Skovand

Sddsddssss

Probably because most people don’t seem to want to have multiple partners. Not even in places where it’s ok. There are some that do. But that seems less common. As far as an evolutionary drive I don’t think we know. Maybe because it seems we evolved in tribal communities and often traveled great distances to far away places and if we took to many partners and had offspring, maybe it quickly bottlenecks into inbreeding and do less partners was better for many. Maybe the ones who took more partners tended to be a bit more action driven. Maybe they were the same ones who also enjoyed being at the front of the hunt or leading small wars against other tribes. Maybe those died off and the less aggressive, less driven ones were more “home bodies” for their area and was less sex driven as well and overtime those playing it safer tended to live longer and overtime it lead to a common trait. it could all just be purely socially and financially driven.

I also look at it this way. I could be in a country where I have all authority, all power and all wealth. Could be free to do whatever I want. There are still a lot of things I would not do. For example, I would still not eat animals. I would still not just harm others for fun. I would not force someone to be with me in any way. I would still be faithful to my fiancee. I would still help others. Maybe sometimes I help because I simply see them struggling. Maybe sometimes I help because it makes me feel better to help. Sometimes I may help because I feel obligated to help even if I don’t actually want too. why is not important. Does not matter if it’s some magical law written on our hearts or if it’s because of millions of years of evolution within tribal family type groups.

In America almost all concrete homes homes come with styrofoam built inside of it that stays there for as long as the house is standing. They are known for being far cheaper to heat and cool as well. Sure, forests can come back, but the biodiversity in a forest is far higher than where most quarries seem to be in America. Nothing can take in accountability for everything and everywhere. But when you look at 5,000 acres for a single large subdivision and it’s all wood homes that can’t handle roof gardens and insurance makes having trees nearby unaffordable and you realize that all of that displaced land could be on the rooftops of concrete homes surrounded by native trees, versus almost no trees and just some landscaping speckling the parameters it just seems that the concrete homes would ultimately result in dozens of times more biodiversity and biomass. I’m 35 and have lived all over and have never experienced a single earthquake but I’ve had snow cave in old roofs, trees smash walls , floods take out entire bottom floors and hurricanes and tornados take out entire subdivisions almost. Wooden houses almost never make it past a century without most of it being gutted and fixed. Concrete homes will go far past a century. I live in south Alabama. There are a few concrete homes down here. A few right along the beach. They have withstood every hurricane while some of the ones around them that are wood have been rebuilt 3 times.

Hello. Nice to meet you as well. I am not a member. I actually don’t know much about fish. I’ve never liked eating it growing up and have always been repulsed by fishing. But I like ecology which is how I came to this book. Plus Duncan is from the same area and I often hike the places he mentioned. I’m more into aquatic plants than aquatic fauna. I live on a river though and hope to do some restoration to it down the road. At least in the parts I can. Already moved over 300 invasive plants and dug out a lot of trash.

I have wondering about work done centered around the sustainability and ecological support on concrete and steel homes verse wooden stick built home. Wood homes , even when done correctly don’t last as long as concrete and are more prone to damage by floods, winds, fires and things like trees falling on them. A concrete home can put up to much more damage. Additionally one trend we are seeing is that bigger homes are being built taking up more area of the yard. That yard is then mostly replaced with small shrubs and wildflowers to reduce tree damage. The homes are not as strong and can’t support as big or compact rooftop gardens and suffers more damage from wall gardens. But a home built with concrete and steel can more easily have a flat water proofed roof that can hold plenty of mineral soil or regular soil which more forbs, woody shrubs and even extra small trees can be added too. The ground displaced by the foundation could be replaced with a rooftop garden. Trees can be planted closer to it eliminating much of the fear of it falling and damaging the hole. also even with strict HOAs a concrete house can have any kind of sheathing. If it’s a flat room, and your family grows, you can add another layer later on and built up higher and still replace the lost habitat. was not sure where to place this.

Most likely what you are seeing is not based around anatomy but around its purpose. Fruiting labels on trees most commonly mean sizable edible fruits for humans. When a label says flowering, it usually just means a tree with showy flowers, like magnolias or tulip poplar. When a tree says shading it often means a tree that is easily limbed up, with a sprawling form and taller. If you see one that says privacy, it normally means grows quickly and is compact. Often they will grow them far to close, and after a few years remove every other one. The labels are not usually about anatomy unless it’s male or female related like with holly trees.

