|
From what I've heard many of the ranchers who are willing to work with Bison tend to be Indigenous descent
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
Digamma-F-Wau posted:Hasn't Bison farming been found to have the potential to have a less drastic effect on the environment than Cow farming in America, due to Bison being evolved to actually live here among other things? Finding a way to replace beef with bison in people's diets could be a way to go about things. Yes, but you would have a lot less product available.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 00:49
|
|
|
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/29/world/greenland-ice-loss-sea-level-rise-study/index.html yeah uh i think we might need to revise all those "by 2100" estimates to be "in 25 years if we're lucky" quote:Widespread ice losses from Greenland have locked in nearly a foot of global sea level rise that's set to come in the near future -- and new research suggests there is no way to stop it, even if the world stopped releasing planet-heating emissions today. i shudder to think how much more damage will occur even if we somehow meet deadlines to go carbon neutral by 2050
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 06:02
|
|
|
If you think that's bad wait till you hear about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and this thing called the marine-ice sheet instability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
Digamma-F-Wau posted:Hasn't Bison farming been found to have the potential to have a less drastic effect on the environment than Cow farming in America, due to Bison being evolved to actually live here among other things? Finding a way to replace beef with bison in people's diets could be a way to go about things. Not just that bison require a lot less care and feeding for the same reasons (they're smart, can fight off predators, and better survive severe weather conditions like that which keep hitting the beef industry (record cold, blizzards, drought, etc). Also they do have a drastic effect on the environment, for the better. new study just dropped from Kansas: quote:Decades of research led by scientists at Kansas State University offered evidence reintroducing bison to roam the tallgrass prairie gradually doubled plant diversity and improved resilience to extreme drought. Bison also still taste good (if you don't overcook it, as its very lean) and is a lot better for you than beef. Seriously if my pickyass teenager can eat it without noticing the difference most Americans should be good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
Here's an interesting article about adaptation in agriculture, just quoting the opening, more at link. Scientists are rushing to develop crops that can withstand hotter nights Night temperatures are rising fast, and that’s a problem for rice and other critical crops, which have fewer defenses at night https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/01/heat-resistant-crops-hotter-night-temperatures-climate quote:As the sun sets outside with temperatures in the high 80s, where they’ll stay most of the night, several varieties of potted rice plants grow in two sections of a greenhouse on the roof of the Arkansas State University Biosciences Institute. I suspect this type of adaptation will become more and more common, and in more areas than just food agriculture. I see how our fire seasons have become more and more intense, and I imagine that at some point we'll start genetically modifying forest tree species to be more heat and drought resilient to try to mitigate wildfire. Interesting times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
How are u posted:. Interesting times. It's pretty fascinating. Not only can we observe in relative comfort the displacement and death of masses of indigenous and impoverished people (largely a cost of the peace and prosperity we enjoy), but also envision a future of where everything is a genetically modified to be able to survive in a climate increasingly inhospitable to life. What a marvel this whole affair is. Some broke brained alarmists may wallow in despair and call such an attitude repugnant. They'd be right!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:It's pretty fascinating. Not only can we observe in relative comfort the displacement and death of masses of indigenous and impoverished people (largely a cost of the peace and prosperity we enjoy), but also envision a future of where everything is a genetically modified to be able to survive in a climate increasingly inhospitable to life. What a marvel this whole affair is. quote:"May you live in interesting times" is an English expression that is claimed to be a translation of a traditional Chinese curse. While seemingly a blessing, the expression is normally used ironically; life is better in "uninteresting times" of peace and tranquility than in "interesting" ones, which are usually times of trouble.  e: and I subscribe to the belief that "despair is useless", it doesn't lead to action or solutions. It's a natural feeling, but it needs to be moved through, not wallowed in. How are u fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Sep 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
How are u posted:
Despair? Justice through equitable sustainability, achieved through the threat of the wrath and retribution. I'm not sad I'm ready to kick a hole through somebody. And I'd get into the topic of toxic positivity, but I've seen some of your other posts. Nice bait and switch though, you got me!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:Justice through equitable sustainability, BRJurgis posted:achieved through the threat of the wrath and retribution. I'm not sad I'm ready to kick a hole through somebody. BRJurgis posted:And I'd get into the topic of toxic positivity, but I've seen some of your other posts.  This comes up over and over again. I do not reject painful emotions, I do not put on a falsely positive façade. I'm not doing this:quote:It is a "pressure to stay upbeat no matter how dire one's circumstance is", which may prevent emotional coping by feeling otherwise natural emotions.[1] Toxic positivity happens when people believe that negative thoughts about anything should be avoided. Even in response to events which normally would evoke sadness, such as loss or hardships, positivity is encouraged as a means to cope, but tends to overlook and dismiss true expression.[2] I do not proscribe avoiding negative thoughts about climate change. I do proscribe not wallowing them, because that can become all-encompassing and prevent people from taking action. I know this from personal experience living through sever climate change grief and depression, something I've talked about at length in this thread. Feel the feelings, but don't let them consume you whole. As far as I can tell, "toxic positivity" is only thrown around here to dismiss somebody who doesn't want the conversation about climate change to begin and end with "lol, lmao, we're hosed". God knows there are plenty of other places on the internet where that is the vibe. It's not the vibe in the environmental world, the activist world, or in the world where people want to make change. e: Come to think of it, I've never once heard the phrase "toxic positivity" in the actual world, only on the internet. BRJurgis posted:Nice bait and switch though, you got me! I'm not trying to "get" you, or anybody. I share news that I think is interesting, important, or worthy of conversation. How are u fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Sep 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
