If you're confused about a specific term, ask about that specific term, and you'll get many people eager to help. Sorry nobody wants to get on an open ended video call with a stranger to teach you how to run a server, but that's just how these forums work. Everyone's setup is different so there's not much I could do to help in your video call.
Learning this stuff is hard, don't let anyone tell you any different. We all went through the same struggles, perhaps for some people that was so long ago that they forgot how hard it was.
If people took existential threats seriously, we should immediately devote all our resources into escaping the simulation to prevent it from being turned off. But yeah... we'd ignore it and go back to TikTok
The example I'm thinking of is New Zealand, where there's endless studies into causes of erosion most of which mention the introduction of grazing game animals(e.g. deer) as a contributing factor.
deforestation and overgrazing by livestock and
introduced game animal
By the 1930’s the deer population in New Zealand was out of control and causing serious environmental damage through grazing, severe soil erosion and slips from the thousands of hooves ripping up the ground
Because humans are powerful enough that we are a bit like gods, and we have to make these choices between which lives we keep and which lives we kill.
Is it ethical to allow the hunting of African game if that money funds the conservation of many more animals? We have to make that trade off. Ethics are subjective, and I'm firmly on the side of allowing hunting as are many other people.
In New Zealand, as with other isolated islands, there's a unique population of indigenous birds that are now being massacred by introduced mammals. Is it ethical to hunt and trap and poison the introduced pests to save the indigenous birds. We have to make that choice.
A runaway trolley is going to kill 5 humans unless you switch it to another track where it will only kill 1 human. Is that ethical?
A politician could choose to lower the speed limit of a road to 10 km/h, saving lives but costing the economy, quality of life, and future election wins. Is that ethical?
You're absolutely right, but this argument about a "tax on the poor" is used to justify everything that's wrong with cars. We need to solve this properly with a social safety net and alternatives to cars.
Uhh, this garbage ewaste is still wasting people's money. This piece of crap will not be able to run modern apps. There need to be more accessible used options at this price that will not be thrown in the garbage in a few months when she needs a functional phone.
Sorry for the rant, I'm mad at Vodafone and PB tech for ripping you off and wasting your time, not you.
I tried to find a reference to OEM that built it because there might be other identical phones with different names, but I couldn't find any reference outside of NZ or AU. If you can't find anything either, you could try to find a similar shaped phone using the gsmarena phone finder. https://gsmarena.com/search.php
And yeah, Aliexpress and Temu are the best place for things like phone cases if you aren't in a hurry.
That's an arbitrary line too though. Insects experience some form of emotion, but it appears not as complex as a mammal. If you're going to define value of life by (estimated)complexity of experience, then we're both agreed on a similar heirachy with humans at the top.
My point is that there's nuance. Everyone has their own opinion and none of us are right or wrong.
You don't axiomatically presuppose human supremacy? I don't understand how that moral position works, and I want to hear more.
In general, we empathize more with creatures that are more similar to ourselves, and creatures that are cute. Given that, human supremacy follows logically for me. Humans are top of the heirachy, followed by similar mammals, then birds, then fish, then insects. It's sad that's there's a heirachy, but the alternative is considering the life of an insect equal in value to the life of a human. I think that's a less moral position, but it would also drive you insane because we murder so many insects in our lives.
I don't believe it's possible to have a consistent and non-hypocrytical ethical system, and if it was that wouldn't be desirable. Every meat eater I've ever met agrees that agriculture kinda sucks, but they have other priorities.
But you do exploit humans. The food you eat, the clothes you wear, actually pretty much everything you use was made with exploitation. The fact you can choose to go vegan and complain about it on the internet means you are incredibly privledged. As am I.
You talk about rational discussion but all I'm seeing from you is the opposite, "all meat eaters are evil".
The world is complicated and there's a lot of things wrong with it. You chose one problem to focus on, and that's great. But just because other people have other things that they prioritize doesn't mean they are bad people.
If you're confused about a specific term, ask about that specific term, and you'll get many people eager to help. Sorry nobody wants to get on an open ended video call with a stranger to teach you how to run a server, but that's just how these forums work. Everyone's setup is different so there's not much I could do to help in your video call.
Learning this stuff is hard, don't let anyone tell you any different. We all went through the same struggles, perhaps for some people that was so long ago that they forgot how hard it was.