What word would you prefer to someone who tells you to your face that they intend to “put you up against the wall” and then asks if you “know what that means, you fucking lib”?
I mean, I’m a demsoc, and of the last 20 death threats I have received in my life, 15 came from people who identify as Communist-Leninist. PLEASE give me a better word for them.
Well, by their teenage years, why not all the reasons adults need smartphones fully accessible? Looking up information from authoritative sources? Emergency contact? Coordinating schedules for office hours?
Schools often simultaneously demand more from children than workplaces do adults, and give them less opportunity to excel.
I’m not saying work-inappropriate phone use should be accepted, but taking them away entirely is downright irresponsible. Just like schools who still demand students write on a notebook instead of using a laptop. Raise your hand if you had RSI-related issues for a decade or more after high school? We old people tend to forget how bad school used to be (and can be) for physical and mental health AND for learning.
I’m not sure I agree with how you’d be able to execute on that level or organized construction safely, but I think we’re also reaching the “impossible-to-be-sure hypothetical” territory, so I’ll concede the point for now.
I think my problems of cost and time still stand. It looks like adding rooftop solar with batteries to every building is still cheaper (on startup, and likely per MW) than nuclear plants. Regions that cannot support solar, onland wind, geo, or hydro can justify nuclear (at least unless shipping batteries or hydrogen conversion becomes cheap enough to compete), but I don’t think they amount to nearly 15% of the power needs in the world since they represent fairly distinctive regions with low energy demand.
Just did a bunch of my own math before realizing those numbers were already out there. We would need to add 3960 nuclear plants to match current energy demand for the world (440 power 10% of the world).
That would require at least 5 years of construction per plant. It takes about 7000 workers to produce a nuclear plant. To produce them concurrently would require about 27.7 million construction workers dedicated to this project for at least 5 years. So on one hand, perhaps you’re right, since there are 100M construction workers in the world. I can’t, however, find numbers about how much heavy equipment exists to facilitate a product requiring 1/4 the world’s construction workers concurrently. You might be right that if all other construction were ground to a halt, we might be able to manage a 5-year plan of nuclear at the cost of about $20T (I had done the math before realizing this reply were about workers, not cost stupidity). I concede it seems “10x increase world construction capacity” was wrong, and the real number is somewhere around 1.5-2x, so long as we stay conservative with nuclear figures and ignore extra costs of building or transporting nuclear energy to countries incapable of building their own plants.
Interestingly, at those construction numbers, you could provide small-project rooftop solar to the world. I can’t find construction numbers for power farm solar, except that it’s dramatically more efficient than rooftop solar. Unlike nuclear, it appears we could easily squeeze full-world solar with our current world construction capacity.
I won’t bore you with the cost math, but since I calculated them I’m still going to summarize them. Going full nuclear would cost us about a $20T down payment. Going full solar (with storage) down payment is about $4T (only about $1T without storage costs factored). And while nuclear would be cheaper than solar per year after that $20T down, solar power and storage would STILL be cheaper in a 100 year outlook, but would also benefit from rolling efficiency increases as we add new solar plants/capacitors and tear down older ones…
As others pointed out, to build that many nuclear power plants that quickly would require 10x-ing the world’s construction capacity.
My counterpoint is that if we had “just got on with it” for solar, wind, and battery, we would have the capacity by now and the cost per kwh of that capacity would be approximately half as much as the same in nuclear. And we would have amortized the costs.
Except that nuclear isn’t the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.
That’s why there are lots of regulations for things impacting life safety
Regulations that a lot of pro-nuclear people try to get relaxed because they “artificially inflate the price to more than solar so that we’ll use solar”. I’m not saying all pro-nuclear folks are tin-foilers, but the only argument that puts nuclear cheaper than solar+battery anymore is an argument that uses deregulated facilities.
If solar+wind+battery is cheaper per MWH, faster to build, with less front-loaded costs, then it’s a no-brainer. It only stops being a no-brainer when you stop regulating the nuclear plant. Therein lies the paradox of the argument.
I know this is the wrong server to say it, but there were some things I liked about Hillary. I am still convinced that her gender played far more of a role in people’s hatred of her than they will ever be able to accept.
Yes, she’s still a neo-liberal, but she’s further left than most of the Democrats, and we consistently see that the supermajority of non-Republican voters are simply not as progressive as most of us are. Hillary had a well-conceived labor plan and respected unions. She liked the idea of single-payer, if not enough to spend too much political capital on it. She was left of Obama and of Biden, if still to the right of her “progressive” so-called roots.
