Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)B

Barley_Man

@ Barley_Man @sopuli.xyz

Posts
1
Comments
56
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Removed

    Christians of Lemmy, how do you feel about the U.S. president posting an Al photo of him as Christ?

    Jump

  • It absolutely states that being gay is a grave sin and even calls for death for them in the old testament. However the message of Jesus in the new testament is one of radical forgiveness and non-judgement. Jesus is not afraid of those who commit sexual sins as seen by one of his companions being a prostitute. Jesus says to love everyone, forgive everyone and only hate the sin itself, but not the sinner. Judging a person is also considered a grave sin, something many modern christians have forgotten.

    Therefore there is absolutely a theological basis for allowing homosexuals to attend church, following Jesus example of himself hanging out with prostitutes, another kind of sexual sinner. And since Jesus tells you to love everyone and judge no one there is no reason to hate or shun a gay person. This also applies to other sins. If you rob a bank you can still go to church as well, with the same argument.

    However if you talk to a priest or pastor of a liberal LGBTQ affirming church and ask them if gays are allowed in the church they will shout a resounding yes. But if you press them on the question of if homosexual intercourse is a sin or not they will probably get uncomfortable and may give another answer. It's a very hard biblical reality to deny.

    However since you could in theory be gay and have a same sex partner and just simply not have sex with them you could give gay couples the benefit of the doubt. This is the basis for allowing gay marriage. However gay marriage stands on much more shakier grounds than simply allowing LGBTQs in the church, since marriage in the bible is explicitly stated as being between a man and a woman. Some prists/pastors however take a different route to justifying it and that involves reasoning that since God created all humans and some humans are gay, those people most have been created gay by god himself, and everything that God creates is good, therefore gays are good. This argument requires some reasoning outside the Bible but is used by many. Conservatives can attack such a stance saying it directly goes against direct bible quotes while also claiming one is not born gay but you turn gay by your own decision or others influence. Gayness would in this view be a free will sin rather than a god creates attribute.

    I'm writing this comment as a non Christian who supports LGBTQ btw. Just trying to explain what I know about the discussion.

  • Fox News analyst blames low birth rate on teens not having enough kids

    Jump

  • I don't know the reasoning of that fox news analyst. But it is true that the declining birth rates are to a large extent due to less teens and early 20s women having kids. The amount of late 30s and 40s women having kids has actually increased in the same period. Kinda ironic how the young single moms conservative media have been shaming and demonizing for decades were actually the ones keeping the birth rate up. And now that they are far fewer suddenly that's a problem as well.

  • How do you look upon the future in regards of climat change? How do you imagine your life in the coming distopie?

    Jump

  • I live in a place where there's 5 months of winter with real snow. I work in agriculture and the short growing season is a huge limiter on what can be produced here and with what yield. Most people here wouldn't mind it being a bit warmer. Say having 3 months of winter instead of the usual 5. And in my industry at this specific region the farmers are actually looking forward to climate change and have already started benefiting from it. New crops are already entering that were not possible before. And farmers can now start harvesting grains in August while only 10-20 years ago september was the norm. All science-based projections predict yield increases for all crops here.

    From a purely selfish perspective I should celebrate climate change. Farming here will just get better and if farming elsewhere gets worse the price for produce produced here will also increase. But while it's good for my career and maybe even my own enjoyment of the weather I would never say I look forward to it. The huge amount of future misery in the world that is and will be caused by climate change is not worth any improvement in this absolutely tiny piece of the planet I'm on. Still I take comfort in knowing I'll be alright. As long as the affected regions of the world don't invade mine...

  • Why hasn't bamboo taken over the world?

    Jump

  • Palm trees are monocots and are therefore related to grasses, however they are not grasses themselves. Monocots are a really broad group though. Kinda like saying a certain animal is a mammal. Important distinction but still very broad.

  • Why hasn't bamboo taken over the world?

