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/)D

daniskarma

@ daniskarma @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts
3
Comments
915
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • What are your thoughts and feelings towards nuclear power?

    Jump

  • I think we are making big mistakes ditching it.

    Renewables have two problems that need to be complemented by other type of energy source.

    1.- they take a lot of land. As energy demand increases the amount of land taken is going to reach a limit. Then what?

    2.- Most renewables have low momentum. Mostly only hydro have great momentum. This is critical for net safety. My country recently falled into a total blackout among other things because our energy composition (high on renewables) had low momentum and couldn't handle some inestabilities.

    For a complementary energy source we have 2 options, burning coal/gas or nuclear. Out of two options I prefer nuclear Sadly every country that ditched nuclear because "renewables are the future" ended upping up their gas/coal consumption for energy production. Most famous example being Germany.

    I do think a mix of renewables and nuclear is the future we need to achieve.

    Sadly most western societies only look on the short term. And a good national nuclear plant is a long term investment, most governments won't look so far after the next election, so here we are.

  • People's Reaction to Birth Rates be like:

    Jump

  • I suppose the worst case scenario is old people having to work because they cannot retire as soon.

    They are already saying it that new retirement ages would be in the 70s

    Not ideal, but far better than starving or being homeless because you don't have resources for so many people.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Is one of each an option?

    If so, yes. It could be interesting.

  • I swear to god

    Jump

  • I wake up. I live in Spain without AC. I dissolve in my own sweat.

  • People's Reaction to Birth Rates be like:

    Jump

  • Lower birthrates are less an issue that people think.

    For any living being self replication can explode incredibly fast, and it's usually the case when numbers dwindle, due more resources available per person.

    Big birth numbers are more worrying and limited resources lead to fast "too little resources for everyone" situation.

    I remember reading that part of what took Europe our of the dark ages after the black plague was that survivors thrived in an post plague environment. Also remember reading that dutch population growth actually taller because after so many people died survivors got more meat and food in general available to them, so their children grew a lot.

    So in general I'm always more worry about high birthrates than low birthrates.

  • Storage?! In this economy!?

    Jump

  • It looks like good prices. But every single one is out of stock

  • Rust Gets a Commercial Network with Microsoft, Google, AWS, and OpenAI Onboard

    Jump

  • At least this is the answer to the question I had "why OpenAI 'donated' all that money to rust foundation"

  • New names are hard, ok?

    Jump

  • It would be amazing if they had arrived to the Americas and ask some natives about how they call a place and they said "this? This is New Amsterdam. We don't know what's Amsterdam but this is a newer version of it"

  • Netflix now requires every user profile to be tied to unique email address

    Jump

  • With one account you used to be able to have multiple profiles.

    I used to have a profile on my parents account. Never linked any email to that profile.

    We obviously quite the subscription when they didn't allow profiles to exist in different houses.

  • How do China and India never qualify for the World Cup?

    Jump

  • Other enjoying their time with sports usually involves destroying the city and making the streets completely insecure for several nights. Like what happened in Paris when the PSG won.

  • How do China and India never qualify for the World Cup?

    Jump

  • Everytime I wish my country doesn't qualify. It's the worst.

    And if they win they ruin the city.

  • Removed Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Yep.

    At this point I'm 90% sure that we are in a regression similar to the dark ages after the fall of Rome, or the collapse of the Bronze Age.

    During our lifetime quality of life will keep going down, and who knows how low we will fall.

    To be honest I don't even think climate change would have a chance of getting us. I think society will collapse before the average temperature rises one degree. I'm looking forward total dissapear of basic commodities in one or two decades top. For instance, my country has universal healthcare. I think in 10 years it would be completely unusable to the point of being equal to not have universal healthcare at all.

  • Is it morally wrong to be non-vegetarian?

    Jump

  • No, but it looks interesting I will add it to my reading list. Thanks!

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Oh I miss that feeling.

    I would bet money that he indeed likes you.

    Yes you can be nice to people in general. But there's a special "being nice to show attraction" that I think is showing here.

  • Is it morally wrong to be non-vegetarian?

