esailija

> Each side must maintain standards, rather than just choosing the cheapest options.

People don't have infinite money. In fact 4.5 billion people don't make enough money not to be in qualitative extreme poverty[1] let alone enough money to be able to freely choose options that are not cheapest. Extremely small portion of total people have any actual freedom to choose options other than cheapest.

> Consumers must verify that production is sustainable

Such verification is impossible as it requires infinite time and perfect information. It is always cheaper and more profitable to lie about sustainability than to actually be sustainable. When one hole is fixed 10 more holes appear.

1. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/07/5-myths-about-global-...

Every "wallet voter" is in a kind of "prisoner's dilemma" with each other where it won't do anything if they stop unless everyone else stops too. But if everyone else stops then they can continue. Everoyne is aiming to be the one who can continue while everyone else stops thus nothing happens. Every collective downside of any consumption (and because of requirements for infinite growth there is always collective downside no matter what) will always go away if someone is the only one doing it.

So you cannot see or understand the system by looking at an individual. System that divides people into making rational individual decisions (called free market economy) without any real way to conspire co-operation is always going to result in something that is irrational for everyone as a whole. Everyone has to "defect" and for every person you convince against their self-interest to "co-operate" there will be 10 more "defecting". If you want best possible overall result you need entirely different system like centrally planned economy which for example walmart and amazon already uses.

If you attempt to fix the system instead changing it entirely you will just end up making it worse because of regulatory capture. The fault I described cannot be fixed because it would be contradictory to the very foundation, so instead of actually fixing anything it will make the system even more unfair and perverted.

There is no evidence that markets reflect what people want. It's just religiously taken for granted.

Even though I shouldn't try to disprove anyhting that hasn't been proven in the first place. Think about this:

When anyone purchases anything there will always be a million things they would disapprove about the product (how it's produced, how its workers are treated, how environment friendly it is, how much advertisers lie about it, what the company does with profits, does the company use unfair competition practices, does the company avoid taxes and so on and so on) but purchase it anyway because there is no alternative. The critical error and monumental stupidity is to use this purchase as a signal of approval of everything the consumer actually disapproves of.

Nice job dehumanising anyone who is not well-off enough to afford risky investments. Vast majority of people who participate in this system will never be able to own shares by design. So 80-90% of people are not the public?

It is misleading (actually a total lie...), here's the list:

https://sfoconnect.com/sites/default/files/SFO%20Approved%20...

As you see, it is not about flavored water or brands, it's just about plastic-free container. https://sfoconnect.com/zero-waste-concessions

How would you argue for it then? Let's take a similar "defense" in some unrelated scenario that we have some distance from.

Let's say someone demonstrated that they are a xenophobe, inevitably someone will call them "racist" because it carries more rhetorical weight and is effectively the same thing (using arbitrary unrelated quality about someone to justify discrimination).

Now their "defense" will be that "no no, I am a xenophobe not a racist". How do you effectively convey that this is a bullshit defense and the connotations of racist apply equally? Without going into nuance where you will lose most people... :(

Yes in a vacuum and out of context, those are vastly different words with different meanings. That's how the original commentator is trying to fool you who stop at that without considering the actual implications.

For this context in reality "unlikely" and "impossible" are the same thing, barely a distinction definitely without a difference. It makes absolutely no concrete difference. But you ignored this point of my comment.

Actually he probably meant that 100 million are being used to redirect efforts and resources destructively. Your argument can be used just as well to defend an "investment" of 100m into efforts to dig up aluminium, turn it into dust and throw it into oceans.

If "good choices are likely to lift you out of poverty" like OP claims, it logically follows that "you are unlikely to be poor if you make good choices".

"There will be cases where it doesn't work" let's say that means 99%/1%. So the statements become "you would have 99% chance to be lifted out of poverty if you made good choices" and therefore "you have 1% chance of being poor if you make good choices". Whether you believe it's 1% or 0% the behavior will be the same. If a smoker gets lung cancer you will blame their smoking everytime even though there was a 5.8% chance that it was not smoking caused so 0% and 5.8% is not any different, why should 0% and 1% be?.

You say there is a "big difference" but logically they are exactly the same claim. Also, no need to "recommend" making "good choices" any more than you need to recommend breathing.

Having your ear wax not removed quickly will not cause permanent tinnitus, that's ridiculous. If tinnitus is caused by ear wax it will be gone after removal.

It is the removal process that can cause permanent tinnitus[1], like ear irrigation done incorrectly, which would be your doctor's fault.

