@veganpizza69@lemmy.world
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

veganpizza69

@veganpizza69@lemmy.world

No gods, no masters.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

veganpizza69,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

Sawdust would be an improvement. It’s just fiber, desperately absent fiber.

veganpizza69,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

That’s why humans invented planning.

veganpizza69,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar
veganpizza69,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

Wait, copilot and ChatGPT use are skills? Isn’t that a bit like how using a phone is a skill?

It’s about at the same level as “Microsoft Office” as a skill. They’re probably working on embedding ChatGPT and DALL-E in that suite. I’ve actually asked ChatGPT for some tips on using advanced features that I didn’t know about and it worked nicely.

veganpizza69,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar
veganpizza69,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

I mean integrated directly into the interface of the apps. Example: they have an “Editor” tab for Word that can analyze and get into the document directly. I expect that this will be where the ChatGPT tools will be implemented. Or is there some professional version of ChatGPT that does that already? I have only tested the free one.

veganpizza69,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

What would even be the design solution without massive empty space? Add a lot of columns? Make the long content horizontal instead of vertical?

veganpizza69,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

the stem is sweet, I eat kohlrabi like apples (after removing the peel).

veganpizza69,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

I’m not sure why it’s so difficult to understand. Eating lower down the trophic levels is energy efficient, and the energy level is proportional to environmental destruction, water use, and pollution. This is especially relevant if you have a large population to maintain (food security), which is the case for humans.

Eating up the world’s food web and the human trophic level | PNAS

Abstract

Trophic levels are critical for synthesizing species’ diets, depicting energy pathways, understanding food web dynamics and ecosystem functioning, and monitoring ecosystem health. Specifically, trophic levels describe the position of species in a food web, from primary producers to apex predators (range, 1–5). Small differences in trophic level can reflect large differences in diet. Although trophic levels are among the most basic information collected for animals in ecosystems, a human trophic level (HTL) has never been defined. Here, we find a global HTL of 2.21, i.e., the trophic level of anchoveta. This value has increased with time, consistent with the global trend toward diets higher in meat. National HTLs ranging between 2.04 and 2.57 reflect a broad diversity of diet, although cluster analysis of countries with similar dietary trends reveals only five major groups. We find significant links between socio-economic and environmental indicators and global dietary trends. We demonstrate that the HTL is a synthetic index to monitor human diets and provides a baseline to compare diets between countries.

This first estimate of HTL at 2.21, i.e., a trophic level similar to anchoveta and pigs, quantifies the position of humans in the food web and challenges the perception of humans as top predators (2). Humans dominate ecosystems through changes in land use, biogeochemical cycling, biodiversity, and climate (11, 13, 14). It is not sufficient to separate humans from analyses of ecosystem processes, because there are no remaining ecosystems outside of human influence (15). Thus, investigations of ecosystems, without accounting for the presence of humans, are incomplete (13). There is a variety of other ecological indicators based on trophic ecology theory or diets, e.g., the omnivory index, that may also prove useful in assessing the impact of humans in the functioning of ecosystems. However, a first estimate of an HTL gives us a basic tool that places humans as components of the ecosystem and assists in further comprehending energy pathways, the impact of human resource use, and the structure and functioning of ecosystems.

The global increase in HTL is consistent with the nutrition transition that is expected to continue for several decades (16, 17) from plant-based diets toward diets higher in meat and dairy consumption (1822). This 0.15 increase in HTL from 1961 to 2009 is mainly due to the increased consumption of fat and meat (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1305827110#supplementary-materials), as opposed to a shift toward the consumption of species with higher trophic levels. In fact, we find that the mean trophic level of terrestrial animals that are consumed by humans has only slightly increased (by 0.01 or 0.5%) due to the higher proportion of pork and poultry in the diet (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1305827110#supplementary-materials), whereas that of marine animals has decreased markedly from 2.88 in 1961 to 2.69 in 2009 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1305827110#supplementary-materials). This decline in the trophic levels of marine food items in human diets is consistent with the global decline in the mean trophic level of marine fisheries catches. This decline has been related to the consequences of fishing pressures on marine predators (23), although changes in the characteristics of fisheries over time may also influence this trend (24).

