WrongSubFools t1_izap5ba wrote

People complain about how current milking practices are bad for animal welfare. Imagine how much worse it would be if put human women in six-by-two-foot pens hooked up to machines.

The alternative would be to just let the humans live normal lives and pump just a little milk when they can, but that would be hugely inefficient. That way, human milk would be no cheaper than breast milk is now, which is like 100 times as expensive as cow's milk and with no benefit.


WrongSubFools t1_izafvjh wrote

Why would we pasteurize and sell human milk?!

Some people sell their breast milk on a small scale, yeah (and they usually dilute it with cow's milk, and the buyer is none the wiser), but if you're talking about doing it on mass scale, as a replacement for cow milk, that would be horrible. Take every issue people have with cow's milk and multiply it massively.


WrongSubFools t1_iybpzoq wrote

Hilariously misleading article.

The study tested 15 college kids. it studied whether thinking of their romantic partner reduced their pain and changed how they perform mental tasks. It did not compare these results against the students taking cocaine and in fact does not even mention cocaine. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013309

Did the kids experience less pain? Yes. Through the same pathway as drugs relieve pain? Yes (is here any other pathway for pain reduction?). But is love as strong as cocaine? No! Of course not! Cocaine is incredibly powerful, much better at blocking pain than any psychological method!


WrongSubFools t1_iv0aczg wrote

The five stages were initially never about grieving the loss of a loved one. Instead, they were supposed to be about accepting your own impending death.

Denial, for example, is a normal response when you learn you a disease will kill you but is not a normal response to a loved one dying. (If someone insists their spouse isn't actually dead, that is not normal grief but a severe delusion.) Bargaining, similarly, makes sense when facing your own death—you believe that if you make some changes, you will live, despite what doctors say—but has no actual equivalent when grieving ("maybe we can bring them back" is not a reasonable response).

The Simpsons interestingly enough got this exactly right, applying it to Homer learning of his impending death rather than to grief after loss:



WrongSubFools t1_iruzrch wrote

"Massive" is a relative term. Solar farms are hundreds of acres and occasionally even bigger than that, and the goal is to build solar farms bigger than we've ever made before.

Or, well we can say that solar power isn't a priority. But we can't say "we need solar power to avert the apocalypse" and also "oh, but let's only put panels so they cover ugly places."


WrongSubFools t1_irur36y wrote

No, green spaces do not absorb much (or any) CO2 / release much oxygen. Yes, they take in some carbon and turn it into grass, but what happens to the grass? It's eaten or decays and is turned back into CO2. That is the balanced carbon cycle (the creation and burning of fossil fuels exists outside the balanced carbon cycle). The backlash against developing green spaces isn't about environmentalism, as environmentalism says the solar farms are good. It's about preserving a location because people like looking at it.

There is simply not enough roof space in all of Europe to meet solar goals. The article mentions this. Banning people from building solar plants on undeveloped land hugely limits solar's growth potential.