Randomness thread, part two.

[wufwugy]

i hate all the hair on my body except legs, arms, top of head

[bikes]

i hate all the hair on my body except legs, arms, top of head

i hear there's a solution to this problem

[wufwugy]

it's a shitty solution

[rong]

The Volvo Van Dam ad is pretty cool.

[jyms]

A little bush is also fine. People are eating out less these days thanks to the recession

This is completely the opposite of my views. Less is better but a little is a lot, and I am eating out far more now than I did in my 30s. It's actually a huge preference of mine these days. I like a clean workspace.

[Renton]

I know the common argument is "but it's just so nasty to get pubic hair in your mouth while doing oral" but who eats out anyway?

Get with the program dude. Eating out is awesome and if your girl isn't a shitty person it should increase your blowjobs per week by like 400%.

[Chelle]

Get with the program dude. Eating out awesome and if your girl isn't a shitty person it should increase your blowjobs per week by like 400%.

from a wimmens perspective - this is true.

[Lukie]

http://gawker.com/mom-gives-kids-hom...52056057849628

wtf?

[Chelle]

http://gawker.com/mom-gives-kids-hom...52056057849628

wtf?

do. fucking. what.

lol. wow, just fucking wow.

[Lukie]

do. fucking. what.

lol. wow, just fucking wow.

Yeah, it popped up on a friend's facebook feed and I was immediately skeptical (always being aware of fake/made up/satire news stores and photoshops and all that) but it looks legit.

Like potatoes, carrots, milk, and fruit isn't enough carbs in one meal. And why is the government/school district telling parents what to pack and fining them, however small an amount, for not following through? I could almost (almost) understand if the guidelines weren't so rigid and nonsensical.

I mean beef, potatoes, and carrots is a pretty damn good meal, light years ahead of what most kids are eating in schools at lunch.

[boost]

Yeah, it popped up on a friend's facebook feed and I was immediately skeptical (always being aware of fake/made up/satire news stores and photoshops and all that) but it looks legit.

Like potatoes, carrots, milk, and fruit isn't enough carbs in one meal. And why is the government/school district telling parents what to pack and fining them, however small an amount, for not following through? I could almost (almost) understand if the guidelines weren't so rigid and nonsensical.

I mean beef, potatoes, and carrots is a pretty damn good meal, light years ahead of what most kids are eating in schools at lunch.

Yeah, I agree with pretty much all of this.

Lukie, being so knowledgeable on nutrition, can I ask if you know of any difference for kids vs adults? Are heavy carb diets that big of a deal for a kid? I know very little, and I don't just want to know about that specific question, but I am more wondering if parents are making the mistake of extrapolating guidelines for their children's diets from things they've learned about adult nutrition.

[Renton]

I don't think nutrition is an exact science and I'm immediately skeptical of anyone who does. Most sources correlate carbohydrates with easily metabolized energy so my educated guess would be that children should eat significantly more of them than adults, considering they probably have a more active lifestyle and are growing on top of that. Long story short they should probably just eat a little more of everything though.

[d0zer]

Guys chill out it's just Canada. And Manitoba at that.

[bikes]

Guys chill out it's just Canada. And Manitoba at that.

start apologizing on behalf of your fellow canadians.

[Galapogos]

Guys chill out it's just Canada. And Manitoba at that.

Yeah, Manitoba is like Canada's Canada.

[Galapogos]

He still got it imo



Cocaine is still a hell of a drug though

Rob Ford did one too -

[Galapogos]

Let me imbed my video dammit!

[Chelle]

shit. i'm all caught up on american horror story. son of a damn bitch. so far this is my fav season.

[Galapogos]

Fixed it!

Hey FTR, your video embedding is broken if you try to edit it in after your post.

[jackvance]

Let me try that.

edit:

[Galapogos]

Let me try that.

edit:

Doing pretty much what I did before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NRdXOr-uYlU

[Galapogos]

Looks like it doesn't like the additional arguments in the URL. The second video is a more basic one. The site rewrites out your youtube tags as "video=youtube;youtubevideolinkidhere"

Whatever they use to parse the youtube link and get the youtubevideolinkidhere must get confused when there's additional arguments.

