|
Nocturtle posted:It's taken for granted that most "miracle" drugs or cancer breakthroughs breathlessly reported in the media usually don't pan out due to the initial results based on statistically small samples or unforeseen difficulties moving from lab testing to actual implementation. People love the "medicine is fake' meme, but a lot of the drug breakthroughs you hear about totally do come out. There is tons of types of cancer that have gone from guaranteed death to 51+% survival rate. There is tons of types of cancer now where if you get it you are more likely to survive than die. Cancer treatment still sucks and having a high death rate sucks but the number of cancers and stuff that went from no real treatment to real treatable disease is really giant. Like there is absolutely overhyped medical news that just is nothing. But people overplay that card to try and pretend like all medicine is fake. All medical research is fake. Doctors lie all the time and they just want to pump autism in your kids and hype up fake breakthroughs that aren't even real.
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
golden bubble posted:A lot of that is probably just the old belief that there is a cure for cancer. But cancer, or uncontrolled cell replication, is not a single disease. It is like finding a single fix for "my car engine will not crank when I try to start it." But the whole war on cancer basically assumes there is a single fix for uncontrolled cell replication. Eh, I think there is a general culture of "medicine is fake". I think you get it overtly and in a big way with the anti-vax movement but I think the smaller cultural manifestations are stuff like the persistent belief all medical news is just fake and the claim that the news is always cooking up fake news about medicine. Like I'm not saying there has never been inaccurate or overblown hype about medical breakthroughs that never come out but I will say that people in general are trained to hear something happening in medicine then not hear about it again and automatically say "WELL THAT MEANS IT WAS FAKE" instead of ever investigating if maybe the story they heard was true and was developed and does now cut some sort of death down some miraculous amount. Like the super amazing AIDS treatments you hear about in the mid 90? A bunch of them exist and are drugs people get now and a bunch of people will live normal life spans with undetectable levels of HIV in their blood and never get AIDS.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Telling someone "the world is dying" isn't really actionable either. It has to be broken down into things they can do and impacts that will challenge their lives. Yeah, at a certain point certain apocalypse becomes an argument against environmentalism instead of for it. You have to at least pretend some problem is solvable and if it really isn't then it gets pretty silly to try and fight it and actually becomes the logical choice to just do whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
The Groper posted:I said "don't fly, keep your vacations within reasonable motoring distance if you must" about something last week and it derailed a thread, just lol into the wind and admit we're hosed without a butlerian jihad and only very slightly less hosed with one If that is the derail I am thinking of your placement of the claim people need to stay in their own place sure seemed like it had more to do with fear of having to interact with foreigners and less to do with airplane pollution.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Squalid posted:How much energy do you think you expended taking pictures of cats on six continents 5 to 7 tons of carbon over several years. Which is about a 5% increase over how much carbon on average I'd use if I hadn't done that. Which like, isn't ideal for the environment but also isn't so bad that it requires some sort of weird creepy hyper isolationist idea that no one should go to other countries and everyone just needs to stay in their own place. The idea people need to stay in their own country has some pretty strong and particular connotations.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Well, good thing The Groper didn't say or even imply that. Perhaps you should engage with things real people have actually said, rather than trying to read bizarre motives into simple statements. Saying people need to stay I their own country tends to be less about people saying I don't need to go to Africa and more about saying people from Africa shouldn't come here. More often than not.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Quite a leap to make in a climate thread! “Nobody should go to other countries” is An ideological position that people have way more often for reasons other than some environmental thing. It’s right to be suspicious of someone’s motives and if who they really care about stopping is me or someone else.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
What would a society that regularly treated 95th percentile problems as actionable in drastic ways even look like?
Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Most of the time the 95th probably doesn't equal extinction Is there any models where the 95th percentile is extinction?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Where the statistical analysis of climate models come out with some really severe outcomes at the extreme. I'm not sure that's human extinction, but a 8-10C world looks radically different from the one we live in, and not in a good way. It's tiresome how every step everyone has to add their own ratcheting up. Like the model scientists present wasn't enough so it has to be the 95th percentile, but then by the next post that isn't enough so it's some new thing where it's human extinction, then I'm sure the next person will say it's the end of all life on earth. Because I guess the actual original horrific outcomes weren't spicey enough for death porn? So it's just a new thing every post oneupping whatever the last person said?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Well yeah it's a culture problem in this thread. If you say climate change will cause the earth to explode no one will argue with you except me. As if there will be a solar system left for an earth to explode in, am i rite
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:every time i eat delicious brisket i think of this thread It's weird how the stereotype is always vegetarians who are pushy and always talking about vegitables but it is literally impossible for any internet message board to even mention eating less meat without people flooding in to post the same three super original "triggered yet libs?" posts about how much they are le eating le bacon right now and you can't stop them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:I have yet to eat a veggie burger that tastes even remotely like the real thing. Just covering the patty in artificial smoke flavor doesn't fool anyone. It feels unfortunate so many things got ghettoized as being "meat substitute". Like black bean burgers are just good. They should be a thing anyone buys and eats, but they generally are marketed as being for people that won't eat a "real" burger. And a lot of them are sold in a dull and plain way. Like menus don't normally have double bacon cheese black bean burgers. SInce the assumption is that the black bean burger is for healthy vegans. Like so many potentially good foods limited themselves by falling into "only for people that don't eat meat" instead of "anyone can eat this, including people that don't eat meat". Likewise a lot of things played up the healthy side in a way that limited their use for other things. Like there is little high calorie soy junk food 'meat' that people might like if they weren't looking for something that is more environmentally first and not caring as much about health aspects at that time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Vat meat won't overtake animal meat for decades if ever. Animals are cheaper than biochemists. Lard went from being a perfectly normal food everyone ate to a thing everyone treats as being rancid poison that someone would fear to even eat on a dare because proctor and gamble ran a super successful ad campaign treating it like dirty filth compared to the scientific miracle that is crisco that is pure and good and made of science. Like the idea lard is tainted or somehow unwholesome beyond any other random sort of shortening is a belief that is now passed from parent to child it's so deeply ingrained due to a really successful radio ad campaign. Same with the way people got turned on organ meat to only eating more expensive meats and being out right terrified of the organ stuff. You gotta have a product people like but if you do the opening is there to convince people your stuff is the good and clean and safe thing and the other stuff is filth that will poison and kill you. Organ meat is a totally normal thing to eat in plenty of places, but marketing and culture makes it a thing many people won't even dare to try. Lard is just another fat exactly as healthy or unhealthy as any other fat but if you make a pie crust with lard you might as well tell people you made it out of maggots. People can very easily get extremely soured on the concepts of meat for a "cleaner" and more "wholesome" alternative.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:*leans into mic* marketing is not the problem Marketing is the reason white people in england can eat kidneys apparently just fine but white people in the US can only eat muscle meat and eating kidneys might as well be asking someone to eat a cow pie. There is plenty of examples of people being just fine only eating a more expensive thing and not eating a less expensive thing because the people selling the more expensive thing do a good job convincing everyone the cheaper thing is scary and bad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
It's weird hamburgers became the target all meat substitutes went after. Like vegan sausage exists but all meat substitutes seem to exist to make hamburgers primarily. Go after stuff heavily flavored and mixed with other things why don't ya? Literally no one on earth would know if a pepperoni in a hot pocket was zero percent meat.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
Looking at this list of countries eating more beef or eating less because of economic troubles or political collapse you can find a few examples of counties that appear to have just cut beef consumption a meaningful amount in a small number of years willingly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Collective action would benefit from sort of system to formalize and mandate certain pro-social activities and restrict and potentially punish anti-social activities. Facebook likes?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
The "gently caress the earth"/"trigger libs" thing is definitely part of rolling coal but I'm pretty sure people would still do it it the clouds were totally harmless. It seems like every tinkering based hobby has the thing where you pick some thing that has some effect then tune the thing to do that the most to show off. Like nerds tweeking the memory timings on their computers in ways that would literally never impact the running of any application ever but is "fun" to show off it you are able to get yours more than the next guy. Like I get why it's fun to make a thing you know about do a thing it's not supposed to or do a thing more than someone else's and making the truck exhaust goes crazy seems a lot less obscure than like computer enthusiast stuff that I've done. If it was just black clouds of harmless steam or something I think they'd still do it just as much, the "gently caress the earth" stuff is just extra for people telling them not to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:It would be less expensive and less harmful to the engine to rig up a smoke machine that uses glycol/water mix to actually release harmless steam. Obviously it goes without saying that you would be made fun by everyone on both sides if you did this. Of course, I think people just overplay the "people do it because they HATE EARTH" or whatever, when it seems like it falls in line with the dumb stuff people do in every hobby and the hurting earth stuff is just an additional layer. Like I am sure they love that it "triggers libs" as an additional layer but it seems like it's so much like every single tinkering hobby having a bunch of "tune a thing to some extreme then show each other how good you did it". Like no one actually needs to buy 15 of the same motherboard to sort out which one does the smoothest electricity conversion so they can lower the timings on a memory module by one tiny step.