search results matching tag: Finland

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (236)     Sift Talk (7)     Blogs (14)     Comments (409)   

Where in the world is it easiest to get rich? Surprise.

vil says...

Nice plan - utilize the parts of American capitalism that work = find oil.

The ideals of a social democracy to create a better future = high taxes, high prices, social spending for loyal norwegians, strict moral and legal rules. Make sure to make up lots of first world problems to compensate for the awesomness.

Sell oil, buy Teslas. Have lots of mountains + rain to power Teslas.

Plus you have to already be rich to even contemplate visiting Norway, nevermind somehow get rich easy there. Tip on how to get rich in Norway? Be a tunnel builder.

Free education may mean more social mobility but it also creates a truckload of sociologists.

I like Finland. Its flat and no oil, but almost as successful. How are they doing it?

shagen454 said:

"...they utilize the parts of American capitalism that work with the ideals of a social democracy to create a better future - one hopefully without oil & gas and use tech to solve those issues but for now using oil money to get there".

Paternoster, the Collapsible Elevator

vil says...

Why would getting on and off a paternoster be different from stepping onto a normal moving staircase (escalator)? Its just one step.

As for "I can easily imagine severed limbs" or "slow moving guillotine" web articles - I have never seen severed limbs or heads anywhere near a paternoster. Difficult to compare but I would expect accidents to be similar to escalator accidents (which can be pretty bad, Ive had one myself).

In any case paternosters are just as popular (though rare) all over central (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Austria) northern (Sweden, Finland), part of western Europe (Germany, England, Denmark, Netherlands), and even as far as the Austrian Empire extended southward into the Balkans (Beograd).

If Meat Eaters Acted Like Vegans

transmorpher says...

Ok I'll try to divide up my wall text a bit better this time

I totally acknowledge that people in the past, and even in present day, some people have to live a certain way in order to survive, but for the vast majority of people that doesn't apply.


Taste:
Like most of the senses in the human body, the sense of taste is in a constant state re-calibration. It's highly subjective and easily influenced over mere seconds but also long periods of time. They say it takes 3 weeks to acclimatize from things you crave, from salt to heroin. That's why most healthy eating books tell you go to cold tofurkey (see what I did there ) for 3 weeks. It's all about the brain chemistry. After 3 straight weeks you aren't craving it. (The habit might still be there but, the chemically driven cravings are gone).
Try it yourself by eating an apple before and after some soft drink. First the apple will taste sweet, and after it will taste sour. Or try decreasing salt over a 3 week period, it'll taste bland at first, but if you go back after 3 weeks it'll be way too salty.



Food science:
One of the major things stopping me from not being vegan, was the health concerns, so I read a number of books about plant-based eating.
There is a new book "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger. If you want scientific proof of a plant based diet this the one stop shop. 500 pages explaining tens of thousands of studies, some going for decades and involving hundreds of thousands of people. I was blown away at the simple fact that so many studies get done. Most of them are interventional studies also, meaning they are able to show cause and effect (unlike observational or corrolational studies, as he explains in the book). 150 pages of this book alone are lists of references to studies. It's pure unbiased science. (It's not a vegan book either in case you are worried about him being biased).

At the risk of spoiling the book - whole foods like apples and broccoli doesn't give you cancer, in fact they go a long way to preventing it, some bean based foods are as effective as chemotherapy, and without the side effects. I thought it sounded it ridiculous, but the science is valid.
Of course you can visit his website he explains all new research almost daily at nutritionfacts.org in 1 or 2 minute videos.
He also has a checklist phone app called Dr.Greger's Daily Dozen.

There are other authors too, most of these ones have recipes too, such as Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr Joel Furhman.
Health-wise it's the best thing you can do for yourself. And if like me you thought eating healthy meant salads, you'd be as wrong as I was I haven't had a salad for years. My blood results and vitamin levels are exactly what the books said they would be.

