One feels pain and has a brain.

There is no scientific consensus that invertebrates on the evolutionary scale of krill feel pain, and a ganglia isn't exactly what passes as a brain in vertebrates.

That makes for a more complex creature which can feel more and experience the world more.

I think that's highly reductive, especially considering that we continue to discover more and more about mushrooms. We already know that mushrooms are capable of learning, individual decision making, and have a short term memory.

We cant really make a qualified position of their complexity because we still don't understand a lot about mushrooms.

Right now Brent Crude is just 71.28. Oil prices are going down.

Yes, and as soon as it gets cold oil the price of oil will rise once again. It's not like countries are divesting from fossil fuels any time soon.

Additionally Russia does not have the technical ability to fix all of the refineries that Ukraine has been blowing up nor do they have the ability to fix all of the upstream production problems being created.

Russia isn't a technologically deprived nation, and they have one of the largest oil producing and refining operations in the world. They may not be able to repair the damages with imported parts as they would have 5 years ago, but refining tech isn't exactly a new science, or particularly complicated.

Productions of raw products is dropping fast](https://ycharts.com/indicators/russia_crude_oil_production)and those declines are going to both continue and accelerate.

If you examine that chart for the year it seems bad, but if you just click on the scale of 5 years, it's pretty much just average. The important thing to look at is exports, which have been rapidly increasing.

O&G is not going to be propping up Russia's economy for much longer.

I think that's a bit optimistic given that the West is hesitant to actually enforce the embargo, and are equally hesitant to divest from the fossil fuel sector.

We just don't have the spine to actually give an ultimatum of "you can do business with the US, or you can do business with Russia" to countries like India or China. That would be putting the interest of the nation and democracy in general, before the interest of private profit.

To add to what the other two commenters mentioned, it's about intent too.

I don't actually think intent is really important to the moral equation. A species going extinct because of over hunting, and a species going extinct because of habitat destruction are pretty morally equivalent to me.

The animals that die in crop fields die regardless given that the corn harvested

Is that not the same reasoning people use to validate hunting?

then some - to feed other animals which you end up consuming. Thus, it's fewer animals dying overall.

This is getting closer to the ethical imperative question I asked. So it seems that the ethical dilemma is based on preserving as much life as possible?

If so, would it be more ethical to eat the insect as a protein source rather than the soy beans they are feeding upon? If the insects as you say are going to be destroyed during the harvest, would it not be morally justified to gather and eat the insects before or after?

My point isn't to be pedantic or actually implement anything we've talked about. I'm just pointing out the internal contradictions that occur in veganism. Not to try and sway anyone's life choices, but to allow for people to understand that it's logically imperfect, and to not let perfection be the enemy of good.

Accepting for the sake of discussion (but not generally) that hunting is "ethical", hunting is also a privilege. We obviously cannot all eat hunted meat for survival. You've no doubt seen the figures.

The sheer variety of produce we currently experience is also an unsustainable privilege.

Eating something with palm oil is also a privilege, one that destroys natural habitats and leads to excess carbon being released to the atmosphere.

I'm not trying to equivocate the two, but the moral justification is similar.

Here's our belief system: don't kill or hurt animals as much as is possible.

Right, but by what is the ethical delineation between say a krill and a mushroom?

What is the difference between lesser evolved animals and highly evolved plants or microbes?

The Russian economy cannot handle the strain of the war, and they can't keep the economy up by being at war.

Unfortunately, the collapse is very slow. Their national wealth fund is currently their bread basket, and that is maintained by their energy exports. With the price of oil being so high, they should be able to sustain their current economy for a couple years at least. There will be shortages, especially in areas where they were reliant on imports.

However, from what I've read, oil would have to drop to around $60 a barrel to spur an economic collapse swift and bad enough to make the war unsustainable. That or the EU and US would actually have to militaristically enforce the energy embargo.

Because this user will delete comments they don't like. Not that I disagree with this particular statement.

However, I have responded to a specific question they had about the scientific understanding of animals and pain in a previous post, which they removed without responding to.

Lol, not everything is a logical fallacy...

If I had made the original assertion and then moved my position on the matter... That's moving the goal post.

When someone disagrees with the underlying premise of your assertion, it's just a rebuttal.

so if he trained the model himself, would that make the work copyrightable?

I think if he "trained" the model on art he himself created you might have an argument.

In 2023, Sarkozy's attempt to appeal the decision was denied and he has been banned from holding public office for three years and but will still have the option of serving his sentence from home with an electronic bracelet.[182]

A slap on the wrist ten years after you've retired isn't going to persuade anyone not to do crime for a bunch of money and power.

My dude, nothing in that blog supports your claim.

First of all, it's talking about the metallurgy of the 16th century and after, which is after Japan had imported blast furnaces. Secondly, it ignores the amount of labour needed to actually produce refined steel from iron sands, which ultimately dictates the quality of the finished product.

This isnt a debatable topic, any steel made from iron sands before modern electromagnetic sorting contains a large amount of impurities when compared to steel made from rock ore.

Even during WW2 the Japanese had a hard time producing high quality steel even with the use of blast furnaces, because the iron sands contains a large amount of titanium.

This blog which falls over itself trying to engage in revisionist history, can only claim that the quality was "perfectly fine"....not good.