Man, I'd like to do this. My suburb doesn't have much foot-traffic though. I do my best to greet the neighbors, and sometimes chat up people at the coffee shop. Time constraints are a factor when it comes to socializing, as a parent to toddlers.
Readit Newsslothtrop commented on Stoop Coffee: A simple idea transformed my neighborhood supernuclear.substack.com... · Posted by u/surprisetalk
slothtrop commented on ‘Bluey’s World’: How a Cute Aussie Puppy Became a Juggernaut hollywoodreporter.com/tv/... · Posted by u/adrian_mrd
As a kids show bluey is adequate. However, I suspect its secret is that it's really a show for parents with young children that just happens to hold the attention of kids.
My daughters like bluey (ages 3-8). But they also enjoy many things on TV and bluey doesn't stick out that much.
On the other hand, I happened to be in the room for an episode where blueys dad is having a hard time making some sort of cake and bluey cleans up something to help him out without being prompted. I most definitely felt heard watching that episode.
I think that's it. They've found a balance in "family" entertainment that is sophisticated enough to please adults, much the way Pixar and 90s Disney films had. The Simpsons at outset was also sort of like this for older kids. There was moral panic at the time, but it didn't prevent the show from being an incredible phenomenon, heavily merchandised the way Bluey is now. I must have been obsessed with the Simpsons since 7-8 years old.
lanfeust6 commented on The Origin of the Pork Taboo archaeology.org/issues/ma... · Posted by u/diodorus
> I don't see what's unsustainable about it
You think 11-20% of GHG emissions[1] coming from livestock and the insanely high water footprint of meat[2] is sustainable?
[1] https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environm...
[2] https://waterfootprint.org/resources/Report-48-WaterFootprin...
Emissions are projected to fall through innovation (and methane does not persist in the atmosphere very long, compared to CO2). Water use in itself is not a problem. We waste plenty on inessential things and that's no deterrent either.
Notwithstanding that since global population growth is going to stall anyway, demand for meat will stagnate as well. It could only be "unsustainable" on the conceit that it would skyrocket into perpetuity.
Plenty of things you enjoy and "don't need" necessitate emissions, water, and land encroachment. Increases in efficiency mitigate that. Recently, China's fossil fuel use has plateaued. That is quite an accomplishment because demand for energy had been growing fast.
slothtrop commented on The Origin of the Pork Taboo archaeology.org/issues/ma... · Posted by u/diodorus
Social contract is an awful concept. We have moral duties toward one another, but not because of some hideous contract.
We have moral duties to the extent we collectively share values, which are arrived at subjectively and change with time.
In the secular world in the West, even human life in itself isn't considered sacred, as exemplified by sentiment on abortion. The moment we pop out into the world though, we assume personhood and are protected by the social contract.
slothtrop commented on The Origin of the Pork Taboo archaeology.org/issues/ma... · Posted by u/diodorus
It does not make sense to eat things with of a lack of intelligence as the guiding principle. Would you eat a human if he or her were stupid enough?
It's the lack of personhood, and low demonstrated consciousness, in spite of sentience. We have a social contract with each other, not animals.
slothtrop commented on The Origin of the Pork Taboo archaeology.org/issues/ma... · Posted by u/diodorus
Meat from free-range chickens has an ecological footprint about 4 times higher (they grow slower, live longer, so need more water and feed, while excreting more methane, and use up more land).
It would indeed be interesting if packaging from supermarkets put some estimate of environmental footprint on the packaging. I doubt it will happen: It would thoroughly confuse many consumers that the product with the highest price has the worst environmental impact, and could reduce sales of their highest margin products.
