primbin

joined 1 year ago
[–] primbin@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago

I tried for a while to make those small changes, but I always found it too hard to do, until I finally just decided to cut out all animal products one night, and I never really went back.

I think the difference was how I framed it, mentally. I always saw it as an act of willpower to not eat animal products, like I have to overcome my cravings in the same way I would if I was cutting calories. But quitting animal products altogether allowed me to frame it differently for myself -- instead of telling myself "I shouldn't eat this", I can just say "I don't eat this." Like, it's not on the table as something I have to consider. I don't even have to recognize animal products as food.

Maybe if you cut things out one at a time you could do a similar thing. Though one problem is that it's a series of changes and commitments you have to make, instead of just one thing. I feel like that could be harder, depending on who you are.

[–] primbin@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

The comments responding to you are pretty unnecessarily hostile, but I personally get where you're coming from. I personally think it's best to watch the thing so that you can be best informed, even if it's hard to do. Not even because of veganism being ethical, but because the fear of the unknown is a lot scarier than any documentary could be, IMO. Information is power, and having information (even distressing information) is empowerment.

Also, I loved meat too, but when I went vegan, I never really missed it. I was pretty worried about missing certain foods (one was sushi), but that never really happened to me.

[–] primbin@lemmy.one 10 points 1 year ago

Even if you accept the premise that so-called ethically raised meat is ethical, there's just not enough land to farm meat at the scale which people in developed countries demand it, unless it's factory farmed. Ethically farmed, free range animals require much more space than caged up factory farmed animals, and the grass they feed on requires yet more land.

That means that there's a limit on the supply, so I'm pretty sure that if someone tries to solve the whole animal rights issue by buying ethical meat, they'll only push the ethical dilemma on to someone poorer than them (the one who would be priced out, due to the increased demand). That person would then have to be the one to make the decision of whether to go vegan or to buy factory farmed meat.

Admittedly, I could be wrong about this? But I'm pretty sure that increasing land use of meat, whether by regulation or economic demand, would necessarily lead to increased prices, so I don't see how it possibly wouldn't just shift the problem on to the less wealthy.

[–] primbin@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

It's not exactly proof, but this graph seems to support that claim to an extent.

I don't think a recursively self improving AI (a la a singularity) is something that will be made soon, if ever, especially as we push the limits of available computing power. There's no such thing as infinite exponential growth in reality, as there's always an eventual limit to growth.

I think AGI, in some form, could possibly happen relatively soon (like next three decades or so), but I'm not sure it will be of the recursively self improving variety. Especially not the sort that magically solves all of humanity's problems.

[–] primbin@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

One thing to note, though, is that honey bees are likely a factor in declining native insect populations. Their ability to outcompete native species results in a direct decline in the populations and effectiveness of native pollinators in areas nearby where beekeeping is practiced.

I don't know much about hfcs production, though, so I'll have to look into that.

Sources: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2016.1641

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-41271-5

[–] primbin@lemmy.one 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am one of those people who's pretty concerned about AI, but not cause of the singularity thing. (the singularity hypothesis seems kinda silly to me)

I'm mostly concerned about the stuff that billionaires are gonna do with AI to screw us over, and the ways that it'll be used as a political tool, like to spread misinformation and such.

[–] primbin@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The alt-right is not right about this. The upper class does not want to make you eat bugs, nor does the left.

[–] primbin@lemmy.one 31 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Is there any way to validate these claims?

[–] primbin@lemmy.one 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think it could end up being a problem that we face in the future, but probably not an insurmountable one.

For one, I suspect that clean data sources will always be available, though it could become a lot more expensive to obtain. As an extreme example, you could always source your data by recording in-person conversations.

Also, as AI improves, I'm guessing it will be able to handle bad data more gracefully, and that it should be able to train to the same effectiveness while using a smaller dataset.

[–] primbin@lemmy.one 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I still use a dualshock 3, but I can settle for a dualshock 4. They're comfortable to hold, and the bumpers are easy to press, unlike clicky ass xbox bumpers.

[–] primbin@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

For something that isn't being promoted, I sure am hearing about it a lot

[–] primbin@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

I agree on all accounts. I currently have to force myself to use lemmy, through the unfinished apps and the slightly frustrating UX. If it wasn't for my belief in the core idea of the platform, I'd be back on reddit by now. If someone doesn't strongly care about decentralization or whatever, then I don't see why they'd stay here as it currently is.

view more: next ›