Solutions

[Dekker]

It's bigger than wages and taxes. Keeping ownership to the few who mostly inherited wealth which was mostly stolen will just perpetuate the reality we see today, with increasing obscene disparity between the rich and the poor. The model needs to change. If everyone was a worker-owner and the systems were democratic it would be more fair.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It is those rapacious meat eaters who consume pounds and pounds of it because it is a "tradition" and what they are used to.

So people who enjoy a cheeseburger or Thanksgiving turkey are "rapacious"?

Actually, the lunch I just finished included a cheeseburger. Dessert is a small bowl of red seedless grapes. By your reasoning, I should have limited my lunch to the dill pickle, bun, and ketchup.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, you should have had a balanced meal. There's only a handful of people who think that the solution to environmental destruction is that poor people remain poor. The rest of us think that a systemic shift in consumption patterns are essential.

I cannot judge any specific beef eater, because I don't know people's nutritional requirements. I just know that the average consumption needs to drastically drop. And, it's up to each of us to figure out how to get that done in our lives.

 

[AdamCrock]

Just woke up - had a massive muscle shrink (contraction) in my left calf. The solution is to immediately sit on bed (edit: with legs on the floor ) and massage the calf while moving toes. The contraction will be gone almost instantly. I personally walk a bit around the room too. Hope this will help people with morning muscle contractions ! To avoid contractions it is important to keep bottle of water near bed to stay hydrated - like @hobbsyoyo said in the sleeping thread I think. I have obviously forgot that yesterday

 

[Gorbles]

Go figure the one time this forum doesn't save my in-progress post is when I actually close a tab by accident. It's preserving half-written posts from a week ago in other threads, naturally! Maybe it's a browser thing, I don't know.

Anyhow.

Basically, reducing meat consumption will not fix anything in the time scale we need to fix it in. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it as a personal choice, though I need to point out that staples of vegan and vegetarian diets have their own problems (Guardian link here, and an NYT registration-walled link here).

The ongoing destruction of the Amazon rainforest (as an example) will not be stopped by personal choices around diet. Supermarkets will still stock meat produce. That's not effective pressure - it's not targeting the people at fault. There's also no way of codifying "eat less meat" in any real-world way unless you also (unintentionally or otherwise) also affect people that need that aspect of their diet to live properly. It can only exist as "you should personally eat less meat", here on a forum, offline with a friend, or wherever. And these things tend to happen in a vacuum, without knowing your target's existing diet or what dietary requirements they may have.

Also, and I can't stress this enough: telling people to have a less fulfilling diet isn't a workable strategy when the world is going to hell in a handbasket. We need political pressure on ecological sabotage (like what is happening in the Amazon). We need to look at how abusive our (Western, first-world) supply chains are, and put the appropriate pressure there. It's easy to say "just live off of X", but X might also be farmed in an immoral way.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Go figure the one time this forum doesn't save my in-progress post is when I actually close a tab by accident

I empathize with this so much. I was once in a heated, very long PM exchange with @Ziggy Stardust and I wrote a massive post which the forum dumped when it logged me out while I was writing it. It didn't even tell me it logged me out until I hit send at which point it deleted what I wrote and told me to log back in. I promised Ziggy I'd rewrite it but never did and I'm sure he thought it was just a cop out to get out of the debate. It was and it wasn't; I really did write that post and I intended to re-write it but I completely lost my train of thought and never did.

Agreed with the rest of what you wrote and apologies for hijacking your comment.

 

[tjs282]

Just woke up - had a massive muscle shrink (contraction) in my left calf
...
To avoid contractions it is important to keep bottle of water near bed to stay hydrated

Ooh, I hate those! AFAIK, though, that kind of muscle-cramp is (more?) often a result of electrolyte loss, as opposed to dehydration per se: I (used to) get 4 am calf-cramps sometimes, usually the night after I'd done some hard legwork, like a long swim-session (back when I was lifeguarding in my early 20s; don't swim much at all these days) or cycling to/from work (in more recent years).

So now, when I get home from a long ride (my route to work is about 18 km, 45-60 mins each way), I usually grab myself a glass of chocolate-milk and/or a banana (or throw both into the blender!), or a glass of rehydration-salt solution (one of those little sachets intended to remedy illness-associated fluid/electrolyte losses), which seems to help prevent the cramping.

 

[Narz]

Booze and Tobacco is a luxury tax. It's taxed heavily here.

A pack of cigarettes is around $15 USD iirc. Government s try to stamp it out. I think they've got the % down to something like 15%.

