we have triggered a large die-off, and that we may become victims of it as well.
How are they lying about the effects, the author only suggests it's a possibility it would be our demise. It isn't proposed to a certainty. But keep burying your head in the sand, nothing we do could possibly hurt us on a large scale! More CAFOs, more intensive agriculture, more deforestation, more overfishing, and hey, more bush meat while we're at it! We're improving the planet for future generations by doing those things actually!
The fact that you read some alarmist predictions that turned out to be false in the 70's doesn't mean that all reporting on the decline of species diversity is bunk.
I have learned most people prefer fear to reason and this is just proving my point.
So any predictions for the future that seem too negative are deemed FUD, even without real hard evidence to counter it, because you once read some FUD? Your logic has some holes in it.
So because the world you live in hasn't changed significantly ('Still got chicken and cities!'), the idea that biodiversity is on a fast decline is wrong... even though the article asserted it started long before the 1970's. So yes, it did "come to be". Please give us some references that there hasn't been a massive loss of biodiversity over the last 100 years. You can't because there has been. Are you really naive enough to think we can't have any effects on the biosphere, because look we're all still here? We do have finite resources and an ever expanding population.
Let's be honest though, although social sciences are not as easy as some make them out to be (and I don't mean your 101 Psych class), there are a lot more people capable of getting a social science degree. Chemical engineering is generally considered quite difficult, graduation rates are not spectacular. In a way I feel you are correct, and the summary underrates the earning potential of specific degrees. However, there is something to be said for doing what you "enjoy", as in something that you can actually do.
He's not actually completely wrong. He's not factoring geography, in some areas 40,00 may be the norm. That being said, in the the areas where the industry is biggest, 40,000 is extremely low.
The total amount of money thrown at the "the problem" does not mean it is being utilized correctly. Where I grew up and went to school the teacher salaries are terrible but the administrative salaries are way too high. Lots of money is wasted on shiny, instead of giving good teachers raises. They recently stopped paying for teachers to get their national certifications here, subsequently the % of teachers getting the cert went way down, and they laid the blame on the teachers for not jumping up and down at the chance to spend their own (limited) money on training.
I agree with this, the salaries of a lot of these useless administrative types is sky-high, meanwhile the very talented get out of K-12 fast because they can make more money elsewhere. Many of these administrators have never taught a single class in their life! They have masters and PhDs in, "Higher Ed Management" and other such bullshit. College is the same way, but possibly worse.
Most people in the FBI would probably NOT consider themselves communist, and do not hold communist beliefs. It's the "I've got mine, fuck everyone else" mentality that lets people go along with this disregard for our rights. They do this because they are twisted, or don't want to look for work again.
Slashdot Mirror
Many examples of natural science?
Give me a break.
Only one way to find out (just kidding).
Where I am (and I'm in the south, where "it's cheap") 600 is a good deal for studio downtown.
I hardly think those are the countries we want to model our systems after.
I believe its also been proven through a thorough meta-study that the lead in fuel was causing an increase in violent crime.
This, 1000 times this.
we have triggered a large die-off, and that we may become victims of it as well.
How are they lying about the effects, the author only suggests it's a possibility it would be our demise. It isn't proposed to a certainty. But keep burying your head in the sand, nothing we do could possibly hurt us on a large scale! More CAFOs, more intensive agriculture, more deforestation, more overfishing, and hey, more bush meat while we're at it! We're improving the planet for future generations by doing those things actually!
I have learned most people prefer fear to reason and this is just proving my point.
So any predictions for the future that seem too negative are deemed FUD, even without real hard evidence to counter it, because you once read some FUD? Your logic has some holes in it.
News at 11, science gets better over time.
Because if you want to preserve nature, you hate humans....
You bring no facts to the table, I can't even tell if you deny there is a huge loss of biodiversity or you just don't care.
So because the world you live in hasn't changed significantly ('Still got chicken and cities!'), the idea that biodiversity is on a fast decline is wrong... even though the article asserted it started long before the 1970's. So yes, it did "come to be". Please give us some references that there hasn't been a massive loss of biodiversity over the last 100 years. You can't because there has been. Are you really naive enough to think we can't have any effects on the biosphere, because look we're all still here? We do have finite resources and an ever expanding population.
Over fishing, petrochemical spills/pollution, and indirectly raising the temperature...
-The icons overlapping the title -The lack of 'Read more' or 'View comments'
Please bring back a "Read more" or "View comments" link/button. It feels very unnatural to have to hunt for the # of comments or click the title.
which means they want to draw in people who aren't hardcore adblockers and social media non participants.
I promise I won't accidentally share a story over social media instead of clicking "Read more", no dice Dice.
The .45 or the 40 ounce?
Let's be honest though, although social sciences are not as easy as some make them out to be (and I don't mean your 101 Psych class), there are a lot more people capable of getting a social science degree. Chemical engineering is generally considered quite difficult, graduation rates are not spectacular. In a way I feel you are correct, and the summary underrates the earning potential of specific degrees. However, there is something to be said for doing what you "enjoy", as in something that you can actually do.
He's not actually completely wrong. He's not factoring geography, in some areas 40,00 may be the norm. That being said, in the the areas where the industry is biggest, 40,000 is extremely low.
Impulse control and intelligence are not the same thing.
The total amount of money thrown at the "the problem" does not mean it is being utilized correctly. Where I grew up and went to school the teacher salaries are terrible but the administrative salaries are way too high. Lots of money is wasted on shiny, instead of giving good teachers raises. They recently stopped paying for teachers to get their national certifications here, subsequently the % of teachers getting the cert went way down, and they laid the blame on the teachers for not jumping up and down at the chance to spend their own (limited) money on training.
I agree with this, the salaries of a lot of these useless administrative types is sky-high, meanwhile the very talented get out of K-12 fast because they can make more money elsewhere. Many of these administrators have never taught a single class in their life! They have masters and PhDs in, "Higher Ed Management" and other such bullshit. College is the same way, but possibly worse.
Most people in the FBI would probably NOT consider themselves communist, and do not hold communist beliefs. It's the "I've got mine, fuck everyone else" mentality that lets people go along with this disregard for our rights. They do this because they are twisted, or don't want to look for work again.