seeking_perhaps @ seeking_perhaps @mander.xyz

Posts

2

Comments

26

Joined

2 yr. ago

While I have not lived in the south I do have some deeply religious and conservative family members, so I do see where you're coming from. I just think even a good chunk of the people you mentioned have an affiliation to fit in and not because they are genuinely religious, i.e. pray regularly and go to church every Sunday. In other words, it's a cultural thing. They probably wouldn't go so far as to consider themselves atheist, but I could easily see them considering themselves culturally Christian and non-religious in practice. I have no idea what percentage that actually breaks down to, but my guess is it's a decent amount lower than 70%.

Yea, similarly there is no way 70% of Americans are Christian. That's probably just the way they are raised and are likely to fill out if you don't feel comfortable saying "atheist".

Look up ALG language learning. That's the best way to learn languages.

Yes and it covers way more missions than most people would think, like the Mars rovers, all of our sample return efforts, etc. It would all but kill US planetary science.

She sent the email. They're her words now.

cool motive, still slavery

Princeton and surrounding area is also worth a pit stop.

It won't be fast, but I've had amazing results with Dreaming Spanish.

Sure, I don't doubt that humans can't each the entire soy crop in much the same way they don't eat the entirety of other crops. But there is still 76% of the production going towards animal agriculture. You're not seriously suggesting that livestock only use the leftovers from soybean production from humans and produce no additional demand, are you?

I don't see how this supports your argument that eliminating livestock would not reduce land usage. 76% of soybean production is going to animal feed, do you really think that percentage would not reduce if you switched it over to providing food for humans?

I'd like to see a source for "what portion of feed they are given is also, largely, crop seconds or industrial byproduct". The vast majority of information I have seen on this topic is that we produce more crops specifically to feed animals than we do to feed humans. Which, just from an energy perspective, is completely logical to me.

They don't need to be. Stop raising livestock and you no longer need to feed them, which allows us to use the remaining land to feed humans. But livestock only make up a small percentage of human diets, so we can actually give back a ton of land to nature and still easily feed everyone.

https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture

cool poster and cute cat!

fr fr

i have a disgusting amount of the plotly api memorized

it's definitely not a movie best enjoyed sober

What a legend. Hexapodia as the key insight.

socialists have not abandoned the most universally recognized leftist symbol lmao

Did you forget him putting kids in cages?

You mean the policy the Biden admin has continued to uphold and has considered making even more restrictive as a political negotiating tool? No, I remember quite well.

He pulled this type of shit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_uprising.

We're splitting hairs here but he was a US puppet that happily killed his opposition.