I aint no Sheikh-but lets talk weather

[scaramanga]

It would possibly solve the climate effects but not the question of ethics. If we think it's cool to do what we do to sentient animals because we're more cleverer, then shouldn't AI have the same right to do the same if not worse to us?

I know this isn't what you mean on McDonald's "meat" but the mcplant is actually pretty good, especially when blackout drunk!

The result and best result we can hope for is learning to live sustainably by means of renewable energy, it's odd to bring your anti religion stuff in to it but yes education and equal civil / human rights is something to strive for. You should add it in to your seminars telling young people to fudge around and drink / imbibe to excess otherwise you won't consider their views valid.

I'm not overly concerned about the ethical side of things. There are options for ethically sourced food if people are willing to pay for it. Those who value price over warm fuzzy feelings get to choose their means if production too. I tend to eat more ethically sourced food - not because I care too much about how my meat grows but because those who are taking care to follow a load of guidelines are probably more likely to follow those that keep my food in good condition.

I don't think anyone thinks it's cool to eat animals, it's just tasty.

I'm afraid I'm more of a traditionalist when it comes to drunk food, kebabs all the way for me.

Religion is very much a part of why women are treated the way they are in much of the world - it's also responsible for people not using contraception too. It's not the only reason, of course, but what good is a virus without means of replication?

 

[spurspinter1]

I'm not overly concerned about the ethical side of things. There are options for ethically sourced food if people are willing to pay for it. Those who value price over warm fuzzy feelings get to choose their means if production too. I tend to eat more ethically sourced food - not because I care too much about how my meat grows but because those who are taking care to follow a load of guidelines are probably more likely to follow those that keep my food in good condition.

I don't think anyone thinks it's cool to eat animals, it's just tasty.

I'm afraid I'm more of a traditionalist when it comes to drunk food, kebabs all the way for me.

Religion is very much a part of why women are treated the way they are in much of the world - it's also responsible for people not using contraception too. It's not the only reason, of course, but what good is a virus without means of replication?

I think we won't see eye to on the term ethically sourced meat. It's ethical for a lion to source it's meat from a gazelle because it doesn't have the means of obtaining nutrition in a way that doesn't cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings, we do..... The lab meat being spoken about sounds entirely fair enough though as far as I understand it but I'm guessing you're not getting that supplied just yet.

I'd say some people do see it as cool, any post on Facebook relating to anything vegan / vegetarian will have a brickload of middle aged angry men proudly declaring the amount of steak they eat like anyone is interested.

On the contraception point, back in my heady days of crunching numbers I was pretty awful at using contraception but not because of any religious beliefs. No amount of education will make it feel as good as it does without a condom and the drunk me always forgot about the awkward wait sitting in sexual health clinics but this is probably a tangent too far for this thread.

We may have had this conversation before but in regards to religion, if it wasn't that being used as a tool to surprise women or minorities etc it'd just be something else. You're not going to get rid of religion but we can improve technology to make this whole humanity thing more sustainable.

 

[Rorschach]

There is definitely a physical warming effect from looking into a fire. Whilst the radiant heat from a fire has different properties to the conductive hot air heat of central heating.

I would definitely miss these but I have had my tv set to the YouTube channel of a burning fire before when I couldn’t be bothered with the faff of the stove.

I know what you mean. I certainly find there is a calming effect of watching wood burn in my firepit. I was planning to add a stove to my own house as a heat backup but scrapped it after I read a bit more about it. I pulled out the chimneys too. I'm thinking of throwing in a bioethanol stove but would only be for aesthetics, the heat output is not great, and bioethanol has its environmental downsides albeit much less than solid fuel burning stoves.

 

[glasgowspur]

To a certain degree, absolutely. I'd say at least I acknowledge it but that possibly may make it even worse (just in case it's not clear from the wording it's not me going around raping cows or commiting other heinous acts solely for taste pleasure).

If we all cut down to reasonable levels of dairy then there would be less need for the horrifying practices enacted on animals. Milk is in pretty much everything, I had a family member who had a kid with serious lactose intolerance problems and it's a nightmare trying to find dairy free products, even in things you'd never expect dairy.

