N0S0und0fTrace
Sorceror
Re: Huge huge lag
Im not a scary 7x Mage at all.... Need alot of practice
Im not a scary 7x Mage at all.... Need alot of practice
UOGamers Community
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
To obtain new Razor updates, please reinstall Razor from our new website.
Huge huge lag
- Thread starter Howl
- Start date
N0S0und0fTrace
Sorceror
Re: Huge huge lag
Alright man Gnite.
Phelon;674102 said:
Alright man Gnite.
e_X_i_l_i_u_s
Sorceror
Re: Huge huge lag
You may like this video Howl, but you also may know most of what it's about....http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_eat.html
"Lacto-vegetarianism, you mean? Well, you could apply the same arguments to the consumption of all sorts of products and services... but one of the most basic principles of economics still applies – supply and demand. Sustaining the demand sustains the supply."
Ya, that's the one... It was a bad argument. The point I was hoping to say was excluding milk from your diet is an extra step with little gain (except those who are lactose intolerant--but may be able to reverse that with micro-incremental intakes of lactose to engage the production of Lactase). Non-fat milk (for less cholesterol) would be an excellent source of protein (for some who don't want direct animal harm), in my opinion. However, removing the demand (and thus lowering the supply and the resources expended therefrom) of course is the only absolute gain. However, I wonder if there are properties in different animal meats like those we continue to find in plants (rather than vitamins) that we may indeed need... but I do doubt it.
"Many studies have shown that protein 'mixing' is pretty much bullshit as the human body is clever enough to utilize any protein and turn it into carbohydrates and fats. There's no reason why diets that do not contain animal products are necessarily deficient in protein (I wish I could add more to this but I've actually forgotten the science behind it) and I do have reason to believe that the RDA for protein actually far exceeds the amount we need in reality."
You're right (I meant to mention amino acids first), we don't need complete proteins for fat or carbs. Yet, we do need complete proteins (or assembled correctly) to make all of the amino acids that the body requires. We need these everyday, as the body does not store excess amino acids. Although we can produce the non-essential amino acids, they require the essential amino acids for their production. However we also need the essential amino acids in/as themselves. So, that would mean you would need a little more than double(~) the intake of essential-amino acids than normal (and daily due to their lack of storage within the body) since you don't take in complete proteins (such as meat). This is because of lack of any amino acid (essential and non-essential) results in muscle degradation so if you do make the non-essential amino acids but run out of essential amino acids (as themselves), you will face consequences or vice versa. However that doesn't mean that omnivores should consume that much, just Vegans because of that extra reliance.
"Look at our Western diets and what they're doing to us, and our lifestyles too. Try not eating as much protein for a few months and you'll see what I mean – we really don't need as much as the food industries in question would have us believe."
Is it mean itself or the type of meat? Unpolluted fish is excellent protein with very [usually] safe levels of cholesterol and saturated fat [not necessarily farm/crammed raised]. Chicken breast is also an excellent source of meat with little consequence to your health other than [possible] hormones. Diets focused on those along with grains and vegetables are already low risk diets. Cholesterol is a problem... though not by much when strictly following diets in low (or almost no) animal fat (by the way this is what I do)....
"That is a possibility, and some funding is already going into it. But doesn't the very prospect of test-tube meat just chill you to the bones? Surely a balanced plant-based diet is far more attractive than newly invented lab-grown meat?! = S"
Yea, I would think it's possible that its man-ufacturing may introduce new problems (like hydrogenated oil's random hydrogen gaps) but if perfected.... I'm guessing children who grow up eating that kind of food will most likely be used to it. Yet, it seems that plants still have healthy properties in them that are just recently being recognized like so many properties that promote health that may still not be fully explored...and therefore may be quite hard to completely replace.
"So you value the human race because it might be able to colonise other planets? Sorry, but I find this a bit absurd.
Yes.
I understand.
So would you value the humans on the planet on the 21st century far higher than those in the middle ages? Are the medieval humans not as worthy of life because they haven't discovered space travel? What about the mentally retarded and also children, they're not capable of driving, let alone going into outer space – are they worth less too? Surely, you would say they are worth equally as much as the other humans because they're part of the same race, but equally, other species are part of the same genus and ultimately we're all in the same kingdom."
Those [medieval] humans (minus the mentally special) had only to wait for the evolution of their ideas not their cerebral cortex or bodies. Given any other species they lack the communication or cognition to 'become' capable in such a short time as humans have... because it is their ideas... that which fills their capacity rather than their capacity itself that has changed. I value the human species because at this point there is no other species on earth with the potential (and it is a potential we may not even real-ize) to extend life beyond this planet, at this point. That doesn't mean I don't value the other species--i do, just not as much--which don't even come close to our level of awareness (due to the great many extinctions in between). We ourselves are no different than the medieval soldiers because we ourselves cannot realistically enter the space age with our limited sources of power and technology (at this time). Yet, that should be the goal... imo... because think of all the life, on this planet, that had to die for this moment for this age... all the killing, all the harvesting, all the decay, all the recycling... and here we are at this moment in the apparent only direction life (as we know it) can possibly experience time... the time it will take another species to rise out of evolution, on this planet, that will have the capabilities to extend life (as many species as possible) may be beyond the time remaining. Life seems to be about survival and complexity. Is not the survival of life itself, the ultimate limit (sum) of every individual's desire and ability to survive? Here is a [very] crappy example, a brother has ten mentally disabled siblings... the brother realizes that very soon the entire area will flooded and saves his ten siblings. However if you were to choose one person of those eleven to die... would it make sense to choose the one brother who can save the rest (even if it's possible that the mentally disabled children can slowly gain an understanding over a considerable time)... at any moment of analysis the brother who is capable of saving the rest should be the one who is valued most. It may sound cruel and laden with pride... but i see it as realistic. Without us... most of the rest of life (on Earth) like those mentally disabled siblings will just continue on within their limited scope of awareness until the very end... it is unknown how long another species of an awareness and capability great enough to extend life (temporally and spatially) itself. I do believe that a capable species such as ourselves has a responsibility to ourselves and to rest of life (the extension of ourselves, what we take in and what we let out, what we depend on, tho we often forget)... to survive... (http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_petranek_counts_down_to_armageddon.html) but does that same argument of responsibility extend to not eating animals? It does only so long as [the argument] doesn't hinder our primary responsibility to protect life (which I stress again, we depend on, and it likewise depends on us, for survival-beyond the planet).
