I looked up a few articles from to 2015 and non of them spoke about 2035. Do you have a link maybe?

Mitbewohny, Polity, Bully (ich meine natürlich Polizisty), Schüly, Fleischereifachangestellty.

Ich weiß nicht… Vorerst bleibe ich wohl erst mal beim *innen.

I’d suggest that they already are in the process. For example lots of companies have stopped their DAI programms due to eight wing pressure.

Yes, but that is because there is a power imbalance at play here. It makes sence to avoid such situations to prevent sexual violence in institutions.

You can normalise beeing naked without shame beeing involved and keep children safe in a situation that could be potentialy abused. In my opinion that’s not mutually exclusive.

Ironically not making parts of our body a taboo best not even to talk about is what helps children speak out if they have been molestered. Same with knowing what is appropriate and what not. Sex-Ed is just so important to prevent sexual violence against children. Which is, just to make the clear, still not their responsibility. It’s just something that helps a lot, you still need systems of protection in institutions.

/rant I guess.

This is btw one main reason why milk is murder, because many of those calves are often killed for their meat. The other reason is that cows stop beeing productive and are killed way before their natural death, since the replacement calves are rdy to go (I think it was something like after 5 years with their natural life span beeing around 25, but I’m not sure if I remember correctly).

A bit oversimplified, but just to add a bit more context why vegans don’t drink milk.

Where have I heard this one before?

France? Sweden? Italy? US? Netherlands?

God, I hate the world rn.

Nope. Stimmt so nicht, sry.

48 % der Deutschen leben weniger als 25 Kilometer von ihrem Geburtsort entfernt, 31 % sogar weniger als 10 Kilometer.

https://chrismon.de/artikel/2020/48939/umfrage-wie-weit-von-ihrem-geburtsort-leben-sie-entfernt

Ist jetzt nicht die perfekteste Statistik, das gebe ich vorweg. Wenn du etwas hast das deine Behauptung stürzt nur her damit.

That is of course possible and ultimately we will never know.

I don’t have hard data on this, but if interbreeding between slaves / sex-slaves and whites would have been widespread I think there would be a lot more interracial people in the US. As it is the black and white ethnicities remain still notably separated, with laws up into the 1960 making it a crime to have partner that is not one’s own race.

And yes, 1865 to now is a vastly smaller time frame than 45.000 years, and if we make it that long one the picture would be a different one.

or assimilation of the hot ones into Sapiens I should say

Why the hot ones only? Having a warrior brute around sounds sensible too. Or just a refugee family of neanderthals who’s children interbred with the sapiens after a generation.

I think violence is a very valid theory in the process of interbreading, given how humans tend to be a violent species. But the fact that children resulted out of that interbreeding that were aloud to interbreed themselves speakers for at least some level of peacefully integration.

Yeah, well, that realy doesn’t add anything to the discussion.

Looking from 40 years onwards it’s a kind of creepy commercial too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoAJNn6SETs

The talking point this time around seems to be that they are just destroying those chemical gas weapons and military infrastructure. Can’t have that with Islamists. I have seen one person call this “forward defending” unironically.

They don’t call it a Quarter Pounder with Cheese?

By all means, please ask away.

I’ll add some details to answer your question. First off, keep in mind the time. It was 2010 when I was over there, just 14 years but a world removed from how traveling (and honestly, living) is these days. I had no smartphone back then. Internet was something I only had access to every few weeks in libraries, and then I used it to Skype with home. So, there was little possibility for sensible research about veganism while traveling. Possible, sure, but definitely not practical.

Regarding Veganism, things were quite different. When I eventually started, back home in 2011, I had to explain what “Vegan” is to every single waiter when eating out. There simply were no viable vegan menu options, often not even vegetarian ones. Not a single product was labeled in the shops, so my first year or so consisted of reading the backside of products and making a list of which ones I could buy. Sometimes the non-vegan component was hidden behind a word that could mean any ingredient really, like “Aroma”. So, you had to look those up online in the shop. And if you couldn’t find it, you would write to the company and ask. Plus, there is the whole dietary side of Veganism. You need to know what you are doing if you eat a plant-based diet, otherwise you will run into deficits eventually.

I was aware of all these factors and seeing how much work it was back home, in my country with my language and my local products, to get started back then, I’d say it was a sensible decision. In New Zealand I would have run out of steam real fast, I recon (but of course I don’t know if that is true).

