Ways to Reduce Carbon Footprint (aside from Veganism)

[Red]

While Veganism is easily the biggest single thing a person can do to reduce their carbon footprint, that by no means is the only thing a person can do, nor does it justify not being considerate about the rest of one's carbon footprint, and being excessively wasteful because they feel justified in doing so as a result of their Veganism.

We are currently working on an article on the Wiki that delves into other ways to reduce your carbon footprint aside from veganism, which largely entails some small lifestyle changes and personal infrastructure, such as avoiding foods with disproportionate carbon footprints, such as palm oil and rice, taking public transit if possible, to even investing in things like a low flow showerhead. While it may be an adjustment or even inconvenience at first, not only does it reduce your footprint, but it also ends up being cheaper than the standard option.

Here is our article: philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/Other Ways to Reduce Carbon Footprint.

Still a lot of work needs to be done on it, sources need to be added, and breakdown of certain suggestions would be in order. Any comments, questions, or criticisms? Let us know, so they can be addressed in the article.

[teo123]

That is important. Many people are worried about global warming, so they replace cow's milk with rice milk. Sorry, that's not helping. The production of rice, as it is done today, also emits a lot of methane.
There are also other ways to reduce your impact on antibiotic resistance (arguably a bigger problem than global warming) aside from veganism. Around 0.5% of antibiotics today are used in plant agriculture, almost all of them in vineyards. The way grapes are grown today also causes superbacteria (less than egg industry, sure, but still a lot) because antibiotics stay in the ground forever, causing superbacteria forever. And it's just a matter of time before the genes for antibiotic resistance in bacteria that attack plants spread to the bacteria that attack humans via horizontal gene transfer. The problem with bacteria is that they can conjugate with their rather distant relatives. If you are worried about superbacteria, you should not drink wine, for about the same reason you should not eat eggs.

[Red]

Jeez Teo it's hard to tell when you're baiting or not. I'm going with you are.

That is important. Many people are worried about global warming, so they replace cow's milk with rice milk. Sorry, that's not helping. The production of rice, as it is done today, also emits a lot of methane.

Rice milk isn't ideal (oat and soy appear to be) but saying that someone who drinks rice milk is causing as much environmental harm as someone who drinks cow's milk is absurd. If people like rice milk and they drink that over cow's milk, that's a massive step in the right direction.

There are also other ways to reduce your impact on antibiotic resistance (arguably a bigger problem than global warming) aside from veganism.

Disease breakout may be more likely due to climate change from infrastructure collapse, which may lead to superbugs. If these bacteria become more resistant, climate change will just worsen matters. And that's not even considering all the other shit that climate change will bring out, from famines, resource scarcity, and widespread cases of heatstroke.

Though knowing you, you probably deny that these will occur.

If you are worried about superbacteria, you should not drink wine, for about the same reason you should not eat eggs.

You should also avoid eggs because of the suffering they cause to hens and male chicks, and their higher than average carbon footprint.

[teo123]

Rice milk isn't ideal (oat and soy appear to be) but saying that someone who drinks rice milk is causing as much environmental harm as someone who drinks cow's milk is absurd.

I'd like that to be true, but it doesn't seem to be. What environmental harm does milk cause aside from methane emissions?
Do you perhaps mistakenly think that milk causes superbacteria? Because it doesn't, less than 10% of antibiotics are used in the dairy industry, if not less than 5%.

Disease breakout may be more likely due to climate change from infrastructure collapse, which may lead to superbugs.

Infrastructure collapse would, if anything, cause diseases to spread less, rather than more. It's the easy travel that enables global pandemics. Spanish Flu was made possible by massive international travel due to World War 1. COVID-19 was made possible by globalization.
I thought you were pro-lockdown.

And that's not even considering all the other shit that climate change will bring out, from famines, resource scarcity, and widespread cases of heatstroke.

Plausible, but that's just speculation. For a pandemic of superbacteria, you don't need to imagine anything: we have seen what happens in today's society when a pandemic comes.

their higher than average carbon footprint

Eggs do not have a high carbon footprint, because grains (that chickens are fed with) are incredibly efficient, and feed conversion ratio for them is less than 2.

[Red]

I'd like that to be true, but it doesn't seem to be. What environmental harm does milk cause aside from methane emissions?

