laverabe
It wasn’t a personal attack. I could see how it could be read that way but the second sentence was a point of science not insult. It’s hard to convey intention in text.
They are just my observations and interactions with vegans, and the science is clear that most vegans have nutritional deficiencies. It is extremely difficult to actually get everything you need without meat, and you essentially have to plan every single meal in a food planner. I know… I’ve tried it and even planned to a tee it is near impossible to have a balanced diet without meat. I wish it was.
Every vegan I’ve ever spoke with is rude, condescending, and Iamverysmart material. Probably due to lack of essential amino acid intake for proper brain function.
you didn’t know how to wipe your own bum until I taught you. I think I have a handle on 9/11, liberal vs. conservative politics
I agree completely with the one exception being the current aging generation that is so completely brainwashed by Murdock et al, that think the working class are the badies, among other misconceptions…
over 30. I personally prefer more serious discussion because I’m a dork. I’m not into most sports, jokes, video games or other whimsical stuff. I like some of that stuff IRL, but I consider the internet primarily of use for deeper discussion of topics that most people might not necessarily have an interest in. Like NASAs nuclear powered project Orion spacecraft in the 1960s.
Peoples eyes normally glaze over when I talk about that stuff offline, but there are billions online, and usually someone else finds that niche stuff as interesting as me.
It would be nice if you could select which topics interest you rather than having to block every community that does not.
I just consider any comment after Jun 2023 to be compromised. Anyone who stayed after that date either doesn’t have a clue, or is sponsored content.
Because you can very easily already calculate the increased cost of natural disasters; droughts, floods, severe storms with wind and hail damage, crop spoilage, etc that is occurring right now. The future disasters will be worse.
As explained in the article they take the cost of current disasters and multiply the known effects of global warming to calculate what costs will be. They can only calculate what they know.
The costs are probably more like 1000x anyway because there is no way to really apply an accounting system to a complete calamity that would happen if numerous very likely feedback loops happen, as they hint to in the article.
People don’t live in rural areas primarily because of the distance to their jobs and a lack of infrastructure. Otherwise most people would choose rural living over living in a dense city if all other factors were equal.
Closeness to nature, lack of pollution/ city noise, free use of the earth and land, etc.
