3 ms·

Let me put it in terms of tech so the audience here can relate better: The computers we have at home and in our pockets are inferior in quality to enterprise s

Let me put it in terms of tech so the audience here can relate better: The computers we have at home and in our pockets are inferior in quality to enterprise servers and mainframes, but everyone has computers and nobody is willing to go back to simple Casio calculators and slide rules. The meats we have at home are inferior in quality to artisan meats, but everyone has meats and nobody is willing to go back to eating other people's refuse (I'm aware organ meats are perfectly fine food, but let's be real for a moment) and porridge every day. Our access to food today is nothing short of utterly insane to people just a century ago, and rightfully noone is willing to let it go.

skhunted 3y ago
As a description of human behavior and how humans are local optimization machines I think you are spot on. This is where I disagree with you: …rightfully noone is willing… I don’t believe this is right in the moral sense or in a global optimization sense. The world’s people are getting richer and as the world’s population begins to live more and more like Americans the world becomes exponentially more polluted. This will eventually affect us all. The world is becoming a toxic shithole. The right thing to do is to make changes now. But for the reasons you stated this isn’t going to happen. As a species we are local optimization machines and we don’t seek to find the global optimum.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >the world becomes exponentially more polluted. ... The world is becoming a toxic shithole. I would strongly advise easing off on your intake of mainstream news media, the real world is quite pleasant out here.
  - skhunted 3y ago
    I use Foxnews.com. Who should I use? Isn’t it a mathematical fact that if Americans consume exponentially more resources than others then as more people gain wealth commensurate with Americans then exponentially more resources will be consumed? Or do you think Americans are especially greedy in this respect? I had not considered that possibility. https://www.foxnews.com/health/forever-chemicals-found-us-drinking-water-map-shows-hot-spots-highest-levels https://www.foxnews.com/health/forever-chemicals-found-us-dr... https://www.foxnews.com/world/india-new-delhi-air-pollution-health https://www.foxnews.com/world/india-new-delhi-air-pollution-... https://www.foxnews.com/health/contaminated-beach-water-could-make-swimmers-sick-new-pollution-report-several-troubling-trends https://www.foxnews.com/health/contaminated-beach-water-coul... https://www.foxnews.com/world/global-air-pollution-persists-leading-health-risk-hitting-asia-africa-hardest https://www.foxnews.com/world/global-air-pollution-persists-...
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      >Who should I use? None. Go out there and enjoy life, life is way too short to be spending it listening to so-called journalists peddling anger and fear.
      - skhunted 3y ago
        It’s interesting to hear someone use the phrase don’t listen to main stream media think that Foxnews, Newsmax, Alex Jones, etc are all cranks who can’t be trusted. Given your implied self professed ignorance you must occasionally wonder if your very limited experience exploring the world is indicative of its true state. Ignorance is bliss so continue to stop watching Foxnews, Newsmax, and other like minded sources. EDIT: Looking at your past comments it’s clear you do consume news! What a surprise given your comment.
        Dalewyn 3y ago
        I consider whatever news I do see mainly as a form of entertainment (FSVO entertainment) with no credence given. >Given your implied self professed ignorance you must occasionally wonder if your very limited experience exploring the world is indicative of its true state. I can tell you the world is nowhere near as shitty as the powers that be would like you to believe.
lm28469 3y ago
You're countering arguments I never made. If you think the only choices we have are modern industrial farming or starving on porridge you seriously lack imagination. Also you're completely ignoring the externalities and the long term consequences both on the environment and on human health, if the question was just about having meat or not having meat we wouldn't have this discussion. > and rightfully noone is willing to let it go. A cancer also won't let go even if it means the death of its host. Your analogy is plain wrong because there is 0 trade off in your example, the right analogy would be to trade your $1500 iphone for five $100 backdoored chinese phones of much lower quality and pretend you're happier because you have more
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >If you think the only choices we have are modern industrial farming or starving on porridge you seriously lack imagination. It's not easy to feed so many people so many different kinds of food at a price most people can afford. When I said the past century dramatically democratized our diets, that was achieved by improving the efficiency of production and transport of food to such an extent that was only possible with modern industrial innovations. >Also you're completely ignoring the externalities and the long term consequences both on the environment and on human health, And likewise I would argue you guys are ignoring the benefits to and desires of humanity. >if the question was just about having meat or not having meat we wouldn't have this discussion. Except that usually is ultimately the question, because inevitably the discussion degenerates into "we can eat <X> instead of <Y>". I'm saying that such conversations will convince noone because it ignores the reality of humans desiring to eat something and whatever else specifically. >Your analogy is plain wrong because there is 0 trade off in your example, The trade off is having a limited diet, possibly enforced from the top down. As I said previously, humanity has striven to widen its diet for as long as humanity has existed. This is a trade off that simply will not receive consensus.