[jackvance]

Doing pretty much what I did before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NRdXOr-uYlU

Use this button:



EDIT: And delete all unwanted crap after "http://www.youtube.com/watch?" to only have "v=[11 characters]"

[oskar]

http://video.bobdylan.com/desktop.html

[wufwugy]

Fantastic piece. The short of it is that most people know their jobs are bullshit, and it tries to explain why the economy is made up of so many of those bullshit jobs

http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

[Renton]

Fantastic piece. The short of it is that most people know their jobs are bullshit, and it tries to explain why the economy is made up of so many of those bullshit jobs

http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

I'm sorry but that article is 100% bullshit. It's just such an infuriatingly facile argument. Basically he says that anyone who doesn't make a tangible thing has a bullshit job. And anyone who does a service that is related to the finance sector or to a large corporation is a bullshit job because, well who the fuck knows why? How about a divorce lawyer? How about a banker? Do we not need people to arbitrate disputes or approve loans to businesses?

The 15 hour workweek concept is stupid also. Keynes's prediction completely ignores the concepts of economic growth and comparative advantage. Work hours have remained consistent or increased since the 60s but standards of living have also dramatically increased. Automation has removed the need for some of the more menial jobs and resulted in the human capital being used to greater ends, economically speaking.

To me that's just another anti-capitalist anti-corporate op-ed with no logical arguments. I'd me glad to hear your rebuttal to this, wufwugy.

[wufwugy]

I'm sorry but that article is 100% bullshit. It's just such an infuriatingly facile argument. Basically he says that anyone who doesn't make a tangible thing has a bullshit job. And anyone who does a service that is related to the finance sector or to a large corporation is a bullshit job because, well who the fuck knows why? How about a divorce lawyer? How about a banker? Do we not need people to arbitrate disputes or approve loans to businesses?

The 15 hour workweek concept is stupid also. Keynes's prediction completely ignores the concepts of economic growth and comparative advantage. Work hours have remained consistent or increased since the 60s but standards of living have also dramatically increased. Automation has removed the need for some of the more menial jobs and resulted in the human capital being used to greater ends, economically speaking.

To me that's just another anti-capitalist anti-corporate op-ed with no logical arguments. I'd me glad to hear your rebuttal to this, wufwugy.

It doesn't sound like you read the entire article. He's describing a observable phenomenon, but also says that it appears to be in line with how things are supposed to work. He also addresses the issue you raise about Keynes, which is accurate. It's precisely because of growth (among other things) that a lot of jobs appear to be more non-essential in the traditional view

You won't find me post anti-capitalist or anti-corporate things anymore. We don't talk politics or economics on this board much, so you haven't heard my views, but it's fare to say that my understanding of the issues are always improving

[Renton]

I read the article. I found it very difficult to read because I disagreed with every word, but I didn't want to bash it publicly without having read it so I persevered.

The guy has basically made it a matter of taste (his own of course) which jobs are necessary and which are bullshit. And he cites anecdotes to prove his flimsy claims. Just because some people in corporate law hate their jobs, that is now a bullshit job. The subtext is that he finds consumerism distasteful and therefore he molds the world to meet his narrow world view. People who are in corporate law make an assload of money because there's a great demand for their services compared with the supply. Big corporations that need their services exist because they get assloads of money from the vast majority of people in the world. They get this money because their services are essential to society to maintain the stratospheric standard of living we all enjoy. The only bullshit jobs are those that are created by the system through a self serving feedback loop. Income tax filing agent is a bullshit job. The secretary of agriculture is a bullshit job.

[wufwugy]

I read the article. I found it very difficult to read because I disagreed with every word, but I didn't want to bash it publicly without having read it so I persevered.

The guy has basically made it a matter of taste (his own of course) which jobs are necessary and which are bullshit. And he cites anecdotes to prove his flimsy claims. Just because some people in corporate law hate their jobs, that is now a bullshit job. The subtext is that he finds consumerism distasteful and therefore he molds the world to meet his narrow world view. People who are in corporate law make an assload of money because there's a great demand for their services compared with the supply. Big corporations that need their services exist because they get assloads of money from the vast majority of people in the world. They get this money because their services are essential to society to maintain the stratospheric standard of living we all enjoy. The only bullshit jobs are those that are created by the system through a self serving feedback loop. Income tax filing agent is a bullshit job. The secretary of agriculture is a bullshit job.

