Pigs are as smart as dogs, and have personalities and emotions. I am absolutely a carnivore, but I still balk at eating meat raised through a system that just about tortures intelligent animals.

Anyways: I eat a lot more chicken and plant protein these days.

I don't think you need to attack someone personally, even if you believe they are promoting products that harm people's mental and social health. For most of us following along, it will be enough if you dismantle their arguments. What good does it do for you to harangue them?

I think this guideline: "Assume good faith", applies not just to the people we disagree with, but also the other readers -- meaning, that you can trust that other readers are interested in learning and seeing things correctly.

"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3.""

Sometimes we don’t choose the cheaper automated product, and instead opt for the “human experience”. I don’t imagine this will change any time soon. Humans like being around humans.

So, then, the question is whether the “profits” on the last advance are enough to pay for the next one. We can define a new term, “affordability”, as what % “profit” you can expect from each advance relative to its cost, telling us whether it becomes relatively easier or harder to continue to advance.

Huh. No, in the scientific literature, this isn't obscure language. This is normal language there.

This... kinda comes across like going to France and objecting that everyone's speaking French.

Against an invading army, sure. Against the cartel and drug-running, ok, I can see some reasoning there, although I'm not sure we're ever going to win the War on Drugs. But with regards to immigration, I don't see a solid argument that we need strong border control in order to "keep Americans safe". Studies show that immigrants commit crime at a lower rate, right? So how would stronger border control keep us safe? Economically, immigration helps us, enriches us. Culturally, also.

People joke "yep, gotta protect us from that Mexican grandma selling tamales out of her car", and I didn't want to throw that at you. But I don't think it's entirely that far from the truth.

There is a long and storied history of humans being afraid of foreigners. "They speak different, they have different values, they worship a different god. How can I know they're safe?"

But we humans often have more in common than differences, and cultural differences usually soften after a few decades in this big Melting Pot.

There are people who have interest in selling fear and distrust, even if that fear and distrust ends up hurting us as a society. When I hang out with people from other countries, I don't see this fear justified. Usually, I just see other people, who want to work and live and create art and fall in love and have a family, just like the rest of us. And if you've got legitimate fears, please bring 'em.. just do try to be careful that the fear is solidly based in reality, not just something sold by Fox News.

...wow.

Is this a serious question?

> Your idea is borderline insane. ... someone on the left who lacks fundamental self preservation instincts ...

Huh. Well, checking, checking... I don't feel insane. I'm feeling pretty calm, rational, and evidence-driven.

The two big risks I see from large-scale immigration is this: - people who don't agree with liberal secular democracy. E.g., religious fanatics who want to enact a theocracy. That's all good; I'm fine with screening those out. - economic damage. But here, again, the economic data shows that immigration distinctly benefits the US, mostly through economies of scale, but also partly through higher-than-average rates of college attendance and entrepreneurship in 1st- and 2nd-generation immigrants, leading to higher earnings and innovation.

There definitely are also localized *negative* impacts from immigration, particularly for overwhelmed healthcare and education systems. These do not outweigh the national net benefits - meaning, the US still benefits as a whole - but I can understand that people living in those areas or culturally affiliated with them would be anti-immigration. But these are problems we could very much tackle if we wanted to: the federal government has more than enough resources to help these locales, while still getting the long-term and nation-wide benefits from increased immigration.

So: no, I flatly deny that I'm not concerned with self-preservation. Yes, I care about compassion and fairness, but it's quite reasonable to ask that fairness and compassion be balanced with self-preservation. And yet - even after considering self-preservation, we still benefit from increased immigration.

True, but again, scientists are saying that we're already putting massive strain on our ecological resources, and the strain is only increasing. Not just climate change, but ocean acidification, modification of biogeochemical balances, habitat destruction, etc.

We are at genuine risk of accidentally wrecking the ecosystems we depend on.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458

It makes sense to me to say that they do not fall under US laws and US jurisdiction, and their children likewise.