Jannes

I compared their weight. Of course that not all actual meat mass but it's a rough estimation of what you are getting. For the meat of one blue whale you need about 800000 shrimps. We sometimes compare the sentience of living beings to estimate how ethical it is to kill them. The more sentient a being is the less ethical it is to kill it. But weight is an important factor as well. Its quantity x quality. Shrimps would pretty much have zero sentience in order to be more ethical to kill compared to Wales because you need 800000 of them to get the same meat (I am not including other environmental factors) For chickens to cows its like 1:500 as well its crazy. Are there some seriously dumb and fat animals? Maybe crocodiles?

It will make me happier. Being egoistic doesn't make you happy. No I don't want to be hit because it hurts to be hit. Empathy. Hurting them hurts me as well. I know that I cause a lot of suffering just to meet my survival needs. But you can go about it in complete ignorance or you can do some changes about your lifestyle. Being vegetarian and minimalistic for example are changes that cause relatively low effort for me but have a big impact.

General reduction of suffering and maximization of general wellbeing. In the realization that animals are in many important ways similar to us. So if don't want to be harmed it would be a double standard to do it to animals.

I am vegetarian for ethical reasons. I meant ethics as an intellectual pursuit but I asked the question not for the purpose of using it for something.

Wtf, No! ? Its just intellectual interest.

@Basman agreed!

I am not sure if humans are the most sentient creatures on earth. I think an octopus could be more sentient but I am not sure. I think you can translate sentience into 'how conscious are you?' You can't get more meta then that.

I think taking sentience as the primary factor is pretty unbiased. If you find an octopus ugly, doenst matter it’s very sentient and therefore of ethical importance.

1 horse sized duck and hope that it can’t hold its own bodyweight and collapse. What’s your point though?

You gotta abstract somewhere. You can’t take everything into account. I would save the humans. But I think it’s a very rare situation where a single shrimp feeding can save 10000 from starvation in the long run. Of course I ignore those. That ethical list would have a million points to consider. Dogs If it is possible to know that and if the whole breeding and growing process is also nice for the shrimps I would say there is nothing wrong with it but that are big ifs. Also I would take enrinonemental factors into account but as another layer.

Depends what ethic your subscribe to. There are literally philosophers who made ethics calculators. I don’t think they got wide spread agreement on that but still. The utilitarism and categorical imperative that I know is pretty calculated as well. The minority of ethics integrate feelings. I don’t necessarily agree with that though because I think we should be driven by an authentic voice which integrates feelings and not just rationality. How is it an absolute question? You want to get to answers in philosophy.

I think so. A higher quantity of low quality sentience will at some point outgrow a lower quantity but high quality sentience. Just like 10x 10€ equals 1x 100€. But I guess there are some metaphysical assumptions that I made there. Because 10x 10€ is not 100€ because it’s not getting duplicated. It stays 10x 10€ forever in a sense. The quality that the wale experiences will never be reached.

Let’s say you can rank sentience of a living organism. A shrimp has let’s say a sentience of 3 because it’s a rather simple creature. A wale has a sentience of let’s say 400 because it’s a way more evolved creature. If sentience is the determining factor for the right not to get killed then it’s 400:3 = 133. One wale is worth 133 shrimps. In this hypothetical example at least. My point was that in order for the wale to have a higher right to live then shrimps the wale must be so incredible sentient or the shrimps so incredible unsentient (around 0) because it’s 1 vs 800000 for the same meat mass.

yeah but its not one whale vs one shrimp its one whale vs 800000 shrimp. The question is ethical.

No. I just heard it tastes a bit like chicken.

I am asking specifically about these and not ALA because I tested rigorously for about a year to get by with just ALA of flaxseed oil by consuming around 20ml of flaxseed oil a day and having a 1/1 omega3 to omega6 ratio but when I tested my EPA and DHA levels they were very low. I feel like it's hard to get too much health wise, its more about finding a compromise between health and money. Especially if you buy algae oil and not fish oil. So what's a good bang for your buck compromise?

@StarStruck Yeah I agree it’s about having your shit together mostly and light heartedness is probably the result. But still I think if humor isn’t really developed it won’t be as strong as if it were developed. And also if you develop it it can help you to deal with bad emotional states.

I observed such a person as well recently. Only 17 years old but drowning in pussy, talented and emotionally so untouched to act out in whatever way he wants yet funnily enough is still socially very empowered. It's no rocket science why he has such a vibe. This is the way to become like that I think. 1) Heal trauma 2) Have a life purpose 3) Train yourself in find funny things everywhere (Leos video How to be funny)

Does it affect other psychedelics after consumption like tolerance, having to do a higher dose or smth.?

I had some very abnormal psychic feelings/ energy spontaneously a few years ago sometimes. I got the same thing on a recent light-mid 5meo trip. Maybe I can unlock something there. Sadly I am just too mentally unstable to do psychedelics at the moment.

The video made me very hopeful. It reminded me why I do the things that I do and put me in a good mood all day.

You also hit the biceps at Lat Pulldowns so your back won't get the best stimulus if your biceps are tired from the curls. So I would do a different superset with bicep curls. I would do lateral raises more than once a week because the shoulder can recover quickly. You didn't train the side delt before so 2 sets twice a week is fine as a starting point. Otherwise your workout looks good.

You are not a beginner anymore, congrats! Biceps are only hit by barbell rows. It will give you some growth for sure but not optimal growth. You don’t hit your hamstrings much with squats. You want to balance out your hamstring volume with your quad volume otherwise you will develope unbalances which lead to knee problems for example. Balancing out doenst mean 1:1 because the hamstrings don’t need a lot of volume to grow but a bit more is probably a good idea. How about you include some hamstring curls? You only have really tough exercises. If you switched to leg press at one of your squat days and to lat pulldowns on one of your rowing days you would free up some time. Biceps curls, hamstring curls, lateral raises.. are all exercises that can be done with little pause in between sets. Very interesting. The 13 studies with untrained folks aren’t really saying much but the fact that 2 studies with advanced trainees shows the same results pretty cool. There are also genetic differences to consider. Some people get great gains with way way less volume then other people. I have been training once a week for maintenance for the last year. I wonder if I can keep my gains with one workout a week as it is said in the video with 1/9 of the volume.

Is this your approach with your training? Do you have a source for it? Doenst that mostly apply to newbies?

You are missing side delta, biceps, hamstrings maybe (depends how much you hit it with one deadlift set), calves to little. Why do you have such small exercise selection, you would get more out of it if you changed things up. Have you mad good progress over the 2 years you have been training? Because the volume seems a little low for someone who trained (with good gains) for 2 years.