Still not much methane compared to cows. Also, methane doesn't persist in the atmosphere nearly as long as CO2 does.
slothtrop commented on The Origin of the Pork Taboo archaeology.org/issues/ma... · Posted by u/diodorus
> make something like cattle farming effectively carbon-negative
The situations in which this is the case (which are oversimplified by the doc) are so specific and small scale that to think they will address the environmental impact without acknowledging the insane, unsustainable demand for meat is magical thinking. People love to point to ideas like this and stuff like feeding cows seaweed to avoid the reality of the dire need for significant shifts in our consumption behaviors.
> but a properly-managed ranch should have happy, healthy animals.
again - the percentage of meat that comes from these conditions is so small as to be virtually irrelevant in the context of the animal agriculture industry
> unsustainable demand
Scales with population growth, and immigrants don't come to the U.S. just so they can eschew meat. I don't see what's unsustainable about it. Land-use has barely budged. At any rate if the population didn't grow, the demand wouldn't either. As it happens, global population growth is projected to stall in less than 100 years.
Growth in the 1st world means more emissions and land encroachment, until innovation catches up. Electricity is being abated with renewables, but not concrete, ammonia, plastics, etc. There's no free lunch, if we want the juicy GDP growth, that's the price.
> again - the percentage of meat that comes from these conditions is so small as to be virtually irrelevant in the context of the animal agriculture industry
There's the consideration of our own personal choices and options having a place in the conversation, and the other consideration of prescription for improving conditions and/or emissions.
slothtrop commented on The Origin of the Pork Taboo archaeology.org/issues/ma... · Posted by u/diodorus
Paying more of course doesn't improve animals' conditions automatically. Improved conditions would most likely increase the price.
But even with quite hefty price increse, the conditions will still be a living hell. And for an individual eating animals and animal produce is about the most environmentally harmful thing conducted regularly regardless of the price.
> conditions will still be a living hell
I've seen what better farms look like and I disagree. It most closely matches what consumers want and expect. Suffering is non-zero because it necessitate slaughter, but not as egregious as in commercial agriculture.
In other words, there is a threshold of suffering consumers are ok with.
slothtrop commented on The Origin of the Pork Taboo archaeology.org/issues/ma... · Posted by u/diodorus
> how paying just a bit more for meat or eggs drastically improves animals' living conditions
Not exactly. Supermarkets also jack up prices without any improvement at all.
I.e. better conditions require higher prices, but higher prices can mean better conditions or more supermarket profit. And the supermarket is incentivized to pick profit, together with pretty pictures and words that "suggest" better conditions.
Which is why I don't generally trust the wording on packages with regard to animal conditions. I'm not an expert in which exact phrases legally mean substantially better conditions, vs. which ones sound good but aren't meaningful at all. Nor should I be expected to.
I'd much prefer the government just legislated conditions that are humane. Either animal welfare matters or it doesn't. It doesn't make any sense for it to depend on individual consumers. A few people buying top-tier eggs isn't ever going to improve anything for the vast majority of hens.
It's not that the price increase itself leads to better conditions, it's that better conditions necessitate price increases.
There are ways to assess whether a product meets one's standards. They may not be your standards, but it would meet the median for consumers.
I can purchase poultry from a local farm that has an on-site health inspector, where chickens are free-range. In ovo sexing is coming later for eggs. On the poultry side, life in battery cages by far leads to the most suffering. Absent that, given the right conditions, I find the poultry inoffensive and most consumers would too.
I agree there should be legislation, and that has been happening at the state-level.
slothtrop commented on America Is Missing The New Labor Economy – Robotics Part 1 semianalysis.com/2025/03/... · Posted by u/lasermatts
If "meaning" was a good argument against UBI, then nobody would want pensions, because UBI is exactly the same as setting the state pension age to zero.
Leaving aside that older people aren't as enthused about FT work they've known for 30 years, many of them keep jobs or get bored and lonely without them. Not everyone wants to sit around crafting useless projects, or consuming. Creating value for others and connecting (and status signaling) can provide meaning, and granted in retirement there are other vectors for that made available such as volunteering.
It's not a good argument against UBI, but there are better arguments against UBI.