Aside from the fact that rice has a much lower emissions footprint than cows milk:

milk emissions.png

What do you mean "aside from methane emissions"? That's the main metric we're looking at. If you want, we can also look at water and land use, which rice still beats out dairy.

I do tell more environmentally conscious people to try not eating so much rice, but there's no reason to demonize it to the extent that you do. It isn't just dairy either, since those cows are also used in beef, which has a much higher carbon footprint than both of them, meaning you need to combine the dairy and beef to get an accurate picture.

Do you perhaps mistakenly think that milk causes superbacteria? Because it doesn't, less than 10% of antibiotics are used in the dairy industry, if not less than 5%.

And those cows are also the ones in the beef industries which also get a lot of antibiotics. Rice requires antibiotics too, but I have not seen anything to suggest they're used anywhere near as much as they are in the beef and dairy industries. Even 5% antibiotic use is still significant.

Infrastructure collapse would, if anything, cause diseases to spread less, rather than more. It's the easy travel that enables global pandemics. Spanish Flu was made possible by massive international travel due to World War 1. COVID-19 was made possible by globalization.

You are aware that global travel is like, one small piece of it?

Then how do you explain the fact that when natural disasters break out in poor countries, disease tends to break out? Haiti's infrastructure took a serious hit in 2010 from the Earthquake, causing a massive outbreak of cholera.

It should be obvious why infrastructure collapse leads to disease outbreak, especially diseases that are transmitted through waste. Ask ChatGPT, I'm not going to bother explaining this to you.

I thought you were pro-lockdown.

I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of replying to your obvious bait, so just stop.

Plausible, but that's just speculation. For a pandemic of superbacteria, you don't need to imagine anything: we have seen what happens in today's society when a pandemic comes.

I think the experts in the field have very good reasons to be concerned, and I'm gonna take their word for it over you, Teo. We're already seeing examples of it play out with thousands dying in heatwaves, and this is only the beginning. We can still ignore it for the time being since we still have air conditioners, but eventually the heat will make it a necessity for most people.

Read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heat_ ... _You_First

Eggs do not have a high carbon footprint, because grains (that chickens are fed with) are incredibly efficient, and feed conversion ratio for them is less than 2.

I'm talking about the overall production of eggs. It's still low relative to other animal products, but it's often much more resource-intensive than just eating the grains themselves.

[teo123]

It isn't just dairy either, since those cows are also used in beef, which has a much higher carbon footprint than both of them, meaning you need to combine the dairy and beef to get an accurate picture.

How? If anything, the fact that those cows also produce beef, rather than just milk, lowers the amount of methane per liter of milk, rather than increasing it.

And those cows are also the ones in the beef industries which also get a lot of antibiotics.

Er... No. Around 70% of antibiotics today are used in animal agriculture, and around 90% of that 70% is in the egg industry. That means that 70%*90%=63% of all antibiotics are used in the egg industry, and at most 10%*70%=7% of antibiotics are given to cows. Furthermore, I'd expect that most of that 7% actually goes to pigs.

Rice requires antibiotics too

I am not aware of that. As far as I know, nearly all antibiotics which are used in the plant agriculture are used in vineyards.

Even 5% antibiotic use is still significant.

It isn't. It's almost nothing compared to 63% of antibiotics which are used in the egg industry. It probably has even less of an effect on antibiotic resistance in humans than the 0.5% of antibiotics which are used in vineyards, since antibiotic use in vineyards is exceptionally dangerous because antibiotics there stay in the ground forever, forever causing antibiotic resistance.

Then how do you explain the fact that when natural disasters break out in poor countries, disease tends to break out?

Yes, Red, sometimes money is life. But when it comes to global pandemics, it isn't. Infrastructure collapse would make a global pandemic such as the Spanish Flu or COVID-19 unlikely if not impossible. Poor countries fared a lot better in Spanish Flu and COVID-19 than rich countries.

I think the experts in the field have very good reasons to be concerned, and I'm gonna take their word for it over you, Teo.

Actual experts in global problems, such as economists, do not tend to be overly concerned about global warming. If anything, they are concerned about nonsensible policies made to address global warming. Banning fossil fuels would lead to more people dying from heat waves, because air conditioners need energy which they mostly get indirectly from coal. Furthermore, many countries have introduced whole parts of the government that are supposed to deal with global warming, but those parts of the government tend to be very untransparent and are often corrupt.