Would I have eaten humans? I guess, if I had grown up eating humans and lived in a society that normalized it to the degree eating animals is normalized, yes, likely. Did I already see animals as equals back then? Not to the degree I do now, no. As a theoretical construct, sure. I worked on a vineyard and was delegated to work with the farm guy for a week. I saw with my own eyes with how little respect he treated the animals there. They were nothing but steaks on legs for him. I think seeing that up close realy started a process of feeling true empathy. Then again, i continued to use milk for the rest my stay, for the reasons stated above.

I guess this happens more often than not, to be honest. I’m writing this on a laptop, whose minerals have been mined under horrific conditions, that was assembled by de facto slaves some majority world country. I wear clothes that were made under similar circumstances. I am aware of all that, but it doesn’t “haunt” me. More like a nabbing voice in the back of my head that I can’t quite silence. But such is life. I can’t and very likely not be perfect and live up to every single ideal I have. If I had the money to buy ethical products, I would. Until then I will have to live with the dissonance. I’ve been a vegan for 13 years now. It has been one of the main driving forces for every purchase since then. Considering I don’t know if I would have managed to become a vegan if I would have started earlier, I think I made the right call back then.

I don’t know… When I was a vegetarian I informed myself about why the fuck people were vegans and to my dismay discovered that the point raised by vegans were very true and that I could not be an ethical vegetarian. So I had to make a choice there. And that choice was to become vegan.

But.

I was right on the verge of a year of work and travel in New Zealand. I just couldn’t imagine making the transition there, not while beeing so far removed from my everyday live. So I made a vow to myself to transition on the day I came back and moved into my new flat.

So, yes, no baby steps for the transition, that was hard and total once the time for it arrived (that was back in 2011 btw). But I was very much able to continue with a vegetarian diet for a year, fully aware that it was ethically not correct. So I disagree on that point, from my experience. I think you can understand, realy understand, that what you are doing is wrong and still make the decision to continue with doing it.

What revolution would that have been? From my limited understanding universal healthcare emerged as a byproduct of the industislistation, when states where confronted with a fast growing population of poor citizens that flocked to the cities and needed caring for in some sense. Bismarck intruduced the first European Healthcare system with the goal of keeping workers alive and healthy.

So, to answer my own question, if anything then the industrial revolution (aka capitalism) gave us healthcare.

Somehow I don’t think that’s where you were going with your comment.

Location: Germany

For me it’s the shift to the right in culture and politics that is making me anxious. It not just the US. In Europe there are several countries that have been shifting towards the far right. France, Germany, Netherlands, Finnland, Sweden, Italy… and more. It’s a matter of time untill one of the major player, either France or Germany, will have a right wing government. In both countries the current government has failed and on both countries the main reason has been right wing propaganda doing it’s work.

This will habe some consequences on many levels, climate deniers beeing in charge and not only stopping, but working against the progress the world has achieved beeing one of them.

You can feel it in the people too, here. It feels like people are staring to dial back on the progressive ideas they express on public. It’s going to be harsh world our there for us, who are not amongst the majority.

And it is science denial to have a scientific opinion that is interpreting facts differently then the consensus?

Also, from my first source:

“The IPCC supports the overwhelming scientific consensus about human impact on climate change, so we would expect the reports’ vocabulary to be dominated by greater certainty on the state of climate science – but this is not the case.”

The IPCC assigns a level of certainty to climate findings using five categories of confidence and ten categories of probability. The team found the categories of intermediate certainty predominated, with those of highest certainty barely reaching 8% of the climate findings evaluated.

“The accumulation of uncertainty across all elements of the climate-change complexity means that the IPCC tends to be conservative,” says co-author Professor Corey Bradshaw, Matthew Flinders Fellow in Global Ecology at Flinders University. “The certainty is in reality much higher than even the IPCC implies, and the threats are much worse.”

What? You literaly poster an opinion peace. By a climate scientist, yes, but so is the response I posted.

Plus, I quoted a study in reply to the comments about the IPCC.

How is that climate science denial?

A new study has revealed that the language used by the global climate change watchdog, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is overly conservative - and therefore the threats are much greater than the Panel’s reports suggest.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190320102010.htm

As a climate scientist, it is my duty to tell you about what is happening to our world, whether it engenders fear or not.

A failure to do this will mean that the public is left ignorant of the true extent of the climate emergency, which in turn can only hinder engagement and action.

This is already becoming a problem, with many commentators on the right of the political spectrum, along with some climate scientists, denigrating as “doomers” anyone flagging the worst outcomes of global heating.

Such climate “appeasement” is increasingly taking the place of denial and could be an even greater driver of inertia than fear, as it plays down the enormity of the problem — and as an inevitable consequence, the urgency of action.

Bill McGuire

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/07/opinions/climate-scientist-scare-doom-anxiety-mcguire/index.html