I think you read his intent differently. He's not approaching this from a moral perspective. For example, he comments about how those in corporate law make assloads because they're valued by those with the drive to value it, but they're not jobs that feel to have any essential value and exist as a part of the system. This is largely a psychological piece as well. I wouldn't read it from the perspective that it's a hamfisted slam

[boost]

Renton, I agree the author is full of it in a lot of ways and wears his bias on his sleeve.

That being said, I think it is an interesting topic and shouldn't just be brushed aside because he's more or less an idiot.

As we do move away, from working on projects which yield easily identifiable, tangible results, I think we will have more and more people who feel their job is "meaningless." I see two branches of inquiry stemming from this assumption. Firstly, in an economy with a declining manufacturing force/"traditional job" force, is this sense of "meaningless work" in the growing sectors real or imagined? Meaningfulness is difficult to quantify, and I wouldn't know where to start, but that doesn't invalidate the question. Secondly, how do we adjust our economy to inspire workers to find meaning in what they do? Maybe we do need to make some sort of effort to reorganize the workforce so that they are doing meaningful things, or come up with new, fulfilling ways for disillusioned workers to do the tasks they intuitively feel are meaningless.

[boost]

This popped into my head. It's more a question for Renton, but obviously interested in what others have to say:

Can you not imagine that capitalism's fatal flaw is automation? On the far end, away from automation, there needs to be labor for people to produce or procure their basic needs. When an individual is powerful enough to control the land needed to produce and procure these essential needs, he can prop himself up on the shoulders of the labor force. At the opposite end of the spectrum, when everything is automated, no labor is needed, and the masses need not support the elevated lifestyle of the "land owners". It's a symbiotic relationship, and so the "land owners" have incentive to keep the labor pool busy.

I know I'm painting with broad strokes here, and I'm not even terribly sure of my point, but I think the idea is interesting enough to throw it out there.

[wufwugy]

I don't think that's a fatal flaw of capitalism. In fact it's a perk. But what is needed for a strong capitalist state is a sensible welfare state. Every single successful capitalist state in the history of the world has also been a welfare state, and the strongest ones are also the biggest welfare states. Welfarism was originally a conservative idea and the first welfare state was by a conservative government

[Renton]

Automation is a universal good. Human capital is limited and the more of it that can be freed the more productive we'll all be. People who rage about how jobs are being "taken" by automation, immigration, or outsourcing are ignorant to basic economic concepts. We should welcome and encourage the fall of the manufacturing sector in America because manufacturing jobs are low-productivity. We're above that work. Just from being born in this country with no skills at all, our time is already worth too much to waste on manual labor. Outsourcing is a universal good. It creates short-term problems in that we have a labor force that is deficient in skill at the moment, but in the long run America will prosper from this, because our displaced labor force will move into higher productivity positions than before. And I suspect we wouldn't be having as many labor-related problems if policy-makers weren't fighting this inevitable change.

I'm rambling but basically boost there's no way the "all automation" end of your spectrum would ever come to pass. Wealth/growth approaches infinity as we approach that point, IMO.

[wufwugy]

^^ I agree. People have a hard time transitioning to the tertiary and quaternary sectors (tech and services/professional services) from the secondary (manufacturing). We can do it, but it requires many things including education and a mindset change. Even then, there's still ample room for growth in manufacturing, but it requires an educated workforce. Americans are straight up not as educated as they think. Germany, for example, has their education system geared towards preparing a bunch of its citizens for the manufacturing sector specifically, and they have the best high-quality one in the world

Also, about the article, I think the observation is sound when you compare it to what has happened in the workforce in 09 and on. Lots of jobs and hours cut, yet productivity increased. A significant point he had was about how it's that this happens that people have the sorts of jobs where what they do don't seem to really matter to the company. People get laid off all the time and their workloads absorbed or eliminated.

