I understand your gripe about inconsistent spelling, but what do you have against diacritics? Diacritics typically serve to make orthography more consistent in some matter, typically more phonetically consistent.
I've got to say, I'm shocked to see this piece chock-full of fallacious logic in the Guardian.
> Is mother nature a psychopath? Why would she design foods to shorten the lifespan of the human race?
Mother nature isn't an anthropomorphic being and "she" doesn't design anything. There are plenty of poisons found in plants and animals.
> “Base your meals around starchy carbohydrate foods” – another nugget of government “healthy eating” advice that is contradicted by robust science and well overdue for a rethink. In February the Pure study, which followed 148,858 participants in 21 countries over nine years was published. It concluded that: “High intake of refined grains was associated with higher risk of mortality and major cardiovascular disease events.”
Government authorities typically recommend against the consumption of refined grains. So, the author is actually citing evidence against this argument.
> Fruit contains lots of sugar. A small banana has the equivalent of 5.7 teaspoons of sugar, whereas an egg contains none.
A cup of canola oil doesn't contain sugar either. This makes the mistake of conflating all simple mono and disaccharides as "sugars" without consideration of the context. A cola and a piece of fruit both contain sugar, true, but the fiber in fruit slows absorption and moderates spikes in blood sugar (this is why fruit juices are almost as bad as sodas). Dairy also contains sugar, which makes it even more strange that the author would target demonize the sugar in fruit but ignore it when praising dairy.
I could go on.
I'm not going to make the claim that this article is sponsored by some lobby, but it certainly reads that way.
I’ve felt like the guardian has gone downhill in the last few years. I first started paying for it because I believed that they would do the right thing in a post-Snowden world.
Instead, in the last two years major incidents have happened and coverage disappears by the next day. Perhaps this is the result of a poor UI but the tendency towards clickbait rather than holding authority to task - e.g. the UK PPE scandal - has been really disappointing.
I don't understand why people are looking to insects over legumes for protein. Legumes are widely cultivated and socially and culturally acceptable. Protein is pretty much a solved problem.
Agree, and I don't understand any of this lab-grown meat hype when there are so many plant based alternatives. It doesn't seem that lab grown meat will be cheaper or have a better carbon footprint than plant based foods.
"Tend to seek" is too strong of wording, but "seek part time employment at a significantly higher rate" is on target.
E.g., the most recent source I can find is a 2019 survey:
> Women physicians were significantly more likely to report not working full-time than men physicians (40 of 177 [22.6%] vs 6 of 167 [3.6%]; odds ratio [OR], 7.83; 95% CI, 3.22-19.04)
There are plenty of vegans who don't regularly use meat substitutes. Imo, it seems like most of them are more directed to curious meat-eaters rather than vegans.
Not OP, but I don't think this is such an irrational point of view. We're already seeing the effects of climate change; it's no longer the looming danger in "the future", it's something we deal with today. It's not so much that we can't do anything to try, technically speaking, it's that we most likely won't, for two reasons in particular. Firstly, we're trading a short term loss for a long term benefit. At a societal level, organized around quarters, financial years and terms of office, this is a hard sell. It's quite literally evolution. Some people alive today will never see the benefit of combatting climate change, so why should they, in their rational self-interest, support any action against climate change? Secondly, climate change is a global problem that needs a global solution. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything unless everyone everywhere does something, but it is essentially the diplomatic equivalent to the prisoner's dilemma. No nation wants to make the hard sacrifices necessary alone, which would only put them at a severe disadvantage, possibly for no benefit at all. It's also something that can be infinitely postponed into the future until one day it's too late.
In summary, climate change is a human problem, not a technological one. Technology has changed a lot and continues to do so, but the fundamentals of human psychology haven't really changed. We know of the problem, we have the technology to solve it, to the extent that it can be solved, but not the will and coordination to do so. Yet what reason do we have to believe that this will change in the future?
It's not that it's irrational, it's that this is how depressed people think and write.
Of course, I know nothing about OP, have no professional knowledge, and could be way off. I just thought mentioning it might push someone to seek help. I won't mention it again.
---
Climate change is a hard problem, but not for the reasons you give. To me, it's mainly a "Collective Action Problem". I, my city, my state, or my country may do our part of what's needed to solve the problem, but it won't be worth anything if the rest of the world doesn't join in.
Worse, our sacrifices makes the problem less urgent for other regions, who can "free ride" on our efforts.
If there was "local global warming", and changing California's emissions would fix California's weather, I think it would long since be handled, despite the long term nature of the benefits.
A political will is definitely lacking. One thing we cannot say, when the last forest has been cut down or was burned down during the soon to be longer summer months, when the food chains start collapsing due to the death of trillions of insects, is that we did not know.
We knew as far back as the 80s that this was going to happen but too often the human species likes to bury its head in the sand until its too late.
There is no reason to think that this will change anytime soon.
We, in tech like to think about technological solutions to a problem. In this case the tech is here. Its affordable, but we are not embracing it as we should.
Instead of committing to net zero in 2050, we should do the transition in less than a decade and then start capturing CO2 from the atmosphere after that. Yet here we are debating if we should or not start trading carbon credits between ourselves, as if there is nothing better to do.
>We, in tech like to think about technological solutions to a problem. In this case the tech is here. Its affordable, but we are not embracing it as we should.
Even when it makes financial sense people may be attached to the old way of doing things. They may drive an ICE car because they want to complete their 500 mile trip with one tank even though charging on the way only delays the trip by 30 minutes, something which is possible today.
There are inferior ways of achieving a goal that don't harm the planet. They often require a small sacrifice but they are possible today. When someone insists on an ICE because of a difference in range, they insist that engineers solve the impossible e.g. carbon capture [0] even though a possible solution exists.
That is the real problem. We collectively decide to create a problem that is impossible to solve and then we point at the engineers. They are already solving problems, you know, the solvable ones.
[0] By that I mean enough carbon capture to undo all the pollution that we didn't even try to prevent.
Climate change reduces to an international prisoner's dilemma, and there are surely countries and constituents thereof that won't want to stomach the sacrifices that it would entail. That's why I find it extremely improbable that the human species will ever "fix" climate change.
#/media/File:USDA_Food_Pyramid.gif){kind=link}