"You say life is life and why attribute one form of life over another, but would you go and eat a cat or a dog? If not, why not? Because it would be cruel? Why is it cruel if they might as well be a plant? Because they feel pain? Of course they do. All higher animals do. A dog is a cat is a sheep is a cow is a baby is an elephant is a chicken is a pig... I would say all conscious life forms capable of joy and suffering have the very basic rights to life, liberty and freedom from suffering. We should respect those rights in so far as is possible for us as individuals... we can go as far as confirming the subjective experiences of suffering of all higher animals, which I'm sure any level-headed person would agree is a reality.
This is kind of a tricky point, but the animals who 'deserve' life, liberty and freedom wouldn't really know it (as we do) if they had it. They may experience it, feel it, but they wouldn't know it without a language and the conceptions that arise from that. This isn't to say that they shouldn't have it... but without knowing it they cannot extend such an attitude to each other most animals continue to fight, trample, etc... without deep thought of consequence... now we shouldn't use the example that a child who cannot 'know' his life/liberty/freedom should not be allowed it because children are (a.) not given [true] freedom or liberty (in some cases) but (b.) they can come to know it with age. The animals may feel suffering, but who is to say what is suffering for them (other than the process of dieing, which is clearly painful)... standing around in stalls, is that really suffering? We see that as suffering because of our ability towards boredom (limited conceptions being made or reviewed)... but an animal? Most likely, no. Now animals will always die. Will it be quick and painful (meat-industry), slow and painful (predator, fatal-accident), or unpredictable in pain or speed (old age). They get a steady supply of food from the meat-industry fattening them up.
Honestly, I attribute no difference (e.g. 'cute', 'kindness here vs. animosity towards there') between a cat, a dog, a cow, a rat other than the fact that I know eating cows is relatively safe and even dogs to some extent (as in China). However I could equally have a pet dog, cat, cow, rat if I really wanted to... just as people can grow plants and eat only some of those plants.
Since animals experience pain, we could, if we were so inclined, extinguish that pain to a great or absolute extent. Also, without humans there would still be carnivores who can only eat meat... there will still be particular forms of life that can only eat insects and etc... we could say that we are lucky, as a species, to have a choice, but to be honest, our particular choices exists because our environment continues to exist... there may come a time when we will be unable to get the adequate amino acids for whatever reason from plant sources alone... or perhaps from animal protein...
"I agree. All life is placed on a scale of complexity. And, if you think about it, perhaps life itself is complexity. There is not neccesarily any vital component to life, no God-breath, no soul. Just physics and then chemistry and then biology and then awareness, with all forms of existence on a scale of complexity ranging from, at the bottom, rocks, to higher animals including humans at the top. Plant life comes somewhere in the middle, with bacteria at the bottom, artificial-life below that, and systems such as the economy below that.
We seem to draw a line somewhere on this scale of where it is acceptable to use this matter as a resource for our consumption. If we consider those subjective experiences of suffering that us conscious life-forms suffer from, then it is sensible and kind to draw the line just below the higher animals, is it not? (Until we are provided with stronger evidence for us to move it.)"
I agree that it is sensible to draw the cut-off of what is used for consumption below the higher animals and then we have two options release the current animals into the wild and let them fend for themselves... or raise them but don't let them breed. Is it better to live for a guaranteed time and face a particular (maybe painful) death or face the possibility of quickly dieing or not living at all? As others have pointed out an animal may or may not be as kind to us as we are to them a truly hungry dog may bite (except if their fear is too great)... a hungry human [usually] has the choice to starve and die (ideas alone)... so it seems. I question whether it is worth the effort to change our food-system so drastically because it is working (give or take) despite the waste.
"A natural argument? But rape and murder within the human race could be deemed natural. War could be deemed natural, cannibalism even. I believe (though I am by no means an expert) that the doctrine of the Nazi party was in part influenced by their belief in the natural right of the superior being – they believed they were the hawks and the Jews were rats, and they had the natural right to hunt them, being the superior race. Lots of things are natural but not moral, or pleasant, or rational on any level. Nature has no morals, no conscience. It may be awe-inspiring at times, but it is certainly no moral agent to take guidance from. We can adjust biology for our own greater aims, and do so in all other walks of life, i.e. medicine and the benefits system for the disadvantaged."