[boost]

First long paragraph may as well be read from a brochure on the topic. Maybe my question is poorly stated.

I'm wondering if there is possibly some sort of inherent flaw at the intersection of mass automation (very low number of jobs with tangible, recognizable output) and the way we are wired. Is it possible that capitalism itself isn't flawed, but that when we apply the system to ourselves, we eventually reach a point which our reward circuits don't properly respond to the types of accomplishments we're making. Or alternatively, if it's possible that the end game of capitalism creates a workforce primarily preoccupied with fulfilling desires and not needs, which leaves the workers with the feeling that their job is meaningless.

These are not simply economic questions, yet their answers could drastically impact the economy.

[boost]

^^ I agree. People have a hard time transitioning to the tertiary and quaternary sectors (tech and services/professional services) from the secondary (manufacturing). We can do it, but it requires many things including education and a mindset change. Even then, there's still ample room for growth in manufacturing, but it requires an educated workforce. Americans are straight up not as educated as they think. Germany, for example, has their education system geared towards preparing a bunch of its citizens for the manufacturing sector specifically, and they have the best high-quality one in the world

Very true and good point about German manufacturing.

Also, about the article, I think the observation is sound when you compare it to what has happened in the workforce in 09 and on. Lots of jobs and hours cut, yet productivity increased. A significant point he had was about how it's that this happens that people have the sorts of jobs where what they do don't seem to really matter to the company. People get laid off all the time and their workloads absorbed or eliminated.

I never thought about downsizing like this. That's gotta be ego crushing. If your position is obsolete, than for how long had you been toiling away, and at what level of obsolescence, before some mid level management team, on a fat trimming mission, had you land in their Excel cross hairs?

[wufwugy]

First long paragraph may as well be read from a brochure on the topic. Maybe my question is poorly stated.

I'm wondering if there is possibly some sort of inherent flaw at the intersection of mass automation (very low number of jobs with tangible, recognizable output) and the way we are wired. Is it possible that capitalism itself isn't flawed, but that when we apply the system to ourselves, we eventually reach a point which our reward circuits don't properly respond to the types of accomplishments we're making. Or alternatively, if it's possible that the end game of capitalism creates a workforce primarily preoccupied with fulfilling desires and not needs, which leaves the workers with the feeling that their job is meaningless.

These are not simply economic questions, yet their answers could drastically impact the economy.

I think most of these problems are solved by a booming economy. When employment levels are full and social mobility is achievable, people view life hopefully and they view the job world as a way to make things better. They believe they're making progress and working towards what they truly want. Even if they have to start in a job they don't like, in a full employment environment, that doesn't last long until they move up and a younger person has the job.

Part of me believes we will be able to live in this sort of great economy. The problems since 08 have put progress in understanding on the subject in high gear. The populous messages are still mostly wrong (harmfully wrong), but the professionals who make the decisions are learning. I have hope that we're looking forward to a time when the Fed keeps monetary policy smooth as a baby's bottom, business taxes are low while consumption taxes support a welfare state for the poor and middle and those who fall down, all the silly regulations are cut while the more sound ones are encouraged. The future of business looks better now than it has ever been, what with Google, Amazon, and Elon Musk. Fucking 3D printers. We'll get software patent reform sometime, and shit will blow up.

I'm hopeful. I do share Renton's concerns about populous messages being disconcerting. But I'm not entirely concerned since the populace is virtually always wrong on issues that require expertise. Yet here we are, overall making progress over all these years, decades, centuries

[Renton]

Or alternatively, if it's possible that the end game of capitalism creates a workforce primarily preoccupied with fulfilling desires and not needs, which leaves the workers with the feeling that their job is meaningless.

Perhaps, but who's to say what constitutes a need? I need internet to not go insane, but internet didn't exist 30 years ago. New needs emerge. Perhaps in 2150 or something every person in the world will be able to afford a psychiatrist, and will not be able to function without one. Our standard of living changes over time and it correlates with the increase in the wealth of society.

