Global Depression 2022 - Time to do the Breadline Boogaloo!

[F13 Key]

I agree that it's retarded thinking we'll send people into space to mine fucking water of all things, and in general Earth has massive amounts of resources that are more than sufficient.

As has been stated, water's needed for whatever humans up there to survive and for lubricant. Also coolant. But,

Supposedly the chemical and industrial processes it would take to manufacture in space has already existed for a long time, so as long as you can make rocket fuel from water (which as I understand has still not been done, but is theoretically sound)

This has been done. Electrolysis of water breaks the molecule in two, into hydrogen and oxygen, both used as rocket propellants. NASA did a demo of a cubesat propelling itself this way. Most of the challenge is producing enough electricity to actually do it, as there's not many methods you can use at a large scale which would result in net energy positive reactions. You also have to have a sealed reaction chamber where the gases produced can be separated. You need less energy to produce the necessary thrust in space, since there's no friction or gravity to contend with, but moving cubic kilometers of ore around in a timely manner is still going to take a fuckload.

Space resources are still largely useless to us down here. The most desirable materials up there to us right now would be rare earths and helium. Sweden just unearthed a massive rare earth metals deposit that will end Chinese dominance, but it'll take a decade or more to get to production. Helium-3 is present on the surface of the moon, but in low quantities with mining it being sci-fi for now. Next closest source is Jupiter, where it's unknown how much there is, but where mining it is also sci-fi.

No matter how you look at it, space exploration and resource gathering are currently a white elephant that won't do much of anything to improve lives for people down here. They will have value in the future, and they always have value to experiment and learn in, but nothing up there can be brought back here in an economically viable manner yet, and we'll likely have functional fusion power by then.

 

[cantankerous jackalope]

Genetics would like to disagree with you. It's like how Europeans react poorly to Soy or Chinese (or Native Americans) react really badly to the Western diet. It's a shame that there aren't more studies on this out there because race is a big verboten now a days.

My cardiologist (who I was talking to last week about an ECG) would disagree with you. I got love for you guys but I got to go with the actual doctor on this one when it comes to recommending preventative lifestyle decisions. Like if his response was "well, actually you should take this pill that a pharmaceutical salesman shilled to me earlier this month for preventing heart disease" I would give some pause, but if he's just recommending basic diet and lifestyle choices that he doesn't profit from I think I'll defer to his schooling.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

What if the US government is like "oh shit theres actually a significant amount of potential cardiac side effects with the vaccine, we need to try and mitigate our population's risk as much as possible" and that's why all the meat/fast food is skyrocketing. Plant based diets are way better for your heart health

The usual proofs for it usually ignore that the people who eat plant based diets are in majority middle+ class people who work low stress jobs and can afford to take better care of themselves, and actively track what they eat. While the meat eaters are just low class Joes that can't afford to pay 20$ for a salad and instead will eat grease filled pizza, lives in polluted areas and will work until he drops dead.

The entire idea or diets is overthought, just cut back on grease and eat vatied meals, yet every idiot tries to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Freedom Fighter]

What if the US government is like "oh shit theres actually a significant amount of potential cardiac side effects with the vaccine, we need to try and mitigate our population's risk as much as possible" and that's why all the meat/fast food is skyrocketing. Plant based diets are way better for your heart health

The Government doesn't care about you. You dying means more for the elites.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

I got love for you guys but I got to go with the actual doctor on this one when it comes to recommending preventative lifestyle decisions.

Not trying to say your doctor is wrong but after several of my family members were malpractice'd and the covid "agree with us or else" (We don't know what's wrong so throw the whole sink of meds at them to death), I'm just not 100% convinced that a full plant based diet would be healthier for everyone across the board.

 

[ChefKiss]

My cardiologist (who I was talking to last week about an ECG) would disagree with you. I got love for you guys but I got to go with the actual doctor on this one when it comes to recommending preventative lifestyle decisions. Like if his response was "well, actually you should take this pill that a pharmaceutical salesman shilled to me earlier this month for preventing heart disease" I would give some pause, but if he's just recommending basic diet and lifestyle choices that he doesn't profit from I think I'll defer to his schooling.

Your anecdote of one guy you talked to doesnt outweigh the findings of actual studies which pretty much uniformly say the effect of a vegan diet on heart health is minimal, mostly just trading less heart attacks for more strokes, not counting the myriad other health problems vegan diets cause

Thea reality is, guy who eats burgers and greasy pizza and guy who eats lean chicken are both meat eaters, guy who eats salads and guy who eats fries and potato chips are both vegans, anyone recommending an ideology over actual nutrition based healthy choices isnt to be trusted

 

[Smoke Manmuscle]

What if the US government is like "oh shit theres actually a significant amount of potential cardiac side effects with the vaccine, we need to try and mitigate our population's risk as much as possible" and that's why all the meat/fast food is skyrocketing. Plant based diets are way better for your heart health

>the government cares about its people.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Not trying to say your doctor is wrong but after several of my family members were malpractice'd and the covid "agree with us or else" (We don't know what's wrong so throw the whole sink of meds at them to death), I'm just not 100% convinced that a full plant based diet would be healthier for everyone across the board.

