#and reducing poor people’s means of food productions | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 3 months

Text

You may remember Xi Van Fleet. She's the Chinese immigrant who gave a speech to Loudoun County Public School warning about the teaching of concepts relating to Critical Race Theory and seeing alarming similarities to her experience with the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.

In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler’s Holocaust in the 1940s.

How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth — and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

We have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the government for more fish in the future.

If the redistributionists were serious, what they would want to distribute is the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others. That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of politicians who want to exercise power, and to get the votes of people who are dependent on them.

-- Thomas Sowell on the Fallacy of Redistribution

Free stuff doesn't come from nowhere.

"I have never understood why it is 'greed' to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." -- Thomas Sowell

One of the big myths about Thanksgiving is that the starving pilgrims were saved by the natives teaching them to farm. That's untrue.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/thanksgiving-lessons-about-the-failures-of-socialism-and-the-success-of-private-property-and-capitalism/

The first Thanksgiving was a celebration of abundance after a period of socialism and starvation. The members of the Plymouth colony had arrived in the New World with a plan for collective property ownership. Reflecting the current opinion of the aristocratic class in the 1620s, their charter called for farmland to be worked communally and for the harvests to be shared.

You probably will not be surprised to hear that the colonists starved. Men were unwilling to work to feed someone else’s children. Women were unwilling to cook for other women’s husbands. Fields lay largely untilled and unplanted.

Famine came as soon as they ate through their provisions. After famine came plague. Half the colony died. Unlike most socialists, they learned from their mistakes, giving each person a parcel of land to tend to for themselves. The colonists threw off the statist intellectual fashions of their day.

The results were overwhelmingly beneficial. Men worked hard, even though before they had constantly pleaded illness. Fields were not only tilled and planted but also diligently harvested. Colonists traded with the surrounding Indian nation and learned to plant maize, squash and pumpkin and to rotate these crops from year to year. The harvest was bountiful, and new colonists immigrated to the thriving settlement.

Think about it. Imagine you're in a class, and the teacher says that every student will get the same grade, the average of all students. The low-performing students will be thrilled and won't do much. Why should they when they're going to score as high as the best students? The high-performing students will realize they're being dragged down by everyone else and not bother putting in the effort, because they're being exploited and carrying the weight for the whole class. The average will drop dramatically compared to the class total if each student had been able to keep their own score.

Equity means forcing everybody into poverty - whether that's academic poverty, intellectual poverty or literal poverty.

#Xi Van Fleet #communism #equity #equality #inequality #free stuff #collectivization #great famine #religion is a mental illness

8 notes · View notes

learnwithmearticles · 20 days

Text

Lawns and Variation

Lawns most often consist of grasses and clover kept short by mowing. For decades in the United States of America, they were an important aspect of conformity. To this day, lawn maintenance is a key focus of many Homeowner Associations (HOAs). Through media and HOA policies, lawns grown out of control are associated with neglected land and poverty.

A short, well-kept lawn can be very aesthetically pleasing. It also reduces concerns about ticks and other pests. Maintaining one through regular mowing can provide homeowners a reason to spend time outside, and be part of important routines that help people keep their lives on track. Additionally, a short lawn is ideal for outside activities for pets, children, and adults. Of course, not maintaining one’s lawn can also lead to fines if part of an HOA.

The negatives of monoculture lawns, however, far outweigh the potential benefits.

The Negatives

Reducing biodiversity is the best-known way in which typical lawns cause damage. Persistent mowing keeps many species of plants from succeeding. Low biodiversity directly contributes to low ecosystem resilience1. For example, when a pest or fungus comes along that wipes out one type of plant, an entire field or dozens of fields will be wiped out because they are all the same plant. That leaves the land susceptible to erosion, flooding, and desertification (i.e arid land).

Low biodiversity means worse conditions for other forms of life, as well. Regular mowing to keep the grass short and uniform also keeps different floral plants from growing, thus reducing resources for pollinators1.

Persistent mowing also acts as an unnecessary addition to greenhouse gas production. Gas-powered lawn equipment contributes significantly to CO2, NOx, and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions3. The amount of carbon equivalent pollution from lawn mowing and fertilizer use more than negates the benefit of carbon sequestration (CO2 kept out of the atmosphere) in grass yards2.

For many, yard maintenance also involves fertilizer and pesticide use. Fertilizer use contaminates waterways, primarily through rainfall, and causes algal blooms and decreased oxygenation in waterways. Pesticides can also pollute waterways. In fact, a majority of applied pesticides end up in soil, water, and air, and end up entering the food chain where they negatively affect a wide range of animals, including humans5. Pesticide contamination in humans has been linked to conditions like cancers, neurological issues, obesity, and neurological issues, to name a few5.

Lastly, lawns can need excessive amounts of water. On average, about 9 billion gallons of water goes to watering lawns in the U.S.A. every day6. This is made worse by poor watering practices, causing much of that water to be lost to evaporation and runoff. Water is considered a renewable resource, but that is contingent on proper maintenance and management.

Grass lawns around the world consume an abundance of resources and toxic materials to maintain. Maintaining a grass lawn is ecologically harmful because of pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum pollution, low biodiversity, erosion, and water use.

Cultivating native flora instead nullifies the need for these measures. Native plants are physiologically adapted to the local climate and conditions, and thus need less, if any, watering7. They are less likely to need pesticides or fertilizers, and their deeper root systems decrease soil erosion8. The reduced use of lawn equipment vastly improves air quality, and provides a much more interesting view than a monoculture yard8.

Clover

Transitioning a lawn from short, uniform grasses into a more biodiverse, environmentally healthy yard can be very difficult, and potentially impossible for some people. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing, though. Fostering the growth of clovers instead of grasses, for example, can be a good step for your soil.

Clovers include about 300 species with native varieties in many parts of the world, including Europe, central Asia, North America, and Africa. Clovers generally need minimal maintenance and, if allowed to flower, provide valuable resources for native pollinators9. Clover is also esteemed for its nitrogen-fixing properties. Like many legumes, clover species pull nitrogen from the atmosphere and increase nitrogen availability in soil10.

Converting grass lawns into areas for various native flora has many benefits for the environment and the land-owner, who can enjoy beautiful flowers and bushes while improving air and water quality. While a clover lawn is not as beneficial in these aspects, they can still be an important way for people to start improving their lawn. Fortunately, many more websites now exist to guide land-owners in cultivating native plants. There is always something you can do to help.

