Deme

https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass

I don’t think that anyone in this chain of replies has argued for flat out ending all animal meat production. Sure, plenty of vegans are motivated primarily by animal ethics and thus want to categorically ban growing animals for food, but here almost everyone seems to be talking about the sustainability aspect of modern mass animal agriculture, myself included. Although less ethical scruples is a welcome byproduct in my opinion.

I’ll take lab grown meat seriously when it’s been proven to be financially competetive and most importantly scalable. Technofixes have a bad track record of turning out to be mostly just investor bait. Kinda like all the bullshit high-flying transportation concepts as solutions to problems where just slightly better urban planning and prioritizing public transit, cycling etc. would work wonders.

Plant based food on the other hand has been most of what we have been eating for most of history. It wasn’t that long ago when meat was still considered a relative delicacy, back when scarcity necessitated efficiency. That’s the kind of efficient, sustainable, healthy and local (so logistically simple) food production system we should try to strive for in my opinion.

Our economic systems only work with infinite growth because otherwise what would be the point of lending money if it won’t grow interest. It’s essentially a giant pyramid scheme. And that requires new blood to provide labour and consumers. This is incredibly dumb on a finite planet with limited resources, but that’s mainstream economics for you.

Also if the population shrinks too fast, then the pyramid becomes unstable with not enough younger people to take care of all the old people (while also maintaining the economy).

That resource and logistics management problem is a direct result of people eating so much meat, the production of which is inherently inefficient for the purposes of feeding people. Of all the resources that we spend on maintaining and growing an animal, we only get back what goes into growing its muscles. The vast majority is wasted in maintaining the animal so that it doesn’t shrivel up and die before slaughter. Scale back meat production and you get a lot more food for a lot less resources, energy and land. You can’t get that efficiency otherwise. It’s precisely about what we eat.

I’m almost impressed by how much completely unsubstantiated ad hominem you managed to cram in there. Personally I couldn’t have guessed any of that from the comment you replied to. But if you wish to be taken seriously, maybe focus instead on the actual arguments next time.

Impulse is the integral of force over time, but I get what you’re after.

When pecking at a tree, the maximum force exerted is what pushes the wood beyond its breaking point. That maximum force can be increased by increasing the impact energy as a whole (wasteful and costly) or shortening the impulse. A woodpecker isn’t trying to do soft blows to shake some branches, it’s trying to shatter a small portion of the trunk, much like someone looking to shatter their opponents nose would choose bare fists over boxing gloves.

IIRC this theory was debunked some time ago by a study. If you think about it, any dampening within the skull would lessen the force of the pecking and the bird would have to hammer away harder.

Edit: Link to a study

The wording is a meme, but yeah, somewhat detached from reality nowadays.

Every other human around you has almost the same genes as you. Just being kind to others is already a tiny contribution to the survival of the species and the genes we share. Pretty sure one would have to be actively suicidial or a Bond villain in order to not to help the genes that survive on with every breath anybody ever takes.

It’s not limited to direct reproduction of one’s own genes. Keep in mind that we live in a society. Contributing to that society means helping others of our species (with almost the same genes) pass their genes on. Just being kind to others is already great. You’re valid.

Fair point, but despite how we as a society treat artists, I still think that the underlying impulse to do art is an attempt to capture the interest and appreciation of others, building social bonds. Rarely is art made without a tought of presenting it to others. This is how art seems to happen with every other species on earth that does it.

Perhaps not with conscious intent. I suppose even staying alive and contributing to a society still means that you help your relatives pass their genes on. Even gay penguins do this when they adopt an orphaned egg.

If you really boil it down, all that any species ever does is in some way an attempt to propagate its genes. We aren’t any different either. The artistic spark that got Davinci to paint the Mona Lisa was there due to such behaviour being an evolutionarily beneficial trait (being good at art increases the social standing of a person and thus increases their chances of reproduction). I don’t want to sound cynical about this because I’m not. That’s just life. It really doesn’t matter. The painting is still beautiful.