The point I got from the OP was that traditional culture was low-carbon from day 0, and that at least Britain's climate change minister was jetting about an AWFUL lot, and there are plenty of jet-setters pushing a vegan diet upon the world when home-kept chickens are obviously a net plus, both in terms of food waste (accounts for a significant carbon and other pollution footprint, as we pay to produce it) and in terms of proteins that don't require killing your chickens over (eggs).
Contrast that with having a cat or dog (look at amount of animals slaughtered for pet foods)
I agree that our systems need revamping in a large-scale way, particularly agriculture, as you imply.
The only way you comment makes sense to me is if you talk about male chickens and even then it is not necessary:
When keeping chickens at home like GP suggest you can keep the around and it would still be a net plus in the carbon calculations since you are just using food that would have been thrown away otherwise.
That sides, unless we are going to bring veganism into this there is no reason to do that.
Again, if you feed them from food scraps you can keep them alive as long as you fancy or until they die from old age and still be carbon negative compared to throwing the food to waste.
It is just a choice. If you are OK with keeping livestock but don't want to kill animals, keep them around.
If reducing CO2 emissions is more important, kill off male chickens as well as old ones and instead keep more of the productive ones and share some eggs (and some knowledge - if possible) with friends.
Unless you use artificial insemination to only produce hens, you’ll run into a problem. You will end up with many roosters who won’t produce eggs and you have to feed and care for them as well. Unless you have a gigantic yard or want wild roosters everywhere, you’ll end up killing a lot of them.
The hens you’ll have will produce eggs, but maybe only one a day and they’ll skip laying quite often. You can avoid that if you get modern hens who were selectively bred to lay excess eggs, but they will require more food than “table scraps” (they really need calcium supplements) and their bodies will be destroyed within two years. At that point you either kill them or let them suffer - neither us a good outcome for them.
There are plenty of scalable alternatives to raising chickens for their eggs. Plant-based options do require mono cropping, but it can feed the world and kill fewer animals.
> Unless you have a gigantic yard or want wild roosters everywhere, you’ll end up killing a lot of them.
Exactly what I tried to say above.
It is a choice: you can keep them and as long as you feed them mostly with grass and kitchen scraps you still reduce environmental impact by not consuming eggs from grain-fed chicken - even when you feed some roosters.
Choose a quiet breed though or be prepared to make some significant peace offerings towards your neighbors if you want to keep every rooster around until they die from old age ;-)
Personally I'd rather (rot13, blunt speak): pubc fbzr puvpxra arpxf. V terj hc ba n snez naq juvyr V qba'g gbyrengr navzny nohfr gurve yvirf nera'g fnperq gb zr. V jnag gurz gb yvir unccl yvirf jura va zl phfgbql naq n fjvsg, harkcrpgrq naq cnvayrff qrngu nsgrejneqf.
I suspect that bad-faith-social-actors will attempt, as always, to undermine this report and minimize the obvious need to act in reality on Earth circa 2021.
I suspect that we must come up with social and economic mechanisms for making ALL pollution the problem of the polluter, versus an externality for everyone to absorb.
I suspect that we had better find such mechanisms NOW, vs a later that is too late.
not the OP, but I'll propose that the code inside methods is largely procedural code, and this is one level (what you need to learn first), and then how it's organized is a whole other world subject to much debate.
(even given SOLID DRY OOP etc.)
Which sort of presumes that there are other places said people can shuffle off to. Their occupation of public parks is largely due to not having a designated place to go, or enough shelter beds, or a myriad of other problems.
One who has no home has fewer options on where to plop with all their things.
Individually, one could analyze each situation, collectively and systemically speaking, you will ALWAYS have homeless people when there is no housing safety net.
there are a myriad of things can can occur in individual lives.
Homeless tourism is something that should be worked out between the desirable locations and the locations of origin that likely kick the responsibility can down the road in running homeless OUT of town, and hence to SF or wherever.
Honolulu and beach bummmery is something I've no knowledge of. Actual homelessness is something that doesn't occur much anywhere else I've seen in the world to the same level as it does in USA.
I suppose that many places have folks migrating to the city from countryside regions in the hopes of a job and potentially falling on their face. I'm not sure where those folks are in many nations that I've seen (about 50, mostly Europe, South America, Asia, and North America)
> Which sort of presumes that there are other places said people can shuffle off to.