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:No, you're wrong and they deserve death. Look, there are people that buy different engine parts and tool around to get the most horse power, and they take their trucks to tractor pulls and compete. If these purpose built trucks spew extra Co2 or soot at the tractor pull nobody thinks twice about it. This shows that your analogy is wrong because there is something fundamentally different between tractor pull trucks or truck racing and rolling coal. The difference is that coal rollers are doing it to be assholes and they're competing with each other to see who can be the biggest public nuisance. If you can name a thing that makes any sort of smoke you can find a youtube video of people playing around with making it make the most smoke possible, it doesn't seem like a thing limited to cars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhH9HJiBRX4 Like the people that roll coal are clearly bad but it seems weird when people attribute really weird and alien motivations to it where they are captain planet villans who hate gaia and are sitting around running very small scale attacks on her spirit or something when it seems pretty universal that people like to make and look at smoke for whatever stupid reason.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:A thought occurs: Wouldn't contact with any pathogen from another planet kill us all off the moment we come into contact with it? No? absolutely not? The norm is that diseases even from other animals don't cross to humans despite all animals sharing like 70+% of our DNA. It's basically unheard of for a tree and a human to be able to make eachother sick despite sharing 60% of their genes. A disease meant to infect an alien with zero percent shared dna (and probably something totally different than DNA or DNA that is translated entirely different or whatever) would have absolutely zero chance of infecting a human ever.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Well if they're carbon based and have vaguely similar biochemistry you could maybe have a general decomposer that can decompose earth organic matter. That's about it. When plants evolved cellulose it was a major crisis on earth that caused a millions of years long apocalypse where everything on earth began to die as plants sucked everything out of the atmosphere then died and laid forever unable to rot with everything stuck inside. And cellulose is just barely different than starch. Give it time and bacteria would evolve to eat aliens but time as in millions and millions and years, not days or weeks. There is barely any "general" decomposers that even do multiple really different types of carbon based life on earth. And even the few that did evolved to do multiple things, not just do one thing that works on everything.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What the gently caress dude Remember how someone earlier in the thread said if someone posted that global warming would exterminate all life on earth that someone else would be along to say it would cause the earth to physically explode?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
white sauce posted:It's important to remember that as we continue to see these horrifying trends pile up we must never Global permanent austerity programs are probably not going to be a workable solution for any problem
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:It's not a nice thought, but don't you think it will happen? (best case, assuming no extinction). In 2080, after catastrophic weather, famine and billions of deaths, the most brutal and insular first-worlders will be patting themselves on the back because they solved climate change. Until then, the bodies will pile up in ramps at the foot of the walls keeping the refugees out. is there any reputable model that predicts "billions" of deaths over sixty years?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:lmao if you think it'll take that long. Talking about mass death is different than talking about "billions", Like every single person in Africa and south america and oceania and the middle east could all die and still be less than 2 billion. And like if you are talking over a long time stuff could slowly tick up to 2 billion total deaths from all over the world then sure, but not in the next handful of decades.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
The future dystopia where 1/3rd of the world is uninhabitable and the future dystopia where all borders are closed and no one may travel both sound pretty much equally awful. Like I guess more people die in one than the other but I'm not sure I'm on board with the end goal of maximizing human biomass by stripping life down to absolute necessities of weird isolated island city states.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Besides, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is wondering what reasons are deemed important enough by Something Awful Forums poster MiddleOne to warrant annual air travel. Can you justify your existence at all in terms of resourced devoted to you in general? Can anyone?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Really? Because the second one wouldn't be meaningfully different from right now for most people, assuming that international commerce was still functional. I'm not at all trying to make an argument in favor of anything here, but it's really silly to decide that a third of the Earth being uninhabitable is equally bad to people no longer really traveling for leisure. Only 18% of americans have never been on a plane their whole life. You can say that doesn't apply to third world poor people but you can make up all sorts of terrible ultra draconian laws that wouldn't affect poor third worlders.