Murder and Nazi extermination (other than their "experiments") are almost entirely wasteful (other than the bacteria and worms that eat the corpses which is merely low-entropy (highly-ordered) beings are being consumed solely by much higher-entropy beings which is not nearly as beneficial to the rise of complexity as it could be) and useless [other than ideological and selfish goals involved in the killing]. However, my focus wasn't so much as to its being only natural but that it has a very important use (our food) besides its natural (and predictable) occurance. That's not really the same argument, because as you meant, we have the ability to choose particular 'natural' outcomes over others and animal consumption is not nearly quite as wasteful (in comparison to mass killing without consumption). Although, we are adversely altering the planet, we are eating killing more plants in the process, but there is also a large market for cow dung (for example) and other products and unlike fossil fuels, the process of animal-consumption is quickly self-reprehensible. It is not a truth of life that one lifeform must kill while NOT consuming another lifeform... but it is a truth that a person must consume something to survive... it is only our current technology that allows us to make a choice. Long ago, there were areas (far and between) where such choices were unknown (thus unavailable). The choice exists now, but will it always from here on out? Diversity is usually an advantage when entering a catastrophe. Catastrophe is unpredictable else would it be quite so catastrophic?
Human-cannibalism is wasteful despite its consumption since each of those consumed humans is a bundle of possible ideas that are removed from the population of ideas (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html)... when considered as an evolutionary process. Yet, cannibalism (not by humans) is simply a means of short-term survival and given the fact that an any other currently living species (besides our own) is completely incapable of sudden changes (due to a drastically low mutation rate, and lack of communication and conception) within just a handful of lifetimes (compared to a man who has the capacity to suddenly realizes the foundations of medicine), it becomes clear that a non-human cannibalism is hardly damaging or potentially wasteful except in mass occurrence.
"But, if you think about it, my choices favour the plants as well, if, per-chance, they were to personally and subjectively benefit from it – it takes 12 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of meat, so by eating plants, I'm actually causing the destruction of ten-fold less plants than most other people.
It is neither because of an 'affinity'. I don't actually have any fondness for any animals, it's merely reasoned action. I don't abstain from violence towards other humans just because I like them. I happen to quite dislike many humans, but it doesn't mean I'm going to hurt them.
Exactly. Again, 12 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of meat. Also, take into account the mass deforestation for feedstock and livestock production. It's the leading cause of deforestation and also has side-effects which destroy much more plant and animal life (such as water pollution). That's before we even get into the contribution to AGW and many other environmental issues."
This is the best point, imo. There is definitely an argument against the way things are done. Yet, I can't see the total elimination of animal protein (completely, in all forms) from our diets as the best solution except as a catalyst to lower the demand and consequently the supply. Also, I am not trying to promote suffering but aside from that, the sheer waste (pollution, transportation... of resources and the environment in general) of the entire meat-industry is horrible... no other Vegan/vegetarian has pointed that out... or gotten a chance to(?).
I edited this a lot.. so expect errors... I have to say that a couple of your points caused me to really become conflicted.... I am not happy with the system that harvests and delivers our 'meat' but like I said there may be more pressing matters primary to that (as in the "10 ways the world could end") along with other problems our world is facing (or recognizing).
BTW, I noticed your pubmed reference... I've seldom seen people mention peer-reviewed stuff...gj
You may like this video Howl, but you also may know most of what it's about....http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_eat.html
"Lacto-vegetarianism, you mean? Well, you could apply the same arguments to the consumption of all sorts of products and services... but one of the most basic principles of economics still applies – supply and demand. Sustaining the demand sustains the supply."
Ya, that's the one... It was a bad argument. The point I was hoping to say was excluding milk from your diet is an extra step with little gain (except those who are lactose intolerant--but may be able to reverse that with micro-incremental intakes of lactose to engage the production of Lactase). Non-fat milk (for less cholesterol) would be an excellent source of protein (for some who don't want direct animal harm), in my opinion. However, removing the demand (and thus lowering the supply and the resources expended therefrom) of course is the only absolute gain. However, I wonder if there are properties in different animal meats like those we continue to find in plants (rather than vitamins) that we may indeed need... but I do doubt it.
"Many studies have shown that protein 'mixing' is pretty much bullshit as the human body is clever enough to utilize any protein and turn it into carbohydrates and fats. There's no reason why diets that do not contain animal products are necessarily deficient in protein (I wish I could add more to this but I've actually forgotten the science behind it) and I do have reason to believe that the RDA for protein actually far exceeds the amount we need in reality."
You're right (I meant to mention amino acids first), we don't need complete proteins for fat or carbs. Yet, we do need complete proteins (or assembled correctly) to make all of the amino acids that the body requires. We need these everyday, as the body does not store excess amino acids. Although we can produce the non-essential amino acids, they require the essential amino acids for their production. However we also need the essential amino acids in/as themselves. So, that would mean you would need a little more than double(~) the intake of essential-amino acids than normal (and daily due to their lack of storage within the body) since you don't take in complete proteins (such as meat). This is because of lack of any amino acid (essential and non-essential) results in muscle degradation so if you do make the non-essential amino acids but run out of essential amino acids (as themselves), you will face consequences or vice versa. However that doesn't mean that omnivores should consume that much, just Vegans because of that extra reliance.
"Look at our Western diets and what they're doing to us, and our lifestyles too. Try not eating as much protein for a few months and you'll see what I mean – we really don't need as much as the food industries in question would have us believe."