We should all make sacrifices/choices for the sake of the future.
I find though that there are plenty of people out there who think that if you aren't making the same sacrifices/choices as them then you are wrong.
We have no children, will not fly if we can at all help it and try to shop as locally as possible for our food, especially meat.
Now those choices are not totally based on our ethical beliefs, a fair part of it is because it suits us, but I have nieces and nephews with three and four kids, big cars and fly abroad twice a year and moan about how their future looks dodgy because of the oldies.
Obviously they make thier choices on how they help to offset climate change (one neice is an ardent recycler and does beach clean ups and such) but can't understand why what is right for one isn't necessarily right for everyone.
We all have to do our bit, it doesn't all have to be the same bit though.

 

[Finney Is Back]

So far, the long range forecasts that I've seen have been pretty spot on. January was forecast as slightly milder than average and February has been forecast as colder than average. Can't remember where I saw that. The bit I miss from Sheikh is the long range model of jet stream etc. Those along with the break downs were fantastic.

Oh, also Ricky. Those 9 day forecasts on Snow Forecast are pretty susceptible to change. They're a pretty good indicator of general weather but I've seen them go from predicting 30cm of snow for a whole region to isolated showers over the course of just a few days... Very dissapointing when you're waiting eagle-eyed to see if you're going to have any fresh powder to ride on!

Ive always thought they were asked to over egg the anticipated snow by the ski resorts.

 

[Rorschach]

The important work is forcing our politicians to make systemic change or everything else will be for naught.

 

[Rorschach]

It wasn't at all clear from the wording.

An even better solution to the tasty things that grow on a farm and moo/oink is a smaller population. In fact, the elephant in the room (never tried eating that - I imagine it would taste like McDonalds "meat") is that pretty much all of our climate issues can be solved with population reduction.

I remember learning at school that there were nearly 5bn people in the world and being amazed at what a huge number that is. We're somewhere north of 8bn now in just a generation and a bit.

The biggest and best result we can have for the climate is the education/equality of women around the world and freedom from religion (specifically those that forbid contraception or consider women to be the property of men).

I agree. The top 1% emit as much as co2 as the poorest 2/3rds of humanity. Getting rid of those wasters will give us a little breathing space (literally).

 

[spurspinter1]

We should all make sacrifices/choices for the sake of the future.
I find though that there are plenty of people out there who think that if you aren't making the same sacrifices/choices as them then you are wrong.
We have no children, will not fly if we can at all help it and try to shop as locally as possible for our food, especially meat.
Now those choices are not totally based on our ethical beliefs, a fair part of it is because it suits us, but I have nieces and nephews with three and four kids, big cars and fly abroad twice a year and moan about how their future looks dodgy because of the oldies.
Obviously they make thier choices on how they help to offset climate change (one neice is an ardent recycler and does beach clean ups and such) but can't understand why what is right for one isn't necessarily right for everyone.
We all have to do our bit, it doesn't all have to be the same bit though.

All fair points, I guess the thing is that if you're doing something from an ethical standpoint then you must think that is the right way to go so it would make sense to expect / hope / encourage others to do the same? Everyone's circumstances are different I guess, it's silly to judge Attenborough for racking up air miles because it's been his job to travel the world in order to learn / educate us about the world. However, someone who regularly flies from Manchester to London for flimflam meetings because they don't like trains and it would save an hour or two probably should be criticized.

It's a tricky one, to a certain extent it's not a bad idea to just mind your own business and not tell other people what to do but if done in the right way a bit of prodding with the relevant information can bring in positive change.

As I was saying with Jurgen, even if I may do it on occasion I don't think the finger pointing (particularly at the older generations) helps, it wasn't joe and Jill Bloggs down the road who personally caused all the damage, it's those in power who now armed with all the info we could need who choose to not act in the quest for short term gain.

 

[Jurgen the German]

All fair points, I guess the thing is that if you're doing something from an ethical standpoint then you must think that is the right way to go so it would make sense to expect / hope / encourage others to do the same? Everyone's circumstances are different I guess, it's silly to judge Attenborough for racking up air miles because it's been his job to travel the world in order to learn / educate us about the world. However, someone who regularly flies from Manchester to London for flimflam meetings because they don't like trains and it would save an hour or two probably should be criticized.

It's a tricky one, to a certain extent it's not a bad idea to just mind your own business and not tell other people what to do but if done in the right way a bit of prodding with the relevant information can bring in positive change.

As I was saying with Jurgen, even if I may do it on occasion I don't think the finger pointing (particularly at the older generations) helps, it wasn't joe and Jill Bloggs down the road who personally caused all the damage, it's those in power who now armed with all the info we could need who choose to not act in the quest for short term gain.