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:de-carbonizing flight, it's about ending it altogether What does that even mean? Is the goal to reduce emissions or is the goal to lash up and punish "luxuries" abstractly and use carbon as a lie to justify it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:And about two thirds have never left the US So what? Banning international but not domestic flight sounds even more closed borders authoritarian hellworld. Most people in the US use planes. Also america's weird isolationist thing where no one travels or speaks multiple languages isn't exactly a good thing. More people having a broader view of what the world is beyond movies is probably not a bad thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:You're talking to someone who's bragged about flying to every nation in the world so he can take pictures of cats. Every continent so far, I'm working on every risk board region now. But yeah, ban literally every luxury before you prohibitively restrict travel to only rich boat goers. If someone does not have the resources fine, but anyone that chooses to spend thousands of dollars to "explore" Nirn over actually seeing the actual world they actually live in should be ashamed. It should be basically mandatory at a minimum that everyone who conceivably could visit at least one other first world and one other third world country in their life, if nothing else. A couple vacations won't magically make everyone a perfect paragon expert in anything, but it's near criminal to hunker down and declare whatever town you happen to be born in the whole universe and only experiance anything outside it by watching some dumb movies. It is nearly a responsibility of any person that lives on this earth to see as much of the variety of ways things exist as their situation makes feasible.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
self unaware posted:how privileged do you have to be to equate international travel being harder with "closed borders authoritarian hellworld" International travel is already too hard. The US is wildly too insulated. Americans are wildly too far from seeing other types of people and ways of life. We are already in the bad world where various factors make travel harder for people than it should be. Give everyone a state mandated 10 days off a year to go to the sweden so it becomes impossible for the news to claim migrants have made that a warzone with No Go zones and have anyone say "yeah, that sounds plausible"or whatever, not some lame "let's all aspire to become Jerome Webster from the huddling place" future.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Air travel is a perfect example of one of those first world commodities that people in other regions want to do a whole lot more of as they make it to the middle class. good, if everyone wants to do it then we better get busy shifting either the technology to make it cleaner or everything else out of the way to accommodate for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Tochiazuma posted:Are you going to mandate that when the masses of tourists arrive in these countries that they don't bunker down in isolated tourist traps? Because I seriously doubt that most tourists are seeing the 'real' Mexico, for example, when they head over to it. Do what you can within what your means allow you. It's almost infinitely open ended. Watching a french film in with your regular movies sometimes is better than never doing that, taking a day trip to quebec once is better than watching the movies, taking a one time tourist trip to paris is better than that, going to other parts of france and a trip to french speaking africa would be even better, living in those places for extended amounts of time would give even infinitely more understanding than visiting. Every step up is hugely richer and better and people should do what they are able. MiddleOne posted:Owl stop fetishizing the act of being abroad. No, it's literally the world we live in. There is no interest anyone should have that should be placed higher than their interest in the world and the people here.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Which is to say if everyone on the globe took up our coddled first world child's stance on air travel, then their grandkids are going to enjoy living off of jellyfish until they die of hydrogen sulfide poisoning. If the human race can get to the point everyone can see that everyone else uses the toilet really weird then we have done enough and can retire to a good death.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:It definitely does make you a more well-rounded and open-minded person, although it obviously depends on context. Jumping on a cruise ship and occasionally stopping at some port city is unlikely to teach you anything about those places. Hiking Machu Pichu or doing volunteer work in Africa however will change you for the better. I would say anything that expands anyone's personal horizons is always a net good for any person. Like someone coming back from their 87th cruise probably is getting pretty marginal returns in enlightenment from that but if someone has spent their whole life relatively sheltered even a very guided and minor stop in another city in another region is going to open their eyes more than they were open. Even a super safe cruise tour would extremely challenge the worldview of someone that for example had strong but totally nonfactual opinions about things that are or aren't possible in america. If someone is passionately arguing society requires a thing or can not function without it and you can say "marie, you've been a place like that, you thought it was great" and even that can be a huge deal for someone.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
self unaware posted:why do you need to fly to machu pichu to do that? No one that lives in the same town as you has a perspective or life experience as different from you as anyone that lives in rural peru does. (like, unless someone in your town flew on a plane to you from peru, I guess).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
MiddleOne posted:What about the interest of preserving that world by not unnecessarily polluting and destroying the planet through climate change? Where do you feel that scales on the priority list? Then work on ways to get travel to be cleaner and better for the planet. Otherwise it just looks like a really transparent attempt to push extreme isolationism under some false guise of "protecting the planet". Flight does create pollution, quite a bit of it, but if you are going to create X tons of carbon it's one of the best things as a person you could use it for. If there was a yearly carbon budget per person more spent on travel and less spent on other things would be a net good for the world. Also it is very obvious that if a wizard invented a carbon free plane a bunch of people would just move on to some new reason they suddenly decided everyone needs to stay in their own country.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 23:21
|
|
