Im going to say the Harvard estimate is probably pretty close. It is probably a bit higher than what you would need on a day to day basis for survival, but enough to help your body maintain some muscle over the long term.
Its not enough for someone wanting to be fit or muscular though.
That diet doctor recommendation feels wildly high for a “what is actually necessary” request. Like 2 g/kg is near the target for bodybuilders.
It might be a good idea for many people to hit that to maximize muscle development in preparation for aging (where muscle deterioration is chief concern), but not a good estimate for anyone who isnt worried about that.
They also say two further things which ding their credibility:
First is this comment: “Because there appears to be a limited amount of protein that can be absorbed at a meal, it may be best to evenly space out your protein throughout the day, if possible.”
This is not really a concern even for bodybuilders. You dont need to overthink spacing.
Second is the comment about vegetarians/vegans. Protein intake is not a huge concern for the average vegetarian, if you are not aiming for that unnecessarily high target - as long as they are regularly including some protein in their meals (soy, beans, nuts, eggs). Even for non-vegetarians, that higher target requires you to monitor of your protein intake to hit it regularly with overeating.
This is a classic organizational problem. Different teams have opposing priorities and work against each other (or even against the overall good for the people thet service).
In general, I disagree with you. I think the two things you fixated on (souless architecture and rentals) are bad approaches to density, but you will notice that for the most part, this is the form of “density” that places who are notoriously bad at density do. Its what happens when we deliberately regulate ourselves into not allowing other options.
There is a pretty crazy amount of “density” in well bit, low rise structures - though actually I dont personally hate on towers as a concept.
Also, i would like to highlight that a very small portion of people are living in newly built homes, and only a small portion are really able to make meaningful design impact. Most just buy the builder-grade suburban model home. The idea that suburban single family homes are some design panacae is just wrong.
I’d also say, the fundamental point of it (that finite cost in life is worth the chance at infinite reward or avoiding infinite punishment) is pretty abysmal morally. Pretty easy to justify atrocities for any concept of God that way as a rational approach to life.
This is really the primary death knell for the argument. Yes, there billions and billions of “god” variations - but at least believing in one might get you a (near-zero) better chance at a decent afterlife.
…until you realize the category of “Gods who dont want your worship”.
Russia criticizing the US nuclear arms policy is rich, given how they have both loosened their requirements on when they would use nuclear weapons, and have repeatedly and consistently have used nuclear threats as a military strategy since their invasion of Ukraine.
I guess they have to take this position as the US at least has working armaments and not just rusted, unmaintained, weapons.
It does take a bit of preparation for the lifestyle that we are not ready for. Ways to store and prepare food, maintain temperatures, get information, illuminate spaces.
Was learning about the requirements it be a baker in Germany - something like 3 years of school to work at a bakery, 6 years to own one. Crazy.
Sounds like an easy bread pudding :)
I think the better solution is to simply set up a filter for the word “Unsubscribe”.
My process:
If only sex was as simple as a selection of gametes. There is a wide range of chromosomal, hormonal, genitalia, and physiological variation in human sex characteristics, and it is much more common than you think. And that is ignoring much more subtle variation and overlap between the sexes - cognitive, emotional, psychological - that are just as much a part of the natural variation of human sex as any other.
And before you come back with an argument about some rhetoric about “conditions” or what ever - all of evolution starts as a rare variation that becomes common in a certain population. Certain eye colors are nearly the same rarity.
Finally, there are plenty of animals that have individuals that do not reproduce. Examples are naked mole rats. We aren’t a eusocial species, but it isn’t to say we don’t have some very early characteristics of it.
Money. Donate. There isn’t a near term world where money won’t matter in giving you a voice, so you should use it.
Things that have been improving:
The reality is, most of the world by many metrics is getting better over time. There are things that threaten this (climate change and increasing authorititarianism) and it has slowed, but overall we are still generally positive trajectory wise. In fact, I would say that in most metrics that matter, we are improving.
Limited visibility, limited comprehension, limited attention, and limited risk aversion.
No, most of us are broke because we insist on ensuring that suburban mcmansions are the only places to really live. When you spend 30% on driving and 40% on housing, suddenly you are broke.
I mean, you can say the same about every form of entertainment. Music? Majority is crap. Movies? Crap. Sports? Crap. Books? Crap. Video games? Crap.
The lack of specificty is also a strategy used to bolster support for deregulation.
Simply say “we are eliminating regulations” , and dont ever talk about what you are deregulating, because actually many regulations are a net good for society and were implemented for a reason. Preventing companies from dumping poison is a regulation.