Without a doubt, but if you know a danger, you can probably buy a part of a cow.

Is that analogous to 'rutting'?

I think this is very country dependant :) I live in the countryside of Nottinghamshire in the UK, and UK countryside is very different from US countriside!

More crowded, for a start!

It really is. I’m in a first ring suburb and you can barely see my house on google earth because of the tree cover.

I spent 2 years in Seoul after living in rural northern WI and the UP. I missed the trees, clean water, and open spaces so much.

I mean, we're from completely different parts of the world so I get we are coming from different view points. But the key factor I'm considering is that cows need a certain amount of calories. Those calories either come from low density area (like you describe) or high density crop.

I guess I should have said how much of the world's beef comes from low density crop lands in the USA?

And another thing I'd wonder about, do those cattle live entirely off the land? In the UK we have "grass fed" cows, which are premium and reared entirely off the land, but they require huge amounts of land in order to have enough food available to them, plus higher calory supplements to actually put on weight. So unless you actually know a small hold farmer, in Europe, any meat/dairy you get is from "unnatural" means, with cows being reared more intensively than the land would allow. That intensity comes from other land, elsewhere, being used as well. I know the same applies in Australia and much of South Africa, but I can't comment on the Western US.

And, to be fair, I haven't focused on land use exclucively. My point was that we are actively destroying many biomes in order to produce food for livestock. If we stopped eating as much meat and dairy (reduce it to the recommended amounts medically, in the US and Europe) that would take off a huge amount of pressure from biomes we are destroying.

To go back to my original point, if people treated meat and dairy like a luxury, that would probably just leave cows in the habitats you describe (although that's just a wild guess)

it wasnt a real proposition because it will never happen.

> Green medians can be a much more cost effective way to green up a city.

ah yes, patches of grass. the worst possible greening you can do.

The research is unique in establishing the most deleterious factor that causes Alzheimer's disease in relation to the others such as lack of exercise, sleep, poor nutrition, and drug use.

The result suggests that social lifestyle determinants are linked to most neurodegeneration risk factors, making them promising targets for preventative clinical action.

It could help with making more informed decisions for policy interventions, especially among the elderly. Social isolation is arguably easier to modify than the other factors

Well, not if they mate themselves to death. But man, what a way to go

You are not actually arguing against what I said though. But if that's what you want to do, go ahead and reply to my comment however you please. You aren't even alone in that.

People don’t care to do things that don’t drive profit anymore

This is the deep voice gas right? Isn’t it super dense?

So they are going out with a bang?

No worries! My main take-away is that both are associated with "classic" Alzheimer's risk factors. Not sure there's a detailed comment inside the text about which is "worse" though, a lotof the paper was highlighting that the two resources had similar results.

Some interesting things for me

> However, in both the UKBB and the CLSA cohorts, we observed that having a greater number of siblings showed notable effects on increased feelings of loneliness and lacking social support.

I would have expected the opposite but it also makes sense as someone with many siblings (compared to only children friends). I wonder if it's because in early childhood you have a built-in social network and don't have to put as much effort in maintaining friendships as only-children? Or maybe the psychological "I can't do anything BC siblings will tattle". I don't know.

>Watching TV showed strong effects on increased feelings of loneliness and poor social support, while using the computer was linked with less loneliness and better social support

This one is interesting, I wonder if there's an effect of what you watch (are you comparing yourself to like friends (never watched) or Seinfeld (have seen) with multiple close friends? What do they use the computer for, social media and keeping up with kids (I think both cohorts are 45+)

>Finally, in both the UKBB and CLSA, living in an urban environment, as opposed to a rural setting, was associated with higher levels of loneliness and poor social support

I've probably written enough already, but this one also makes sense to me

Third alternative: solid dielectric devices, often coupled with vacuum interrupters. Also typically more costly, and introduce some operational/safety concerns (e.g., SF6 and air-insulated switches often have visible gaps, which are desired - and in some cases required - for utility operations. Vacuum interrupters are fully encapsulated, so the open gap is not visible.)

[removed]

Oh, and as for your tangent, it's easier to know what you're eating if you can get a ways out of the city. Most of our eggs come from our chickens, we can easily get beef and pork from people that we know and can go see the animals in the fields. Hell, i can get the ear tag of the cow i put in my freezer if i want.

My name is Retipuj and I am evil.

Personally I think this is purely a "works on paper but not in practice" scenario.

The issue is that the intersection of "people who live in greener neighborhoods" and "people who cant afford air conditioning" is very very very slim.

What will happen is as you go and plant more trees, shortly after property values in that area will shoot up and make it less affordable.

So the only people who benefit in the long run are those who were already well off in the first place, resulting in the lower classes (the group most heavily affected by heat waves) not gaining any of this benefit at all.

The upper class will just further cement their upper class'ness, and you'll just have the nicer neighborhoods becoming even more nicer, and the medium neighborhoods becoming gentrified and elevating to nice neighborhoods.

You certainly can. Most apes are polygynous, not polygamous or monogamous. One male bullies the rest and has more access to partners than anyone else. Most human groups in history have shown this tendency.

I'm not making that mistake at all. I'll pointing out that a huge percent of the Western US is considered "used for cows", even though there's only a few cows per square mile, and the cow's use of that land is pretty low impact.

If you lump that in with factory farms where even considering the area required for feed, you're getting multiple cows per acre, you end up with a drastically skewed statistic where the average land use per cow is very different from the median land use per cow.

And since the vast majority of our meat comes from factory farms (I'm seeing 99%, but that's not just beef), the median land use is far more important. So, if you include the few hundred thousand square miles of rangeland with barely any cows on it, you think every cow we don't raise frees up like 4.6 acres that can go towards something else. But in reality, if we don't raise one median cow it only frees up a couple hundred square feet.

Do you see how the statistic is skewed? I've been around feed lots and live in agricultural areas. I see feed crops. I also live near rangeland. A simple statistic of "percentage of human land use" doesn't really tell any of that story with any degree of accuracy.

The irony being much of Russia's modern problems likely stem from the generations of kids raised without a father because up to 80 or 90% of men in a generation died in WW2.

The 10-20% that lived were often unfit to serve in one way or another, or con men. And Russian women had to compete for them. Then they had to raise their sons with few men around to help or be good role models.

The American Baby Boom saw the Nuclear Family flourish.

The Russian Baby Boom was considerably more depressing.

Both fell prey to Cold War propaganda.

[removed]

yeah i doubt that, they're removing large areas of trees on a regular basis here. usually these kind of ridiculous laws only apply to private persons, not corporations

Or just build slightly bigger switchgear and use nitrogen