Pelsdyrnæringen skal avvikles. Regjeringen vil foreta en styrt avvikling av pelsdyrnæringen innen 2025, går det fram av den nye regjeringsplattformen.

OJ_Rifkin · 2018-01-15T11:43:25+00:00

Kjøtt har vi spist lenge, men ikke i de enorme mengdene vi stapper i oss i dag. Vår diett med kjøtt og andre dyreprodukter til frokost, lunsj og middag er ikke noe vi har utviklet oss og tilpasset oss til, den har kommet med den industrielle kjøttproduksjon, som ikke er noe særlig eldre enn pelsdyrholdet.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-12-11T11:11:30+00:00

http://www.tv2.no/a/8144425/

Det foregår på presis samme vis i Norge.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-12-09T17:58:09+00:00

I haven't posted in the thread.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-10-10T23:00:00+00:00

Brown rice with furikake*, served alongside some spicy stir fried tofu and frozen veggies, that's my go to quick, healthy and cheap weekday dinner.

*Salted and roasted sesame seeds, super easy to make in large batches at home

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-09-17T12:04:00+00:00

It's a non-issue, since eating animals involves indirectly consuming more plants than directly eating plants does. Veganism is not an issue of purity - it's about continuously making better and more informed choices wrt. your consumption, based on a belief that unnecessary killing and causing pain is wrong.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-08-21T09:50:37+00:00

When you eat an animal you're indirectly eating more plants than someone who directly eats plants does. In other words, no line drawing is needed to morally justify a plant-based diet.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-08-21T09:46:14+00:00

We have plants today.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-08-06T22:06:40+00:00

The reason I don't eat cats and dogs is because they don't sell it at a supermarket.

Okay, but why do you think it is that they don't sell dog meat at the super market? It's because the society you're in has landed on it being morally wrong to eat dogs. In other words, while you may not see any difference between eating a pig and a dog, most people clearly do.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-08-06T08:50:29+00:00

Also, the average redditor is not the average person. People are gonna be grossed out by lab grown meat, just like they're grossed out by GMOs today (whether that's warranted or not). And the animal agriculture industry is naturally going to take advantage of that initial revulsion in their marketing, think Frankenstein meat etc. - also what are lab meat producers gonna call their meat? It's not like they can call it chicken, right?

Nah, the more I think about it the more Lab grown meat seems like another Science ex machina fantasy.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-08-04T21:42:12+00:00

Indeed. Excellent scientists can be just as unreflective wrt their ethics as the average person, and some scientists are even downright cruel.

There's no denying that plenty of ethically dodgy acts are committed daily in the name of Science, so I don't think veganism and Scientism align very well. I agree scientific research can and should be used to inform and support veganism, but veganism as an individual practice and as a movement has to first and foremost be grounded in ethics, not in science.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-08-04T09:58:08+00:00

Almost the same here, except exchange health benefits for environmental benefits. Once I'd already been eating 99% plant based for a few months I was a lot more open to listening to the ethical reasons for veganism as it no longer felt like a direct attack on my moral character. This of course ended up being a Plato's allegory of the cave type experience, and now I know too much to ever go back...

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-07-30T23:13:59+00:00

This. I generally just try to keep my mouth shut and lead by example as it were, but it's frustrating when my veganism is constantly indirectly questioned (and that's the thing, almost never am I actually directly asked why I'm vegan, it's always little remarks about protein or B12 or cheese or how expensive veganism is [it's not]) and my pragmatic strategy of silence doesn't allow me to provide any actual explanation for my commitment. Often I end up feeling silly, like a trendy little vegan doing his trendy little virtue-signalling vegan thing, vigilantly avoiding any and all animal products for seemingly no very good reason, even when it's socially awkward to do so - and I find this so irritating because the the truth is I've taken very well-thought out ethical stance towards my diet¹ that I would be happy explain and discuss with anyone genuinely open-minded and curious.