Try it for 3 weeks, but make sure you do it the right way as explained in the books, and you'll be shouting from roof tops about what a change it's made to your life. The other thing is, you get to eat more, and the more you eat it's healthier. What a weird concept in a world where we are constantly being told to calorie count (it doesn't work btw).

Environmental:
I've read a lot about ethics, reason and evidence based thinking, as well as nutrition and health (as a result of my own skepticism). So I could and I enjoy talking about these all day long. On the environmental side of things, I'm not as aware, but there some documentaries such as Earthlings and Cowspiracy which paint a pretty clear picture.
Anyone can do the maths even at a rough level - there are 56 billion animals bred and slaughtered each year. Feeding 56 billion animals (many of which are bigger than people) takes a lot more food than a mere 7 billion. Therefore it must take more crops and land to feed them, not to mention the land the animals occupy themselves, as well as the land they destroy by dump their waste products (feces are toxic in those concentrations, where as plant waste, is just compost)
The other thing is that many of these crops are grown in countries where people are starving, using up the fertile land to feed our livestock instead of the people. How f'd up is that?
It's reasons like that why countries like the Netherlands are asking their people to not eat meat more than 3 meals a week.

Productivity and economics:
Countries like Finland have government assistance to switch farmers from dairy to berry. Because they got sick of being sick:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-guidelines-from-dairies-to-berries/

The world won't go vegan overnight, and realistically it will never be 100% vegan (people still smoke after all). There will be more than enough time to transition. And surely you aren't suggesting that we should eat meat and dairy to keep someone employed? I don't want anyone to lose their job, but to do something pointlessly cruel just to keep a person working seems wrong.

Animal industries are also heavily subsidized in many countries, so if they were to stop being subsidized that's money freed up for other projects, such as the ones in Finland.

The last bit:
If you eat a plant based diet, just like the cow you'll never have constipation, thanks to all of the fibre
When it comes to enzymes, humans are lactose intolerant because after the age of 2 the enzyme lactase stops being made by the body (unless you keep drinking it). Humans also don't have another enzyme called uricase (true omnivores, and carnivores do), which is the enzyme used to break down the protein called uric acid. As you might know gout is caused by too much uric acid, forming crystals in your joints.
However humans have a multitude of enzymes for digesting carbohydrate rich foods (plants). And no carbs don't make fat despite what the fitness industry would have you believe (as the books above explain).
Appealing to history as well, when they found fossilized human feces, it contained so much fibre it was obvious that humans ate primarily a plant based diet. (Animal foods don't contain fibre).

The reasons why you wouldn't want a whale to eat krill for you is:
1. Food is a packaged deal - there is nothing harmful in something like a potato. But feed a lot of potatoes to a pig, and eat the pig, you're getting some of the nutrients of a potato, but also heaps of stuff you're body doesn't need from the pig, like cholesterol, saturated fat, sulfur and methionine containing amino acids etc And no fibre. (low fibre means constipation and higher rates of colon cancer).
2. Your body's health is also dependent on the bacteria living inside you. (fun fact, most the weight of your poop is bacteria!) The bacteria inside you needs certain types of food to live. If you eat meat, you're starving your micro-organisms, and the less good bacteria you have, the less they produce certain chemicals and nutrients , and you get a knock on effect. The fewer the good bacteria also makes room for bad bacteria which make chemicals you don't want.
Coincidentally, if you eat 3 potatoes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you have all the protein you need - it worked for Matt Damon on Mars right?

dannym3141 said:

@transmorpher

It's a little difficult to 'debate' your comment, because the points that you address to me are numbered but don't reference to specific parts of my post. That's probably my fault as i was releasing frustration haphazardly and sarcastically, and that sarcasm wasn't aimed at you. All i can do is try and sum up whether i think we agree or disagree overall.