Is it mean itself or the type of meat? Unpolluted fish is excellent protein with very [usually] safe levels of cholesterol and saturated fat [not necessarily farm/crammed raised]. Chicken breast is also an excellent source of meat with little consequence to your health other than [possible] hormones. Diets focused on those along with grains and vegetables are already low risk diets. Cholesterol is a problem... though not by much when strictly following diets in low (or almost no) animal fat (by the way this is what I do)....
"That is a possibility, and some funding is already going into it. But doesn't the very prospect of test-tube meat just chill you to the bones? Surely a balanced plant-based diet is far more attractive than newly invented lab-grown meat?! = S"
Yea, I would think it's possible that its man-ufacturing may introduce new problems (like hydrogenated oil's random hydrogen gaps) but if perfected.... I'm guessing children who grow up eating that kind of food will most likely be used to it. Yet, it seems that plants still have healthy properties in them that are just recently being recognized like so many properties that promote health that may still not be fully explored...and therefore may be quite hard to completely replace.
"So you value the human race because it might be able to colonise other planets? Sorry, but I find this a bit absurd.
Yes.
I understand.
So would you value the humans on the planet on the 21st century far higher than those in the middle ages? Are the medieval humans not as worthy of life because they haven't discovered space travel? What about the mentally retarded and also children, they're not capable of driving, let alone going into outer space – are they worth less too? Surely, you would say they are worth equally as much as the other humans because they're part of the same race, but equally, other species are part of the same genus and ultimately we're all in the same kingdom."
Those [medieval] humans (minus the mentally special) had only to wait for the evolution of their ideas not their cerebral cortex or bodies. Given any other species they lack the communication or cognition to 'become' capable in such a short time as humans have... because it is their ideas... that which fills their capacity rather than their capacity itself that has changed. I value the human species because at this point there is no other species on earth with the potential (and it is a potential we may not even real-ize) to extend life beyond this planet, at this point. That doesn't mean I don't value the other species--i do, just not as much--which don't even come close to our level of awareness (due to the great many extinctions in between). We ourselves are no different than the medieval soldiers because we ourselves cannot realistically enter the space age with our limited sources of power and technology (at this time). Yet, that should be the goal... imo... because think of all the life, on this planet, that had to die for this moment for this age... all the killing, all the harvesting, all the decay, all the recycling... and here we are at this moment in the apparent only direction life (as we know it) can possibly experience time... the time it will take another species to rise out of evolution, on this planet, that will have the capabilities to extend life (as many species as possible) may be beyond the time remaining. Life seems to be about survival and complexity. Is not the survival of life itself, the ultimate limit (sum) of every individual's desire and ability to survive? Here is a [very] crappy example, a brother has ten mentally disabled siblings... the brother realizes that very soon the entire area will flooded and saves his ten siblings. However if you were to choose one person of those eleven to die... would it make sense to choose the one brother who can save the rest (even if it's possible that the mentally disabled children can slowly gain an understanding over a considerable time)... at any moment of analysis the brother who is capable of saving the rest should be the one who is valued most. It may sound cruel and laden with pride... but i see it as realistic. Without us... most of the rest of life (on Earth) like those mentally disabled siblings will just continue on within their limited scope of awareness until the very end... it is unknown how long another species of an awareness and capability great enough to extend life (temporally and spatially) itself. I do believe that a capable species such as ourselves has a responsibility to ourselves and to rest of life (the extension of ourselves, what we take in and what we let out, what we depend on, tho we often forget)... to survive... (http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_petranek_counts_down_to_armageddon.html) but does that same argument of responsibility extend to not eating animals? It does only so long as [the argument] doesn't hinder our primary responsibility to protect life (which I stress again, we depend on, and it likewise depends on us, for survival-beyond the planet).
"You say life is life and why attribute one form of life over another, but would you go and eat a cat or a dog? If not, why not? Because it would be cruel? Why is it cruel if they might as well be a plant? Because they feel pain? Of course they do. All higher animals do. A dog is a cat is a sheep is a cow is a baby is an elephant is a chicken is a pig... I would say all conscious life forms capable of joy and suffering have the very basic rights to life, liberty and freedom from suffering. We should respect those rights in so far as is possible for us as individuals... we can go as far as confirming the subjective experiences of suffering of all higher animals, which I'm sure any level-headed person would agree is a reality.
This is kind of a tricky point, but the animals who 'deserve' life, liberty and freedom wouldn't really know it (as we do) if they had it. They may experience it, feel it, but they wouldn't know it without a language and the conceptions that arise from that. This isn't to say that they shouldn't have it... but without knowing it they cannot extend such an attitude to each other most animals continue to fight, trample, etc... without deep thought of consequence... now we shouldn't use the example that a child who cannot 'know' his life/liberty/freedom should not be allowed it because children are (a.) not given [true] freedom or liberty (in some cases) but (b.) they can come to know it with age. The animals may feel suffering, but who is to say what is suffering for them (other than the process of dieing, which is clearly painful)... standing around in stalls, is that really suffering? We see that as suffering because of our ability towards boredom (limited conceptions being made or reviewed)... but an animal? Most likely, no. Now animals will always die. Will it be quick and painful (meat-industry), slow and painful (predator, fatal-accident), or unpredictable in pain or speed (old age). They get a steady supply of food from the meat-industry fattening them up.
