bitsplease

Dissappear? No, of course not

Fall out of repair, and be unable to be repaired effectively without tools, resources, or knowledge that are no longer accessible?

Abso-fucking-lutely

Take a deep sea oil rig. How long do you think it'll be operational without maintenance with all that sea water? After not too long you won't be able to repair the damage without serious industrial capabilities, and that's assuming you even know how to fix it.

Really even as relatively little as a few decades of total chaos and disorganization would be enough to make crawling back really hard. A century and more and it really could be impossible, or at least improbable - especially given that the humanity that comes out of the other end of the crisis is the same one that got us into it. So the remaining pieces of major valuable infrastructure left will probably get wrecked as the survivors fight over them

True, but Its 100% possible for us to get knocked back into the iron age, and if that happens, there's a very real chance we won't be able to climb up again.

Easy to access sources of a lot of the resources needed to rebuild a modern civilization are gone, the only reason we can get to the remaining deposits is because we already have the advanced equipment to extract it. It's entirely possible that if we get knocked back down the tech ladder, we may never climb back up again

Ultimately this is the core problem as I see it - a hierarchical society will always be militarily stronger, practically by definition - and if history has taught us anything, it's that weak neighbors get eaten by their stronger neighbors.

Additionally I think most of these idealized community structures are overly optimistic about the likelihood of a charismatic leader coming along and getting people to follow them, and then not letting them withdraw that power. Anarchists talk about hierarchies without formal power structures, but what is actually stopping someone whose already effectively in charge from turning that power into something more permanent, especially if they've convinced the populace that they want that?

Its happened an endless amount of times all throughout history, and I really don't see why it wouldn't here. Ultimately it just seems like a fragile system that relies mostly on every single individual being perfectly rational and immune to the draw of populist leaders. Aka - completely unlike actual humans

Totally doable, use a multicolor printer and print it like 3 layers thick - you'll get thin flexible plastic sheets.

Not actually practical, but totally doable lol

I'm not Vegan, so I can't speak for them, but here's my understanding

if you live in an urban environment, it's basically impossible to get what you're referring to. Maybe if you were willing to have it shipped to you at great cost and not insignificant effort, but the only thing available at stores in the US is the BS marketed "free range" stuff. And even if you find a place that claims to be the real deal, how do you verify? Basically, it's easier for most people to just go Vegan then to seriously vet every source of animal products

Additionally, many vegans believe it to be a genuinely healthier diet than an omnivore diet. And please don't respond with " we evolved to be meat eaters" or something like that, because we didn't "evolve" to do practically any of the things modern life entails, including a lot of what we eat. Beyond that one BS counterargument though, I make no claims as to whether they're right. Anecdotally, my sister in law suffered from IBS her whole life until she went Vegan, when the problem went away entirely. So it certainly has benefit for some people

Finally, for a lot of vegans it's an issue of consent - some might say that you shouldn't eat those eggs in your example for the simple reason that they don't belong to you, and you can't morally take them, because theres no way to ask consent, and so you shouldn't. Again, you don't have to agree with the outlook, but that's the way several vegans have explained it to me.

If any actual vegans come along and think I'm misrepresenting something, feel free to correct it

So, what? We're just straight up making shit up about Mac now when trashing it on Lemmy?

Its literally been over a decade since the last time Apple charged for an OS update

100%, id totally put my butt in the fake side if I were a smoker for laughs

You are though.

I'm not, reread my previous comment. Last time I'm going to say this before I just block you without giving you the courtesy of even replying, stop deciding for me what I'm advocating, I've laid out the strategy I'd like to see in my previous comment, I'm advocating for absolutely no action beyond that.

So pitbulls will still breed even if you tell people not to do it.

Yes, of course - do you actually believe this is where a majority of pitbulls come from though? No moral strategy will completely eliminate the breed, but restricting breeders will mean that your average person can't get one, which means your average Joe/Jane is far less likely to run into them on the street.