Essentially everything is a question of 'taste', even for you. There's no escaping our nature, most of us don't drink our own piss, many of us won't swallow our own blood, almost all of us have a flavour that we can't abide because we were fed it as a child. So yes, our decisions are defined by taste. But taste is decided by the food that is available to people, within reasonable distance of their house, at a price they find affordable according to the society around them, from a range of food that is decided by society around them. Your average person does not have the luxury to walk around a high street supermarket selecting the most humane and delicious foods. People get what they can afford, what they understand, what they can prepare and what is available. Our ancestors ate chicken because of necessity of their own kind, their children are exposed to chicken through no fault of their own, fast forward a few generations, and thus chicken becomes an affordable, accessible staple. Can we reach a compromise here? It may not be necessary for chickens to die to feed the human race, but it may be necessary for some people to eat chicken today because of their particular life.

I don't like the use of the phrase 'if i can do it, i know anyone can'. I think it's a mistake to deal in certainties, especially pertaining to lifestyles that you can't possibly know about without having lived them. Are you one of the many homeless people accepting chicken soup from a stranger because it's nourishing, cheap and easy for a stranger to buy, and keeps you warm on the streets? Are you a single mother with coeliac disease, a grumpy teenager and picky toddler who has 20 minutes to get to the supermarket and get something cooking? Or one of the millions using foodbanks in the UK (to our shame) now? I don't think you're willfully turning a blind eye to those people, i'm not tugging heart strings to do you a disservice. Maybe you're just fortunate you not only have the choice, but you have such choice that you can't imagine a life without it. I won't budge an inch on this one, you can't know what people have to do, and we have to accept life is not ideal.

And within that idealism and choice problem we can include illnesses that once again in IDEAL situations could survive without dead animals, nevertheless find it necessary to eat what they can identify and feel safe with.

Yes, those damn gluten hipsters drive me round the bend but only because they make people think that a LITTLE gluten is ok, it makes people take the problem less seriously (see Tumblr feminism... JOKE).

I agree that we must look at what action we can take now - and that is why i keep reminding you that we are not in an ideal world. If the veganism argument is to succeed then you must suggest a reasonable pathway to go from how we are now to whatever situation you would prefer. My "ideal farm" description was just me demonstrating the problem - that you need to show us your blueprint for how we start again without killing animals and feeding everyone we have.

And on that subject, your suggestions need to be backed by real research, otherwise you don't have any real plan. "It's fair to say there is very little risk" is a nice bit of illustrative language but it is not backed by any fact or figure and so i'm compelled to do my Penn and Teller impression and call bullshit. As of right now, the life expectancy of humans is better than it has ever been. It is up to you to prove that changing the diet of 7 billion people will result in neutrality or improvement of health and longevity. That proof must come in the form of large statistical analyses and thorough science. I don't want to sound like i'm being a dick, but any time you state something like that as a fact or with certainty, it needs to be backed up by something. I'm not nit picking and asking for common knowledge to have a citation, but things like this do:

-- 70% of farmland claim
-- 'fair to say very little risk' claim
-- meat gives you cancer claim - i accept it may have a carcinogenic effect but i'll remind you so does breathing, joss-sticks, broccoli, apples and water
-- 'the impact to the planet would be immense' claim - in what way, and what would be the downsides in terms of economy, productivity, health, animal welfare (where are all the animals going to be sent to retire as of day 1?)
-- etc. etc.

Oh, and a cow might get its protein from plants, but it walks around a field all day eating grass, chewing the cud and having sloppy shits with 4 stomachs and enzymes that i don't have................. I'm a bit puzzled by this one... I probably can't survive on what an alligator or a goldfish eats, but i can survive on parts of an alligator or fish. I can't eat enough krill in a day to keep me going, but i can let a whale do it for me...?

The Israel-Palestine conflict: a brief, simple history

newtboy says...

