Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "TED" channel.

  1.  @joebloggs619  you speak as someone who is not in an unhealthy relationship. Have you ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome ? Consider that she is likely to have children, and your non-judgemential common sense matter of fact statements may make an impact - even if the shows only years later. (I read a report of a woman who came from a good family - only her mother ran off when she was little. Devoted father, living a very cooperative equal partnership with his 2nd wife. When she was 28 years (maybe the age her mother left or became a child) she "fell in love" with a very traditional guy, whirlwind romance, she got pregnant immediately, they married. In his family the father was dominant and he beat the wife. And during the engagement phase the young man had smacked her, they had got lost on a holiday in the city and that was too stressful for him. She was so shocked, surprised that it did not register, later he apologized and she let it pass. BIG mistake. Anyway: she knew that the people in the hospital did not believe her when she came up with the explanation of which accident had caused this and that bruise. She would have been mortified and likely would have denied it when they had called a spade a spade. But in her narrative she wrote that she wished they had called her out - in a matter of fact manner. Later: her familiy doctor was better trained. She admitted the physical abuse (and much more verbal terror) or the doctor asked for it. The GP did not make a drama of it, but told her it would be better to leave. And she told her to pay attention to the shelters, and telephone numbers of helpful organizations. the docors had posters in the waiting room (brochures are useless, the other waiting patients would see you take it). The the woman learned that number by heart - even though she did not leave - yet. The strange thing is - she had a loving and caring father, not in the same city, but he no doubt would have come on his white horse to ge her and the 2 children out, had he known. He was not rich, but solid middle class, enough to help her out. The other thing that stood out: how delusional she was about how she could "protect" the children from harm while they witnessed her husband abusing her and occasionally beating her. (that was his last resort, he managed her with verbal violence and the threat ! of physical abuse, she learned to walk on eggshells). The difference to Stockhom Syndome: not one very traumatic life threatening event - instead the potential victims were set up often as children and indoctrinated accordingly (although some can find themselve in terrifying situations, that are life and death and have that repeatedly and at young age). If the speaker had a warm and trusting relationship with family, other female relatives, she likely would have told them, would have had a net to fall back on. That does not mean her family was terrible, just not good enough to support her in situations of higher demand. Children with _absent parents are also _weaker it must not always be outright abuse: highly stressing careers, illness or death of a parent, a sibling that needs all the energy of the parents, mental illness or "quiet" addiction - children from such families are more likely to end up in dysfunctional relationships. Females more often with "helper's syndrome" and in exploitative or abusive situations. Man try to "cure" the damage often by becoming abusers.. It can be that the child was not neglected in a way that was obvious to the outer world and that the addicted or ill parents were not mean - just not available (and not always it was their "fault"). As for your co-worker: That's a a special kind of family where you learn to value "getting a husband incl. expensive ring" more than your dignity. (and she had invested 5 years into the project to catch him).
    13
  2.  @christianbenoit8898  The problem is that farmers do not get it right either, the wisdom of former times was often forced upon them by necessity. As soon as technology made it possible to ignore that (or so it seemed) the old wisdom went out of the window. They willingly colluded with the for-profit non-farmers in government and big biz when they introduced industrial agriculture. Which is exploitative, looks at short time gain and destructive over a few decades (even in areas that are more forgiving because they get more rain.). Even if farmers integrate the natural cycles into their work - they are up against short-shighted "market" forces.