Seem to recall France banned all domestic flights under 2 hours within the last couple of years. Similar measures put in place in this country would be welcomed by me. Although train fare absolutely needs to come down or at the very least not be put up above inflation every sodding year. If Japan can invent the bullet train, why do countries like Britain and America struggle to even get projects off the ground like HS2?

I try and do my bit, I gave meat free Mondays a go for a couple of years. I donate to climate charities and PETA as I feel guilty about it eating meat. Factory farming is abhorrent but I just can’t give up meat. We could eat meat and also stop being arseholes to animals in the process.

 

[spurspinter1]

Seem to recall France banned all domestic flights under 2 hours within the last couple of years. Similar measures put in place in this country would be welcomed by me. Although train fare absolutely needs to come down or at the very least not be put up above inflation every sodding year. If Japan can invent the bullet train, why do countries like Britain and America struggle to even get projects off the ground like HS2?

I try and do my bit, I gave meat free Mondays a go for a couple of years. I donate to climate charities and PETA as I feel guilty about it eating meat. Factory farming is abhorrent but I just can’t give up meat. We could eat meat and also stop being arseholes to animals in the process.

Yeah it's tough, if people are just being herded towards a horrendously expensive and inept train service then folks would rightly kick off about it. The bullet train is a mystery to me, they seemed to have just got it right at the right time whereas our infrastructure just isn't up to scratch. The tube is class to be fair but the train service is and has been unbelievably bad for as long as I remember and the prices are astounding..

On the meat point, I get what you mean, better treatment and conditions for animals is a must but even then if the end result is to kill and eat them...I don't know, obviously people have different views on it and it's not helpful for me to be preachy about it! The would be ended if the lab grown stuff becomes viable so it'll be a good day when that arrives.

 

[johnola]

It wasn't at all clear from the wording.

An even better solution to the tasty things that grow on a farm and moo/oink is a smaller population. In fact, the elephant in the room (never tried eating that - I imagine it would taste like McDonalds "meat") is that pretty much all of our climate issues can be solved with population reduction.

I remember learning at school that there were nearly 5bn people in the world and being amazed at what a huge number that is. We're somewhere north of 8bn now in just a generation and a bit.

The biggest and best result we can have for the climate is the education/equality of women around the world and freedom from religion (specifically those that forbid contraception or consider women to be the property of men).

When you see reduction you mean in numbers. That subject is untouchable.

One alternative is to reduce our body size -something like a squirrel.

 

[Bullet]

I agree. The top 1% ... Getting rid of those wasters will give us a little breathing space (literally).

Leave me alone, bud.

 

[Rorschach]

Leave me alone, bud.

 

[scaramanga]

I think we won't see eye to on the term ethically sourced meat. It's ethical for a lion to source it's meat from a gazelle because it doesn't have the means of obtaining nutrition in a way that doesn't cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings, we do..... The lab meat being spoken about sounds entirely fair enough though as far as I understand it but I'm guessing you're not getting that supplied just yet.

I'd say some people do see it as cool, any post on Facebook relating to anything vegan / vegetarian will have a brickload of middle aged angry men proudly declaring the amount of steak they eat like anyone is interested.

On the contraception point, back in my heady days of crunching numbers I was pretty awful at using contraception but not because of any religious beliefs. No amount of education will make it feel as good as it does without a condom and the drunk me always forgot about the awkward wait sitting in sexual health clinics but this is probably a tangent too far for this thread.

We may have had this conversation before but in regards to religion, if it wasn't that being used as a tool to surprise women or minorities etc it'd just be something else. You're not going to get rid of religion but we can improve technology to make this whole humanity thing more sustainable.

I've never seen anyone celebrating the amount of meat they eat. I have seen people ridiculing vegans because, well, they're vegans and they're asking for it.

There are all kinds of non-barrier contraceptives - there has been for generations. Problem is, it tends to be forbidden by sky fairies and their followers.

Religion is, in some cases, just a tool here but it's a powerful one. What else can threaten as much as an eternity of post-mortem torture? Or (for those that desire it) the opportunity to spend eternity sticking it to 100 children in return for dying a martyr?

 

[scaramanga]

I agree. The top 1% emit as much as co2 as the poorest 2/3rds of humanity. Getting rid of those wasters will give us a little breathing space (literally).