Here’s my non-opinionated counterpoint. Trump bested Hillary on Labor when his plan was “kick out immigrants and deregulate coal so you get your dangerous job back”, and she had a 100 page labor plan that involved things like subsidized retraining of coal workers. The Democrats have learned that you will not win Labor by favoring them. A bad lesson.
That’s what the campaign to quash the bill did. That, and tried to convince people that they might have a single multi-million-dollar transaction in their life (like selling a large successful business) and have to pay an extra 4% on it.
Always a push to get the “temporarily embarassed millionaire” to support the reach. “Yeah, yanno. My little lawmowing operation that makes me $20,000 coild sell for over a million and then I’m fucked”
That’s a symptom of too much caffeine…
I know, I have it.
I agree, I love the idea of a brain chip, but not if someone can change licensing terms on something that’s INSTALLED in me.
junk science and fabricated propaganda… how?
Different discussion, and feel free to read my MANY other comments on this thread if you’re interested in my take on that. I said that’s how we see the vegan side. If you want to cover whether that opinion is accurate, my answer here is going to be RTFM in the other comments, sorry.
Besides the scientific consensus on the benefits of plant based diets on the environment, veganism is an ethical stance to stop unnecessary harm towards sentient beings
That “scientific consensus” has tons of asterisks. The consensus is that reducing global meat intake would have an environmental impact in a vacuum. And I agree with that. And as long as it’s not too many people “doing their part” by going vegan, go ahead. And as long as you don’t think that’s the ONLY thing you should be doing.
And no, veganism is not “an ethical stance to stop unnecessary harm towards sentient beings”, it’s just not eating animal products. And here’s how I can show that. If someone handed you a shotgun and said “this deer has to die; feel free to eat it. If you don’t kill it, 5 more animals will starve to death” what would you do? Trolley problem. If your stance is actually stopping unnecessary harm, you kill the deer and you feast. You kill the deer because it saves lives, and you feast because at least the death served a purpose directly.
If you don’t do those things, you’re not doing what you can to “stop unnecessary harm towards sentient beings”. But if you DO do those things, you’re not a vegan. Words have meanings, and vegan doesn’t mean “stop unnecessary harm”, it means “won’t eat animal products at all costs”.
The only science we need is to prove that plant based diets do that, and they do
I disagree. I think too much veganism, especially preachy veganism, costs more lives and causes more suffering. I see what overpopulation does every day, and I’ve seen many times how many animals die on a farm.
Also I’m definitely not pushing people away from veganism, I’ve been at this for a long time and the truth is you weren’t going to change your mind
No, I wasn’t going to change my mind because I’m educated on this matter and have been dealing with smug vegans for a decade now. Unlike a lot of dupes you might talk to, I have a background in philosophy and ethics, as well as at least some knowledge about agriculture and how farming actually works. But my wife toyed with veganism until she got annoyed by someone not very much unlike you. It led her to stop. She un-quit red meat, which was a huge win to me.
But think about this. Anyone on the fence who reads this comment chain is going to see the preachy vegans overreaching with what arguments they have and come to the not-quite-true conclusion that NONE of what you’re saying is accurate. Which is funny because we SHOULD still be trying to improve our overall relationship with food.
I’m just providing opposition to your points for everyone who reads this thread
Actually, quite the opposite. This all started because you insisted vegans aren’t smug. Readers can come to their own conclusions. At this point, I’m convinced any non-vegan reader will agree that you came across similar to a JW.
You do realise that meat-eaters eat animals that were killed for them to be eaten?
Yup. Animals that lived lives in the first place because they were going to be eaten. Why should anyone have an ethical problem with that? But honestly, I don’t think it’s just “were killed for them to be eaten” to you. I live in a deer population control zone. Hunters have a critical task of preventing deer overpopulation from devastating the area. Got any problems with the venison steak I had last week from deer that HAD to be killed?
Please explain to me how this is more empathetic than posting a meme that triggered some meat-eaters.
More empathetic? Because I’m not an anti-natalist. I know those animals would not have been born if not farmed. This is not a vacuum choice between “cows die” and “cows live”. It never was, and it never will be. I know that most of them live better lives and die easier than their non-domesticated counterparts. Ever watch a cat play with a mouse, slowly torturing it to death? My local farm (plants) have animals that do exactly that every day with the goal of killing off pest animals so they won’t destroy the harvest (a single pest animal like a squirrel can destroy 40 or 50 tomatoes in an hour).