    Jump

  • Trees are not a taxonomic group. It's rather a description of characteristics the most important of which is having a woody trunk. For example there are tree legumes and non-tree legumes. A species of tree can therefore be more closely related to a non-tree than to other trees. However it's totally true bamboo is not a tree. A grass could in theory however hit all the characteristics that are required to be tree and would then be considered as such, however no such grass happens to exist.

  • Why hasn't bamboo taken over the world?

    Jump

  • Bamboo is kind of a tree in this case which is an area I know more about and I think many of these factors would apply to bamboo as well. First forests used to actually be more rare than today before humans came along. Europe and North America was covered by endless plains which were grazed by huge numbers of ruminant animals. Any tree that would try to grow would get grazed before it could grow so tall that the animals couldn't eat it anymore. That's why grass thrives in such an environment, it's practically made to get grazed. Once cut it quickly grows back again. Once ancient humans came along and hunted most of the grazing animals extinct forest suddenly started spreading like crazy until almost the entirety of Europe was forested (which was then to a large extent deforested again after agriculture was invented). Grass simply can't compete against trees for sunlight. Therefore I would expect less or none bamboo in areas with a huge grazing wild life populations. And I don't mean animals that would eat the leaves, but the ones that would eat the new seedling.

    Another thing that limits trees is moisture. In general the drier the climate the less beneficial it is to be a tree. That's because deep roots are of no benefit in dry climates (but they are of huge benefit in humid climates during drought). Grass which generally have very shallow roots suck up all the rain before it can penetrate deep into the soil while deep tree roots never get any significant amount of water. Trees handle drought well but constant dryness is very detrimental for them. Dry areas also tend to have wild fires which also hamper trees. It's simply better to be a grass (if moderately dry) or a cactus like plant if it's extremely dry.

    Another factor is soil conditions. Now I don't know what soil bamboo prefers but I doubt it's all soil. Soil can have huge impacts on things like pH and water availability. For example in far Northern Europe where I live you can tell that you are standing on sandy soil if all around you are spruces and pines. If you however see lots of leaf trees you are probably on a silt and clay soil. This is because conifers handle both dry and sour soil better than the local leaf trees which leads to more conifers on sand. Bamboo is probably also limited to a certain soil condition.

    I hope that can at least help you develop more theories on why bamboo is not everywhere. Something important to remember is that just because a plant can grow well in a certain location doesn't mean it will be found there. That's because plants are always in fierce competition. I bet bamboo if intentionally planted and cared for could thrive in lots more places than its found naturally, but it just happens to not be the best plant in that location, meaning it's outcompeted over long time scales.

  • "It could break us": Valley farmer says Chinese tariffs have crushed the alfalfa export market

    Jump

  • Alfalfa is drought tolerant compared to other forage legumes like clover. This means that during drought the alfalfa will fare better and also yield better than clover or a grass like Timothy or blue grass. However as you can see pasture is also on that list you linked. Fodder crops are harvested for their entire biomass above ground and the amount of biomass is very large. It's a very productive crop and makes a lot of fodder and this fodder is mostly water. Therefore it takes a lot of water to grow. The water required is not extreme in any way however and where I live alfalfa is a rainfed crop that only very rarely has any water deficiency symptoms. The extreme amounts of water applied to alfalfa in the south east of the USA is only because of the desert climate there. Growing beans, corn or potatoes there also requires insane amounts of water. If potatoes were chiefly grown in the desert southeast you bet you would see news articles going around about how terrible potatoes are. In the end it's only a matter of matching the right crop to the right climate. Even the most water hungry crop on earth will not require irrigation in the most rainy place on earth.

  • "It could break us": Valley farmer says Chinese tariffs have crushed the alfalfa export market

    Jump

  • Alfalfa is a great crop. It has deep roots which store carbon in the soil, it is drought tolerant, it's high yielding and it's nitrogen fixating meaning it improves the soil quality and does not require nitrogen fertilizer which normally is a huge carbon footprint. Overall fantastic crop if you need fodder for ruminant animals. The big problem is farming it on an absurd scale in the middle of the damn desert. Alfalfa does not require irrigation in regions with ample rainfall.

