rbos

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Alkalinity speeds up the Maillard reaction significantly. Baking soda. Magic.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Ah, cool. Anoxic lactoferment, then. That does sound good. Like sauerkraut.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

What are we looking at? Pineapple and sugar and water?

Do you airlock it?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The new terrain smoothing is really good!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You don't have to. Turns out, when you give women the option to not shove a watermelon-sized object through their hoohaws at an age when they're not ready for it, many of them opt not to!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

That talking point died decades ago. We have a clear path to reducing our population. Well-off people with access to contraceptives don't have high birth rates. We can roll back the human birth rate to sub-replacement levels and over time, reduce it.

There will be a problem with increasing population in 2250 or so, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

The moral thing to do is to ensure that all humans have access to clean water and food, contraceptives, and comfortable lives. The population will naturally go down and we can stabilize it over time.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I don't think it can sustain the current population levels, at our North American standard of living. If we could distribute resources evenly, sure, we could keep everyone alive, but energy consumption, plastic production, all that adds up to an ecological footprint of resource use that isn't sustainable.

World wildlife levels have gone down dramatically. We're expanding human life at the expense of all other life. The other life on earth isn't superfluous: it's an ecosystem that keeps us alive, recycles our waste, provides our medicines and cultural wealth of all sorts.

We can't keep our wealthy lifestyle and at the same time tell the poor people of the world that they have to stay poor so that we can remain wealthy.

[–] [email protected] 80 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (22 children)

We are in no way at risk of dying out from negative population growth. If we start to go down below a few million, then maybe let's talk.

World population is still increasing, and is set to maybe stabilize in a couple decades. Fingers crossed. If we could (gently, without mass starvation) reduce the population down to a more sustainable level, that is an unmitigatedly good thing.

What might kill us is infertility from pollution or disease, but this won't do it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

While you're there, visit the Big Lebowski bar.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

A while ago (late 90s?) they straightened the border and reevaluated land along the 49th parallel. Some towns switched countries.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Such a stupid border decision. They should have fixed it in the territory swaps a few years ago.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I really like sandwich with a pretty large pickle in it. One of my faves.

view more: ‹ prev next ›