zapatos

You are generalizing again.

Finally we have the recipe for the perfectly boiled egg. I've been doing it wrong all my life. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44172-024-00334-w

Of course. But that applies to nearly every enterprise on the globe. Why single out meat production? No one said it was. Again, you are lumping all enterprises together. I don't understand this statement. Legislators create laws that apply to all steps in the human food chain. That's a shame as they provide a good method to lessen our dependence on mass produced meat. In the US there are about 12 million household who have backyard chickens. They don't take up much space and can be grown by a significant portion of the population. In addition, about 6 million deer are harvested in the US each year. I don't wish to mislead so I want to make clear that I do buy plenty of food. But we do grow much of our own vegetables and fruits, keep bees, eat our own chickens, eggs, wild game, fish, collect walnuts, hickory nuts and pecans, wild grapes, pawpaws, mushrooms, wildflower seeds, generate a lot of fiber, cut our own firewood, etc. Today I've been making maple syrup. We trade with family members who are similarly minded. But variety is the spice of life and my wife is a great cook so we do buy food but probably much less than the average American. Commercial production of meat is not an all or nothing proposition. Cutting back by using viable alternative methods and modified diets can allow us to continue to eat meat and not feel bad about it. Humans will always have an impact on the environment. We simply need to make sure that impact can be absorbed without causing to much pain for the rest of the world.

My problem with his responses has to do with the fact he seems to find meat production as a whole is inefficient, bad for the environment, is poor use of the land, uses more water, etc. based on some of the western mass production methods. That is cherry picking poor methodology and suggesting that it thus applies to ALL methods of meat production. People have eaten animal protein for thousands of years without ruining the environment and those methodologies should not be lumped in with, for example, modern beef production. I get all the protein I need out of my backyard without taking any up any agricultural land or water other than rain. I can't even have a successful garden without pumping water from the ground. And casting doubt on solutions ("you could make the slaughterhouses efficient and relatively humane - but would the people likely to be in charge make that a priority?") by suggesting bad actors won't follow the rules, is IMO over the top. It is a cheap trick to make something seem bad without really saying it is bad, and is a trick that could be done just as easily with the agriculture production methods. ('I suppose you could treat agricultural workers as human beings but would the people in charge make that a priority?') Some modern meat production has a lot of problems. Meat from local sources, the ocean, wild game, free range cattle on grasslands, and many other methods should not be lumped to together with cattle feed lots and inhumane animal treatment. There is plenty of meat consumed in the world right now that doesn't cause any more harm than other functions of humans living their lives.

Your over the top responses indicate emotion is playing a large part in your interactions.

That's a natural result of not deleting them as new ones come up.

You've already made up your mind. No need for me to try to reason with you.

Nothing gets by you. Except for recognizing that cherry picking facts can be misleading and ruin the foundation of a coherent argument.

They are cherry picked facts as they do not apply to all meat production.

What perplexing problems can be solved by extending the arrow of time backwards? Remember that you are having this discussion on a science forum and not having it with some buddies down at the pub. According to science 'before the universe' is a meaningless concept and can be shown to be meaningless. If you are going to deny the science then you should understand the science, and give evidence that the science is flawed. If you do not understand how it could be true it may be useful to ask why before you claim it is false.

Who cares? You are not participating in this thread anyway. Every Single Post you've made consists of you bitching and moaning about this site and the people here (with the exception of your crush on Luc) . Be gone already.

You don't have to convince me. How do YOU know it was the prayer that resolved the catastrophe.

How do you know it was the prayer that resolved the catastrophe?

What in the fuck are you talking about? Look up the definition of 'life'. Any version of the definition you wish to use does not include the possibility that life can exist without matter. I cannot believe you are this clueless. Go peddle your shit elsewhere.

Seems this discussion needs be moved to speculations where you are free to provide evidence that this is possible, and not just something you've pulled from the dark recesses behind you.

You've lost me. Can you describe what life without matter would 'look' like? Or information without matter?

That is not a different possibility. That is abiogenesis. I guess you missed the @swansont comment that...

Why don't religious types actually answer questions? Thanks for repeating yourself. Why do I bother?

Who made that determination? So if two slaves got together from different eras you are suggesting they would have nothing in common wrt their social standing. I am dubious.

So you are not questioning abiogenesis, you are wondering how it works, just like everyone else. Yet the language you continually use suggests otherwise. You need to pick a side and use the appropriate language if you want this conversation to go anywhere.

Abiogenesis involves the search for a 'scientific' explanation for how life may have begun. If you 'challenge' it, you are suggesting an explanation other than one that is 'scientific'. If the mechanism is not natural, supernatural seems to be the only alternative. That is why you are getting so much pushback, despite your claims you are not suggesting some supernatural mechanism.

Perhaps because none of your posts go beyond saying "science is hard". No shit. Maybe if you'd move beyond that you'd get the "meaningful discussion" you'd like to see. You seem to think 'life' is some magical quality bestowed on us. It's not. Life is just one of the many configurations that are possible with the physics of the universe, along with stars, galaxy clusters, rocks and rotten eggs.

How do you plan to put your megastructure in place?

You excel at stating the obvious but are less successful at selling a pig in a poke.

I cannot believe JohnD is being allowed to so openly troll here. He badly needs a vacation from this place, and we need a vacation from him.