A key advantage of physical pesticides over toxic pesticides is that pests are highly unlikely to evolve resistance, as this would require them to develop much larger and stronger bodies.
You are thinking of sea scorpions who for one werent scorpions and for two were aquatic in nature only going onto the pre carboniferous land as a shortcut since there was nothing on land.
Insect body size is dictated by oxygen levels, and since they absorb oxygen through their skin if they get too large with too little oxygen they suffocate.
Natural selection is usually implied. So, in long form, smaller insects would have to be less reproductively successful, and that's hard when you're a pest that really benefits from being tiny, stealthy and energy-economical.
We're not in a movie. Climate change isn't going be solved by one brilliant scientist. It's not even a scientific/technology problem at this point, it's a political one.
Everything is a science problem. Big refrigerators. Really big. Cool the whole world. Store heat in barrels and shoot them into the sun. Time machines. A whole host of solutions!
Political problems can be addressed through science and technology. Like the firearm, or the bicycle, or bittorrent. We need a way to coordinate a defense that won't simply be shut down.
Maybe it is going to be solved by a brilliant political activist or leader. Jokes aside, of course it won't be a couple of people who will magically solve something. Strong leaders will however ease the cause by promoting issues best.
Yes, it's obvious that you were joking about the other commenter's kid fixing the problem.
The issue is that it embodies the sentiment that it's "not our problem" and it's for the future generation to figure out...and then when that was called out, the first alternative you brought up was defeatism, as if that's the only alternative to someone in the future fixing the problem, lol
The defeatism was obviously sarcasm too though. So stop making all these assumptions about me.
I obviously want the issues fixed and have hope that they will be since I said that I have my own children. I do my fair share as well.
Also you talk about "defeatism" and that's all I see in this thread. People give up on the chance to have kids not because they don't want them but because some rich assholes have started to destroy the environment, things cost too much, the pay isn't right, etc... that's defeatism. The rich assholes are still having plenty of kids and they will be the ones to inherit the world.
If it is solved it will definitely be through technology of some sort. While I agree it will not be one brilliant scientist, technology will be the solution.
That technology may come in the form of a way to produce more energy without fucking up the climate, and the engineering and logistical capacity to roll out the change at a breakneck pace.
It may come in the form of simply developing a way to control the global climate directly.
It might come in the form of some technology to control the behavior of humans so that we can actually respond appropriately.
Or it might come in the form of the singularity, when self improving machines grow so far beyond us so fast that they can just do what is needed whether we like it or not.
But one way or another I guarantee that if it's solved, it'll largely be a technological solution, because getting humanity to just...stop using energy at our current rate...is just not going to happen.
The issue with technosolutionism is that it can't fit the necessary parameters to address climate change. We already know we can't go further with infinite growth. It's not possible to tackle climate change. We need degrowth. Without it, it's impossible.
The problem is that our economy is based on growth, and this growth will generate the new tech. If you're for state developed and owned technologies, you have to change the political dogma et system first.
Addressing the climate crisis is a change in the politic and in the economic system. Without both of them, it will continue.
You nailed it with this comment, I agree completely. We have the technology, we've HAD the technology to solve the problem, and we've KNOWN what the problem is for a long time now. We have GREEDY fucks in high positions of power who wouldn't make any money solving it though, that's the problem.
Cool, now you, an educated, well intent person with good morals won't have any offspring to pass those values to, and thus won't have any representation in the next generations.
Meanwhile redneck Terry will make 7 children with 3 different women and teach them to hate the libruls and that the earth is flat.
It is your decision not to have kids, I chose so myself too. But your line of thinking is in discord with the argument.
People are just so down on the world they want to crush all hope and joy for others too. In the long run I think people will be fine. The other planet's residents probably not so much. But people will adapt. I'd rather experience life than worry too much about what I can't solve.
I have kids too and seeing them experience joy and happiness is super rewarding. All you worry warts are just going to miss out.
People in developed countries will be fine. As long as you’re narcissistic enough to only look close by, we’re good to go!
