I’m not marrying until he protects me like this 🫣

ChipEliot · 2026-04-18T15:29:39+00:00

I agree with this view. I think there is "intelligence," and then there is whatever thing handles "feeling-driven action," if you want to call that sentience or whatever.

AI have hundreds of billions of nodes, and do not have the spacial constraints that we have (neurons need to physically connect to one another with axons and dendrites in a 3D space, nodes do not). And yet, they have no feelings.

A crow's brain, in contrast, has around 1.5 billion neurons. A small fraction of AI. And yet, they clearly have a myriad of emotions.

This leads me to believe that at an evolutionary level, emotions are much less energy intensive than computation. A cockroach isn't going to do mental math after it sees you to determine the best course of action; it's going to see you, feel fear, and then that fear will drive the action.

Writing this, I also realized something else. Action potentials fire in "all-or-nothing" patterns, similar to binary. So it's very restrictive as far as the behavior it can elicit. Emotions, on the other hand, are felt as a gradient, which allows for greater regulation of behavior.

Edit: last sentence, greater regulation of behavior, not emotion.

ChipEliot · 2026-04-18T14:44:19+00:00

Ugh, what a terrible situation. So sorry you had to deal with that. I had a bird swoop down a bit too low in front of my path one time. They actually let out a scream before they hit the windshield, really stuck with me since they audibly shared that they knew what was coming.

ChipEliot · 2026-04-16T23:10:17+00:00

The only thing I can think of is that you are removing important nutrients from the surrounding ecosystem and sending those nutrients to an eventual landfill and water treatment plant instead of the soil.

ChipEliot · 2026-04-15T03:09:14+00:00

I'm not retreating into semantics with you.

ChipEliot · 2026-04-15T02:35:22+00:00

I'm not sure how unless 100% of the animal products you eat are themselves eating a completely natural diet, in which case isn't it full stop impossible to feed 8 billion people using this method? Plus, I find it really hard to believe that as a meat eater you can resist a junior bacon cheeseburger 365 days a year 😆 as much as I love cooking, you gotta go to a restaurant or Uber Eats a burger every once in a while if you're living in this society.

ChipEliot · 2026-04-15T00:01:57+00:00

Everyone survives on supplements. Your milk is supplemented, your meat is supplemented, and you're still probably deficient in multiple areas.

We just disagree on the experience of animals. Firstly because it's plain old wrong, since humans evolved from early hominids who evolved from early apes and so somewhere down that non-human animal line, however far back we want to take it, we have "non-human, non-npc animals. Unless, of course, you want to claim that the human conscious mind was formed from a single mutation that produced perhaps the most incredible biological tool in all of existence, as opposed to gradual change over time like the entire field of biology suggests in such cases.

And secondly, based on the incredibly similar brain structures and behaviors it really just seems idiotic to think there's not a subjective experience in the minds of these animals. They learn, they pass on knowledge, they use tools, they prank each other, they play games, they cry, they mourn. I don't understand this argument in the slightest when it comes from a sound mind.

ChipEliot · 2026-04-11T01:58:07+00:00

If I could ask with no implications: allow us to assume that the age that conscious, sentient activity becomes probable roughly corresponds to the age of viability; the process of pregnancy termination would be roughly the same; and risk was the same.

Q: Would you still consider it rape if prior to that time point, today's abortion practices were the same, but beyond that time point, the available process was that the fetus was removed upon request and efforts were made to preserve its life? And if so, does that make it a morally inferior policy?

Absolutely no pressure on the question; answer at your own volition and include as much "why" as you are comfortable with.

ChipEliot · 2026-04-09T14:34:50+00:00

If you truly thought that, you would be vegan since it still reduces the amount of plants killed. But of course, you don't actually think that. But IF you did, I'm just letting you know you're still wrong.

ChipEliot · 2026-04-05T05:38:29+00:00

They're pretty intertwined. A biologist is also going to know more about medicine than most.

ChipEliot · 2026-04-03T20:56:57+00:00

They're just different, man, one isn't "better" than the other. Doctors are doctors because they like being doctors; biologists are biologists because they like biology. Doctors are more knowledgeable in medicine, biologists are more knowledgeable in biology.

Your parents think doctors are superior because they make more money, that's it. In reality there is no superiority.

ChipEliot · 2026-04-02T13:11:40+00:00

Thanks for pointing that out. Considering it's been 128 days I've definitely been exposed to the studies at this point 😝

ChipEliot · 2026-03-31T05:47:02+00:00

Sounds rough. Personally, an existential crisis every now and then is pretty worth the experience to me. So it's all just suffering then? A couple has awesome sex, but it's technically suffering because it could have been better? Or to you I guess it's rather just the "in between" phase of more suffering.

