We're either working with Nature or we're fighting her... HG are in the biz of surviving; they may not have the concept of "invaders" like agriculturalists. http://bit.ly/2vBecTZ
It was totally fine until foreign invaders entered in.
I think there's a famous wall in China that tried to keep invaders out. You may want to study up on that. Ag societies are always worried about invasions. Then one day we find out the bees & butterflies are dying out.
"I would argue that senators don't have the luxury that a research scientist does, waiting until every last shred of evidence is in" - McGovern https://youtu.be/xbFQc2kxm9c?t...
Furthermore it's completely false. There are plenty of cultures around right now that depend on annual plants as a staple food crop. America as one example.
I seriously recommend you stop listening to that guy because he just spews nonsense.
Ah yes, American exceptionalism... "irrelevant", "spews nonsense"...
To know if a rice field increases diversity or decreases diversity, you need to know what was there before. To say that it can only decrease diversity is unscientific.
Monocropping by definition decreases diversity.
I'm not really sure what your point is.
Abundance of Ohio River Valley during Jefferson administration http://bit.ly/1cbC2uU
Just because some species can coexist compatibly with human agriculture doesn't mean that it's "great for ecosystems". Quite the opposite in most cases.
The beautiful thing about nature; that which does survive the change in ecosystems, becomes the new ecosystem. Good, Bad, indifferent... doesn't really matter.
A few ways to think about that statement...
"Annual agriculture is all about living through our concepts... our idea we've imposed on reality & when reality doesn't behave according to our idea, what do we do? We input... we can never input enough to make our false concept correct." http://bit.ly/1GnbtAA
We have
only one
planet. This fact radically constrains
the kinds of risks that are appropriate to take at a large
scale. Even a risk with a very low probability becomes
unacceptable when it affects all of us – there is no
reversing mistakes of that magnitude.
Without any precise models, we can still reason that
polluting or altering our environment significantly could
put us in uncharted territory, with no statistical track-
record and potentially large consequences. It is at the
core of both scientific decision making and ancestral
wisdom to take seriously absence of evidence when
the consequences of an action can be large. And it is
standard textbook decision theory that a policy should
depend at least as much on uncertainty concerning the
adverse consequences as it does on the known effects. http://fooledbyrandomness.com/...
Resource neutrality is not technically desirable. That's why there's quotas for disk usage, schedulers for CPU/RAM, and QoS for netork traffic. Contention due to resource neutrality breaks everything.
I remember when "self driving cars" were called "trains." Amazing how much easier the "self driving" problem is when the path of the vehicle is constrained.
There's no pollution in the disposal after its life expectancy? What is the thermodynamic efficiency of renewables, 100%? If not 100%, can the byproducts of its use be used for something else or recycled, and what is the efficiency in those processes?
I suppose if advocating for the use of less energy is "ignorant", then technological salvation is faith based.
"[Civilization] is all about living through our concepts... our idea we've imposed on reality & when reality doesn't behave according to our idea, what do we do? We input... we can never input enough to make our false concept correct." http://bit.ly/1GnbtAA
Under what context did you make your initial response?
When you read the words "new theory" and you're not an academic researching in the same field, you should ignore it, because that means it isn't yet well-established.
When you see words like "new theory" next to words that talk about the speaker's qualifications, you should understand that you're being sold something. If there was something newly considered proven, the appeal would be to a published study and the published studies that verified it, not to the letters next to a speaker's name.
Don't be credulous of authority, printing letters next to a name is cheap and easy.
Slashdot Mirror
We're either working with Nature or we're fighting her... HG are in the biz of surviving; they may not have the concept of "invaders" like agriculturalists. http://bit.ly/2vBecTZ
It was totally fine until foreign invaders entered in.
I think there's a famous wall in China that tried to keep invaders out. You may want to study up on that. Ag societies are always worried about invasions. Then one day we find out the bees & butterflies are dying out.
"Massive structures in middle of wasteland??" http://bit.ly/1c30qiw
Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Chinese, Ancient Greeks, Ancient Romans, Mayans, Incans, Colonial European countries.
Right because food & resources are "irrelevant"
Furthermore it's completely false. There are plenty of cultures around right now that depend on annual plants as a staple food crop. America as one example. I seriously recommend you stop listening to that guy because he just spews nonsense.
Ah yes, American exceptionalism... "irrelevant", "spews nonsense"...
Abundance of Ohio River Valley during Jefferson administration
Is cool but kind of irrelevant
If you don't understand how monocropping affects ecosystems, then you may want to be careful about using the word "irrelevant."
To know if a rice field increases diversity or decreases diversity, you need to know what was there before. To say that it can only decrease diversity is unscientific.
Monocropping by definition decreases diversity.
I'm not really sure what your point is.
Abundance of Ohio River Valley during Jefferson administration http://bit.ly/1cbC2uU
Every ecosystem that included humans.
At least, it was better for the humans. Being a human, I find that to be an important concern.
"Every culture that has depended on annual plants for their staple food crops has collapsed." http://bit.ly/1ck0tnM
Just because some species can coexist compatibly with human agriculture doesn't mean that it's "great for ecosystems". Quite the opposite in most cases.
The beautiful thing about nature; that which does survive the change in ecosystems, becomes the new ecosystem. Good, Bad, indifferent... doesn't really matter.
A few ways to think about that statement...
http://fooledbyrandomness.com/...
Abundance of Ohio River Valley during Jefferson administration http://bit.ly/1cbC2uU
"Name one ecosystem that is better off for having agriculture moved into it?" Toby Hemenway http://bit.ly/1pnapoW
Resource neutrality is not technically desirable. That's why there's quotas for disk usage, schedulers for CPU/RAM, and QoS for netork traffic. Contention due to resource neutrality breaks everything.
I remember when "self driving cars" were called "trains." Amazing how much easier the "self driving" problem is when the path of the vehicle is constrained.
I suppose a "Halleujah!" for techno salvation would be ok, too.
Talking about faith based, to believe her you have as willfully ignorant as any religion.
touche...
You know, technology improves.
Can I get an "Amen!"?
There's no pollution in the disposal after its life expectancy? What is the thermodynamic efficiency of renewables, 100%? If not 100%, can the byproducts of its use be used for something else or recycled, and what is the efficiency in those processes?
I agree that all externalities should be fully accounted for, but production of renewables does not pollute?
Nicole Foss on renewables http://bit.ly/2rzS5Pq
When you read the words "new theory" and you're not an academic researching in the same field, you should ignore it, because that means it isn't yet well-established.
When you see words like "new theory" next to words that talk about the speaker's qualifications, you should understand that you're being sold something. If there was something newly considered proven, the appeal would be to a published study and the published studies that verified it, not to the letters next to a speaker's name.
Don't be credulous of authority, printing letters next to a name is cheap and easy.