Awesome. Cigarettes are disgusting as are their pushers.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

EDIT: More seriously: Just be aggressive about engaging people. If they are checking their phone when they should be having a face to face conversation with you, just keep trying to get their attention or asking questions that require a narrative response to keep them from focusing on their phones.

Or just tell them to put the <censored> thing away. The only phone I have is a landline that doesn't do anything but let me talk to whoever is on the other end, unless I get lost in voicemail hell. I don't even have an answering machine.

 

[AdamCrock]

Or just tell them to put the <censored> thing away. The only phone I have is a landline that doesn't do anything but let me talk to whoever is on the other end, unless I get lost in voicemail hell. I don't even have an answering machine.

Sadly the smartphone addiction is a plague of 21'st century and already people have lost lives over it (crossing the road on red light is a most often cause of that). Already in some countries implementing "foot lights" on pedestrian crossings as well as warning app's so that when person looks down on her phone she sees when she's not supposed to cross the street. Way I see it it's just one more reason to stick to my rusty but trusty Nokia 3310 Yeah You may call me grandpa xD I have never cared and I'll never will care to get a smart phone. I only need a phone to talk with people , write SMS and use the "wake up" function. I'm just weird like that

 

[Zardnaar]

Remember the good old days when your phone battery lasts a week instead of a day?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Remember the good old days when your phone battery lasts a week instead of a day?

Also when they were actually small.

 

[bernie14]

 

[El_Machinae]

Go figure the one time this forum doesn't save my in-progress post is when I actually close a tab by accident. It's preserving half-written posts from a week ago in other threads, naturally! Maybe it's a browser thing, I don't know.

Anyhow.

Basically, reducing meat consumption will not fix anything in the time scale we need to fix it in. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it as a personal choice, though I need to point out that staples of vegan and vegetarian diets have their own problems (Guardian link here, and an NYT registration-walled link here).

The ongoing destruction of the Amazon rainforest (as an example) will not be stopped by personal choices around diet. Supermarkets will still stock meat produce. That's not effective pressure - it's not targeting the people at fault. There's also no way of codifying "eat less meat" in any real-world way unless you also (unintentionally or otherwise) also affect people that need that aspect of their diet to live properly. It can only exist as "you should personally eat less meat", here on a forum, offline with a friend, or wherever. And these things tend to happen in a vacuum, without knowing your target's existing diet or what dietary requirements they may have.

Also, and I can't stress this enough: telling people to have a less fulfilling diet isn't a workable strategy when the world is going to hell in a handbasket. We need political pressure on ecological sabotage (like what is happening in the Amazon). We need to look at how abusive our (Western, first-world) supply chains are, and put the appropriate pressure there. It's easy to say "just live off of X", but X might also be farmed in an immoral way.

I really appreciated this. Now, I'll continue to defend the idea that "at the individual level, the better choice is to change your diet". In fact, I think it's essential, since all damage is exponential and done at the margin. But that's not really your point, I think.

The concern is that people "feel they're doing their part already". I (most commonly) am able to perceive this when people say "I pay my taxes", as if their current taxation level is sufficient to fix the problems that need fixing. Or "I recycle", as if that's somehow sufficient. They're not overly interested in contributing to the overall solution, because they feel like their taxes are their personal contribution and by simply consenting to something that's already happening, they're doing enough.

We're at a cross-roads of possibilities, wherein we cannot really judge human psychology. IF I can convince someone to forgo beef, I then am asking myself "will they then become more politically complacent, because they feel like they're already doing their share?" or (as happened to me) "are they going to become more politically active, because of the bitterness of seeing other people do things that I've denied myself?". I don't know the answer en masse. I only know the answer individually.

The micro-changes aren't sufficient, we all know that. But we're left with the dilemma of wondering if we can convince other people to make macro-changes if we cannot even convince ourselves to make small ones. And, on the other side of the equation, are we saving up some type of moral suasion capital that we're going to spring later? "Remember how in 2019, I stopped suggesting that we switch our diets? It's because I was hoping you'd now join me in a massive re-organization of everything". If we're going to ask that people make changes, then those changes either need to be along some ratio of 'effort per unit benefit' or 'is the sum of the efforts sufficient?'. They're not the same thing, obviously. Asking that people inflate their tyres isn't going to be 'sufficient', though it's a pretty good ratio of benefit to effort. Asking that people tolerate nuclear power and completely change the costs of travel would be onerous, even if it would be sufficient. Keep in mind, the end-goal is to be sufficient in preventing the catastrophe while limiting the damages done to people's quality of life.

