I mean what’s more important to you, being able drop the info about time zones when scheduling international meetings, or preserving humanities ability to communicate time respectively to the actual time of day?
I’ve lived in three countries so far and never actually had trouble scheduling anything. The concept of time of day on the other hand is pretty prevalent in my daily life.
Ahem. Oops.
But in a way that’s a good example for what I meant. You and me communicate time both in reference to the time of day, not a virtual time of the planet that means something else to everyone depending on location, and you easily could spot my mistake.
So let’s just say I did that on purpose.
Communication about times would get so much easier, communication about schedules would get so much easier.
Except that it wouldn’t. It would make communication about time a culture sensitive topic. Sure, the exact time of day in relation to the position of the sun might get lost with our current system, but if someone tells you “I’ve slept til 12am” at least you know it was somewhat around noon. Under your new system you’d always have to consider where someone lives.
No I’m sorry I don’t get it, what’s the plan here? Shoot at the cops? Threaten the racists with a gun? There must be a better answer to systemic racism than suicide by cop. A blank card with the words “not talking without lawyer present” would probably be a more sensible choice - against cops, not against mountain lions.
Psychologically that would be a desaster. People would wear themselves out in an instant, and in 6 months top we’d have a world population suffering from clinical depression.
Obviously we need to be critical about our own history, but with this line of thinking we literally couldn’t condemn anything.
“Slavery? Genocide? Mass rapes? Authoritarian persecution? Oh well, that happened here as well at some point so I guess it’s okay.”
You could totally work with your inner child on that basis. Obviously don’t have to. But just imagining this little version of you and the hardship they had to endure, thinking about what they would have needed from an adult, and imagining yourself being that adult for your imaginative younger self - that would be very much in line with the idea of the technique.
Basically, “every opinion I don’t like is a religion.”
When remembering a stressful experience it’s important not to get stuck in your thoughts.
Most people would be a bit shocked after what you’ve been through. Our brains tend to try to go over things a few times to get a grasp at what happened. Sometimes our thoughts become a movie of the stressful incident that plays on repeat in our thoughts. Try to think further. Remember how you got out of the situation, remember how you got home, remember how you had dinner, remember how you got to bed. And remember: You’re okay, you’re alright, this is all behind you, you did alright, and right now you’re safe and fine.
Try to explicitly think this a few times. At the very least, this is a much more pleasant thought to get stuck on than “fuck, I’m in danger”.
And if it helps: Either distract yourself or tell someone what happened. Both are okay. Just don’t stop at the scary part when telling the tale, always think and tell about it to the point where you were safe again.
It didn’t, at least not in the way you think. The headlines of the past few days show the aftermath of the last decades: industry contracts that were made in the last century and the political heritage of a generation of politicians who are no longer in power.
Coal is being phased out and that’s not changing. It cannot change substantially anyway; there is only so much coal in the gound. Recent political decisions moved to keep most of it there. For technological, political, economical and industry related reasons this won’t be a fast process unfortunately.
One of the roadblocks of our transition to a sustainable energy supply is how much money (and in our capitalisic society, therefore, power) the industry itself holds. Coal lobbies will work hard for you not to think about them too much. Nuclear lobbies will work hard for you to blame those pesky environmentalists. A game of distraction and blame shifting. This thread is a good example of how well it’s working.
Our resources are limited. This is true for good old planet earth as well as our societies. We only have so much money, time, and workforce to manage this transition. And as much as I’d love to wake up tomorrow to a world with PVC on every roof, a windmill on every field, and decentralised storage in every town center, this is just not realistic overnight. We’ll have to live with the fact of our limited resources and divert as much as possible of them towards such a future. (And btw, putting billions of dollars in money, time, and workforce towards a reactor that will start working in 10-30 years is not the way to do this, as much as the nuclear lobby would like you to think that.)
Eh. Humans have (confidently and incorrectly) assumed such causal links for millenia. There’s thunder, so there must be a thunder god. There’s a sun in the sky, so someone must have put it there. There’s people, so someone must have build them from clay.
What we could conclude logically: There is something - so something, somehow, once began.
That’s it. It’s also kind of recursive. It’s factual, but there isn’t anything meaningful inevitably following from this.
And everything else is an assumption.
You can say “I chose to believe that this somehow was a someone.” You could decide to believe that there was a personal entity as a single cause for all that is. Someone who had somewhat of a consciousness, who willingly and deliberately created everything. You could assume that this someone was eternal and all-powerful and therefore later on or even until right now still alive/active. You could speculate about this entity being interested in creating a specific planet with a very specific ecosystem. You could ponder whether this entiry would be interested enough in one species within this ecosystem to watch, influence, and even hold something like a relationship with them.