skhunted 3y ago

As a description of human behavior and how humans are local optimization machines I think you are spot on. This is where I disagree with you: …rightfully noone is willing… I don’t believe this is right in the moral sense or in a global optimization sense. The world’s people are getting richer and as the world’s population begins to live more and more like Americans the world becomes exponentially more polluted. This will eventually affect us all. The world is becoming a toxic shithole. The right thing to do is to make changes now. But for the reasons you stated this isn’t going to happen. As a species we are local optimization machines and we don’t seek to find the global optimum.

Dalewyn 3y ago
>the world becomes exponentially more polluted. ... The world is becoming a toxic shithole. I would strongly advise easing off on your intake of mainstream news media, the real world is quite pleasant out here.
- skhunted 3y ago
  I use Foxnews.com. Who should I use? Isn’t it a mathematical fact that if Americans consume exponentially more resources than others then as more people gain wealth commensurate with Americans then exponentially more resources will be consumed? Or do you think Americans are especially greedy in this respect? I had not considered that possibility. https://www.foxnews.com/health/forever-chemicals-found-us-drinking-water-map-shows-hot-spots-highest-levels https://www.foxnews.com/health/forever-chemicals-found-us-dr... https://www.foxnews.com/world/india-new-delhi-air-pollution-health https://www.foxnews.com/world/india-new-delhi-air-pollution-... https://www.foxnews.com/health/contaminated-beach-water-could-make-swimmers-sick-new-pollution-report-several-troubling-trends https://www.foxnews.com/health/contaminated-beach-water-coul... https://www.foxnews.com/world/global-air-pollution-persists-leading-health-risk-hitting-asia-africa-hardest https://www.foxnews.com/world/global-air-pollution-persists-...
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    >Who should I use? None. Go out there and enjoy life, life is way too short to be spending it listening to so-called journalists peddling anger and fear.
    - skhunted 3y ago
      It’s interesting to hear someone use the phrase don’t listen to main stream media think that Foxnews, Newsmax, Alex Jones, etc are all cranks who can’t be trusted. Given your implied self professed ignorance you must occasionally wonder if your very limited experience exploring the world is indicative of its true state. Ignorance is bliss so continue to stop watching Foxnews, Newsmax, and other like minded sources. EDIT: Looking at your past comments it’s clear you do consume news! What a surprise given your comment.
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        I consider whatever news I do see mainly as a form of entertainment (FSVO entertainment) with no credence given. >Given your implied self professed ignorance you must occasionally wonder if your very limited experience exploring the world is indicative of its true state. I can tell you the world is nowhere near as shitty as the powers that be would like you to believe.

lm28469 3y ago

You're countering arguments I never made. If you think the only choices we have are modern industrial farming or starving on porridge you seriously lack imagination. Also you're completely ignoring the externalities and the long term consequences both on the environment and on human health, if the question was just about having meat or not having meat we wouldn't have this discussion. > and rightfully noone is willing to let it go. A cancer also won't let go even if it means the death of its host. Your analogy is plain wrong because there is 0 trade off in your example, the right analogy would be to trade your $1500 iphone for five $100 backdoored chinese phones of much lower quality and pretend you're happier because you have more

Dalewyn 3y ago
>If you think the only choices we have are modern industrial farming or starving on porridge you seriously lack imagination. It's not easy to feed so many people so many different kinds of food at a price most people can afford. When I said the past century dramatically democratized our diets, that was achieved by improving the efficiency of production and transport of food to such an extent that was only possible with modern industrial innovations. >Also you're completely ignoring the externalities and the long term consequences both on the environment and on human health, And likewise I would argue you guys are ignoring the benefits to and desires of humanity. >if the question was just about having meat or not having meat we wouldn't have this discussion. Except that usually is ultimately the question, because inevitably the discussion degenerates into "we can eat <X> instead of <Y>". I'm saying that such conversations will convince noone because it ignores the reality of humans desiring to eat something and whatever else specifically. >Your analogy is plain wrong because there is 0 trade off in your example, The trade off is having a limited diet, possibly enforced from the top down. As I said previously, humanity has striven to widen its diet for as long as humanity has existed. This is a trade off that simply will not receive consensus.