 

[Gorbles]

I really appreciated this. Now, I'll continue to defend the idea that "at the individual level, the better choice is to change your diet". In fact, I think it's essential, since all damage is exponential and done at the margin. But that's not really your point, I think.

The concern is that people "feel they're doing their part already". I (most commonly) am able to perceive this when people say "I pay my taxes", as if their current taxation level is sufficient to fix the problems that need fixing. Or "I recycle", as if that's somehow sufficient. They're not overly interested in contributing to the overall solution, because they feel like their taxes are their personal contribution and by simply consenting to something that's already happening, they're doing enough.

We're at a cross-roads of possibilities, wherein we cannot really judge human psychology. IF I can convince someone to forgo beef, I then am asking myself "will they then become more politically complacent, because they feel like they're already doing their share?" or (as happened to me) "are they going to become more politically active, because of the bitterness of seeing other people do things that I've denied myself?". I don't know the answer en masse. I only know the answer individually.

The micro-changes aren't sufficient, we all know that. But we're left with the dilemma of wondering if we can convince other people to make macro-changes if we cannot even convince ourselves to make small ones. And, on the other side of the equation, are we saving up some type of moral suasion capital that we're going to spring later? "Remember how in 2019, I stopped suggesting that we switch our diets? It's because I was hoping you'd now join me in a massive re-organization of everything". If we're going to ask that people make changes, then those changes either need to be along some ratio of 'effort per unit benefit' or 'is the sum of the efforts sufficient?'. They're not the same thing, obviously. Asking that people inflate their tyres isn't going to be 'sufficient', though it's a pretty good ratio of benefit to effort. Asking that people tolerate nuclear power and completely change the costs of travel would be onerous, even if it would be sufficient. Keep in mind, the end-goal is to be sufficient in preventing the catastrophe while limiting the damages done to people's quality of life.

There's nothing wrong with convincing people. However, there are many valid reasons for someone not to be (for example) a vegetarian, and sometimes those reasons aren't always something folks want to disclose. To choose a comparable analogy, my own morals suggest I should do more activism than I do. Are my requirements to my family selfish? Was having a family selfish? These are questions I have answers to, but also continue to ask myself. But sometimes you have to trust that people are asking themselves these questions.

And this is for something that might matter, or make a difference at a personal level. But there are many ways to help someone be politically-engaged, and making them forgoe something that is a part of their daily routine. Some folks can give up meat. Others can give up dairy. Some can give up both. Some can choose to recycle more or less, according to their needs, but I wouldn't necessarily draw a correlation between micro-changes and macro-changes. It's a tricky angle to follow, because it's easy to dismiss the person you're talking to in favour of these micro-changes. And that's the common theme - not from my observations here - but generally with this line of argument. It regularly crosses the line into "you should do this" instead of "blame the companies that get away with ruining lakes, buying up water, setting fire to the Amazon", etc.

Personally, I sit on the other side of your micro-macro relation. If you can't convince someone to care about the rainforest on fire, you certainly can't convince them that meat is overly-intensively produced and that a way to mitigate this is to give up meat. This varies, of course, with who you're talking to (you've got better chances with a friend, especially with one that already has an incentive to reduce meat intake). I'm also focusing a bit too much on the vegetarian thing, but it's a very common argument I come across. It's also highly dependent on someone's finances. A lot of diet-based advice is, and factors into basically their entire lifestyle. It's actually easier to segue into "so how about the rainforest" or "what about those ice sheets", even if you then subsequently go down a rabbithole.

A lot of this is differing viewpoints on how to approach things, I get that. But the diet thing is big for me, because it's not just health reasons or other medical reasons or even selfishness that people can't easily give up meat. A lot of replacements (especially to maintain vitamin intake) requires more of a cash investment (and planning, and variance in shops) than a regular, cheaper shop with basic meat and veg (the quality of which isn't always great, sure, but you can bang it on a plate easier). Especially if you want to avoid processed vegetarian or vegan food (you're stuck between the high street brand, and actual named brands, where the price goes up sharply).

 

[El_Machinae]

I've more than once addressed that there are always going to be personal exemptions, so I'll just leave your contribution with 'I agree'.

But, again, the meat is at the margin when it comes to an exponential crisis. Per unit of sacrifice to unit reduced damage, it's pretty good. We live in different worlds, where a low meat diet is more expensive, especially if we're mainly pointing our fingers at beef.
I've seen the response to the Amazon fires. Likes and hearts on Facebook. There's no increased push in any meaningful sense. Liberals aren't going to 'vote harder' the next election because they care about the Amazon. They're not going to vote harder now in 2019 regarding climate change than they did in 1997, when we first introduced Kyoto.