If they stay and impose their own rule over the 'natives', they're invaders.
Nope, doesn't stretch my imagination at all, perhaps yours needs more exercise!
Perhaps if those Jews were still in Europe fighting against the Nazis, they wouldn't have made it out of Germany. The fact that they all immigrated to one place and stayed there makes it an invasion, not refugees fleeing to their neighbors for safety. If all Syrians rushed to, lets say only Denmark, displacing the inhabitants, replaced the government and army, and started deporting Danes and settling in Finland, I'll be right there calling them invaders. It's not the same thing by far. The Jews were not fleeing anything but fear in the 30s, the Syrians are fleeing certain death.
AND...the Jews were certainly allowed to immigrate just like anyone else. I don't know where you get this idea that they were persona non gratta, during the war German Jews were under stricter immigration rules, yes, but immigration being strictly illegal, not according to my education or research....unless you mean since EVERY Jew couldn't immigrate it was illegal for those that didn't pass inspection or came too late and missed the cutoff....but that applied to EVERYONE not just Jews, so no.

bcglorf said:

I can't figure out whether I hope you view the Middle Eastern(and most recently Syrian) refugees coming into Europe as 'invaders' too or not.

It really stretches the imagination to fail to at least give some degree of legitimacy to Jewish flight from Europe in the 30s and 40s. Immigration to anywhere was strictly illegal to them, including over here in Canada and America too.

You see Jewish invaders from Europe taking over Palestine where I see refugees fleeing a legitimate threat to their lives. The holocaust seems to have proven out the fears of European Jews that left in the 30s, no?

You also completely ignore the actual situation on the ground in Palestine between Jewish and Arab Palestinians. You make it sound like peace loving, tree hugging Arabs stepped back and watched as Jewish invaders stripped them of their land at gun point out of malice. Truth is, neither Jewish nor Arab Palestinian populations were treating each other particularly well by the 1930s. The Arab population was every bit as racist, unfair and violent to the Jewish Palestinians as the other way around.

mintbbb (Member Profile)

Finnish Booze Day for Parents?

designker says...

Just to add some context, in Finland there is a tradition of sweets day. One day a week where kids are allowed to have candy. If you go to a supermarket on a Friday evening you will see this just this type of family debate going on.

Amazing skills from Lukyanuk On SS5 - Rally Estonia 2014

eric3579 (Member Profile)

radx says...

It's all up to Francois Hollande now. Matteo Renzi is reasonably angry at how Germany is handling this shit, and France + Italy might just be enough to rein in the hardliners in Germany/Finland. If Hollande doesn't go into open opposition against Schäuble et al tonight, Grexit becomes inevitable.

Luckily though, my neighbours found some fitting stone plates at an abandoned(?) house to finally finish a spot in their backyard. I'll be over there the rest of the afternoon, pounding those plates into place with a rubber mallet.

Edit: Also, fuck the social democrats for turning on the people again.

Map of rainfall and snowfall 2014

Watch German official squirm when confronted with Greece

radx says...

@RedSky

Ah, we've been down this road... I totally forgot, sorry.

Just briefly then: Greece fucked up prior to the crisis. Fudged numbers, corruption, banks run by the worst of the worst, economy exposed to exterior shocks, the works. They were hit hard when the crisis began, and it magnified the pre-existing conditions to a point where the entire thing became unstable.

When their banks finally admitted to being completely screwed, Greece was "motivated" to socialize the problem by bailing out the banks. If the Greek banks had gone bust, the German and French banks would have had to crawl back to Merkel and Sarkozy and beg for a bailout, only a year or so after they were bailed out the first time. Both governments would have been thrown out of office if they had bailed out the banks again, after swearing not to do it. So it was left to Greece to deal with the mess in a way that kept German and French banks out of it.

They did the same in Ireland, just like Bill Black testified before their parliamentary committee three weeks ago.

But the real mess, the social devastation, was primarily a result of "The Program". Some say it was the Greek government who enforced the measures, nobody told them to cut pensions in half. Well, the IMF still provides access to the Memorandum of Understanding, which clearly outlines just that. It was mandated by the troika and the Greek government went along all too willingly. As a result of the first troika program, GDP went down the toilet.

