nothinghead

Most soy products do not go to feeding humans, and most soy products for humans are not exclusively vegetarian products. In fact, some estimates put human consumption of soy at 6%, which includes uses in things like canned meats, body care products etc. Soya lecithin is in a tonne of products. The most important point: taken as a whole, the economic value of the meal, almost all of which is used for fodder, is much higher than the value of the oil. Look at the history of deforestation caused by demand for soy, since the early 20th century it's been tied to livestock production. Look where soy is imported to, particularly from the Amazon. Do you really think that the Netherlands, or even the EU, is the leading producer of human consumption soy products for the region or globally? Have a look at this. Soy ain't being grown for hippies' tofu and lactose intolerants' milk. Farmers aren't make a few extra bucks on soymeal, multinationals are making a packet deforesting the Amazon for animal feed. In the broader context of whether hippie crap like a vegetarian diet is better for the environment, there doesn't seem to be much confusion: "predominantly plant-based diets appear environmentally better than meat-based ones21, 42, 43. Our results are consistent with those reports, since, in the present study, VG and V diets represent a clear environmental advantage with respect to the O one for all the three environmental evaluated indicators. This aspect, which is related to the biggest environmental impact generated by a greater consumption of animal products, had already been hypothesized7, 28." Study Some more reading on the topic: Evaluating environmental impact of various dietary patterns Diet and GHGs in the UK Review of environmental impact of diet

Majority of soy monoculture is farmed for animal fodder. @DualWieldRake You're right that those things I mentioned aren't examples about climate change, but I couldn't think of something we've intervened in for environmental reasons that has negatively impacted climate change.

You’re right, a lot of our attempts to fix environmental problems/improve environmental conditions for ourselves in the past have only worsened them. Cane toads, DDT, the Four Pests Campaign, the Dust Bowl, etc. all started with people trying to control environmental factors with the aim of improving humans’ position in the environment. All of them ended in diasaster. And you're right, they we're all poorly thought out. None of them had a team of qualified ecologists running the show. OK, science doesn’t have all the answers. But it does have a lot of useful information that we too rarely put to use in environmental policy. The government’s Direct Action? Farce. Policy on coal? Completely misaligned with what ecologists and other scientists advise. The ways we are managing our environment are at odds with what the experts’ consensus is telling us. We need to put more trust and responsibility in the people who have dedicated years and years to this knowledge, rather than letting some Greg Cunt who studied law and IR run environmental policy, or worse, let another prick who studied law merge environmental governance with food production and hand decision making to a melonheaded twat who studied finance. Why are we letting business dictate our management of sectors they know nothing about? We're not putting ecologists in charge of the reserve bank, and we're not making a poet our financial minister. Why are we following that logic on environmental issues? I’m not saying that if we just ask an ecologist we will have a silver bullet for climate change, but we could at least take some steps in the right direction and put some trust in the right people. Reducing carbon emissions is a real, achievable goal if people are willing to make some shifts and sacrifices. Modifying agricultural techniques to be more environmentally friendly is possible if consumers and producers are invested in the idea. It's true that many of the problems are deeply systemic and so not easily changed in a short period of time, and we’ve seen in the past that authoritarian plans like forcing everyone to be a small hold farmer or other 5-year plan style stuff probably would not be desireable or particularly effective. I’m not pretending to have the answers, I’m just saying it’s a bit easy to go down the nihilistic rabbit-hole and say “well it seems thorny so I’ll just leave it.” There seems to be too much of a “give me convenience or give me death” sentiment going around. Just because there isn’t a clear, foolproof, simple plan to address climate change doesn’t mean we can just throw our hands in the air and say fuck it she’ll be right. I can't do a fraction of what I'd like to on environmental problems, but I still don't think it's ok to give up just because I can't be captain planet. There’s still good reason to push against climate change in any way we can given that there are sensible steps forward available to us. Even if we can’t do as much as we might want to as individuals, we don’t help anything by giving up.

Because all the other species on the planet don't exist for our own benefit. If you think plants and animals have any intrinsic value you should have a conscience about what our species is doing to them. Saying that the earth will recover from this mass extinction is a cop out. It's also ignoring the massive suffering we're inflicting on other animals.

I don't know what "licensed to any country" means, but it's illegal to order it here. Be aware that they don't get into trouble for sending it, you get into trouble for trying to receive it.

