The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals.

It’s not that clear, it depends on the country. See the part about share of cereals dedicated to animal feed in this link, it’s about 15% in the USA and the rest of the feed is byproducts of crops used for human reasons. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

This is also covered by the study and the article I shared above. It would require using more lands for crops that feed people, but that’s ridiculously small compared to the land that would be regained from stopping animal agriculture, which is 75%. Just removing cows would do the vast majority of that.

Crops for feed can be regained and if most pasture land is inappropriate for crops, some are, so we would gain from freeing those too. Furthermore, this land can be given back to biodiversity, which will also benefit us in the long term, if just protecting biodiversity for the sake of it is not a good argument for you.

Again, I am not vegan, I mostly advocate for reducing, not forbidding, consumption proportionally to ecological impact. If some people for medical reason require meat, I’m completely fine with it, this would likely be a small percentage of the current consumption.

Omnivore, not obligate carnivore except for a few exceptions maybe, so we could use a low meat diet or a fully plant based diet fine.

In European cities, the worst noise over capacity ratio is motor scooters and those large motorbike that are designed for noise (such as Harley-Davidson).

They are also fed grains and soy in varying percentage depending on regions and countries.
There is also still the use of land, energy, fresh water and the methane emissions typical of cows.

This is another break down of the above-mentioned study: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

You can see that indeed, the USA does better than other countries on not dedicating crops to animal feed, but it is still about 14%, while the world average is around 40%. Isn’t that a lot that could be earned back?

First story kinda reminds of French female rapper Diam’s who got famous in the 2000’ for her songs talking about women emancipation and her positions against right populism. After about 10 years being at the top, she announces retiring because she converted to Islam, married, had a kid and stopped making and listening to music because it is haram, she later moved to live in Saudi Arabia. She also published an autobiography in 2012 and a documentary in 2022 to explain her trajectory where we learn that she had many psychological troubles since her teens and being bitten by her partner at 17, had stays at a psychiatric hospital in 2007, stopped her treatment, attempted suicide and converted to Islam at the end of 2008.

How is that bullshit? I am not vegan, but that’s just a scientific consensus and a major reason why plant diet is way lower carbon than a meat diet. If you need to grow plant food for your animal food, eventually you have to grow way more plant food.
Most animals raised for meat consumption are fed with crops, notably soy, not wild grass.
Thinking animals raised for meat only consume resources (land (first cause of biodiversity loss), plants, water, energy) that would not be useful to humans anyway is undoubtedly wrong.

Researchers Poore and Nemecek are a great source of meta-analysis information about those subjects. Check this summary here for example: http://environmath.org/2018/06/17/paper-of-the-day-poore-nemecek-2018-reducing-foods-environmental-impacts/

Let me know if I misunderstood your point.

Tu parles de quel chiffre exactement ? Le “turnout” est estimé à environ 65%, l’un des plus hauts depuis 1900. Donc c’est plutôt un tiers qui n’a pas participé et un peu plus d’un tiers qui a voté pour lui. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/presidential-election-senate-house-results-b2642817.html
Pour comparaison, c’est similaire à la participation aux dernières législatives en France. Mais moins que nos dernières présidentielles qui tournent autour de 75%.

That girl with the fringe.

There was a boy in French high school who seemed a bit impaired, in the sense that he seemed way more childish than people are at this age, so he was often mocked, and I don’t remember him having any brilliant grades. Turns out he went into the top of the top of the French scientific universities (École Polytechnique).
Think Harvard level of prestige (countless top scientists, leaders and CEOs from there), but specialized in science, with way fewer seats, fully paid by the state and an extremely competitive entry exam that the best French students spend 2 to 3 years preparing for after high-school, with the vast majority failing and entering the next schools on the prestige list (still a lot of other prestigious schools under it). I guess he exploded his intellectual potential at this time, when others just implode into depression due to the high pressure.
I was floored when I learned about it and really happy that he took his revenge this way.

They may actually use English if they don’t have the same native language, many have another native language than Hindi. Also if they want to be readable more easily by the rest of the world like I’m doing currently.

Good point, but I think it’s possible Indian and Nigerian, for example, user generated English content, will compete with USA’s. Cultural bubbles may remain, but the internet in some ways also make them more porous.

I think NA+EU+Commonwealth will remain an interesting rich market, so they will make it accessible to them, like the recent Chinese video game Black Myth Wukong, for example. Also India already produces a lot of movies with English version, and there are large parts of high demographic growth countries speaking English in Africa, for example Nigeria, projected to be 500M of people by the end of this century.

Doubt it will keep being the case in a couple of decades given the demography of China, India and Africa once they are all developed enough to produce as much media as the USA today.

Calm down and read again. The person said social disqualification as opposed to judicial conviction, and I’m saying social disqualification being a vague notion could lead to easier abuse by the political power to shut down opposition.

The theory was that any other social disqualifications would be handled at the ballot box.

That theory is now proven to be incorrect, but fixing it takes a constitutional amendment.

That could be a slippery slope too. Imagine a constitutional amendment making someone ineligible because of a “social disqualification” such as sexual orientation.

If you can get into a high skill profession like engineering or medicine you should be able to find a job easily in EU.

A state of confusion

I think it’s probably because it is informal or maybe ambiguous.

365

Yes, social democrat is where left starts in EU, I think.