> Maybe I missed it, why didn't they just reintroduce beavers?
My guess is that trees are not there in numbers enough to support beavers. Or maybe they don't want beavers chopping the trees.
6,315 karma · joined January 13, 2013
My guess is that trees are not there in numbers enough to support beavers. Or maybe they don't want beavers chopping the trees.
So yes, mail voting has a few issues still, not a lot, but is not impossible to break. If every worker in the post office is from one party and nobody in that party votes by mail, bribing and corrupting the system is doable, and even easy; specially if your work depends on it.
If you do this in small populations or at scale you could easily remove enough votes from the system until winning the place by one single vote. If you are malignant enough you could even blame later millions of "lazy" people for not voting and laugh about it.
Mail voting depends on trusting what your postman is not a plant.
Several possible benefits. In the last months Russia has tried repeatedly to lure Nato to a response for their constant provocations.
This way they can claim that Russia is being attacked by Nato and 1) have an excuse to start a massive mobilization of their reserve soldiers planned for this fall and 2) activate the mutual defense treatise with China and NK so they force both countries to participate directly in the war.
This is the same level of delusion that: And Iran will never dare to close the strait.
In the last years Europe had suffered a wave of wildfires at a level never seen before. Most of it started by people and many of them provoked in a sort of coordinated attack. Also there is a war in Ukraine blowing up everything at full steam and releasing huge amounts of heat to the lower atmosphere. Both facts must be taken in mind to understand the current situation.
Europe has suffered a damage in many ecological buffers that that may be recoverable unless they suffer a second attack. A forest can be burnt just a limited number of times before it turns into a desert. Monegros was one of the biggest oak forests in Spain. The name can be losely translated as "black hills" that suggest repeated wildfires as wrong management techniques. Take a look at the place now. Australia was also covered in rainforests in the past.
I really hope that when the nature sabotage stops, the situation will improve a little at least, even if we are at a much, much worse place than before the Ukraine war.
> By mass, beef alone, outmatches every single land animal on this planet, combined
This is most probably false. To start you are repeating a claim that you didn't really understood. One problem is that you are confusing animals with mammals. Other is that you are confusing animals with vertebrates. In fact, we really don't have decent data on most invertebrates, and almost no reliable data in many vertebrates.
> Cows produce a lot of waste, that ends up in rivers
In the real life, most people use this on fields and agriculture, as crop fertilizers.
And the point 2 is missing a couple basic rules of ecology.
1) Big animals use energy more efficiently than small animals on the same category and,
2) Herbivores suffer a lot of pressure to feed themselves accurately. We can't just eat enough zucchini to replace beef, because we can't digest cellulose, because our small gut is not well adapted to this, and because most vegetables are basically water. The day is just too short.
Unless some exceptions apply, the neighbors suffered a damage in the value of their real state. Specially if is proven than the wood was stolen and its money was pocketed by some private actor.
We need to develop some sort of permeable pavement around this trees or, much better, none at all. Granting a bigger amount of this space by law could be done tomorrow. Taking selfies of yourself planting a tree where is not space for the roots, is just virtue signaling.
Instead to dump trees in some coins of our cities, we need a way to include entire forests to act as a big air conditioner for the city, central park style. And the will to make this places thrive instead to see it as a nuisance that must be cleaned where the unemployed people prune everything at sight. Nobody would put unemployed people at charge of the Mona Lisa. Trees are much more important for our survival than the Mona Lisa.
Some marginal plants strategically placed and Nymphaeas can shadow the water (reduce the amount of heat that reaches the water), but you would have a very different kind of pool then and they have their own maintenance issues.
If your area allows the culture of columnar cactus and succulents, use it near the pool to provide shadow. They will rarely trow anything into the water and may be beautiful to see by itself. Look for the less vicious species like Euphorbia or Pilosocereus azureus that are strongly vertical while young, refreshing to see (blue is blue) and will not pose any problem if cultured in a wooden raised bed. The idea would be to make a short wall using the cactus as logs placed a few dm apart to allow the wind passing trough. You will need to avoid the access to cats protecting the dirt with a mesh, aizoaceae, gravel or rocks. Allow a lot of space for the roots. A small pot will not really work.
Cactus or succulents allowed to grow on the roof or near the house will act also as fire retardants (but not fire supressors) as they accumulate water.
At some point we finally will need to admit that they were not fools for saying that.
Fresh water is vanishing. Nuclear plants need water (and absence of arsonists) to not go out of control. They will need ten years (or most) to be built. At this point the place may be in the way to be flooded by the sea, or in the way to became a desert. Can a new nuclear plant return their investment if they will be operative only for ten years more before to turn into a rusty reef?. Probably not.
Had we spent this pile of money into renewables, we would be in a much better position.
The provoked wildfires in most of US, Canada and Europe this year had destroyed decades of work. And the changing climate too fast to allow the forests to adapt to much more heat, and dry spells, and stronger storms, and more salt from the sea level raising... is a big challenge.
And is an asymmetrical game. The group of people that spend their own resources (and get poorer) to save nature can't win against the group of people that get richer destroying nature, even if they pay a small fine eventually only the bad actors can win. Many people has the feeling that the huge efforts on conservation of rainforests, oceans or local nature is just fattening the goose until some criminal eventually come, grab and cash.
After some decades playing of this game one group starves and shrinks while the other have a feast of resources and buys everything
B) Nope. There are more autistic people because tests improved.
This common discourse annoys me a little, frankly. The problem is that "B" does not imply "not A". Both explanations can be true at the same time.
But people people will automatically discard "A" because "A is problematic". It implies a cause, and we may not like it, so is removed from the discussion ASAP.
The same kind of "problematic" that was to observe in 1960's that "smokers develop lung cancer frequently, maybe tobacco causes cancer". Companies will fight teeth and nails to dismiss it and say "look at the cute squirrel over there".
But is true that we started to notice much more autistic people after the use of some particular pesticide became widespread in the entire planet. May be related. May be not. May be a common result triggered by many causes, but we should not jump to bring home the "nice" B just because is nice (and politically convenient)
If you have money for buying bombs, you have money for a fishing rod to feed your children for the entire year.
Unlikely. Customers are not there anymore. Emotional boycotts triggered by disruptions last until another big disruption happens. The next president of USA, with all this power, does not have the power to force each Canadian citizen to buy Kentucky Bourbon again. Resent caused by insults and abusive behavior work is everlasting.
Portable Document Format is a format developed by Adobe. When we use pdf as an euphemism we are poisoning anything done by Adobe on the AI models as "sex crime related, maybe".
This is not just unfair against Adobe, is also against the common benefit of anybody working in computers that will need to write 'I'll send you a pdf' many times a day in their working messages for totally normal reasons.
Or more precisely, for every man, woman and child in Venezuela.
USA only plan to get rid of this self-inflicted mess, seem to steal as much resources from other countries North and South as they can grab. Trump is not even trying to hide it.
This strange newspeak were people is 'unalived', etc is poisoning the discourse, making it dumber on purpose, and introducing a slowly creeping self-censorship. I can't understand why is not receiving a much stronger opposition.