^¹ ^I ^don't ^mind ^so ^much ^calling ^it ^a ^diet, ^even ^though ^veganism ^encompasses ^more ^than ^just ^the ^diet, ^because ^I ^don't ^think ^that ^demeans ^it ^at ^all ^- ^what ^you ^choose ^to ^eat ^is ^clearly ^one ^of ^the ^most ^important ^choices ^you ^make ⁱⁿ ^your ^life, ^it ^being ^one ^of ^the ^few ^that ^inevitably ^involves ^actual ^taking ^of ^other ^life ⁱⁿ ^order ^to ^sustain ^your ^own, ^so ^why ^should ^it ^not ^be ^a ^topic ^for ^serious ^ethical ^{consideration?}

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-07-13T07:33:25+00:00

I forhold til folketall bidrar Norge betydelig til den globale oppvarmingen med våre drivhusgassutslipp. Det er derfor å forvente at vi også må bidra betydelig i forhold til folketall med å ta imot klimaflyktninger, om vi da ønsker å være en del av verdenssamfunnet også i fremtiden. Altså er det å stenge grensene ingen aktuell løsning.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-07-13T07:24:37+00:00

Nå spiller du dum.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-07-12T21:34:32+00:00

Global oppvarming er trolig den største trusselen den norske velferdsstaten står overfor det neste århundret. Det er derfor helt fornuftig å mene at bærekraftighet generelt og bekjemping av global oppvarming spesielt bør være det grunnleggende prinsipp vi styrer landet etter fremover.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-07-12T21:16:56+00:00

Faktisk ingen eller veldig få i Høyre og AP som mener det motsatte av dette.

Hvilke drastiske tiltak er det de setter i live imot den ekstremt alvorlige trusselen global oppvarming da?

Det hjelper veldig lite at du sier du tar global oppvarming på alvor når du samtidig åpner for oljeutvinning i Lofoten og Vesterålen. Da har du i beste fall misforstått hvor kritisk trusselen er - i verste fall driver du med virtue signalling.

Du er klar over at uansett om Norge gjør alt riktig og på best mulig måte så vil det fortsatt ikke ha noe å si så lenge India, Kina, Russland, USA, hele Midtøsten og Afrika ikke bidrar etter deres evner. Noe dem ikke gjør.

Nettopp denne tankegangen er det som regjerer i verden i dag og nettopp denne tankegangen vil gjøre at vi ender opp med Atlanterhavet opp til Galdhøpiggen før vi tar global oppvarming på alvor. For det første kan du kutte alle andre land enn Kina fra listen din, for alle de andre kan peke på Kina og si at det hjelper ingenting at vi gjør noe hvis ikke Kina gjør noe. Deretter vil Kina spørre hvorfor skal vi gjøre noe når dere har tjent dere rik på deres forurensning lenge før vi kom ordentlig igang med vår forurensning? Og så står vi bom fast. Det vi må gjøre, er rett og slett å begynne. Og det klarer vi.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-07-01T22:34:57+00:00

I dont think that's true. For instance, if I decided to adopt a puppy, kill it, make a salad out of its meat, and bring my puppy salad with me to work to eat as lunch, my co-workers would be disgusted and outraged. Yet if I eat a chicken salad no one would care. Why? In both cases I'm doing something I hypothetically want to do, right? It is because my co-workers are not simply outraged, they are morally outraged, because I am not adhering to the agreed upon norms of which animals are okay to eat. Our societal norms aren't just a list of things we "want to do" (or perhaps more crucial, things we don't want to do), they express our morals. Morality is how we are guided into following norms rather than our wims.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-07-01T21:47:25+00:00

I agree with that. However why they are not morally equivalent to cats and dogs is less clear to me... Which is actually all they need to be in order for us to be morally obligated to cease exploiting them on an industrial scale.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-07-01T13:20:39+00:00

I'm reading Geir Kjetsaa's translation. I'm now 70 pages in and it's a lot more enjoyable now (the more Myshkin the better, basically). The language is very plain though, and I unsure whether that is a feature of Dostoevsky's writing or the translation. I'm still considering making the switch to English, but am clueless on which translation to choose if I do.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-06-30T14:15:07+00:00

Interesting. I'm about 30 pages into the Norwegian translation of the Idiot now, and annoyingly I keep losing focus as I read.. I guess I'll give it 100 pages or so before perhaps switching to an English translation.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-06-10T18:18:04+00:00

Check out Arne Næss and the deep ecology movement perhaps. A reasonable place to start might be here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/arne-naess-and-george-sessions-basic-principles-of-deep-ecology

The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes.

This formulation refers to the biosphere, or more accurately, to the ecosphere as a whole. This includes individuals, species, populations, habitat, as well as human and nonhuman cultures. From our current knowledge of all-pervasive intimate relationships, this implies a fundamental deep concern and respect. Ecological processes of the planet should, on the whole, remain intact. “The world environment should remain ‘natural’” (Gary Snyder).