Additional Resources

1. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1365-2664.13542

2. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-012-9967-6

3. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/banks.pdf

4. https://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/kaufmana/downloads/Kaufman%20Lawn.pdf

5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40726-018-0092-x

6. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/www3/watersense/pubs/outdoor.html

7.https://www.montvillenj.org/DocumentCenter/View/155/Choose-Plants-That-Are-Native-to-the-Area-That-Are-Drought-Resistant-PDF?bidId=#

8. https://archive.epa.gov/greenacres/web/html/index.html#

9. https://www.oneearth.org/the-various-advantages-of-clover/

10. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/its2.19

11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866715000436

5 notes · View notes

ayin-me-yesh · 1 year

Text

Something I see online that's frustrating to me is you'll get people telling the vegan activists who promote veganism as a universal ideal that there are disabled people who can't have a vegan diet, but then a lot of the people who point this out don't seem to know what conditions actually cause that. And then you end up having arguments about that so I want to actually point out a few examples

I think the number one example where there's no way to safely, healthfully avoid having to consume animal products is haemodialysis for kidney failure. People on dialysis need more protein than other people because they lose protein and blood cells during the dialysis process, and they are required to have a low potassium diet because their kidneys can't filter potassium. This means legumes and soy aren't viable alternatives. [x] "Renal dietitians encourage most people on haemodialysis to eat high-quality protein because it produces less waste for removal during dialysis. High-quality protein comes from meat, poultry, fish, and eggs." [x] If you can't meet your protein needs with these foods for whatever reason, you'll be prescribed whey protein powder, which is made from dairy. [x]

Ketogenic diets are also high in animal proteins. They're innately low carb and high in fat, which means legumes and other meat alternatives aren't a great fit. "The ketogenic diet can boost insulin sensitivity and cause fat loss, leading to significant health benefits for people with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes." [x] PCOS, a common condition effecting about 10% of people who menstruate, is also often treated with a low carb, high protein diet because it involves insulin resistance. [x]

Ketogenic diets may also be recommended to treat seizures in epilepsy. [x] It is most frequently used for focal seizures in children, infantile spasms, Rett syndrome, tuberous sclerosis complex, Dravet syndrome, Doose syndrome, and GLUT-1 deficiency. In these conditions, ketogenic diets can reduce or even eliminate seizures.

People with food allergies can find it difficult to afford safe and healthy food in general. [x] The inability to rely on cheap, plant-based proteins like canned beans or dried lentils can be a general hardship, especially when disabilities themselves can limit job opportunities or the capacity to work.

Intestinal disorders are another factor that can make vegan diets difficult. Foods high in insoluble fibre, like beans and other legumes, as well as nuts and seeds, can cause Crohn's flare ups in some people. [x] Seeds, nuts, and legumes can also be trigger foods for people with ulcerative colitis. [x] IBD flare ups are not like a run-of-the-mill case of intestinal discomfort. They can land people in the hospital and require major surgery. [x]

For allergies, the main factor that can make a vegan diet difficult isn't allergy to specific vegetables, but to specific plant proteins. Someone who is allergic to soy, peanuts, or other legumes will have more limited options for meeting their daily protein requirements on a vegan diet. People with allergies to a broad spectrum of legumes may not have any reasonable substitution options. Substitutions can also increase the price point and make a vegan diet too expensive for people in poverty who also have allergies. Poor people with food allergies may find it difficult in general to afford a safe and healthy diet. [x]

For some people, including some disabled people, a vegan diet may in fact be ideal. Vegan diets can certainly be part of a healthy diet when trying to reduce bad cholesterol [x], treat high blood pressure [x], or treat earlier stages of kidney disease. [x] And while insulin resistance may be best treated with a ketogenic diet in some people, others do seem to benefit from a plant-based diet instead. [x] A person's diabetes specialist and trained dietitians can help them figure out which is best for them, potentially based on other factors like whether or not they have high blood pressure or bad cholesterol, or whether their diabetes risks are linked to PCOS or other known metabolic conditions.

Achieving sustainable food production and equal access to a safe, nutritious, well-balanced diet is fundamental to us all. But there's simply no one-size-fits-all ideal human diet, and that's something everyone needs to take into account.

#disability #ableism #dialysis #epilepsy #diabetes #allergies #long post #food tw #diet tw

30 notes · View notes

female-malice · 1 year

Text

Roughly one-third of the world’s food is never eaten. By reducing loss and waste, we can reduce the need for land and resources used to produce food as well as the greenhouse gases released in the process.

Here's what you need to know:

1. One-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally. This amounts to about 1.3 billion tons per year, worth approximately US$1 trillion.

2. All the food produced but never eaten would be sufficient to feed two billion people. That's more than twice the number of undernourished people across the globe.

3. If wasted food were a country, it would be the third-largest producer of carbon dioxide in the world, after the USA and China.

4. Consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa each year

5. In developing countries, 40 per cent of losses occur at post-harvest and processing levels. In industrialized countries, more than 40 per cent of losses happen at retail and consumer levels.

#cc

36 notes · View notes

darthvaderofmiddle-earth · 29 days

Text

Here's how scalpers are literally ruining society.

I live in a low income/poor area. Though my town is great in terms of how it looks, every establishment and person is in deep debt, and the surrounding towns are by no means any better. Practically nobody owns their home, they rent, and if they've got kids, it's nearly a given those kids are on reduced or free lunch programs at school. Almost everyone I know who lives here, regardless of age, is on food stamps, SSI, ewic, and so on. People rely on thrift stores/secondhand shops to buy clothes and entertainment. They are absolute essentials, and literally everyone here who shops in a store instead of online, goes to the secondhand shops for clothing and toys and media before going anywhere else.

Well now, scalpers are going to thrift stores and looking up the items they find, trying to Google the prices they go for on online markets. They spend hours at a time picking the stores clean for just a few dollars out of their pocket, then they go online and sell the items for such a heavily upscaled price that nobody can afford.

The thrift stores have had to find new ways to keep open, what with few donations coming in and all product going out to the scalpers. Thus, all of them have cut employee wages, and raised product prices significantly.

And now? The people who go clothes shopping to find adorable things that fit their growing kids who are changing and growing too rapidly for parents to keep buying new clothes, or just clothing for their own changing bodies, cannot find anything affordable at all. It's way out of their price range even at thrift stores. People are unable to buy clothes at all. This causes the thrift stores to lose all business and shut down, and the only options left for shopping are the online scalper stores with insanely gauged prices. And it's because scalpers are forcing the secondhand stores, which exist to help the impoverished, to raise their prices to compete, and therefore are making the stores inaccessible to the impoverished specifically, and eventually they all close and become inexistent.