    10
  3.  @christianbenoit8898  - His major mistake led him to indepth understanding - you cannot change/manipulate the enviornment w/o that. He studied the traditional methods AND applied scientific methods. Like fencing off some property, doing something different and documenting it in detail. Traditional herders got it often right for a long time as well - but they had no way of MEASURING the rainwfall or of controlling exactely how many animals were on a certain area (which needs fencing off and that is much easier if you have modern technology, barbed wire metall fencing etc. - plus the money). Nor could they take soil samples to examine them. Last but not least even if they saw the land was deteriorating they often could not afford not to continue - short term survival needs trumped long term preservation. If the UN supports these people now with food anyway, they can support them in times were the land needs more time to recover so that the traditional herders can afford to use the land less - for instance if they have less rain in the rainy season. They could not PLAN reacting to the rainfall back in the day. As for the "wisdom" of farmers (in Africa but also the Western farmers) - some of them have the green thumb and an intuitive understanding. In former times they had to be (even in the areas with more rain that are more forgiving), there were no artificial fertilizers and they did not import fodder for animals. They had to work in alignment with natural cycles, mistakes were quickly leading to failure (and had political consequences in densely populated medieval Europe. Indeed the rulers often forced the farmers to adopt certain farming practices - at least the intention was to secure food production and if possible have population growth - for the next upcoming war). Then they could not paper over the damage of exploitative practices by technology and by importing cheap soy or palm oil products from dictatorships (so the damage the soy production does there cannot be protested, the local oligarchs profit from the exploitative unsustainable farming practices, and the normal people cannot protest it). Farmers that intend to simulate natural cycles are still up against the forces of industrial agriculture. Look at the pictures of how cattle farming is done - and especially the killing, how they deal with the waste from slaughter, or how they process the manure. And of course MANY that keep cattle feed if with soy beans and what not (fodder grown on burnt down rain forest). It is farmers - not intellectuals - that are going along with it.
    10
  4. Do what women fought for - advocate for shelters and social services ! (there are good practical safety related reasons why there are shelters for females only). Woman are raped more often when homeless, a male is much less likely to be sexually assaulted in such a shelter. and more often than not children are with the women, so those shelters have the provisions for children as well, and the little ones can stay at a safer place. That said: even if there is no abuse - sometimes when a relationship ends a man or a woman needs a new place to stay and it would be good if there were enough provisions. That is a matter of political will.
    6
  5. I read a story of U.S. interns (not working with clients or visible to clients) who were ordered to wear high heels to work (plus business attire of course). They noted one person that wore flat shoes (that was a veteran who had an injury and thus was granted that "privilege"). The interns (college graduates likely) made a "petition" to the superiors that they would like to get a pass as well - and they mentioned that one person for whom the rules were loosened. as well - They all got fired. The comments were quite gleeful - serves the spoilt brats right, some got caught up how they could dare to "demand" the same privilige as the veteran (never mind they didn't know that - well they could have asked before), most agreed "we had to suck it up and they will have to suck it up as well. That'll teach them a lesson". I live in Europe so here is my perspective: the rule to wear high heels was arbitrary. It had nothing to do with the quality of the product or the customer experience. Asking for presentable, maybe somewhat conservative attire ? Fine Ask them to have clean, more formal shoes, no flip-flops, no open toes, etc. ? Fine. But that rule was applied to folks who were expected to function as adults, to give their intelligence, dedication, curiosity, goodwill, cooperation, loyalty and resourcefulness to the company. And they were not modelling or acting. The company on the other hand was really dedicated to make them OBEY. They do not want people who QUESTION arbitrary rules. They most definitely do not want to come people together to ask their employer for something. What comes next ? unions, collective bargaining, people exchanging how much money they make ? Note how the favor they asked for had nothing to do with performance (well maybe better performance because wearing orderly but comfortable shoes on long workdays). And it would not have COST the employer money. Of course the old employees would have been upset, they HAD submitted to the arbitrary rules, so giving the spoilt brats privileges would not sit well with them. The next best thing would have been to decline the petition and explain to them, the the only exception was made for the veteran, and not to make too much ado about it. But no -THEY had to be fired - they had violated the law of OBEDIENCE. And with such a managment style you cannot have a resourceful, result-oriented, cooperative team and way of getting things done.
    6
  6.  @homer5263  So what are YOU doing to help men that are in abusive or dysfunctional relationships. Compaining about women because they are the more typical victims and on the receving end of the more blatant violence does not count as action. you are likley not doing anything in your life to helps someone, be it males, females, animal shelters.
    5
  7. Well let us know when you have your own channel on youtube, have your ted talk or have convinced your representative to make provisions for males - and while we are at it fund those for females AND children sufficiently.
    5
  8. That steak will need to be more expensive though. The Africans would need the meat to feed themselves. In the U.S. it would mean a part of the prairie (now the corn belt etc) is used differently. Which is O.K.if people start to eat more plants (from the wettere areas !) and less meat.
