Considering what we have done and are doing to the planet and life on it, we should have better just put that rock right back where it was.

But eating 370,000 calories per day WOULD change your body drastically.

Some just use their hands…

Thanks, I had to think of this one too.

GNU Terry Pratchett

Yes, but:

Horses are ridden by humans so the horses have to carry not only extra weight of the human, but also the saddle, gear, human’s water, etc.

Horses are mandated to stop periodically and mandated to have periodic stopped vet checks (rules now state that vet stoppage times are subtracted from Horse times)

Humans are NOT mandated to stop periodically and/or have health checks

There are places allowed for humans to have refreshments along the race.

https://afan.ottenheimer.com/articles/myth_of_persistent_hunting

Here is an article that shows some contra points to the theorie, in case you want to have a look at that too.

The evidence for it is rather shallow, realy.

It’s pretty clear that persistent hunting is one of those myths concocted by someone to justify a world view that humans are “more special” than animals and has no more scientific basis than the “science” coming out of the Disney movies in the 1950s about nature.

I quite liked Astrums cover of Voy 1 and 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbl_4TnPIGM&t=1059

Look at it, it’s cuts as hell. (I’ll hide it behind a spoiler tag. A phobia is a phobia, after all)

That would be nice, wouldn’t it? I am less optimistic, given the way the world is going. It it would be nice.

The declaration:

The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness

Which animals have the capacity for conscious experience? While much uncertainty remains, some points of wide agreement have emerged.

First, there is strong scientific support for attributions of conscious experience to other mammals and to birds.

Second, the empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including reptiles, amphibians, and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans, and insects).

Third, when there is a realistic possibility of conscious experience in an animal, it is irresponsible to ignore that possibility in decisions affecting that animal. We should consider welfare risks and use the evidence to inform our responses to these risks.

Only the it’s not companies but entities which include China, the former soviet union and the Russian federation. This is such a fucking missleading title the guardian ran here.

https://carbonmajors.org/briefing/The-Carbon-Majors-Database-26913

I second this, it seems a bit too much on the nose to be real.

Edit: Omg, it’s real.

Actually, I believe tigers themselves have fake eyes on the back of their ears

Then it’s even more embarrassing that they fell for the masked workers ;-)

Minus one

That’s how I felt when I tried to read Judith Butler

I wanted to fact check you on this, and you speak true.

https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries

Makes me question my willingness to donate money to them.

Thanks for the fix.

The link on that website doesn’t work for me.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32589139/

It has a summary in plain language after the very technical abstract.

If you are just looking for an article instead of a study it’s easy enoth to come up with plenty of them if you Google for it.

IDK, I don’t think there’s a huge gulf between our viewpoints. And thank you for the ultramarathon study in particular; it was really interesting.

While we still have somewhat different viewpoints I have to say that I enyoed the exchange. It’s nice to see interact with people that are open to overthinking their position and I have some angles to consider that I have not been are of before. So thank you for that :-)