GOOD POST
GOOD POST
not containing enough meat for a person to survive
That’s weird. The amount of meat required for a person to survive is exactly 0 grams.
Amerikkka clocking in at just over 126kg/capita
enjoy that constipation burgerbrains
There’s an element of truth here, in that parts of the world have a system where farm animals eat stuff humans can’t, such as wild grass, kitchen waste and straw
The carbon, nitrogen, etc. contained in that grass, waste, and straw should be buried in/returned to the soil to grow plants instead of being farted into our atmosphere. Assuming the land in question is arable in the first place (which I think is valid if it’s producing enough plant matter for grazing to be viable), if managed at all would produce more calories of human-compatible nutrition per calorie invested than harvesting of grazing animals on said land would.
Yeah you would think carnists (especially farmers) would understand feed conversion ratios, but alas
pesticides and fertilizer!
our pure arrogance wouldn’t stop us from creating another self and causing that self to suffer.
I think there’s already some weak evidence supporting the notion that we’ll do this with living neurons in a dish before we successfully simulate it in silico
Feeling like a certified Luddite these days
Big same, dawg
our pure arrogance wouldn’t stop us from creating another self and causing that self to suffer.
I think there’s already some weak evidence supporting the notion that we’ll do this with living neurons in a dish before we successfully simulate it in silico
Feeling like a certified Luddite these days
Big same, dawg
beanis envy
cw warning for the cow excretions please
Their Trump card is used up (fuck you I won’t apologize for that).
2028: Trump vs Obamna
weren’t aware this was an election year
woah
The exit pill data
11
wow and it predicted the libs keeping the mask off in 2020
I see :( I’m sorry
I think the only h5n1 testing I’ve read about in amerikkka has been bovine and mandated/conducted by USDA
which is a relief.
For me it’s the opposite. Suppose we go rockhounding hoping to find some opals, which we believe are quite rare for the location. We bring some small tools and survey an area of a few square feet near a creek, finding one opal.
On our short hike back to the car, we spot a few mineral enthusiasts downstream of where we were digging with huge mechanical rigs set up to more effectively separate the rocks. They’re processing hundreds of thousands of pounds more material every day than our quaint hand tools can manage, so when we ask “did you find any opals” and they say “nope! not a one”,
would we conclude it’s more likely that a) they’re churning through opals all day, but not looking for them or actively ignoring them when they find any or b) the opals are only in our tiny spot upstream ?
has a slab foundation so like i don’t fucking know what condition the plumbing is in
where I live, you can pay a plumber a few hundred dollars to snake an endoscope through all the pipes and they can catch some (but not all) serious issues
That’s an orthogonal injustice though, no? Collectively, our species massively overproduce food, so I would think the fact that there is a prior reason to be trying to cultivate land like this, which ought to be managed for native flora/fauna is a separate and solvable large scale land allocation problem, the solution to which frees whatever livestock use the argument excuses.