    5
  9. I have a revolutionary idea: Leaving the already compressed carbon in the earth. Cutting down the boreal (Northern) forests and the rain forests (soy beans for cheap meat, cheap particle boards, paper, palm oil, or EU mandated plant based fuel !!!!) takes us even more in the wrong direction. In the moderate climate zone MORE trees could be planted (or hemp). They often last for decades in some cases centuries (either as tree or when used for QUALITY buildings). That would buy us time. Algae can also take up a lot of CO2 - they might do it more effectively than trees (need for light space. After all a tree needs roots, a supportive structure, leaves, defense from attacks.
    4
  10.  @skonstas4683  ? a reduction by 25 % is nothing for you ? And of course like all technocrats that do not study ecology you forgot to add the carbon IN the SOIL that every tree stores away. Likely more efficiently than other plants (because of cooperation with fungi). Plus the other many benefits of trees: Fruits, shade, moderating the temperatures and impact of rainfall / draughts. Habitat for wildlife and pollinators, noise and dust reduction, SOIL CREATION, helping to infiltrate rain and later to pump it up from the underground. Flood, mudslide, avalanche protection. Wind shelter. Fuel and construction material. Also for bee keepers. Trees not only bring up water they also mine minerals from the underground. Both helps the whole vegetation system nearby, not only the tree that invests the energy. During heat spells areas with trees and a lot of vegetation are considerably cooler. Easily by 10 degrees C in the shade and 3 - 5 degrees in the area (we are talking cities !) Trees are the most effective in bringing temperatures down, they evaporate water and act like a cooler. Trees produce fungal dominated soil, especially if planted in a group (there will be a far reaching web in the soil). The good effects compound if you have a group of trees, but of course a single tree, or row of trees still does some good. Clusters of forests are even better. They break the wind and can stop deforestation. They are food for animals and humans and are pleasant to look at. They are a factor for tourism (Indian summer, berry and mushrooms collectors, also hunters) and increase the value of real estate in a neighbourhood. They build and secure the good soil that can store water, funnel it into aquifers and then it is slowly released. The Amazon creates a more favorable climate in adjacent ecosystems that get more rain than you would expect from their location. They get a windfall. The Amazon creates its own rain, the water evaporates and carries bacteria with it, those become the condensation cores for droplets. And the ecosystems next to the huge forests also get some of the goodness. Or they used to.
    3
  11. You forgot to mention that it is aesthetically pleasing, can be good for tourism, stabilizes hills against mudslides and avalanches, produces oxigen, helps with water storage, improves soil (natural soil is a sponge, it can take up downpours and release the moisture over time, that is even more so when the leaves are dropped every fall to form topsoil). It also provides food. Wild pigs used to feed on the fruits. Also construction material. Shelter for animals. As for feeding a crowd - grass land beats forests - that is why steppes have more animals and the huge predators. The grass can be trampled (by animanls) and eaten to the ground - it will recover. The cycles are much, much faster (months versus decades or centuries) and grass may be even better in how much carbon is processed (even though grass land looks less impressive). In the forests allmost all the bio mass goes into the wood, they grow slowly however, and do not recover (let's say from a storm, wildfire, pests). So if we are into sequestering carbon - growing hemp (which is more the equivalent of grass) and using that to produce QUALITY insulation for quality buildings (= long term use) would store away a lot of carbon for at least 50 - 100 years. That would buy us time. Admitted forests of oak, beech, maple look prettier.
    3
  12. 10:00 he shows grass after a rain, and then when it became standing hay during the the dry season and claims the grass dies off (correct) and also that the the soil life and the roots die. That is NOT correct, as long as there is some moisture the critters and microbes survive, the moment they get rain they spring back into action.Incl. the roots.  And the grass does NOT oxydize when it is hot and dry, it needs moisture, to decompose. It becomes fuel for wildfire. Cattle or other (also smaller !) wildlife will eat it (when they are hungry enough) or there is a good chance it burns down at some point. Heavy rains might beat the standing hay down so that it starts decomposing and a little green can come up amid the flatter grass, but for rejuvenation it has to be grazed or removed otherwise, but that grazing must not be done by cattle, or large lifestock. Actually in many mature (genuine) semi-arid regions the plants have evolved with pressure only from small to medium sized grazer, and when the land is dry (and vulnerable) already, herds in desperate search of fodder (goats or cattle) will damage it. When that happens occasionally AND there is no ongoing draught, AND the land is flat, so not much runoff / erosion, the vegetation can recover even from that damage. But not when humans make that an agricultural practice. The folks at the Loess Plateau in the last phase of degredation did plenty of animals but only for a very short time - out of necessity, there was so little growth. It did not restore the vergetation (despite sufficient if not super abundant rain *) it made things worse. Only the massive government project restored the landscape beautifully and that included NO grazing until the vegetation had recovered and the many trees and bushes had established themselves and were large enough that the goats were not interested anymore and getting a few leaves did not kill the plants. If land gets always some (but mild) rainfall it can take a lot of abuse and will recover and erosion will not be too bad either. But what he suggests is INTENSE (if short) grazing, and that can easily be very damaging if the vegetation is vulnerable already. The short duration of the managed grazing is of little value when the lifestock would have moved on 1 day later on its own because then there was nothing left at all.
