It’s true that this is very bad news for the moneyed class. But it can simultaneously also be bad news for normal people. A higher ratio of pensioners to tax payers will raise taxes for everyone which is a bad thing, to everyone. This is true for any economic system I can imagine. Even in an economic system without money having a high ratio of pensioners means a larger portion of working people have to be dedicated to taking care of the elderly which means less medical workers, less farmers, less social workers helping the non-pensioners etc, meaning worse living standards for the population.

Even in your preferred dream society and economic system (which I don’t know about) I can’t see an aging population being a good thing. If you have a suggestion for how it could be a good thing please enlighten me. And before you say we can just tax the rich to pay for pensions. You could also tax the rich to pay for better healthcare, which would be preferably for us non-pensioners would it not?

Iranians can sometimes be surprisingly pale while isrealis can sometimes be surprisingly dark, there are of course the mizrahi jews but the beta isreal population are straight up black. I don’t think it’s as much a race thing as it is a western aligned vs non-western aligned thing. Other western aligned countries like Taiwan also get overwhelmingly positive media coverage despite not being white. The fact that Iranians are Muslims also contribute a lot to their bad media image. Lots of isrealis could fit in with Iranians without any problem looks wise but absolutely not culture wise.

Palm trees are monocots and are therefore related to grasses, however they are not grasses themselves. Monocots are a really broad group though. Kinda like saying a certain animal is a mammal. Important distinction but still very broad.

Trees are not a taxonomic group. It’s rather a description of characteristics the most important of which is having a woody trunk. For example there are tree legumes and non-tree legumes. A species of tree can therefore be more closely related to a non-tree than to other trees. However it’s totally true bamboo is not a tree. A grass could in theory however hit all the characteristics that are required to be tree and would then be considered as such, however no such grass happens to exist.

Bamboo is kind of a tree in this case which is an area I know more about and I think many of these factors would apply to bamboo as well. First forests used to actually be more rare than today before humans came along. Europe and North America was covered by endless plains which were grazed by huge numbers of ruminant animals. Any tree that would try to grow would get grazed before it could grow so tall that the animals couldn’t eat it anymore. That’s why grass thrives in such an environment, it’s practically made to get grazed. Once cut it quickly grows back again. Once ancient humans came along and hunted most of the grazing animals extinct forest suddenly started spreading like crazy until almost the entirety of Europe was forested (which was then to a large extent deforested again after agriculture was invented). Grass simply can’t compete against trees for sunlight. Therefore I would expect less or none bamboo in areas with a huge grazing wild life populations. And I don’t mean animals that would eat the leaves, but the ones that would eat the new seedling.

Another thing that limits trees is moisture. In general the drier the climate the less beneficial it is to be a tree. That’s because deep roots are of no benefit in dry climates (but they are of huge benefit in humid climates during drought). Grass which generally have very shallow roots suck up all the rain before it can penetrate deep into the soil while deep tree roots never get any significant amount of water. Trees handle drought well but constant dryness is very detrimental for them. Dry areas also tend to have wild fires which also hamper trees. It’s simply better to be a grass (if moderately dry) or a cactus like plant if it’s extremely dry.

Another factor is soil conditions. Now I don’t know what soil bamboo prefers but I doubt it’s all soil. Soil can have huge impacts on things like pH and water availability. For example in far Northern Europe where I live you can tell that you are standing on sandy soil if all around you are spruces and pines. If you however see lots of leaf trees you are probably on a silt and clay soil. This is because conifers handle both dry and sour soil better than the local leaf trees which leads to more conifers on sand. Bamboo is probably also limited to a certain soil condition.

I hope that can at least help you develop more theories on why bamboo is not everywhere. Something important to remember is that just because a plant can grow well in a certain location doesn’t mean it will be found there. That’s because plants are always in fierce competition. I bet bamboo if intentionally planted and cared for could thrive in lots more places than its found naturally, but it just happens to not be the best plant in that location, meaning it’s outcompeted over long time scales.