A bit far fetched, but sure. You wouldn’t be the first one to assume all these from a simple “There is a cake”.
You can do that at 14 actually.
Age of consent in Germany is a staggered system. With 14 you’re able to consent under specific conditions (them being there’s no exploitative element to the relationship), but still could file charge against the older person if they’re over 16. With 16 the first rule still applies; from 18 on you’re able to consent, period.
So for example when I was 14 I had a boyfriend, also 14, and neither of us committed any crime under this ruling. The law acknowledges that teenagers are allowed to have relationships with each other while putting every borderline case through a case-by-case hearing at court.
It’s actually a really good idea, so it kinda is a fun fact.
Did you seriously look at the FAQ of the vegan society, picked something that confirmed your preestablished opinion, and ignored the sentence right before it?
Here, let me show the whole quote:
What does it mean to be vegan?
A vegan lifestyle involves living a life that is more compassionate towards animals and the environment. The precise definition of veganism is:
“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude – as far as is possible and practicable – all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”
You just have a very superficial view of veganism. Just ask yourself this: Why abstain from animals products? What is the intention of a vegan lifestyle? You’ve claimed that a nuanced application would have “made a religion”, but the opposite is true. It would be a religion if we’d blindly apply a rule of conduct without any considerations. Which we don’t, as you will see all over the vegan society’s website. Just check what they write about animal products in medication. They are absolutely clear how a vegan lifestyle should work: “As far as is possible and practicable.” An important principle that practically every single vegan out there knows and lives by.
Or maybe you’re just misunderstanding what veganism is abiut in the first place.
Some people (mostly non-vegans) seem to believe it’s about blindly and thoughtlessly abstaining from animals products. That’s how veganism might look like from the outside but it’s not actually what it’s about at it’s core. That would be to avoid all unnecessary suffering. Vegans are for example aware that the farming of plants does indeed cause animal deaths. But we can’t avoid those without starving. So it’s not unnecessary. And still vegan.
Within the same logic if someone, for whatever reason, would need meat to survive he could consume it still within the same ethical framework. And theoretically that could be vegan. The thing is: For 99.9% of people it’s BS that they need meat. So obviously in the vast majority of cases it wouldn’t be vegan, just a hypocrite lying to themselves.
I read the whole thread and didn’t see a single argument about what good would have come from that. I think you’re looking at this from a very removed point of view that lets you forget the actual individuals involved. I’m German. Let me introduce you to my grandparents and let’s see how they would’ve fared under your proposed processing:
Grandpa A was drafted at the end of the war, he was 13. He didn’t want to be there and plotted a “genius” plan with his two buddies two lie to his general about a super important mission from the general next town and run off. He probably only survived that because his general wasn’t in the mood to shoot him on the spot.
Grandma B wasn’t drafted obviously, she worked in (basically) social services while WWII because she actually was a supporter of the Nazi party and felt like that’s how she could do her part. She didn’t commit any atrocities, probably simply because as a woman she never got anywhere close to the front.
Grandpa C was a party member. He didn’t want to join at first – we still own a news paper page where he (and a few others) were openly shamed for refusing to join party and front. After his brother, who had turned down an SS position, was transferred to an extra risky combat unit as cannon fodder and died on his second day, he caved. I can only assume that, as a soldier, he actively participated in the fighting. He tried to disobey where easily possible, but he didn’t desert. When his general told him to “take care” of a woman he abused, he brought her away from the front, pointed her to the nearest town and told her to flee.
Grandma D didn’t do any of that, but she was proudly engaged to a Hitler Youth leader (who thankfully died, so she met my grandpa after the war). While WWII she absolutely was a Nazi, but she didn’t actively do anything that would mark her as such. She got into a personal crisis after the war when she stopped lying to herself about this horrible system she had supported. Until the day she died she was convinced she would go to hell.
Killing every active supporter, as you suggested, would have both my grandpas executed, although they both condemned what was happening and, limited by their sparce abilities to do so, tried to disobey. My grandmas would’ve ironically been spared, even though they were (when it comes to their attitude) more Nazis than my grandpas. Neither of the four were Nazis at later points in their life, I’d like to add. And the generation after them would have never existed - an anti-nationalistic, anti-patriotic, highly political, highly critical and socially active family, influenced by traumatized men and rueful women.
So it would have achieved nothing. I’d argue the world would be even worse if that would have been humanity’s answer to WWII back then.
But what good would it have done? Those boys were victims themselves.
Do you know how many factors are considered when calculating the Tanner Scale?
Do you?
That’s it.
That is entirely dependend on the substance, the original addiction, and the individual. Might it lead to a negative spirale? Sure. Addiction is destructive. Depending on the context pretty much anything can be done or consumed to the point of self harm. Probably don’t get into one on purpose like, a general rule of thumb.