If they do get rid of us, what do you think the next 1% will do?

Live like peasants or just take their bit of redistribution and do precisely the same as us?

 

[Rorschach]

If they do get rid of us, what do you think the next 1% will do?

Live like peasants or just take their bit of redistribution and do precisely the same as us?

You are on a roll. You are right again. It is too much of a risk. Let's get rid of say the top 2-3% just in case.

 

[scaramanga]

You are on a roll. You are right again. It is too much of a risk. Let's get rid of say the top 2-3% just in case.

And how do you think those below them will behave?

The bottom 99% don't emit less CO2 because they're more moral, it's because they can't afford to do all the things that generate bricktonnes of it.

It doesn't matter how large a swathe you cut, the new 1% will do precisely what the old 1% used to do.

 

[Rorschach]

And how do you think those below them will behave?

The bottom 99% don't emit less CO2 because they're more moral, it's because they can't afford to do all the things that generate bricktonnes of it.

It doesn't matter how large a swathe you cut, the new 1% will do precisely what the old 1% used to do.

10%? I guess most people that post on this board would fall into that bracket. You are ruthless.

 

[spurspinter1]

I've never seen anyone celebrating the amount of meat they eat. I have seen people ridiculing vegans because, well, they're vegans and they're asking for it.

There are all kinds of non-barrier contraceptives - there has been for generations. Problem is, it tends to be forbidden by sky fairies and their followers.

Religion is, in some cases, just a tool here but it's a powerful one. What else can threaten as much as an eternity of post-mortem torture? Or (for those that desire it) the opportunity to spend eternity sticking it to 100 children in return for dying a martyr?

I have this nagging feeling you walk away from these discussions thinking you've "won" when you've actually just made an arse out o yourself...If there is a GHod, may he/ she / they smite me for repeatedly getting stuck in talks with someone who just doesn't know how to communicate like an adult.

For someone so anti religion and presumably pro science there is very little evidence or relevant points in your responses, it's just "I'm saying that because I believe I'm right ". Why do vegans deserve to be ridiculed? What about the ones that were slags when they were younger, are they okay as they fit your ludicrous criteria? Just because you don't care about ethics, or at least only ever use them if it comes up as a devil's advocate and believe that noone should make any positive changes because technology will fix it all....So it appears to be you who has blind faith in the technology fairy whilst proudly displaying ignorance/ laziness in equal measures.

You've tried a vegetarian restaurant but preferred "real food", so you might be aware that humans have historically been omnivores, the carnivorous one's don't last too long so I guess a bulk of the average human's diet is made up of what, imaginary food? No doubt if pressed you'll say the comment was a joke much like the ridiculing of vegans, but the joke lies in a tired old playbook of talking loud and saying nothing. Say something relevant to the discussion rather than crowbarring in your islamaphobia, you might get a warm and fuzzy feeling from actually contributing something to a discussion.

 

[Rorschach]

And how do you think those below them will behave?

The bottom 99% don't emit less CO2 because they're more moral, it's because they can't afford to do all the things that generate bricktonnes of it.

It doesn't matter how large a swathe you cut, the new 1% will do precisely what the old 1% used to do.

Sorry been busy. The leaps of logic here are not worth exploring but I might just clarify my point. In my 'not-made-up-at-all' scenario where the top 1% is removed from the picture, the next bracket does not get all their brick and carry on as before. They just lose their brick. The less monied types still have less money, produce less pollution and of course most importantly have less influence*. For someone who has a cash register for a heart, I know it is hard to envisage any other motivation that is not about wealth creation but these motivations do exist in other humans.
(*we'll come back to this later).

Population is not the problem. This is just an easy argument for those looking for an easy explanation to a complex problem. It's a deflection for the overconsuming rich. The Bangladeshi farmer takes almost zero from the carbon budget. They may even help with it, but up here in the 1st world, we are taking far far more than our fair share. We are not all the same. The issue is not with the have-nots. It is us.

So let's talk about the actual issue. It is not the pollution that a bunch of rich pricks spew into the air. That is bad, but the real problem is the malign influence these same pricks have on policy. The problem is that the 1% are invested in fossil fuels. The problem is that these pricks run the media and influence politics to such an extent that their interests are protected no matter what. 1% less rich pricks is 1% less pricks in the world, there is no backup