Then give up whatever device you are typing on, and never set foot again in whatever structure you are typing from. Surely you know that your activities have destroyed at least as much nature as whatever you're criticizing.
Actually, at such a low speed I find it only helps focus. It's meditative, similar to how a labyrinth is an ancient meditative walking device.
Also, our bodies evolved walking 10+ miles per day. Not standing in one place for hours. The broader point is about reconciling modern lifestyles with the evolutionary past that we are still largely bound by.
Does it really just cut off? I colored the second, less essential half of the article grey for visual simplicity. Is it not showing up as such for you?
This is the last paragraph I see when I get to the bottom of the page:
Noise — If you’re in an office environment noise is a real concern, especially for the $35 Craiglist special. There are exercise treadmills out there that are whisper quiet but you’ll need to find out which ones. I assume the new generation of treadmills geared for desk use are a fair bit quieter.
Yeah. Lack of margin definitely made me try scrolling down a few times. Also, from the amount of intro, I was expecting a longer, more detailed article. And it didn't seem to conclude so much as stop.
The extended content in grey covers my experiments with standing desks prior to this. tl;dr: Standing for a half hour leads to aching body parts — walking doesn't.
Right, but I wasn't talking about walking vs. standing, I was talking about standing vs. sitting. There seems to be evidence that being upright all the time isn't good for you either.
Anyone else trying a paleo diet? I'm reminded that PG himself referenced the diet in an essay years ago though I can't remember which one. I wonder if he ever went on it.
"In the USA in 2004, 317 billion cubic feet of natural gas were consumed in the industrial production of ammonia... A 2002 report suggested that the production of ammonia consumes about 5% of global natural gas consumption...
Natural gas is overwhelmingly used for the production of ammonia..." — Wikipedia
Yes, but I read the article to imply that we were spreading petroleum on our fields, versus the alternative: rotting garbage. If the argument was an energy argument, I would have expected some mention of energy costs associated with composting (orders of magnitude worse than large-scale energy infrastructure)? The comparison wasn't apples-to-apples, and I wanted to clear up the implication.
So, sure, we use energy to create fertilizer. Instead of mining it and shipping it, or going without. Again, if it wasn't the cheaper alternative we wouldn't be doing it.