    3
  13. The US has only approx. 325 million people and consumes resources on a huge level (the other first world countries als get much more than "their share", but the U.S. are especially wasteful). So they beat China when it comes to consumption even though China has 1,3 billion people and PRODUCES so much (incl. a lot of the stuff that is then consumed in the U.S.) Overpopulation is a problem because there will be more major famines, maybe epidemics (w/o a Western style medical system to manage them), mass unemployment and human tragedies, and likely also more terrorism and war - but THEY do not use up all the resources or emit the CO2 that causes climate change. It would be a human tragedy (there were plenty of them in past centuries and millenias) - but it would not change the conditions for life on earth or change the climate. (Well the pressure on the population in the poor countries on wildlife might not impact climate but biodiversity, so that tigers, rhinos and also less prominent animals and ecosystems vanish). Of course some of these poor or developing countries have nukes (India, Pakistan, China). So if they come under enormous economic pressure like Europe did in the 1920s and 1930s ... The energy and meat consumption in the rich and better developing countries cause THESE problems. Bangladesh has an overpopulation problem, but look at their USE of energy and raw materials !! Poor agricultural societies ALWAYS have a lot of children (search your family history - your grand and grand grand parents). It is a survival of the species thing - we can see that in ever society of which we have records that having A LOT OF CHILDREN was highly valued. And totally embedded into culture, and supported / demanded by the ruling class and the respective religion. That is also true for the Abrahamic religions, or for "Christian" countries until the pill !! There was a lot of backlash against the pill, in Europe in the first years it was not given to any woman, just those who were a) married and b) had already a bunch of kids - at least 4 or c) were in danger when getting pregnant again. The "authorities" and the churches were usually opposed * to just allow people to control their fertility. And that was in the enlightened, rich, developed countries. In Turkey families usually have not as many children as for instance Turkish migrants in Germany. The reason: among other things economic reasons, in Germany or Austria there is a child allowance per child (everone gets it no matter the income), it as about 100 - 150 USD per child per month. Well it helps. So the strong cultural bias towards having a lot of children * is modified and controlled by government policy. Turkey does not give those child allowances, they do not want more growth of the population, it is easier to provice housing and jobs if you do not have an explosion of the population. Of course the self-limitation to 2 or 3 children will only work if the population is doing O.K. and if the country has some provisions for retired persons in place. In Turkey people get a pension and their children will likely survive (medical system). A poor farmer in India has and had another situation. Only the children will take care of them and for cultural reasons only the male children. And then if they have 6 kids - how many of them will be alive in 20 or 30 years ? * Parents in such traditional / conservative societies get recognition from their environment for having large families (especially the number of sons), that also applies to more traditional or fundamentalistic Christian families, for instance the Mormons, or the "Quiverful Movement", or the Amish) Humans are not bound by their instincts. With increasing wealth the number of children drop - in all societies and classes within societies. No one forces the Europeans or solid middle class U.S. citizens to have less children. it comes quite naturally. (Immigrants from Mexico are closer to the "poor agricultural society" - so they are having more children. When they can work their way into more wealth, they will have less children too). The problem - right now - is that these few children in the wealth countries still use up way more resources than the families of 8 in a poor country. We could alter that. And the developing countries needed to skip our "wasteful" period of industrialization. (1945 - now). This has to do with political will - of course we could develop the technology and adapt our economic system accordingly. The Race to the Moon was declared a matter of national interest (after the Sputnik shock - before Eisenhower had found the project to be too expensive). There was the will - they money was allocated, the brains were assembled - and a few years later there were results. or the Manhattan Project. Mastering nuclear fission had become a matter of urgency - so it was mastered - within a few years. Unfortunately that "can do" attitude and the willingness to "find the money" is only at play when it comes to war, death, destruction. Not for life-affirming and cooperative projects. The U.S. cannot even adopt a reasonable healthcare system (following the example of European countries which introduced them - or improved basic systems they already had - after 1945. They might have just ended being mortal enemies - but on that point they all agreed).