I've seen it with big name discount stores. I've seen it with local businesses that are individually owned by families. I have quit jobs at discounted stores because those in charge would never give raises to anyone regardless of position, and they raised the prices of every product until I literally could not afford a piece of candy anymore, let alone a single shirt or a pair of socks.

Fuck price gouging. Fuck scalpers. Shit is literally below the gutter and inside the grave at this point because of them.

2 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 1 year

Text

The word “processed” has become something of a slur.

Say “processed food” and most of us picture unhealthy, cheap junk. Fresh food straight from the garden or the field is good. Once we’ve put it through a processing plant or a laboratory, we’ve removed its halo qualities and added a bunch of bad ones. That means meat substitutes are no better than junk food.

But this perspective is short-sighted. We’re not going to feed billions a nutritious diet sustainably without food processing. The growing backlash against processing is one that neither people nor the planet can afford.

The benefits of processed food

Processed food is more than Coca-Cola, Dairy Milk chocolate, and ready meals. Most plant and animal products go through some form of processing to convert them into something that we can—and want to—eat. We mill grain into flour to make bread. We butcher and debone animals to get meat. We pasteurize milk.

Processed foods have brought us countless benefits, many of which we quickly forget. Iodized salt is just one example; iodine deficiencies used to be common across the world, leading to increased risks of stillbirths and miscarriages, significant reductions in IQ, and reduced cognitive development. Most of the world now consumes salt with iodine added, and many countries have eliminated this deficiency. By adding nutrients to food, we’ve been able to address a number of other micronutrient deficiencies.

We’ve been able to preserve food and increase its shelf life, reducing food waste. We’ve reduced the spread of food-borne diseases. Those with food allergies and intolerances can now eat a balanced diet. We don’t need to spend the day preparing food—this has been particularly important for the educational and career development of women. Last but not least: taste. Our shelves are now lined with great-tasting foods.

Of course, when people talk about “processed” food they’re often talking about ultra-processed food (UPF). These snacks and prepared meals are designed to have a longer shelf life and be more convenient and palatable. Corporations work hard to find the “Goldilocks” flavor profile we can’t resist by adding sugar and fat to make food as tasty as possible. Many describe these finely tuned combinations as addictive.

It’s true that increased consumption of ultra-processed food has been linked to poor health outcomes. It has been associated with lower consumption of essential nutrients, such as vitamins C, D, and B12. The more of these foods we eat, the more likely we are to be overweight or obese. This puts us at higher risk of health conditions like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer. Ultra-processed foods are easy to overconsume.

The problem with most UPFs is that they are higher in calories, sugar, and fat. And they’re lower in protein and fiber, the nutrients that keep us full.

But this isn’t inherent to food processing itself. What matters is what corporations add to our food. They can create healthier foods if they want to—or if we demand it.

The growing backlash against meat substitutes

One area where I see the biggest backlash against processing is with meat substitutes.

These products try to emulate the experience of meat and include plant proteins such as soy-based sausages; Impossible and Beyond Meat burgers; proteins made from fermentation, such as Quorn, and lab-grown meat.

Passionate meat eaters and vegans don’t always see eye to eye, but they do often agree that natural is best. Vegans push back against meat substitutes because they’d rather people go straight to natural plant foods like peas, beans, and lentils. Meat eaters push back on these products for their artificiality, calling them “Frankenfood.”

Headlines critical of these foods go something like this: “People have told you that meat substitutes are super healthy, but they’re lying to you.”

So are meat substitutes better for your health or are they part of an elaborate con?

Well, “healthy” compared to what?

Are they better than meat equivalents? Are you better off going for an Impossible or Beyond Meat burger than a beefburger? Or a soy-based sausage over a pork one? Possibly.

I crunched the numbers on the nutritional profile of meat substitute products and compared them to meat. (You can find a graph of this comparison here.) To their credit, meat substitutes tend to be lower in calories and saturated fat and higher in fiber. To their detriment, some are lower in protein, and importantly, often contain lower-quality protein, meaning they contain less of the essential amino acids that we need.

When it comes to sodium, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. Substitute burgers tend to be comparable to beef. Substitute sausages look bad, but they contain less salt than their pork equivalents.

Many substitute products are now fortified with Vitamin B12, iron, and calcium. The Impossible burger actually has more Vitamin B12 and iron than beef. Many plant-based milks are fortified too. (I compared the nutrition of dairy and plant-based milks here.)

On balance, they’re probably a bit better for our health than their meat equivalents.

Are they better than whole, plant-based foods? Less likely, but possible, depending on the nutrients you’re trying to optimize for. They are higher in protein and have micronutrients added that plants don’t have much of, such as Vitamin B12. But they are also higher in saturated fat and salt.

However, this showdown between natural plant foods and meat substitutes is kind of beside the point. People who want a whole, plant-based diet aren’t the target for these products. If people want to switch to plant proteins such as peas and lentils, great. But this group is a minority. What meat substitutes offer is an easy swap for people who want “meat-like” meals. Many want an experience similar to meat: Substitutes try to give them this without killing animals—and without the high environmental cost of farming meat.

To have a chance of meeting our global climate targets, ending deforestation, and protecting the world’s wildlife, we need to eat much less meat. Both plant foods and meat substitutes have a much lower carbon footprint, use much less land, and cause less water pollution than meat. The environmental toll can be 10 to 100 times lower than that of beef or lamb.

Meat substitutes are our best shot at feeding the world without destroying it. The backlash to these products is counterproductive. And the blanket dismissal of such foods as “ultra-processed” isn’t helping. Most are defined as ultra-processed based on the methods used to produce them. But if we list the reasons UPFs are bad for our health, meat substitutes have almost none of those qualities. As shown above, they are generally not high in calories—most are lower than meat. They have less saturated fat, almost no added sugars, and are higher in fiber.

What they do have are additives. Impossible Foods adds them to give its burgers a juicy, meat-like texture. Many companies add binding agents and preservatives to extend their products’ shelf lives. People get freaked out by lists of ingredients they don’t recognize. But the notion that how pronounceable something is can determine whether we should eat it is not scientifically sound. You can probably pronounce “lead” and “mercury,” but I don’t recommend seasoning your dinner with them.

This is still an area that needs more research, but I’ve seen little good evidence that additives or sweeteners consumed within regulatory guidelines have negative health impacts.

We shouldn’t be eating them all the time, but as part of a diverse diet, there is little to suggest meat substitutes are bad for our health. In fact, some can be a nutritional plus.

