Expert prognosis for the planet

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

My example was there to provide evidence that there might be far less taboo in our society than might be obvious. It is telling that so many states allow 1st cousin marriages. While this isn’t the same as siblings marrying, it isn’t too far off socially, even if it is a decent jump genetically (barely). While sentiment for same-sex-marriage has significantly improved in the last ten years, the relationship between the two is less important than the general illustration that interfamily marriage is far less taboo than some may realize.

I think what you mean is that it is not illegal to do so. The distinction is important because if it is a societal norm not to do so for reasons other than laws, then why would someone spend time writing it into law in the first place. That shit takes time better spent pandering for donations.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The point of the pic was missed apparently.

Inaccuracy, or I should say, old data, tends to do that. A current infographic would actually show the opposite of your point, that gay marriage is much more legally acceptable than first-cousin marriage.

I think that it is important to also point out, that while legal, first-cousin marriages is shown to be only about 0.1% of all marriages in the US. Even here in the South, it is frowned upon socially but it's legal.

Now, based on your responses to @Spuds your point is the US isn't quite as prudish when it comes to intra-family relationships as folks may think, yea I agree.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I think what you mean is that it is not illegal to do so. The distinction is important because if it is a societal norm not to do so for reasons other than laws, then why would someone spend time writing it into law in the first place. That shit takes time better spent pandering for donations.

I’m not sure I am following your point or where you are trying to emphasize that point. I was going to respond, but I don’t know if I’ll be responding to the right thing.

I will say separately, it is interesting what is legal and illegal in this country, especially compared to what is acceptable or not. Case in point:

As of October 1, 2020, 15 states either have not yet formally repealed their laws against sexual activity among consenting adults or have not revised them to accurately reflect their true scope in the aftermath of Lawrence v. Texas. Often, the sodomy law was drafted to also encompass other forms of sexual conduct such as bestiality, and no attempt has subsequently succeeded in separating them. Eleven states' statutes purport to ban all forms of sodomy, some including oral intercourse, regardless of the participants' genders: Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Three states specifically target their statutes at same-sex relations only: Kansas,[23][24] Kentucky, and Texas.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodo...United_States#

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Inaccuracy, or I should say, old data, tends to do that. A current infographic would actually show the opposite of your point, that gay marriage is much more legally acceptable than first-cousin marriage.

I think that it is important to also point out, that while legal, first-cousin marriages is shown to be only about 0.1% of all marriages in the US. Even here in the South, it is frowned upon socially but it's legal.

Now, based on your responses to @Spuds your point is the US isn't quite as prudish when it comes to intra-family relationships as folks may think, yea I agree.

Fair enough.

I’m curious if hate crimes against first cousins who are married is also just as prevalent as hate crimes against LGBQT groups per capita. Considering same-sex marriage is relatively recently accepted, but interfamily marriages have been accepted for far longer, I could have used a global example to better illustrate the point that the taboo here or elsewhere isn’t so high, but that point was received. Nevertheless, this is interesting:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethi...r-cousins/amp/

You’ll notice that if you take a global perspective, consanguinity is not rare at all. Of the 70 countries studied, only 18 have consanguineous relationships as less than 1 percent of all marriages. In five countries, more than 50 percent of all marriages are between people who are second cousins or closer, and in Burkina Faso, it’s estimated that two of every three marriages are consanguineous.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I’m curious if hate crimes against first cousins who are married is also just as prevalent as hate crimes against LGBQT groups per capita.

I doubt there is anything resembling hate crime around first cousin marriages. Outside the immediate family, most people wouldn't even really know that is what the marriage is unless you live in a one-stop town.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I doubt there is anything resembling hate crime around first cousin marriages. Outside the immediate family, most people wouldn't even really know that is what the marriage is unless you live in a one-stop town.

That’s true. It is hard to know by strangers, who are most likely to do a hate crime. With some areas having over a third of people intermarrying, the acceptance is probably much better for intermarriage than same-sex marriage. Maybe people snicker at most or pick on the kids:

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I’m not sure I am following your point or where you are trying to emphasize that point. I was going to respond, but I don’t know if I’ll be responding to the right thing.

I will say separately, it is interesting what is legal and illegal in this country, especially compared to what is acceptable or not. Case in point:



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodo...United_States#

From NY domestic relations law:

A marriage is incestuous and void whether the relatives are legitimate or illegitimate between either:

1. An ancestor and a descendant;

2. A brother and sister of either the whole or the half blood;

3. An uncle and niece or an aunt and nephew.

If a marriage prohibited by the foregoing provisions of this section be solemnized it shall be void, and the parties thereto shall each be fined not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars and may, in the discretion of the court in addition to said fine, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding six months. Any person who shall knowingly and wilfully solemnize such marriage, or procure or aid in the solemnization of the same, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined or imprisoned in like manner.

It specifically forbids certain people to be married, as opposed to allowing marriage between certain people. It is an important distinction between saying something is sanctioned versus just not forbidden. The former takes a conscious effort to allow something. The latter is just a default state of something.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

From NY domestic relations law:


It specifically forbids certain people to be married, as opposed to allowing marriage between certain people. It is an important distinction between saying something is sanctioned versus just not forbidden. The former takes a conscious effort to allow something. The latter is just a default state of something.

Gotcha. That makes sense. It is like the distinction between “not guilty” and “innocent”. Not the same thing.

[Irace86.2.0]

Mushrooms could help make a difference:

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Mushrooms could help make a difference:

I think I have heard of the packaging before. It's a great idea, but long lead times and short shelf life make it a hard sell for packaging except in very specific circumstances, and even then it's more a novelty than anything else. I think paper-based packing material (as opposed to styrofoam) is still a better solution at the end of the day.

