No way I think they're just huge Chris Nolan fans tbh. I actually love that they call it a totem bc it makes it seem like when u put on the headset ur going into a dream. It's a sick reference imo
I love how they try to shift blame onto an algorithm as if they didn't write that algorithm themselves and don't have 100% control over the algorithm.
"Guys we're not bigoted, it's just the algorithm that we created and currently control that's bigoted! Blame the algorithm not us! It's not like we created it and can change it any time to be less racist or anything!"
Incorrect, we have a huge surplus of resources by any measure. We're simply not very good at distributing and allocating those resources, which gives people the illusion of overpopulation.
The world is not overpopulated — resources are just under-distributed.
As for your environmentalist remarks, you're just being pessimistic. Al Gore in "inconvenient truth" predicted the ice caps would be melted by 2017. Didn't happen. Tech will save us from whatever Doomsday scenarios you're imagining, bro: it's already saved us a million times before— and history rhymes and repeats.
The "Modern Religion of Environmentalism" (as Peter Theil refers to it in Zero to One) is really just pessimism in disguise.
I'm an optimist so I'm more of a member of the Technology Religion. ️
Extremely tricky phrasing in the title. Anyone with an iota of knowledge about nutrition knows that plant based diets are not optimal for health.
The article is arguing that plant based diets are best FOR THE ENVIRONMENT which is an extremely tricky argument as well. Easily disproven -- insect based diets would surely b better for the environment but they're not being discussed here
You've severely mischaracterized Jason Fung's work.
>but that doesn't fully explain how there are people who do lots of heavy physical activity yet remain obese and insulin resistant.
The only reason "that doesn't fully explain [x]" is because you've mischaracterized Fung's work in the first place. He discusses a great deal more than what you deem "the overflow hypothesis." And his model does fully explain why there are people who do a ton of physical excercise and are still obese — it's because they eat in such a way that it raises their insulin. I seriously don't even think you've read Fungs work and you're just seizing the opportunity to present your little pet theory, because in reality Fung has a far more developed and rational model of human biology than you've just articulated.
People abuse adderal and Ritalin to study for tests on which they don't "cheat" -- but how is this form of chemical cheating morally superior to simply writing the answers on your thigh?