So called ethical treatment impacts the speed and scope of research that can be done, and in doing so delays or prevents the benefits of conducting that research. That means that people who could be saved by animal tested medicines instead die in the time taken to find an alternative.
What’s gross is condemning people to die for the sake of some pigs
I would see a million pigs die before one human.
Hydro destroys environments, uses enormous amounts of concrete and the related disasters have killed orders of magnitude more people than nuclear.
Climate change is not going to be literally the end of the world, or even human civilization. At the worst we’ll see mass immigration to the global north and the centre equatorial band become more difficult to inhabit.
Farm yields will probably drop to some extent, and we might see a few wars, but we are fairly well equipped to survive.
In the west there are laws about public indecency which legislate what people may wear outside and these rules demand women wear shirts but do not demand the same of men.
In some western countries, there are ones that do not make a distinction
The law covers that also. All visible religious garments are forbidden.
“The law in it’s great magnanimity prohibits poor and rich alike from sleeping under bridges and stealing bread.”.
A law can be applied equally to everyone and still target a specific group of people.
A person is their experiences though, the meat shell on its own can’t ever become the person killed without experiencing life in the exact same way and at the same time as the previous one.
It’s a lost cause, I have to fight off the Soviet plant builders every time I leave the house. They’ll manage it eventually.
Plenty of outspoken state critics have had the CIA’s highest reward for investigative journalism administered cranially.
The more sophisticated the system, the more sophisticated your method must be to break it. Eventually the means to break it will grow out of the reach of guerilla movements
I’m not sure that using the entire QA staff of the world’s largest agglomeration of Dev studios on a single game only qualifies as “not cutting corners”. That’s surely going above and beyond.
That’s 4x higher than car related deaths per number of car owners, and cars require a license and insurance, and doing something dangerous with one can have you lose your right to use it permanently.
Cars have the additional factor that they are practically required for living in the US, so reasonably we would be willing to accept a higher number of deaths than we would otherwise for other objects.
There will of course be different sources of information, but that does not mean that they will present a fair and balanced spread of ideas. The capitalist class will push their own interests. A single owner is not required for that to occur
8 billion people is absolutely sustainable, we could support significantly more at a modern standard of living with just the resources we use today. The problem is the way we organise how and where we live, and a parasitic owner class using and abusing vastly more resources than they could ever need.
- Education
- Opportunity
- Help those who don’t want to give birth not to give birth
- Reduce the influence of religion that promotes childbirth and irresponsible family planning
- Reduce the influence of pressure to grow in every way that is likely exacerbated by capitalism
And if after all that people still want to have children?
Nature will bring our numbers to sustainable levels if we don’t do it. Nature will not be so kind.
Let it try, we’ll see who wins.
And it is you who calls someone fascist?
Fascism is when you improve people’s living conditions.
The axis is authoritarian-libertarian, not liberal. The definition might be different in common parlance, but people not understanding terms in political science through ignorance is not a reason not to use them.
A liberal socialist is a subset of liberals, the same as social democrats and social liberalism.
You cannot seek to preserve capitalism and also be a socialist.
And to Germany’s communist party, fascists were also distasteful, bigots, and extremists, and they would lead to the collapse of capitalism.
This would be a good mirroring response if it had any amount of truth to it. To the Communists in Germany, the fascists were their mortal enemy. The two parties were fighting in the streets. The Communists saw the fascists as a capitalist system, they certainly were not under the impression that fascism would bring about the end of capitalism.
A declaration by the Communists that the Fascists would collapse under their own contradictions is not evidence to the contrary, or evidence that the German communists tolerated the fascists.
Liberal and libertarian are not the same thing and cannot be conflated, and authoritarianism isn’t anything with a state.
I swear, the political compass has rotted people’s brains.
We brought pigs into existence for the benefit of human conditions, we will take them out of it if and when it becomes necessary.