• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About datamonster

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

353 profile views
  1. Don't potassium, B vitamins, magnesium, zinc, iron, protein, fiber and phytochemicals count as nutrients?
  2. What's wrong with beans, lentils, rice and oats?
  3. The fundamental idea of lobbyism is great. Say you have a company with 100k employees and many more stakeholders, this becomes a group with certain interests since A lot of peoples' livelihoods depend on this company. All that lobbyism really means is advocating for this group. New laws and regulations for among other things can become a threat to the company and hence also to the people that work there or who have an interest in the company. So, it's important to have someone, i.e. a lobbyist, represent them and advocate for their interests. Of course, as with everything, there is potential for abuse, but fundamentally I believe lobbyism is important and good when done right. For example, I'm from Germany, if the automotive lobby in Germany wasn't that strong, literally millions of people would have already lost their jobs.
  4. How can you love a country anyway? Can you really love an arbitrarily drawn imaginary line that keeps changing, that makes up the border that defines a country? I mean what exactly do you love? The piece land? Really? What if tomorrow it becomes part another country, do you still love the land? This actually happened to India and Pakistan. Now people are fighting. Or perhaps you love the people? But really? I bet there are lots of idiots in your country, whichever it is. And why love your country and not some other country? Just because you happened to be born there? Isn't that pretty self-biased? Loving a country seems kinda random to me. I think a highly conscious person sees this very quickly.
  5. Agree. Tim Ferris should've spent a little more than 4 hours doing research for his book.
  6. @Dany Balan Economics Explained on YouTube has some amazing videos about why and how countries became what they are today. Highly recommend.
  7. MPhil in History and Philosophy of Science and Medicine at Cambridge: This is a real meta-degree. I went to a guest lecture of one of the teachers, prof. Chang, once and it was deeply fascinating. I seriously contemplated doing this degree. Just take a look at the lectures: Some of the topics are quite awesome and worth researching and reading about them even if you don't take the degree, just for personal development. It seems to be one of very few degrees where you're not only allowed, but encouraged to question science itself
  8. @abundance Thanks for sharing! I think the best we can do as individuals to help solve this is to change our consumption habits. Especially our diets have a huge impact since we eat three times a day and the food industry is so unsustainable. Here's a short clip the WEF posted recently about how changing the way we eat can help.
  9. True, there are these differences between male and female driven perhaps primarily by our hormonal setup. I'm completely for equality of men and women and I don't believe at all that one is inherently superior. Men and women are equally worthy, important and capable However, at the same time I think it would be naive of us to say that men and women are exactly the same and differences don't exist or don't matter. Sometimes they do matter and that's ok. But we need to be careful not to extrapolate these differences too much and abuse them to put people in arbitrary, simplistic categories or to justify traditional gender roles.
  10. I don't think this is necessarily true. While women in politics and business seem to work really well right now, those countries and businesses that are more open to put more women in power tend to be quite developed already, around stage green. So, it's not gender that leads to less violence and war, it's their level of development and that of their culture that does, I think. If you were to put a stage red/blue women in charge of a stage red/blue group I don't think there would be a lot less violence and war.
  11. I was referring to survival as a tribe. Who says this? I doubt an intelligent person would say this, certainly not the men I have met.
  12. Haha I bet No I'm not jealous at all about that. But again I'm not saying that "women's work" in the traditional sense is easy or not important. It's incredibly important and I'm glad I don't have to give birth, honestly! All I'm saying is that gender can sometimes be important such as in crude survival situations. I said physical strength. And no obviously this isn't the only important thing, but it is one of the reasons why traditionally men take certain responsibilities and women other ones. This has nothing to do with who is better or whose work is more important. And again, I'm not saying this is at all relevant today in a modern society.
  13. @Jennjenn Nobody says it's an easy task. And it isn't exactly romantic either. It's a fact that men are physically stronger than woman on averag and women can give birth and men can't. That's just genetics. And when survival is on the line it makes sense to let the physically strong ones do the most physically demanding job. Do you think it would be wise for a pregnant woman to go hunting or ploughing a field? I don't think tribes choose to split work like that because they are inherently sexist. It just makes sense for them. Now again, this should not be used to justify discrimination based on gender today in the developed world. Just because it makes sense for a tribe living in a jungle doesn't mean it makes sense in a big city.
  14. I think it's about fairness and creating a more even playing field. We create gender groups, age groups, weight classes, etc. because it's more fair to compare people with similar characteristics. In boxing for example, more weight gives you an unfair advantage. So, we have weight classes to let fighters of similar weights compete. If you had 120kg dudes fight 60kg dudes, it wouldn't be fun for anybody. Even in things like math competitions we have age groups. If we didn't, 5th graders would compete against PhDs, it just doesn't make any sense. Of course depending on the area, different distinctions are appropriate. In a math competition gender is kinda irrelevant, so we don't use this group. In sports gender often gives you a genetic advantage, so it makes to have gender groups. It's just comparing apples with apples. Come on, guys. This is just common sense.