So genesis does indeed reach that humans were vegans prior the events of the flood. It’s only after the flood that it’s mentioned that it’s ok to now eat meat. But you have to understand that Genesis is not a singular story. It’s 2-3 different traditions of Judaism that developed overtime stitched together creating a biblical seam. So genesis 1 for example is believed to have been written after Genesis 2 but that they both are also from different sects of Judaism. We see this by the fact that Abel gave an animal sacrifice. This was most likely a redaction created at a later point than Genesis 6 and all of it seems to either be a reimagining of The Epic of Gilgamesh or either both are based on an older now lost text. So you can’t really argue either or. You can argue for both. But besides that, is veganism more ethical than enslaving and killing and eating an animal? I would say it’s objectively more ethical, depending on how you define ethics. I’ve been a vegan for close to 18 years now. I went vegan first for farm animals. They are obviously sentient beings that feel fear and pain as they suffer leading up to their death. As time went on and I learned more about it and how it affects the environment I added to reasons for being one. 80%+ of pastures and crops are for livestock. The bulk of the rainforest being cut down in South America is for livestock including livestock feed. More land is being deforested and more rivers being dammed ( and damned ) to help add power to these corpse manufactures. however, loss of life is part of this planet in the way we are set up. I have cats. Three of them. While my cats don’t need to be vegan or forced into it by me, I benefit from the byproducts of slaughtered animals since it’s used to help make food. While my contribution is far smaller than someone who consistently eat meat, I still have some blood on my hand. So I don’t think I’m better than someone else, but I do believe I’m making less of a carbon footprint with my diet than them and my own meals are more ethical.

Yes I did because I know if I see it then others can also see it and maybe in the last few years someone who has entered may have some ideas. You may notice, i may respond to several older threads for this same reason, even if it’s been down for a decade.

Would be cool. Closest I know is In Defense of Plants podcast.

Just to be clear. Eco terrorism would not make me feel better personally. I was in the army for 6 years and while there realized i definitely don’t think most wars are really justifiable outside of being invaded. Though I don’t think it’s going to workout without lots of suffering first, I cling to a hope it will get better. I think we are going to have tipping points caused by climate change, such as worsening drought which leads to more dams to try to develop more water storage, that messes up more wildlife like mollusks causing water to be less filtered, meaning increases in algae blooms and waste buildup, leading to more problems with water and I think more non native plants will introduce more non native diseases, and wildlife bottlenecking from more Urban development leading to more disease outbreaks. I think it’s just going to be sad before I die, but not really that bad. I think the kids born in 2100 will be the ones that have to deal with how bad it gets. I don’t think electing better people will make a significant change either personally. I think it will have to be a bubble up effect. More citizens protesting against wilderness being cut down, more citizens using consumerism to cause systems like the meat industry to collapse and everyone deciding to stop dropping chemicals into their lawns and fighting HOAs on native plant wildlife gardens and so on. I just don’t think the bulk of people are going to start to do this for a few more generations and once it gets so bad there is very little to deny. so what I was trying to say is that I don’t think anything now really justifies eco terrorism. I think protesting is obviously justifiable. Chaining up in front of forests and showing up on lawns of certain houses and so on. but that in 100 years when a tipping points are happening and it’s starting to really show in your face signs people may begin to make better choices. I have hope that they will. But I don’t think so also. I think it will continue to get worse and worse. I think around 200 years from now if this stays on track, that’s when smaller groups people will have to violently fight back against the infrastructure which will hurt many. I think that’s when humanity will be looking back at us wondering why we did not do more. When people in third world nations are dying by the millions because of heat waves, water shortages, and when even first world nations have to turn off power and water and the poor suffering worse than ever. I think they will wonder why we did not do more.

While I can’t imagine that I’ll ever do anything I do sometimes wonder about this. Not so much directed at the government itself as much as things like damaging forestry equipment or a dam. I think how dams have prevented many fish from breeding well since they use to travel freshwater rivers but now can’t and how because they can’t their are tons of fresh water mollusks whose larvae never make it to adulthood because they can’t attach to the gills of fish they coevolved with because of the dams. Or how cities let more and more wilderness be cut down. i wonder sometimes if in 200 years the issues compounded by climate change will be so bad eco terrorism is a sort of revolution and if they will look back at us in disgust about how we did not do more. I can’t imagine it because I hope in humanity I guess . Or rather I believe before it gets as bad as it can, capitalism will drive businesses to do better because they have too.

