I actually came to this thread in hopes of finding a replacement for Thunderbird. I've been using it for 10 years or more now, on various machines, always hoping it would somewhen stop being laggy. No plugins installed, and it frequently freezes for several seconds or even minutes, when I'm idle but also while I'm typing.
Most forced elections haven't gone by that term, preferring instead some other description like people's elections, free elections, or secured elections. Made up words but you get the idea.
Oh, sorry! In the last 30 or so posts, I always included both. This time, for some reason, I thought no one would care. Thanks for your feedback, I'll make sure to include both in the future.
Would be nice to know, I'd like to read a source. On wiki, I got the impression the driving incentive is not to kill less calfs, but to produce more rennet, to ultimately produce more cheese. The German wiki quotes "Nur ca. 35 % der weltweiten Käseproduktion können mit Naturlab produziert werden.", roughly "Only about 35% of worldwide cheese production can be produced with rennet from animals". Technically still a vast majority.
if we could just “drain” the existing battery quickly and load in new pre-charged fluid
That would be huge!
For this, of course, it matters a lot how energy dense the battery is. Also for the environmental impact. If I have to exchange three gigatons of liquid for my trip to the grocery store, a rolling coal truck might have the smaller footprint.
We should at least factor in how natural or pleasant their existence is. Or else a maliciously engineerd creature which spreads like crazy but is genetically bound to suffer immensely all their life is somehow preferrable over a local population of happy birds.
The species we use to harvest their products and body parts are often unable to survive naturally, some suffering from accumulated genetic defects, like being unable to support their artificially increased body weight.
If we don't need to reserve pastures for human-cows, there might be a chance for natural species to grow their numbers again.
Yes, but when communicating to these minions, it makes sense to translate your intentions into what they can relate to.
If I want a way to control my ants so that they stay away from some places but go to others, I might teach them to avoid soap and seek sugar.
They might not understand what my bed is because it's too big and alien for them, but if I put some soap around it, they will avoid going there.
They might not understand what I mean by "go to my neighbor's garden", but they will be able to follow a trail of sugar to that place.
So especially if the interests of the gods are wild and beyond our understanding, I'd expect them to give us some relatable proxies instead.
Is is, in many interesting ways. In the sense of Dawkins ("the selfish gene"), who coined the term 'meme', religions are complex memes. Ideas which need hosts to survive and spread. This puts evolutionary pressure on these ideas to become good at convincing brains that:
"This idea is worth listening to. This idea is worth remembering. This idea is worth spreading."
Naturally, religions became good at these things or went extinct. In many cases, their evolution converged to extremes. A powerful god is obviously beaten by the all-powerful God. A stronger incentive than living a decent life on Earth is obviously receiving eternal bliss in heaven.
Religions take great efforts to emphasize they are very important - sorry: the most important - ideas. And some which emphasize how important it is to spread them happened to spread, driving others extinct in the process.
To this day, religions evolve in the attempt to adapt to their changing environment of culture, politics and technology, lest they go extinct. New denominations form and rise in the process.
I agree to @capt_wolf@lemmy.world's observation. Does the frequent inclusion of these very existential ideas ("how to not die") hint at how early in the human evolution religions started playing a role? If so, if religions helped early humans survive, that would make being susceptible to religious ideas an evolutionary advantage for early humans. So maybe there was a synergy between genetic evolution and memetic evolution. And maybe that's also why conspiracy theories are such a pest, piggybacking on the same mechanics.
For some vegetarians, it makes a difference wether an animal had to die in the process. It's one thing to continously harvest milk or eggs from an animal which otherwise lives on happily. It's another thing to eat something which could only be obtained by slaughtering an animal.
In the same sense, many hard cheeses like Parmesan or Gran Padano aren't vegetarian either, because they use rennet.
Vegans have more to do with morals than vegetarians. Vegans may refrain from using animal based products like leather, which can be completely unrelated to health. A vegetarian diet is just that, a diet without meat. Can be for health or moral reasons, unspecified.
Many things are tasty, many of which don't have the detrimental implications of animal products, especially meat.
Thanks for supporting your comments with sources.
China makes the most goods, but most goods are not made by China. They are the top producer, but produce less than 50% of all goods.