Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Graknorke]

Eating meat is actually pretty inefficient. In terms of effort:nutrients produced you'd be better off just eating plants.

[Flying Dice]

Eating meat is actually pretty inefficient. In terms of effort:nutrients produced you'd be better off just eating plants.

True. It's also true that meat consumption is an established cultural norm virtually everywhere. It's better to first make societal attitudes as morally optimal as is practical and possible before attempting to effect a dramatic change.

[10ebbor10]

Eating meat is actually pretty inefficient. In terms of effort:nutrients produced you'd be better off just eating plants.

True. It's also true that meat consumption is an established cultural norm virtually everywhere. It's better to first make societal attitudes as morally optimal as is practical and possible before attempting to effect a dramatic change.

Meat does contain some essential proteins though. Which can be replaced thanks to Insects. (Also, I'm pretty sure that eating insects might be more efficient than eating plants. An insect converts more than 90% of it's input to biomass, and are much easier to digest than plants.)

Cigarettes are not going to last long, not in Europe anyway. And there has been talk about reducing healthcare refunds for obese people/

Ah, now I've having fond dreams about what it would take for that in the States. It's silly to treat one unhealthy habit as if it were completely uncontrollable while regulating others heavily.

Do note that nothing more has happened than preliminary talks. Bureaucracy and all that.

It's kind-off feared that reducing healthcare funds for the obese would cause a spike in poverty.

[miauw62]

Eating meat is actually pretty inefficient. In terms of effort:nutrients produced you'd be better off just eating plants.

True. It's also true that meat consumption is an established cultural norm virtually everywhere. It's better to first make societal attitudes as morally optimal as is practical and possible before attempting to effect a dramatic change.

Meat does contain some essential proteins though. Which can be replaced thanks to Insects. (Also, I'm pretty sure that eating insects might be more efficient than eating plants. An insect converts more than 90% of it's input to biomass, and are much easier to digest than plants.)

But eeeewwww insects!
Seriously though, I'm rather disgusted by most insects, but if children were raised eating insects like it's normal, that would probably be pretty good.

[10ebbor10]

It's not like you're going to have any choice. Someday soon you'll find organic proteins in all the food you buy, with no ability to tell where exactly it comes from.

[Flying Dice]

Eating meat is actually pretty inefficient. In terms of effort:nutrients produced you'd be better off just eating plants.

True. It's also true that meat consumption is an established cultural norm virtually everywhere. It's better to first make societal attitudes as morally optimal as is practical and possible before attempting to effect a dramatic change.

Meat does contain some essential proteins though. Which can be replaced thanks to Insects. (Also, I'm pretty sure that eating insects might be more efficient than eating plants. An insect converts more than 90% of it's input to biomass, and are much easier to digest than plants.)

But eeeewwww insects!
Seriously though, I'm rather disgusted by most insects, but if children were raised eating insects like it's normal, that would probably be pretty good.

Cicadas are pretty good. I imagine grasshoppers are much the same, and from what I hear ants are good as well. Again from personal experience, some grubs are scrumptious. Mealworms taste rather nasty, though. The only issue is designing and building the infrastructure we'd need to fully replace the meat industry with insect farms. But yes, once you process and shape it, you could probably have "meat" that looks and tastes like meat, but is made of insects.

[Mephansteras]

Cigarettes are not going to last long, not in Europe anyway. And there has been talk about reducing healthcare refunds for obese people/

Ah, now I've having fond dreams about what it would take for that in the States. It's silly to treat one unhealthy habit as if it were completely uncontrollable while regulating others heavily.

Well, smoking is one of those things that's both unhealthy for the person doing it and unhealthy and/or unpleasant for the people around them. Which is why a lot of places are moving to ban smoking in public areas. I know smoking is much less common in California than some other parts of the country, in large part due to the fact that California laws make Smoking a giant pain to do in addition to being rather expensive due to taxes.

To the point where I really notice how much smoking happens when I go to other states.

[Flying Dice]

Cigarettes are not going to last long, not in Europe anyway. And there has been talk about reducing healthcare refunds for obese people/

Ah, now I've having fond dreams about what it would take for that in the States. It's silly to treat one unhealthy habit as if it were completely uncontrollable while regulating others heavily.

Well, smoking is one of those things that's both unhealthy for the person doing it and unhealthy and/or unpleasant for the people around them. Which is why a lot of places are moving to ban smoking in public areas. I know smoking is much less common in California than some other parts of the country, in large part due to the fact that California laws make Smoking a giant pain to do in addition to being rather expensive due to taxes.

To the point where I really notice how much smoking happens when I go to other states.

I was talking about (voluntary) obesity. Obviously you shouldn't be penalized if you're one of the rare individuals with a glandular condition, but taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize and enable someone's overeating any more than they should have to do the same for their smoking, alcoholism, drug use, etc.