I think theres an important difference between constantly expressing meaningless positive personal feelings any time someone says something negative (ie trolling) and insisting that everyone else always be positive too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
How are u posted:I do not proscribe avoiding negative thoughts about climate change. I do proscribe not wallowing them, because that can become all-encompassing and prevent people from taking action. I know this from personal experience living through sever climate change grief and depression, something I've talked about at length in this thread. I don't know you, I don't have any particular grievance with you. These fights make you really come across as an rear end in a top hat, and I want to explain calmly why I think it's coming across that way. You can't just waltz around and start telling people "no, I have gone through the grief, you have to just not wallow, snap out of it." If you really have actually gone through severe climate grieving, I would initially expect you would actually understand that, or that at least be more empathetic. Further, I'm not sure how to spell out to you even more plainly then it already is that poking and prodding at people for being too dour in your eyes and in your opinion is going to create some extremely strong resistance, because your ultimately putting words in other people's mouths. That's what you're doing: you're putting people words in people's mouths, judging them and their writing a certain way, and then arguing back and forth with them about whether or not your judgment is fair. I think you're trying to be sincere, I don't know why, which is why I am trying to spell this out for you and maybe try to help you see why you are so reviled when you do this. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Sep 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 13:17
|
|
|
Had a discussion with a fishing boat first mate who considered himself informed. We both initially agreed that people were too comfortable and dependant on systems we've built.... but he meant "some people" not us, or not him! He was totally confident in our progress and trajectory. He said climate scientists repeatedly had been proven wrong and were alarmists. He said things were better than ever, technology was solving our problems. He flat out told me I was reading bullshit when I brought up temperature, droughts, crop capacity, sea level, fisheries. A geologist rented their boat and assured him climate change was a farce. He then challenged me with "and what are you doing about it?!?!?!" As my coworkers maneuvered to get between his foolish drownable body and the edge of the boat, I (somehow) remained calm and explained that I do the little available to me...working 50+ hours a week, voting, and donating to the DSA. Once he heard that we were done. I know it's just one guy, but it's also not. I wish the boat had erupted in jeers and shamed him below deck for the rest of the trip, but our only future just isn't all that important to most people and that's part of the problem. We certainly aren't doing our part to earn a tomorrow, and people like that guy are clueless and dismissive in the face of the danger. It's hard not to consider them an enemy, but that would be too easy and egotistical.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 12:53
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I think you're trying to be sincere, I don't know why, which is why I am trying to spell this out for you and maybe try to help you see why you are so reviled when you do this. Thanks, I'm not sure entirely how to respond to this. I am not intending to or trying to judge people, because I have been there myself and that's not helpful. I do try to point out that there is "life after climate grief", so to speak. Grief is natural and part of our very humanity, and it is also not generally a state that people never leave. I'm not saying "get over it", I'm saying "it's possible to move through it and with it in a way that allows you to still live a fulfilling life". Massive climate grief and depression were what started me down a path to concluding that I need to spend as much of my life as possible trying to fight for a better future. Currently for me that is full-time work, but if that changes in the future then it'll be part-time work or volunteer work. All I know is that taking direct action with other people who want to enact similar change has been the only thing that has helped me move through the 'utter despair' phase of climate grief. I hope I am not "reviled" for encouraging people to take collective action to fight climate change and build a better future. BRJurgis posted:I do the little available to me...working 50+ hours a week, voting, and donating to the DSA. Obviously donate to whomever you want to donate to. If I was donating specifically and explicitly to maximize climate action then, in this specific electoral cycle, I'd be donating to vulnerable House Democrats to try and keep the House, to Democrats challenging Republican House members who may be vulnerable, and to the Democratic Senate candidates trying to flip Republican Senate seats. If Republicans take one of the two chambers of Congress then there is zero chance of additional legislative climate action between 2023 and 2025. Keeping the House and expanding the Senate (to nullify the Manchin and Sinema bottleneck) would open up the possibility of even more legislative climate action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
