How can you possibly think the US military, or any sovereign country, will magically spend an extra $165B a year on meat a year if all of the current consumers magically go vegetarian? Who exactly is going to eat a bunch of extra meat? There will just be fewer meat sales, period, ignoring a short term price drop if everyone magically goes vegetarian on the same day.

How does empowering working class people solve the consumption issue though?

The key here is that it’s a vote for the most popular of the 2 candidates based on the votes of who bothered to vote for them specifically, then further butchered via the EC. It’s a smaller, different pool of people that may elect someone that the actual majority prefer less, because part of the actual majority decided to play a different game entirely.

Well said. A vote for Biden is a vote for his entire administration, including all the judges and secretaries and people behind the scenes. These have proven to be overwhelmingly competent people and the roles are absolutely critical. Trump has openly said he’ll purge the entire federal government and replace them with lackeys. It’s about more than just the man.

No, it says “not necessarily per product unit”. Your characterization of the abstract is incomplete as it doesn’t definitely state what you’re claiming it states. It’s also a euro meta analysis, not a US analysis, so extrapolating your oversimplified conclusion is even more of a stretch since we’re talking about the USDA. I’m more concerned about carbon, water use, pollinator collapse, and a host of other metrics than NOx (which is a function of diesel emissions standards and crop yield, and can be fixed independently).

I’m not saying the system isn’t stupid, I’m saying that blindly applying for every credit offer carries risk in and of itself. Plus hard credit pulls will temporarily hurt credit scores anyway. I just wanted to caveat that piece of advice for folks because I think being cautious and intentional with personal finance decisions makes more sense.

Filling out every loan offer is insanity.

How is accelerationism a “long term plan that thinks beyond cutting off your nose to spite your face”? There’s no long term plan at all, it’s simply a false hope that people will rise up when things get shitty enough, and from those ashes some kind of utopia will sprout. That’s not a plan at all, that’s just a dream.

You seem to be conflating two entirely separate things here. The idea of protesting in general and any individual protest about topic X are entirely different things, only related by the fact that the word protest is in both. Same for all your other examples - you can support a women’s right to choose but be against abortion personally because those are two entirely different things that are logically compatible. This is not the case for defend/support the constitution itself, because there’s only one meaning of the constitution in this context.

The people I know with expensive trucks still get everything delivered anyway. There’s always some excuse why their super versatile amazingly useful truck isn’t quite the right tool for the job, but somehow it’s always the right tool to drive around town to their office job or the grocery store. Literally makes zero sense, ever.

I think it’s just statistics. I’m a 6’4" dude, which is 99th percentile. A 5’9" woman is also pretty close to the top few percentile (I’m too lazy to look it up). There just aren’t that many of us, so it’s much more likely that they’ll end up with average size partners. I’m just guessing, I can’t see what’s actually going on down there.

That was 2014.

Gen X is actually worse off from a lead poisoning perspective than boomers because lead is much worse for babies/kids than adults. I saw a cool graphic once but can’t find it. Here’s a boring article though.

https://news.fsu.edu/news/health-medicine/2022/03/08/fsu-research-team-finds-lead-exposure-linked-to-iq-loss/

Seems like we’re stuck in a loop here then. I think you need an engaged populace first to build momentum around political and societal solutions. Which society do you think will force the government to actually solve the problem - a bunch of soft apathetic people blaming everyone else, or a society that at its core actually values sustainability and lives it on a personal level? Pretty sure you know the answer.

You’re basically saying that human culture doesn’t exist. We can foster a culture around sustainability, just like we have previously fostered a culture around greed and excess. Apathy and trying to minimize nudges towards sustainability only support the status quo.

They’re also typically embraced by fossil companies, selling both the disease and cure. If they can socialize the costs of sequestration they can keep drilling for profit. We are in desperate need of a carbon tax.

It’s mostly high fructose corn syrup, which shouldn’t even be a food. Stubbs is vastly superior since it uses real sugar and molasses.