    3
  14.  @Gustav4  They do not need to "understand" "Holistic Managment" or any other terms the results (whatever you name them) speak for themselves. It is true Savory is at odds with the scientific method and is partially right (mob grazing with fast roation CAN be useful) but preaches his views and opinions as gospel.
    3
  15.  @Gustav4  The Chinese had massive disertification on the Loess Plateau. They managed WATER and erosion and kept the animals out. Completely. The herders there were ordered to plant lots of trees and they were not allowed to let their herds graze (or were serverly restricted).. However they were also given money to compensate them. and lots of jobs were created. They did the earthworks parts masses of humans with shovels but also with machines. Dams and basins on the ground. terraces on the hills (those needed human labor) and lots of trees were planted. NO animals for a while, not short time grazing, not longer - not at all. So whatever rain came down could trigger new growth, erosion was stopped and water slowed down. For the first time in many years, any shoots that came up had a chance to grow. They formed the ground cover that set a positve feedback loop in motion. It was a SPECTACULAR success, and since the area still had good sils (despite the erosion that had happened) and sufficient rain if they did not let it run off, it only took them 10 years to regenerate the area. The area has naturally enough (if not plenty) rain but the rainfall is not equally spread out over the year. So that intervention that helped with water infiltration and storage, and ended erosion was enough. Plus no grazing and planting so many trees and bushes sped up recovery (and allowed the herders sooner to resume grazing). The Kaledonian forest (in Scotland) is also revived - by EXCLUDING grazers (in that case deer).
    3
  16. How about not producing pollution in the first place. - The First World Countries get it done. It is of course one of the dysfunctions of our political and economic system that the minute the citizens have no or not much political power they are going to be poisoned. - the situation is not good in the US either (so it is not only a wealth problem but also has to do with how much power the corporations have over the political process). Countries like Germany, the Scandinavian countries etc. have much higher standards.
    3
  17.  @studmalexy  if the woman annoys you (or your boss, or a customer, or a co-worker) in OUR society the answers is not rage or abuse or violence or a screaming fit. If they annoy you you call them out, you leave or you make her leave. As you would quit a job. If you cannot get along with a woman you leave. Even if you have children (why did you have them in the first place). The children watching their parents fighting in that manner - or one partner on eggshells - is really, really bad.
    2
  18.  @studmalexy  even IF she was lying (not likely when she has high profile jobs it is somewhat embarrassing) - her story is TYPICAL of that of other woman. This is not about sympathy for her - she is doing fine now. - She tells a narrative that is very, very typical (the only thing not so typical are her good jobs). So if she makes it up, she still does a good job, the general message is VALID.
    2
  19. Read Robin Norwood: When women love too much. you will understand why your mother says: "soon" (it means no). It also will show you where you and siblings might be in danger (of repeating that pattern when you have relationships). Speaking of which: if you are a minor, tell you mother that he is harmful to you. Battered women often like to fool themselves, that they "stay for the children" or the children do not notice. Guilt over being a bad parent may kick her out of her harmful setting. And maybe you can communicate better (providing that you are a young adult and have your own place): When will you leave ? is NOT a good question. You deserve better. We deserve better.  Or (if you are an adult): if you ever want out, call me, every time (but order her to not use that to BRAG when she has a wild fight with him). If you are still a minor - got to child protection services (and see to it to have support from relatives, family, congregation - not if they are fundamentalistic, they tend to play down domestic violence, teachers). TELL people that he hit you and that your hearing is impaired.