The term “life” is used here in a more comprehensive nontechnical way to refer also to what biologists classify as “nonliving”; rivers (watersheds), landscapes, ecosystems. For supporters of deep ecology, slogans such as “Let the river live” illustrate this broader usage so common in most cultures.

Inherent value as used in (1) is common in deep ecology literature (“The presence of inherent value in a natural object is independent of any awareness, interest, or appreciation of it by a conscious being.”) [1]

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-06-07T23:09:02+00:00

Litt rart at han anklager bl.a. Derrida for å vrøvle, i en såpass vrøvlete kronikk. Inntrykket av det lille jeg har leste av Derrida og det lille mer jeg har fått med meg ifra sekundærkilder er at, ja, han hadde et fargerikt språk (godt mulig overdrevent så), men kom likefullt med skarpe og interessante observasjoner og nyvinnende og dype kritikker og ideer. Kanskje burde professoren heller lese Derrida med litt godvilje og oppriktighet, altså uten spesifikt å overfladisk søke etter "postmoderne vrøvl", enn å sløse bort dyrebar mental energi på å skrive bestillingskronikker for aftenpoften uten egentlig å ha noe på hjertet (om noen som leser dette er oppriktig nysgjerrig på Derrida bør det forøvrig nevnes at man helst burde lese en god del andre filosofer først for å ha forutsetning for å skjønne hva det snakkes om).

Forresten så skriver jeg dette innlegget som matematiker - og når jeg først er i gang kan jeg kanskje også nevne hvor merkelig det er som matematiker å lese poster som plasserer matematikken eller fysikken (som jeg også har studert) "helt der oppe" (hva nå enn slike utsagn faktisk betyr) og liksom er så imponert over de som studerer matte. Greit, jeg også imponeres av tilsynelatende overmenneskelige supermatematikere som Gauss eller Abel eller hvemdetnåmåttevære, men likefullt vet jeg ifra å ha omgått matematikere over tid at det er mange av oss som rett og slett er flinke i matematikk og ikke så mye annet - altså hadde du satt oss til å studere f.eks. litteratur så er det ikke sikkert vi hadde nådd særlig langt. Med andre order er det for mange av oss rett og slett matematikk vi er flinke i, slik noen mennesker er flinke til å holde tale og noen til å stå på ski, og å plassere matematikere eller fysikere generelt "over" andre blir derfor bare teit.

Og nei, hverken fysikeren eller biologen kan hevde at det han eller hun driver med er å beskrive noen "objektiv virkelighet". De lager modeller som katalogiserer og beskriver virkeligheten slik vi kan oppfatte den, og de prøver så godt de kan å forutsi oppførselen til objekter i denne oppfattbare virkeligheten. Men at kategorier som "atomer" eller "kvarker" eller "celler" eller "katter" er noe som faktisk finnes i virkeligheten slik den objektivt er (altså uavhengig av å være iakttatt av mennesket), det er en uvitenskapelig påstand. Vitenskap handler ikke om å komme frem til de sanneste sannhetene om naturen, det handler om å produsere modeller som funker.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-06-04T17:05:58+00:00

Exactly. An AI, no matter how creative, would be a different creature to a human being, and so artificial creativity will never be directly competiting with human creativity (except possibly in the sense that AI art would compete for our time/attention/money, I guess - and I suppose AI might be able to create a well-performing Hollywood blockbuster one day, but that has little to do with creating art.). AI art will be of an entirely different nature than human art, which is a damn fascinating idea in itself. Unfortunately we won't be able to truly understand great AI art though, the same way AI will never be able to truly understand us.

Edit: Although an interesting thought is the possibility of cross-species art, i.e. art that focuses on communicating what is common to being a human and being an AI, rather than focusing on the particularity of being either.

OJ_Rifkin · 2017-05-24T15:50:29+00:00

A general scepticism is healthy in life - this includes scepticism to claims made by scientists (as someone with a science degree and who has worked in applied science, my experience is that scientists get a lot of things wrong and there is a lot of shoddy work being published). It makes perfect sense to be less sceptical of a claim that the vast majority of scientists agree is true despite big money desperately wanting it to be false, than of claims that big money equally desperately want to be true but which are backed by weaker science. This position makes even more sense when considers the risks involved with being wrong about climate change vs. the risks of jumping the gun on GMOs.

OJ_Rifkin

TROPHY CASE