Honestly, I attribute no difference (e.g. 'cute', 'kindness here vs. animosity towards there') between a cat, a dog, a cow, a rat other than the fact that I know eating cows is relatively safe and even dogs to some extent (as in China). However I could equally have a pet dog, cat, cow, rat if I really wanted to... just as people can grow plants and eat only some of those plants.
Since animals experience pain, we could, if we were so inclined, extinguish that pain to a great or absolute extent. Also, without humans there would still be carnivores who can only eat meat... there will still be particular forms of life that can only eat insects and etc... we could say that we are lucky, as a species, to have a choice, but to be honest, our particular choices exists because our environment continues to exist... there may come a time when we will be unable to get the adequate amino acids for whatever reason from plant sources alone... or perhaps from animal protein...
"I agree. All life is placed on a scale of complexity. And, if you think about it, perhaps life itself is complexity. There is not neccesarily any vital component to life, no God-breath, no soul. Just physics and then chemistry and then biology and then awareness, with all forms of existence on a scale of complexity ranging from, at the bottom, rocks, to higher animals including humans at the top. Plant life comes somewhere in the middle, with bacteria at the bottom, artificial-life below that, and systems such as the economy below that.
We seem to draw a line somewhere on this scale of where it is acceptable to use this matter as a resource for our consumption. If we consider those subjective experiences of suffering that us conscious life-forms suffer from, then it is sensible and kind to draw the line just below the higher animals, is it not? (Until we are provided with stronger evidence for us to move it.)"
I agree that it is sensible to draw the cut-off of what is used for consumption below the higher animals and then we have two options release the current animals into the wild and let them fend for themselves... or raise them but don't let them breed. Is it better to live for a guaranteed time and face a particular (maybe painful) death or face the possibility of quickly dieing or not living at all? As others have pointed out an animal may or may not be as kind to us as we are to them a truly hungry dog may bite (except if their fear is too great)... a hungry human [usually] has the choice to starve and die (ideas alone)... so it seems. I question whether it is worth the effort to change our food-system so drastically because it is working (give or take) despite the waste.
"A natural argument? But rape and murder within the human race could be deemed natural. War could be deemed natural, cannibalism even. I believe (though I am by no means an expert) that the doctrine of the Nazi party was in part influenced by their belief in the natural right of the superior being – they believed they were the hawks and the Jews were rats, and they had the natural right to hunt them, being the superior race. Lots of things are natural but not moral, or pleasant, or rational on any level. Nature has no morals, no conscience. It may be awe-inspiring at times, but it is certainly no moral agent to take guidance from. We can adjust biology for our own greater aims, and do so in all other walks of life, i.e. medicine and the benefits system for the disadvantaged."
Murder and Nazi extermination (other than their "experiments") are almost entirely wasteful (other than the bacteria and worms that eat the corpses which is merely low-entropy (highly-ordered) beings are being consumed solely by much higher-entropy beings which is not nearly as beneficial to the rise of complexity as it could be) and useless [other than ideological and selfish goals involved in the killing]. However, my focus wasn't so much as to its being only natural but that it has a very important use (our food) besides its natural (and predictable) occurance. That's not really the same argument, because as you meant, we have the ability to choose particular 'natural' outcomes over others and animal consumption is not nearly quite as wasteful (in comparison to mass killing without consumption). Although, we are adversely altering the planet, we are eating killing more plants in the process, but there is also a large market for cow dung (for example) and other products and unlike fossil fuels, the process of animal-consumption is quickly self-reprehensible. It is not a truth of life that one lifeform must kill while NOT consuming another lifeform... but it is a truth that a person must consume something to survive... it is only our current technology that allows us to make a choice. Long ago, there were areas (far and between) where such choices were unknown (thus unavailable). The choice exists now, but will it always from here on out? Diversity is usually an advantage when entering a catastrophe. Catastrophe is unpredictable else would it be quite so catastrophic?
Human-cannibalism is wasteful despite its consumption since each of those consumed humans is a bundle of possible ideas that are removed from the population of ideas (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html)... when considered as an evolutionary process. Yet, cannibalism (not by humans) is simply a means of short-term survival and given the fact that an any other currently living species (besides our own) is completely incapable of sudden changes (due to a drastically low mutation rate, and lack of communication and conception) within just a handful of lifetimes (compared to a man who has the capacity to suddenly realizes the foundations of medicine), it becomes clear that a non-human cannibalism is hardly damaging or potentially wasteful except in mass occurrence.
"But, if you think about it, my choices favour the plants as well, if, per-chance, they were to personally and subjectively benefit from it – it takes 12 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of meat, so by eating plants, I'm actually causing the destruction of ten-fold less plants than most other people.
It is neither because of an 'affinity'. I don't actually have any fondness for any animals, it's merely reasoned action. I don't abstain from violence towards other humans just because I like them. I happen to quite dislike many humans, but it doesn't mean I'm going to hurt them.
Exactly. Again, 12 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of meat. Also, take into account the mass deforestation for feedstock and livestock production. It's the leading cause of deforestation and also has side-effects which destroy much more plant and animal life (such as water pollution). That's before we even get into the contribution to AGW and many other environmental issues."
This is the best point, imo. There is definitely an argument against the way things are done. Yet, I can't see the total elimination of animal protein (completely, in all forms) from our diets as the best solution except as a catalyst to lower the demand and consequently the supply. Also, I am not trying to promote suffering but aside from that, the sheer waste (pollution, transportation... of resources and the environment in general) of the entire meat-industry is horrible... no other Vegan/vegetarian has pointed that out... or gotten a chance to(?).