Now a full plant-based diet is just dumb and isn't healthy for you in the long run, especially if you're doing anything physical. But cholesterol and saturated fat are a deadly combination that will clog your arteries and kill you (and also potentially lead to cancers, but the link seems pretty low). Red meat in particular is very unhealthy for you, and that's not just ecofags manipulating studies, you can look at the nutrition facts on a burger or steak and notice the saturated fat and cholesterol content. But so is for instance heavy cream, cheese, and whole fat milk which feature heavily in a lot of very good traditional vegetarian recipes.

It's most optimal for your health to eat like a third world peasant. Eat mostly plant-based foods, some dairy, and some meats (especially egg whites and fish), limit other meats to special occasions. And do lots of physical labor.

 

[Toolbox]

Between the hundreds of thousands of layoffs in the tech sphere, and the moribund job market where a person can apply for hundreds of jobs without hearing back from any of them, it's going to be more difficult to spin the economy like it's going well. But the media has made the total destruction of the American high living standards seem like a good thing before, and it's likely they can do so again.

Doing it again so soon makes it too obvious. These things work when there is a lot of time for people to forget. That time has not been allotted.

 

[teriyakiburns]

But cholesterol and saturated fat are a deadly combination that will clog your arteries and kill you

Practically everything in your body is made from cholesterol. It's required for vitamin d synthesis, your immune system, myelin sheath development and the construction of cell membranes, and steroid hormones - that is, the precursors for the production of testosterone, estrogen, and other such hormones that are vital for the body's function.

LDL - the so-called "bad cholesterol", targeted by statins - and HDL are lipoproteins that transport cholesterol around the body. LDL transports cholesterol from the liver to where it's needed, whilst HDL transports it back to the liver to be reprocessed. This is why, after surgery or injury, LDL levels rise; your body is transporting cholesterol, a vital part of just about every functional structure in your body, to the injury site so that it can be used in the healing process.

The entire idea of saturated fat/cholesterol being bad came from poorly conducted studies in the 1950s, carried out by an influential scientist who had made an a priori assumption that animal fats must be bad for us and who set out to prove himself right. Heart disease has continued to rise as we have replaced saturated fats with unsaturated fats - and with sugar - and also with the effort to reduce or eliminate cholesterol from our diets and reduce its production by our bodies.

The simple fact is, people with high cholesterol are healthier, live longer, and have lower incidence of disease in old age.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

Now a full plant-based diet is just dumb and isn't healthy for you in the long run, especially if you're doing anything physical.

Even if it wasn't, the big issue is that I'm pretty sure that people can also evolve differently because local environments are different (evolutionary pressure). Again, that's big verboten now days.
I really, really want to see studies on how different food grains affect ethnicities. I'd wager that East Asians would digest soybean better than everyone else. Same with Corn for certain native Americans, etc... Just like how lactose can be digested by almost 100% Northern Europeans.

 

[Ukraine is Big Gay]

Genetics would like to disagree with you. It's like how Europeans react poorly to Soy or Chinese (or Native Americans) react really badly to the Western diet. It's a shame that there aren't more studies on this out there because race is a big verboten now a days.

This is actually a pretty interesting point that is brushed aside with disturbing regularity and sorta fucks over dietary and health research because it's too touchy an issue DUE to the "It's only skin deeeeeeeeep" toxic positivity. It even changes medical and treatment options as we also process drugs differently. Years ago we actually had a medication targeted towards black people to treat heart failure called BiDil. I believe it's even still around- It's notably way less effective for other ethnicities too.

That and to be a big idiot nerd- Your gut biome is also going to be different due to your own lineage and what you "Inherited" on top of the general micro-biomes of where you live and what you're regularly exposed to on top of that. Remember - We're not just a person shaped mass of DNA and organs, we're a person shaped mass of DNA and organs full of bacteria that are also different. I put little to no stock or faith in the pro-biotics meme though.