[da_nang]

Cigarettes are not going to last long, not in Europe anyway. And there has been talk about reducing healthcare refunds for obese people/

Ah, now I've having fond dreams about what it would take for that in the States. It's silly to treat one unhealthy habit as if it were completely uncontrollable while regulating others heavily.

Well, smoking is one of those things that's both unhealthy for the person doing it and unhealthy and/or unpleasant for the people around them. Which is why a lot of places are moving to ban smoking in public areas. I know smoking is much less common in California than some other parts of the country, in large part due to the fact that California laws make Smoking a giant pain to do in addition to being rather expensive due to taxes.

To the point where I really notice how much smoking happens when I go to other states.

I was talking about (voluntary) obesity. Obviously you shouldn't be penalized if you're one of the rare individuals with a glandular condition, but taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize and enable someone's overeating any more than they should have to do the same for their smoking, alcoholism, drug use, etc.

If they want to tackle that they'd do a better job fixing the food prices. All the healthy stuff's just getting more and more expensive.

On a related note, it boggles my mind as to why the EU is A-OK with smoking but not snus.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

In this case, when we're dealing with animals that display clear signs of near-human intelligence: whales, dolphins, apes, octopi, etc.

you're forgetting the pig.

[Durin Stronginthearm]

Cigarettes are not going to last long, not in Europe anyway. And there has been talk about reducing healthcare refunds for obese people/

Ah, now I've having fond dreams about what it would take for that in the States. It's silly to treat one unhealthy habit as if it were completely uncontrollable while regulating others heavily.

Well, smoking is one of those things that's both unhealthy for the person doing it and unhealthy and/or unpleasant for the people around them. Which is why a lot of places are moving to ban smoking in public areas. I know smoking is much less common in California than some other parts of the country, in large part due to the fact that California laws make Smoking a giant pain to do in addition to being rather expensive due to taxes.

To the point where I really notice how much smoking happens when I go to other states.

I was talking about (voluntary) obesity. Obviously you shouldn't be penalized if you're one of the rare individuals with a glandular condition, but taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize and enable someone's overeating any more than they should have to do the same for their smoking, alcoholism, drug use, etc.

The problem with that argument is that pretty much everyone has at least one vice or risky habit of some sort. Should taxpayers subsidise the healthcare of people who participate in dangerous sports? Or people who like live music - why should tapayers foot the bill for treating their hearing loss, or injuries from moshpits? What about people who live in areas with high crime - shouldn't they pay more taxes towards policing?

Eventually, everyone ends up in some 'undesirable' category. Plus, I would think it's better to treat the cause, rather than penalise the effect.

[ChairmanPoo]

Slippery slope fallacy

[Neonivek]

Slippery slope fallacy

Because there is a slope?

[Darvi]

It's also covered with the fat of slaughtered pigs.

[Flying Dice]

Cigarettes are not going to last long, not in Europe anyway. And there has been talk about reducing healthcare refunds for obese people/

Ah, now I've having fond dreams about what it would take for that in the States. It's silly to treat one unhealthy habit as if it were completely uncontrollable while regulating others heavily.

Well, smoking is one of those things that's both unhealthy for the person doing it and unhealthy and/or unpleasant for the people around them. Which is why a lot of places are moving to ban smoking in public areas. I know smoking is much less common in California than some other parts of the country, in large part due to the fact that California laws make Smoking a giant pain to do in addition to being rather expensive due to taxes.

To the point where I really notice how much smoking happens when I go to other states.

I was talking about (voluntary) obesity. Obviously you shouldn't be penalized if you're one of the rare individuals with a glandular condition, but taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize and enable someone's overeating any more than they should have to do the same for their smoking, alcoholism, drug use, etc.

The problem with that argument is that pretty much everyone has at least one vice or risky habit of some sort. Should taxpayers subsidise the healthcare of people who participate in dangerous sports? Or people who like live music - why should tapayers foot the bill for treating their hearing loss, or injuries from moshpits? What about people who live in areas with high crime - shouldn't they pay more taxes towards policing?

Eventually, everyone ends up in some 'undesirable' category. Plus, I would think it's better to treat the cause, rather than penalise the effect.

Slippery slope fallacy

What Chairmain said. There's a sight of difference between doing something which has the potential to result in injury and doing something which has been exhaustively documented as causing serious medical problems in all but a few rare cases.

In this case, when we're dealing with animals that display clear signs of near-human intelligence: whales, dolphins, apes, octopi, etc.

you're forgetting the pig.

Yes. And good riddance, turkey bacon tastes better and is even more savory because you know that turkeys are metaphorical assholes.