I think that end game would be pretty much a utopia. If we could automate systems to produce abundant food, water, shelter, and energy for all, then everyone would be free to work on getting us some telepathy and faster-than-light travel.

I don't doubt that there could be psychological ramifications like you are talking about, I just think that it's a bit narrow-minded and ultimately shortsighted to place special importance on the "tangible, recognizable output." I'm sure Honduras exports an absolute shit-ton of tangible bananas for the world, but I'd rather have the GDP of the porn industry occupying a square mile of the San Fernando valley. And anyway, I need porn, too.

[boost]

Ha, thanks for humoring me and tackling my question.

One thing Renton, I still think you're focusing more on the economic aspect of my question. I'm not fixating on the "tangible, recognizable output." I'm asking if this is an important aspect of worker morale, and if so, how do we negate it's negative effects in an economy which produces very little in the way of "tangible, recognizable output."

[Renton]

Ha, thanks for humoring me and tackling my question.

One thing Renton, I still think you're focusing more on the economic aspect of my question. I'm not fixating on the "tangible, recognizable output." I'm asking if this is an important aspect of worker morale, and if so, how do we negate it's negative effects in an economy which produces very little in the way of "tangible, recognizable output."

Yeah I think its human nature to subjectively favor the tangible, and I don't know of a solution other than just telling them to see the bigger picture of their contribution. I also think what people find rewarding about their work will vary, and I don't see any inherent issue with doing a job for the money it pays. It's not selling out if doing the job allows you to finance your other hobbies and passions, of if it pays so well that you have more time off to enjoy those passions. I'm sure people with bullshit corporate law jobs can find fulfillment in wrangling loopholes in the law and be rewarded by that just like a poker-player is rewarded by the feeling of outsmarting his opponent.

[Chelle]

One of my fb frands posted this. I cried. I think I'm a weirdo. Not like ohgod bohooogomgomg. Just like, a few tears cause damn it's good to be reminded of amazing ass fucking shit in the world.

[boost]

Yeah I think its human nature to subjectively favor the tangible, and I don't know of a solution other than just telling them to see the bigger picture of their contribution. I also think what people find rewarding about their work will vary, and I don't see any inherent issue with doing a job for the money it pays. It's not selling out if doing the job allows you to finance your other hobbies and passions, of if it pays so well that you have more time off to enjoy those passions. I'm sure people with bullshit corporate law jobs can find fulfillment in wrangling loopholes in the law and be rewarded by that just like a poker-player is rewarded by the feeling of outsmarting his opponent.

Yeah, man, I totally agree. I think, because of our history, you auto-think I'm pushing some commie agenda, and I snap-think you're selling a libertarian utopia. Heh..

The topic just sparked my interest, and I started to wonder if there is some sort of way to re-imagine this type of work in a way that would significantly boost morale, and therefore boost productivity. For example, one of the most fascinating stories I've heard takes place in a factory, sometime around the depression (not sure if before or after); productivity had dropped to a new low, so management stepped down onto the floor to investigate. They found that there was dismal lighting, and figured they'd brighten the place up, which would hopefully brighten the morale. It worked like a charm... until it didn't, and productivity started to decline again. So they said "screw it, we're not paying for the extra electricity if it's not increasing productivity!" They took out the new lights and to their surprise productivity jumped back up. The workers just craved change, and a simple fluctuation in lighting throughout the year was enough to satiate this subconscious want.

[jackvance]

Could this be the new youtube now that google keeps messing up? They sure look like youtube.

Also, the japanese are trying to make their women obsolete. How real she looks with certain emotions is downright scary.

http://vitaminl.tv/video/1121?ref=rcm

[boost]

Oh. Snap.

They beat the breaks off that dude.

[jackvance]

Oh crap I linked the wrong video. This was the scary humanlike robot one:

http://vitaminl.tv/video/568?ref=fbs

[boost]

Sexbots; the future is soon.

[Lukie]

Sexbots; the future is soon.

Make sure you keep your antivirus software up to date.

[Renton]

https://twitter.com/rickygervais/sta...67098795155456

[wufwugy]

https://twitter.com/rickygervais/sta...67098795155456

Hmmm

I'm unaware of this particular situation, but hunters are more responsible for conservation of wildlife and habitats than hippie city liberals who think holding a sign with a catchy phrase is getting shit done.