We're already seeing examples of it play out with thousands dying in heatwaves

You need to consider that extreme cold kills many more people than extreme heat.

It's still low relative to other animal products, but it's often much more resource-intensive than just eating the grains themselves.

Eggs are around 2 times more resource-intensive than grains, but you cannot live solely on grains. You need to eat fruits and vegetables, which have a much higher carbon footprint than eggs do.

[Red]

Dammit Teo, why are you always so dumb? Why can't you be bothered to even do as much as a semblance of fact checking for any of your claims?

It isn't just dairy either, since those cows are also used in beef, which has a much higher carbon footprint than both of them, meaning you need to combine the dairy and beef to get an accurate picture.

How? If anything, the fact that those cows also produce beef, rather than just milk, lowers the amount of methane per liter of milk, rather than increasing it.

What the hell are you talking about? Why would that lower the amount of methane per liter of milk?

Er... No. Around 70% of antibiotics today are used in animal agriculture, and around 90% of that 70% is in the egg industry. That means that 70%*90%=63% of all antibiotics are used in the egg industry, and at most 10%*70%=7% of antibiotics are given to cows. Furthermore, I'd expect that most of that 7% actually goes to pigs.

If you agree that antibiotic resistance is a major problem (and in your view more important than climate change) wouldn't you agree that any excessive use of it should be stopped? Even if we say the beef and dairy industries use 3%, that's still quite a lot of antibiotics being wasted.

I am not aware of that. As far as I know, nearly all antibiotics which are used in the plant agriculture are used in vineyards.

OK so why are you saying that someone who drinks rice milk causes as much harm as someone who drinks regular milk, especially since you place more emphasis on antibiotic resistance than climate change?

It isn't. It's almost nothing compared to 63% of antibiotics which are used in the egg industry. It probably has even less of an effect on antibiotic resistance in humans than the 0.5% of antibiotics which are used in vineyards, since antibiotic use in vineyards is exceptionally dangerous because antibiotics there stay in the ground forever, forever causing antibiotic resistance.

Just because one is much less does not mean it isn't significant Teo, I figured that even you would know that (again, even 3% is still significant; that's still a LOT of antibiotics). If beef and dairy served some sort of useful purpose maybe it can be overlooked, but when it contributes even more to antibiotic resistance (and not to mention how much worse beef and dairy are for climate change) for no real benefit, it's something that must be eschewed.

Yes, Red, sometimes money is life. But when it comes to global pandemics, it isn't. Infrastructure collapse would make a global pandemic such as the Spanish Flu or COVID-19 unlikely if not impossible.

You are aware of things being referred to as endemic, yes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_(epidemiology)

It doesn't need to spread via airplanes and such to cause significant damage in a community, especially considering that these diseases are already present in many countries (cholera, tuberculosis, malaria). Rich countries have better infrastructure, but poor countries are going to be seriously screwed.

You can't just get rid of infrastructure altogether either since if you did, millions of people would die. Shutting down airports wouldn't result in the same level of death compared to hospitals, plumbing, electricity, etc. Again, ask ChatGPT. I can't be bothered to explain something so simple and so obvious.

Poor countries fared a lot better in Spanish Flu and COVID-19 than rich countries.

Can you just not Google or something?
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases ... -rich-ones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_f ... _the_globe

It's not really fare to compare the Spanish Flu either (though it does seem to have hurt poor countries a little more than rich ones) considering that the infrastructure back then was only somewhat of an improvement compared to nothing, and countries in Europe were still recovering from WW1.

Actual experts in global problems, such as economists, do not tend to be overly concerned about global warming.

Man Teo, you really have learned nothing huh? Always going with whatever confirms your worldview, asking economists on their opinion about something completely unrelated their field.

If anything, they are concerned about nonsensible policies made to address global warming. Banning fossil fuels would lead to more people dying from heat waves, because air conditioners need energy which they mostly get indirectly from coal.

Unless you powered them with clean energy, particularly nuclear power. I know you know this and I think you're just baiting arguments at this point.

Furthermore, many countries have introduced whole parts of the government that are supposed to deal with global warming, but those parts of the government tend to be very untransparent and are often corrupt.

Well yeah maybe in shithole countries like Croatia, but other more developed countries are actually concerned about it and are making honest efforts to fight warming.

You need to consider that extreme cold kills many more people than extreme heat.