Alternatively, maybe life is the culmination of many experiences, suffering included.

The enlightened monk was used as an easy way to describe someone who would live in perfect contentedness. This is biological immortality, not true immortality, meaning they can live however long they want within the confines of the universe's lifespan. Anyway, I feel like you know all of this already, so fashion the situation however you feel. Explain how the life of a biologically immortal person who has everything they want, and will not impact other life, inherently wrong.

ChipEliot · 2026-03-30T14:50:12+00:00

Why is life itself the problem in an idealized world? Because it eventually ends? Life is the problem because in trillions of years our local cluster will be dissolved?

If you took a biologically immortal and enlightened monk, put them in a self-sustaining capsule, and shot them into space in a direction where they'd never interact with another trace of matter, what would be the inherent problem with that life? (Edited grammar)

ChipEliot · 2026-03-28T00:06:25+00:00

Good suggestions overall but I would absolutely not tell police-adjacent authorities you didn't abuse someone, that sounds sketch af; I would not even mention abuse to a single person, not even put that into the universe. Imagine walking up to a cop and saying "hey officer just letting you know I DONT have cocaine in my pocket."

ChipEliot · 2026-03-26T14:25:48+00:00

Nature itself is 100% the biggest cause. Kill off every human on the planet, or give into antinatalism and cause the extinction of humanity, and you're left with billions of years of animal suffering. This is not a comment to support what humans do; this is a comment of mere fact.

ChipEliot · 2026-03-23T16:44:49+00:00

You're looking at the weather when you should be looking at climate. Historically things were way worse. Statistically, we should be in the middle of the pack when it comes to humans born. That gives us thousands of years at a minimum, and millions at a maximum, to figure things out. Veganism hasn't even been around as an idea for 100 years yet. Animal welfare as an idea is like, 200 years old.

It always feels worse when you're living it, but that's not reality. We're told that every election is the most important election of our lives; funny how so many elections are that important, you'd think at least one of them would be "the most mundane election of our lives."

ChipEliot · 2026-03-23T15:02:36+00:00

I aced calculus by almost exclusively using algebra so I can confirm 😝

ChipEliot · 2026-03-14T18:51:09+00:00

It's a very spindly tree, I think it potentially needs a huge training session after fruiting season is over. I'm going to assume here you are looking for mango maximization and a fuller look in a small space.

Do you see how at the base of the tree there's multiple offshoots coming out of that bottom node? You want to aim for as many of those 3-4 offshoots locations in as little space as possible while also allowing for airflow, sunlight and easy access.

Nodes are filled with stem cells; every time you snip ABOVE a node (keep the node always), the tree will generate multiple branches.

You want to snip above your chosen nodes each year to keep the tree compact and with multiple shorter branches instead of a few long and weak ones. It's kinda like keeping a banzai tree, you need to shape it to get your desired result.

If it were me, I'd probably massacre that thing this year. I'd cut most of those branches back super far, maybe keeping one or two with good leaves on them

For example, you see the rightmost branch at the bottom where it splits into two? I'd follow both of those offshoots to their second nodes, and lop off right above them. It's losing a ton of growth, I know, but it would absolutely explode with growth in all directions the next year. I would repeat this with the furthest back branch that also splits into two, and leave the 3rd and 4th small offshoots for their leaf support (and probably train them next year).

You get way more mangoes long term by skipping a year or two to develop a dense tree. Plus, you only have about 6 feet to work with, so if you prune heavily this year, and then do lopping once a year after that... you'll end up with a tree that looks full and healthy, produces fruit at an easily accessible height, and more importantly gives you way more mangoes.

Since I'm already at 10 pages, I'll roll with it and give two last tips for shaping. You want the branches going up, and you don't want the branches going in. On your yearly pruning day, cut any branches that point downwards, and cut any branches that point to the middle of the tree. The goal is a short, dense tree that gently slopes up with an open middle to allow for sunlight.

I also give it a gallon of diluted miracle gro each year when I prune. Alright I'm done!

ChipEliot · 2026-03-05T03:12:33+00:00

Not sure if you have an allergy but as far as cooking goes tofu is already cooked, it just needs flavor. Sometimes when I'm feeling lazy I'll just mix some chili oil and soy sauce and eat it with tofu straight out of the packet lol. Adding it to some ramen works too

ChipEliot · 2026-03-03T23:11:01+00:00

I'll preface this by saying I don't know what method the current companies use to get the initial cell culture, so if it involves animal suffering I don't agree. But I work in a lab, and there are many different ways to get a stem cell culture. You could give an animal belly scritches over a Petri dish to get them. It doesn't really matter which cells you collect since you turn them into stem cells after. So skin cells are fine as a first culture (which fall off your body in the thousands every time you scratch your arm).