Food processing could alleviate malnutrition for billions

Meat substitutes are mostly targeted at wealthy consumers. But the implications of a backlash to processed food are just as harmful for people with less money—if not more so.

More food processing, not less, could improve health and nutrition in developing countries.

Billions of people in the world suffer from “hidden hunger”—they don’t get enough of the micronutrients that are necessary for good health. The preferred way to address this would be for them to eat a more diverse diet.

That’s a nice pipe dream, but it’s decades away. These billions can’t afford a healthy, balanced diet even if they spend all of their income on food. The goal is to make sure their incomes rise, but this will take time.

What are we going to do in the meantime? Accept that billions are left malnourished and billions of children will never reach their potential?

We could solve this problem quickly and cheaply with more food processing. Simply add micronutrients to staple foods. Micronutrient fortification—the addition of key vitamins and minerals to foods such as flour, salt, bread, and cereals—is incredibly cost-effective. It can cost mere cents or a few dollars per person per year. To move from a diet that meets an individual’s energy needs—eating cheap staples that are high in calories—to a nutritionally complete or healthy diet will cost someone at least a few dollars per day. Micronutrient fortification would cost just a few dollars per person per year.

This is also true of meat and dairy products. In richer countries, we consume a lot of meat, and most people could easily cut back. Poorer countries eat very little meat, if any. Without nutritious alternatives, eating more animal products might actually be good for health. The problem is that meat is expensive—economically as well as environmentally. It’s hard to get cheap meat without sacrificing welfare and environmental standards. So we face a dilemma: Increasing meat consumption for those with lower incomes would improve nutrition but result in a larger environmental footprint.

But if meat substitutes become cheaper, we have the opportunity to make low-cost, high-quality protein available for everyone. People will be able to improve their nutrition long before they can afford to buy more meat. What’s even more promising is that consumers in low- and middle-income countries seem to be more accepting of meat alternatives. We don’t have a lot of data on these markets, but large surveys across China, India, and the US suggest that Chinese and Indian consumers would be much more likely to buy plant-based substitutes and lab-grown meat than Americans.

I’m all for a predominantly whole-food diet. But used in the right way and in moderation, processed foods could be a big boon for global nutrition. Stigma against them hinders such efforts, so rather than shunning food processing, we should embrace it in the appropriate contexts.

It’s not the process; it’s what we add that matters

I’m not here to defend ultra-processed foods or big food corporations. They’ve hijacked our food system in many ways and have created a plethora of health problems. But we need to stop throwing all processed foods into one group.

The problem is not the process itself; it’s what we add and how we do it. We can use processing to enhance nutrition or hinder it. We can embrace it where it adds value and boycott it where it doesn’t.

The backlash against food processing is a luxury that the world can’t afford to embrace. It’s not good for people or the planet. Nutritionally sound processed foods are one of many tools that will help nourish billions without destroying the environment.

22 notes · View notes

fallout-lou-begas · 2 years

Text

having made three different comic books now where it’s the main subject, what interests me most about the intersection of transness and the post-apocalypse is the assumption of scarcity of health care, and total breakdown of pharmaceutical production and distribution, basically eliminating trans health care as a given from the process of transitioning

it's already such a common anti-trans talking point that trans-related health care is a frivolous (if not outright wasteful or even degenerate) use of resources, provided only as a polite courtesy. "if it'll make you weirdos happy, fine." the idea that even just hormones are medically necessary is a hard sell, let alone surgery, because it requires rethinking what medically necessary means. No, being deprived of estrogen and a vaginaplasty isn't going to kill a trans woman the same way that being deprived of insulin is going to kill a diabetic.

What makes trans care medically necessary is tied to violence or suicide prevention on the extreme level (because getting clocked can put you at risk of great harm, and whether one remains closeted or not to avoid that harm their dysphoria may be so bad as to cause ideation) but also quality of life on the moderate level (if one assumes that care that would make someone simply happy with themself would be necessary). you basically have to accept the assumption that if somebody wants a surgery or wants hormones, it becomes medically necessary just because they want it. to argue otherwise is to means test peoples’ transness, and is why universal health care applying to all kinds of health care is an issue of body autonomy as well.

The quality of life argument has a lot of overlap with appearance-altering and beautification surgeries in general, which is why they are often classified as "cosmetic* in direct opposition to classifications of other surgeries as "necessary." Being trans and trying to transition surgically is basically a war against your insurance company to move your desired treatments from the former category to the latter on their billing forms.

anyway

I bring this up because there is no health insurance in the post-apocalypse. There are no plastic surgeons with big white offices and florescent lights that you take an hour-and-a-half train up north to see, and the NPCs who exist in Fallout games as a diegetic way to alter your character's appearance mid-game don't count. There are no large drug plants manufacturing estrogen or testosterone on an industrial scale. If I remember right we're already experiencing a not insignificant hormone shortage because of how much of it is manufactured in the Ukraine.

So in a situation like the imagined or speculative post-apocalypse where the complex network of bureaucracies, institutional gatekeeping, pharmaceutical manufacturing and distribution, economics, and highly skilled niche medical labor completely falls apart, to where you can't just book an appointment and get what you need the way you used to even if you wanted to. there’s already in our present day the horror of countless transsexuals who are deprived the care that they need for economic reasons -- that’s a euphemism for them being too poor to afford it, and being punished for that poverty -- but in the imagined post-apocalypse, it’s like, it’s not just that you can’t afford to eat someplace anymore, but that the restaurant is gone because it exploded and now you might never eat the food they served, ever, even if you could afford it. it’s in the imagined post-apocalypse when that old chestnut talking point of trans-related health care being frivolous rears its ugly head

Every possibility of getting facial feminization surgery has been reduced to rubble and ash. So what are you gonna do about it

All of the spironolactone and estrogen has oxidized to uselessness, wherever it is. Oh well, you'll live. It won't kill you, remember, not directly. In this setting, anyway, you have much more immediate survival needs to deal with.

So when I write about trans characters in the post-apocalypse, what I'm writing about and thinking about and exploring is this particular circumstance where I am painfully aware of how fragile, niche, and expendable the things that let me be who I am are. But at the same time, I'm aware that that's a fluffy way to phrase it, right?

let me be who I am

I'd still be me even if I never took estrogen again. It's not like I'd vanish, like in Back to the Future. It’s not like I’d literally revert back to myself at age 22, like some kind of detrans Benjamin Button.

