leicsmac

There's clearly issues with various environmental factors, but the overall life expectancy in the UK and other "developed" countries continues to either rise or plateau, which suggests that things aren't all that bad for the time being at least. That's entirely dependent on the individual, their power and their personal circumstances, I think. I also think that anything like changing eating habits across sufficient numbers to really affect carbon emissions is a much harder sell (it would have a much more direct effect on peoples lives) than changing energy generation sources for a weaker payoff. I think it's a good idea because it would help as you say, I just don't consider it a priority issue and one that likely would have to come from the top down to be truly effective. But then I think the vast majority of such solutions have to be applied like that to be honest - we can and should recycle, eat little or no meat as we can, but the strongest thing someone can do is lobbying their representative and help necessary legislation get passed, IMO.

I'm sorry, but I have read citable data that directly contradicts this increase - meat consumption in the UK looks to have at most remained roughly stable over the last 50-60 years, and if anything decreased in the last 10-20. It's entirely plausible processed red meats have a link to certain types of cancers - in fact, as you say, a correlation is pretty much evidence-based - but I still don't see the evidence for humans engaging in overall behaviour (product consumption, activity etc) more likely to give them cancers than at any other time in history. And yeah, we've talked about stuff like this before - as someone interested in the environmental future of the planet, I know animal agriculture is an issue, but definitely not the biggest one and certainly one of the tougher ones to sort from a science communication/getting the idea across standpoint.

It's possible such things have an influence, but then I would imagine things like excessive smoking (something much more prevalent in the last century in the UK) would have been factors back when, too. I'm not sure modern living has many more risk factors for cancer than times past, overall - it's just on more death certificates because other diseases are not. And if someone like Chris Hoy, who will have lived under the strictest of diet and exercise regimen, can contract cancer at that age, it's safe to say sheer horrible luck has a big part to play too. Anyhow, the man has responded to it with characteristic dignity. I think it would be very easy to give in to despair or rage at the universal injustice of it.

...because people are living longer, long enough to be more likely to contract it, as opposed to another terminal condition that would kill them sooner. No need for conspiracist musing.

India at least made a fist of this. Anything over 150 in these conditions might make a chase tricky for NZ.

Makes you think.

War weariness is beginning to show quite clearly in both invested parties, I think.

Dems/Biden/Deep State/WEF/insert other scapegoat here are using weather manipulation to generate a lot of hurricanes in the US at this time so that climate change appears to be a bigger threat than it actually is/people find it difficult to vote in particular areas and so the forthcoming election is subject to a rigging attempt and people will give up their "freedoms". ... actually, to be fair, having thought about it the one you mentioned is probably at least on a par with that.

Is it bad to say that isn't the most batshit tinfoil hat conspiracy BS I've heard this week?

That's another possible angle. I don't particularly mind the SK's limiting their own support to purely moral though - can understand it isn't their fight.

It seems like it is slowly playing out towards some kind of deal whereby Russia keeps some or most of the land it's taken, but Ukraine gets into NATO and has Article 5 protection henceforth. Of course, both sides are saying that's unacceptable right now from their own points of view, but as things drag on I reckon that will just become all talk.

On the general topic, Russia must be running rather short on willing or able manpower to have to ask the NKs for help, if this is true.

Unfortunately that's the same world we've inhabited since the nation state first came about - the weaponry has just become more sophisticated and more efficient at mass destruction. So, yeah, so long as at least the possibility of a world without such sentiment in the future exists, given the choice between the struggle to get there and oblivion caused by an avoidable nuclear engagement, give me the struggle any day.

Two nuclear armed powers facing each other in direct battlefield engagement isn't going to end well.

Or certainly this particular iteration of it, anyway. It might be nice at this point that both sides consider their blood debt and need for cycle of vengeance satisfied, but sadly I don't see that happening. ... but not in the UK, naturally. Net migration figures and all that.

And Southee still clubbing it about like it's 2008 and he's playing England. Good stuff. As for England, well... while the style they've got succeeds much more often than when it falls, but when this style of play fails, it tends to be spectacular.

Yeah, community service working with the people she seems to loathe would have been better in this case, I think.

Sometimes, it's just one particular incidence of negative behaviour that pushes you over the edge.

Welcome to the life of the vast majority of scientists when it comes to public engagement. Infuriating, isn't it?

The horrors of AI laid bare.

On this pitch I think it is. You can't bed in on this one, you will get a ball with your name on it. Go hard and score what you can before that, risky as it may be. Which suits the style of this England team perfectly.

297 the target then. Wouldn't want to call how this goes.

Schrodingers Liberal.

I think that anything over 200 will be tricky tbh, but then with this team, who knows?

46 all out after batting first at home, good grief. What was that I said about India being practically invincible at home? Clearly no one told the NZers