Benefits of smoking cigarettes?
Kerfuffle @ Kerfuffle @sh.itjust.works Posts 3Comments 253Joined 2 yr. ago
Kerfuffle @ Kerfuffle @sh.itjust.works
Posts
3
Comments
253
Joined
2 yr. ago
I apologize for making conclusions about your position without providing the reasoning for my conclusion.
I appreciate that but like I said before, you should focus on responding to what I wrote. You seem incredibly focused on reading between the lines, to the point that you're only reading in between and ignoring the content of the lines themselves.
You said you made conclusions about my position: I feel like you still really don't even know what my position is. That includes this comment because in spite of how I asked you to respond to what I actually wrote, you just kept right on trying to guess what I might be "implying". Once again: If I wanted to say it, I would have written it down.
This also wouldn't be so much of a problem if you were making reasonably charitable assumptions, but your assumptions have all basically started out assuming I'm an idiot and extremist and would be implying absurd things. It's kind of insulting.
a trivial part of societal waste (animals)
Animal agriculture actually doesn't have a trivial effect on the environment.
It doesn’t matter a single bit what an individual does on their own without collective action.
You have to "be the change you want to see in the world". Obviously each of the 8 billion people on the planet can't just casually do something that changes the whole world in major way.
Also, even if something isn't visible on a global scale it can still "matter". A single murder isn't going to make a difference in global death statistics. Right? But it's going to "matter" if the victim is you, or someone you care about. So doing things that help individuals still has value.
The things you have suggested can be boiled down to reducing individual consumption. But the logical conclusion of that line of thinking is that zero consumption of the individual is the ideal situation. The only way for a living being to consume nothing is to kill themselves before breeding. So how can that possibly be a reasonable solution?
How is it possible to write something this ridiculous without realizing there's a problem?
Me: We should brush our teeth regularly.
You: [reads the above, thinks to self] KerfuffleV2 says we should brush our teeth regularly. What could be more regular than continuously brushing our teeth? But if we continuously brush our teeth we won't be able to eat or drink! We'll die of dehydration and exhaustion!
You: [exclaims in horror] Oh my god, why do you want to kill everyone!? You monster!
Me: Huh?
I am a person that likes to "engage" but I don't see how I can with you. You just twist everything I say beyond recognition.
Individualistic thinking such as
OP specifically asked for what they could do as an individual. It seems really weird to chastise me for "individualistic thinking" if I give them an answer to their question.
is making a moral judgement
I certainly have my own ideas about what's moral or not, but you're reading in stuff that didn't actually exist in my post.
The reason I made those points is in terms of practical effects. Roughly 90% of food energy is lost per link in the food chain. Consequently, if you eat high on the food chain you are effectively throwing away 90% of the food energy. Scale this wasteful approach up to feeding 8 billion people and the effects on the environment are very extreme. I also said to reduce unnecessary consumption.
Humans, especially privileged humans living in developed countries (generally, anyone that will be reading posts here) use a disproportionate share of resources. We exist by exploiting other people and the environment, and it's nearly impossible to avoid. We don't pay the real costs for those effects either, for the most part. We usually don't even account for those costs, which are or will inevitably be paid by someone eventually.
I don't even know what an average individual living in the US or similar countries could personally do to break even, let alone have an overall positive effect. In general, or for simplicity we can just say in terms of the environment. Either way, it's basically the same. So creating a new human, who is overwhelmingly likely to be average (and even if they're not, maybe they do a lot of harm, maybe they do a lot of good) is almost certainly going to be harmful from an environmental perspective. Not only that, but this new human may also propagate and so one's responsibility for the effects involved in creating that individual don't just stop there.
It also implies that if people change their diets to be less burdensome with current tech, that things would be solved
If I'd wanted to say that, I would have written it in my post. However, I didn't so that implies what?
It reduces harmful effects. Reducing harm is worthwhile, even if it doesn't just solve everything in one fell swoop. Reducing or mitigating harm can also allow more time for more permanent solutions to be developed before irreversible changes/losses occur.
An all vegan diet of 8 billion people just kicks the can down the road until we have 15billion people
What? You just got done criticizing me for saying people should choose not to have children and now you're acting like that part didn't exist. Not to mention, I even said the not having children point should probably have been #1.
