I got it to work

The prompt was “make me a funny picture I can bait people into arguing over”

Guys doesn’t it seem a little more likely that this ai is more likely to have been tampered with in some fashion as opposed to the astoundingly unlikely occurrence of it coming across one of the astoundingly rare instances of non racially European European nobility and producing like 10 back to back fabrications of non racially eruopean nobility (I’ve seen the post op is talking about)?

I think it might be more likely that whoever had prompted the ai is hoping to create a fuss and you are all being duped by engaging with their tomfoolery.

Perhaps it is best not to engage in such needless adversarialism.

I don’t want to be rude but the sentiments expressed here present a double standard that excuses Japanese war crimes.

Point by point:

“Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in retaliation for US’s oil embargo.” This is a somewhat correct statement but omits context vital to the decision making. The Imperial Japanese armed forces had formulated 2 plans for imperial expansion, one into the south and one into the north. The “retaliation for oil embargo” argument is a fabrication of the Japanese military class, a justification for the shifting of focus to the south in search of rubber, tin and of course oil. British and American forces dominated the south pacific and knowing that there would be an inevitable attack based on their expansion the Japanese executed a timed attack on numerous military strong points notably pearl harbour but perhaps more strategically relevant the Philippines. The “retaliation to embargo” argument is straight from the mouths of Japanese military propagandists, the USA in particular had bent over backwards to supply Japan in an effort to slake their expanding resource demands till this point.

“Fascism… imported from Germany”: I’m not entirely sure why this was added as it is quite apparent to anyone studying Japanese military and political history of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that the Japanese empire had minted its own unique brand of extremist imperialism, you can term it fascism with the modern definition of the word but to insist that Japanese militarism in government is a result of European fascism is utterly ridiculous. In any case the foundations of this system date back to Meji era policies that significantly predate fascism in Europe as a practiced ideology.

“Attack on military assests”, “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes”

While both these statements can be considered to be true it implies that there is some kind of defecit in morality between these two cherry picked events. I needn’t go into detail on the extent of Japanese war crimes mere days after and indeed on the same day if you would consider actions in mainland Asia. You’ve created a fallacy of what-aboutism that doesn’t fit the realities of the war and the extreme inhumanity of Japanese expansionism both before and after their attacks on the US. The atomic bombs while singularly destructive did not meaningfully exceed the levels of destruction wrought through conventional warfare. There is much to be said about if the bombs were in a sense “cost effective” in terms of loss of life needed to achieve peace but once the military losses are accounted for, various plans to fight till extermination, the political climate, etc. It becomes apparent that the bombs precipitated a political coup that would not have been possible otherwise. All things considered the bombs seem to have bought peace rather cheaply.

“crush any remaining resistance from Japan”

Other comments seem to cover this rather well but what alternative is there? When considering the potential loss of life of an invasion not just in enemy personnel or even civilians but your own soldiery it seems to be an easy choice. Arguments can be made about the scale, morality and civil cost of the bombs but it comes down to a philosophical argument on the ethics of the matter. Can such a scale of destruction ever be justified? Absolutely not. Given all the evidence available were the atomic bombs the least costly scenario in terms of the least amount of destruction in every conceivable metric? Absolutely yes. Any other assessment amounts to historical revision.

I read the article and the method of sequestration they have been using is extremely limited, it’s main benefit being minimal long term sequestration by some leafy build up. Even their timber cultivation is a lacklustre effort as timber is often burnt after its limited lifespan. Burning the place down was likely the best thing that could have happened for their long term sequestration goals (sequestration in the form of charcoal). Long term sequestration is best done in the form of hummus, with cellulose and lignin as the carbon holding elements. I don’t know where they get the “carbon saturation”. Optimum carbon is a 1:7 carbon soil ratio, so over that area we are talking about millions of tons which is not something they could have achieved.

The idea that animal protein as a food source is not viable is largely a correct one however there are significant portions of the earth’s landmass that are unsuitable for commercial cultivation. In these places animal grazing is still the best means of calorie extraction from these regions.

The CSIRO among other organisations have long been investigating macroalgal solutions to in rumen methenogenesis. Possibly reducing green house gas emissions from cattle to between 85-99%. That is to say as little as 2 grams of a seaweed cultivar could solve the methane problem, in conjunction with sound diet practices. The linked article (within the linked article) talks about “lacklustre reduction” but utterly ignores other studies achieving 99%. A minute of googling shows achievable results possible on a commercial scale.

The idea of decreasing the time to market of these animals is the opposite of what is needed, it is the grossly intensive feeding regimens of the cattle industry that causes excess methenogenesis. Excess protein causes methanogenesis.

Biological nutrient cycling allowing there is a world of global warming negative (carbon sequestering) beef/dairy in the not too distant future.

For a number of reasons these methods are unlikely to be embraced by the beef/dairy industries as they require mass silviculture which is largely incompatible with current practices.

As usual commercial industry is barking up the wrong tree, trying to amend their inherently flawed method rather than begin a new less intensive, sustainable method.

With that said there is a debate to be had about the phasing out of animals proteins as food to benefit human health but the b12 problem has to be overcome.