That’s correct. The Samaritans used to speak Samaritan Hebrew, then Samaritan Aramaic and then Palestinian Arabic which was then the main language for at least 800 years. However as I understand they have now mostly switched to Hebrew as they have integrated into the isreali state. This is however a very modern phenomenon.

Alfalfa is drought tolerant compared to other forage legumes like clover. This means that during drought the alfalfa will fare better and also yield better than clover or a grass like Timothy or blue grass. However as you can see pasture is also on that list you linked. Fodder crops are harvested for their entire biomass above ground and the amount of biomass is very large. It’s a very productive crop and makes a lot of fodder and this fodder is mostly water. Therefore it takes a lot of water to grow. The water required is not extreme in any way however and where I live alfalfa is a rainfed crop that only very rarely has any water deficiency symptoms. The extreme amounts of water applied to alfalfa in the south east of the USA is only because of the desert climate there. Growing beans, corn or potatoes there also requires insane amounts of water. If potatoes were chiefly grown in the desert southeast you bet you would see news articles going around about how terrible potatoes are. In the end it’s only a matter of matching the right crop to the right climate. Even the most water hungry crop on earth will not require irrigation in the most rainy place on earth.

Alfalfa is a great crop. It has deep roots which store carbon in the soil, it is drought tolerant, it’s high yielding and it’s nitrogen fixating meaning it improves the soil quality and does not require nitrogen fertilizer which normally is a huge carbon footprint. Overall fantastic crop if you need fodder for ruminant animals. The big problem is farming it on an absurd scale in the middle of the damn desert. Alfalfa does not require irrigation in regions with ample rainfall.

A lot of the Palestinians who live in northern isreal descend at least partly if not chiefly from Samaritans who converted to Islam and started speaking Arabic instead of Samaritan Hebrew. The modern Samaritans wouldn’t call themselves Palestinians however. They have their own identity and many of them don’t speak Arabic.

Even if one claims that there are white passing people there today only because of foreign conquests, then it’s important to remember those were also going on before Jesus was born. Most notably Jesus was born in the Palestine province of the Roman Empire. There is even a myth that his dad was a Roman soldier (there is no real evidence of this however). Before the Romans the Greeks ruled isreal after Alexander the greats conquest. So the flow of “white genes” to isreal did not start only after Jesus was born. So I don’t think it’s a good argument to say everyone was uniformly brown there back then but are all mixed today. That’s not true. You could argue however the procentage of white passing people have gone up since then.

The United States government does officially consider Middle Eastern people to be white for census purposes. However this does not mean that is what everyone else considers to be white. Benjamin Franklin famously considered only English and northern German people to be white, even excluding Scandinavians from white status. In the end it’s totally arbitrary where you draw the line. What is totally clear is that Jesus was not blond and blue eyed. Those traits were incredibly rare in the middle east both then and today. There is a chance however that Jesus was white passing as many people from the levant are today and probably were back then as well.

Here is a picture of modern day Samaritans who are a sister group to the Jews. They never left their homeland of northern isreal and are therefore probably close to the genetic makeup of ancient Jews.

Here is a picture of a modern day Lebanese classroom.

So it may be that Jesus looked like an Italian, could also be that he was one of the less white passing ones. But in the end does it really matter? The message of Jesus is the same no matter the case.

Largest problem with manure, including human manure in this case, is the algal blooms that result from the phosphorous and nitrogen getting into water. That can cause eutrophication that can cause the collapse of entire ecosystems. But of course with proper sewage treatment this risk is minimized. You peeing in the lake while swimming is more akin to the bush by the lakeside dropping leaves. However when it’s an entire town’s untreated sewage then it’s a whole other issue and the results can be catastrophic.

But yes 1 tonne of pure tensides is much worse than 1 ton of poop. However poop tends to come in humongous quantities which is where the real problem lies.