    Jump

  • https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358322559_Is_a_Plant-Based_Diet_Associated_with_Relationship_Aggression

    Plant based diet has actually shown some relationship data with some forms of aggressiveness.

    Study proposes normalize the data according to childhood trauma, but even then it would only show that plant based diet and omnivore diet have no differences.

    And while there are also papers which relation eating meat qith aggressiveness. Most aggressiveness linked with diet is usually related to red meat consumption in excess. Not with all meat, neither with a balanced consumption of red meat.

    Anyway, all those are barely noticeable. Not worth the benefits of people being able to chose their own diet.

    As said the fundamental difference in philosophies, is the consideration of the existence of "animal rights" or not.

    In a selfish tone, we concede all human, human rights because it's the path that leads to better live for one self. If you discriminate another human that human could have reasons to hurt you (legitimate reasons) It's proven that egalitarian societies work better. With animals this does not happen. Animal attitude towards humans is unchanged if we give them rights or not. It's not like a mosquito is going to stop bitting me because I consider it a first class citizen. Animal contribution towards my well-being will be the same, I eat them or not. From a practical point of view, giving animals rights achieve no goals neither for me or humanity as a whole. That's why I only concede humans rights, because giving human rights do make humans better, thus makes my life better.

  • Is it morally wrong to be non-vegetarian?

    Jump

  • First, agriculture made for animal consumption doesn't have the same quality sanitarian standards as agriculture made for humans.

    Second, not all animals require vast agriculture.

    We could also war animals that do not requiere such agricultural measures. I have eaten cows, pigs and chickens that were raised traditionally, out of the natural fields and the parts of the plants that we humans do not want to eat.

    In fact for a environmental perspective traditional farming is far better than vegan diet.

  • Do you host your own AI?

    Jump

  • Yeah, mostly for translation purposes.

    I think I currently have gemma 4 set up.

  • Is it morally wrong to be non-vegetarian?

    Jump

  • Take into account that one of the basis of my theory is that animals have no rights per se. When thinking about it it seemed illogical as it's impossible to police, control, or even tu conceive. How could you give rights to some invertebrate living 50 foot underground with a lifespans of 3 days that won't even see a human in that time?

    My ideology thinks about humans. I'm human. Society is form by humans. Humans are the only rational being on earth. We can work with humans.

    My definition of cruelty and why avoid it is not based on reduce harm to animals, I don't care about that. It's based on reduce harm on humans. That's why the intention and the enjoyment of causing suffering is the thing to avoid. Because that's what create "bad" humans, "cruel" humans. Humans that will hurt other humans. That's the only reason why I think that cruelty (towards anything, animal or not, even alive or not) is to be avoided. Just as a way to create a better society for humans.

    As long as humans are "good" and not hurting other humans I don't really care if animals suffer. They are "lucky" that cruelty towards animals is proven to make humans worse. But just farming and managing livestock for human consumption has not been proven to do that, as there's not cruel intentions in it. Just intentions to feed ourselves.

  • Is it morally wrong to be non-vegetarian?

    Jump

  • That definition is quite good, I would add that for cruelty to be cruelty the objective of your actions needs to be the cruelty.

    Eating meat doesn't fall into that definition, fron my point of view.

    You being alive causes a lot of suffering in the world, just because you are alive, you cannot live without doing harm to other living beings.

    You draw you line on "I'm not cruel because I go out of my way not to eat meat". There are infinite lines you could draw before and after or in parallel. Someone could say "Ido not walk because I may step on some bug and that would make me cruel, and anyone who walks and thus step on bugs is cruel".

    A clear remedy to avoid causing harm to absolutely any other living being is stopping being alive one self. I don't see much people following that route, and considering any living being as cruel would mean that that interpretation of what's cruelty is irrational and faulty. The intention for the suffering to exist is inherent in the cruelty. People need to enjoy that suffering in order to be cruel.

    I do not enjoy damage to animals, it's just something inevitable when I eat them. Suffering is not my objective, not the objective of anyone who eats meat, I would assume. So no, they are not being cruel.

    From my point of view, if the objective of your actions is not to cause suffering, even if your actions cause suffering, then you are not being cruel. Intention matters here.