Let’s go another way. Statistically, odds are pretty good that my death will be 100x worse than how a farm animal dies. So no, me being ok that death exists in our world is NOT a lack of empathy. You don’t get to make up my morals for me. The way I see it, giving farm animals a peaceful life is the height of empathy… so I look at you (your words) “triggering some meat-eaters” and note that statistically many of the people you go out of your way to “trigger” are going to end up dying long and painful battles with cancer. My view of empathy? Give them just a LITTLE bit more bloody peace while they’re alive.
Here’s my empathy. I fight for animal right laws. I strongly supported the free range chicken law that just passed in my state. I reject unethical and inhumane ways of treating and killing animals. But I’m not uneducated. I know how farming works. I know how the delicate relationship between agriculture and horticulture, while not perfect, leads to less death and less environmental impact than EITHER side of those alone.
Vegans are letting some crayola-colored dream be the enemy of good. And it’s nothing more than flat-earther, tinfoil, antivax gibberish to me. And I don’t care as long as they leave people alone.
JW’s would say the exact same thing to vegans. YOU think the issue is real, but all the rest of us see is you throwing around junk science and fabricated propaganda. Ultimately, you think you can force your morals on us because you think you’re better than us… and think we have no right to do the same to you. That’s where the “smug” part comes in. You know we’ve thought about the ethics. You know we might even be more educated in right-and-wrong than you are. But you don’t care what our conclusions were as long as they differ from yours. You’re infallible on that topic, are you?
Religion is a personal choice, but actions that harm others are not
You don’t think what you’re doing is harming people? Or is it that you don’t care because your ethics are more valuable than others are? Proslytization hurts people. Which means preachy vegans hurt people.
You can call it preachy but that’s how things get better.
You’re pushing people AWAY from veganism. I’ve been on a constant mission to improve my footprint, but every time I end up in an argument with a vegan I end up so exhausted by their zealous crap that I start questioning whether it’s worth all the effort I put into MY part of the environment. It literally just makes me want to go out of my way and eat a steak, but that’s not much better (but it is a little better) than what preachy vegans do.
That is the most insane sentence I’ve read. Vegans aren’t slaughtering and eating you
Do you actually think you’ll change anyone’s mind by calling their well-conceived ethical frameworks “insane”? THIS is why you get the reputation of being smug. My life’s knowledge, my grasp of philosophy, it’s all worthless shit to you because I am morally convinced that it’s acceptable to kill and eat animals. It doesn’t matter why I’m convinced that (and I’ve learned the hard way it’s not worth anyone’s time to discuss the reasoning or the why’s). I am beneith you.
Calling vegans “smug” is nicer than calling them dehumanizing and ignorant.
What empathy do you have for animals you choose to exploit and kill for taste preference?
As I said in another comment, proselytizing zealous vegans like to strawman non-vegans as all sitting there with a piece of bloody steak on a fork saying “I know some poor cute fluffy animal died a painful death for this but I LOVE the taste of murder”. That’s not us. If you can’t see that, perhaps the first step in your recovery is to actually start to.
Vegans want people to stop doing a bad thing, that doesn’t mean we don’t care about those people, but it does usually mean that we have to argue with them.
As do I, and I have taken a lot of abuse from vegans over the years standing up to those bad things.
And more… That is Word. For. Word. what that guy on the subway says about my gay friends divorcing each other. Word. For. Bloody. Word.
I find vegans tend to have less empathy for their fellow man than we meat-eaters have for animals. It comes across as smug (and let’s be honest, it’s less insulting to call them smug).
Funny thing is that many of us feel the same way about vegans. We just want them to change and stop getting in our face like street preachers with what we consider to be flawed logic and more flawed ethical philosophy.
And the only way to do that is to keep standing up to vegans the same way we do JWs. It sucks because it’s exhausting and we just want to be left alone.
Are you from a farm town?
A supermajority of animal feed comes from the waste product of crops we that were being grown anyway, or grass from a fallow field that needs to be harvested anyway (not enough the latter due to logistics, but my local farms all do). That whole “8 to 1” calorie to cow thing leaves out the part that it’s 8 calories of landfill material to make 1 calorie of beef. Nobody has an “animal only” corn field. And nobody is using harsh animal-killing chemicals on the fallow fields.
And cows are still being fed things whether you eat them or not. We need their manure and it’s overall better for the environment than synthetic fertilizer. Without some form of fertilizer, we need much more farmland, which means more animals killed per calorie. All compared to 700,000 calories in a cow.
Unfortunately, nobody has ever demonstrated in a defensible manner that a horticulture-only scenario would be anywhere near as efficient on animal lives as what we have now. It’s one thing to cut animal intake 10%, entirely another to try to rebuild our farming industry without animals.
How many leftists do you have to execute to earn your colors?