Seriously though, definitely not my line of thinking and I’m very happy I had kids. There are many problems in the world and climate is just one of them. De-population of developed countries is another: we’ve started a population bomb that on 50 years will destabilize society as developed countries suddenly shrink. People are not only the cause of most of the worlds problems, they’re also the solution
Anyway, having kids is a personal choice, regardless of the world careening from one potential catastrophe to the next.
We don't have time to wait for kids to grow up before doing what we can. Ah, sorry. Before putting all of that responsibility on them and screaming "NOT IT!"
So my understanding is that committing war crimes doesn’t mean you “get arrested”. It’s that if you lose, you can’t just say it was war. If you had committed war crimes, you would be put to trial.
It’s interesting that France has lost its autonomy here. Can they not even permit him entry with an escort?
It seems Abu-Sitta was denied entry into Germany because he was going to attend another conference that the Germans felt might cause a disturbance. A conference he never made it to. And now cannot visit other “sovereign” nations in the zone:
(From the April German ban)
Abu Sitta said his ban was to last until Sunday, covering the planned duration of the Berlin conference he was to attend, entitled the Palestine Congress. The gathering was to discuss a range of topics, including German arms shipments to Israel and solidarity with what organizers called the Palestinian struggle.
Berlin police said later Friday they pulled the plug on the event, attended by up to 250 people, on its first day after a livestream was shown of a person who is banned from political activity in Germany. They wouldn’t identify the person, but said they decided after a legal assessment to end the congress and asked those attending to leave.
And you know what's the worst thing: The opposition is even worse. Friedrich Merz is basically German Donald Trump and the AfD with people like Björn Höcke is just the spiritual successor to the NSDAP
Stop that "guilt" talk please that's a literal Nazi narrative. Responsibility is the word you're looking for.
And, no, Germany isn't preventing anything from getting out DW is pretty much blasting Gazan plight 24/7. Then, you won't hear them say it publicly to not risk damaging diplomatic relations but the government definitely thinks that there's a genocide going on -- otherwise they wouldn't have stopped weapon exports.
So then why not talk about it if they know genocide is happening?
Because cutting off ties with Israel doesn't change Israel's mind, especially if you're Germany, while with intact relations you can still work from the inside. Germany has deep ties to all aspects of Israeli society, not just the government. Or, differently put: Breaking ties won't happen until the Kahanites outlaw the Haaretz.
On the flipside I don't see any other possible explanation for the lack of issued weapons export permits than them being of the opinion that there's at least a strong risk that those weapons would be used in a genocide. You might've heard that the ICJ didn't enact any preliminary rulings against Germany to stop weapons exports, that is why: There's no exports that could be reasonably used in the perpetration of a genocide.
Why prevent this guy from speaking in France?
Germany never decided that, Germany, or rather Berlin (as in the state government in its role as municipality, not the federal government) decided he should not speak in Germany on grounds of public order concerns. I suppose it has something to do with him glorifying war criminals, no matter how often he says that he disavows terrorism. The convention he was to speak at also showed videos of someone else already banned, there might be some degree of getting caught in the cross fire involved. He's not a German citizen thus political activism within Germany is not a right but privilege.
Plenty of Palestinians are not getting banned from Germany like that because they're way less iffy, and with that I don't mean "Don't criticise Israel".
France is free to make arrangements that allow him to enter France without risking him entering Schengen states he's banned from. Also this would've looked differently without Brexit as then he'd still be a EU citizen and the ban wouldn't have automatically extended to Schengen so why aren't you blaming the Tories instead of Germany.
The only way any country would agree to being part of a geographic zone with no internal border controls is if they could disallow individuals from the whole area. Not much point refusing a man entry into Germany if he can just go to France and rent a car, drive to Berlin.
The other article I read said that the guy was invited by a member of the opposition (EELV, the Greens), and when contacted the Élysée (head office of the executive) literally said "there's not much the police could do about a Schengen ban".
.... i.e. of course France could have allowed him in. The executive just chose not to exercise its power because that would not have benefitted the majority.
