If you’re on an apple silicon mac, docker performance can be atrocious if you are emulating. It can also be inconvenient to work with Docker volumes and networks. Python already has pyenv and tools like poetry and rye. Unless there’s a need for Docker, I personally would generally avoid it (tho I do almost all my deployments via docker containers)

I am not remotely arguing against subsistence farming or hunting. Hell even hunting meat yourself that you consume. I wouldn’t do it willingly, but that doesn’t make it inherently immoral.

People are detached from the method of making their meat. It is far more unpleasant than most want to think about. The animals are mistreated. It’s hard to argue they aren’t. That’s really the point

I am underestimating no one. I do not remotely doubt humanity’s capacity for violence and depravity. I am saying that we as people can choose to minimize harm and violence (to each other, animals we farm, etc)

edit: I should also point out that we are FAR past the point of “subsistence” with out meat consumption. We consume more meat now than ever before. There are many costs associated with this to our health, the animals we eat, the planet …

You are literally arguing the definition of the word “cruelty” rather than dealing with the substance. I appreciate the engagement, but this is where I’ll stop. I hope you consider the conflicts in your worldview and work toward improving the world for yourself and the beings that inhabit it.

You do not need meat to survive

Do you buy blood diamonds? Do you buy grass fed beef? Free range eggs? Do you buy fast fashion? You have agency over your choices. Just because you don’t slaughter the animals with your own hands doesn’t mean they are free from blood.

To willingly inflict unnecessary suffering on sentient beings is cruelty. This is a semantic argument that ignores reality

Farm less meat. Farm meat in a way that minimizes suffering.

The systems by which we produce meat are intentional. Just because the people who set them up and benefit from them don’t care doesn’t mean these farms can exist outside morality.

Inflicting pain on an animal to save its life is directly related to your point. Raising animals in objectively painful and squalid conditions so they can be slaughtered is not at all the same.

You are equating saving the life of a human to the torture and slaughtering of an animals. They are not analogous

I am pointing out a dichotomy. I am appealing to your sense of logic. Why do you feel emotionally attached to dogs? Are they smarter than cows? Do they feel more or less? Is being cruel to a dog worse than being cruel to another animal?

By your logic, dog meat farms are fine – amoral. The cruelty does not matter because it’s inherent.

So you are arguing that because a ruthless and uncaring system is responsible for creating massive suffering, it doesn’t matter? It’s awfully convenient that we don’t have to care about cruelty when it’s inherent in the system. People created these systems. We have the capacity to reduce the suffering. Why wouldn’t you want that?

If dogs were raised in these conditions, people would be outraged (see korea, china, puppy mills, etc.) It’s a bit hypocritical, don’t you think?

Please show me that factory farming is overwhelmingly not cruel

Animal agriculture is necessarily cruel. It is efficient. By your logic, this cruelty is negative. It sounds like we are very close to agreeing, frankly

Would you kick a dog in the street? Shoot a cat with a bb gun? These are things that happen with frequency, but I wouldn’t do because I think that causing pain to another animal, senselessly, is a bad thing.

Would you raise a chicken in complete darkness for its whole life? Would you raise a cow in a suffocatingly small pen among its excrement? Impregnate a cow constantly and steal its babies away for meat so you can continue to milk it until it dies? Animals feel pain. They communicate, they suffer, they mourn.

If you can supply an argument that causing suffering of innocent animals is good/doesn’t matter, I’m all ears.

This seems to reinforce my point. Surely 75% of production is not simply wastage otherwise. This is even ignoring the fact that I provided a source showing that deforestation by soy is far less problematic than it used to be.

Can you supply a source for this please?

We have agency over our actions and the ability to reduce the negative impacts we have on the world. We are unique in this ability, and we should exercise it

You can’t appreciate a philosophical argument on a philosophical issue? I suppose that can be valid. It seems to me you don’t want to consider the ideas I have raised in good faith

It’s simple economics. Less demand, less supply.

Can you supply a convincing argument for suffering? We are fully capable of living with much, much less meat production. Why should we continue to inflict pain on things which can experience it? It seems manifest to me

This was the case, and is certainly problematic. Take it a step further – who or what is consuming that soy? Animal agriculture, by and large. Therefore this is an argument for veganism, or at least reducing consumption.

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/victories/amazon-rainforest-deforestation-soy-moratorium-success/