For all their "christianity", republicans in the US are pretty hypocritical.

Jesus actually teached that everybody deserves to get fed and housed. That everybody deserves healthcare. That people should care for other people in their community. That is essentially the core principles of socialism.

I hope discussions are allowed in this community.

My idea is the following: if people ever set foot on Mars, they will need a continuous food source. It is preferable to be able to produce at least parts of that food on-site, instead of having to import it from Earth.

Now, i've thought about methane-eating bacteria or hydrogen-eating bacteria. They produce organic matter (and thus proteins) from anorganic ingredients (or ingredients that can be produced through technical processes like the Sabatier reaction). This way, anorganic ingredients (water extracted from the environment, hydrogen from electrolysis, CO2) can be turned into a source of proteins.

What do you think?

Is this technically viable?

Is it physiologically viable / healthy?

I'm well aware plants could also produce food. I just wanted to think about a possible alternative.

Me pretending that I don't care so the screen load faster.

For years, there has been a lot of backlash against the "objectification of women", which i can totally understand because it's a "dehumanizing" term that looks at people like objects, not as actual human beings.

But the same is happening with the concept of "workers": If people are referred to as "workers", that means that they are being reduced to their economic function; to their ability to produce.

That is a dehumanizing term. The view should be that people are humans first, and workers second. People deserve rights, and a good life, not because they're workers, but because they're humans. That is how people should be looked at.

Writing for the outlet, Andrew Lisa explained that Americans hold a combined $160.35 trillion in wealth. To the average person, that sounds like quite the payday, but someone in the top 1% probably wouldn’t see it that way. According to Lisa, “The bottom 50% of the country shares less than 3% of that enormous pie, while the most fortunate 10% gorge on nearly all of it.”

There are approximately 340.11 million people in the U.S. If they all shared that $160.35 trillion, each person would come away with $471,465. Not only is that more than the average person could even imagine, but it only compounds when you consider how it would add up for families. For example, a couple would hold a combined $942,930, and a family of four would have $1.89 million. Because, of course, in an ideal world, wealth would be distributed evenly regardless of age.

Instead of even trying to chase jobs that seem out of reach, Gen Z is embracing living like a rat—not showering or leaving the house for days at a time.

The millennial era of “work hard, play harder” and “girl bossing” has given way to a new trend. In China, at least, Gen Zers are proudly calling themselves “rat people”—they’re spending entire days procrastinating in bed, scrolling on their phones, snoozing and ordering take out.

I think it has something to do with "giving up" on the economy: if you have very low chances of landing a job anyways, why even try?

The article does not directly tell us how many people participate in this movement consciously. It does hint, however:

Today, over 4 million American Gen Zers remain jobless. In China, the government has said that as of February, 1 in 6 young people are unemployed.

Wenn man sich die Bevölkerungszahlen weltweit historisch mal anschaut:

Dann sieht man, dass sie in den letzten 200 Jahren stark gewachsen ist.

In der Biologie beschreibt man, dass die Individuenzahl maßgeblich von einer Variable abhängt, und das ist die "biologische Tragfähigkeit": Das ist die Fähigkeit einer Umgebung, Lebewesen zu ernähren.

Diese ist in den letzten 200 Jahren sicherlich gewachsen aufgrund von Düngemittel, Traktoren und Landschaftsformung (Sumpf-Trockenlegungen, ...).

Jedoch sind Menschen keine wilden Tiere, sondern haben großen Hang zu "Sinn" im Leben.

Ich denke daher, dass neben der biologischen Tragfähigkeit eine zweite Kurve wichtig ist: Die, die den "Sinn" im Leben beschreibt. Ich denke, dass es für die weitere Entwicklung der Menschheit maßgeblich sein wird, wieviel Sinn man im Leben finden kann.