It was already, but not from another mamal. Birds infecting individuals is not the problem, we kill a few millions (58 since 2022 in the states alone) birds to prevent the spread, a few hundred humans get sick, all is well. From mamal to another mamal is the problem, once it goes from human to human its over.

So it would reduce the risk of antibiotic resistant diseases, the risk of the next zoonosis that turns into pandemic, the certainty that climate change will destroy agriculture, the risk of heart diseases and cancer but it will not eliminate the chance of a stomach flue so it is not worth perusing?

For smaller animals heat suffocation has worked well, takes a few days but no extra work.

And unless everyone is willing to go 100% vegan tomorrow

• we do it until we get a new pandemic
• we wait until climate change, 3°C from food production, destroys enough crops that agriculture collapses
• we eat more of it to die sooner so we don't have to face the consequences of our actions.

And no, I don't belive 100% tommorow is the only way to avoid that, that was your wording. But it has to and will change.

Don't mess with animals. This is not a Texas problem, outbreaks have been all over the world and the animal agriculture is the perfect breeding ground. The only question is where will it develop the human to human infection feature. When it happens you can only blame others if your state or country has no animal agriculture as it could happen anywhere.

Now we know better:

https://feddit.de/post/10666309

But hey, still not human to human. Lets give it another week?

I am not deep enough in it, but from the arch-announce mailinglist:

From the upstream report [1]:

openssh does not directly use liblzma. However debian and several other distributions patch openssh to support systemd notification, and libsystemd does depend on lzma.

Arch does not directly link openssh to liblzma, and thus this attack vector is not possible. You can confirm this by issuing the following command:

$(command -v sshd)

However, out of an abundance of caution, we advise users to remove the malicious code from their system by upgrading either way. This is because other yet-to-be discovered methods to exploit the backdoor could exist.

https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/03/29/4

All of the animal industries the report examines are far less regulated than they should be and far less than the public believes they currently are. Today, wide regulatory gaps exist through which pathogens can spillover and spread, leaving the public constantly vulnerable to zoonotic disease.

https://animal.law.harvard.edu/news-article/animal-markets-and-zoonotic-disease/

Is just one study. Many say the animal industry is the breeding ground for the next pandemic. Not only in the US but everywhere. The question is not "if" but "when"

You think that after 99% of the US population decided to stop supporting climate change by not buying meat from billionaires, those 99% would still allow them to continue? Not for their own taste and convenience but for some billionaires profits?

They would sell $165 billion worth of meat, 22% of all meat products consumed in the US to a handful of billionaires and the US government? Ignoring the international business.

Billionaires would never touch that meat. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/10/zuckerberg-cattle-hawaii-beef-environment

Take a look at the Cargill family, 14 billionaires. From the wiki about the current CEO:

In 2019, former U.S. Congressman Henry A. Waxman, in a report by Mighty Earth, called Cargill "the worst company in the world" and noted that it drives "the most important problems facing our world" (deforestation, pollution, climate change, exploitation) "at a scale that dwarfs their closest competitors."

Do you think that is because they use every cent to burn coal and oil in their backyard, or

do you think it is because they produce and sell products to consumers which can not be produced without harm to the environment?

99% of the planet could produce zero pollution for the rest of our lives and it wouldn’t even make a dent in the amount of pollution created by the billionaire class.

How do you think they would create that damage to the environment if nobody would buy their products?

Heißt ja nicht, dass man die Verantwortlichen an der nächsten Autobahnbrücke aufknüpft.

verwirrte Bauerngeräusche

It is always just a black and white thing without seeing the good things. Just like this kid, he could have maybe killed more and has restrained himself really hard. If we blame him for what he did he will just kill more the next time.

The most positive climate impact you can have is not having a kid, not having a car and not flying, in that order.

I do not have any kids, that's why I don't have to worry about your attitudes. But it is not a single thing we have to change, it all has to change.

Transport accounts for around one-fifth of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions ...Aviation – while it often gets the most attention in discussions on action against climate change – accounts for only 11.6% of transport emissions.

Food is responsible for approximately 26% of global GHG emissions.

Research suggests that if everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%

Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Where I live meat production goes down already, but you not having a kid will not change anything because you not getting laid was so predictable that every climate model considered it already.

E: Nice touch that you did not refute that meat is bad for your health and now focus on "but there are other things too"

A innocent animal suffers and dies for you taste pleasure. According to the WHO and pretty much any health organization it is carcinogenic, causes heart diseases, diabetes, pneumonia and according to the IPCC going vegan is the biggest step a single person can do to fight climate change, a step which, if do not take it, even with 0 fossile fuels climate change will destroy agriculture as we know it. But I am old, lol, so whatever.

"Both go home and devour the flesh of a animal, killed for them by a anonymous worker in a factory."

Nein danke.

I have the wiha 44008 with interchangable heads, it fine if you don't need different heads all the time because changing the heads takes some time.

Allerdings fühlt es sich für mich sehr befremdlich an, das so gegeneinander aufzuwiegen. Auch wenn ich selber auf die Diskussion eingestiegen bin. Das Leid ist in beiden Fällen nicht zu ertragen.

Das ist auch für mich ein Problem, das alles zu bewerten und hart zu sortieren ist eigentlich unmöglich, und es passiert so leicht dass man etwas aus Hilflosigkeit oder Frust versucht zu beschreiben, zu vergleichen mit der Geschichte und es wird nie der Sache gerecht. Das ist alles ein Minenfeld auf dem man sich bewegt und eigentlich bleibt nur zu hoffen dass es bald ein Teil der Geschichte wird.

Es ging ja nicht darum das moralisch einzuordnen, sondern um die Frage, ob es schlimmere Verbrechen gegen Menschen gab als das in der Doku gezeigte.

Wenn wir es ohne Moral sondern nur sachlich von den Todeszahlen und den Auswirkungen her betrachten ist die Tierindustrie aber deutlich schlimmer. 90 Milliarden Tote Tiere zu Land, 1 Billion Fische, jedes Jahr, die Zerstörung der Lebensräume von Mensch und Tier. Es waren bis jetzt 100 Milliarden Menschen je am Leben. Ich hab aber den Eindruck gewonnen du hättest den Vergleich mit Hitler genutzt um zu zeigen dass wir auch wenig Achtung vor menschlichen Leben haben. Das ist zweifellos so, aber das abwägen was schlimmer ist beruht auf Moral und den Umständen.

Das ist auch so wie das moralische Dilemma von selbstfahrenden Autos, soll es den Alten Mann oder das junge Mädchen überfahren, die kranke Frau oder einen jungen Hund, was ist schlimmer.

Wie sieht es denn aus, kannst du eine objektiv schlimmer Praxis finden als gewerbemäßig Pferde zu schwängern, sie zu quälen um aus ihren Blut ein Medikament zu gewinnen um Schweine schneller wachsen zu lassen damit der Gewinn steigt? Das lässt sich doch nur moralisch bewerten oder übersehe ich da was?