    2
  20.  @mrchordstriker  If your mother abused you - be assured that many daughters are also gaslighted. Walk away from her. If you continue to make bad experience with women which you chose to let into your life (we are born with family but friends and love interests are CHOICE) - it means your childhood experiences set you up to repeat dysfunctional apttersn. Wellcome to the club. That also means you would not even be attracted to a woman that is good for you - and on the other hand you might at the moment also not be attractive for a emontially healthy woman. I recommend the books of Robin Norwood. She writes for the typical cases of females being in abusive relationship with men BUT she explains the dance of dysfunction that is performed by two. A male in that case and a co-dependent female. You can flip that on the head. Man and woman were wounded in childhood and it hinders them later to have a happy relationship / family. Typically males show other patterns of "acting out" than women. So males are more the abusers (at least when it comes to the physical violence) and also verbal abuse may be executed differently. That does not meant a woman cannot crush or ruin a man - they sure can - it means there are often differences. But there is an underlying root cause that always applies. in most (but not all) examples of Robin Norwood's book the female is the co-dependent, she allegedly "rescues" the man (or enables his addiction, that is a big issue in Norwoods books). She appears to be the victim, but it is more complicated than that. Such females are not even interested in "good" men. Again: if you understand the pattern you can transfer the psychological machanisms and apply it to different situations.
    2
  21.  @skonstas4683  A university and extension promoted Alley cropping (the video must have been from 2000, I can't find the link. A TV stations reporting on farmers that adopted it. Rows of trees (a double row would be better for the "forest" effect) and in between stripes of pasture or fields. Wide enough for the machines. Up to 20 % of the land can be used for the trees and the profits of the farmers will NOT go down. Realistically I would say it is between 10 and 20 % depending on how beneficial the trees are on this site. If there is a lot of wind, trees can increase yield by a few percent. if growing seasons are short or water supply is erratic, the pumping up of groundwater and moderating of the trees can save a harvest.
    2
  22.  @skonstas4683  one can grow climbers on sheds or fruit trees and grape vines on house walls - see the link (or other walls). I am not picky: an ivy or any other climber can harvest carbon just fine, it does not have to be a tree. In a botanical sense the line between trees and bushes is blurry anyway.
    2
  23.  @helbrassen4576  There is a sequestration mechanism * when it comes to carbon in soil. It is not the cycle of plants growing and decomposing (where they take in CO2 and then release it). Check out the liquid carbon pathway, Dr. Chrisine Jones. And trees seem to perform best in that regard. * In the very long run that might be a cycle, but the eath has formed soil over the eons and it did not all go up in the air (the humus). If that was the case the main part of soil = minerals (silt, sand, loan, clay) would be left behind. Some carbon has been sequestered away for very, very long time. TREES feed the fungi in the earth with sugars dissolved in water, they are called exudates. That is a special power that trees (or bushes with very deep and extesnive root systems) have, likely more than other plants. They produce those exudates (like everything else) with help of solar radiation, CO2, water and a few other elements, mostly nitrogen. The fungi help them with getting minerals up from underground,and with distributing soil moisture deep down. The fungi eat and process the sugars and produce "waste" - like every being with a metabolism. Their waste are long complex, carbon containing, fairly stable molecules. Which we call humus. Those molecules might be stable for many hundreds even thousands of years. I mean with industrial farming methods tilling, ploughing, use of chemicals they can be degraded and will react with the oxygen of air: C becomes CO2 and the valuable nitrogen becomes NO2 and is also lost into the air. But farming methods that try to imitate nature do not destroy those stable molecules.
    2
  24.  @CUBETechie  Bamboo does not stand low temperatures. Some can cope with light fost. They also can be invasive (some species). They need a lot of water and they prevent other plants from growing, the litter they drop to the ground. That can be a desired effect if you have a lot of space or maybe to protect a driveway from weeds, or it does not matter if you have a chicken coop in their "canopy zone" the chickens scratch up the earth anyway. But it is an effect that has to be considered. If you PLAN your system you have to consider that bamboo does not live very long. Even shorter if you cut it down to eat it ;) It is valuable construction material if you protect it from rain. They do not provide habitat for native insects, pollinators and birds (or rodents). Many caterpillars and insects need the leaves of a certain tree or their fruit, they are very specialized. Bamboo has a lot of advantages and if you have a homestead or larger property go for a corner with bamboo, too. But if you have limited space it is crucial to have NATIVE species. In suburban areas fruit trees have lovely blossoms, but do not bear fruit. A bee hive or bumble bees cannot make a living in that area. The few home owners that have the good sense to plant fruit trees or berries do not get the yields. One such homeowner told me that he tries now to promote bees that live in earth holes (not as collective, they are more flexible regarding food offer, a bee hive needs more fodder year round). And he tries to promtoe bumble bees. If the whole neighbourhood would aim to plant bee friendly (and most do not have so much space that they can be generous with bee friendly plants in succession AND have the attractive exotic species AND have a pool and a lawn and a barbecue zone) ... then one home owner would not need to get it all perfectly right in their garden. Naturally there would be some flowers all the time in flying distance for a bee hive that would serve all the neighbourhood. Or the bublebee would visit the neighbours to find food and return in due time when your garden has the next food available for them.
