Hacksaw

Like evasive chimpanzee said we need to poop INDIRECTLY in crops. Hot aerobic composting for example has excellent nutrient retention rates and eliminates nearly all human borne diseases. The main problem would be medication since some types tend to survive.

Also urine contains almost all of the water soluble nutrients that we expel and is sanitised with 6-12 months of anaerobic storage. So that's potentially an easier solution if we can seclude the waste stream. Again the main issue would be medications.

I don't have the answer, if it was easy we would have done it already. The main issue is we don't have a lot of people working on the answer because we're still in the stage of getting everyone in the world access to sanitation. Certainly the way we're doing it is very energy and resources intensive, unsustainable in the living term, and incredibly damaging to the environment. We've broken a fundamental aspect of the nutrient cycle and we're paying dearly for it.

The other problem is, like recycling, there isn't a lot of money in the solution, so it's hard to move forward in a capitalist system until shit really hits the fan.

1. We mine and manufacture nutrient dense fertilizer at massive environmental cost.
2. We use the nutrients to grow plants
3. We eat the nutrients in our food
4. We expel 95% of these nutrients in our waste
5. We dump our waste into the rivers and oceans with all the nutrients (often we purposefully destroy the nitrogen in the waste since it causes so much damage to rivers and oceans)
6. We need new nutrients to grow plants

Before humans there was a nutrient cycle. Now it's just a pipe from mining to the ocean that passes through us. The ecological cost of this is immeasurable, but we don't notice because fertilizer helps us feed starving people and waste management is important to avoid disease.

We need to close the loop again!

I chose NOT diddling kids!

The trick is to dress as an apex predator so they let their guard down!

Good. We need to protect parliament from the moral decay of the conservative party. Ad homonym attacks are not part of civil discourse and we shouldn't accept it just because the conservatives want to lower parliamentary proceedings to the rhetoric level of a barroom brawl.

I'm generalizing here, but men's lib looks VERY different to women's lib. Women started from a position of very low power, liberation was nearly a continuous improvement for all but the most privileged women.

Men's lib requires first giving up a lot of patriarchal power before gaining the benefits of men's lib, which in my opinion far surpass those of patriarchal power. There are a lot of barriers to this. First, most "online" feminists talk only about giving up patriarchal power. This feels hostile to most men and has bolstered misogynist influencers like tate et al. Second real life men and women are typically both complicit as men in enforcing patriarchal views of what a man is supposed to be. You can see experiences of men crying or expressing real emotion in front their prospective significant others as a prime example of this. Third there is no easy to access popular description of the benefits to men of men's lib. There are great examples, but they aren't as culturally relevant as patriarchal influencers yet.

The path to men's lib is complex and has very different challenges than women's lib. I think we're getting there, but it's certainly a slow process and at this time I think the counter reaction is more prevalent and popular.

That income is high enough to be taxed more, but I agree more granularity would be better. I hope that they increase taxes on the rich mostly by closing loopholes that favour the 1% at our expense. A billionaire that pays no taxes now isn't going to owe more if we increase the tax rate. 3 times 0 is still 0. It's the loopholes we have to close.

It's not usually the doctors making 250-400k that are shirking their fair share of taxes, but the use of loopholes certainly starts in that range and accelerates exponentially with higher wealth and income.

You start off strong then move straight to supporting the fucking Taliban, as if that's a reasonable position to take.

I agree, the article is likely highly sensationalized, but let's be clear the Taliban are a piece of shit government with extremely regressive and repressive views. Maybe this shit doesn't happen in Kabul, but Kabul seems bad enough that women can only show their faces and most are even too afraid to do that. That shows you that it's a TERRIBLE place to start with even in the best places. Unfortunately many people don't live in Kabul and it seems that the government isn't going to do anything to stop regional authorities from abusing their power and any young woman they can get their hands on.

Don't travel to Afghanistan. Every dollar that goes to Afghanistan supports religious oppression.

Sounds like you're on the right track there. As far as energy goes, you're right, when things are dissipated, or all the same, you can't extract anything. You need a differential, like a hot place and a cold one, a high voltage and a low one, a fast object and a slow/stopped one, a high object and a low one. The higher the differential the more you're going to be able to extract. If it's too small you might not be able to get any useful work out at all.

If you only had access to the coal furnace you couldn't make power. The coal furnace is hot and it's surrounded by room temperature air. The furnace really wants to heat the air around it and the air wants to cool the furnace because nature generally doesn't like large differentials. So what we do is we force that heat to turn an engine before it can get to the cool ambient air.

It's like a putting a turbine in the way of a waterfall. The water wants to fall, so we force it to turn an engine before it can get to the ground.

So back to your initial question, an AC is a heat pump. It pumps heat from the cooler inside to the warmer outside. It's just like if we pumped the the water from the bottom of the waterfall to the top. Yes you can than use that water to generate energy, but you're the one who pumped it up there in the first place so it's a bit counterproductive.

If you're trying to claim that a series of carefully selected "neutral" facts don't create a narrative then you're either being purposefully obtuse or extremely naive.

I note that you haven't aknowledged that bill C-16 doesn't create any protections for trans people that don't already exist for other minorities and I think that says a lot about this conversation.

Lastly, when reality paints a deeply negative picture of someone, "neutral facts" must reflect that reality. Painting a bad person in a "neutral" light is not being unbiased. If I said of the unibomber that he was "an esoteric reclusive mathematician who was eventually arrested due to his anti-technology views" that's a bunch of neutral facts, but it's deeply biased to paint a terrorist murderer in a "neutral light". Unbiased facts must reflect the murderous reality of his actions.

Nothing in what I said is a dog whistle. You clearly don't know what that term means.

This is the first time I responded to you and I was pretty clear: when you support heinous people so ardently you can't blame people for assuming you support heinous people.