Just read through this thread, and instead of 'liking' every post I thought I'd just say thanks to Glaukus and all the posters here. Great information and fantastic support. Good work on tackling the things you're going through, and thanks for sharing the journey. I'd be interested to read more about how your felt regarding the differences between rue and caapi at these doses.

US independence was founded on massive class inequalities that persisted across history, and slavery that persisted well into nationhood. Atrocities were committed against the indigenous population that were tantamount to genocide, and the Enlightenment ideals the national government espoused (for ex. in the Bill of Rights) were mainly extended to the status quo (often excluding, for example, women, Indians, etc.). Yes there were some well meaning players, and yes there were some noble goals, but you know what they say about good intentions.

The problem with this, I think, is that the power vacuum created by minimising state control would be filled. Smaller government is a nice idea in theory, but ultimately capitalism is a robust system and other agents would step in to fill the role of the state. We already see the lines being blurred. Private/corporate security forces exist across Europe (and probably elsewhere) that have powers and weapons comparable to the police force. Politicians worldwide often act in their own self-interest, which is equivalent to the interest of corporations. Corporations in the US are legally allowed to fund politicians. Smaller government at this point in history would just mean bigger corporate. The players would shift position a bit, but the game would be the same. In fact, the game would be worse, because capitalism doesn't have to even bother with the lip service about democracy. These are not mutually exclusive. It's no secret that states are "in cahoots." We see it in trade, diplomacy, security agreements, etc. etc. Globalisation is a manifestation of international agreements. Nation states and corporations (arguably, but not always) all want to be on top or close to the top in terms of money and power, but they're playing the same game. Like a football match there are agreed rules (that get slighted as often as can be gotten away with), but the teams know the rules, what they can and can't get away with, and they play according to that.

Northerner, thanks for the diagram. Can oxygen (in the form of the oxygenated water) get through the central terracotta pot?

Sorry to hear about your troubles Sally, they sound extremely serious. But is contributing here really the source of them? I'd hate to see you go and would miss your posts. I hope the things you and those around you are going through resolve as best they can. Take a break and sort out what you need to sort out. Don't disappear for good.

Nice crests! Does that cling wrap on the pere work well?

Edulis is the purple or yellow fruit vine "passionfruit". Incarnata is "passionflower," the more medicinally interesting plant.

Yeah don't leave over a spat. I haven't read what might've upset you, but it might be worth keeping in mind that some of the stuff you (and me, and most people who post in any kind of political thread) will have upset others, too. We're all guilty of being a bit callous at times, but don't let that get you off the boards for good. Focus on the plant discussions, you've got plenty to contribute there, and stay out of the other stuff when it gets to ya. Just my 2 pence.

Del, the acacia varieties were just picked based on a few I've grown, nothing really specific about those particular ones as ones to start off with. Acuminata is a good choice. Did you score and treat the seeds in heated water? If you don't have luck with the ones you've sown have a look at the search engine for germination techniques. Deadstar's suggestion is an excellent one for a non-native. Brugs are fun to grow, easy as, and have beautiful flowers.

Why not grab an acacia from the SAB shop? Maidenii, baileyana, and complanata are all hardy and robust, and flower nicely after a while.