Anyway, the establishment in Greece is to blame for most of this, but the German/French banks (and their governments) are also to blame. Yet somehow, it is the lower/middle class in Greece who receive the punishment, and the lower/working class in Germany/Finland/Netherlands/etc who are expected to foot the bill this punishment causes for the entirety of Europe. Pisses me off to no end.

Greece's Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis on BBC's Newsnigh

radx says...

Not the entire rest, actually. Just the pro-austerity forces currently running the show (Germany, Finland, Netherlands, Austria, etc). Syriza have strong support in Spain (Podemos), France and Italy, the three major countries on the receiving end of austerity.

If Varoufakis' analysis of the situation in Europe is correct, almost everything the troika (ECB, IMF, European Commission) has done since the beginning of the crisis was counterproductive and the underlying economic theories were wrong, plain and simple.

It would be an open challenge to conservative ideology in European governments and to a sort of market fundamentalism that has been the overwhelming drive behind most major policies enacted over the last two decades, particularly in the last seven years.

Can't have that. The Emperor is not naked. Greece is not bankrupt, austerity leads to growth and deflation poses no risk.

25% unemployment, 50+% youth unemployment, GDP down by 25%, poverty through the roof, dumpster diving on the richest continent on the planet -- whatever led to this (hint: austerity) needs a special place on the wall of things never to be done again.

Yet they want to implement it in France and Italy as well, which is why the conflict with Greece is actually a high stakes game about the future of the entire Eurozone.

Like I said, my own views are heavily biased against austerity for a multitude of reasons. And to see my own government forcing it upon significant parts of the continent makes me sick.

charliem said:

Im not sure what to think of this guy....in the incredibly simple conversation happening here, he seems to make sense.....so why is the entire rest of europe against him?

Unicorns

Why people from northern Sweden sound like vacuum cleaners

SquidCap says...

We do this too, a bit differently: "hjuup", coming from "yup", "jup" or "jep" but often it's just the same sound as in this video.. I live in west coast of Finland, we have plenty swedish speaking natives here.

North...to Alaska, for a White (less) Christmas

SquidCap says...

Last two winters in Finland have been pretty black. Freezing in the night in to solid ice, melting during the day. There was a tiny sliver of cold air that arrived just days before christmas so it's white now, expecting to melt away before new year. Makes cycling pretty much impossible, they haul gravel on to the pavements, it falls thru the melting ice only to get trapped in it when the night comes and you got clear, solid sheet of ice again in the morning. I have never seen so much gravel in the streets in the spring as i did last year. Good news is that -20C only happens for two, three week tops.

10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman

SquidCap says...

You start by introducing yourself, probably with the words "excuse me miss" first. if you think that the best way to meet new people is to straight up going for "daammmmmn", you have a lot of courtesy to learn.

Of course this all looks incredibly invasive to me. I'm from Finland, from Ostrobothnia. We do not talk to strangers and even less in this part of country. You can have 60 people in the same room with no one is talking to each other. It is considered rude, why would i talk to a stranger that i have never met and i'm never gonna meet again, i have nothing to say except empty small talk that is actually just a nervous tick, not actual communication... Just shut up, sit straight and mind your own business.

scheherazade said:

So, as a practical matter... how do you approach a stranger on the street when you're interested in them?
Or is it simply that people 'out and about' are categorically off limits to approach?

I get that this looks bad - when you condense a day's worth of calls into a few minutes. But she prolly passed 100k people in that day just walking around.

(There were 3k kids in my high school, it didn't look like a lot when you see them all together at a rally. It isn't hard to imagine walking past 30 high schools worth of people on busy streets like NY has in a 1 day period).

All this video makes me think is that Indian women are onto something with that forehead dot business. Marking yourself as available/unavailable would not only spare yourself the pointless calling, but would also not waste the men's time on approaching women that have no interest in being approached.

-scheherazade



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon