dust

What fresh oddness is this? People are drinking gold now?

I'm going to assume that this depends largely on where you are. I won't pry into that. And even if you live in an area that isn't particularly white-dominant, we culturally expect white males to be IT people -- maybe black and brown are historically less likely to study in your field? (There's an older thread concerning women & IT in which I had a similarly drawn-out argument with people about the idea that women are historically quite important in the IT field but still represent less of the workforce that one might expect.) Going back to acting though: part of the role of cinema/TV is to represent modern reality, and the reality is that modern America is mostly white, so yeah, white people are going to seem more 'qualified' for any given role, and there are naturally going to be more actors, good and bad, who are white. Simple numbers game. But even then, the one thing I constantly hear Americans talk about -- comedians, politicians, businesspeople, etc -- is "race". You guys are obsessed with it like no other place on Earth. And for good reason, I suppose, considering your history. And much of that is celebration, apparently enjoying the fact that America's a melting pot... but that is represented weirdly on screen, where the white guy takes precedence. It's not that blacks and yellows and women etc don't get hired, it's that they don't get placed at the forefront. Never thought this conversation would last so long. Can't even remember now how it began.

If you look at it scientifically, you get different views, but if you look at it intuitively...you still get different views.... so that's no reason to choose intuition over science, is it? Intuition can steer you wrong just as easily. And not just in diet... the majority of mistakes people make in life generally come from a lack of knowledge/research/information-based decision making, not from too much knowledge. Anyway, if one actually looks at it scientifically -- considering controlled studies, large-scale epidemiological research, etc, rather than media unreality, where baseless scare stories take hold in an instant and don't let go for decades -- one finds that there is a lot of agreement on a lot of things. One of these things is that soy is good for you. It reduces the risk of breast cancer in women, essentially by regulating estrogen. So the idea that it increases estrogen in men (which is the scare story) is a little bizarre.

"Antinutrients" are found in pretty much all foods.. you're not going to get away from them. Just don't eat too much of any one thing (which is good advice anyway, from a Daoist or general common sense perspective). A "bean curd diet" does sound a bit silly, but if you wanted to try it, cooking, as well as fermentation, reduces certain antinutrients... so you could just cook the tofu..? Many scare stories about soy talk of phytoestrogens, claiming that they'll give you man-boobs or other such nonsense. It's complete nonsense. http://www.livestrong.com/article/554285-does-milk-raise-estrogen-in-men/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524299/ Comparing cow's milk to soy products isn't just some vegan agenda to show that soy is better than dairy, it's a way of highlighting that soy is one of the more healthy options available. Even if you believe that 'organic' dairy is healthy, you must recognize that it's not as healthy as soy. There is a study showing that dairy doesn't affect fertility in mice... but they are mice, not humans. And the study was undertaken by the Journal of Dairy Science, so.. no conflict of interest there, then.. My conclusion: don't eat bean curd at the expense of a varied diet, but eating it regularly will be perfectly healthy.

Oho! Thanks. I wasn't expecting a full translation straight off. Certainly gives a fun alternative to the usual translations. Dan's book's going for cheap on Amazon but I'm not sure if the Kindle or paperback version would be better (Kindle being half the price)

Is it? In one of many interpretations, someone's translated as "use it, it will never fail." But I don't think that's the specific meaning of the text...it's just one possible interpretation. The English word "fail" carries connotations that the Chinese character 勤 does not. I think "fail" is a poor translation -- we're not talking of 'failure' so much as 'drying up' or becoming 'exhausted'. I don't think we're specifically talking about being able to "use" the Dao as if it were a trusty screwdriver that will never not screw. I'm hoping someone will come along and help with the Heshanggong... Heshanggong seemed to believe that the chapter explains how to become an immortal.. but it's all a bit esoteric for me to attempt to translate..

I agree with that last one Gerry. Might be fun to have a new discussion about consciousness on the board but maybe this whole off-topic exchange has gone far enough! (most posts on page 2-3 are not about the chapter at all!) Back to chapter 6... this is from the Heshanggong Laozi, I'll post it and hopefully get some help interpreting it... 谷神不死，谷，養也。人能養神則不死也。神，謂五臟之神也。肝藏魂，肺藏魄，心藏神，腎藏精，脾藏志，五藏盡傷，則五神去矣。 是謂玄牝。言不死之有，在於玄牝。玄，天也，於人為鼻。牝，地也，於人為口。天食人以五氣，從鼻入藏於心。五氣輕微，為精、神、聰、明、音聲五性。其鬼曰魂，魂者雄也，主出入於人鼻，與天通，故鼻為玄也。地食人以五味，從口入藏於胃。五味濁辱，為形、骸、骨、肉、血、脈六情。其鬼曰魄，魄者雌也，主出入於人口，與地通，故口為牝也。 玄牝之門是謂天地根。根，元也。言鼻口之門，是乃通天地之元氣所從往來也。 綿綿若存，鼻口呼噏喘息，當綿綿微妙，若可存，復若無有。 用之不勤。用氣當寬舒，不當急疾懃勞也。

Well I assumed Gerry was joking but just in case, a simple and direct case for consciousness: it is the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings and/or something within oneself. If we define something as 'alive', we define it as being responsive to stimuli; if 'animal', we define it as being quickly responsive and usually aware of surroundings; and if we define it as 'vertebrate', we define it as being responsive, aware of its surroundings, and perhaps aware of itself. All vertebrates, then, are 'conscious' by definition. It is also believed by many that various invertebrates are also conscious. Less complex life like plants, fungi, bacteria, are obviously responsive to their surroundings too, though I think the debate on whether or not they are 'aware' of their surroundings will be controversial on this forum. But obviously humans are not the only ones with consciousness.

A thread for discussion of diet, lifestyle, and the wild world with the condition that participants 'keep an open mind' regarding veganism/vegetarianism/plant-based living. I'm not a vegan -- one day, probably -- but I do agree with the basic arguments for veganism with regard to human health, environmental concerns, and unnecessary suffering of animals. Or, to look at it another way, I have not encountered a good argument against veganism. ("Derrrr bacon taste good!" is not a good argument; human bacon probably taste good too but nobody's arguing for that.) Evidence for these arguments can be forthcoming if anyone feels like participating in the topic. First I'll just start with this: Many, including myself for a long time, have been under the assumption that eating meat is 'natural' (whatever that means) and that humans need dead animals to be healthy. Diets like the 'Paleo diet' operate strictly under this assumption, recommending that, to eat like a paleolithic person, one must consume a lot of meat and eggs and green veg but no legumes or grains or starches. Leaving aside questions such as "Why is the paleolithic diet worth imitating? Were humans actually healthy back then? Didn't they all die at 30?" which can be answered elsewhere, we will assume for the moment that an early hominin diet offers an insight into how our bodies evolved and that if, for tens of thousands of years, it was good enough for the survival of a human living in a cave or mud hut with only the simplest tools and a struggle each day just to find the food, it is probably good enough for modern humans who have none of these limitations. So, we assume that they all ate meat. We evolved from tree-dwelling chimp-like foragers into ground-striding upright hunters. And our close relatives, the neandertals, ate even more meat than us. Right? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature21674.html The hominins ate very differently, depending on their region: The calculus from the Neanderthal in the Belgian cave was full of meat such as woolly rhinoceros and wild sheep, which were available on the wide-open grasses of the steppe. The diet in Spain, on the other hand, had plenty of mushrooms, pine nuts and moss — the kind of menu you’d have in dense forest — and no detectable meat. My takeaway here is that these guys ate what was available to them in their area. They didn't need meat, meat wasn't a 'natural' and intrinsic part of their diet; they ate it when it was the easiest option. And so at this point, it's worth noting that modern humans have everything available to us. And in the modern world, the easiest option is not meat. The cheapest, the least environmentally damaging, the easiest to cultivate, the most nutritious, are all plants.