This discussion about conspiracy theories in general is a good one. I agree, Halcyon, that where there's one conspiracy theory, there're often more. I also think conspiracy theories are a legitimate way of questioning received narratives, particularly in an era in which we're aware that so much of the information we receive is deeply biased, in which media outlets are driven by political and economic motives (*cough* Murdoch), and our government outright tells us there are plenty of things going on behind the scenes that we don't need to know (like Johnny Howard giving serious consideration to rescinding the right to remain silent in "terrorism" investigations). I'll say from the outset that I'm into some conspiracy theories. I'm interested in conspiracy theories that were at one point were dismissed by many as paranoid or crazy, but turned out to be true. At one point the idea that national agencies and corporations could tap and later trace phones was a conspiracy theory, now metadata collection is enshrined in policy and "location services" are a part of our lifestyles. Later, the idea that electronic communications were being spied on was neurotic. Now there's a wikipedia page on Five Eyes, and Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. Before the Panama and Paradise Papers the notion that global elites -including public servants who manage our public funds- were gaming the taxation systems they enforce on the rest of us was rubbish. A little earlier, the US's CIA couldn't possibly have had anything to do with running and distributing drugs in its own backyard, and even more absurd was the possibility that these actions could be connected to their (successful) efforts to control elements of South American politics. Yet for all the COINTELPROs and MKULTRAs, Dreyfus Affairs and Vatican coverups, if you use a popular search engine to have a read up on conspiracy theories you'll get unsubstantiated dreck about reptilians and fluoride, and a number of "authoritative" voices opining that the people who question received narratives/believe conspiracies do so because they are "losers." I think there's more to it. Not only do we have good reason to apply critical thinking to the disconnect between talk and action on the part of global actors like governments and corporations, and question the glaring holes in the democratic process, we have a historical record of conspiracies that transitioned from utter madness to vindicated by overwhelming evidence. My opinion is that conspiracy theories come about both as a way of dealing with unknowns and complexity, and a result of critical thinking about evident contradictions. We inherently want to explain things and understand them, it's in our nature. In a world of highly specialised and refined technologies that most of us can't possibly understand across the board in detail, and of often cloaked political and economic processes, it's frustrating to be cut off from explanations for invisible or opaque forces that exert an influence over our lives. Given humanity's history of corruption it's good to question authorities, and I agree with Halcyon that we should use the right tool for the job when it comes to doing so. If it's a question about vaccines, look at the science. If it's a question about politics, use critical thinking and primary sources when they're available. Conspiratorial thinking can be evidence based, and make use of proven explanatory systems. Or it can be extrapolated from your already-formed, subjective views about something. I think the first one is more useful. I think it's a good thing that Thunder and others are questioning the narratives, and I think it's good that others are questioning the questioners.

Hahaha strong point. Anyway, solving differences of opinion with fighting-machine levels of martial arts training aside, 2017 should be ashamed of itself, coming in as only the second hottest year on record (i.e. since 1880), with some saying it shoulda come third: nasa article The year didn't even manage to get up by a single degree (it got 0.9, close but no cigar) from the 1951-1980 mean, let alone bag the 2 degree rise that is often, though in some ways problematically, given as an upper limit for "normal" temperature variation. What a fizzer. As a consolation though, 2017 did manage to retain a place amongst the five hottest years on record, all of which have occurred since 2010. Let's enjoy the warmth until some nerds invent a carbon sequestering technology that will take it back away from us. Then we'll be free to wait around until cloning advances mean we get back stuff like the Baiji dolphin, Pyrenean ibex, Eastern cougar, western black rhino, Japanese river otter, Formosan clouded leopard, Cape Verde giant skink, Saint Helena olive, etc. etc. Can't wait till the debate is over and we can just watch the show in peace.

Thanks for the tek, looks good! Do the cutting roots have a tendency to grow up against the central terracotta pot and stick, or does the water disperse well through the perlite?

I saw an episode where he was in the Papuan highlands. It looked volatile as, he did well to keep as calm as he did. Holy shit. This is completely outside my realm of comprehension. The British "Up" series, and "Hoop Dreams" are both great. About the way that life doesn't always take the direction you'd expect it to. "The Act of Killing", aside from everything else, makes you wonder about Australia's foreign policy choices and military interventions, and our place in the region more generally.

Here's one of the threads on the takeaway tek, look at HolyMountain's post for a brief rundown of the tek. About your questions. I always had a light above my seeds, so though I've read that it's unnecessary I've never tried it without lights. You can just grab a fluoro tube, or even easier a cool-white energy saver bulb and fitting, and hang it right above the greenhouse. Mightn't help, but won't hurt them. There is a chance the seeds will still pop. Since you're using an organic substrate, be careful not to overwater. You also might want to put the greenhouse right next to/above your element both to increase the warmth of the soil, and to help with the soil staying damp but not wet.

I was given this at my first SAB meetup. Have long since forgotten which pach it is. Can anyone help with an ID?'

Might be all simple stuff you are aware of, but: - Using silicone gloves (good for the smaller ones, but not completely spine-proof) or even a bit of gaffa on your fingertips (less dextrous, but works for the larger ones) to reduce the number of spines or glochids your skin comes into contact with. - Keeping a "clean hand" that you don't use to touch the cacti, that you can use to touch your eye, scratch something, or whatever. - Using a tool, like a small spoon or improvised scoop type of implement, so that you can keep a "clean hand" and which also helps with unearthing the seedlings and reducing skin contact in general. - Keeping a pair of tweezers nearby so that you can pinch the spines out regularly. Tedious, but stops them from breaking off and leaving a tiny, virtually un-removeable tip in your skin which will cause some discomfort for a few days. This can require good light, so you actually notice when you're getting spined.