If you want to say that earth cannot support anymore then X people that are eating meat, or we should only have Y people total
I mean, unless you want to argue that the earth has infinite resources then there has to be some point where resource consumption in unsustainable. If you take steps to reduce resource consumption, for example by eating low on the food chain then the point where it's unsustainable changes.
So while I wasn't saying that in my post, it's just factually and obviously true that one could put a general number on how many humans can sustainably be supported in various scenarios.
Otherwise you are just advocating for a trivial demand side solution that puts the blame of the current problems on literally everyone that currently exists which is also false.
I think consumers have at least an equal part of the blame, but they don't have all of it. However, production won't exist without consumption. Politicians also won't/can't pass laws and policies that will just immediately get them voted out. If a politician says "Okay, starting tomorrow we start paying the true price of meat production including future environmental effects as accurately as we can quantify them: so the price will quadruple" it wouldn't matter if that was accurate. They'd just get voted out.
The population has to support (and indicate their support) for that sort of thing before politicians can pass legislature that will restriction companies.
let me know what I’m getting wrong about my critique of your position.
Your biggest issue is imagining a bunch of arguments and points that never existed and devoting your time to attacking them. Respond to what I actually wrote.
This is 100% wrong
How about a counterargument instead of just saying "no"? If I'm wrong, it shouldn't be difficult to refute my points.
You also weren't very clear about what you think is wrong. I'm assuming point #2, but who knows.
Not really on topic but content warnings like that are really appreciated.
- Eat low on the food chain and try to minimize unnecessary consumption.
- Don't have children. Probably this should be #1 because there's really nothing as environmentally damaging as creating another human (and all their descendants).
- Try to convince others to do the same when you can.
Trying to help specific individual wild animals is never going to have an impact close to any of those items, unless you're already very wealthy and powerful.
From games:
- Loop Hero OST is pretty amazing if you like that kind of music: https://piped.video/Vw6hcx8jUeY
- Crypt of the Necrodancer OST is also really good: https://piped.video/7Ks82gn2BqU
- Going back further (a lot further!) - I've always loved the music from ZANAC, especially the title theme: https://piped.video/fkmdItOQkKo . There are some pretty good remixes as well: https://piped.video/96aT-5h2P08 , https://piped.video/kQ1SNc3_VA8
what the fuck are you talking about?
What part are you having trouble with?
I want to talk to the first homospaien that ever came to be. Ask him/her where they came from.
A species isn't an actual thing, it's just an approach to classifying organisms that people find convenient to use. It has grey areas and isn't always applied consistently.
It's a little like the fallacy of the heap: if you drop a grain of sand, you don't have a heap of sand. If you keep droppings of sand, you'll end up with a heap. But then if you remove a grain of sand, it doesn't suddenly stop being a heap: it's kind of vague and ambiguous, there isn't a definite boundary where you can add or remove a single grain of sand and transition between definitely a heap of sand/definitely not a heap of sand.
I don’t think this is that terrible.
It a complete vacuum, maybe not. In the context of other stuff Florida has done lately, and just Republicans in general...
I can say that without even checking also. There's virtually no chance whatsoever that Democrat officials were behind it.
It’s not quite as absurd as “BLACKS BENEFITED FROM SLAVERY!”
There's a lot of space between that and where something stops really, really sucking.
It’s just that I don’t believe in the forced division of species,
What does that even mean? "Species" isn't an actual thing that exists, it's a way of classifying creatures that we find useful.
one that puts us in the same cage as gorillas.
"In the same cage"? Presumably you can accept that you have some things in common with the gorilla: you both have a heart, both have lungs, both sneeze from time to time, both need to sleep, etc. The "cage" is a continuum.
You missed the other person's point. It's not a game and the consequences of ignoring the problem are likely to be massive.
Also, you know who will be the absolute last to feel pain from stuff like climate change? The wealthy. The overwhelming majority of people that will be affected aren't privileged and in fact the least privileged are going to suffer the brunt of it.
You're not going to punish the rich and powerful and make them regret their choices with this approach. By the time they're even feeling moderate discomfort, you'll be long gone.
