I think you took that a little too seriously.

Lemmy.world has not defederated lemmy.ml

You should edit your post; you’re spreading disinformation.

How depressing. Makes me wonder if that’s part of the reason I’m struggling to switch careers, because though I’m well qualified for my desired role - I don’t fit the stereotypical career history.

Thanks. China looks like it might have a big problem on its hands with that large volume of young men without partners.

Big yikes on that pyramid. Please could you share where you got it from?

Depends how we define ‘overcome’ really. I mean, if cooperation is evidence of overcoming it then the question doesn’t need to be asked.

If we’re talking about our biological instinct for tribalism, well that’s why we’re having the conversation isn’t it.

Yes. Reductive in a crude way, not clarifying. I don’t think the parent comment at all implied humans are inherently bad and the occasional good doesn’t matter.

Rather inversely, humans are tribalistic but achieve good in spite of tribalism.

That’s a bit of a reductive take on the parent comment.

Human nature to cooperate and share is not mutually exclusive with forming in-groups and out-groups.

Well the prototype wasn’t even legs, so maybe we should just come up with an entirely new model?

I vote hexapod.

Bear in mind that graph that I copied overlaps more due to it being relative to high-meat diets (hence no error bars on that group).

The supplementary data shows much less overlap of 95% confidence intervals.

This seems needlessly pedantic, presumably because of a similar argument as the other commenter - that veganism is a philosophy and not just a diet. However, as the other commenter highlighted, veganism begets a vegan diet.

You also don’t have to follow an entirely vegan philosophy to follow a strict vegan diet.

Not to mention “100% plant based” implies you don’t eat fungi!

The study is about diets and their consequent impact on GHG. Why does it matter that it’s not about philosophy?

Eh, cows are the biggest contributor but all ruminants are applicable as another poster highlighted.

Also the study does include fish eaters too, as a separate dietary category.

For anyone interested, high-meat diet was defined as >100g meat per day.

Never mind the fact cows release methane which is 25 times more warming than CO².

I’m not really sure the point your trying to make here.

If they sold them in the supermarket, I would absolutely have cricket-fried rice.

No, the title is correct as far as I can tell from quickly skimming the actual Nature article.

Unrelated rant - I hate the fact independent.co.uk hyperlinks the word ‘study’ which just searches it’s own site for the fucking word ‘study’ rather than linking to the actual source data. Fucking shitstain practices.

I found the original article by plugging the independent article into ground.news. Fucking love that website.

Edit: what’s more is that it’s eating more than 100g of meat per day is 4 times more GHG than eating vegan. Eating <50g per day is about 2 times more than veganism.

I’d actually prefer it if they opened up to me.

Ah, okay - thanks for the explanation.

I do like the idea of multi-winner elections because of the increased chance of having a representative for your specific issues taken to a national assembly. In the UK things are split up into boroughs, which seems illogical for cities and aside from being grandfathered in likely only persists because it enables gerrymandering.

What a neat find.