyone, there have been plenty of studies on that. The problem is getting all this food to every part of the world, and still making a profit (no money => no food).
I didn't even read this whole article, it was just the first one that I googled... http://www.ifpri.org/2020/briefs/number19.htm
hmm... I have had friends who raised chickens, those things are running on auto-pilot, trust me. They are truly stupid creatures. Cages started originally to keep other animals and people from stealing them. As long as you keep feeding them, the chickens will stay around on their own.
As far as vegetarianism goes I can see how people could have ethical problems with corporate-run farms. Pressure to feed our stupidly bloated population has led to certain liberties being taken as far as humanitarian treatment.
you have put the argument aganst vegitarinism that ive had in my mind all these years into words better than i could have
I find it the fact that people feel the need to argue against vegetarianism more strange than the act of vegetarianism itself. On the other hand, I do enjoy a good debate...
Humans, unaided by tools, could catch and eat an occasional small mammal, but that's about it. You couldn't even bite your way into larger animals.
Humans, unaided by tools, would have a pretty hard time farming too... Hunter/gatherers (you know, what we all used to do for a living) do that, they hunt and gather, tools or no....
But it takes a somewhat complex nervous system to be possessed of consciousness. I can wire a very simple circuit to respond to stimuli, but that's not sentience.
observe a chiken some time, really look into it's eyes. Then we can talk about sentience vs simple circuitry.
"I love animals, they are made out of food!"
...now if only I could remember where I saw that
Case in point:
"I'm not a nerd, nerds are smart" Millhouse: The Sipmsons
hehe... you could infect the DNA vith a virus before the metals get added to add circuitry to monitor your every movement.
What exactly are the alternatives you propose if the current system is so bad?
how about any system that doesn't give the OVERWHELMING advantage to whoever has more money. Maybe we should all have to use public defenders/ prosecutors and nobody can hire a fancy lawyer. Maybe we should make it harder to file frivolous lawsuits. Make punishment for filing frivolous lawsuits more severe. Maybe we could be awarded the actualy damages caused by being named in a frivolous lawsuit instead of an apology and a million dollar bill from your attourney. These are all just off the top of my head. There are a million simple, common sense ways to improve the system. It almost seems like it is in someone's best interest to keep the system fucked up like this.....oh wait... it is.... just not mine or yours or almost any average citizens
consider this: how many words that could be used as names are there in the english language?
how many companies have there ever been (do trademarks remain if the company goes bankrupt or is sold?)?
there is going to have to be some overlap eventually...
what the hell does libertarianism have to do with any of that??
I have to wonder if spam is maybe the price we have to pay for allowing anybody to do whatever they want on the internet. As far as I see it a good filter and spam doesn't have to be a huge pain in the ass. As soon as we try and control e-mail the framework for control of the internet is laid down. We could try and be all clever and justify ddos'ing or purposely slashdotting, but if it works how long until governments with a lot more money for hardware realize they can do the same thing?
I affect society all the time. In reality I am just a barbarian....
eesh...did that pun really just come out of my fingers??
The only country that would win in a trade war between US and EU would be China.
Well, if we got to the point where working was optional then garbage collection would have to be automated.
well, i am seeing flamebait, but i thought it was funny...
plus, in a lot of places all they do is turn all the lights red.
No shit. I though about building and selling them back in the day but figured I would get my ass sued or in jail or something. I guess a big add campaign adds legitimacy or something.
Can someone explain to me how this is not constitutional?
Haven't you heard, copyright law only applies when the *AA's want it to.
Just because you work at diebold doesn't mean you lose your right to political opinion.
Maybe it should. Do we really want somebody who obviously favors some party being in charge of counting the votes?
I guess no one takes the druggie special interest groups very seriously otherwise we wouldn't be having a very different discussion.
We do listen to the druggie special interest group. The pharmaceudical industry couldn't charge $20 for an aspirin if you could just grow a painkiller in your backyard.
Well, I for one am not planning to be a breeder...
Maybe drugs _should_ be illegal, but only to people with kids.... or better yet, lets just not let fuckups breed....
I don't want to claim that music copyright infringement is moral but, you can hardly claim that these are similar when the effects of the two "crimes" are poles apart!
The latter might reduce the income of an otherwise quite rich bunch of people but does relatively little damage to the perpetrator.
The former, OTOH, tends to make the perpetrators quite rich at the expense of generally completely screwing up the lives of others.
wait.....wich one is the RIAA and which is the drug dealer??
Got any proof of that? Not to be one of the asshole you are retarded unless your post has a million links, but that just doesn't sound like it would work.
agh...yeah...you got me. The main point ..kinda.. remains.
And I wouldn't call burning and re-ripping laborious.
You wouldn't call two completely pointless steps laborious?? Now it takes three steps to burn your songs instead of one. How is that NOT laborious????