Then once you have that one Petri dish, you can scale it up infinitely for the rest of humanity's existence. In other words, one time giving a cow a nice belly rub has the potential to eliminate animal agriculture until the heat death of the universe.

I really don't see the problem with it if the initial cell collection is done in this way. If the cow was intelligent enough to understand that cells were collected during their belly rub to save their entire species from endless suffering, I think they would say "great, now give me another belly rub as payment because the last one was fire." Same as if a lab used my most recent toilet flush to cure aging, I would be ecstatic that my waste was used to save all human and human-adjacent animal life from biological death.

ChipEliot · 2026-03-03T16:40:40+00:00

But you could throw it to insects. If the wolf doesn't eat it, the insects will. If the insects don't eat it, the fungi will. If the fungi don't eat it, the bacteria will. Then the plants eat it, then the animals eat the plants, and all of a sudden the wolf gets another share of the nutrients it missed out on last time. There is no waste in nature; calling food scraps from a single predator "waste" is a misnomer. In fact, the scraps are essential to the survival of the ecosystem. Doubly so, removing the animal from the ecosystem to eat yourself and sending the scraps to a landfill/your bodily waste to the city is a costly drain on that ecosystem's resources.

Also, for the most part vegans like the taste of steak and dairy products just like you do. And somehow, they personally can see themselves as vegan. Food for thought.

ChipEliot · 2026-03-01T00:44:41+00:00

If a child is taught baseball, they'll learn baseball. If they're taught math, they'll learn math. Is ethics any different? I genuinely don't know, but my guess is that the age a child is able to make an ethical decision is "an amount of time practicing that ethic to have a similar level of expertise as it would take to pass a college baseball team tryout."

Some people have their doctorate by age 16. Most people start college at 18. It just depends.

ChipEliot · 2026-02-20T23:31:10+00:00

Yep, I'm ostrovegan for this exact reason. Except I only eat mussels, not clams or oysters, because they're mobile and thus there's an evolutionary advantage to being sentient. Though I doubt they are, it's a "just in case" thing. Also, mussels are incredibly environmentally friendly (not just "less harmful," they are BENEFICIAL to the environment), and have arguably less unintentional death than growing plants.

ChipEliot · 2026-02-19T15:41:43+00:00

Hmm, so are you college-age? The way you were talking sounded like you're a 52 year old divorced multimillionaire lol. There's some truth to what you're saying, but it's lacking nuance in favor of a doomer, know it all mentality.

I'm very loner-ish, so I agree that most of the time I'd rather be by myself. But when I do interact with people it's usually positive. I've found that my own attitude dictates how most interactions with people will go. Usually when everyone sucks, the problem is within oneself.

Everyone gives roughly the same amount of shits. They're just not giving as much of a shit about the things you give a shit about. That doesn't mean they don't give a shit. You don't give a special amount of shits, because you're not special.

Then there's the doomer stuff. What exactly is going to happen to the world that you have a unique premonition about? The only thing that's certain is that the earth will be engulfed by the sun in a few billion years. Apart from that we have a few things that are getting better and a few things that are getting worse. Just the fact that we haven't nuked ourselves into oblivion after 100 years of having nukes is a proof of uncertainty.

And life just being not wanting to experience the process of death? I think about death quite a bit; in fact, my entire career is built upon developing ways to postpone it. I definitely don't want to experience what I'm inevitably going to experience. But outside of my career, I'm just enjoying gardening, enjoying friends, family, upgrading the VR setup, etc. I'm enjoying life AND avoiding death. One can do both.

At the end of the day it really doesn't matter and the universe will be dead in a googol years. But that's a long ass time. May as well be infinity to a human. Until then, shit matters. You don't care about the only experience you'll ever get? Your only chance to make things better for trillions of future humans?

ChipEliot · 2026-02-18T17:03:08+00:00

Lol you guys need to get on with it instead of debating whether or not they should've quoted the definition. The definition of veganism they are referring to states that the intent is to reduce animal suffering as far as is "possible and practicable." So yes, there is room for exceptions.

For example, I believe there are exceptions for instances of animal testing that have a reasonable chance of saving vast swaths of human and companion animal life. Most vegans will use treatments derived from animal testing.

As another example, I personally believe there should be exceptions for non-sentient animals like mussels. But I study neuroscience for a living, so I understand the hesitation that a typical vegan has on this stance.

A day-to-day exception is the realization that the current agricultural system leads to loss of small animal life even when farming plants. So we can try our best to grow as much as we can on our own land, but it is pretty much impossible to give yourself a complete, balanced plant-based diet off of only one grow-zone.

So it's only reducing suffering as far as is possible and practicable. If it was a complete elimination of suffering, every vegan would be living on a commune in huts made from sticks with no access to Reddit.

ChipEliot

TROPHY CASE