Legal, yes. Culturally accepted, not so much, slavery always had cultural opposition by the non ruling class. Natural, WTF?! Show me an example of pure non human slavery (not harems, not parasites) and I'll discuss it.

Granted, I don't know exactly how they measured, but his gene expression is what they measured, not his pure DNA. This goes to my point, that environment determines how your DNA is expressed, so twin studies are flawed from the onset by thinking they begin identical, they don't. They don't even start with identical DNA, just close.

"Genes and the environment", but not pure gene study....at least not like people think. People think twins are carbon copies, so one can be a control to study effects of what they're studying. That's not quite right. Certainly they are useful in genetic studies, but not that way. From before birth, they diverge in how nearly identical DNA is expressed. They might be good for finding what genes/traits need closer scrutiny, but only with large samples.

Grounds for individuals to (privately) discriminate, perhaps, but not (public) businesses....at least not in America. Our national identity is a melting pot of cultures, intolerance for the different is antithetical to that idea.


Gender, nope, you can totally choose that now.
Race, many people change their racial identity...Rachael Dolizal comes to mind....as does the term "passing".
Ethnicity, people pass as ethnic groups they weren't born into, sometimes unknowingly, daily.....again, Dolizal springs to mind.

So, I'll argue that all you mentioned for all intents and purposes are today often the result of free will and not beyond the control of every individual, but a full grasp of brain chemistry and design and well understood methods to change them are well beyond our current knowledge, so their behaviors and actions are, in part, out of their control and not the result of free will but of brain construction.....now what?

He kept saying carbogen, which is a thing, but I think he meant to say carbon?

Your video, Altered Carbon Trailer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 32 Badge!

anyone care to compute the carbon footprint of that capability as compared to a skype conference???

I would like to think "punch a nazi" isn't especially extreme though, certainly not extremely leftist. You can certainly pickup a large number of right leaning people who are on board for punching nazis.

It's other things from the left that I fear are needlessly driving away right leaning folks.

Calls for halting parts of the economy to save the world from catastrophic climate change, be that banning coal or oil or to a lesser extent carbon taxes. Instead taking the positive approach of promoting non-fossil fuels on the power grid and electric vehicles accomplishes more and doesn't directly attack the industry and livelihood of a large part of middle America.

Anything that amounts to calling it immoral to define a man as a human with a penis and a woman as a human with a vagina. How many voters do you really need to alienate over semantics?

Anything that amounts to demanding everybody accept and encourage your life choices, sexual or otherwise. The notion of judging one another based on our decisions and behaviours is a big deal to right leaning people, telling them that certain behaviours or choices are not only unquestionable but must be approved of is again pointless and needlessly drives away voters. There is common ground in love and let live, pushing beyond that to get back at the old guard is driving away potential allies at a time that can't be afforded.

Labelling any criticism of Islam as Islamaphobia. For that matter, use of pretty much all the morality-a-phobias should be done away with. Go back to demanding people live and let live without the requirement everyone embrace or endorse other people's decisions without being shouted down as immoral.

BLM

Refusing to allow rational discussion of statistically factual trends or differences between populations because it's racist or sexist. Those differences are a part of our reality and just demanding everyone put their heads in the sand drives many people unwilling to do so away. It also is damaging because many problems in society that we need to fix are informed by that data.

Vaping only heats the weed to a temperature that vaporises the active chemicals without turning it to carbon, so you put far less through your lungs. They make vaporizors that use a water pipe attachment, so even the vapor gets cooled.

The Pax has different temp settings so you can get just what you want. Lower temps produce far less vapor and might leave some less volatile chemicals in the weed, hotter vaporizes more and produces a thicker hit, but ends up toasting the weed and eventually burning it. The Pax isn't designed for hash and or oils, for that I suggest looking at ineedhemp.com . They have setups for oil and herb, and offer the water pipe attachment.

