Odysseus
Legend
Trump=Chump
Posts: 39,224
|
Post by Odysseus on Apr 26, 2024 7:03:29 GMT
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 23,419
|
Post by petep on Apr 26, 2024 11:47:13 GMT
Yes. I’ve seen conservation efforts for certain species of fish and also wildlife work very well Sometimes it’s by accident - like how the bison population thrived years after the Yellowstone fire. That’s an example of too much man made intervention, not allowing natural forest fires which created too much of a canopy and too much fuel on the forest floor. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,780
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 26, 2024 15:05:57 GMT
Yes. I’ve seen conservation efforts for certain species of fish and also wildlife work very well Sometimes it’s by accident - like how the bison population thrived years after the Yellowstone fire. That’s an example of too much man made intervention, not allowing natural forest fires which created too much of a canopy and too much fuel on the forest floor. The bigger lesson from your example is that we must put MORE dollars into study, so we fully understand what we are doing, and why. Science, in its modern form, has only existed for a few hundred years, and has only really taken off in the last 100. We still know so little, and it is vital to the defense of our nation, and our species, that we not only know more, but are the leader in understanding. Which is why it is so frustrating when far right conservatives deny climate change. Deny protection of land over oil drilling. Deny research into cloning. The list is long. These should be seen as strategic defensive science endeavors, but instead are purely seen as burdens on our economy. Short-sited views, that screw the next generation. Freon |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 23,419
|
Post by petep on Apr 26, 2024 16:12:23 GMT
Yes. I’ve seen conservation efforts for certain species of fish and also wildlife work very well Sometimes it’s by accident - like how the bison population thrived years after the Yellowstone fire. That’s an example of too much man made intervention, not allowing natural forest fires which created too much of a canopy and too much fuel on the forest floor. The bigger lesson from your example is that we must put MORE dollars into study, so we fully understand what we are doing, and why. Science, in its modern form, has only existed for a few hundred years, and has only really taken off in the last 100. We still know so little, and it is vital to the defense of our nation, and our species, that we not only know more, but are the leader in understanding. Which is why it is so frustrating when far right conservatives deny climate change. Deny protection of land over oil drilling. Deny research into cloning. The list is long. These should be seen as strategic defensive science endeavors, but instead or purely seen as burdens on our economy. Short-sited views, that screw the next generation. Freon Not everything is political. Often the left tries to make things political. Which is what you are doing here. While I don’t deny some deny global warming. You have just as many or more on the left telling us the world is ending in - what was it - 12 years. In terms of environmental management. Look at how the country views. City people overwhelmingly vote democrat and suburban and rural America vote republican. It’s far less a state issue vs a where you live - urban, suburban, rural On average my experience is city dwellers have little to no knowledge about forestry or wildlife or marine conservation. The people who live and work on the ocean, or by forests, hunters fisherman know a great deal. For decades hunters and real scientists have been warning about what happens when man keeps artificially preventing small natural fires or man is not allowed to engage in controlled burns. Then people act surprised when a massive forest fire happens and also act surprised when wildlife comes back. Fools. Fake science is the problem. People from the city telling people in rural montana how to manage wildlife. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump=Chump
Posts: 39,224
|
Post by Odysseus on Apr 26, 2024 17:14:29 GMT
Yes. I’ve seen conservation efforts for certain species of fish and also wildlife work very well Sometimes it’s by accident - like how the bison population thrived years after the Yellowstone fire. That’s an example of too much man made intervention, not allowing natural forest fires which created too much of a canopy and too much fuel on the forest floor. The bigger lesson from your example is that we must put MORE dollars into study, so we fully understand what we are doing, and why. Science, in its modern form, has only existed for a few hundred years, and has only really taken off in the last 100. We still know so little, and it is vital to the defense of our nation, and our species, that we not only know more, but are the leader in understanding. Which is why it is so frustrating when far right conservatives deny climate change. Deny protection of land over oil drilling. Deny research into cloning. The list is long. These should be seen as strategic defensive science endeavors, but instead are purely seen as burdens on our economy. Short-sited views, that screw the next generation. Freon
Seems like the American Right only has "Short-sited views"....