When it comes to toxicity to water life you have to think of the dose. If a rose bush sheds a few petals and it falls to a lake will anything bad happen to the life in the lake? No absolutely not. That happens naturally. The petals will quickly decompose and become nutrients that will feed the ecosystem in the lake. However if someone would drop a dozen truckloads of petals in the lake then that would be way too much organic matter for the ecosystem in the lake to handle. But some shower gel is never gonna come close to that. It’s more gonna be on the magnitude of the bush shedding some petals naturally in the lake. Same with the essential oil. Concentrated essential oil can be quite toxic to both human and other life. But in dilution it’s something else completely. A natural rose bush will evaporate tonnes of essential oil straight into the air during its whole life time and nothing takes damage from it. That’s why you can smell a rose plant when standing next to it. Dilution is sometimes actually the solution. A single drop of essential oil into the sewer drain once a day would not cause any negative effect at all when it’s diluted with tonnes of shower, toilet, sink and even industrial waste water. Diluted it won’t damage any life, especially since essential oils are biodegradable.

Also think what else gets down into the sewer. In most places your toilet and your shower are connected to the same system. The poop you put in your toilet is multiple magnitudes worse than anything you could use while showering. If your waste water treatment plant can’t even treat the poo then you have bigger problems then anything you could put into your shower gel. If it’s good enough to treat poo however then it’s good enough to treat whatever’s in your shower gel.

Well what is a mental illness? Historically you had an illness if something caused you to not function properly at the things society expected you to function in. You can’t remember things clearly anymore and it affects your career or social life? You now are considered to have the mental illness of dementia. Are you just slightly forgetful but can still function fine? You are not ill, instead that forgetfulness is just a character trait of yours. And it goes on like this. Back in the day the expectations to marry the opposite sex and have children was huge so being gay was considered a mental illness. Today it’s more accepted and being gay is just part of who you are (in some places at least). And it goes on like this.

I think not much has changed in this regard. If a certain mental affliction doesn’t affect your social or work life in a meaningful way it’s not really considered an illness. So if you take this as a definition of being mentally healthy there are certainly lots of people out there who have no affliction which seriously hurt their current social or work life. However this of course doesn’t mean that these people are completely free from any mental affliction, it just means these mental afflictions are not considered serious in today’s society.

And these things change all the time as society’s expectations change. Back in the day when only a small minority could read and write there was not a diagnosis for dyslexia. Now that reading ability is expected of everyone in today’s society we have defined dyslexia. As new societal expectations come and go the list of diagnosable illnesses will certainly have things getting removed and added. Let’s say theoretically some people can’t handle zero gravity, today this is not relevant for the vast majority of people so there is not any diagnosis for such an illness. But if more and more people are expected to live in zero G then such a diagnosis would be sure to be defined if such an affliction exists.

Is this definition reasonable? Well that’s a completely different question. But as I see it this is how it is generally defined right now.

I don’t have data to quote here but considering heart problems were rare back in the day when butter, lard and tallow was used in generous amounts in combination with obesity being rare and daily labor was common, I would assume it would be mostly fine. Heart problems in non-overweight people are rare even today, especially at younger ages.

There are also 2 new high quality studies out there showing milk fats being significantly safer for heart health compared to other saturated animal fats. I can link that study for you on request. However you wouldn’t need to use butter for your potatoes necessarily. You can oven bake potatoes in rapeseed oil or olive oil just fine and get the same calories in, if you happen to be afraid of milk fat that is. Finding a milk alternative would be harder however since the seed and nut oils out there are generally much less nutrient dense than whole milk. The exception would be soy milk but then you have to be careful not to get a version full of sugar.

When trying to gain weight (or simply not go minus as in your case) the method will be the opposite of what is needed to lose weight. I have helped someone with this in the past and what I saw as his greatest trouble was that he would get too full to eat more very quickly. I asked about his diet and it was just full of foods which are very filling without actually containing many calories. Lots of fruits and vegetables with almost no carb and no fat.

So really what you need are easily digestible and not too filling calorie rich ingredients. Think lots of grains and fat. Buttered potatoes instead of air fried potatoes. Carrots instead of lettuce. White pasta over whole grain pasta. Cream or mayo based sauce instead of a stock/water based sauce etc. However still try to eat healthy. If going for bread take the white bread without added sugar for example. And still include vegetables but don’t make them over ⅓ of your plate. I have read many success stories with adding heavy amounts of dairy to the diet which makes sense since milk is there to grow a calf as fast as possible. Drinking a package of milk a day is almost a miracle cure to being underweight if you can stomach it. In fact the medical food packs they give to malnourished children are dairy based. Consider it if your diet allows it.