I edited this a lot.. so expect errors... I have to say that a couple of your points caused me to really become conflicted.... I am not happy with the system that harvests and delivers our 'meat' but like I said there may be more pressing matters primary to that (as in the "10 ways the world could end") along with other problems our world is facing (or recognizing).
BTW, I noticed your pubmed reference... I've seldom seen people mention peer-reviewed stuff...gj
N0S0und0fTrace
Sorceror
Re: Huge huge lag
waddddaphuckkkk
e_X_i_l_i_u_s;674548 said:You may like this video Howl, but you also may know most of what it's about....http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_eat.html
"Lacto-vegetarianism, you mean? Well, you could apply the same arguments to the consumption of all sorts of products and services... but one of the most basic principles of economics still applies – supply and demand. Sustaining the demand sustains the supply."
Ya, that's the one... It was a bad argument. The point I was hoping to say was excluding milk from your diet is an extra step with little gain (except those who are lactose intolerant--but may be able to reverse that with micro-incremental intakes of lactose to engage the production of Lactase). Non-fat milk (for less cholesterol) would be an excellent source of protein (for some who don't want direct animal harm), in my opinion. However, removing the demand (and thus lowering the supply and the resources expended therefrom) of course is the only absolute gain. However, I wonder if there are properties in different animal meats like those we continue to find in plants (rather than vitamins) that we may indeed need... but I do doubt it.
"Many studies have shown that protein 'mixing' is pretty much bullshit as the human body is clever enough to utilize any protein and turn it into carbohydrates and fats. There's no reason why diets that do not contain animal products are necessarily deficient in protein (I wish I could add more to this but I've actually forgotten the science behind it) and I do have reason to believe that the RDA for protein actually far exceeds the amount we need in reality."
You're right (I meant to mention amino acids first), we don't need complete proteins for fat or carbs. Yet, we do need complete proteins (or assembled correctly) to make all of the amino acids that the body requires. We need these everyday, as the body does not store excess amino acids. Although we can produce the non-essential amino acids, they require the essential amino acids for their production. However we also need the essential amino acids in/as themselves. So, that would mean you would need a little more than double(~) the intake of essential-amino acids than normal (and daily due to their lack of storage within the body) since you don't take in complete proteins (such as meat). This is because of lack of any amino acid (essential and non-essential) results in muscle degradation so if you do make the non-essential amino acids but run out of essential amino acids (as themselves), you will face consequences or vice versa. However that doesn't mean that omnivores should consume that much, just Vegans because of that extra reliance.
"Look at our Western diets and what they're doing to us, and our lifestyles too. Try not eating as much protein for a few months and you'll see what I mean – we really don't need as much as the food industries in question would have us believe."
Is it mean itself or the type of meat? Unpolluted fish is excellent protein with very [usually] safe levels of cholesterol and saturated fat [not necessarily farm/crammed raised]. Chicken breast is also an excellent source of meat with little consequence to your health other than [possible] hormones. Diets focused on those along with grains and vegetables are already low risk diets. Cholesterol is a problem... though not by much when strictly following diets in low (or almost no) animal fat (by the way this is what I do)....
"That is a possibility, and some funding is already going into it. But doesn't the very prospect of test-tube meat just chill you to the bones? Surely a balanced plant-based diet is far more attractive than newly invented lab-grown meat?! = S"
Yea, I would think it's possible that its man-ufacturing may introduce new problems (like hydrogenated oil's random hydrogen gaps) but if perfected.... I'm guessing children who grow up eating that kind of food will most likely be used to it. Yet, it seems that plants still have healthy properties in them that are just recently being recognized like so many properties that promote health that may still not be fully explored...and therefore may be quite hard to completely replace.
"So you value the human race because it might be able to colonise other planets? Sorry, but I find this a bit absurd.
Yes.
I understand.
So would you value the humans on the planet on the 21st century far higher than those in the middle ages? Are the medieval humans not as worthy of life because they haven't discovered space travel? What about the mentally retarded and also children, they're not capable of driving, let alone going into outer space – are they worth less too? Surely, you would say they are worth equally as much as the other humans because they're part of the same race, but equally, other species are part of the same genus and ultimately we're all in the same kingdom."
Those [medieval] humans (minus the mentally special) had only to wait for the evolution of their ideas not their cerebral cortex or bodies. Given any other species they lack the communication or cognition to 'become' capable in such a short time as humans have... because it is their ideas... that which fills their capacity rather than their capacity itself that has changed. I value the human species because at this point there is no other species on earth with the potential (and it is a potential we may not even real-ize) to extend life beyond this planet, at this point. That doesn't mean I don't value the other species--i do, just not as much--which don't even come close to our level of awareness (due to the great many extinctions in between). We ourselves are no different than the medieval soldiers because we ourselves cannot realistically enter the space age with our limited sources of power and technology (at this time). Yet, that should be the goal... imo... because think of all the life, on this planet, that had to die for this moment for this age... all the killing, all the harvesting, all the decay, all the recycling... and here we are at this moment in the apparent only direction life (as we know it) can possibly experience time... the time it will take another species to rise out of evolution, on this planet, that will have the capabilities to extend life (as many species as possible) may be beyond the time remaining. Life seems to be about survival and complexity. Is not the survival of life itself, the ultimate limit (sum) of every individual's desire and ability to survive? Here is a [very] crappy example, a brother has ten mentally disabled siblings... the brother realizes that very soon the entire area will flooded and saves his ten siblings. However if you were to choose one person of those eleven to die... would it make sense to choose the one brother who can save the rest (even if it's possible that the mentally disabled children can slowly gain an understanding over a considerable time)... at any moment of analysis the brother who is capable of saving the rest should be the one who is valued most. It may sound cruel and laden with pride... but i see it as realistic. Without us... most of the rest of life (on Earth) like those mentally disabled siblings will just continue on within their limited scope of awareness until the very end... it is unknown how long another species of an awareness and capability great enough to extend life (temporally and spatially) itself. I do believe that a capable species such as ourselves has a responsibility to ourselves and to rest of life (the extension of ourselves, what we take in and what we let out, what we depend on, tho we often forget)... to survive... (http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_petranek_counts_down_to_armageddon.html) but does that same argument of responsibility extend to not eating animals? It does only so long as [the argument] doesn't hinder our primary responsibility to protect life (which I stress again, we depend on, and it likewise depends on us, for survival-beyond the planet).