I don't know about that, but if that is true, that's going to change very soon. This is only the beginning. In the book I linked, it's gives examples of thousands of people dying during heatwaves over the past few decades.

Eggs are around 2 times more resource-intensive than grains, but you cannot live solely on grains. You need to eat fruits and vegetables, which have a much higher carbon footprint than eggs do.

On average they don't. You also need to consider the poultry as well in the production, not just eggs. You also can't ignore the ethical argument dude, hens suffering is pretty bad, though from the looks of it you're avoiding talking about it.

Ideally, we should be focusing our diets on nuts, legumes, and grains, which are all cheap and have all your necessary nutrients, and have low carbon footprints (nuts in particular might be better for the environment since the trees they grow on absorb CO2).

[teo123]

Why can't you be bothered to even do as much as a semblance of fact checking for any of your claims?

Well, right now, my mentor is pressuring me to finish my Bachelor Thesis as soon as possible, so I don't have much time to do fact-checking. My mentor is constantly asking me to add something or edit something, and he is demanding me to do that now. In my opinion, he is demanding way too much. If 4'000 lines of code and 29 pages of documentation, plus the fact that my program is used not only at my university, but also at a college in Argentine, is not enough, then nothing is. This is just a Bachelor Thesis, not a PhD.

What the hell are you talking about? Why would that lower the amount of methane per liter of milk?

Let's say there are two factories, both of which emit 100 tons of CO2 per year. Both of those factories produce 10 cars per year. However, one of those factories also produces 5 bicycles per year. The factory that produces bicycles emits less CO2 per car.

But that's all quite a bit irrelevant since, as far as I know, old cows don't end up as beef, they end up as pet food. There are different breeds of cows, some breeds are used as milk cows and some are used as beef cows. Just like there are different types of corn, some of which are used as food for animals (the high-fiber ones) and some are used as food for humans.

Also, I am not even sure methane causes global warming. Methane emissions reached their peak in 1970s, yet the temperature continued to increase, which proves it is not the main reason for global warming. And the absoprtion spectre of methane almost entirely coincides with the absorption spectre of water, and there is much more water in the atmosphere than there is methane. As far as I know, the calculations that try to estimate how potent methane is as a greenhouse gas never take that effect into account. Maybe both rice milk and cow's milk are demonized for no good reason.

If you agree that antibiotic resistance is a major problem (and in your view more important than climate change) wouldn't you agree that any excessive use of it should be stopped? Even if we say the beef and dairy industries use 3%, that's still quite a lot of antibiotics being wasted.

Because wasting resources to solve some insignificant problem is not only not morally virtuous, it is also morally objectionable. We know what the biggest causes of superbacteria are: it's the egg industry (because the use of antibiotics there is massive) and vineyards (because the way antibiotics are being used there is very irresponsible). Wasting resources on solving the use of antibiotics elsewhere is morally objectionable, because those resources should be spent on solving the problem of egg industry and vineyards.

OK so why are you saying that someone who drinks rice milk causes as much harm as someone who drinks regular milk, especially since you place more emphasis on antibiotic resistance than climate change?

I am saying that he causes approximately as much harm.

If beef and dairy served some sort of useful purpose maybe it can be overlooked, but when it contributes even more to antibiotic resistance (and not to mention how much worse beef and dairy are for climate change) for no real benefit, it's something that must be eschewed.

But we don't know whether cows serve some useful purpose. Like I've said elsewhere, while only the Rhizobium bacteria (in the clover roots) produce amino-acids, they don't produce all 20 amino-acids used by plants and animals. They rely on other plants and animals to convert the amino-acids they produce to other amino-acids. And cows are particularly suited for that since they have very few essential amino-acids, yet they produce all 20 of them. How do you know cows are not a part of some important ecological cycle we are unaware of?

Can you just not Google or something?

Dude, non-pharmaceutical interventions (which you believe in) are based on two premises:
1. Countries with less travel will suffer from COVID-19 less.
2. Shutting down businesses which are deemed non-essential makes people travel less. (And, that's, if you ask me, a very questionable premise. If that's true, how it is that deaths from car accidents increased in 2020? How it is that, in 2020, many mobile telephone networks were overwhelmed? If people stayed home, I'd expect, if anything, that landline telephone networks get overwhelmed, rather than mobile networks.)
And even if we assume travel has no effect on the spread of COVID-19 (which is an insane assertion), poorer countries suffering more from COVID-19 than rich countries is still implausible because COVID-19 almost exclusively kills the elderly, and poorer countries have lower life expectancy.

the infrastructure back then was only somewhat of an improvement compared to nothing

Um, no. It was not exactly medieval times. Trains in the US were about as fast and cheap as they are now. The primary difference is that trains are more safe now, but that's quite a bit irrelevant.

asking economists on their opinion about something completely unrelated their field.