There's so much tension in referring to my hormone regiment as "girl pills" and thinking a lot about wanting breast augmentation in the future just because it'll make me happy because it’ll make me feel sexy, because it does sound frivolous and silly and a little perverted even though it’s very important and feels very vital to me. and post apocalyptic scenarios more than anything else just force me to confront the unfathomable amount of tension in my identity and the way that I both mentally and materially construct it without really giving me any kind of resolution or comfort in it, just a deeper and more necessary understanding. like going down in the cellar to check on the mold growing down there, making sure it's not growing too much. because if i could scrape it off at all myself then there wouldn't be mold down there, would there

#content warnings: suicide mention (i'm fine and safe! it's just mentioned!) and general 'bad trans feelings'#this is a long post copied from a discord conversation where i went long on it so it's pretty extemporaneous #but i wanted to preserve it on my own blog so here it is #louposting #gaysteland

61 notes · View notes

saint-nevermore · 2 years

Text

i honestly can't fathom living with the mindsets that some more radical vegans have. to be so disconnected from food that animal products are evil and you should feel bad for using them, to shun mutualistic relationships humans have had since humans started being humans. to try and distance ourselves from nature. it seems so stressful! obviously it's one thing to spout propaganda and continously police how other people live, but it absolutely cannot be healthy to constantly talk about it, think about it, make it your identity. food is food, and material is material. be kinder to yourselves. assume kinder of other people.

it's a noble cause to feel the need to reduce your own impact in the damage to the world, absolutely. there is 0 denying that food industries as a whole are rotten to the core and need severe reform, granted these are a consequence of capitalism, not the products themselves. i understand it usually comes from a place of great anxiety and upset. we're built to feel compassion for not only eachother but things around us. but i still can't imagine the hurt that comes from so deeply believing the mere act of using wool, honey, fur, meat is an affront to nature and inherently fowl, these things that humans would have died out thousands of years ago if our ancestors didn't risk their lives to tame aurochs or rams. things die for other things to live.

you can do whatever you want with your own body forever. however it isnt more inherently cruel to eat beef than it is to eat quorn. both products run a good chance of being harvested, packaged, and imported from far away by people being paid slave wages.

shop local, look into vegetables and fruits grown in your country/state by season and buy by season, grow your own veg and herbs, consider owning your own rabbits or chickens if you have ample space, time, and the physical means. look into local meat, wear wool, wear fur, look into the local hunting scene and consider working with more game. learn how to dress a duck, make art and tools from the bones and feathers you didnt cook. obviously sourcing is still an issue for some things - hence the emphasis on buying local. avoid imported fur, look into coyote that was trapped in your state as an example, or hides from rabbits that were raised for meat, or buy eggs from the small farm down the road.

most importantly make peace with what you eat, what you can get. i live in a country where pheasant is a popular game meat but the industry around pheasant hunting here is a fucking travesty. but it is one of my favourite foods, and as a poor consumer i can't change it, so i try and support good businesses or harvest my own when possible. i can't afford to and dont care for most meats otherwise, and mostly eat fish, even knowing fishing industry is wholly unsustainable. i still need to eat, and to enjoy what i eat. it isnt your fault Cornish X chicken is the most widespread and affordable, and you shouldnt feel bad for settling for it. be aware, be vocal, but dont be guilty.

never feel bad for what you eat, or use. your ancestors worked hard for that. love yourself, love whats around you, and learn how to use every single part of a deer, or learn the joys of growing your own tomatoes. i cannot stress how much more i appreciate what i cook after butchering birds myself, from cull to roast, and im sure most of us are familiar with the simple joys of eating wild berries. im sorry capitalism and colonialism ruined something so innately human for so many people.

#raven.txt #coming from a place of genuine care like its. all fun and games laughing at people saying dairy cattle are impregnated every 21 days but #the way these people are absolutely made so distressed by things that arent true #i cant imagine the guilt and worry and its a catastrophic shame the way we get food now just encourages more of this behaviour #even my housemates who are mostly chill will off handedly mention things that arr just. entirely untrue or at best #misunderstandings of husbandry practices done for the benefit of the animal not the farmer #make peace with food. Make peace with food! food is good and holy.#dairy and beef husbundry is not as bad as you think. eggs arent as bad as you think. pork and chicken is often worse than you think.#again be vocal and aware but dont feel guilty just eat shit that makes you happy lol and most importantly do not get on other peoples #case because they eat a shit ton of supermarket chicken OK everyone is in poverty nowadays capitalism is doing its job #peace and love forever eat a bird. OK? i love you

41 notes · View notes

thessalian · 1 year

Text

Thess vs the Bank of England

So the Bank of England has now literally said, “Britons need to accept that they are poorer now”. Now, in very small fairness to them, they have stated that this means that companies should not be jacking up the prices on everything in order to maintain their profit margins. However, it’s also being used to beat the drum of, “Stop asking for wage increases”, and it’s flagged up that a lot of the main companies found that higher prices boosted their sales revenue this year and we’re looking at nearly 20% on food inflation. That’s not even counting the bullshit with the energy companies.

Keep in mind that this statement came from the Bank of England, who is run by a man who makes nearly £500k per year. Said governor, Andrew Bailey, was the first one to say that we have to stop asking for pay rises. The chief economist, Huw Pill, makes nearly £200k per year.

Median salary for people in the UK? £32,300.

So the words, “Easy for them to say” ring rather loudly.

Now, if they were explicitly saying, “Look, companies cannot stunt their staff’s wages to increase their profit margins this way because you will end up with no one being able to buy anything and everyone loses, so suck up the reduced profit margins, for fuck’s sake”, that would be one thing. But of course, that’s not how the economy works anymore. All that matters is that the numbers are higher than last year. There’s nothing backing this money ... except other people’s hard work. And companies are abusing the fact that no one really seems to understand this ... or, if they do, are called socialists or communists or worse if they call it out.

The fact is that people’s labour hasn’t been valued properly in a very long time, because corporations have been devaluing it for decades. We’re more productive than ever, and we have less and less to show for it. We deserve pay rises more than these ultra-wealthy jackasses need a new boat. And people on six-figure salaries have a fucking nerve telling people who are barely surviving (if they are indeed doing that well) that “you have to get used to being poorer now”. Those people this shithead’s talking about? They were already used to being poor. And no one should have to get used to being fucking destitute.

