Recent comments in /f/science

Mutex70 t1_jb845gb wrote

Reply to comment by Playingwithmyrod in Global food consumption alone could add nearly 1 °C to warming by 2100. Seventy five percent of this warming is driven by foods that are high sources of methane (ruminant meat, dairy and rice). by Plant__Eater

This isn't "blaming" anyone. This is research into the causes of global warming so we can decide what to do about it.

Putting our heads in the sand and saying "well, we should just ignore that source of global warming because it's due to 'regular people eating'" is abject stupidity. It doesn't make the problem go away.

Yes, there are multiple causes of global warming. Identifying how much our current method of food production contributes to the problem is important.

15

Cleriisy t1_jb822x2 wrote

Reply to comment by BGAL7090 in Global food consumption alone could add nearly 1 °C to warming by 2100. Seventy five percent of this warming is driven by foods that are high sources of methane (ruminant meat, dairy and rice). by Plant__Eater

We should subsidize, but at the customer end not the producer end. I don't think I'm willing to take away easy, cheap protein from poor people. Milk in particular seems so important to me because it's no prep. But I'm not poor and I think the shelf price should reflect the real cost to produce.

1

bebe_bird t1_jb800b8 wrote

Reply to comment by burnerman0 in Study reveals that although private automobiles continue to be the dominant travel mode in American cities, the share of car trips has slightly and steadily decreased since its peak in 2001. In contrast, the share of transit, non-motorized, and taxicab trips has steadily increased by giuliomagnifico

Succinctly put! The only other item to point out is that between rides/fares, the taxi then drives to the next one while the personal car is parked. So they may actually increase congestion slightly. However, I'm hoping that's minor enough that its not taken into consideration for most of these calculations!

1

SeaJay1187 t1_jb7ucta wrote

Reply to comment by thebeandream in Humans Started Riding Horses 5,000 Years Ago, New Evidence Suggests by geoxol

Humans were a lot smaller just 150 years ago. I went to a museum at mass general hospital called the ether dome. It is an actual OR from the 1800s (the first one that used anesthesia, ether)…. Many of the doors around were from around then. Very small…. Also the chairs were so small. Go to Fenway park and you’ll see the seats weren’t meant for modern people either (not a fat joke)

−1

vashoom t1_jb7o1yk wrote

Reply to comment by IamPurgamentum in Humans Started Riding Horses 5,000 Years Ago, New Evidence Suggests by geoxol

> exponential

You keep using that word but are not understanding what it means. The further back you go on an exponential curve, the shallower it gets. Technological advancements are exponential. That's why they're faster now and slower way back when.

But that's also a simplification, because "humanity" is not a single entity with a single development curve. Civilizations grow and advance and then develop new technology and societal complexity faster and faster, and then they stagnate/fall, new ones evolve and branch off of them, etc.

Also there are major differences in society and technology between 5000 years ago and 1000 years ago, so I don't even understand your premise.

Lastly, why would riding animals need to be something a culture developed early? Animals are far more useful as food, wool, beasts of burden, etc. It also requires pretty sophisticated techniques and technology to effectively ride animals, especially on battle (stirrups for one thing). Hitching a cart, which were human powered before, to an animal is actually less complicated than developing horseback riding.

3