I won’t do a single shit unless the people that are actually causing this crisis do something.
Companies wouldn't produce stuff but for people buying it. Naturally people who aren't willing to stop buying the product aren't going to do stuff like support legislature that makes it become a lot more expensive and/or difficult to acquire, or even forbidden entirely.
So it's political suicide for a politician to do something like that: they'll just get voted out. Without regulations forcing companies to adhere to those restrictions, it's basically business suicide to just do something that hamstrings the company's ability to produce whatever product. Their competitors will just eat them.
I'm not saying companies/the rich don't have responsibility, they absolutely do. I really think that change, for the most part, has to start with the population in general though. I definitely strongly disagree with anyone saying that consumers don't have at least equal responsibility.
The point of it is ro share your experience and show it can be done to the “rabble”
There's nothing to figure out in the "how" part though. It's just a question of the person having the motivation to make personal sacrifices with tangible effects in the present for a less tangible benefit in the future.
Saying how I'd be the exception in this case seems more like boasting than really doing something constructive. That's not my style.
It also appears on the HF leaderboard now so you can get a very general idea of how (at least the 70b model) compares: https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/open_llm_leaderboard
I couldn’t imagine bragging to the world about how I have no moral spine and will suck off
You realize I'm speaking generally, right?
In fact, I've never once used Uber or Lyft in my entire life. My point is that the average person isn't going to push for something that has a tangible negative effect right now to possible make things better in the murky future.
Now I could say: Well, the rabble sucks but I on the other hand am a cut above the rest. I'm one of the few who is willing to make the tough choices and endure whatever sacrifices are necessary to Do What's Right. But hey, talk is cheap so what's the point really? I guess if I'd added a bit about how special and great I am (it's true!) I might have avoided having my fellating skills become part of the discussion.
More like:
Predatory pricing
exists.
Don't hold your breath waiting for anything to catch up to the 1%. To be honest, I don't know the average person even really want it to. I mean, suppose I use Uber. Am I really going to be out there writing letters to my congresscritter pressuring them to force Uber to stop selling their product below cost and consequently make my Uber rides significantly more expensive? "Oh man, I sure wish Amazon would stop selling me such cheap products with next day shipping. This problem needs to be fixed, they're hurting the free market!"
Eventually the frog might get boiled, but that's some time in the future. The frog is feeling comfy now.
Its about time we start looking into alternatives to the transformer model.
People have been looking into alternatives. If you read the paper, you can see that they compare their approach to a bunch of different alternatives/modifications. Naturally they claim it comes out looking very favorable, but we'll have to wait and see if the models/code they release actually perform as well as they're saying and non-obvious downsides.
It's not an easy thing to get right.
Trust me, it’s not.
That's a silly thing to say. Like I said, I could read something like that from time to time so you're asking me to trust you over my own experience. People also post/publish fiction of varying quality all over the internet, and it gets read. I've seen worse writing than that with hundreds or thousands of reads.
Maybe you're only talking about a publisher buying the work and publishing it but you never said anything like that. Even so, I've seen some books that were pretty bad so I'm not sure I'd trust you even there.
Very sorry to contradict you, but this is absolute shit.
To be clear, I'm talking in relative terms. Would you argue that ChatGPT did a massively better job and didn't write "absolute shit"?
It looks good on the surface, but that’s all.
From some of the stuff I've seen published, that might just be enough for certain people. I could even be that "certain people" from time to time, sometimes just the right theme, setting and some time to fill is sufficient.
Weirdly, there actually possibly are a few. Of course, OP is being ridiculous (and probably trolling) and even if there are some potential benefits to smoking they almost certainly don't outweigh the overall risks.
One example is Parkinson's Disease: https://www.apdaparkinson.org/article/smoking-and-parkinsons-disease/
Smokers actually have a lower risk of contracting Parkinson's (although the exact reason isn't entirely clear at the moment).
I seem to recall there's also some sort of lung problem where current smokers are actually better off continuing to smoke but I don't remember the details. I think it had something to do with nicotine causing vasoconstriction in the lungs which compensated for/controlled some other issue.