It's counter-intuitive, but the data is pretty strong. Conservation seems to work best when the hunt is valued and regulated. The evidence on the issue spans the globe, and it's the sort of thing where you kill 10 to save a 100. Paradoxical, but how it works.

On a related note, there's a buttload of wild pigs/boars in Texas that need to be slaughtered. They do nothing but cause billions (pretty sure it's billions) of property damage. They're not good eatin, all they do is fuck things up. IIRC hunting them anywhere is legal, and some organizations will even pay for the expenses of hunters who come out to kill them. But every time any headway gets made on culling the population, a bunch of people whose feet only know what pavement feels like cry animal rights violations.

[Renton]

I just thought gervais made a funny jab. I'm not particularly passionate about animal rights.

[wufwugy]

Oh I'm passionate (as much as an internet warrior can be) about animal rights. Not torturing animals is an animal rights issue. Killing them is not, especially if it's a part of a conservation effort or if they're well-treated livestock. If you could raise a cow from the dead, one that lived on an outdoor range and ate and stood/walked around other cows all day then was slaughtered swiftly, and asked him if he would do it all again, he'd say yes. It's the shit like keeping animals in cages or chained up that needs to stop

[Savy]

Oh I'm passionate (as much as an internet warrior can be) about animal rights. Not torturing animals is an animal rights issue. Killing them is not, especially if it's a part of a conservation effort or if they're well-treated livestock. If you could raise a cow from the dead, one that lived on an outdoor range and ate and stood/walked around other cows all day then was slaughtered swiftly, and asked him if he would do it all again, he'd say yes. It's the shit like keeping animals in cages or chained up that needs to stop

You can't feed nations with meat if they are all kept in lovely humane conditions. It's either have them caged up like chickens or don't eat meat. They're realistically the options for national food consumption in most contries.

[d0zer]

I'm unaware of this particular situation, but hunters are more responsible for conservation of wildlife and habitats than hippie city liberals who think holding a sign with a catchy phrase is getting shit done.

This generalization is much more true for conservation in America, where regulations and population monitoring are far more present, than it is in Africa.

Lion populations have been in decline in Africa for decades, and though I think only one type is considered endangered (and I have no idea if the lion whats'er'face killed is endangered). Regardless, it's pretty obvious why to the liberal crowd this is the political equivalent of farting on a baby. Not that whats'er'face cares about dem' 'libertards'.

[d0zer]

You can't feed nations with meat if they are all kept in lovely humane conditions. It's either have them caged up like chickens or don't eat meat. They're realistically the options for national food consumption in most contries.

Or you could have less than horribly inhumane conditions, have the price of meat increase to reflect this, and maybe people will eat less high-calorie meat and use more land-efficient and healthier calorie sources like legumes. Let's be honest: it wouldn't kill westerners to eat less meat and more beans or lentils. Don't get me wrong, I fuckin' love meat but it's hard to justify the brutal conditions for animals in factory farming simply for cheaper meat. Nobody will starve if a double cheeseburger costs even twice as much.

[wufwugy]

This generalization is much more true for conservation in America, where regulations and population monitoring are far more present, than it is in Africa.

Lion populations have been in decline in Africa for decades, and though I think only one type is considered endangered (and I have no idea if the lion whats'er'face killed is endangered). Regardless, it's pretty obvious why to the liberal crowd this is the political equivalent of farting on a baby. Not that whats'er'face cares about dem' 'libertards'.

I concede I do not know the Africa situation, but I would like to make one point: if this lion killing is a part of an African industry that attracts foreign tourism, it is likely to be a part of some invested conservation interests. However, it may not be if the situation is too destitute or unregulated. But if Africa were to conserve its lion population, it would probably involve hunting them for sport.

I have a hard time picturing this particular range (if it can be called that) is a part of a larger poaching, depopulating problem. If there is enough foreign interest in hunting lion, and if the African government and business interests have enough power, we can be pretty sure that they're trying to turn this into a profit, which means that conservation of the species is of paramount importance

[wufwugy]

You can't feed nations with meat if they are all kept in lovely humane conditions. It's either have them caged up like chickens or don't eat meat. They're realistically the options for national food consumption in most contries.