How do you come up with pitbulls having health and aggression issues?

I never said they have health issues (maybe they do, I'm not aware of it though) - When I talk about breeds with health issues, I'm referring to breeds like Pugs that live their whole lives in discomfort because of how much we fucked up their physiology.

In over half of all dog bite cases, the breed is unknown

True, that's why we only look at the cases where the breed is known for these discussions, without making any assumptions about the dogs whose breed is unknown.

It’s not anyone’s job to count dog bites by breed

I guess true? In that people don't get paid, they do however report breed information as part of the reporting of the dog bite. And as I've said in other comments in this thread, I'm entirely sure that there is a margin of error in the reporting of breeds for dog bites. However, even if you assume as much as a 5x overreporting for pitbulls, that still puts at about double the chance of an individual pitbull biting someone as opposed to a mixed breed dog.

anyone purporting to have done so is basically lying.

Ah, the ole "I don't like it, so it must be made up", very scientific.

And when you talk about banning dog breeds, yes you are talking about rounding them up in euthanizing them. Period.

I'm absolutely not. I'm advocating restrictions on breeders, not owners. No one should have their dog taken away, and pit bulls in shelters should still be adoptable in my view. I just don't believe we should be deliberately breeding more dogs with known issues, whether it's issues with their own health (like pugs) or issues with aggression.

Please don't presume to tell me what I'm advocating.

Yeah frankly the statistics are pretty conclusive. You can argue about bad owners all you'd like, and theres probably at least some truth there (if you're an asshole who wants a violent dog, you're of course going to choose a breed with a reputation for violence), but it's clear to any unbiased observer that pit bulls have a high tendency towards violence.

No one is advocating that we round up all the pit bulls and euthenize them (no sane person anyways), but that we stop breeding new ones. Frankly there needs to be a lot more regulation on dog breeding, besides violent breeds, there's no reason we should be breeding more (as an example) pugs, who are doomed to spend their whole lives suffocating just because some people like their squashed faces

So what do you suggest that can actually be done, besides removed about it on Lemmy?

You talk a lot about moralizing without actually making a difference, but that's exactly what you're doing in your comment.

So hit us with it - what should we be doing instead? Other than removed about it on Lemmy, I mean?

Of course it won't fix climate change in one go, but doing so would remove a major fossil fuel dependency for your average Joe and make them much more likely to vote against fossil fuels.

Put another way, how many people driving gas cars would vote in favor of heavy taxes on fossil fuel use?

Now, how many would vote that way if they personally didn't have any dependencies on fossil fuels?

Also, highway vehicles account for 1.5 billion tons of GHGs being emitted each year, that's 11% of the global yearly GHG emissions, so yeah, it definetely would "move the needle". In the US specifically it's as much as 20% of our nations emissions.

And yeah I already know the next argument "bUt YoUr JuSt UsInG fOsSiL fUeLs To ChArGe It" - except you're not necessarily, in my area (part of CA), you can choose to have 100% of your electricity provided by renewable sources for a small monthly premium ($18/month). Additionally in CA, all new homes are being built with solar power, which further increases your ability to charge without fossil fuels.

And in the areas that isn't true, it's at least getting groundwork laid down to make it true. An electric car can be powered by renewable energy, a fossil fuel car must be powered by fossil fuels.

There are a lot of steps to solving climate change beyond "buy an electric car", and you're right that industrial and commercial pollution accounts for the majority, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be pushing on all fronts.

We've already waited way too long to act, we can't afford as a species to say "well, I'm not going to change my car until the industrial polluters get their shit together", we have to push in Every possible direction, all at the same time to make progress, and electric cars overtaking fossil fuel cars is a big part of that.

There's a lot of work to be done globally until electric cars are 100% green, both in terms of power infrastructure and the processes to create them, but there's no way forward with gas cars, so we need to start moving over as a society now, phasing out the production of gas cars with electric