I have 2 different permanent tinnitus caused by improper ear irrigation (one by a nurse and one by myself), one is low freq thumping and one is like crickets. I use some kind of ear wax softener daily hoping I won't develop blockages again and risk more tinnitus.

1. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2ca6/54e2df68d4e3509cdafbc4...

This is some seriously ridiculous mental gymnastics (continuum fallacy). Someone who never flies is now responsible for the environmental impact of those who fly, because specifically their lack of flying is not canceling any flights (or preventing any flights from happening)?

They do but 500 times slower.

Ok, of the carbs in white bread here there is 0.6% sugar. That's completely negligible and now what I'm referring to at all. I am talking about added sugar where it will be 10-20% of the carbs in the white "bread" (I consider that pastry :D).

Sugar is 50% glucose 50% fructose while white bread is only long chains of glucose, unless sugar was added to it too (only a thing in the US AFAIK).

I cannot find any mention of youtube in the link, it seems to be about facebook.

The view that free speech should protect you even from the most trivial consequences like being banned from a private platform is completely unreasonable and ridiculous. Doesn't matter that there are people that hold that opinion, that's a weak argument for it.

One is about creating violence and hate against certain races, other is about reducing violence and hate against a race. They couldn't be more dissimilar.

Setting impossible standards only keeps you believing what you want to believe and what you already believe. It's logically equivalent to blind faith, you believe what you want to believe rather than what has most (even if imperfect) evidence.

You are forgetting that your status quo belief also has to come from somewhere, and its quality of evidence is probably worse than those alternatives you are attacking for not being good enough to change your belief. If it was better you would present it.

Even if a fossil fuel company did the right thing, unfortunately all it takes is another fossil fuel company doing the wrong thing so that the end result is the same. The only difference is that the companies who did the right thing just get screwed. You need regulation to force every company to do the right thing so that no 1 company can screw it for everyone else.

The scientific consensus is that climate change is happening and that it is human caused. Being "skeptic" about this is like being a flat earther. Baseless skepticism is not any better than blind faith.

Well, everything you said is false:

"Among the most-cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused."

I didn't say low standard of evidence has higher odds than high standard of evidence.

Low standard has higher odds than no standard of evidence or no research at all. High > low > zero. By what logic could you claim that low = zero or zero > low?

Yes, it is? Science does not guarantee knowledge in any field, it's only supposed to increase the odds. Are the odds of getting true knowledge in this field increased compared to the alternatives (I.E. people just arbitrarily claiming stuff based on personal anecdotes?) Then it's the best we have in that field and rationally you have no reason to believe the claims of knowledge acquired from worse methods over the better alternatives - just like it works in other fields.

Chronic reflux, constipation, nocturnal urination etc also make these diets unsustainable.

As buff vegan the proportion of buff vegans among vegans is probably the same as proportion of buff non-vegans among non-vegans. You have to be braindead not to be able to figure out what to eat as vegan to grow muscle, in the worst case I guess you can go to factory farmers who have mastered the art of growing muscle from plants..

That doesn't include the needed protein, fats, vitamins and so on. And it is even completely wrong unit, it is the calories in food that matters not its weight.

Yes stopped reading there as everyone going vegan would actually plummet the demand for industrial crops because eating them directly is order of magnitude more efficient than eating them through inefficient proxy like meat. Any time one eats 1000 kcal worth of meat they are effectively eating 10000 kcal worth of soy/maize.

I used keto diet for first 1.5 years after diagnosis. It only suits sedentary lifestyle, what you can eat is very limited and I got a lot of issues like severe constipation and acid reflux. Blood glucose was virtually always in normal range (meaning non-diabetic) and very easy to control though.

Now I just do a lot of strength training which ensures my muscles are almost always in a state of glycogen deficit. In that state they can absorb glucose from blood without any insulin which makes having normal blood glucose levels easy even when eating all the carbs (so I can eat truly normally and without the digestion issues). My hb1ac tests are the same as they were when using keto diet (healthy person values, not diabetic values).

Metabolic processes create unavoidable waste heat so the wet bulb temperature doesn't even need to reach 37. It starts to get dangerous already at 30 and 35 will kill any healthy person after a few hours even if they don't move at all.

That cannot be even kind of right. You need to grow and ship 10x more food energy and protein in the form of plants ("vegetables"?) just to have the necessary feed. That's just to make feed (ignoring water and raising altogether) and it's already absurdly more wasteful than it would have been just to eat the plants directly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_efficiency#Ten_perc...