Weird source, they absolutely identified the person, and it was Abu Sitta. He was the reason the conference had to be stopped.
edit.: I've looked for a somewhat decent German source to share and found something interesting. The Palestine conference was banned because a speaker named Abu Sitta wanted to hold a speech, who is banned from political activity in Germany. This guy is specifically pro Hamas and said, if he was younger he would've participated in the Hamas attack himself. At the same time this other person was banned from entry into the country, also named Abu Sitta. I'm now left wondering if this Schengen ban was mistakenly issued and meant for the other guy.
You have to love that Charlie Brooker's first Black Mirror episode is about a PM fucking a pig and then that story came out not all that long afterward.
Chikli has since led a targeted push to counter critics of Israel. The Guardian has uncovered evidence showing how Israel has relaunched a controversial entity as part of a broader public relations campaign to target US college campuses and redefine antisemitism in US law.
Seconds after a smoke alarm subsided during the hearing, Chikli assured the lawmakers that there was new money in the budget for a pushback campaign, which was separate from more traditional public relations and paid advertising content produced by the government. It included 80 programs already under way for advocacy efforts “to be done in the ‘Concert’ way”, he said.
The “Concert” remark referred to a sprawling relaunch of a controversial Israeli government program initially known as Kela Shlomo, designed to carry out what Israel called “mass consciousness activities” targeted largely at the US and Europe. Concert, now known as Voices of Israel, previously worked with groups spearheading a campaign to pass so-called “anti-BDS” state laws that penalize Americans for engaging in boycotts or other non-violent protests of Israel.
In the middle of all the propaganda and lobbying, there's no rational reason to ignore that a foreign government is interfering with American politics for their own gain
It's fucked when Russia does it.
It's fucked when Israel does it.
And as long as we keep electing politicians who take the money, nothing will change.
Israel is just smart enough to buy off both parties.
Ohh look. It's the guy that turns every news/politics article into a "both sides" argument to try to specifically disenfranchise left voters, and is mysteriously silent in all those articles quoting Trump saying he'll enable both Russia and Isreal in their genocides.
Don't fall for his crap. He's only here to point fingers at Dems, never Republicans.
He's here to help Trump get elected.
He is either part of the Russian / Isreali propaganda he's trying to frame as bad here, or a useful idiot that has bought into said propaganda.
Majidi’s daughter Mahsa said: “We are happy because they were murderers. Raisi ordered the killing of my mother and his minister denied our martyrs. I know it is not right to be happy about the death of a person, but they were not human. Congratulations to all the victims’ families and people of Iran. Zan, Zendegi, Azadi [Woman, Life, Freedom].”
That's why they are funding and supporting far-right parties in almost any Western country. The AfD in Germany is a good example, their MPs were literally caught receiving money from the Russians. Their MEPs also work for the Chinese intelligence service btw
If we want to get conservatives on board with environmental protections, we should just start a conspiracy that the perceived rise in trans people, gays, and autistics is due to plastic ester groups in the environment. Then tell them that these groups are represented in the media so much now because the petrolium companies don't want us to see it as a problem when the science breaks.
Brb, gotta go convince some trumpers single use plastic is making their kids gay.
I remember conservative conspiracy types were all over the idea that covid was going to be uncontainably catastrophic right up until the pandemic really happened and the party line was suddenly that actually the virus isn't real after all, at which point they did an about face rather than delivering actually well deserved "told you so"s.
Point being, as soon as they see
the petrolium companies don’t want us to see it as a problem
They will suspect this sentiment is disloyal to their political tribe and definitely automatically discard it on that basis.
Remember when climate change deniers used to say it was just the solar cycle? And then we went through like two of them since they started saying that?
There is a theory I read that said that it was indeed a boat that accidentally killed a female's infant. She attacked and figured out that hitting the rudder would make them stop and then she proceeded to teach the pod.
Another I read was that it started as juvenile Orcas just fucking about and now it's turned into a preferred pastime. AKA, Orca hooligans.
Both seem anecdotal and not scientifically provable though.
While whale watching in Sea of Cortez, they were saying one small pod of juvenile orcas are straight up dicks. They will attack anything and everything, including taking down blue whales.
They were able to trace the start of the behavior down to a single female. All the pods that are doing this are related to her. The "why" did they start is the mystery.
theguardian.com
Top