slothtrop

In the secular world in the West, even human life in itself isn't considered sacred, as exemplified by sentiment on abortion. The moment we pop out into the world though, we assume personhood and are protected by the social contract.

Scales with population growth, and immigrants don't come to the U.S. just so they can eschew meat. I don't see what's unsustainable about it. Land-use has barely budged. At any rate if the population didn't grow, the demand wouldn't either. As it happens, global population growth is projected to stall in less than 100 years.

Growth in the 1st world means more emissions and land encroachment, until innovation catches up. Electricity is being abated with renewables, but not concrete, ammonia, plastics, etc. There's no free lunch, if we want the juicy GDP growth, that's the price.

> again - the percentage of meat that comes from these conditions is so small as to be virtually irrelevant in the context of the animal agriculture industry

There's the consideration of our own personal choices and options having a place in the conversation, and the other consideration of prescription for improving conditions and/or emissions.

I've seen what better farms look like and I disagree. It most closely matches what consumers want and expect. Suffering is non-zero because it necessitate slaughter, but not as egregious as in commercial agriculture.

In other words, there is a threshold of suffering consumers are ok with.

There are ways to assess whether a product meets one's standards. They may not be your standards, but it would meet the median for consumers.

I can purchase poultry from a local farm that has an on-site health inspector, where chickens are free-range. In ovo sexing is coming later for eggs. On the poultry side, life in battery cages by far leads to the most suffering. Absent that, given the right conditions, I find the poultry inoffensive and most consumers would too.

I agree there should be legislation, and that has been happening at the state-level.

It's not a good argument against UBI, but there are better arguments against UBI.

I don't see the significance of this.

Now, but the argument concerns development over the 20th century, not the current makeup.

The odd one out in this assessment is India, because it did some similar things (land reform) without success. A difference might be that India sheltered businesses from foreign competition and didn't encourage and invest as much. Another, is that you need caste connections to do business. Culturally I intuit that the upper-castes that controlled government were less interested in rapid nationwide progress, unlike the ideologues that led South Korea and China. They lived comfortable lives and hung their hats on that.

Malnourishment is also steadily diminishing. Effectively because food affordability improves as poverty diminishes. It's a good proxy.

Zoning and regulatory reform spurs more building including smaller, dense units, which lowers prices. There's a fantasy among leftists that developers are snubbing mixed-density and dense mid-rises because condos pay more. No one leaves money on the table. Everything is built on credit, and banks deem these builds riskier in large part owing to the impact of zoning and regs. Condos have a lot of overhead, which checks a lot of boxes, while this would be unaffordable for other units. They also ignore that there are small developers in cities that try to compete, but can't get loans, because of these regulations.

80% of people get out of homelessness on their own, seems like basically the same rate. How are they certain the initiative had any bearing on the long-term outcome? That's the part I'm not understanding. It doesn't seem to suggest it leads to a difference in rates.

That being the case, the value-added of free housing appears marginal compared to the cost. It would best target those who are a) chronically homeless, but b) neither addicted or mentally unfit to be employed, which sounds like a vanishingly small demographic. Mind you I take "effective" and desired outcome here to mean that they won't continue to roam out in the streets, either to be close to dealers or from being mentally unwell.

You had those moments. You could keep trying to chase that bouncing between different partners going forward, but consider: a) more women exit the dating market with age (especially the good ones), b) there is a richness of experience also to be found with a devoted lifelong partner which can't be had with a mere fling.

As time goes on, your odds of success are harsher either way, risking being alone much of the time. But in particular, good long-term prospects more rapidly diminish.

Opportunity-cost goes both ways. Speaking from my own bias and experience, investing and relishing in a life-long relationship with a flawed-but-loving partner is worth it, having had the non-committal phase when I was younger.

It's difficult to maximize for some characteristics in a partner. Beauty, sure, you know what you like so you can ball-park. Many traits/qualities are difficult to discern and luck-of-the-draw: reliability and trust, compatibility and love, capacity to raise children well, etc.

No one is perfect and there is no unicorn, novelty is attractive in itself. My heuristic is if a partner can be assessed as "good", holding on is the right move.

I think about Voltaire's Candide often, and the lesson applies here.

When searching specifically for metrics used in diagnosis, some choice words come up from med central:

"A challenge with diagnosing ADHD is that the characteristics associated with the disorder – such as difficulties with focusing, shifting/dividing attention, managing frustration, organization/poor time-management, working memory, and staying engaged – are common symptoms that could have a breadth of etiologies.

As noted, *more often than not*, ADHD coincides with another disorder. "

Then for narrow-band symptoms will list examples of neuropsychological measures like D-KEFS, and finding details for each of these is again like pulling teeth. But looking at the description, all of what is tested could be impacted by other issues, including instability in home life, lifestyle factors, anxiety and depression, insomnia, etc

What are they?

Conspiracy theorist anti-vax types exhibit "Big Pharma" skepticism, so media and pundits take great care to remind people of this. They want them to believe that they're picking a side in tribal politics.

edit: Another way it becomes left-coded is exhibited in this thread: victimization and grievance politics.

You might ask how I know I don't have it. No one really cared about other symptoms I exhibited: chronic insomnia foremost, and some anxiety. Once I got a handle on that with non-pharmaceutical interventions, my focus was fine.

And to the extent that insomnia was given any credence, it's to push pills. Generously you could say practitioners default to that because it's so often demanded by clientele, they want to just press a button to make problems go away. But they just don't bother giving you an alternative.

edit: would also mention, the first time I was diagnosed as a young child was because I was a bored daydreamer who didn't always pay attention to the teacher. This is what we're treating as a weakness to be rooted out.