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,780
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 26, 2024 17:56:20 GMT
The bigger lesson from your example is that we must put MORE dollars into study, so we fully understand what we are doing, and why. Science, in its modern form, has only existed for a few hundred years, and has only really taken off in the last 100. We still know so little, and it is vital to the defense of our nation, and our species, that we not only know more, but are the leader in understanding. Which is why it is so frustrating when far right conservatives deny climate change. Deny protection of land over oil drilling. Deny research into cloning. The list is long. These should be seen as strategic defensive science endeavors, but instead or purely seen as burdens on our economy. Short-sited views, that screw the next generation. Freon Not everything is political. Often the left tries to make things political. Which is what you are doing here. While I don’t deny some deny global warming. You have just as many or more on the left telling us the world is ending in - what was it - 12 years. In terms of environmental management. Look at how the country views. City people overwhelmingly vote democrat and suburban and rural America vote republican. It’s far less a state issue vs a where you live - urban, suburban, rural On average my experience is city dwellers have little to no knowledge about forestry or wildlife or marine conservation. The people who live and work on the ocean, or by forests, hunters fisherman know a great deal. For decades hunters and real scientists have been warning about what happens when man keeps artificially preventing small natural fires or man is not allowed to engage in controlled burns. Then people act surprised when a massive forest fire happens and also act surprised when wildlife comes back. Fools. Fake science is the problem. People from the city telling people in rural montana how to manage wildlife. My problem is that your response sees 'city' people as one group, and 'suburban/rural' as another single group. It's far more nuanced, in my opinion. A coastal city is going to have FAR more conservation awareness than an inland one, for instance. My parents were involved with a group called Bay Keepers, whose sole function was to prevent overfishing, and pollution in our coastal bays and estuaries. Who were their main opponents? Fisherman, the 'farmers' of the ocieans. And 'suburban' living is FAR more prevalent near large cities. 'Rural' communities could mean mainly farm communities, or it can mean forest, mountains, or any other non-farm living. Had you said FARMERS tend to vote Republican, I would have had no issue. But I consider farmers to be the LEAST interested in conservation. They exploit the land to produce a profit. So they are incentivized to look the other way, when conservation interferes with that profit. So much mistaken about your post, I could write a dozen more paragraphs breaking down all the inaccurate assumptions, and bad conclusions. Freon |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 23,419
|
Post by petep on Apr 26, 2024 18:07:56 GMT
Not everything is political. Often the left tries to make things political. Which is what you are doing here. While I don’t deny some deny global warming. You have just as many or more on the left telling us the world is ending in - what was it - 12 years. In terms of environmental management. Look at how the country views. City people overwhelmingly vote democrat and suburban and rural America vote republican. It’s far less a state issue vs a where you live - urban, suburban, rural On average my experience is city dwellers have little to no knowledge about forestry or wildlife or marine conservation. The people who live and work on the ocean, or by forests, hunters fisherman know a great deal. For decades hunters and real scientists have been warning about what happens when man keeps artificially preventing small natural fires or man is not allowed to engage in controlled burns. Then people act surprised when a massive forest fire happens and also act surprised when wildlife comes back. Fools. Fake science is the problem. People from the city telling people in rural montana how to manage wildlife. My problem is that your response sees 'city' people as one group, and 'suburban/rural' as another single group. It's far more nuanced, in my opinion. A coastal city is going to have FAR more conservation awareness than an inland one, for instance. My parents were involved with a group called Bay Keepers, whose sole function was to prevent overfishing, and pollution in our coastal bays and estuaries. Who were their main opponents? Fisherman, the 'farmers' of the ocieans. And 'suburban' living is FAR more prevalent near large cities. 'Rural' communities could mean mainly farm communities, or it can mean forest, mountains, or any other non-farm living. Had you said FARMERS tend to vote Republican, I would have had no issue. But I consider farmers to be the LEAST interested in conservation. They exploit the land to produce a profit. So they are incentivized to look the other way, when conservation interferes with that profit. So much mistaken about your post, I could write a dozen more paragraphs breaking down all the inaccurate assumptions, and bad conclusions. Freon Look at just about any state and see how they vote on a red blue heat map. It really is that simple to make general conclusions. I know I know. You’ll tell me about a story about a guy you know who is far right and lives in a city. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,780
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 26, 2024 18:19:00 GMT
The bigger lesson from your example is that we must put MORE dollars into study, so we fully understand what we are doing, and why. Science, in its modern form, has only existed for a few hundred years, and has only really taken off in the last 100. We still know so little, and it is vital to the defense of our nation, and our species, that we not only know more, but are the leader in understanding. Which is why it is so frustrating when far right conservatives deny climate change. Deny protection of land over oil drilling. Deny research into cloning. The list is long. These should be seen as strategic defensive science endeavors, but instead are purely seen as burdens on our economy. Short-sited views, that screw the next generation. Freon
Seems like the American Right only has "Short-sited views"....
Makes sense, given they are the the least successful of us. Their main concern is surviving, on a financial level, and you can see much of their views emanate from that core. Poor people also tend to be more religious, because their survival problems cause them to lose hope, and religion mitigates that. Freon |
|
freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,780
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 26, 2024 18:23:12 GMT
My problem is that your response sees 'city' people as one group, and 'suburban/rural' as another single group. It's far more nuanced, in my opinion. A coastal city is going to have FAR more conservation awareness than an inland one, for instance. My parents were involved with a group called Bay Keepers, whose sole function was to prevent overfishing, and pollution in our coastal bays and estuaries. Who were their main opponents? Fisherman, the 'farmers' of the ocieans. And 'suburban' living is FAR more prevalent near large cities. 'Rural' communities could mean mainly farm communities, or it can mean forest, mountains, or any other non-farm living. Had you said FARMERS tend to vote Republican, I would have had no issue. But I consider farmers to be the LEAST interested in conservation. They exploit the land to produce a profit. So they are incentivized to look the other way, when conservation interferes with that profit. So much mistaken about your post, I could write a dozen more paragraphs breaking down all the inaccurate assumptions, and bad conclusions. Freon Look at just about any state and see how they vote on a red blue heat map. It really is that simple to make general conclusions. I know I know. You’ll tell me about a story about a guy you know who is far right and lives in a city. There are no red states or blue ones. Only degrees of purple. That's why the whole cessation threat is silly. But what you are really saying is that people like you NEED to see discrete lines between groups, and really, that is your core problem when it comes to making decisions. You WANT and NEED the world to be simple, because then it is easier to understand, and you can feel like you made good choices. Except it's not simple. And it's getting less simple every day. And that means it gets harder and harder to try and simplify the world to people like you, resulting in your making worse and worse decisions. Not sure what to do about that, but it's the core principle that your news plays off of. Freon |
|