The global convergence in HTL is consistent with the convergence in diet structure between countries with diverse levels of development (18, 19), and in agreement with previous studies of the FAO (17, 25). Globalization and economic development facilitate the access to diverse foodstuffs and can enhance the rate of this convergence (18, 26). For India, China, and countries in groups 1–3, HTLs are low and rising. With economic growth, these countries are gaining the ability to support the human preference for high meat diets (18, 19, 26). For countries in group 4, the nutrition transition has reached a point where health problems associated with high fat and meat diets (i.e., high HTLs) have led to changes in policy and government-run education programs that encourage these populations to shift to more plant-based diets [i.e., lower their HTL; http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1305827110#supplementary-materials (18, 20, 22)]. Similarly, countries with high initial HTLs (i.e., group 5) show decreasing trends with time (Fig. 3). For Scandinavian countries, this decline is due to government policies promoting healthier diets (18, 22). For example, in 2011, Sweden consumed historically high levels of meat due to low market prices, leading the Swedish government into discussions of a Pigovian tax to reduce this consumption (27). Changes in diet in Mauritania (decreased meat and dairy consumption) and Mongolia (increased proportion of vegetables) are linked to increased urbanization and economic development and decreased nomadism.

veganpizza69,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d191c966-0cbd-4477-bbd7-2eb464b40fd7.png

While that needs to stop entirely, the 1%’ carbon footprint (yes, it applies to them too, this is what everyone here is actually pointing out) sums up to about 15% of global GHG emissions at the consumption level. Huge, but they are few, they aren’t “masses”.

We need GHG emissions to drop at least 100% (to 0%) and then we need to remove carbon (so that’s negative emissions) to get closer to the safer atmospheric CO2.

veganpizza69,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

The impossible love of fossil fuel companies for carbon taxes - ScienceDirect

Economists agree that carbon taxes are the most effective solution for climate change mitigation. But where do fossil fuel companies stand on carbon taxes? I analyse how the 100 largest oil and gas companies communicate on carbon taxes. Surprisingly, I find that 54% of companies that have a policy on carbon taxes support them (78% for the 50 largest). This is puzzling as an effective carbon tax should reduce the revenues and reserve value of fossil fuel companies. To understand this paradox, I offer non-mutually exclusive reasons why fossil fuel companies might support carbon taxes. Oil and gas companies could use a carbon tax to get rid of the competition from coal, create a level playing field and remove regulatory uncertainty. Or they think that these taxes will not affect them because demand for oil and gas is inelastic or that international coordination will fail and lead to leakages. Finally, it could be that this is simply a communication exercise. A carbon tax helps them shift the responsibility from fossil fuel companies to customers, voters and elected officials.

veganpizza69,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

Hey, I have re read your comment a few times. Important info, but unsure how it relates to my comment. Rich people don’t contribute that much to C02?

There are 2 necessary changes as layers in this context:

  1. There are also studies that show the GHGs for “rich people’s investments”. This is important because they are in the way of necessary adaptation and mitigation. We can’t do anything meaningful about climate and biosphere because that would require ending profiteering from planetary destruction, it would require decommodification.
  2. Rich people’s consumption is excessive for anything. Not just their carbon footprint, but their ecological footprint. But they are a small minority, especially the richest. Being a small minority means that if they lose their… wealth and become wage workers, that’s going mean only a decrease of 15% GHGs. This 15% is not meaningful to avert ruining the planet’s surface. We need more than 100% (zero emissions and then removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere). This means that EVERYONE has to participate, which also means that we need cooperation. And you don’t have cooperation in a capitalist class society with all this “rat race” going on, you can’t, we’re literally all enemies (competitors) in this game.

So they can tell me how to live my life?

That’s one side of it, yes. To have any meaningful action, all sides of economic activity have to change, we need decreases in production (supply), but also in demand (consumption). If only production decreases, the demand side goes nuts and there’s hyperinflation and other problems. If only demand decreases (unlikely), the production side, which is owned by rich people, may decide to force and coerce an increase in demand somehow, as has been happening at least since the end of WW2.

Here, a game: play.half.earth

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • provamag3
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • ngwrru68w68
  • Youngstown
  • everett
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • ethstaker
  • Durango
  • GTA5RPClips
  • megavids
  • cubers
  • modclub
  • mdbf
  • khanakhh
  • vwfavf
  • osvaldo12
  • cisconetworking
  • tester
  • Leos
  • tacticalgear
  • anitta
  • normalnudes
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines