• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle




  • htrayl@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlviolently cries and sobs
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    If only sex was as simple as a selection of gametes. There is a wide range of chromosomal, hormonal, genitalia, and physiological variation in human sex characteristics, and it is much more common than you think. And that is ignoring much more subtle variation and overlap between the sexes - cognitive, emotional, psychological - that are just as much a part of the natural variation of human sex as any other.

    And before you come back with an argument about some rhetoric about “conditions” or what ever - all of evolution starts as a rare variation that becomes common in a certain population. Certain eye colors are nearly the same rarity.

    Finally, there are plenty of animals that have individuals that do not reproduce. Examples are naked mole rats. We aren’t a eusocial species, but it isn’t to say we don’t have some very early characteristics of it.









  • It’s the same thing with recycling, companies trying to sell the idea that climate change is a personal failing of every single person even though said companies are responsible for like 90% of carbon emissions.

    God I wish this talking point would die.

    1. Companies emit on the basis of your consumption. This is not arbitrary, emit out of no where.
    2. Individuals being unwilling to tolerate even minor inconveniences or adjustments to their lifestyle makes systemic change impossible. Government and industry won’t change until collective individuals are willing to deal with it.
    3. Meat consumption, housing size, housing location, voting patterns, vehicle choice and use, are all individually driven decisions.



  • Meaningful legislation follows collective individual conviction - this mindset that the individual does not matter is simply an excuse to resist change, which means that government will basically never feel the mandate to make any meaningful legislation. People must be willing to be better, and that starts with personal investment in the problem. For example, if you bike more and use transit more, even when it is mildly inconvenient, local politicians and authorities are far more likely to invest in those modes.

    Further, there is a lot that people can do to their effective emissions, regardless of external emissions. Quitting meat, for example, is an individual action that can have enormous benefits collectively. Buying solar panels and home investments, even at a slight loss, drastically reduce emissions. When you talk about externalized emissions, you fail to admit that a massive portion of the global emissions are due to the individual consumption of resources. Period.

    Additionally, individual political action - donating, campaigning, and running, are all individual actions that contribute to the greater collective action. The idea that this is fundamentally different than other type of individual action is wrong.

    As far as I am concerned, the mindset that the individual doesn’t matter is an immensely toxic and dangerous one: it is escapism, denial, and a transparent effort to assuage one’s personal guilt toward responsibility.


  • The level of zealous dogma in this thread is pretty sad. Carbon offsets are an enormous field - and definitely there are a lot of low effort scams - but simultaneously there are many opportunities for it to be an extremely valuable part of the climate response. We do need it to be highly regulated, and by itself it really isn’t enough. But, for example, buying low value land that was never a real factor for climate change is not the same as, say burning biomass for biochar or removing refrigerants, or subsidizing renewable energy.

    An alternative to direct carbon offsets is political contributions - you have an immense amount of power locally in particular. That can help drive more sustainable construction, cleaner transit, and renewable local generation.

    Additionally, the claim that individual action is not important or valuable is also pretty pathetic and honestly just an excuse to not make any personal changes. The reality is systemic change follows personal change. Government needs a mandate to make important investments and regulations, but it cannot do it if people are completely unwilling to change their lifestyle.



  • Meh, this is not a great take. Resistance training is unambigiously great for the heart, nearly as good as aerobic in isolation. A runner who doesn’t do resistance training is in roughly the same position as a weight lifter who doesn’t run (both seem to reduce risk by 30-70%)

    However, aerobic and resistance together seem to be better than either in isolation.

    Additionally, resistance training has a number of additional health benefits outside of cardiovascular health, to the point that I would say that doing resistance training in isolation is functionally a better use of time for your health than aerobic exercise.

    Ideally, you should do both.

    The only time this is not true really is when the individual is taking PEDs which do increase risk of heart failure.