I'm very sceptical of religious folk, but the origin of their dietary tradition doesn't change its efficacy. Yes, I've wondered about bias in some of these earlier Adventist studies, but some (such as this) are based on database figures. Relatively simple comparisons, as far as I can tell, with pretty clear results. And if you have evidence for this claim about fish, please share it. Seriously, share it. You don't see other factors involved here? Healthcare? Population problem? Caste system? Extreme poverty? https://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2015/12/16/is-india-winning-the-fight-against-childhood-malnutrition/ Note: There are many many many factors in India's malnourishment, and vegetarianism is rarely cited as a root cause Note2: No, because a person doesn't eat meat of course does not automatically mean she will be healthy! But if a person cannot afford food, of course they will be unhealthy regardless of their dietary inclination. Dishonest to try and reduce the amount of suffering in the world? Well I'm fucking sorry for that... And yes, there are products that don't directly involve killing animals, but indirectly involve destroying entire ecosystems. A good person, veggie or not, should not be consuming palm oil products, among other things. You know Luke, you seem like a very nice person but on this issue you really know how to pull my strings... The first link you posted.. I believe I wrote a post somewhere with similar nutrient comparisons showing that eating a variety of plant foods, there's no nutrient missed. It's harder to find a couple of things, like B12 and Omega-3s, but they are available in plants (as CloudHands says, B12 is in the soil, in the intestine..but most people now get it from it being injected into the meat). The point is that, yes, there are nutrients in cows -- nobody's disputing that -- but there are the same (and more) nutrients in plants and less that we don't want. http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/advantages-lentils-over-beef-4364.html Here we see that "The lentils provide 32 percent of the daily value for fiber, which helps you feel full and lowers your risk for heart disease, and only trace amounts of fat. The ground beef provides 23 percent of the DV for total fat and 25 percent of the DV for saturated fat and no fiber." See, we could play this game all day, but eventually it would become apparent that meat is not necessary, even if it has more riboflavin than a particular vegetable. I post various scientific literature; you're not convinced. I ask for scientific studies in return; nope. And again, you say "I believe most people are better off with animal products" but with no reason why. Not a single good reason why it's better to eat a cow sometimes. At least you admit that what you're showing me isn't scientific, I guess.

Sure.. I've often thought that making good cinema is pretty much the pinnacle of storytelling art so far. Writing, casting, various aspects of directing, the amount of coordination, research, travel, etc etc etc... it takes a lot. But at the same time, we have Daredevil, which has excellent fight scenes and an exciting story; and Iron Fist, which has lacklustre fight scenes; and Jessica Jones, which has a lacklustre story... They all surely have access to the same(ish) resources, so it's a shame that they weren't more consistent. Well I haven't seen Doctor Strange yet, that example wasn't mine. One could indeed make the case that it's whitewashing or that casting an Asian is stereotyping... it's a lose-lose. (Also there was the issue of China [role is a Tibetan, but acknowledging Tibet as a sovereign nation in any way would anger the Chinese and lose millions of viewers]). It seems to me that focusing on individual cases one at a time obscures the bigger picture. Each production has their own reason for not casting someone, for casting someone else... but when we take a step back isn't the trend kind of obvious? It's a lot better now than it was even ten years ago (having had this conversation I've checked out Into the Badlands, and obviously there's Mr Robot, and I'm aware of a couple of other yellow/brown leads) but loads of productions fall into the same pattern: white male lead, female or black sidekick, 'ethnic' third. That's assuming the whole cast isn't white. As far as "like to see it changed"... it's not in my top ten! It doesn't make me angry -- I know people are racist, the world over. But it does interest me, and it does bother me, a little. Basically, the European-American male is the archetypal hero in modern American/Western mythology, and anyone who deviates from this archetype is less likely to be cast in the leading/titular role. That's my grand theory.