Good quality Japanese blades are carbon steel, with no concessions to stainlessness at all. In a humid environment (my cellar, for example) carbon steel can grow that much rust in a week, easy.

Godsmack is how the wind feels
On the face of Mike Winfield
On his way home from the bar where he works
Nights - the worst nights, don't nobody tip right
And between the marriage offers and the fist fights
And if another mother fucker touch his wrist trying to pull him in to whisper
He ain't making it to midnight
Don't they know he got a lighter in his pocket
A matchbook in his sock and a block full of charred skeletons closeted begging to get out
He paused cause he's scared of airing out the thoughts
He can taste it in his mouth the sulfur and bitter carbon
Hearing all the burning bodies shout but no
That was a full lifetime ago and nobody ever has to know
He has never told well except Ronald
But that don't count he was sweet and exactly what he needed him to be at the time
Wine and candlelight and nice texts at lunchtime
Why had he not called Ron back
Guess there just wasn't a spark, ha!
No, no, musn't joke about these things
Wouldn't want to disappoint Doc Clark
So many hours on the couch
So many buried memories that take so many tears to get them out
Water hadn't never been a friend
Hold up - where had he seen that car before
Blue Acura dent on the left rear fender
Back again the sense of
Deja Vu
Strange things you
Never shake when you wake up in recovery
But suddenly noticing ash is covering his head cause it's raining from the sky
Dials home on his cell phone and gets no reply
What the fuck?
Where is the babysitter that he overpays
Body takes over and brain becomes disengaged
Michael is running his house is three blocks away
Adrenaline compensating for change in age
Since the last time that he ran it god dammit
Mike knows he gotta get home fast as he can
Looks up in the sky, glow's familiar
Knows those families died with similar
Awnings and on and on he keeps going
Hits the corner just as he hears the explosion
Screams come from the house, "Did you get them out?"
Mike asking the crowd that has gathered 'round
Tears running down his face
There's that familiar taste
He wishes it would take him to another place
Son and his baby girl in his home and he can't believe that it's gone in a cloud of smoke
And he's choking and running forward and hoping against hope that he might find them alive and well
When he knows the results too well and he knows that fooled himself
And he keeps walking towards the house rather what house is still left
No intention of stopping letting the smoke take his breath
Some strong arm rocks him aside Mike falls to the ground and cries
Why won't you just let me die
Why won't you just let me die

That's pretty sick *promote

I agree. Obama set a goal for the US by executive order, and since it wasn't voluntary, he never needed to ask the Senate for a two-thirds vote to ratify. Though, I highly doubt it would have passed even with a majority of Democrats...similar to Byrd-Hagel after Gore signed Kyoto. Oddly enough, a NYT/CBS poll in 2015 showed that two-thirds of the respondents supported an agreement...if it were legally binding.

I don't think there's any way to force China to do much of anything. Carbon tariffs? Sure, it'd hurt them, but it would damage us just as much. I guess what sticks in my craw is that China comes out of this looking "clever and cool."

I understand and appreciate what you're saying. I enjoy hearing the reasoning of others and think that truth is found through dialogue. I agree that we should each try to produce less pollution. I defaulted to a criticism of China's role, as a nation, in reducing global Co2 emissions because...well, that's how the Paris Accord differentiated between the signatories, as well as that being a fairly logical division, i.e. the largest defacto groupings able to decide environmental policy. What a nightmare it would be to have 7.5 billion individuals each come up with their own plan to lessen their own carbon footprint, and then get everyone to sign on.

I know that opinions will differ between what's ideal and what's realistic. Some will say that realistically we'll need to let the undeveloped and "developing" nations catch up by allowing them to increase and continue emitting Co2. Some will say that it's idealistic to assume that our planet's climate will be that forgiving re. the additional damage and time taken to attempt international equity. Others might transpose those two opinions, or come up with yet another view. I'm more than happy to listen carefully and respond thoughtfully.