    2
  25. Energy squandering is the issue: the U.S. uses TWICE as much energy per capita (per inhabitant !!!) as Germany and 4 times as much as China. Note that Germany and China export a lot of goods, so they need some energy to produce those goods (many of which are consumed in the U.S.) So that makes the U.S. look even worse - they have purged their industrial manufacturing and STILL consume so much energy. That means that the U.S. still uses more energy than China. And China has much more inhabitants (and fiercly controlled their population growth in the past decades - one child policy). Inhabitants U.S. 325 millions, China 1,3 billions and Germany 82 millions. So one can have a first world standard (incl. healthcare for eveyone and free college) have for half the energy consumption of the U.S. And that is true for a large country like Germany or a small one like Switzerland or Austria. Germany Switzerland, Austria have a disadvantage: they are in the moderate climate zone, so more energy needed for heating, less favorable production condtions for cheap solar energy. Cooling also needs a lot of energy especially when A/C use replaces solid building practices. However: Sunny states like California or Texas can have peak solar production when there is peak demand. So they do not need storage for that volume - need for storage makes the energy more expenisve. Solar electricity is already competitive in the sunny states (no subsidies needed). And using solar energy for warm water is the much older technology. www(dot)worldpopulationbalance(dot)org/energy_china www(dot)worldpopulationbalance(dot)org/population_energy
    2
  26. 1 of 2) SURPRISING social experiment: people are paid to do tasks (like solving cross word puzzles, or sudokos, but also menial labor). The pay is varied. They want to find out how pay influences outcomes, performance or the willingness to accept the job at all. - Now with unattractive manual labor it goes as one would expect: more pay equals better performance and more people willing to do it. - With "white" collar work however, there was hardly any difference between low and medium pay. If the task needs the brainpower and personality of the worker, and if they can enjoy delivering the task (or if it is easy to experience it as fun or meaningful) - the satisfaction of doing the job becomes part of the pay. More pay does not equal better performance - another way to view it: people already are giving their best even though they are not well paid (you can apply that to social workers, artists, interns, childcare, ....). Meaning if people can find some enjoyment and sense or challenge (in a good way) in what they are doing for a living, you can exploit them. You will enjoy getting good performance from your employees for meagre pay. The last test was to pay very much for the "white" collar type tasks. This resulted in the the biggest surprise. If they PAID people TOO MUCH it completely RUINED their PERFORMANCE (and ruined it very reliably). I think the reason is that the financial gain (and the incentive from it) starts overpowering the joy and pride of getting the job done in a reasonable manner. It becomes only about the money and not to lose the money and the incentive to play the system to get even more money.