I think I'm gonna stick to regular old bacon though.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I think I have heard of the packaging before. It's a great idea, but long lead times and short shelf life make it a hard sell for packaging except in very specific circumstances, and even then it's more a novelty than anything else. I think paper-based packing material (as opposed to styrofoam) is still a better solution at the end of the day.

I think I'm gonna stick to regular old bacon though.

I don't know. There are economies of scale and the long lead times wouldn't matter unless a supplier needed to continually vary their product like if all they supplied was popcorn packaging material or shapes for shipping a certain, mass-produced product then the lead time wouldn't matter, as long as there was a continual stream of production. There is definitely a lot to consider in terms of carbon footprint, recyclability, end of life, cost, water use, etc. Like some would say paper cups are worse than styrofoam cups from a water usage perspective or carbon footprint perspective, and they also can't be recycled like styrofoam, even if they biodegrade in 50 years versus 500 years. I've had products delivered using paper versus styrofoam, and it seems like it is much better, and it would definitely break down faster, but looks can be deceiving; that is what sucks. Here are some other alternatives. Hopefully, they aren't just smoke and mirrors.

https://www.lumi.com/blog/sustainabl...ging-materials

I think one of the big comparisons was water use comparing the mushrooms to the pig (1.25 gal vs 575 gal), and the cost per pound ($1 vs $5). I don't know if the 575 gal is just drinking water or if it includes water used in the production of feed, and I don't know if the cost is the cost to produce the pound of product or the cost to the consumer, or if it includes the cost of water and feed subsidies. Regardless, there is obviously a big difference in water usage, and I feel like water usage will eventually become even more of a talking point in the future, as it is a hot topic in places like California already.

While water is continually recycled in our water system, the supply of usable water could one day not keep up with the growing demand. We like to think of this world as a water world, but the surface is as thin as the peal on an apple and the water is only a very thin layer of wax on that peal, and while we have a lot of salt water, the potable water isn't great, so eat your bacon while you can I guess.



https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/w...center_objects

By 2020 about 30-40% of the world will have water scarcity, and according to the researchers, climate change can make this even worse.
Source

With only 7% of the world’s freshwater, China plans to produce 807 million gallons a day from desalination by 2020, roughly quadruple the country’s current capacity.
Source

By 2025, an estimated 1.8 billion people will live in areas plagued by water scarcity, with two-thirds of the world’s population living in water-stressed regions.
Source

There will be about 1 billion more mouths to feed worldwide by 2025 and global agriculture alone will require another 1 trillion cubic meters of water per year (equal to the annual flow of 20 Niles or 100 Colorado Rivers).
Source

UN studies project that 30 nations will be water scarce in 2025, up from 20 in 1990.
Source

According to the U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment of Global Water Security, by 2030 humanity’s “annual global water requirements” will exceed “current sustainable water supplies” by 40%.
Source

The global middle class will surge from 1.8 to 4.9 billion by 2030, which will result in a significant increase in freshwater consumption.
Source

Water demand in India will reach 1.5 trillion cubic meters in 2030 while India’s current water supply is only 740 billion cubic meters.
Source

If current usage trends don’t change, the world will have only 60 percent of the water it needs in 2030.
Source

By 2035, the world’s energy consumption will increase by 35 percent, which in turn will increase water use by 15 percent according to the International Energy Agency.
Source

By the year 2040 there will not be enough water in the world to quench the thirst of the world population and keep the current energy and power solutions going if we continue doing what we are doing today.
Source

The number of people living in river basins under severe water stress is projected to reach 3.9 billion by 2050, totaling over 40% of the world’s population.
Source

Compared to today, five times as much land is likely to be under “extreme drought” by 2050.
Source

Feeding 9 billion people by 2050, will require a 60 percent increase in agricultural production and a 15 percent increase in water withdrawals.
Source

Water demand is projected to grow by 55 percent by 2050 (including a 400-percent rise in manufacturing water demand).
Source

By 2050, 1 in 5 developing countries will face water shortages (UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization).
Source

Between 2050 and 2100, there is an 85 percent chance of a drought in the Central Plains and Southwestern United States lasting 35 years or more.
Source

If farmers in Kansas keep irrigating at present rates, 69 percent of the Ogallala Aquifer will be gone in 50 years.
Source

https://www.seametrics.com/blog/future-water/

[Dadhawk]

[QUOTE=Irace86.2.0;3424538]I think one of the big comparisons was water use comparing the mushrooms to the pig (1.25 gal vs 575 gal), and the cost per pound ($1 vs $5)./QUOTE]

Besides what you mention, they also didn't really say if the were doing a like comparison. For example, was that the amount of water to completely create 1 lb of MeBacon vs growing the entire hog?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Besides what you mention, they also didn't really say if the were doing a like comparison. For example, was that the amount of water to completely create 1 lb of MeBacon vs growing the entire hog?

I looked it up. It was the amount of water used to grow 1lb of bacon versus 1lb of pork.

The idea is that farmers need to grow plants using water then feed the pig those plants and supply the pig with water to drink. I don't know if this includes post-slaughter water use.

In the US to produce one pound (1 lb, 0.4kg) of steak requires, on average, 1,799 gallons of water – for pork it is 576 gallons of water and for a pound of chicken it is 468 gallons of water.

Johns Hopkins University says that in general the ratios for water use are approximately 7:1 for beef, 5:1 for pork and 2.5:1 for poultry.

https://www.thepigsite.com/news/2016...produce-meat-1

https://waterfootprint.org/media/dow...ork-beef_1.pdf

[soundman98]