I am unconvinced of your argument. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you want to convince me, you need to expound

[wufwugy]

Or you could have less than horribly inhumane conditions, have the price of meat increase to reflect this, and maybe people will eat less high-calorie meat and use more land-efficient and healthier calorie sources like legumes. Let's be honest: it wouldn't kill westerners to eat less meat and more beans or lentils. Don't get me wrong, I fuckin' love meat but it's hard to justify the brutal conditions for animals in factory farming simply for cheaper meat. Nobody will starve if a double cheeseburger costs even twice as much.

Honestly, I find it a specious argument that not chaining a milk cow to the floor cuts into profits. Livestock are naturally raised in areas where land and labor are the cheapest. It's hardly more expensive to have a little more space and a little more labor. The reason the problem exists in the first place is that the decisions are made by those who never visit the ranches, so they are aware of no factors other than corporate accounting statements. There, a nickel is a nickel, even if it's a nickel that doesn't really matter

[Savy]

I am unconvinced of your argument. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you want to convince me, you need to expound

I'll look up all the stats tomorrow if I cba. But basically most land used for "humanely" farming animals is better used growing crops. It's hardly a well kept secret though if you do some research into it you'll find it easily enough.

@Dozer not really. If the demand is there for meat it doesn't really matter how high the cost is going to get relatively because it's about how valuable the land becomes rather than how productive. If meat becomes a high cost good that doesn't mean the land would be used for something else it just means rich people would pay more for it. It also would probably lead to some really horrible conditions for people to get meat in the first place now they can no longer afford it.

And the worst thing is people really would starve if a cheeseburger cost twice the amount it does. Really shitty food is what a lot of poor people in western countries are fed on.

[wufwugy]

I'll look up all the stats tomorrow if I cba. But basically most land used for "humanely" farming animals is better used growing crops. It's hardly a well kept secret though if you do some research into it you'll find it easily enough.

As you can see, there is not much overlap. On the periphery, there appears to be some overlap, but the maps don't account for gradual changes in climate. The western regions of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are not encroaching on great farmland even though the maps suggest so. You can see this with the Dry Line, where the wet Gulf air runs into the dry western air stripped of moisture by the mountain ranges. Also a region known as Tornado Alley.





Urban geography tends to not allow for misuse of the hinterland. Livestock and crops thrive on different landscapes

[Renton]

Personally the distinction for lion killing for me is if you did it with your bare hands or weapons you created by hand. Making a spear out of bamboo and flint and slaying a fucking lion is badass and should always be allowed.

[d0zer]

It's hardly more expensive to have a little more space and a little more labor.

It's expensive enough that the free market has decided that it's more cost efficient to have as little labor and as high animal densities as possible. So much so that it's more cost efficient to give routine antibiotics than it is to space them out to the point where they don't need these antibiotics. You use the "free market will sort it out" argument on african conservation but can't see how the same force has created factory farming?

[wufwugy]

I should add that there is an unusual region in Iowa that cuts into some of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois, called the Driftless Area, that was not smoothed out by glaciers. Its geography is rocky and unlike traditional farms and ranches

[wufwugy]

It's expensive enough that the free market has decided that it's more cost efficient to have as little labor and as high animal densities as possible. So much so that it's more cost efficient to give routine antibiotics than it is to space them out to the point where they don't need these antibiotics. You use the "free market will sort it out" argument on african conservation but can't see how the same force has created factory farming?

I didn't deny market forces in either scenario. The markets are a real thing, but they're not perfect.

My argument was certainly market oriented, but not exclusively so. I'm not sure there exists any examples of long term conservation efforts -- even in the realm of so-called right-wing hunting -- that aren't regulated for by a government

The issue of abused livestock in America is a fantastic example of the insufficiency of markets. In some areas, markets work the best when completely free (gambling), regulated for health and safety (food), or controlled by an iron fist (bazookas).