"You say life is life and why attribute one form of life over another, but would you go and eat a cat or a dog? If not, why not? Because it would be cruel? Why is it cruel if they might as well be a plant? Because they feel pain? Of course they do. All higher animals do. A dog is a cat is a sheep is a cow is a baby is an elephant is a chicken is a pig... I would say all conscious life forms capable of joy and suffering have the very basic rights to life, liberty and freedom from suffering. We should respect those rights in so far as is possible for us as individuals... we can go as far as confirming the subjective experiences of suffering of all higher animals, which I'm sure any level-headed person would agree is a reality.
This is kind of a tricky point, but the animals who 'deserve' life, liberty and freedom wouldn't really know it (as we do) if they had it. They may experience it, feel it, but they wouldn't know it without a language and the conceptions that arise from that. This isn't to say that they shouldn't have it... but without knowing it they cannot extend such an attitude to each other most animals continue to fight, trample, etc... without deep thought of consequence... now we shouldn't use the example that a child who cannot 'know' his life/liberty/freedom should not be allowed it because children are (a.) not given [true] freedom or liberty (in some cases) but (b.) they can come to know it with age. The animals may feel suffering, but who is to say what is suffering for them (other than the process of dieing, which is clearly painful)... standing around in stalls, is that really suffering? We see that as suffering because of our ability towards boredom (limited conceptions being made or reviewed)... but an animal? Most likely, no. Now animals will always die. Will it be quick and painful (meat-industry), slow and painful (predator, fatal-accident), or unpredictable in pain or speed (old age). They get a steady supply of food from the meat-industry fattening them up.
Honestly, I attribute no difference (e.g. 'cute', 'kindness here vs. animosity towards there') between a cat, a dog, a cow, a rat other than the fact that I know eating cows is relatively safe and even dogs to some extent (as in China). However I could equally have a pet dog, cat, cow, rat if I really wanted to... just as people can grow plants and eat only some of those plants.
Since animals experience pain, we could, if we were so inclined, extinguish that pain to a great or absolute extent. Also, without humans there would still be carnivores who can only eat meat... there will still be particular forms of life that can only eat insects and etc... we could say that we are lucky, as a species, to have a choice, but to be honest, our particular choices exists because our environment continues to exist... there may come a time when we will be unable to get the adequate amino acids for whatever reason from plant sources alone... or perhaps from animal protein...
"I agree. All life is placed on a scale of complexity. And, if you think about it, perhaps life itself is complexity. There is not neccesarily any vital component to life, no God-breath, no soul. Just physics and then chemistry and then biology and then awareness, with all forms of existence on a scale of complexity ranging from, at the bottom, rocks, to higher animals including humans at the top. Plant life comes somewhere in the middle, with bacteria at the bottom, artificial-life below that, and systems such as the economy below that.
We seem to draw a line somewhere on this scale of where it is acceptable to use this matter as a resource for our consumption. If we consider those subjective experiences of suffering that us conscious life-forms suffer from, then it is sensible and kind to draw the line just below the higher animals, is it not? (Until we are provided with stronger evidence for us to move it.)"
I agree that it is sensible to draw the cut-off of what is used for consumption below the higher animals and then we have two options release the current animals into the wild and let them fend for themselves... or raise them but don't let them breed. Is it better to live for a guaranteed time and face a particular (maybe painful) death or face the possibility of quickly dieing or not living at all? As others have pointed out an animal may or may not be as kind to us as we are to them a truly hungry dog may bite (except if their fear is too great)... a hungry human [usually] has the choice to starve and die (ideas alone)... so it seems. I question whether it is worth the effort to change our food-system so drastically because it is working (give or take) despite the waste.
"A natural argument? But rape and murder within the human race could be deemed natural. War could be deemed natural, cannibalism even. I believe (though I am by no means an expert) that the doctrine of the Nazi party was in part influenced by their belief in the natural right of the superior being – they believed they were the hawks and the Jews were rats, and they had the natural right to hunt them, being the superior race. Lots of things are natural but not moral, or pleasant, or rational on any level. Nature has no morals, no conscience. It may be awe-inspiring at times, but it is certainly no moral agent to take guidance from. We can adjust biology for our own greater aims, and do so in all other walks of life, i.e. medicine and the benefits system for the disadvantaged."