  • Dude, what's wrong with Reddit?

    Jump

  • Largest problem with manure, including human manure in this case, is the algal blooms that result from the phosphorous and nitrogen getting into water. That can cause eutrophication that can cause the collapse of entire ecosystems. But of course with proper sewage treatment this risk is minimized. You peeing in the lake while swimming is more akin to the bush by the lakeside dropping leaves. However when it's an entire town's untreated sewage then it's a whole other issue and the results can be catastrophic.

    But yes 1 tonne of pure tensides is much worse than 1 ton of poop. However poop tends to come in humongous quantities which is where the real problem lies.

  • Dude, what's wrong with Reddit?

    Jump

  • When it comes to toxicity to water life you have to think of the dose. If a rose bush sheds a few petals and it falls to a lake will anything bad happen to the life in the lake? No absolutely not. That happens naturally. The petals will quickly decompose and become nutrients that will feed the ecosystem in the lake. However if someone would drop a dozen truckloads of petals in the lake then that would be way too much organic matter for the ecosystem in the lake to handle. But some shower gel is never gonna come close to that. It's more gonna be on the magnitude of the bush shedding some petals naturally in the lake. Same with the essential oil. Concentrated essential oil can be quite toxic to both human and other life. But in dilution it's something else completely. A natural rose bush will evaporate tonnes of essential oil straight into the air during its whole life time and nothing takes damage from it. That's why you can smell a rose plant when standing next to it. Dilution is sometimes actually the solution. A single drop of essential oil into the sewer drain once a day would not cause any negative effect at all when it's diluted with tonnes of shower, toilet, sink and even industrial waste water. Diluted it won't damage any life, especially since essential oils are biodegradable.

    Also think what else gets down into the sewer. In most places your toilet and your shower are connected to the same system. The poop you put in your toilet is multiple magnitudes worse than anything you could use while showering. If your waste water treatment plant can't even treat the poo then you have bigger problems then anything you could put into your shower gel. If it's good enough to treat poo however then it's good enough to treat whatever's in your shower gel.

  • Apparently I've forgotten how to pack in calories. How can I get proper food for a physical labor job?

    Jump

  • I don't have data to quote here but considering heart problems were rare back in the day when butter, lard and tallow was used in generous amounts in combination with obesity being rare and daily labor was common, I would assume it would be mostly fine. Heart problems in non-overweight people are rare even today, especially at younger ages.

    There are also 2 new high quality studies out there showing milk fats being significantly safer for heart health compared to other saturated animal fats. I can link that study for you on request. However you wouldn't need to use butter for your potatoes necessarily. You can oven bake potatoes in rapeseed oil or olive oil just fine and get the same calories in, if you happen to be afraid of milk fat that is. Finding a milk alternative would be harder however since the seed and nut oils out there are generally much less nutrient dense than whole milk. The exception would be soy milk but then you have to be careful not to get a version full of sugar.

  • Apparently I've forgotten how to pack in calories. How can I get proper food for a physical labor job?

    Jump

  • When trying to gain weight (or simply not go minus as in your case) the method will be the opposite of what is needed to lose weight. I have helped someone with this in the past and what I saw as his greatest trouble was that he would get too full to eat more very quickly. I asked about his diet and it was just full of foods which are very filling without actually containing many calories. Lots of fruits and vegetables with almost no carb and no fat.

    So really what you need are easily digestible and not too filling calorie rich ingredients. Think lots of grains and fat. Buttered potatoes instead of air fried potatoes. Carrots instead of lettuce. White pasta over whole grain pasta. Cream or mayo based sauce instead of a stock/water based sauce etc. However still try to eat healthy. If going for bread take the white bread without added sugar for example. And still include vegetables but don't make them over ⅓ of your plate. I have read many success stories with adding heavy amounts of dairy to the diet which makes sense since milk is there to grow a calf as fast as possible. Drinking a package of milk a day is almost a miracle cure to being underweight if you can stomach it. In fact the medical food packs they give to malnourished children are dairy based. Consider it if your diet allows it.

