While I have not lived in the south I do have some deeply religious and conservative family members, so I do see where you're coming from. I just think even a good chunk of the people you mentioned have an affiliation to fit in and not because they are genuinely religious, i.e. pray regularly and go to church every Sunday. In other words, it's a cultural thing. They probably wouldn't go so far as to consider themselves atheist, but I could easily see them considering themselves culturally Christian and non-religious in practice. I have no idea what percentage that actually breaks down to, but my guess is it's a decent amount lower than 70%.
Yea, similarly there is no way 70% of Americans are Christian. That's probably just the way they are raised and are likely to fill out if you don't feel comfortable saying "atheist".
Yes, starting with a pilot program that puts one store in each borough and growing from there.
We're talking about cuts to Earth and space science missions here, not defense. How is cutting fundamental scientific research "major progress for humanity"?
Look up ALG language learning. That's the best way to learn languages.
I understand you are not defending this, but you are uninformed on the implications (largely the fault of MSM's coverage, not your own). The majority of what is getting cut in this budget is basic research. It's planetary exploration with the goal of improving our understanding of the solar system and Earth. Unfortunately it is very expensive to do this basic research and it is not profitable, which is why I'm pushing back on your privatization spin. This is work that is not and will never be profitable. There are aspects of space exploration that can be profitable, a la SpaceX launching comm satellites to orbit, but this is not that and it's a very important distinction to make because there are very few places in industry for these workers to move to. We will lose this knowledge and be forced to rediscover it in a more intelligent, wealthy, and Science minded era. And it's a global issue because most other countries rely on the US's investment in this sector, so it's a global setback of several decades. That's all I'm trying to communicate.
It's not just about privatization and you're naive if you buy that explanation. It is about knee capping science because they do not value it. You can't privatize basic scientific research because it is not, on its own, profitable. Privatizing is also not a formula for success when it comes to planetary exploration, as we've seen with the many failures private space companies have experienced trying to land on the moon (which is much much easier than interplantary mission development by orders of magnitude). This is largely because this expertise is solely located at NASA and only some of it has transferred to the private industry. Like I said earlier, nuking the NASA budget will not lead to the same missions getting developed privately, it will just kill the space science industry. Some of the expertise will go work on adjacent things, but most of it will just be lost. And that's the goal - to kill science. If they can privatize a bit of it and win favor with some corpos that's just a side benefit.
The US has enjoyed a commanding lead in the aerospace industry with few countries having kept or caught up over the years. What this means in practice is that we have an enormous base of knowledge here and people that are experts in very specific subject matter. Other countries (with maybe the exception of China) coordinate and consult the US to accomplish pretty much any non-US space mission you've heard of. If you blow that all into the wind as a result of these budget cuts, you are setting back global progress in space and earth science by decades. Sure, many of these people will continue their work in some other facility or country, but a large percentage will opt to leave the industry and those skills will be diminished or lost. It might not be an extinction level event, but it is the kind of setback that you do not recover from in a reasonable period of time.
Yes and it covers way more missions than most people would think, like the Mars rovers, all of our sample return efforts, etc. It would all but kill US planetary science.
She sent the email. They're her words now.
cool motive, still slavery
Sure, I don't doubt that humans can't each the entire soy crop in much the same way they don't eat the entirety of other crops. But there is still 76% of the production going towards animal agriculture. You're not seriously suggesting that livestock only use the leftovers from soybean production from humans and produce no additional demand, are you?
I don't see how this supports your argument that eliminating livestock would not reduce land usage. 76% of soybean production is going to animal feed, do you really think that percentage would not reduce if you switched it over to providing food for humans?
I'd like to see a source for "what portion of feed they are given is also, largely, crop seconds or industrial byproduct". The vast majority of information I have seen on this topic is that we produce more crops specifically to feed animals than we do to feed humans. Which, just from an energy perspective, is completely logical to me.
They don't need to be. Stop raising livestock and you no longer need to feed them, which allows us to use the remaining land to feed humans. But livestock only make up a small percentage of human diets, so we can actually give back a ton of land to nature and still easily feed everyone.
Out of curiosity, how do they interpret 3rd party left-leaning votes, particularly in swing states? Obviously those wouldn't have decided this election, just curious since you seem to be in the know.
about 1/3 of americans of voting age do not vote. its not just that 3% who are unmoved by the two options served up by the decaying US political system