Peterkin

It might keep some fungus down, but if not applied directly to plants not much benefit. No harm, though. I can't imagine why they would waste sugar. It's no good to plants, but might be unpleasant for slugs and snails. It won't do any harm. It won't do any any good. While none of those things should go in a garbage can, the oil is no use to plants; the orange juice is okay; the yogurt encourages bacteria and moulds that the garden doesn't need, but that might not be harmful. Just put it in the compost and wait.

It can be. If you have useful information, please contribute. If you have reasonable questions, I'm sure there are people here who have answers. If you have innovative ideas, I - can't speak for anyone else - would be interested to explore them. Here's a jump-off point: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change/

Put pontoons on it and land on lakes.

To cover a car? Probably. You'd have to affix ledges and ridges to the outer surface to hold the turf, and drive slo-oo-owly, so's not to dislodge it. In a plane, you can plant a carpet, as well as seats. But, you're still just cheating. It's not a "A plane made of plants"; it's a plane decorated with redundant grass.

Fake grass, not living. Presumably, you could cover an ordinary car with some other vegetation but so what? It's still just an ordinary car. For airplanes, it would have to be on the inside - and still, so what? It's an ordinary plane with some green fuzz in the cabin.

For what purpose? Seat covers?

Sure, that's easy. Both trees and houses are rooted. Cars and planes have to move, or else they're just houses. You can make a plant-based car move if you construct it like a tumbleweed, covered in solar skin (possibly made of sunflower stem fibers) for motive power, but the passenger compartment would have to be equipped with a gyroscope, or else you'd have to hose it out every time you arrived at a destination. It may be speculated that genetic modification can achieve these combinations. Your plane would have to be glider, built on the principle of a maple key or Pterocarpus rohrii. Seeds are alive, but they don't need watering. Didn't all airplanes used to have wooden frames? No challenge in that!

The world isn't. A lot of people are. But because the governments of the world can't get their global act together, the efforts of individuals and groups, or even nations, are insufficient to the task, which has been allowed to grow beyond the scope of local efforts.

Of course the US didn't land on the moon. That technology is as yet beyond human capability. Just that one little capsule landed in 1969, and then four more in the following years. Only 12 guys altogether. Hardly any accomplishment at all.

No, it doesn't and you have done your erroneous pointing-out. I didn't say 'following the African rains'. They followed the animals, (which periodically stop to rest, drink, graze and regroup), that follow the grass (which takes 1-3 weeks from the onset of rain to regrow and keeps on growing after the rain has stopped) which follows the rains, which keep falling more or less regularly for 2 to 7 months, during and after which season, the animals keep grazing. They do not keep pace with the rain-clouds; they just keep up with the grass and the hunters keep tracking the herds. Besides which, Paleolithic people were tough; 20 km/day, which is a dawdle for modern hikers, would have been child's play for them.

Answering you. But just the twice.

I thought we were talking about the spread of humans out of Africa to the rest of the world. However, in Africa, too, hunters follow the animals that follow the grass, which follows the rains, which are seasonal.

That home range can be quite large, if you follow prey to winter and summer grazing and the ripening season of fruit, also to avoid extreme weather. But they didn't necessarily have a choice: there could be a flood or drought, locust invasion, rockfall - all kinds of things happen to make a territory inhospitable.

Yes. All of those things, plus seasonal migration, plus shifting population due to climate and natural conditions, or because they were pushed out by a more powerful group, or they had overhunted a territory and had to move on. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/global-human-journey

Also early childhood stimulation and the availability of challenging toys and games. Having benign, unintrusive adult attention fosters confidence, and experience with test-taking helps in taking any new test. Children living in poverty generally lack of those things. Plus, it might be interesting to know where the test was devised and by whom: cultural bias and differences in communication may be factors.

There is that. Unless the very intelligent person has some intense focus, like physics or chess, to concentrate their mind, they may tend to look at the world without comforting illusions, and despair. In the case of my young acquaintance, there was another factor: a highly developed emotional sensitivity; I suspect he was a natural empath who had not been taught any coping technique. My partner and I would probably score about the same on a conventional IQ test, though our range of perception, as well as our approach to problem-solving are very different.

Back in that same time, I knew one young man who had a measured IQ of 180+. He worked nights in a greasy spoon across the street from the railway station. Nights, because the customers then were mainly regulars who worked at the terminal. He couldn't stand too much contact with strangers. He didn't go out much in daylight for the same reason. He was incapable of ignoring any person, thing or idea that came within his ken. He had, by age 19, already been admitted to a psychiatric hospital three times and tried to commit suicide twice. It was just too exhausting to deal with everything in his head.

Why? I took the test a long time ago, back when I was young and dumb enough to believe it meant something. I was invited to join a local club, but they were mostly couples with children, all earnestly obsessed with developing their little genii's genius. I didn't join, but kept in touch with two people who were actually fun, and who also didn't join.

Probably not, at least not with money - it's too portable and changeable in value. A benign marketplace would require all participants to be honest and well-intentioned. But rules can be set up so that anyone dealing dishonestly or harmfully would be expelled. Like a barter group, or better, a resource-based economy.

Oh, not the merry-go-round again! It seems like you're going around in circles.

You get all kinds of regressive kookery. Like Flat Earth Theory. In the case of denying the big bang, it's simply to assert the creation of "the world" according to their own mythology. Of course, that biblical "world" was a vanishingly small fraction of the universe of which we are aware now, and the creator-gods of the time didn't require the quantities of space, time and energy we now to know to be involved. So, in order to make their story "true", they have to pretend very hard not to know a great many things they do know and choose to deny. Hence the sarcasm and outre comparisons: it's a smoke-screen for self-deception. There is a little more to the denial of evolution: that's not just an aspersion on their deity; it's personal. They desperately want to be the special, favoured creatures of someone with super-powers.

When you have long legs and lots of clearance, your belly doesn't need as much protection as when you crawl on or close to the ground.

What do you mean by that? We have to wake up every morning, eat at reasonably regular intervals and go to sleep at night? Then yes. The weather grows colder as winter approaches, warmer in spring, hot in summer and then cools down again. Then, yes. Groups of people desire the same things as other groups of people and fight over those things? Then, yes. However, no two meals, summers or wars are identical. Though many believe in consecutive lives and eternity, I see no evidence of it. I believe each human, each life is unique and finite. And, while I don't speak apidaean, bees probably are, too. I heard it was more like a continuous expansion that still hasn't stopped, with a good deal of local variation in stars, planets, asteroids, gas clouds and the spaces between. And not the least bit repetitive. Or merry. I'd be happy with completing one circle, so we could go back to sticks and stones and rethink the situation before somebody builds a great big stone tomb. But that's just me. War has certainly been one of humanity's favourite pastimes - preparing for war, making war, cleaning up after a war. But in between, and during wars, people do lots of singing and working and playing games, too. To survive. It is the primary motivation of all organisms. That's unlikely to change. So? What do you propose to do about it?

Economy. For animals that need to move, sometimes very fast, the weight of bones is a serious consideration. The brain gets most of the bony protection, because even a slight injury to the brain can be fatal. Then the heart and lungs - particularly from behind, where predators are most likely to attack. The gut and stomach get a fatty pad, and a layer of muscle. There a certain amount of flexibility in the abdomen; malleable soft tissue is better able to withstand blows and pressure than the delicate lungs.

One has to wonder how they got the hump-backed bulls, mammoths and wild horses into the cave to pose for them? And prehistoric plains-people, forest dwellers and nomads - how did their minds work?