    However what specific meals which are convenient to bring I don't have many ideas. But I hope this mode of thinking will help at least a bit. It has to be a big portion that you can actually stomach. Think about which foods you seem to be able to eat a huge amount of and then narrow those down to the most calorie rich. They also have to not clog your stomach for the whole rest of the day so being easy to digest is also key.

  • Was your own birth a good thing for you and would you have chosen to be born today?

    Jump

  • Calling it selfishness implies one only does it for himself/herself and no other reason. I don't think that's always true. At the same time it's not a totally selfless act either. For me it has to be a positive to both me and the child or else it wouldn't be worth it. Currently I can't know if the child will enjoy life or not. But if I somehow knew the child would only suffer in life I would absolutely refuse to have that child. But I can't know and that makes this complicated.

    I think I can connect this back to the comment I made about adoption. I could adopt a baby and be just as happy with that as if I had a biological one because to me that is a comparable experience. However I wouldn't adopt a violent and problematic teenager. Doing so would probably decrease my life quality and endanger my and my partners life. For the calculation to work I want both me and the child to have good lives. I admit it's not a totally selfless act. But it's not a totally selfish act either.

    For the ideological stuff I don't have that as a main reason personally but brought up because I think it's important in a broader perspective. It's absolutely true that one parent's ideology has a huge influence on a child's future. The Amish for example has only ¼ of those born in the community eventually leaving. And how many join the Amish? About zero. It's a religious movement solely run by those born into it. However the high rate for the Amish is extraordinarily high when looking at other religions and this is because ones ideology is not only influenced by one's parents but by one's community as well.

    There are a lot of people who were born in conservative or religious households and only left that ideology when they started interacting with people outside the family, for many that's highschool or College. Internet as well in today's era. The Amish keep so many because they have their own closed community. However think about it like this. If only one category of people had kids of ideology x. Then all kids would start out with that. In addition they won't talk to people with a different ideology at school or college or maybe not even youth oriented internet because all other children were also born into ideology x. Suddenly they end up in a bubble and converting them would be much harder. For any other movement but ideology x it would be an uphill battle. Again having children for this sole reason would be stupid in my opinion. But it was a worrying thought of mine when I see through the statistics of who is actually having children nowadays.

  • Was your own birth a good thing for you and would you have chosen to be born today?

    Jump

  • Are there really that many kids who need adopting? What I have heard there are far fewer domestic kids who need adoptive parents than there are people willing to adopt if you are looking at young children under 3. This causes a lot of people to adopt internationally which is insanely expensive, often very dubious ethically and a bureaucratic nightmare. A lot of source countries for adoption have banned international adoption in the last years making the supply lower than ever. Adopting internationally does not mean you're giving a child a home who wouldn't otherwise have one. No you're just competing against other prospective parents. The child would just get adopted by another family.

    What is available domestically and where one can actually do real good are older children, mostly male, around the ages 12-17 who come from abusive households. The people who adopt from this category are real heroes and do enormous good to the world. However this is a totally different endeavour that not all are able to tackle. Many of these kids are violent, criminal and may despite their young age already have drug addiction problems. It really is a lot and is often a real physical threat to the adoptive parent. I have considered it but right now I'm not ready for it. It also closes the possibility for your own biological children in the future because having a violent older step sibling can ruin your childhood and I wouldn't want to do that to my kid. Maybe when I'm much older I'll consider it. Those kids deserve loving parents too and arguably need them more than anyone else.

  • Was your own birth a good thing for you and would you have chosen to be born today?

    Jump

  • I really regret to hear that you feel that way about your own existence. I really don't want to cause someone to exist who then regrets their own existence in such a way. I would be very interested to know what went wrong in your life and what your parents could have done differently. Or is it perhaps not the fault of your parents but the world at large that is to blame?

  • Was your own birth a good thing for you and would you have chosen to be born today?

    Jump

  • Of course that's true. However what is the conclusions of this? Should our long unbroken line of ancestors who reproduced end or should it continue? That's the big question of it all.