All true, but... what part of the thread exactly are you referring to? That some people were unimpressed with Iron Fist, or that some people are unimpressed that Asiatics are rarely cast as leads in cinema/TV? In either case I'm not sure what your post addresses, true as what you've said is. There's not much innovation to be done with Iron Fist as the basic premise already exists -- it's simply a case of decent writing, casting, and fighting/choreography (and the show fell down a little in all of these areas, but mostly the fighting). As far as the apparent lack of Asiatics on TV... I'm contending that this is mostly down to the widespread (if subconscious and culturally ingrained) preference people have for a white person (usually male) as the strong, morally superior protagonist of any story.

Indeed.. there are many YouTube videos of children asking "Why do we eat the animals?" "Why do they chop the animals up?", children in tears, or refusing to let a parent kill a chicken, or a fish, or even cut up an animal that's already dead.. I don't remember, but I have a feeling that I was not keen on eating meat at the beginning. Through a combination of deceit, bullying, and only gradual discovery of the reality, many children are 'brainwashed' into meat-eating culture.

1) If you're picking a fish from a bowl, sure. But in most places people don't pick their meat animal. And even where they do, there's no guarantee that animal isn't diseased and hasn't been kept in a cage so tight it shit on its own legs. 2) There are many horrific ways we kill them for food, for sure. Terrifyingly painful gas chambers, beatings, half-assed stunnings... Halal is unnecessarily horrific but it's better than those 3 options, I'd wager. I think a bolt to the head must be fairly painless..? 3) There's little chance it was treated the way anyone with half a gram of compassion would want a dog (or any animal) to be treated. Whether they're stolen from people's homes or picked up on the road or bred in captivity, they're kept in tiny cages and left to rot till they get to the humans' feed lot. 4) Certainly. But I'd say that the first needlessly cruel thing is the practice of eating them in the first place. I've heard it said by many people that pigs know when they're about to be killed, and sheep and cows too. Whether or not this is true, it is most definitely true of most dogs. Most aren't wolf-smart but they're smart enough.

Sure, lifestyle must affect longevity. It's been my opinion that this is a more important factor than healthcare. For example in the 1980s, life expectancy for a vegetarian Adventist was ~84, nearly 8 years higher than the average Californian, which certainly suggests lifestyle as an important factor. On the other hand, there are large differences between life expectancies among the world's richer countries. The highest is Monaco (89), where almost everyone is rich and has access to an excellent public health service and a healthy diet. There's a greater difference between the life expectancies of Australians and Americans than there is between Americans and Chinese (82.8, 79.3, 76.1 respectively). Differences between these nations obviously includes differences in lifestyle, but also major differences in access to and quality of healthcare.

I do get that (the Medicare etc stuff, the emergency care). Certainly, I do not mean to suggest that American healthcare is some kind of brutal wasteland where only the richest survive. As is obvious from those world maps I posted earlier, America has never been #1 but has always been near the top. Yes, of course, your healthcare is still preferable to that of many other countries. And America is and has been at the forefront of medical research for a long time, and there are procedures/treatments for which a person would be most fortunate to find themselves in an American hospital. But with all those caveats, it still appears that the American approach isn't working as well as the approach of many other nations. Really, your health system doesn't bother me on a personal level. I have no vested interest in it. Entirely up to your people. I'm not trying to convince you to change it (as if the few Americans on this forum could instigate such change!) as much as I'm just arguing in favour of a system that is free at the point of use. It's abused a little over here, it's not perfect, but I still think it's a good way to do things. Well, based on the current climate I think the French and Germans would basically take control of the whole thing and be very happy about it The British, on the other hand (assuming we were staying in), no... many would not be so happy. But I would wait and see what the plan looked like.

Well you haven't done much to convince me that the appreciation of forest fires is vital to the appreciation of trees.. there are a number of things I can think of that are more important, because they are true of all plants, not just certain types of forest (e.g. wind, rain, decay, pollinators, sunlight...). If you talked about a particular type of tree that thrives from fires (like giant sequoias) I think that would be more on-topic. But I guess whenever owner permissions return in here I'll just delete this conversation we've had, but leave your original post about forest fires. Also, I'm not sure I warrant being blamed for the ignorance of foresters in your country...