How are u posted:I suspect this type of adaptation will become more and more common, and in more areas than just food agriculture. I see how our fire seasons have become more and more intense, and I imagine that at some point we'll start genetically modifying forest tree species to be more heat and drought resilient to try to mitigate wildfire. Interesting times. There's no money in growing forests. I guess if its a tree plantation grown for wood?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
Fozzy The Bear posted:There's no money in growing forests. I guess if its a tree plantation grown for wood? I'm not sure what you mean by "there's no money in growing forests". We already re-seed forests that have experienced massive climate change-driven fires. The recent months long, record breaking fire in New Mexico, for example: Reseeding begins on areas burned by Calf Canyon/Hermit's Peak fire https://www.kunm.org/local-news/2022-08-15/reseeding-begins-on-areas-burned-by-calf-canyon-hermits-peak-fire quote:The Santa Fe National Forest's fire response team has begun dropping seed and mulch from the air onto the areas most badly burned by the Calf Canyon/Hermit's Peak fire, the state's largest-ever fire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
How are u posted:I hope I am not "reviled" for encouraging people to take collective action to fight climate change and build a better future. You aren't "encouraging people to take collective action" though. Rather, you are relentlessly arguing with those who post climate science findings (the overwhelming majority of which are negative, because the climate is collapsing much faster than predicted, and much faster than we humans or any other species can adapt to). And maybe it's your trying-to-be-the-calm-adult-in-the-room tone, but in the process you are giving the impression of desperately trying to "counter" negative news with what you perceive to be positive stuff, even if said stuff is at best a silver lining.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:You aren't "encouraging people to take collective action" though. Rather, you are relentlessly arguing with those who post climate science findings (the overwhelming majority of which are negative, because the climate is collapsing much faster than predicted, and much faster than we humans or any other species can adapt to). And maybe it's your trying-to-be-the-calm-adult-in-the-room tone, but in the process you are giving the impression of desperately trying to "counter" negative news with what you perceive to be positive stuff, even if said stuff is at best a silver lining. I'm not denying negative news or denying climate science. I'm absolutely posting positive news and developments. What's the problem with that? I'm absolutely arguing against permanently stewing in hopelessness and despair, because despair is worthless. There are places on the internet where people can post and read where "no hope is allowed", so to speak. This thread is not one of them, as far as I am aware. Climate change is bad, and continues to get worse. At the same time progress is being made towards a clean energy transition. All of these things are true at the same time, and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that. e: in fact, and I think this is pretty clear, I believe it is pretty important to acknowledge that. How are u fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:Had a discussion with a fishing boat first mate who considered himself informed. We both initially agreed that people were too comfortable and dependant on systems we've built.... but he meant "some people" not us, or not him! He was totally confident in our progress and trajectory. He said climate scientists repeatedly had been proven wrong and were alarmists. He said things were better than ever, technology was solving our problems. He flat out told me I was reading bullshit when I brought up temperature, droughts, crop capacity, sea level, fisheries. A geologist rented their boat and assured him climate change was a farce. You'd think that someone who knows the practice and industry of fishing would be able to grasp that humans can have a huge irreversible impact on the environment. Does he also think that imposing restrictions on whaling had no impact on the fact that we still have most whale species around today? How does he feel about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? Mercury levels in salmon? Algae blooms and acidification? Does he want his grandchildren to be able to enjoy the same quality and variety of life he currently does?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 17:37
|
|
|
How are u posted:I'm not denying negative news or denying climate science. I'm absolutely posting positive news and developments. What's the problem with that? I'm absolutely arguing against permanently stewing in hopelessness and despair, because despair is worthless. Sure, but it's also important to acknowledge that the progress being made is a mix of "baby's first steps" and "too little too late". If one isn't doing that when they post positive news, they are being disingenuous. Like, if the Titanic realizes that it is 40 seconds away from colliding with the iceberg, trying to stay positive about the fact that with 10 seconds remaining until collusion, the engine room staff have finally agreed to begin gently applying the brakes and changing course is stupid. So is yelling, "hey everyone, don't despair, scientists may have discovered a way to build ship hulls that are 6% sturdier!" The right thing to do is to recognize that catastrophe is imminent and help as many people as possible get to the life boats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Sure, but it's also important to acknowledge that the progress being made is a mix of "baby's first steps" and "too little too late". If one isn't doing that when they post positive news, they are being disingenuous. I really don't see why. I've never posted any positive news and said "This is great, we've solved it, no need to worry, no need to get involved." I don't think posting "here is a good thing that has happened" is disingenuous at all. This strikes me as an issue with tone, more than anything else. That's just not my vibe, anymore. e: "Too little too late" for what?? To little too late to ... avoid climate change at all? To avoid climate disasters? Who has ever ITT presented climate action as something that would "solve" climate change? I just don't understand why you want me to add a performative "lol we're all still hosed" to good news. What purpose does that serve? I've never portrayed climate actions as more than I think they are. How are u fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
How are u posted:I really don't see why. Because one should always try to interpret the importance and impact of new information within its broader context.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Because one should always try to interpret the importance and impact of new information within its broader context. I do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