I own my privilege in that my mother took full advantage of every opportunity to get financially ahead in the 80s and 90s and is now reaping the benefits, and is at least understanding enough of current circumstances to help me. I’d be boned if I didn’t have that financial safety net. I mean it - I could not manage. Even with that, there’s a reason I took more hours at work, that reason being I can’t really afford not to. I want and need to manage on my own as much as possible, but it’s difficult because, you know, disabled. The extra five hours a week were a mistake. I am already feeling how much of a mistake that was. But I haven’t really got a choice, so I’m just going to have to spend some of that lovely extra money on painkillers and carry on. Because it’s only going to get worse from here.

So ... yeah. Here’s me, with my fibromyalgia and my dietary restrictions and all of it making life difficult financially. If I had to pay rent, I’d ... I just wouldn’t be able to. If I can barely manage a six-hour workday when I don’t even have to commute, I can’t imagine a standard workday. (I’d say 9-5, but I don’t know if that’s even standard anymore; somehow it feels overly generous for the world today.) Add a commute into the equation on top of that? I remember how it was before I went on long-term sick leave to pursue a diagnosis on all this; how I ended up spending almost half my day near or in tears from the pain. And I think how lucky I am, because without support, I’d still be doing that, and I wouldn’t be living in half as nice a place. And even with that, I’m still pushing myself harder than I should to manage all the stuff that isn’t rent.

And these jackasses with their six-figure salaries are telling people like me - and more to the point, those who are worse off than I am - that they have to get used to being even poorer?

Part of this is being hangry, I admit. Dinner’s in the oven, and tomorrow’s online grocery shopping day, and I am going to arrange my purchases so I have the fixings for quick lunches that I can eat at the “employment” side of my desk. And then I will get in the habit of actually bringing those to my desk first thing so I don’t forget while in The Zone. Anyway, part of this is hangry, but most of it is just ... there’s not even a word for what it feels like to live in this country anymore. There’s anger and there’s sadness and there’s blind panic and creeping terror and this miserable resignation and ... it’s all bad, put it that way.

At least I will feel better after I’ve eaten. I’m just tired of having to feel this fortunate to be eating at all. It’s more than a lot of the people who’ve been told to “just accept that you’re poorer and stop asking for a raise” can do today.

#Thess on economics

5 notes · View notes

ms-hells-bells · 2 years

Note

What's your opinion on this post?

https://pikafem.tumblr.com/post/692284514269069312/ruusverd-godesssiri-darkvioletcloud

rolling my eyes.

first of all, yes, sheep need to be shorn. due to human intervention. human bred sheep to have massive coats to create more wool, meaning that sheep will overheat and die if not shorn in the summer. so, in sanctuaries, the sheep are shorn. but the wool should not be sold, because that creates financial incentive to keep breeding sheep to get wool, because it now has financial value. that is the case with all animal parts that do not harm them. you can find dead animal bones and make jewellery and it'd be vegan, but as soon as you sell it, you create a demand that, if large enough, is met by intervening with animals negatively. this is the case with all animal products. this and the anti vegan belief of domestication, is why we are anti wool, not 'poor sheepies need their warm jumpers!'

secondly, i have a funny feeling that none of the people reblogging or liking that post make sure their clothes are 100% cotton or wool, they absolutely wear synthetics. it's virtually impossible not to. this 'plastics' argument makes zero sense coming from them (especially when 'plastic doesn't break down' doesn't work for wool, which is the longest natural fibre to break down, at over 50 years in it's natural state, let alone when it's been highly processed)

thirdly, biodegradability isn't the only measure of environmental friendliness. water consumption, land use/deforestation, greenhouse gases, crop use, water pollution, chemical use during treatment and dyeing. once again, i must bring up the HIGG material index.

sorry if it's hard to read, but wool is fifth from the bottom, acrylic is tenth from the bottom. it's, holistically, worse for the environment than acrylic.

here's a slightly different one (i don't trust this one as much, because this one is from a fashion summit, so may have some other agendas)

another one that doesn't have acrylic, but has wool

see that stuff at the bottom? a company created a rayon fibre made from spun cellulose (plant fibre) coming from eucalyptus trees. we absolutely have the technology, and are deep in the process, of making efficient, sustainable, and environmentally friendly plant based fibres. that is ALWAYS possible with plant fibres, but you can never make animal products sustainable without extreme cruelty in the process because of the space and food and water that animals need to live, as well as their biological emissions. my government is investing over ten million dollars into medications and diets and genetically engineering of farm animals to reduce greenhouse gasses, instead of reducing the animals being produced themselves.

and finally.....sustainability and cruelty are two different things. even if wool WERE more sustainable, i'd still be morally against it because of the domestication, breeding, and killing of sheep. a fabric being better for the environment doesn't make it suddenly ethical to kill living beings. having children is the number one least sustainable action a single human can take, that doesn't mean i'd support people killing newborn babies. these people one again, keep fundamentally misunderstanding the philosophy of veganism. and they want to misunderstand. because there is not a single argument against 'if you have the choice not to exploit, why would you choose to exploit?'.

18 notes · View notes

stevensaus · 11 months

Text

Whether AI Can Write A Story Is The Wrong Question.