I think in general society and government does and should presume that people can figure out most solutions to their own problems. Our instutitions provide a framework for people to figure out how to live, and help them do with things that require scale, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that the government needs to give everyone a "designated place to go".
> Actual homelessness is something that doesn't occur much anywhere else I've seen in the world to the same level as it does in USA.
There are a few things uniquely driving homelessness in the US:
* The opioid epidemic thanks to Purdue pharma.
* The deinstitutionalization movement was stronger here than in other countries.
* Not having free healthcare.
Outsourcing, automation, and the shift to an urban service-oriented economy is probably part of it too, but I don't think that's a huge driver. Most of the homeless stories I hear start with one of:
"I got hurt at work, and was prescribed Oxycontin. I ended up addicted and when the subscription ran out, I ended up on heroin..."
"I was mentally ill and unable to hold down a job because of it..."
"I got cancer and once all the medical bills piled up, I ended up deep in debt and couldn't afford to pay rent..."
in all seriousness there is no backup beyond a few hundred beds in even the largest cities, with waiting lists, and not exactly the first thing you think of when things turn strange in your life and you end up on the street suddenly. You don't think that you are "one of them" and you just are "holding on for this or that" to happen. At some point, if you exit early enough, you can still transition to other societal levels. Left long enough, it changes you or at least you are considered differently and looked at funnily, to say nothing about the difficult in maintaining work and income to get OUT of said situation, etc.
There's probably some better and worse areas in a city for pitching a lot of tents for a long time. For example some unused parking lots could work better than streets. It would make sense for the city to provide some basic services there too, like water, toilets and a trash skiff... probably some person actually doing it would know a lot better what's important, and what would be alleviate the need to camp somewhere that causes problems for others.
It seems that there's this discussion between false alternatives like "let people do anything" and "let's punish people harshly for minor things". How about offering better alternatives, giving people instructions first before any worse consequences etc.
I will contend that "pedestrian" is the base state of a human who may also be a "driver" when seated in a vehicle.
Cities are designed for whom?
We err in allowing cars and pedestrians or cyclists to intersect at all. Cars belong in tunnels or highway-like contained danger zones where high-velocity armored vehicles are the only objects moving there.
And Tiannamen was crushed, but one still has to try, as the watershed moment or breaking point can come in the blink of an eye.
It's my view that Occupy was dismantled by the vested interests it confronted, in the form of paid editorial hit jobs, much as anything that threatens large hegemonies of power.
The goal was simple and achieved: awareness of how Wall Street gambling led to the global economic crisis of 2007 and 8
It was ahead of it's time, and will later be seen as such.
What is puzzling to me is how easily that anti-elite message was hijacked by Trumpkins and his elitest of silver-spooned back-scratching politics, which certainly goes against the spirit of Occupy.
The takeaway is that there is a public for anti-elite messaging, but that it's now possible to weaponize that in order to innoculate that very same public against targeting you...Trumpkins public is rightfully socialist, just brainwashed by the very elites they think themselves against, lol
What mirrors my visceral full-body negative reaction to large swathes of asphalt and often extremely noisy and apparently aggressive (look at modern autos front-ends and tell me they are not designed to look like predators) swarms of vehicles speeding by as quickly as they possibly can, most emitting vast clouds of bad-smelling exhaust gasses that are carcinogenic and contributing to climate change as well as general poor air quality for the unfortunate humans nearby, anyway, I was saying: what mirrors my revulsion at the inelegance of cars and their road support system is a love of treelined paths.
A love of trees. A love of well designed botanical gardens. A love of 100 year old walnut trees, or mango trees large enough to provide shade for an entire housing block.
We can have a paradise on earth here, as soon as it stops being "cool" and "normal" to turn this planet into a wasteland.
We can design our transport around a sensible way of life that doesn't involve all the human ants having to shuffle themselves 100km from their dwellings each day, in pursuit of informatic careers of deep personal meaning.
I will also propose separating transport planes.
There is no excuse for mixing cars and pedestrians in an inner city. I see no viable excuse for traffic lights and forcing petrol-burning vehicles to idle.
All car traffic that crosses with living spaces should be in tunnels etc, and all flow controlled as in highway entrance/exits and roundabouts, etc.
I agree that our systems need revamping in a large-scale way, particularly agriculture, as you imply.