[Savy]

Urban geography tends to not allow for misuse of the hinterland. Livestock and crops thrive on different landscapes

Really I'm just practising my reterick to attrack a qt hipster vegan gf. If you know any please send them my way. Unfortunately they still need to shave and shit.

[d0zer]

I didn't deny market forces in either scenario. The markets are a real thing, but they're not perfect.

My argument was certainly market oriented, but not exclusively so. Conservation requires some serious governmental regulations. I'm not sure there exists any examples of long term conservation efforts -- even in the realm of so-called right-wing hunting -- that aren't regulated for by a government

The issue of abused livestock in America is a fantastic example of the insufficiency of markets. In some areas, markets work the best when completely free (gambling), regulated for health and safety (food), or iron-fisted regulated (bazookas).

I just talked with wiff about this who's infinitely more educated than I and probably you on the subject...and she actually kind of agreed with you, citing regulations for laying hens in the UK, where they basically were able to improve conditions for the birds at an initial cost, but once industry adapted, they were able to bring down costs to pre-regulation levels. She included the caveat that this is an isolated example for laying hens, and we haven't done this with other forms of livestock.

Arguably we haven't tried much to do this much yet, but as awareness and motivation grows, we just might find ways to have our cake (steak?) and eat it too.

Still, there's always resistance from industry initially, as it means upfront costs to change existing systems.

[wufwugy]

Really I'm just practising my reterick to attrack a qt hipster vegan gf. If you know any please send them my way. Unfortunately they still need to shave and shit.

Tell her that if she was really a vegan, she would have many sleepless nights from the b12 deficiency induced insomnia. If she doesn't like this, tell her it's the gospel as told by a former vegan

[wufwugy]

I just talked with wiff about this who's infinitely more educated than I and probably you on the subject...and she actually kind of agreed with you, citing regulations for laying hens in the UK, where they basically were able to improve conditions for the birds at an initial cost, but once industry adapted, they were able to bring down costs to pre-regulation levels. She included the caveat that this is an isolated example for laying hens, and we haven't done this with other forms of livestock.

Arguably we haven't tried much to do this much yet, but as awareness and motivation grows, we just might find ways to have our cake (steak?) and eat it too.

Still, there's always resistance from industry initially, as it means upfront costs to change existing systems.

Yes the cost is really just initial. It's similar to the ISP issue. They have little competition and little accountability, so they refuse to upgrade at initial costs. This will be their doom, however. Just like how the refusal to innovate is the doom of virtually all established powers.

The biggest threat to incumbency is the incentives of that specific incumbency

[wufwugy]

TIL a night is 4 minutes

[Savy]

Why was Bill Oddie upset when he went to the American Football?

Because he wanted to see the Superb Owl.

(Best joke ever because neither audience will understand it staight away)

[rong]

Personally the distinction for lion killing for me is if you did it with your bare hands or weapons you created by hand. Making a spear out of bamboo and flint and slaying a fucking lion is badass and should always be allowed.

So much this. I mean if you can track a lion on foot, sneak up on it, wrestle it to the ground and strangle it with your bare hands then I can see a well deserved sense of pride and achievement. But if you just shot it, so what? Anyone could do that with q little practice. But even in the first case I can't see why you'd want to do it more than once.

[Chelle]

So much this. I mean if you can track a lion on foot, sneak up on it, wrestle it to the ground and strangle it with your bare hands then I can see a well deserved sense of pride and achievement. But if you just shot it, so what? Anyone could do that with q little practice. But even in the first case I can't see why you'd want to do it more than once.

yep.

[Lukie]

It seems like we are encouraging the next Darwin Award winner. Nice work everyone.

[wufwugy]

What? You don't think I can take a lion? I'll show you

[rong]

Wuf, Steven segal could take a lion.

[Savy]

So much this. I mean if you can track a lion on foot, sneak up on it, wrestle it to the ground and strangle it with your bare hands then I can see a well deserved sense of pride and achievement. But if you just shot it, so what? Anyone could do that with q little practice. But even in the first case I can't see why you'd want to do it more than once.

I don't really see how this is any different to shooting it except you have some macho I can beat up a lion bullshit.