Murder and Nazi extermination (other than their "experiments") are almost entirely wasteful (other than the bacteria and worms that eat the corpses which is merely low-entropy (highly-ordered) beings are being consumed solely by much higher-entropy beings which is not nearly as beneficial to the rise of complexity as it could be) and useless [other than ideological and selfish goals involved in the killing]. However, my focus wasn't so much as to its being only natural but that it has a very important use (our food) besides its natural (and predictable) occurance. That's not really the same argument, because as you meant, we have the ability to choose particular 'natural' outcomes over others and animal consumption is not nearly quite as wasteful (in comparison to mass killing without consumption). Although, we are adversely altering the planet, we are eating killing more plants in the process, but there is also a large market for cow dung (for example) and other products and unlike fossil fuels, the process of animal-consumption is quickly self-reprehensible. It is not a truth of life that one lifeform must kill while NOT consuming another lifeform... but it is a truth that a person must consume something to survive... it is only our current technology that allows us to make a choice. Long ago, there were areas (far and between) where such choices were unknown (thus unavailable). The choice exists now, but will it always from here on out? Diversity is usually an advantage when entering a catastrophe. Catastrophe is unpredictable else would it be quite so catastrophic?
Human-cannibalism is wasteful despite its consumption since each of those consumed humans is a bundle of possible ideas that are removed from the population of ideas (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html)... when considered as an evolutionary process. Yet, cannibalism (not by humans) is simply a means of short-term survival and given the fact that an any other currently living species (besides our own) is completely incapable of sudden changes (due to a drastically low mutation rate, and lack of communication and conception) within just a handful of lifetimes (compared to a man who has the capacity to suddenly realizes the foundations of medicine), it becomes clear that a non-human cannibalism is hardly damaging or potentially wasteful except in mass occurrence.
"But, if you think about it, my choices favour the plants as well, if, per-chance, they were to personally and subjectively benefit from it – it takes 12 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of meat, so by eating plants, I'm actually causing the destruction of ten-fold less plants than most other people.
It is neither because of an 'affinity'. I don't actually have any fondness for any animals, it's merely reasoned action. I don't abstain from violence towards other humans just because I like them. I happen to quite dislike many humans, but it doesn't mean I'm going to hurt them.
Exactly. Again, 12 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of meat. Also, take into account the mass deforestation for feedstock and livestock production. It's the leading cause of deforestation and also has side-effects which destroy much more plant and animal life (such as water pollution). That's before we even get into the contribution to AGW and many other environmental issues."
This is the best point, imo. There is definitely an argument against the way things are done. Yet, I can't see the total elimination of animal protein (completely, in all forms) from our diets as the best solution except as a catalyst to lower the demand and consequently the supply. Also, I am not trying to promote suffering but aside from that, the sheer waste (pollution, transportation... of resources and the environment in general) of the entire meat-industry is horrible... no other Vegan/vegetarian has pointed that out... or gotten a chance to(?).
I edited this a lot.. so expect errors... I have to say that a couple of your points caused me to really become conflicted.... I am not happy with the system that harvests and delivers our 'meat' but like I said there may be more pressing matters primary to that (as in the "10 ways the world could end") along with other problems our world is facing (or recognizing).
BTW, I noticed your pubmed reference... I've seldom seen people mention peer-reviewed stuff...gj
waddddaphuckkkk
Stuff-Stuff
Knight
Re: Huge huge lag
or try finding an older DLINK wireless gaming router (gamers lounge). I had to use an air-card forever and found that I got less lag playing UO after plugging that card into a laptop, then running a cord from the laptop into the router. Somehow the gamers lounge fixed the lag and packet loss problems that I was having.
99% of the crap that DLINK puts out sucks and is on the bottom end of quality, but this one piece of equipment really helped my wireless gaming when i needed it to.
I'm only on page 3 of this thread. Anyone know what comments got Howl banned?
DbCupper;673131 said:
or try finding an older DLINK wireless gaming router (gamers lounge). I had to use an air-card forever and found that I got less lag playing UO after plugging that card into a laptop, then running a cord from the laptop into the router. Somehow the gamers lounge fixed the lag and packet loss problems that I was having.
99% of the crap that DLINK puts out sucks and is on the bottom end of quality, but this one piece of equipment really helped my wireless gaming when i needed it to.
I'm only on page 3 of this thread. Anyone know what comments got Howl banned?
N0S0und0fTrace
Sorceror
Re: Huge huge lag
About time someone els gets banned for flaming, and caring.
Stuff-Stuff;675103 said:
About time someone els gets banned for flaming, and caring.
Ageless Venomous
Knight
Re: Huge huge lag
Its easier to point out wich ones did not get him banned.
Stuff-Stuff;675103 said:
Its easier to point out wich ones did not get him banned.
Mister Dank
Knight
Re: Huge huge lag
good thread
good thread
Eskeshehir
Knight
Re: Huge huge lag
Agreed.
Mister Dank;675239 said:
Agreed.
N0S0und0fTrace
Sorceror
Re: Huge huge lag
Extremely agreeable.
Eskeshehir;675246 said:
Extremely agreeable.
Ageless Venomous
Knight
Re: Huge huge lag
Aye.
N0S0und0fTrace;675247 said:
Aye.
Eskeshehir
Knight
Re: Huge huge lag
For once i agree.
N0S0und0fTrace;675247 said:
For once i agree.
will-demise
Knight
Re: Huge huge lag
ur not that good when im on my mage
ur not that good when im on my mage
Attachments
-
bile dead.JPG