Hello. joined because in winter I get a bit bored from how dark it gets. Not a cold weather guy. I’m a Christian but I fall under the Christian naturalist side of the faith, though a bit oxymoronic it basically means while believing in god functionally I’m an atheist. I don’t believe that there is any evidence for the supernatural, including God. I lean towards universalism, syncretism liberalism and accomondationism as adjectives to Christianity. Though it’s a significant part of my life and I’m open about it, I generally accept scientific consensuses and joined here for that. I love to forage for wild mushrooms and to work on keying out plants in the field as a hobbyist. I really enjoy natural history. I’m really interested in ecology and coevolution within ecosystems. Like how plant communities and pollinators drove each others divergent traits and chemical compositions. I wake up around 230/330am. Sleep around 6-830pm generally. Holidays threw that a bit off. Since I get off at 130pm most days I hike almost everyday. Sometimes on the weekend I hike 10 miles or more a day. i don’t really like music. I listen to maybe 10 minutes a week. Or a song a day maybe. Mostly just when driving. More of a podcast and audiobook person. for fiction in a horror nerd. I like it all from 1950s family friendly golden age sci fi horror to 80s gorewhore stuff to full blown body horror and “elevated” horror. I especially like found footage styles too. I like anthologies, short stories and novels. Though I like horror a lot I don’t like true crime. Similar. Southeast USA as well but southern Alabama and NW Florida area. Like Pensacola and Gulf Shores. Though not an atheist I’m on the opposite side of Christianity than the conservatives. Very liberal. Accomondationism.

My only woodworking is basic construction. Stick framing and so on. Built some birdhouses and trellises. But I really want to learn more about some of the more artistic stuff. I can’t draw, but would love to learn how to draw to help me envision stuff to carve, and then learn how to carve too. one hope I have if I get more time, and motivation, is to start building a wide range of birdhouses for specific species native or migrating to my area. Help people select best birdhouse for their location and trees to help push native plant gardening.

Southern Rivers by Scot Duncan. Environmentalism and ecology of fresh water systems in southern, mostly southeastern USA.

I’m currently reading “ Southern Rivers “ by Dr. Scot Duncan. A really good book focused on ecology and environmentalism in the southeastern fresh water systems and some about brackish waters and the Gulf of Mexico. It’s also available as an audiobook on Hoopla Digital.

I’m a Christian myself. Granted I’m a liberal Christian who leans heavily towards omnism and syncretism and believe that a significantly large amount of the Bible is myths, hyperbolic , reimaginings of stories and so on. I also know that my faith is just that, its faith, and there is no concrete evidence of the supernatural including any god. Though interested with that concept and overcame it 8+ years ago or so. I see two main issues, that has possibly been touched up on in the thread but I’ve not read it yet. The first is that it’s ridiculous to think that people only choose to do good out of fear of being punished for doing bad. You can be an atheist and still have a very strong moral and ethical philosophy and position. You can be religious and have a terrible one, even with the fear of eternal conscious torment. I am a vegan for the animals and for the environment. 80%+ of pastures and crops globally are for livestock and the bulk of one of the earths many lungs, the rainforest, is being cut down for livestock as pastures and as livestock feed farming. A giant portion of our land has been demolished to grow livestock feed and be pastures for them. A bunch of the pesticides being used is for them. Everyone becoming vegan would significantly reduce the environmental impacts we are having on earth and would definitely reduce the amount of suffering happening for no justifiable reason. that’s my stance and yet my faith does not call for it and neither does the legal system. I would not even be frowned upon by the bulk of humanity if I was eating a cow corpse sandwich. So hell or any form of punishment even standard jail time is not required to take on a moral stance. secondly , I’m not sure how familiar you are with the numerous concepts of hell or the history of them. I’m not going to dive deeply into them on here. But plenty of Christians, including early church fathers rejected eternal conscious torment in favor of conditional immortality or universalism. Even in universalism one reason why we want to do good is because side we want the world to be a better place. We are not bullies or jerks as much as possible because we know it’s a better planet when it’s built in goodness and love.

I think in general we should try to eliminate plastic use when possibly, even at the cost of convenience. I also think we should use the power of consumerism and write emails to the brands we use requesting that they find another way. But all conscience will come at the price of something even if it’s less plastic and thicker cardboard or some new type of coating for the cardboard and so on. Like is tea in a box better or worse than tea in a can. Is a bunch of tea in one large plastic bag better than a can? There are a lot of small things we can do but honestly…… well it goes beyond your simple question.