rastinza @rastinza@qoto.org

@sirvoe
(Li selezioni tutti perché quelle sono solo proiezioni tagliate ad un certo livello di probabilità)

@101101000
I have lived outside the richest countries, however I have been lucky enough that I almost never missed food, I have begged for food only in a few dire situations and I was in countries where food was not missing.

I am European, thus these are the examples I know of; I meant that to convey the image of a huge, trasversal and 'global' food problem.

I'm interested in this decline of food sustainability and quality that you're observing.
You seem well informed on this topic, could you please provide some more information about it?

@tripu
These are not sciences, since not all of those follow the scientific method.
Defining moral philosophy as science is laughable.
@ImperfectIdea

@tripu
I'll watch it, it appears interesting
@ImperfectIdea

@ImperfectIdea
I don't feel like discussing this just to talk about an unrelated topic.
@tripu

@ImperfectIdea
> But for each life there's definitely better and wrong choices

That is opinable. Are you able to tell a person whether he should suicide or not? Is it an objective analysis that can be done simply through science? If that's possible, then one day we will have a computer telling people the exact day in which they should suicide.
If you can say that living is a better choice than dieing for that person then he should not suicide, if you can tell the opposite then he should.

> Religion simply tries to answer questions that we haven't been able to define well enough mathematically yet

You are assuming that it is possible to do so.
I believe it is not possible.

> Define "good life" well enough

This is what I think is impossible to do in a scientific way.
It's possible to define good life, but not through science.
You can do a lot of calculations and stuff, but none of those will result in "this is good life, while that is not"
You must first define what is good life and then you can use science to identify which people have a good life and which ones do not.
@tripu

@101101000
Regarding Lebanon, surely this will have drastic consequences; I'm not saying it's all good and we should ignore it.
Do note however that food prices were up over 2000% before the war started.

@101101000
I'm sorry, I just skimmed the article when I replied.
I now read it in detail.

I do reckon this is a huge problem, probably the lack of fertilizers will be the biggest one.

Still I wouldn't classify this as a global food crisis. Maybe however we are just disagreeing on the definition. I would classify a global food crisis something where not enough food is globally available in the world, so that people throughout the world starve to death.
Something like the great famine in the middle age.
I hopefully believe this is not what is happening.
This is not to say it won't be a huge problem.

Until now there has been an overabundance of food, for all the people. Some people were still starving to death, but that was not because of the lack of food at a global level but because they had no access to the food.
I do not believe this war will take us from food overabundance to a shortage.

@tripu

I already agreed with you that science is an useful tool, I don't see why you want to discuss that further.
I never said the opposite.

1. Science is surely a useful tool that can aid you in taking this decision.
You cannot however use science alone to take it: you must first of all decide whether wealth transfer or social intervention are things that should be done, that is, if you think it is a moral and acceptable thing.

2. You will decide to do what you'll decide to do, you will ponder all things that come at you. Certainly you will consider whether it's a good economical decision, but that won't be the decisive thing.
All in all, it won't be the scientific method telling you "you should have a child"

3. Science will not motivate you in doing things, that is something you must do yourself.

All in all, this discussion is getting quite useless. I feel I am learning nothing and you're not willing to consider the fact that antimaterialistic philosophies do exist and you cannot prove them wrong, thus you should consider their existence even if you disagree.
If the world is not completely material, you cannot measure immaterial things using material ones, thus science will fail in explaining everything that is not material.
Even if you're a materialist, science cannot provide clear answers to certain questions, such as "should I have a child?"

I propose we finish this discussion, unless you have something different to say than "science is useful".
@ImperfectIdea

@ImperfectIdea
Sure, but you're still just measuring the effects in the brain of a person.
You still have no way to determine which person has a better life, you did not measure that.