How are u posted:I do that. No, you don't. For example: How are u posted:Here's an interesting article about adaptation in agriculture, just quoting the opening, more at link. This is purely in the "scientists are rushing to develop a way to build ship hulls that are 6% sturdier" category. The broader context here is that by the time that happens (if it happens at all), it will be too late. So there's really no reason to post articles like that at all, unless you're in the science-will-save-us-from-climate-change camp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:No, you don't. For example: If there is a chance that we can save some amount of people that would otherwise not have been able to survive climate change through developments like (maybe) this should we not talk about it because there will still be a lot of other people that will die because of climate change? Should we only talk about a development that blunts climate change if it 100% reverses the fate of humanity and otherwise only talk about ways we are hosed? Because that seems to be the standard you are putting forward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:No, you don't. For example:  Ok, friend. I didn't play anything up about what was written in that article. I didn't downplay any climate science. Are you really upset because I didn't include a "but none of it matters anyway, there is no hope" type caveat? You seem to really be hung up on tone, and, quite frankly, I think it's absurd to equate posting interesting and/or positive climate action / news / developments with ... whatever you mean by "science-will-save-us-from-climate-change camp". I don't believe anything can "save us" from climate change. We can work to mitigate climate change, and we can work to adapt to climate change, but there's no reversing climate change (at least within our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our children and children's children, etc). You're putting words in my mouth that I have not said.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
How are u posted:I didn't play anything up about what was written in that article. Yes you did. The article is about research that has not even yielded results yet: quote:As her researchers gather their data, Lorence sends it to Gota Morota, a geneticist at Virginia Tech, who is running analyses to isolate the genes that seem to correlate with rice’s resilience to high night-time temperature. Despite this, you have essentially concluded that this thing is not just real, but can be scaled up to become more common, even outside agriculture! How are u posted:I suspect this type of adaptation will become more and more common, and in more areas than just food agriculture. I see how our fire seasons have become more and more intense, and I imagine that at some point we'll start genetically modifying forest tree species to be more heat and drought resilient to try to mitigate wildfire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
i'd be concerned that even if it could be developed it would not be squatted on by any variety of rent-seekers, as well its not enough that this be possible, but that it be possible cheaply, and any sort of patent poo poo would stop that dead in its tracks
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 04:41
|
|
|
Risk of multiple climate tipping points escalates above 1.5°C global warmingquote:The Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stated that risks of triggering climate tipping points become high by around 2°C above preindustrial temperatures and very high by 2.5–4°C.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
Old Assholes in Charge (in public): "Don't worry, we'll fix it! Just keep electing us!"  Old Assholes in Charge (in private): "I'd better be dead by 2030."  On a semi-related note: https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1567901272526954496 BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
It's okay, methane is apparently "green" fuel now. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/06/eu-parliament-nuclear-gas-green/
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Old Assholes in Charge (in private): "I'd better be dead by 2030." Old Assholes in Charge, also (in private): "I'd better rob these fukken plebs of as much money as I can so my rich heirs can afford the lifeboats they'll need!"* * if they are non-psychopathic enough to care about even their own children
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
Methane could be green if it was sourced from anaerobic digestion and not fossil sources of methane. Somehow I suspect this is not what they were thinking about when making natural gas 'green'
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
The Slack Lagoon posted:Methane could be green if it was sourced from anaerobic digestion and not fossil sources of methane. Somehow I suspect this is not what they were thinking about when making natural gas 'green' What about cow farts, that's got to be pretty green?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
Sure, if you can capture it at the point of generation. e: excepting the significant energy inputs
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 02:14
|
|
|
Bringing a whole new meaning to CCS
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
The Slack Lagoon posted:Methane could be green if it was sourced from anaerobic digestion and not fossil sources of methane. Somehow I suspect this is not what they were thinking about when making natural gas 'green' Gas has been labeled "green" since Germany heavily lobbied towards this, with the excuse they need gas as backup solution for wind/solar. Welp
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 09:11
|
|
|
I feel so sad for people who are having kids and saving for retirement. I'm living my best life now and they're thinking I'm insane. Any tips on how to deal with people like this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dgelles/status/1570135913535262720?s=20&t=hparcaYnaVpwJ-okw3NnZw
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
slurm posted:I feel so sad for people who are having kids and saving for retirement. I'm living my best life now and they're thinking I'm insane. Any tips on how to deal with people like this? There is honestly no conversation taht can be had about this stuff with people that want and are having kids. Just let them be, the only result of such a conversation will be starting a fight
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 00:15
|
|