There is a qualitative difference in the output between a writer who knows story structure and a writer who understands how story structure works. I am certain that current AI technology can do the former. I am very skeptical of the latter. But that really isn't the right question -- or questions -- to ask. The first relevant question is: "Will people pay more for the difference?" The second relevant question is: "Who will profit?" The first question is one we've faced before. This is the same question that we've wrestled with the displacement of craftsmanship by mechanization, industrialization, and mass production. Compare a chest of drawers that is made from actual wood with one which was made from particleboard. The first has hand-wrought dovetailed joins where they are simply staple-gunned in the latter. The first has been hand-polished, the second is essentially covered in varnished contact paper with a wood grain print. And the first is horrendously expensive and difficult to come by, compared to the second. I know the "The Sam Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness;" wait for it. Mechanization and automation are great at repetitive tasks. There's no arguing that, say, modern farming methods (for all of its flaws, which are many) dramatically reduced worldwide famine rates after the transformation of agriculture in the 1960's. But there, too, there is a qualitative difference. "Not dying of famine" is hugely different from "well-nourished," or "sustainably nourished," or "healthily nourished," or any of a host of other criteria. There is a market for hand-made things (and hand-grown or hand-prepared food), because of the qualitative difference I mentioned before... although it is a pricey one. Theoretically, this would be taken care of by the free market, right? People won't choose lower-quality goods (or entertainment) if there is a better alternative. There is, after all, a reason why "dollar store" is used as a pejorative adjective. That brings us to the second question. All this automation -- including computers and software -- represents an increase in productivity. So why are we still working as hard -- or as much -- as people ten, twenty, forty, sixty and more years ago? The answer is pretty simple. The benefits of productivity increases were not -- and are not -- accessible to the population at large. Those benefits have been hoarded by executives and shareholders. For example, how a certain box store has reduced its workforce expenses by nearly eliminating everything except for self-checkout lanes and utilizing brutal employee sick policies. While customers are complaining. Perhaps you'd think that greater efficiency and lower costs would allow the company to lower its prices. Except that box store is also beating quarterly expectations for revenue and earnings, despite current inflation and lower sales. It's not just that box store, though. According to the Economic Policy Institute, workers haven't gained anything from the growth in productivity pretty much for my entire lifetime. That's the disconnect. In a functional free-market society, this would all balance out, at least in theory. {1} The benefits of that increased productivity would be passed on to the rest of society in one way or another. Instead, those benefits are being hoarded by an investor class {2}, which means that the hand-made goods -- the quality goods -- are even further out of reach for everyone else. And now we are seeing it be applied to story and art as well. Like it or not, art and entertainment cost. They cost money, which a lot of us are feeling pretty tightly right now (while the aforementioned investor class is doing just fine). But there's a second cost: The cost in free time. Currently just one streaming service would have to run constantly for four years to view it all. Oh, yes, a huge chunk of it -- and many other streaming services -- consist of formulaic and poor-quality offerings. {3} This applies to other forms of entertainment as well, where available quantity is the primary selling point (eBooks, audiobooks, artwork, you name it). But if that's what you are able to afford financially, and you're strapped for time because despite all this technological improvement you're still working forty hours a week plus commuting time, well, you get what you can. This is what happened with the last writer's strike and the rise of reality television. Reality television was (and is) comparatively inexpensive to make, and, because of how distribution of media works, brought in equivalent ratings -- and therefore, equivalent advertising dollars. Now, reality TV has become as much of a staple as the self-checkout station... and in the same way, only the investor class is better off for it. For corporations and investors, it is -- practically by definition -- only the profit margin that matters. The particulars about what is created and how literally Do Not Matter. {4} Given all this, it is no accident that the current writer's strike is deeply concerned about AI. It isn't difficult to imagine these same investors -- the ones who control enough resources to get books in bookstores, to get films distributed to theaters and to major streaming services, to get a series greenlit -- will be far more interested in turning out formulaic hack plots. You can already see a similar effect in brick-and-mortar chain bookstores, particularly in the sci-fi and fantasy sections, where it's become increasingly difficult to find anything but the "safest" titles, usually with "now a major motion picture" or "now a streaming series" splashed across the cover. There is a simple answer to these issues: to distribute the benefits of our society's increased productivity through mechanization, automation, algorithms, machine learning, and AI to society at large both in terms of financial and time resources. Where our tools augment our abilities individually and as a species, for the betterment of both the individual and society at large. Instead, we have a society where it is not enough to make a profit -- you must maximize that profit. Instead, we have a world where half of the wealth is held by 1.1% of the population, and 55% of all humans hold only 1.3% of global wealth. Regardless of the outcome of the writer's strike, or outrage over publishers using AI art for book covers, the voracious drive of the investor class to increase profits will almost certainly lead to a race to the bottom that favors the "cheapest" methods to create art and music and publishing and media as our ability -- both financially and in terms of time -- is squeezed tighter and tighter. At least, that's how I'm afraid it will go as long as all the rest of us are bullied into submission. Good luck. {1} A free-market society also allows for the free movement of labor, which... well, look at the discussion we're having about the US-Mexico border, and you can see that is not what's happening there. {2} Yes, I know. At least I'm not calling them the "bourgeoisie," although that's mostly because I need spellcheck to get that word right. {3} Look, I'm not knocking your taste here. I've enjoyed some reality television and other forms of "light entertainment" -- like Taskmaster and Dimension 20 -- myself. At the same time, that isn't all I want to have available. {4} Fun related fact: Subway, the largest fast-food chain in the US, was founded by a physicist who had never seen a "sub" sandwich and a family friend. Check out The Food That Built America episode! Featured Image by 0fjd125gk87 from Pixabay Read the full article

#AI #artificialintelligence #wga #writing

2 notes · View notes

turkesteronesupplements · 1 year

Text

Turkesterone

Introduction

Turkesterone Building lean muscle tissues takes a whole lot of painting; it normally takes a long time. As a result, many human beings need to apply extra merchandise or dietary supplements to quicken the process.

Turkesterone Supplements “OFFICIAL WEBSITE”

➢ Where to Buy Online – https://naspcenter.org/promotion/turkesterone-supplement-side-effects-benefits-dosage-before-and-after/ Or

➢ Availability – Click Here To Buy Online

➢ Category – Turkesterone

➢ Results – 1-2 Months

➢ Main Benefits – Increase Muscle Mass and Strength

➢ Ingredients – Increase Muscle Mass and Strength

➢ Side Effects – No Major Side Effects

➢ Rating – ★★★★★

Turkesterone is considered one of the products that are used to grow muscle length and strength. Turkerstone can boost protein synthesis and block hormones that inhibit muscle improvement, consisting of myostatin and cortisol.

Turkesterone is considered one of the products that are used to increase muscle length and energy. Turkesterone can raise protein synthesis and block hormones that inhibit muscle improvement, together with myostatin and cortisol. However, Turkesterone has serious facet consequences which you ought to be cautious about.

In this article, we carry you the information approximately the Turkesterone complement that will help you pick out carefully and accurately.

It is because of this, health fanatics can transfer to the exceptional and herbal counterpart, Turkerstone by way of Turkerstone .

What is Turkesterone?

Turkesterone is a focused shape of Ecdysteroid, also referred to as a phytoecdysteroid, a chemical located certainly in insects and plant life. Ecdysteroids have anabolic and adaptogenic residences, that's why they are often applied to manufacture dietary supplements.

Turkesterone Supplements “OFFICIAL WEBSITE”

These dietary supplements are claimed to promote muscular development and sports overall performance. Unfortunately, while certain ecdysteroids can be located in foods together with spinach, quinoa, and yams, Turkesterone isn't always widely available.

Instead, it occurs evidently in thistle-like flowers; the general public of which develop in Central Asia, consisting of Siberia, Bulgaria, and Kazakhstan. It is usually taken from plant life inclusive of Leuzea, Maral root, and Ajuga turkestanica.

Compared to other styles of ecdysteroid supplements, which include ecdysterone, Turkesterone appears to be extra powerful, especially in terms of anabolic (muscle-building) blessings. However, it's far more extra high-priced than ecdysterone, that's why a few people choose to take ecdysterone rather.

