brortao

Fairphone[1]

[1]: http://fairphone.com/

Sorry, I phrased that wrong. I meant that they've voted Tory in one (and a half) election, so 6 years - like nmeofthestate wrote, there's a good image on the website linked.

It happens on both sides, but my feeling is that the No campaign is hard to outdo when it comes to spreading fear[1].

Fair point about "think of the children" - though I'd say that it happens on both sides[2]. Not that there's a lack of arguments for independence - again, the Wee Blue Book I linked to above presents them quite well!

[1]: http://wingsoverscotland.com/when-youre-happy-and-you-know-i...

[2]: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/01/scottish-independ...

It's really exciting to follow this referendum, even if purely from a democratic perspective (out of the last 68 years, Scotland has voted Conservative for 6 years, but has had Conservative governments for 38 of those years). The No campaign has a difficult job, because it's not easy to sell the status quo - but they've essentially resorted to fearmongering, and it looks like people are starting to see the lack of substance. I think that theweebluebook.com presents the argument for independence quite well.

I think in this case, it's the quality of meat that's the issue. But there's another very important issue with meat: it's one of the most inefficient forms of sustenance. Animal agriculture is the single largest source of greenhouse gases - larger than the entire transport industry, including planes. It takes 11 times more fossil fuels to create 1 calorie from animal sources than from plant sources.

I'm sorry for linking to a PETA page (especially since it's a very buzzfeed-y one), but [this page][1] has links to a lot of good sources.

[1]: http://www.peta.org/features/meat-climate-change/

I think this serves as a good example of (one of) the issues with animal testing. The scientist in this article doesn't think that we need to "redo decades of animal research", but it certainly casts doubt on previous results.

In general, testing on animals isn't effective. Considering the amount of suffering it inflicts on animals, I'm not sure that it's morally defensible. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection has a [good resource][1] on the issues.

[1]: http://buav.org/humane-science/key-criticisms/

Not any healthier than vegetarianism. http://www.chooseveg.com/health

There isn't exactly a lot of evidence that plants feel pain or can suffer in the same way that animals can. Even if they could, you'd still be minimizing the amount of killing by not eating meat, since animals have to be fed.

At the current rate of consumption, it isn't likely that animals will be treated better. A "better implementation" isn't going to happen for a very long time (in the US, 99% of animals are factory farmed [1]). Demand is at such a high rate that it isn't financially feasible to eliminate factory farms. There's also the environmental aspect - meat is very resource-intensive, and a huge source of pollution [2]. A UN report from 2010 stated that "a global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change." [3]

This goes not only for meat, but for animal products in general (the dairy and egg industries cause just as much, if not more, suffering than the meat industry).

Eating meat can be morally justified if it's done in a humane way, I think. The problem is that unless you have your own small-scale farm, it's almost impossible to find animal products that aren't the result of suffering. I don't find it very likely that things will change unless we, as a society, move towards a (much) lower consumption of animal products.

[1] http://www.farmforward.com/farming-forward/factory-farming [2] http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-wastes... [3] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report...

But individuals have a part to play. Individuals contribute to cultural changes, which are really important when it comes to fighting climate change and hunger.[1] Being vegan or vegetarian, full-time or not, doesn't mean that you're not still a part of the problem. But I think it's fair to argue that it's a step in the right direction.

I do think that veg*ns being judgmental of others' diet is worse than doing nothing, because it alienates a movement that could potentially be very good for our planet.

[1][http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report...]

there's a huge imbalance in the gender distribution at tech conferences, i don't see how trying to make it more equal is sexist.

London attracts a lot of internationals because of opportunities for education & employment. That's why the ethnic English population is less than 50%. It's important to note that the >50% of internationals are not all muslim, at all.

When it comes to birth rates, they vary a lot depending on a family's country of origin. Take Pakistan: in general first generation Pakistani immigrants do have more children than Europeans - but after a generation or two, the demographic pattern is very similar to that of the host country.

There is a radicalisation issue, but it's dangerous to start implying that all or most muslims are "hostile to the US" or "Jihadi". It's a very small minority, and especially in England. Almost a quarter of the world's population is muslim, they're just regular people. It's xenophobic to assume that they all hate you.

As well as the fact that once enough of your classmates have Dropbox, its collaboration features and shared folders will really shine. Once you've worked on a group project without having to email files back and forth, you never want to go back.