Then who is qualified? Climate scientists tend to be profoundly ignorant on social sciences. If anybody is qualified to estimate the economic damages done by climate change and by policies made to address climate change, then it is the economists.

Well yeah maybe in shithole countries like Croatia

Well, I think that Croatia is the best country to live today.

In the book I linked, it's gives examples of thousands of people dying during heatwaves over the past few decades.

But how do you know that's due to global warming? The Earth getting half a degree warmer is unlikely to make a huge difference.

[Red]

Well, right now, my mentor is pressuring me to finish my Bachelor Thesis as soon as possible, so I don't have much time to do fact-checking. My mentor is constantly asking me to add something or edit something, and he is demanding me to do that now.

So perhaps you should finish that instead of baiting arguments on the internet. I think I should stop responding to you since you're obviously procrastinating on your thesis.

Let's say there are two factories, both of which emit 100 tons of CO2 per year. Both of those factories produce 10 cars per year. However, one of those factories also produces 5 bicycles per year. The factory that produces bicycles emits less CO2 per car.

So the factory that produces bicycles emits overall less CO2?

But that's all quite a bit irrelevant since, as far as I know, old cows don't end up as beef, they end up as pet food. There are different breeds of cows, some breeds are used as milk cows and some are used as beef cows. Just like there are different types of corn, some of which are used as food for animals (the high-fiber ones) and some are used as food for humans.

Cows are almost always sent to slaughter as soon as their milk production drops, which happens when they're still fairly young at five to six years of age, even though they're able to live to about 20.

Also, I am not even sure methane causes global warming. Methane emissions reached their peak in 1970s, yet the temperature continued to increase, which proves it is not the main reason for global warming. And the absoprtion spectre of methane almost entirely coincides with the absorption spectre of water, and there is much more water in the atmosphere than there is methane. As far as I know, the calculations that try to estimate how potent methane is as a greenhouse gas never take that effect into account. Maybe both rice milk and cow's milk are demonized for no good reason.

OK yeah I'll trust you Teo on whether or not methane is a contributor to global warming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#A ... ate_change
When are you just going to stop going with your intuition, and stop assuming you have the answer to everything? Why do you just keep on assuming you know more than experts, and that they were so dumb they made a mistake that even you were able to find it?

No one is saying methane is the main contributor, just that it's one of the larger ones. Just because methane is lower than it once was doesn't mean it isn't still a problem, and other greenhouse emissions, while less potent, are much more abundant, particularly CO2. Just stop already Teo, go finish your bachelor's thesis.

Because wasting resources to solve some insignificant problem is not only not morally virtuous, it is also morally objectionable. We know what the biggest causes of superbacteria are: it's the egg industry (because the use of antibiotics there is massive) and vineyards (because the way antibiotics are being used there is very irresponsible). Wasting resources on solving the use of antibiotics elsewhere is morally objectionable, because those resources should be spent on solving the problem of egg industry and vineyards.

Well let's see, the beef and dairy industries are also responsible for the majority of animal agriculture's carbon footprint, causes huge amounts of suffering to the cows and their calves, sell food that is incredibly unhealthy, uses a huge amount of our crops, and top of all that, it has it uses antibiotics excessiely...

Teo, why are you deliberately being myopic on this? Yes, antibiotic resistance in animal agriculture is mostly found in the egg industry (and we should tell people to stop eating them), but you are for some reason ignoring climate change and the ethical arguments. Very strange coming from someone who is vegetarian.

I am saying that he causes approximately as much harm.

And you'd be wrong, as evidenced by the graph I showed, and the fact that rice doesn't use antibitoics to the extent that beef and dairy do, and the ethical argument on top of all that.