Even though Turkesterone offers many blessings, you need to understand that it also has a few serious poor outcomes. Therefore, earlier than looking to use Turkesterone to benefit muscle, one needs to comply with precautions and seek advice from a health practitioner.

How Does Turkerstone Work?

Turkerstone tablet boosts your muscle profits and assists you in accomplishing your complete capacity in the gym. This complement's two essential blessings are protein synthesis and nitrogen retention. It is how Turkerstone offers your body with the electricity it needs to construct and hold muscle tissue.

The product consists of all muscle-constructing amino acid blocks to help you bulk up. It additionally enhances the fee at which your Turkerstone body consumes oxygen when exercising. Increasing the quantity of oxygen on your bloodstream is necessary for severe fitness centre paintings. To construct muscle tissues, you need to keep your body in an anabolic circumstance by means of preserving nitrogen.

Turkesterone Supplements

Turkesterone is a muscle-constructing nation that increases protein availability, assisting you to bulk up. The additional nitrogen may additionally aid in recovery after a strenuous exercising. Your body resets and prepares for the subsequent workout cycle even as you get better. It also reduces pain and widespread muscular discomfort.

Benefits of Turkesterone

Increases muscular tissues

There is proof that Turkesterone can increase muscle mass via boosting muscle improvement and the muscle-to-fats ratio. According to animal studies, it could also have anti-weight problems and metabolic-boosting homes.

Repairs muscle mass

Studies display that Turkesterone can assist in repairing muscle fibres that have been broken by exercise. It also raises muscle glycogen concentrations, which can help dispose of lactic acid and enhance exercising healing.

Improves exercise performance

Ecdysteroids can improve ATP production, which aids in muscular energy, persistence, and fatigue prevention. In addition, it can result in a more intensive workout routine and resource in developing energy and stamina.

Contains adaptogenic houses

Turkesterone, like ashwagandha and Rhodiola, is classed as an adaptogen. It promotes intellectual health through supporting the body in dealing with pressure and exhaustion.

Side Effects of Turkesterone

Turkesterone may be a completely powerful drug, but it has many side outcomes. However, there are some stuff you ought to be privy to before you reflect on consideration on buying Turkesterone.

The maximum common aspect consequences of Turkesterone are:

Dizziness

Turkesterone can create dizziness in many human beings. If you revel in this effect, wait to force or manage machinery until it passes.

Turkesterone Supplements “OFFICIAL WEBSITE”

A decline in cognitive feature

In a few human beings, Turkesterone can motivate cognitive decline. It can grow to be a serious problem if no longer treated at once. Contact your health practitioner if you think you're experiencing this impact.

Confusion

Confusion also can arise from the usage of Turkesterone. Usually, it is slight, however it may be extra outstanding in a few customers.

Memory trouble

Contact a health practitioner if you revel in memory problems after starting to apply Turkesterone. It is better to take a medical doctor's advice without looking forward to the situation.

Upset stomach

An upset stomach is a common trouble when you first use Turkesterone. Usually, it passes in a few days.

Nausea

If you are experiencing severe nausea, you should seek advice from a health practitioner at once.

Headaches

Mild headaches are a not unusual aspect of Turkesterone. However, in case your headaches are too extreme, you may take painkillers.

Exhaustion

If you're feeling excessive exhaustion after beginning to apply Turkesterone, you need to first stop the drug and consult a doctor.

Turkesterone Supplements

You need to lower your dosage or forestall the use of the supplement completely if these consequences arise. The minor unfavourable effects of Turkesterone are typically temporary and most effective stay for the primary few days of a cycle. However, keep in mind that everyone's body is unique, and aspect impact intensity would possibly vary from character to man or woman.

You ought to see your medical doctor when you have any signs for a number of days. Turkesterone works in addition to an ecdysteroid acknowledged to provide a few terrible results on human trials.

Turkesterone does not now fall under the category of Ecdysteroid. However, it has a comparable molecular structure, which creates its steroid-like traits. A critical thing to recognize is that Turkesterone has no effect on hormone degrees and does not necessitate a PCT. Ecdysteroids can be painted similarly to anabolic steroids.

Ingredients of Turkerstone

L-Isoleucine

L-Isoleucine is an amino acid. It is one of the muscle-constructing factors that significantly enhances protein synthesis. It is also recognised to enhance your immune device.

MSM

MSM or Methylsulfonylmethane is often applied to relieve ache, swelling, and soreness. It also aids in muscle retention.

Suma Root Extract

Suma Root is an exceedingly mighty substance that has anti-inflammatory homes. It may also increase testosterone tiers.

Tribulus Terrestris

This anti-inflammatory aspect has an extensive variety of applications. For example, it naturally will increase testosterone ranges even as enhancing your body's capability to generate lean muscle.

Ashwagandha

Ashwagandha develops lean muscle, boosts energy, and forestalls muscle harm. It additionally enables you to lose weight whilst increasing your testosterone stages.

Vitamin D3

Vitamin D3 can improve testosterone manufacturing, improve heart fitness, and sell bone energy. It also will increase muscular energy and acts as an antioxidant to shield towards unfastened radical harm.

Magnesium

Magnesium is the price of electricity generation and aids in protein synthesis. The mineral also allows coronary heart health, immune system electricity, and different matters.

Sodium Hyaluronate

Sodium Hyaluronate (additionally known as hyaluronic acid) aids bone and tendon restore. It enables us to limit pain and accelerate healing after a workout.

How to Take Turkerstone ?

Turkerstone is not a steroid complement, so that you do not need to worry about extremely-quick cycle periods to avoid organ harm. Turkerstone indicates using this product for a minimum of two months.

Turkesterone Supplements “OFFICIAL WEBSITE”

Technically, you do not even need to cycle Turkerstone . Some bodybuilders select to do so because it allows them to separate their bulking and cutting cycles. However, it's far more secure to take in the end.

Furthermore, this substance is a long way much less harsh to your body than steroids. If you choose to complete a Turkerstone cycle, Turkerstone shows taking at the least per week and a half off before beginning another.

Conclusion

Turkesterone is an amazing substance which can aid muscle increase, improve strength, reduce tiredness, and sell recuperation. However, it comes with diverse and poor side effects. That's why choosing the opportunity at Turkerstone is a good concept.

The supplement Turkerstone gives equal advantages without negative effects. It increases muscular boom, decreases frame fats, and boosts energy. So if you are trying to build up your muscles and electricity, you must strive for Turkerstone !