Definitely should go with PC enhanced edition these days. Easy to get setup with the new install wizard. Loads of new features, graphical improvements, and bug fixes. Even fixes for bugs that persist in all console versions of the game. Of course, one could wait for the new version to come out in about a year.
The Cat Lady. It's a point and click style game that is well recieved even ten years on since its release, and has since become the first in a trilogy of sorts. Good writing, multiple endings, sad+spook with some good twists. Gameplay is definitely limited, art can be a bit unusual, but what it has to offer is worth your time.
Hey, free odds approaching zero is better than paid options approaching zero
I should have just went to your profile right away and saved the trouble lol
The ideology doesn't detract from the obvious. You're ignoring the laws of thermodynamics for non-grazing animals because in your head there is some fictional world where there is exclusive grazing animals that everyone exclusively eats where reality puts that at maybe 0.0001% of real human diets. Your intentions are dubious at best, and I grow tired of you. If you really wanted to have a productive conversation, you could have explained what about the methodology of the UN's FAO paper on land use you disagreed with, but I guess you can just reference some other paper and go 'well it's allegedly at least in my brain like this other one I read so therefore all goes in the trash.' I am not a data/environmental scientist so if you want to debate bro about the particulars of those papers or their methodology seek out people who may or may not be more educated than you, personally I think they'll have an even harder time taking you seriously.
You can probably even get a direct email out to those who wrote the papers you disagree with. They might laugh a little, but they may actually respond. Who knows. But I'm good dawg, I'll keep doing what is ethically sound for living conscious beings and is recommended by scientific consensus as good for the environment/climate, and you just keep on saying whatever the hell all these comments were to other people who probably also don't want the most nested back and forth dialogue possible that goes nowhere. Maybe you're not 'anti-vegan' but to engage with this content as frequently as you do, you clearly have a motive - and unlike you, Vegans will be upfront and honest about theirs. You should stop hiding your intent/background. But again, I'm good dawg. I'm interested in dialogue that can actually change people's minds to lead a more compassionate and sustainable life and it's clear you'll not change your ways and no one is reading this so it will not influence others either. You will continue paying other people to kill animals irrespective of any evidence I provide and hilariously claim it's not evidence. No interest in interacting in future, giving you the solid block. Have a nice day.
A) Congratulations, you account for almost no one on Earth and haven't accounted for the totality of it in determining how people should/can live in regards to the environment. Your worldview is extremely biased in determining appropriate models if you think people can/do eat animals that exclusively graze.
B) Are you not also still neglecting to consider the methane release of those grazing animals?
C) even if the environmental factor were not real, which it is, you'd still be facilitating intentional animal murder. An already disagreeable matter.
Reminder that you started with 'I dont see how less workers would be exploited.' And we've arrived here. Are you by chance anti-vegan or have any personal financial investment in animal agriculture? The degree to which you are interested in justifying environmental damage and animal murder on the grounds of your local meat market being isolated from reality and that almost no on has or can have access to seems entirely lacking a basis for this level of argumentation and I'm growing tired of arguing with someone who cannot grasp this.
Are they raised entirely on grazing though? Are you in hypothetical land where people eat 1% of the total meat they currently do eating only animals that exclusively graze?
No.
I honestly don't care if you believe in the particulars of their methodology.
Let me be even MORE straightforward. Feeding animals plant calories (yes, human edible plant calories) to feed yourself animal calories is literally a caloric deficient. You would have to break the laws of thermodynamics to get more calories out of feeding animals plants to eat them rather than feeding yourself those same plants. It is inherently less efficient. Are you about to move the goalpost further and debate the laws of thermodynamics?
My dude you are either being misled or are attempting to mislead. Yes some inedible material from crops we eat is used and in some countries like the US they even feed garbage to pigs.
If you are taking the 'nothing gets wasted approach' it absolutely does, Americans waste 40% of all their food availability for example.
But to the point they absolutely are clearcutting rainforests and other lands specifically to increase feed production for animals. They absolutely feed a shitload of human edible material to animals grown specifically for animals. I'm too lazy to reiterate statistics to a single person who will see it so for the love of God please research this and do not send me any regenerative animal farming bullshit that does not scale.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
Let me be way way more specific for you than should be necessary. It takes more plants to feed animals than us to feed plants ourselves directly. E.g., a culture of animal product consumption requires more land to be cultivated and maintained to feed those animals before we can even feed the animals to us. This requires more workers to be exploited in the 'consumption' industry.
If you are arguing that 'well those workers will just be exploited in another business,' you could make that argument about any change in the workforce where labor requirements are reduced. It's not relevant if we are focusing strictly on the food system and the amount of workers required within it. If we continue this more broadly though, it's still not necessarily true if we don't assume a political/socioeconomic system that puts them in that position. So in a hypothetical far far future, if we for some reason still need human labor to work fields but have outsourced enough jobs to robotics elsewhere so as to have UBI for many citizens without work, it would still require less workers to focus on a plant based diet than a meat eating diet. Frankly, by reducing the amount of workers required in any instance, you inch ever closer to UBI. So if you want to inch closer to a society that doesn't exploit workers generally, even from that point of view, The Vegans are still approaching this closer than meat eaters.
When the Vegan is right 😡⬇️
Math equation says, plant eating requires less land, which means fewer workers exploited. Also I'm pretty sure plant farmers don't have a 400% turnover rate. It's almost like even if the math were equal, which it isn't, killing animals all day is bad for your mental health.
Yeah, I think people need to focus on this aspect the most. They are not going to deny their book. Worming their way through scripture to claim a new fundamental way of understanding seventeen hundred year old writings is going to be incredibly difficult to do. It's written so explicity. While certain texts written in different areas of the world have been considered non-canonical The Bible™ has never had a serious alteration aside from translation errors that may not have understood the original authors intent. The church will identify the change as moral progress and a better understanding of God, but don't expect yhem to condemn those who used scripture against homsexuality previously.