You could say that you assume that one response in the brain is associated to a better life *in your opinion* and thus measure that.
But that is still your opinion.
Because first of all you have to decide what it means to have a better life, and that is not something that you can design experiments or falsify.
If someone tells you he has a better life than billionaires because he has fun throwing rocks at trees, you cannot say that's not true. A billionaire might disagree and prefer its own life. Now, deciding who has a better life is possible: you can have an opinion about it. But that is not scientific and that is not something that can be measured.
@tripu

@ImperfectIdea
There is no way to demonstrate that, is there?
Does it really matter anyways?
I'm just stating that science provides no answer to this question, while other disciplines do.
@tripu

@ImperfectIdea
> Meaning has no quantity
> It's like asking the size of blue
> Everything is quantifiable

Decide yourself, either everything is quantifiable or not.

If everything is quantifiable, then concepts should be quantifiable as well.
If concepts are not quantifiable, then the statement that everything is quantifiable is false, which is what I'm saying since the beginning.
@tripu

@leodurruti
La ho fatta anche io ieri sera con @diorama

@lamacchinadesiderante@livellosegreto.it
Va bene, fa nulla grazie mille comunque.

Mi dà un po' fastidio tuttavia che tu insinui che io voglia screditare le tue opinioni.
Io non ho proposto nessuno scambio o discussione, ti ho chiesto una spiegazione.
Sono interessato a capirne un po' di più; anche per questo ti ho fatto domande abbastanza specifiche e puntuali.

@postroutine
I would rewrite the notes after a few lessons in order to divide them in clear concepts to link among them.

@marathon0
Propaganda has been used a lot throughout history during wars.
It has been used and continues to be used because it is effective.

I know propaganda is being thrown at me, I'm not so arrogant to believe I'm not influenced by it.
I do think we are in fact fooled.

@101101000
I know very little about this, but saying that this war is creating a global food crisis seems quite an overstatement to me.
It surely is increasing food prices, specially in Europe.
But it should also be noted that prices were increasing regardless, also before the war.

Regarding food availability: I do not think this war has a large effect on the availability of food.
I know nothing about it, but I did a quick search (and the data I found and my interpretation may very well be wrong.)

https://www.world-grain.com/articles/15532-focus-on-ukraine
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271943/total-world-grain-production-since-2008-2009/
From data in these two websites I calculated that Ukraine produces around 3% of the grain in the world.
Now, if a decrease in 3% in food production is such a big deal to create a global food crisis, then we have much bigger problems than a war...
I do reckon that this might increase prices in extremely poor countries, where denutrition is already a problem and worsen that problem.
This is huge, but it's very far from a global food crisis...

@Placholdr
Good luck, don't give up!!

@lamacchinadesiderante@livellosegreto.it
Ciao, questo è un argomento molto caldo nell'ultimo periodo ed io mi accorgo di saperne pochissimo.
Ti va di aiutarmi a comprenderne un po' di più?

Perché parli di abbattere il concetto di orientamento sessuale? Ti riferisci al fatto che se a uno piace un uomo in un certo momento sta con un uomo e se poi gli piace una donna può stare con una donna senza che venga prima classificato come omosessuale e poi come etero o bisessuale?

La cosa dei pronomi io francamente non l'ho mai capita tanto. Mi pare semplicemente che alcune persone preferiscano essere chiamate con certi pronomi e dato che a me non costa niente farlo lì accontento.
Per certe cose mi sembra chiaro, se un trans diventa donna capisco bene che preferisca dei pronomi femminili.
Altre cose mi restano invece ignote, come ad esempio loro, they, them. Ecco, questi pronomi non ho affatto capito a cosa si riferiscano e perché vengano utilizzati; ripeto a me non costa nulla usarli e quindi lo faccio.

Chiedo a te proprio perché hai una visione critica sull'argomento, e quindi probabilmente conosci le motivazioni che stanno sotto queste cose fino ad esserti fatta un'opinione diversa da quella di massa.
Perché dici che questi pronomi danno una soggettività fittizia legata ad una sessualità fittizia?

So che le domande sono tante e probabilmente ci metteresti molto a rispondermi adeguatamente, quindi se non ne hai voglia dimmelo e non fa nulla!