Random Thread

[Travis B.]

'Chemical' in ordinary language doesn't mean the same thing as in scientific language. 'chemical' means 'artificial additives' in normal parlance. As far as I am concerned, complaining about people not wanting chemicals is a bit like saying that people misunderstand astronomy because they the sun is rising.

That still goes along the lines of assuming that everything "natural" is good, and thus does not avoid the issue.

I'm bringing this over to the Random thread; it's an interesting debate!

Again the use of 'chemical' means 'artificial additives' or 'the outcome of industrial processes' in this context. Googling 'chemical free-food', one definition I get excludes: "chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, hormones, drugs, or genetically modified organisms"

The picture makes sense, and there is good reason to distrust all these things.

Some people would argue 'natural is good', and there certainly is a thriving snake oil business around this idea.

I don't personally think that 'natural good, chemical bad'; but I'd argue you don't distrust them for the same reasons. Of course spoilt food or toxic mushrooms are unhealthy; but you have different reasons to be wary of phtalates or endocrine disruptors...

To me the key thing is being as efficient as possible with regard to land area divided by unit food produced. Yes, one can say "they should not use fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides", but if that means using more land area to feed the same number of people it is a net negative. Remember, every hectare of land used to grow crops is a hectare of land taken away from the natural environment. We should be doing all that we can to prevent the amount of land being used to grow crops from expanding beyond that necessary to feed the world's population. Of course, we should regulate the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, and forbid the use of individual ones known to harm the human population or natural environment (e.g. groundwater contamination by atrazine).

As for using hormones and drugs in livestock, though, I do not see there as being any net positive to it, due to human exposure to said hormones and drugs through eating animal products producing them and due to the use of antibiotics in livestock promoting antibiotic resistance. Same thing with phthalates and their like.

[bradrn]

I like how people think that "chemicals" are bad (as if everything wasn't made of them) and that things that are "natural" are good (despite that many toxic substances are natural in origin).

'Chemical' in ordinary language doesn't mean the same thing as in scientific language. 'chemical' means 'artificial additives' in normal parlance. As far as I am concerned, complaining about people not wanting chemicals is a bit like saying that people misunderstand astronomy because they the sun is rising.

That still goes along the lines of assuming that everything "natural" is good, and thus does not avoid the issue.

Or, for that matter, that everything ‘artificial’ is bad. In reality, there are numerous products which can be produced via both ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ routes.

Again the use of 'chemical' means 'artificial additives' or 'the outcome of industrial processes' in this context. Googling 'chemical free-food', one definition I get excludes: "chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, hormones, drugs, or genetically modified organisms"

The picture makes sense, and there is good reason to distrust all these things.

Indeed, there is good reason to worry about such things in food. Unfortunately, most people don’t neatly distinguish one concept of ‘colloquial chemicals’ and another of of ‘formal chemicals’ — in fact most don’t even realise those are two different categories, and overgeneralise their dislike of ‘chemicals’ to any kind of artificially-produced material. As a chemist, I naturally find such an attitude rather worrying.

[Ares Land]

To me the key thing is being as efficient as possible with regard to land area divided by unit food produced. Yes, one can say "they should not use fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides", but if that means using more land area to feed the same number of people it is a net negative. Remember, every hectare of land used to grow crops is a hectare of land taken away from the natural environment. We should be doing all that we can to prevent the amount of land being used to grow crops from expanding beyond that necessary to feed the world's population. Of course, we should regulate the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, and forbid the use of individual ones known to harm the human population or natural environment (e.g. groundwater contamination by atrazine).

As for using hormones and drugs in livestock, though, I do not see there as being any net positive to it, due to human exposure to said hormones and drugs through eating animal products producing them and due to the use of antibiotics in livestock promoting antibiotic resistance. Same thing with phthalates and their like.

There are other issues with fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides. Much increased cancer risks, loss of biodiversity (at least as severe a problem as global warming); there can't be any clear delimitation between agricultural land and the natural environment due to the effect on biodiversity; plus all three can get into the water table.

I don't think we really disagree that much, all in all, though. I don't think we should make organic farming mandatory or anything; I'd be more in favour of reasonable use.

