deialtrous

6 ms·

1.
by deialtrous 8y ago
None of that has anything to do with the subject of discussion though. How are those US ranchers burning down the amazon? US beef consumption and production are completely irrelevant to the developing world burning forests to produce thei
2.
by deialtrous 8y ago
I do not understand the relevance of that tabloid article. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I live in Canada. All my beef comes from Canada. The fact that people in other countries burn forests to graze cattle does not
3.
by deialtrous 8y ago
This is not a productive method of communication. You need to clearly state what you mean instead of expecting me to spend 5 comments asking questions to try to extract an actual meaning from your post. I have no idea what you think I inf
4.
by deialtrous 8y ago
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/l... You can only make that claim by examining a single locus. When you examine multiple loci, human populations are clearly separated into distinct
5.
by deialtrous 8y ago
But that hasn't happened. These people did not lose land from "extreme meteorological events". They simply exhausted the stored fertility in the soil, and it is cheaper to burn another chunk of forest than it is to purchase
6.
by deialtrous 8y ago
>It's true in East Asia as well. No it isn't. >In fact, where is it not true? Everywhere? Nothing in your link contradicts what I said already. You can only make the correlation if you cherry pick start and end dates, and
7.
by deialtrous 8y ago
And what does that have to do with anything I said?
8.
by deialtrous 8y ago
You can't say "you are completely wrong" and then support that by showing I am right. You showed 5 crops that produce more protein per acre than an absurdly low fake figure for beef. That's precisely what I said, that
9.
by deialtrous 8y ago
Because none of the factors you list explain the difference. There is 100% scientific certainty that there is a genetic basis for the racial IQ divide. This was never a real debate, it was always reality being attacked by ideologues. But
10.
by deialtrous 8y ago
That's stopping growth, that's what I am suggesting we do. The alternative which I think can only be draconian is "modifying our behavior" to accommodate a huge population. This means eliminating almost all food in fav
11.
by deialtrous 8y ago
That premise is only accurate if you are planning to have everyone consume livestock feed. If that is the plan, then you shouldn't be fixating on beef, you should be going after almost all crops we grow, which produce just as few calo
12.
by deialtrous 8y ago
Literally all beef in Canada and the US is grazed on open pastures. The majority of it is sent to feed lots for the last couple of months of their life to be fattened on grain, but they spend the first year in pasture no matter what. Seco
13.
by deialtrous 8y ago
>Exactly, environmental destruction caused by the beef industry Not in Canada or the US. We have vast prairies that used to be inhabited by millions of bison. Now a fraction of it is inhabited by cattle instead. >water requirements
14.
by deialtrous 8y ago
None of those things have anything to do with the discussion though, which is developing nations torching natural ecosystems. Neither my beef nor my car is in any way a factor in this. Also, your comparison is disingenuous. A pound of be
15.
by deialtrous 8y ago
Or more accurately, destruction is slower in developed countries, largely because there's so little left to destroy. It is pretty hard to deforest Scotland any more than it already is.
16.
by deialtrous 8y ago
Kindergarden is not an organization. If you want to decree that people who commit wrongthink offenses are by definition incorrect in everything they ever say, you need to provide a list of wrongthink offenses. I don't even know what
17.
by deialtrous 8y ago
>A rise in standards of living is directly correlated with lower birth rates. No it isn't. That is based on a single observation, increasing standards of living in the 20th century in western nations. Living standards in western n
18.
by deialtrous 8y ago
He didn't say anything about targets though, he was talking about total population. Which is exactly the thing, none of them were trying to reduce the global population, so their lack of success in that endeavor is meaningless. The f
19.
by deialtrous 8y ago
Please explain how CO2 is causing people to burn forests, wiping out ecosystems and killing millions of animals. You know, the subject of discussion.
20.
by deialtrous 8y ago
Getting carbon output down will not do anything about the massive ecological destruction this article is about. That's the point. And where on earth does genocide come into this from?
21.
by deialtrous 8y ago
>CO2 is a problem. Not the problem the article is talking about.
22.
by deialtrous 8y ago
>But the notion that this planet can only support 5, 7 or 10 or 15B people is patently false. It is also a strawman. People don't say that, they say that the world can only support X many people with our current lifestyle. I do no
23.
by deialtrous 8y ago
Where is the logic in your statement? That makes absolutely no sense. You honestly think the world can support the same number of humans as it can chickens? And even if it did, do you want to live the way those chickens live?
24.
by deialtrous 8y ago
What? This was done overwhelmingly by very poor people in an effort to make themselves slightly less poor. How do you figure they didn't consent?
25.
by deialtrous 8y ago
A single prediction being wrong does not mean the concept is wrong. Especially a single prediction that was not based on evidence and that the scientific community said was nonsense. Al Gore said there would be no snow on any mountains by
26.
by deialtrous 8y ago
Science fiction is not a good argument here.
27.
by deialtrous 8y ago
The fallout myth isn't true. And chernobyl is a perfect example. It caused the accidental creation of a huge nature preserve where species thought to be locally extinct are now thriving. Most wild animals don't live long enough
28.
by deialtrous 8y ago
>The tree cover is almost back to pre-contact levels The number of trees is not the issue. The ecosystem is. Huge plantations of SPF in rows that are all the same age and size does not make a natural ecosystem, and biodiversity is very
29.
by deialtrous 8y ago
Except that my diet and car have absolutely nothing to do with the problem. You're fixating on CO2 when the problem the article talks about is clearly environmental destruction. Canada and the US produce all of our own beef. There i
30.
by deialtrous 8y ago
There is no evidence that any acceptable behavioral alteration will help. The kind of behavioral modification needed is horrifying dystopian nightmare stuff, people naturally resist things like that. The population is going to be reduced

More ›