My own take on all of this isn't fully formulated. But I do wish my home country, the USA, would do more. I wish we didn't have The Donald. And I wish China's rising nationalism would morph into a detente so that every nation could better allocate the necessary resources to mitigating this climate crisis.

Excellent. But, I have a reaction to your (Green's?) text in the description.

1. Nostalgia is a motivator. But I think it tends to be a *strong* motivator only of individuals, not of collective societies. If Trump has nostalgia for fossil fuels (personally I think his motivations lie elsewhere), the good news is that that nostalgia won't be very contagious to American citizens. At least not for long.

People like Elon Musk / Tesla are making it clear that electric and renewables are the sexy high-tech future. That appeal to our vanity will be much more effective as a "carrot" motivation, as compared to a "stick" with carbon taxes etc.


2. This essentially boils down to an industrial version of Isolationism. Trump represents a bigger push in that direction by far compared to being motivated by nostalgia. BUT, I think that trying to explain that resistance in him and others purely through that anti-globalization lens misses some things.

Just as nostalgia is a better motivator for individuals than societies, altruism (if you believe it can exist) functions the same way. And that's 90% of what the Paris Accords are: altruism.

On paper, it makes sense for us as individuals in the US to acknowledge that we got a disproportionate level of advancement out of fossil fuel usage through our history. As individuals, we can see the undeniable truth in that. But ask us to act -- collectively -- on that and watch as our collective altruistic tendencies are drastically reduced compared to the sum of our individual altruistic tendencies.

That's not really evil, that's just human nature. But it is precisely the reason that I feel that encouraging people like Elon Musk is by far the superior way to lead us into the future. Tesla makes cars that are better than competing ICE vehicles for many/most use-cases. And not "better" in the sense that our individual sense of altruism gets triggered to reward our brain's pleasure center because we've prevented some Pacific islander's house from getting wiped out in a sea level rise by buying one. No, better in real, measurable criteria: less expensive to operate, better performance / top speed / acceleration, features ... potentially even panty-dropping sexiness. That shit can motivate us as a collective society much more reliably than altruism.

And that's why I think it is more important to encourage the Elon Musks of the future than it is to get TOO overly concerned about the Donald Trumps of the present. Although admittedly, there's certainly ways to try to do both.

*related https://videosift.com/video/Climatologist-Emotional-Over-Arctic-Methane-Hydrate-Release

It likely is too late, as soon as these short-lived but potent gases are released it will get unpleasant very quickly. I know dumping iron in the ocean to stimulate algae growth which then sinks as acts as a carbon sink has been discussed. Also, spraying aerosols into the upper atmosphere constantly can decrease warming, but that doesn't reduce the CO2.

Watch out, I'm a crazy vegan that's trying to trick you into eating healthier, reducing your carbon footprint and saving billions of lives each year(human and animal). Wouldn't that just be terrible if you got suckered into my plan!

I've quoted from:
Dr. Kim A Williams
Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn
Dr. Michael Greger
Dr. William C. Roberts
Dr. Neal Barnard
T. Colin Campbell Phd
Dr. Michael Klaper
Dr. Joel Fuhrman
Dr. Dean Ornish

All of which are themselves getting data from non-vegan originated scientific research.....

Skip the beef, and save the reef :-)
Choose the bean pattie instead.

"Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.


Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”

Goodland, Robert & Anhang, Jeff. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are...cows, pigs and chickens?". WorldWatch. November/December 2009

Hickman, Martin. "Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases". Independent. November 2009

Hyner, Christopher. "A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It". Georgetown Environmental Law Review. October 23, 2015. (New)"

"When you have an established, scientific, emerging truth, it is true whether or not you believe in it."

That is a basic statement of reason that many Americans cannot concede.

Most of us believe that basic facts about the universe, like where it came from, what causes consciousness, and if mortality is real can be asserted without evidence, and no one can ever tell you differently.

And if that's the case with the biggest questions, then certainly something less profound like "how does carbon affect the climate" is a matter of belief as well.