But we don't know whether cows serve some useful purpose. Like I've said elsewhere, while only the Rhizobium bacteria (in the clover roots) produce amino-acids, they don't produce all 20 amino-acids used by plants and animals. They rely on other plants and animals to convert the amino-acids they produce to other amino-acids. And cows are particularly suited for that since they have very few essential amino-acids, yet they produce all 20 of them. How do you know cows are not a part of some important ecological cycle we are unaware of?

Yeah, I'm sure those cows are really important to their ecosystems of industrial farms where they almost never see another species of animal (aside from humans) or even the light of day.

You are also aware that modern cattle originated around the Mediterranean, right? And that human advacement has brought them all over the world and are now only kept around to satiate our gluttony for their flesh? If anything, if you want to argue from ecology, you can say that introducing cows to environments they didn't evolve into would be a net harm.

Rhizobium aren't the only microorganism that "produce" amino acids. E-coli does, as well as mushrooms and fungi, as well as various species of Bacillus and Pseudomonas. Producing amino acids is a very common trait. And cows are not the only ones who can digest these amino acids.

I think I know what's happening here Teo, you went back to eating beef and/or dairy, and now you're trying to convince yourself that eating beef/dairy isn't all that big of a deal and are trying to rationalize your way to a conclusion just as you would for everything else. Admit it, dude.

Dude, non-pharmaceutical interventions (which you believe in) are based on two premises:
1. Countries with less travel will suffer from COVID-19 less.
2. Shutting down businesses which are deemed non-essential makes people travel less.

TRAVEL INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT THE ONLY TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE. I'm not arguing this bullshit with you.

If that's true, how it is that deaths from car accidents increased in 2020?

This was very likely due to complacency from the drivers that were on the road, figuring that since there were fewer cars and probably less enforcement, they don't have to buckle up, follow speed limit, stop at stop signs, etc.

How it is that, in 2020, many mobile telephone networks were overwhelmed? If people stayed home, I'd expect, if anything, that landline telephone networks get overwhelmed, rather than mobile networks.

More people use mobile networks now than landlines.

And even if we assume travel has no effect on the spread of COVID-19 (which is an insane assertion),

There you go putting words into my mouth. Acutally, I'm sure you know I'm not arguing this and you're just baiting arguments out of boredom and as a way to avoid your responsibilities.

poorer countries suffering more from COVID-19 than rich countries is still implausible because COVID-19 almost exclusively kills the elderly, and poorer countries have lower life expectancy.

Welp, the data says otherwise. Yes you're right on that but in rich countries people have access to higher quality healthcare, and- you know what, forget it, you're not going to listen.

Um, no. It was not exactly medieval times. Trains in the US were about as fast and cheap as they are now. The primary difference is that trains are more safe now, but that's quite a bit irrelevant.

No way you're actually this dumb. Not possible.

Then who is qualified? Climate scientists tend to be profoundly ignorant on social sciences. If anybody is qualified to estimate the economic damages done by climate change and by policies made to address climate change, then it is the economists.

Economists are ignorant of the natural sciences in order to really understand the physical real world effects of climate change. I could explain this to you but I'm not going to waste time doing it since you'll make me regret it with a 40 page long debate where you don't learn.

Well, I think that Croatia is the best country to live today.

Mhm yeah sure, no doubt about that.

And I thought the stereotype was that Americans thought their country was the best on Earth. Looks like the Croatian education system is also indoctrinating its people into blind patriotism.

But how do you know that's due to global warming? The Earth getting half a degree warmer is unlikely to make a huge difference.

Again you misunderstand and remain ignorant of the science.

Teo, I'm not going to argue anymore on this topic with you. Maybe once you finish your Bachelor's Thesis which likely won't be until the end of the year.

[Red]

@teo123 I deleted your post because first of all I don't believe you've actually finished your thesis, and second of all I am not going to waste the next four months of my life arguing with you, especially given the idiocy of your arguments, showing you really have learned absolutely nothing. You're a lost cause Teo, and I don't think there's any changing that at this point. Even if I were to by some miracle talk you out of climate change denial, anti-COVID measures, and ignorant nationalism, and correct you on basic science, it's all in vain, since tomorrow you're going to jump on some other insane/fringe/incredibly harmful position.

Charitably, you know your arguments are dumb and weak and you're just baiting for entertainment (as well as shoehorning in irrelevant brags about things no one asked or cares about), in which case, get a job and do something productive with your life. If you really have finished your thesis for undergrad, that shouldn't be too difficult.