The problem is one of trust, though. The food industry has a way of working around regulations, and there's a general lack of transparency. We learn about noxious elements in our food way after the fact. It's not surprising that people that can afford it will err on the side of caution.

Indeed, there is good reason to worry about such things in food. Unfortunately, most people don’t neatly distinguish one concept of ‘colloquial chemicals’ and another of of ‘formal chemicals’ — in fact most don’t even realise those are two different categories, and overgeneralise their dislike of ‘chemicals’ to any kind of artificially-produced material. As a chemist, I naturally find such an attitude rather worrying.

Sure, often people will dislike 'chemicals' out of ignorance. (I'm reminded of the whole panic about vaccines here!) but I think the real question is one of trust.

[Travis B.]

To me the key thing is being as efficient as possible with regard to land area divided by unit food produced. Yes, one can say "they should not use fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides", but if that means using more land area to feed the same number of people it is a net negative. Remember, every hectare of land used to grow crops is a hectare of land taken away from the natural environment. We should be doing all that we can to prevent the amount of land being used to grow crops from expanding beyond that necessary to feed the world's population. Of course, we should regulate the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, and forbid the use of individual ones known to harm the human population or natural environment (e.g. groundwater contamination by atrazine).

As for using hormones and drugs in livestock, though, I do not see there as being any net positive to it, due to human exposure to said hormones and drugs through eating animal products producing them and due to the use of antibiotics in livestock promoting antibiotic resistance. Same thing with phthalates and their like.

There are other issues with fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides. Much increased cancer risks, loss of biodiversity (at least as severe a problem as global warming); there can't be any clear delimitation between agricultural land and the natural environment due to the effect on biodiversity; plus all three can get into the water table.

I don't think we really disagree that much, all in all, though. I don't think we should make organic farming mandatory or anything; I'd be more in favour of reasonable use.

The problem is one of trust, though. The food industry has a way of working around regulations, and there's a general lack of transparency. We learn about noxious elements in our food way after the fact. It's not surprising that people that can afford it will err on the side of caution.

I do not mean that we should wholesale disregard the impact of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides on the environment, just that if organic farming requires more land then it is not a net positive. Consider the impact of palm oil production in Indonesia or cattle husbandry in Brazil. Even if those were completely organic (even though I doubt this), just the impact of using land for agriculture or animal husbandry in and of itself is often very harmful for the environment. At the same time, we should act to eliminate the use of pesticides and herbicides known to harm humans or the natural environment, even if it increases land use to a degree.

Indeed, there is good reason to worry about such things in food. Unfortunately, most people don’t neatly distinguish one concept of ‘colloquial chemicals’ and another of of ‘formal chemicals’ — in fact most don’t even realise those are two different categories, and overgeneralise their dislike of ‘chemicals’ to any kind of artificially-produced material. As a chemist, I naturally find such an attitude rather worrying.

Sure, often people will dislike 'chemicals' out of ignorance. (I'm reminded of the whole panic about vaccines here!) but I think the real question is one of trust.

Things like the whole vaccines thing make me think that many people cannot be trusted to make the right decisions for themselves and, as a result, those around them. Vaccines should not be an option, and parents should not be allowed to deny their children them (and denying their children vaccinations should be treated as child abuse). There should be no ifs or buts there, with the sole exception of those with a real, legitimate medical reason that they cannot have vaccines (and such should require multiple doctors to sign off on such exceptions, with falsification being on the pain of losing one's medical license, to prevent people from just going to doctors known to be sympathetic with their misguided views to get exceptions).

[Linguoboy]

Sure, often people will dislike 'chemicals' out of ignorance. (I'm reminded of the whole panic about vaccines here!) but I think the real question is one of trust.

While not disagreeing with Travis, I think this is the key issue here. I'm as bullish on vaccines as you can be and I've lost a lot of trust in the CDC and other public health agencies recently. As badly as they handled COVID, they seems to have bungled monkeypox even worse. For gay men like me, there are very uncomfortable echoes of the AIDS crisis. It took decades for us to learn to trust them again and now they seem intent on pissing that goodwill away.