There are many(!) political actions that can be taken, and if the person is all "Oh, I'm eating a donair to reward myself for writing a letter", then that's a spiffy expression of privilege I guess. But yeah, it's all psychology. If I think that I can get some future (significant) action out of someone if I don't tire them out about meat eating, then obviously it's the game-winning move. But if I cannot even convince a 'liberal' to choose chicken over beef when they're fine-dining the second time this week, then I daresay that it's strong evidence that they deserve the scare-quotes around the word. That meat is so intensely subsidized by ecological degradation, that to think "oh, this deserves my money" is pretty strong evidence that the person doesn't actually believe the underlying problem is true. These massive changes that ARE required are not going to make beef cheaper, or other damaging things, either. Not in any real terms.

Maybe you're just living in a different world, where people who're expressing concern about climate change are sufficiently pro-active to offset their damages. But I don't think so. I don't think they're entitled to the damages they're causing.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think we should eat meat just a lot less of it. If you don't want to eat meat that's fine to.

Is it 3 servings of meat a week to maintain a healthy diet with having to make extensive changes to said diet?

 

[Gorbles]

I've more than once addressed that there are always going to be personal exemptions, so I'll just leave your contribution with 'I agree'.

But, again, the meat is at the margin when it comes to an exponential crisis. Per unit of sacrifice to unit reduced damage, it's pretty good. We live in different worlds, where a low meat diet is more expensive, especially if we're mainly pointing our fingers at beef.
I've seen the response to the Amazon fires. Likes and hearts on Facebook. There's no increased push in any meaningful sense. Liberals aren't going to 'vote harder' the next election because they care about the Amazon. They're not going to vote harder now in 2019 regarding climate change than they did in 1997, when we first introduced Kyoto.

There are many(!) political actions that can be taken, and if the person is all "Oh, I'm eating a donair to reward myself for writing a letter", then that's a spiffy expression of privilege I guess. But yeah, it's all psychology. If I think that I can get some future (significant) action out of someone if I don't tire them out about meat eating, then obviously it's the game-winning move. But if I cannot even convince a 'liberal' to choose chicken over beef when they're fine-dining the second time this week, then I daresay that it's strong evidence that they deserve the scare-quotes around the word. That meat is so intensely subsidized by ecological degradation, that to think "oh, this deserves my money" is pretty strong evidence that the person doesn't actually believe the underlying problem is true. These massive changes that ARE required are not going to make beef cheaper, or other damaging things, either. Not in any real terms.

Maybe you're just living in a different world, where people who're expressing concern about climate change are sufficiently pro-active to offset their damages. But I don't think so. I don't think they're entitled to the damages they're causing.

I understand where you're coming from with nearly all of your post, but this bit at the end is what I find concerning.

You're blaming people for something that's totally ultimately out of their control. Individual choices about meat intake, however nuanced and moral, will not stop the animals being slaughtered. It will not stop them being stocked on the shelves (and then thrown away if not sold).

I don't agree with that kind of perspective.

I also don't know many people that user multiple purchases of something like beef a week (nevermind lamb). One joint could last up to two meals, for a family. The more common sale is mince though - easier preparation, more readily-available. I wish you the best of luck in personal activism, but I definitely think we're not looking (or talking about) the same demographics. And I definitely don't want to ruin this (good!) discussion by being at cross-purposes

 

[Zkribbler]

I have a solution to social security insolvency. Just remove the cap on income taxed.

Are you referring to the payroll tax? That's the source of funding for the Social Security Trust Fund.

My solution is to temporarily change the fund's income from 50% employees/50% employers to 40% employees/40% employers/20% General Fund. The General Fund's contribution can be stepped down as the Baby-Boomer-bulge dies off. Our numbers are what's causing the problems.

 

[Zkribbler]

- Get rid of a lot of zoning laws in major US cities; make it easier to build high density housing. The goal is to increase the supply of small dwellings, including sizes that are available in Europe and Japan but are uncommon in the US.

As aside: When I was little, Los Angeles was the second-least dense city in the US. Today, of the 50 most dense cities in the US, 10 of them are located within the L.A. metropolitan area. Single-family houses are rapidly being replaced by apartment buildings.

One the downside, a family's largest investment used to be in their home. Nowadays, folks live in apartments and have no investments at all.