It was “physically impossible with current technology for humans to survive a trip” to the Moon when the space race kicked off, too. The whole POINT of the space race was inventing the technology to solve those problems.
Space exploration nay-sayers really are the lamest people imaginable.
Math Academy is not the main subject of this post. The main subject of this post is OP's attempt at getting better at math through 1000 days of self study, in which that site is an instrument. My criticism is about how his approach may have been ineffective and may not be an ideal guide for others. It is the said ineffectiveness that made me question if his attempt was genuine.
I hope this has been clear enough for you. Let me know if you need more.
> Maybe it seemed too good to be true and we should have been more critical of the findings.
I mean, I always was. My rule has always been - if something seems too good to be true, it is.
This is my biggest issue with ‘progressive’ types. They always seem to get drawn in by hype and flash, and neglect to consider 2nd order effects. I’ve had an endless number of conversations with friends of this persuasion where I point out very very obvious problems with some hot new idea they are so enamored with, which they inevitably poo-poo as me being a mean old cynical conservative. And a few years later we end up with articles like above.
You already pay a wealth tax. It's called property tax. Most people wealth (if any) is concentrated in the house or appartement they live in. And so the real wealth tax is already here.
Genuinely, how the fuck can you believe that when people have personally slaughtered the meat they consume for most of human history?
My wife grew up in a country where people would still personally slaughter pigs to roast at major holidays. Didn’t keep her or any of her family from eating meat.
We eat far more meat now at a time when far far fewer people are personally slaughtering animals than ever before in human history, so I think the claim checks out.
People who kill animals themselves regularly are probably subsistence farmers who consider meat a luxury, and what's more, the way they killed them was probably nothing like the incredibly high volume processing that goes on in a modern slaughterhouse.
I definitely think that if most people had to visit a modern factory farm and see the life cycle of one of these animals, kill it and process it, they would probably be shocked at what is legal.
This statement is thrown around a lot, but it doesn't really check out. Per-capita meat consumption in most of the west is only around 66kg/year (increasing to 100-120kg/year for meat-heavy countries like Spain, Argentina, and the USA).
That's about one pig and a handful of birds - even many peasant populations could afford to raise that much meat each year. The well-off were consuming massively more meat that this throughout history. Not to mention the incredible quantities of fish consumed by coastal populations.
Records from Durham and Westminster cathedrals suggest monks were eating in excess of 400kg/year of meat and fish. Records from Italy in a similar period show labourers and even widows receiving in excess of 80kg/year of meat. And so on...
>Records from Durham and Westminster cathedrals suggest monks were eating in excess of 400kg/year of meat and fish.
I feel like I eat quite a lot of meat. And even I find that number rather suspect. Over a kilo a day? They did also do labour, but still that sounds extremely high even for pure carnivore diet of today... Or then there is some sort of significant waste.
It sadly doesn't go back further than the 1960s. If you select Western Europe, the number seems to be falling (back from almost 100kg, though). USA, not so much.
Note though that for what your parent describes, you'd want numbers to go even further back, then you could likely see the whole effect of post-WW2 boom; though WW2 itself would obviously also extremely skew the data in the 40s.
Most people in "developed" countries do not eat whole animals, but only selected parts of them.
So the number of dead animals per year needed to sustain a typical human is much greater.
For example someone who is a much more moderate meat eater than most, might eat at least half of their protein intake from vegetables, with the remainder from healthy chicken breast meat, eating around 1 kg of raw chicken breast per week, i.e. from 2 dead chicken.
That means 100 dead chicken per human per year, though it is likely that other less choosy humans would eat the thighs and a few other parts, so the 100 chicken would actually sustain between 2 and 3 humans for a year.
Right, but that's purely reflective of a shift in meat preferences - a single pig would provide the same amount of meat as your 100 chickens. And historically, everyone ate pork and beef, not chicken (chicken doesn't become a major source of meat until after WWII).
It’s hilarious to me that, according to Marxists, we’ve now been in ‘late-stage capitalism’ for longer than Communism even managed to exist, but they still keep hawking a 200 year old book as the answer to everything.
Yup, time and time again Democrats have shown that there is no such thing as ‘enough.’ As soon as more money comes in they find new things to spend it on.
Hence, I oppose ALL tax increases.
The income tax when originally introduced only hit the ‘ultra wealthy’ too, and now look where we are. Why on earth would I ever believe that a wealth tax, once instituted, wouldn’t end up impacting me in a decade or so?
Space exploration nay-sayers really are the lamest people imaginable.
reply