One of the new vices I picked up during lockdown was a taste for disaster videos--not disaster porn, exactly, but explanations of various catastrophic events in modern times. One thing I'm repeatedly struck by is just now recent some of them are and how long and successfully many of the perpetrators escaped consequences because of their connexions within the political establishment. If some chemical additive were suddenly revealed to have dire effects, I would expect to see a long history of corporate coverups and incompetence or even connivance from regulatory agencies--and again, this is as someone who isn't as reflexively distrustful of Big Government as your average GOPer, let alone any kind of conspiracy theorist.

[Ryusenshi]

From Twitter (translated from French).

Apparently the verb γιγνώσκω means "to know", but also in the biblical sense, i.e. to have sex with, so γνῶθι σεαυτόν actually means "go fuck yourself".
https://twitter.com/TyphonBaalAmmon/sta ... 4145221632

[Ares Land]

From Twitter (translated from French).

Apparently the verb γιγνώσκω means "to know", but also in the biblical sense, i.e. to have sex with, so γνῶθι σεαυτόν actually means "go fuck yourself".
https://twitter.com/TyphonBaalAmmon/sta ... 4145221632

Oh why didn't I notice this before?

Things like the whole vaccines thing make me think that many people cannot be trusted to make the right decisions for themselves and, as a result, those around them.

I haven't followed closely enough how it went in the US. In France (and I believe in the EU more generally) antivaxxers were very loud but looking closer, they were also a tiny minority.
Ordinary citizens have on the whole been doing the right thing with respect to the COVID vaccines (other vaccines are a non-issue.)

The same can't be said of the authorities, the government, medical professionals or pharmaceutical companies.

So basically I changed my mind. I put a lot more trust in citizens being responsible and doing the right thing than on vaccine mandates, which our government would have fucked up anyway.

To give just one example: the vaccine was semi-mandatory here (with health passes) -- one problem with that is that getting a shot or a booster shot could be a major headache because the logistics, or simply the common sense, weren't there. I didn't have any real issue, living in a major city and having the skills to hunt down vaccine doses; but my parents got the booster shot about two months later than they should have.

[Travis B.]

I haven't followed closely enough how it went in the US. In France (and I believe in the EU more generally) antivaxxers were very loud but looking closer, they were also a tiny minority.
Ordinary citizens have on the whole been doing the right thing with respect to the COVID vaccines (other vaccines are a non-issue.)

The same can't be said of the authorities, the government, medical professionals or pharmaceutical companies.

So basically I changed my mind. I put a lot more trust in citizens being responsible and doing the right thing than on vaccine mandates, which our government would have fucked up anyway.

To give just one example: the vaccine was semi-mandatory here (with health passes) -- one problem with that is that getting a shot or a booster shot could be a major headache because the logistics, or simply the common sense, weren't there. I didn't have any real issue, living in a major city and having the skills to hunt down vaccine doses; but my parents got the booster shot about two months later than they should have.

According to this, as of May 2022, about 2/3rds of Americans are fully vaccinated - but that means that 1/3rd aren't. And from going over the reasons given by the people quoted for not getting vaccinated, I can't say I feel any sympathy for them one bit. And for some reason, they are all Republicans (go figure). The thing is, though, that they might spread the virus to others - and this is why I don't think people should have a choice. Sure, if someone suffered alone from one's foolish choices, that's their own loss, but once they risk others' health as well, that's the proverbial nose at which their freedom ought to end.

[Linguoboy]

To give just one example: the vaccine was semi-mandatory here (with health passes) -- one problem with that is that getting a shot or a booster shot could be a major headache because the logistics, or simply the common sense, weren't there. I didn't have any real issue, living in a major city and having the skills to hunt down vaccine doses; but my parents got the booster shot about two months later than they should have.

It would take all day to list all the fuck-ups with the vaccine rollout here. To take one example: My roommate was unemployed at the time and basically spent an hour every morning visiting all the various buggy provider websites (A central portal? What for!) trying to get an appointment for the two of us. In the end, he only succeeded when the local alderman organised a mass vaccination at a fieldhouse in a park in our ward. And this is Chicago, whose public health infrastructure beats the hell out of what you'll find in the average rural county.

(And monkeypox? I may have mentioned before that I ended up getting vaccinated in a leather bar because my health provider was never sent any doses. They've also decided--for reasons I can't fathom--not to provide bivalent boosters at any location closer to me than 15 kilometers.)

[Raphael]

Ignore this post - I'm just testing whether it's principally possible to attach zip files to ZBB posts.

tst.zip

(6.53 KiB) Downloaded 176 times

[Raphael]

There's a small business van parked on the other side of the road, and written on it are a company name and the English slogan "Energy for Life". What I find a bit amusing is that I have no idea what business the company is in, and based on the slogan, it could be anything from electricity to spa equipment. (I could search for the company's name on the internet, of course, but I wonder if that would kind of spoil the fun.)

[Linguoboy]

There's a small business van parked on the other side of the road, and written on it are a company name and the English slogan "Energy for Life". What I find a bit amusing is that I have no idea what business the company is in, and based on the slogan, it could be anything from electricity to spa equipment. (I could search for the company's name on the internet, of course, but I wonder if that would kind of spoil the fun.)

Is the company name just something generic, like a common surname, or is it some fun made-up word?

[Travis B.]

There's a small business van parked on the other side of the road, and written on it are a company name and the English slogan "Energy for Life". What I find a bit amusing is that I have no idea what business the company is in, and based on the slogan, it could be anything from electricity to spa equipment. (I could search for the company's name on the internet, of course, but I wonder if that would kind of spoil the fun.)

Is the company name just something generic, like a common surname, or is it some fun made-up word?

I always love it when companies use deliberate misspellings in their company or product names (of course so they can then go and trademark them).

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I'm not sure if that's sarcasm, but I tend to find it extremely cringeworthy.

[Raphael]

Is the company name just something generic, like a common surname, or is it some fun made-up word?

Not sure. It could be a surname, in which case it's probably Italian, or it could be a made-up word.

[Raphael]

Something I've been wondering about for a while: Why are so many human beings into romanticizing or even glorifying vampires? I mean, vampires are fictional creatures which, if they would really exist, would have to regularly kill human beings who didn't do anything to them simply in order to stay alive. That is, predators who prey on humans. It's as if mice would romanticize or glorify cats.

[zompist]

Something I've been wondering about for a while: Why are so many human beings into romanticizing or even glorifying vampires?

I don't think it's very mysterious: people love villains, in several ways.

One, stories need antagonists, and authors soon compete to make them outrageous and colorful. Often they're far more memorable than the hero.
Two, people enjoy being scared at a remove (like in a story).
And three, people enjoy power fantasies-- and villains are the ultimate power fantasy, as they are not limited by morality.

[alynnidalar]

There's also a clear transition from "vampires as evil villains" to "vampires not necessarily as villains" in media, it's not like vampires have always been romanticized. Along with that goes a transition in the abilities/behavior of vampires. "Modern" vampires usually aren't portrayed as mandatorily killing people, it's been tamed down to a mild inconvenience at best (at least for "good" vampires; "evil" vampires can kill as many people as they like, and the fact that they choose to do so rather than just take a little blood at a time is often one way modern vampire stories emphasize how evil they are). In fact, a lot of modern depictions go as far as to present it as a consensual exchange, in which the human receives a benefit (e.g. money, protection, temporary abilities...) at the same time the vampire is fed.

Throw in a dose of "actually being an all-powerful creature of the night is sad and a bad thing" and vampires start to be downright sympathetic.

(and frankly: the fact that vampires are fictional is exactly why they can be romanticized, where an actual predatorial species probably would not be. Vampires can't actually kill people, after all, any more than a fictional bad boy can actually hurt your feelings in real life or a fictional dragon could actually burn down your house. It's perfectly "safe" to romanticize something that isn't real.)

[linguistcat]

There are also quite a few people who find monstrous characters (and monsters themselves) attractive, and vampires are really quite vanilla in that regard unless they also take particularly inhuman forms. They're basically a bunch of dangerous pretty boys and femme fatales with some specific weaknesses and magic powers.

[Raphael]

Thank you, interesting perspectives! To be honest, I've felt a bit weird for long, in that I never really shared the rest of humanity's love of villainous characters.