For a easy low hanging fruit example of racial and diet disparity, if we in the west ate as many overall carbs as CONSTANTLY as Asian populations do, say- in the forms of noodles breads and rice at just about every meal as the main bulk as the Japanese and mainland Chinese do, we would likely be blasting our pancreas out and on a fast track to diabetes. We simply just process shit differently. (Even if portions are relatively smaller. Remember- Daily average calories paints an even more confusing picture with how minimal a difference it ACTUALLY is. The daily average difference of intake between America and South korea is 9.5 percent-ish for example)

Big calorie graph that's only slightly dated resized for mild mercy to phone lepers.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Practically everything in your body is made from cholesterol. It's required for vitamin d synthesis, your immune system, myelin sheath development and the construction of cell membranes, and steroid hormones - that is, the precursors for the production of testosterone, estrogen, and other such hormones that are vital for the body's function.

LDL - the so-called "bad cholesterol", targeted by statins - and HDL are lipoproteins that transport cholesterol around the body. LDL transports cholesterol from the liver to where it's needed, whilst HDL transports it back to the liver to be reprocessed. This is why, after surgery or injury, LDL levels rise; your body is transporting cholesterol, a vital part of just about every functional structure in your body, to the injury site so that it can be used in the healing process.

The entire idea of saturated fat/cholesterol being bad came from poorly conducted studies in the 1950s, carried out by an influential scientist who had made an a priori assumption that animal fats must be bad for us and who set out to prove himself right. Heart disease has continued to rise as we have replaced saturated fats with unsaturated fats - and with sugar - and also with the effort to reduce or eliminate cholesterol from our diets and reduce its production by our bodies.

The simple fact is, people with high cholesterol are healthier, live longer, and have lower incidence of disease in old age.

Yes, cholesterol is everywhere in your body, but high cholesterol is an imbalance. That's why it clogs your arteries. The rise of heart disease has absolutely nothing to do with people eating less cholesterol. Eating lots of sausage and Big Macs isn't going to save you from a heart attack.

Everything you posted reads like some shit the beef industry paid a doctor to write so old people (read: rich people) eat more steaks.

Even if it wasn't, the big issue is that I'm pretty sure that people can also evolve differently because local environments are different (evolutionary pressure). Again, that's big verboten now days.
I really, really want to see studies on how different food grains affect ethnicities. I'd wager that East Asians would digest soybean better than everyone else. Same with Corn for certain native Americans, etc... Just like how lactose can be digested by almost 100% Northern Europeans.

Thing is that most "staple" foods throughout history weren't actually staples, and we know this because we can look at old abandoned villages and see what they cooked there. Your average Asian peasant for instance ate a diverse diet of various grains like millet and even wild food gathered in nearby wilderness, and similar with your average Native American (most of them in the modern US didn't eat corn until like 1000 AD, and the ones in Mexico ate lots of fruits too). "Staple" is because urban populations relied on it and that's why they were unhealthy and cities functioned as population sinks until the 19th century when nutrition for the poor improved along with santitation.

Lactose is a sugar, and it seems to be sugar digestion that is the real difference between ethnicities since that may be why modern Native Americans have such high rates of diabetes. But others point out that the populations are generally poor and thus don't differ much from poor people of other races.

 

[moocow]

In the grand scheme of things, this is trivial, but it's a bit of a "chink in the armor" of Amazon Prime's chief shtick: fast free shipping (after the membership fee, of course). I received this from them this morning:

We are writing to let you know about upcoming changes to Prime grocery delivery benefits from Amazon Fresh. Starting Feb. 28, 2023, Amazon Fresh delivery orders under $150 will incur a service fee. Prime members will continue to receive free grocery delivery on orders more than $150. Delivery charges will be $3.95 for orders $100-$150, $6.95 for orders $50-$100, and $9.95 for orders under $50. This service fee will help keep prices low in our online and physical grocery stores as we better cover grocery delivery costs and continue to enable offering a consistent, fast, and high-quality delivery experience.

For comparison, Walmart+ gives free delivery (and not just on groceries) from local stores (at in-store walk-in prices) for orders over $35 and with a $2.99 fee below that.

Like I said, this is not a big deal IMHO (I've never thought unlimited free shipping via paid membership was a sustainable model anyway), but between this and Amazon announcing Amazon Smile's impending demise last week it's clear they're tightening the belt in important ways -- quietly reducing their philanthropy while saving face, and beginning the slow but inevitable process of shifting shipping and transit fees back onto the consumer again.

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the next "upcoming change to keep prices low" will be "throttling" -- Netflix style -- capping the number of free shipping purchases you can make in a given period (7-day sliding window, one calendar week/month, X times per year, etc.) before incurring regular shipping fees or slower shipping (or both).

I have to say I love/hate the doublespeak in the message. "This service fee will help keep prices low." If you're increasing fees but not lowering prices (the language is careful to say "keep prices low," not "help reduce prices further"), you're raising your prices. Such scummy slight-of-hand. Sad that so many people fall for it.