However what specific meals which are convenient to bring I don’t have many ideas. But I hope this mode of thinking will help at least a bit. It has to be a big portion that you can actually stomach. Think about which foods you seem to be able to eat a huge amount of and then narrow those down to the most calorie rich. They also have to not clog your stomach for the whole rest of the day so being easy to digest is also key.

Calling it selfishness implies one only does it for himself/herself and no other reason. I don’t think that’s always true. At the same time it’s not a totally selfless act either. For me it has to be a positive to both me and the child or else it wouldn’t be worth it. Currently I can’t know if the child will enjoy life or not. But if I somehow knew the child would only suffer in life I would absolutely refuse to have that child. But I can’t know and that makes this complicated.

I think I can connect this back to the comment I made about adoption. I could adopt a baby and be just as happy with that as if I had a biological one because to me that is a comparable experience. However I wouldn’t adopt a violent and problematic teenager. Doing so would probably decrease my life quality and endanger my and my partners life. For the calculation to work I want both me and the child to have good lives. I admit it’s not a totally selfless act. But it’s not a totally selfish act either.

For the ideological stuff I don’t have that as a main reason personally but brought up because I think it’s important in a broader perspective. It’s absolutely true that one parent’s ideology has a huge influence on a child’s future. The Amish for example has only ¼ of those born in the community eventually leaving. And how many join the Amish? About zero. It’s a religious movement solely run by those born into it. However the high rate for the Amish is extraordinarily high when looking at other religions and this is because ones ideology is not only influenced by one’s parents but by one’s community as well.

There are a lot of people who were born in conservative or religious households and only left that ideology when they started interacting with people outside the family, for many that’s highschool or College. Internet as well in today’s era. The Amish keep so many because they have their own closed community. However think about it like this. If only one category of people had kids of ideology x. Then all kids would start out with that. In addition they won’t talk to people with a different ideology at school or college or maybe not even youth oriented internet because all other children were also born into ideology x. Suddenly they end up in a bubble and converting them would be much harder. For any other movement but ideology x it would be an uphill battle. Again having children for this sole reason would be stupid in my opinion. But it was a worrying thought of mine when I see through the statistics of who is actually having children nowadays.

Are there really that many kids who need adopting? What I have heard there are far fewer domestic kids who need adoptive parents than there are people willing to adopt if you are looking at young children under 3. This causes a lot of people to adopt internationally which is insanely expensive, often very dubious ethically and a bureaucratic nightmare. A lot of source countries for adoption have banned international adoption in the last years making the supply lower than ever. Adopting internationally does not mean you’re giving a child a home who wouldn’t otherwise have one. No you’re just competing against other prospective parents. The child would just get adopted by another family.

What is available domestically and where one can actually do real good are older children, mostly male, around the ages 12-17 who come from abusive households. The people who adopt from this category are real heroes and do enormous good to the world. However this is a totally different endeavour that not all are able to tackle. Many of these kids are violent, criminal and may despite their young age already have drug addiction problems. It really is a lot and is often a real physical threat to the adoptive parent. I have considered it but right now I’m not ready for it. It also closes the possibility for your own biological children in the future because having a violent older step sibling can ruin your childhood and I wouldn’t want to do that to my kid. Maybe when I’m much older I’ll consider it. Those kids deserve loving parents too and arguably need them more than anyone else.

I really regret to hear that you feel that way about your own existence. I really don’t want to cause someone to exist who then regrets their own existence in such a way. I would be very interested to know what went wrong in your life and what your parents could have done differently. Or is it perhaps not the fault of your parents but the world at large that is to blame?

Of course that’s true. However what is the conclusions of this? Should our long unbroken line of ancestors who reproduced end or should it continue? That’s the big question of it all.