No emotive basis here. Just trying to keep it on-topic. If you both actually read my post, you have seen I said that forest fires are indeed beneficial sometimes. But the intent of the thread is tree appreciation, not things related to trees appreciation. You could post about the importance of dispersal of seeds and pollination of plants by animals, because these are vital to the growth and sustenance of every type of woodland... and I would equally say "Meh, not sure that's really tree appreciation."

The only other system I have direct of experience is the Chinese... so my opinion is only based on studies/figures. And these change year by year. Each system has its pros and cons, each year studies find different things to praise and to criticise. But I think the NHS is in the running for one of the best.

Oho. I never used a word like "magnificent". I said that there are major problems here. But you see, even with all of the problems, the NHS is STILL superior to the American alternative. According to this, and this or this, over 0.1% of the US population die yearly from preventable errors, compared to 0.01% of the UK population. And I'm thinking that this is even worse for the US considering that the UK has universal care, while there are millions of Americans who never even see a hospital.

As owner permissions do not apply for the time being (so I can't hide your post), maybe this is a good opportunity to discuss whether or not your post belongs here. Yes, wildfires are beneficial to certain types of forest, and some even need wildfire in order to produce seeds and continue to flourish. But a post like that... doesn't it come under 'wildfire appreciation' rather than 'tree appreciation'? If someone made a 'human appreciation' thread, would you post something about the need to appreciate death? Would that be appropriate in a topic intended to celebrate humans, not the death of humans? Honest questions. My first instinct was to remove your post but now I'm only 85% sure...

Yes. Hundreds of thousands of foreigners getting angry every year and signing a petition, protesting in London or Los Angeles... year upon year.. and these dog-eaters don't appear to give the smallest of shits. It is, as you say, like Chinese people protesting Americans who eat cows. The majority of Americans would (and do) say "Dis is Mmmurica! Fuck yoo!" The thing to do is affect some real change from within China.. and there are people over there who protest the festival, but the whole dog-eating thing is so ingrained in the culture.. it's going to take a long time, if it ever changes.

No, it's not, but maybe it should be. If you lot focused more on what's best for the health/wellbeing of the population rather than some conspiratorial ideas about "who controls the people", things likely wouldn't be so shit. (Yes, comparatively, your healthcare system is "so shit".) The model is different among European nations, but in no instance that I'm aware of are citizens complaining about being controlled by their government through manipulation of healthcare. Don't get me wrong, there are major problems in any and every nation, but the UK NHS for example is living proof that a socialist health system can be effective and mostly free from corruption.

Well, I don't know about "standard of living", and that's not really what we're talking about. Sure, in theory a country can have a high standard of living even with a poor health system, if everyone has access to clean water, food, good housing, etc, and takes care of themselves. But I'm looking at life expectancy, and it seems that the USA has never actually been the world leader in that category. You've always been relatively high, but never number 1. And with increased healthcare quality (among other things) worldwide over the last century, everyone's living longer... but the USA seems to have been left behind a little compared to the nations it has traditionally been in competition with (Europe, Canada). Some places are quickly outstripping you. You can't put that all down to 'Big Pharma'.

I made friends with a couple of wandering dogs in Beijing. A cat too. You're of course right that many are picked up and used for food... but it's also true that family dogs, with homes and humans who care for them, are sometimes stolen and treated in the same way as strays (eaten). There is the so-called "livestock", millions of animals killed every year for food, the same in the East and West. And lab testing, which for all I know is worse in the West. But when it comes to 'pets', it can't be doubted that China is worse. As AT mentions, strays are rounded up and killed just as mercilessly in China; and as I said to AT, dogs (and cats) are taken from their homes and sold on meat skewers at grimy roadside barbecues. At dog meat restaurants, dogs are hung up and beaten to death in front of customers to show that the blood is still fresh in the meat. Yulin is only one example, a weirdly famous one outside China. It happens all over. So yeah, I agree that it is pointless to single out the Yulin festival. They probably should. A good environmentalist does indeed protest these things