 

[FatalTater]

I've heard that Amazon wants to do away with it's Fresh grocery service altogether, and I think that charging a fee for smaller orders is how they're going to do it.
People aren't going to want to pay extra so they'll stop using the service. Then Amazon can say, "No one was using our service, so we're deciding to discontinue it."

Fuckers. I order around $40 of groceries from Fresh almost every week. Now I gotta think if it's worth an extra ten bucks to not have to go to the grocery store. (Some days it totally will be.)

 

[Qtinterval]

In the grand scheme of things, this is trivial, but it's a bit of a "chink in the armor" of Amazon Prime's chief shtick: fast free shipping (after the membership fee, of course). I received this from them this morning:



For comparison, Walmart+ gives free delivery (and not just on groceries) from local stores (at in-store walk-in prices) for orders over $35 and with a $2.99 fee below that.

Like I said, this is not a big deal IMHO (I've never thought unlimited free shipping via paid membership was a sustainable model anyway), but between this and Amazon announcing Amazon Smile's impending demise last week it's clear they're tightening the belt in important ways -- quietly reducing their philanthropy while saving face, and beginning the slow but inevitable process of shifting shipping and transit fees back onto the consumer again.

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the next "upcoming change to keep prices low" will be "throttling" -- Netflix style -- capping the number of free shipping purchases you can make in a given period (7-day sliding window, one calendar week/month, X times per year, etc.) before incurring regular shipping fees or slower shipping (or both).

I have to say I love/hate the doublespeak in the message. "This service fee will help keep prices low." If you're increasing fees but not lowering prices (the language is careful to say "keep prices low," not "help reduce prices further"), you're raising your prices. Such scummy slight-of-hand. Sad that so many people fall for it.

Shit they're already slowing down deliveries from 2 days. Last couple of orders I did with them all said prime delivery with dates for late in the next week.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

Thing is that most "staple" foods throughout history weren't actually staples, and we know this because we can look at old abandoned villages and see what they cooked there.

Not all foods preserve as well.

Lactose is a sugar, and it seems to be sugar digestion that is the real difference between ethnicities since that may be why modern Native Americans have such high rates of diabetes. But others point out that the populations are generally poor and thus don't differ much from poor people of other races

HIV is presumed to have originated in the late 19th early 20th century and there's also evolving resistance to it:

NON-PROGRESSING HIV-INFECTED CHILDREN SHARE FUNDAMENTAL IMMUNOLOGICAL FEATURES OF NON-PATHOGENIC SIV INFECTION

Disease-free infection in HIV-infected adults is associated with HLA-mediated suppression of viremia, whereas in the sooty mangabey and other healthy natural hosts of SIV, viral replication continues unabated. To better understand factors preventing HIV ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Granted, a virus that kills you generally tends to pressure evolution faster than eating a food.

If we take an example for the (semi) domestication of "wild" rice (Zizania palustris), breeding started in 1950, shatter resistance cultivars came out in 1970.
To breed a cultivar you generally need to grow, backcross, and then look at data for 10 generations. This is in modern day with people dedicated to breeding genetics and DNA marker assays making tracing differences in genetics and pedigrees easy.
In ye olden days you would not have that and it would have taken several times as long. Earliest evidence of soybean use was ~7000 years ago roughly, domestication at longest was 6600 (400 years ago).
If HIV resistance can evolve in a 100 years or so of contact, it would be absolutely retarded to think that an item domesticated 6000+ years ago did not have any pressure on the human genome.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

If HIV resistance can evolve in a 100 years or so of contact, it would be absolutely retarded to think that an item domesticated 6000+ years ago did not have any pressure on the human genome.

Would humanity evolve resistance to HIV if 98% of the population who get it would never procreate?

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

Would humanity evolve resistance to HIV if 98% of the population who get it would never procreate?

I have no real educated hypothesis. I guess that would become a question of if humans go extinct first or if a random mutation that resists HIV becomes the latter.
I'm pretty sure you can't "eradicate" HIV, it made the jump from primates to humans multiple times so it can reservoir in primates as it's predecessor SIV.

Has anyone see any slowdown in their sector of employment? I haven't seen any in agriculture yet and landscaping seems to be picking up despite the massed tech layoffs.
Looks like the food stamp (SNAP) program is spiking in costs. Someone in the USDA wants more funding I guess.

Federal Food Stamps Program Hits Record Costs In 2022 | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[Tsukasa Kadoya]

Doing it again so soon makes it too obvious. These things work when there is a lot of time for people to forget. That time has not been allotted.

You forget the people pulling the strings are ramming the gas hard to make their fantasy utopia of pure misery happen as soon as possible.
So of course they'll do it again very soon. And nothing will be done because people are too lazy/scared/demoralized to do what needs to be done.
In Minecraft.