Yeah but most people on earth get hot, as the vast majority of humanity lives closer to the equator than Europe.

I added the part about humanity’s aversion to suicide for a reason. To counter this silly part of the argument.

It’s incredibly difficult to choose to commit suicide as a human. Every one of our drives and instincts is against it. An extremely rare number of us can do it in as a sacrifice to others, and only a few more than them can choose to do it as an escape from their own pain. Even amongst them, those that manage to survive the attempt will usually never attempt it again. It’s an incredibly rare number of humans that can try to commit suicide repeatedly.

But it’s not their fault or virtue, any of them. It is logic either winning against or failing against instinct.

Some of us are here today solely because we cannot overcome this instinct and have decided to let fate decide. Some still have embraced fact we lost against this instinct and have decided to make light of life until our misery is over.

But there are plenty today, and I think the up votes reinforce this, that would take a painless death in a heartbeat even if they aren’t clinically suicidal. Life is that bad for most people.

Life is so bad that we had to come up with a divine justification for our suffering. A meaning to this existence beyond anything we can find on earth, because earth has no such justification for the suffering of life. Nothing excuses it.

The only parents I forgive are teen parents whose hormones fully overtook any thought process. If you’re an adult and have a child, you’re a selfish bastard that chose to damn another life to 80 years of suffering.

I’ll do the unpopular argument today…

Creating life is always a selfish action and cannot be morally justified. There are no reasons for it that do no begin and end in pure self interest.

Even if you’re infinitely wealthy with all the free time to care for and guaranteed friendly people to support your child, it would still be a selfish act to force a being into existence to experience joy as much as it would be to experience sorrow.

You never got their consent and the human species has a ridiculously strong drive against suicide. There’s essentially no ‘out’ for them if they don’t like whatever you prepared.

Human lives are only worth living if they aren’t destined to a life of pain and hardship without any clear path to peace and love.

Abortion is almost always the moral choice.

Good news! Winter is probably going to be over for most people on the planet by the end of the century.

Guns. The advent of firearms revolutionized warfare to the extent that no other military arms mattered, and no other training mattered.

Before firearms were adopted, it would take a good ten to twenty years to raise a standing army, and retinues would still need a few months of training to not be slaughtered within the first battle. With firearms you just need a week or two and any peasant with two arms became an effective soldier.

Contrasting this, bowmen weren’t peasants. They did not return to their family when there wasn’t war. They were trained from around the age of seven to around the age of 15, and after this would be a professional soldier until they retired or died; training every single day (except Sundays or Saturdays depending on religion). They were paid to be bowmen, nothing else. Even if a peasant could use a bow, say if they were a hunter, they would never qualify for military service. Its that big of a difference in skill.

As to their differences in effect, range and force.

The weakest powder musket equals a ~80lbs draw war bow. Both can pierce plate armor on a good day, but the former can do so from a longer distance and again with decades less training. As guns get more advanced, their range and penetration increases massively, whereas most archers will be unable to draw a 120lbs or higher bow, meaning there is a maximum distance and effectiveness of bows that is almost comically lower than weapons.

To keep with freedom units, a deadly long range bow shot tops out at around a quarter mile with a high draw weight long bow. That’s about the absolute max, assuming the victim is wearing no armor. The current record for a sniper with a gun is around 1.5 miles, with the target wearing body armor.

Because it’s tasty. Because we have a few million year history of eating it and it satisfies a deep itch in our consciousness.

The only issues with meat are the ethical concerns and the environmental issues, both of which are eliminated with lab meat. We get the taste without the pointless suffering.

Not everyone likes plant proteins as a sole source, and that’s okay.

That’s fair but for a population to take to a previously forbidden food group requires decades to centuries of conditioning, and have to be better than not having them. Cheese, for example; even populations with high levels of lactose intolerance and without a strong culture of fermented foods tend to like cheese, because it fills a niche that’s difficult to fill without cheese.

I’ve had a lot of traditional insect dishes as well as more modern takes where they just sub a random flavorless food for insects like the flavored dried crickets… None of them are that good. The sauces or seasoning makes them edible. Anything you can get from an insect based dish you can get using beans or potatoes or rice or literally anything else without a particularly strong flavor. They don’t have a niche they fill.

Adoption without just making it a generic protein bar a’la snowpiercer isn’t likely unless all other protein sources become out of reach… And we really shouldn’t force it since we did crack lab grown meat. Lamb and veal are incredibly delicious unethical, but we can make that. Well likely be able to do seafood as well, bringing back whale, real tuna, even dolphin. And we if really want bugs well there’s shrimp on the far horizon to be grown…

There’s really no need to deal with the downsides of bugs. Like legs or exploding guts.

But we have literally no need to do it. Lab grown meat requires the same level of input as industrial cricket or worm farming per gram of protein and produces fat at the same time while being far more palatable.

There’s no need to go back to famine era stone age practices to solve the ethical and environmental problems of meat eating.

Sensors on a main road and well set timers after a few months of data can do wonders and be extremely low cost, but it requires some upfront spending and enough public will to put up with bad traffic until everything is tuned.

China has more public transit of every type than the rest of the world combined at this point, and most of their cities are quite pedestrian centric.

Cars are a luxury outside the rural areas, and they’re a problem, but this is unrelated to that.

Sometimes ignorance makes its origins obvious, but literally every single part of your viewpoint can be disproven by just reading any science communication website, much less the actual papers behind the quantum processors currently in commercial operation so how you came to believe what you believe is just a complete mystery.

So you just have no idea what you’re talking about and are proud of it why?

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Silica mines alone prevent any phone from being ethical.

Removed by mod

Intent is incredibly important. In all systems trade happens. The idea that capitalism=markets is incredibly stupid, equally stupid is the idea that all work is done under a corporation for the sole purpose of making someone else rich, as you have suggested here.

The problem is not that things are done for the sake of the state or not, but what purpose things are done for. In fascism the state is owned by corporate interests, the leading interest being whatever dictator sits at the top. Work is done solely to make those corporate owners privately rich, nothing more. Each system is built openly for class oppression.

Even in the most brain rotted American views the ussr is nothing like that. You’d have to be a fascist or brain damaged to even try to argue it.

There were no corporations in the ussr. There were business, not multi regional conglomerates.

And even then the purpose of a corporation is to profit. That is it’s sole goal.

And if you knew anything about socialism you’d support the cpc. Maybe not the ussr but we’ve learned from their failures.

China is a fully socialist state. If you think otherwise you either stopped paying attention to socialism in the mid 1800s, or you don’t know enough about China.

Removed by mod

That’s not the definition of the term, by any ones analysis. The simplest, original definition is that fascism is state and corporate power combined. Like the US has been for half a century.