    2
  27. the EU demands plant based fuel to be added to fossil fuel - for that the ancient rainforests are cut down (in Asia and Amazonia). And oilpalm monucultures replace the rainforests (and the people that used to live there). In these countries the oligarchs have it easy to seize the land and to brutally crush any resistance. The palm oil is slightly cheaper than oil grown in the wealthy countries - and the food brands meanwhile belong to only a few multinationals - so even a few cents add up for them. Palm oil can also be used for plant based fuel. The ancient Northern forests (boreal woods) are easy to harvest (flat, huge trees, no one cares because the areas are remote). So Siberia, Finland, Sweden, Canada are plundered (with huge machines that compress the soil to make things worse). WHY ? We need (or demand) cheap wood - most of it is not even used for furniture but for cheap composite / or particle boards for cheap throw away furniture. Our current economic system does not include all of the costs into a price calculation of a product - on the contrary shifting the externals costs to someone else or something else is rewarded and it almost always happens to a degree. A lot of wood goes into houses as construction material or furniture - now if the quality of the houses was better, they could be made to last much longer - and the environmental impact to cut down a tree (in a weatlhy country, or in the rainforest or the boreal woods) could be spread over the time and over decades. And if the quality of those boards was slightly better (less or NO formaldehyd emissions !) and more stable (boards for cheap furniture) - it would be worth the while to recycle them, or DIY minded persons would line up whenever someone discards of furniture. That could also be encouraged by local work shops that help to cut them up. And of course the forests of wealthy countries in the moderate climate zone would be used (they can cope with the constant harvesting) - with machines that do not ruin the soil. The trees grow much faster there, and the population would also react to "assaults" on the ecosystems that go unnoticed in the very remote boreal forests. And of course no one is killed during illegal logging. Plus no more imports, be it from Canada, or Russia or the Asian countries. it makes a difference if you "take out" a few trees at at time like in traditional logging - or if you cut down everything (it is also not comparable to a wildfire: the currently used harvesters are much worse. That's a groundzero scenario. They REMOVE more biomass, destroy the soil. And a wildfire does not destroy everything although it may look like that. (in the soil there are seeds, roots - vegetation can and will bounce back, grass, shrubbery, and eventually trees). Alternative: trees are cut down by small farmers that do not use those harvesters at all (the better wood prices would secure some jobs in the rural areas. That means it would be viable to take care of the trees growing on hills and mountains - avalanche and mudslide country. The forests tend to be legally protected in those areas. Trees attacked by beetles or damaged by storms must be removed if the area is accessible at all. Removal - and if possible planting new trees with special material (mats, biochar) would be more economically viable if prices are higher. And the owners of the area MUST replant and it is not allowed to cut down all at once. The forests stabilize the soil and the hills and good forest earth is also an excellent sponge to take up rain. So downpours will be less likely to lead to floodings and mudslides and the moistures is slowly released over time. But that makes the raw material more expensive. Now if the boards are suitable for DIY, and the raw material even for simple furniture is good sturdy quality , it can be sold and upcycled instead of being thrown away. Then the higher costs for using the plentyful (but harder to harvest material) would be spread out over more years - the costs do not matter. Well, that is not how consumerism and throw-away culture works. In countries like Germany and Austria the forests are growing, they still have a lot of SMALL farms that could well do with some extra income ("making wood" is traditionally winter work), the territory often does not allow for those harvesting machines anyway.
    2
  28.  @Gustav4  Ethiopia has also recovered. People were forced to leave the areas during the draught, and when finally a period of more rain came the herds did not eat all the new growth, because there were no herds (and not much wildlife) left. Again: the solution was NO domesticated grazers (and wildlife likely also did not fare well during the draught). The villagers observe that now the predatory cats come back. If they would be given the funding to build ponds, irrigation systems, ... and trained to monitor as community how many animals they can afford to let graze, they would become more resilient. Every herder is tempted to increase the number of goats, it is a short term gain, the size of the herds adds to their status, and even if they are not greedy some of them simply might need it even if realize that if ALL herders do that they undermine the base for their livelyhood long term. Poverty drives short term decision that are bad long term. This is a collective problem. Every individual stands to profit (short term) if they have too many animals. They had that also in a village in India, and solved their problems by working together. Earth works to stop, slow down, soak in and spread the rain, and that improved the situation. They have enough rain (not that much for India they are in the rain shadow of a mountain range), but 6 - 8 months there is no rain, and 2 months or so they have torrential rains with erosion and flooding. Now the village elders measure the groundwater and if they had a good rain harvest in the last rainy season the villagers can grow the cash crops that bring good money but need more water (like bananas, or sugar cane), else they have to restrict themselves to crops that are less lucrative but also less demanding. ALL have to abide by those rules, since they all get their water from the aquifers (or the stream that is now reliably flowing thanks to the water they get into the ground), and the ponds they collectively created. But all in the village can have TWO crops per year - as it used to be in the past before they ran into problems with water supply and erosion.
    2
  29.  @Gustav4  He also makes unsubstantiated (wild) claims abobut carbon sequestration. I would not mind it being as good as he claims, but where does he get his numbers from ?
    2
  30. So first they overwhelm us with irrelevant decisions and too many choices (which brand of salad dressing). Then they condition us by using a lot of money for marketing and BRANDING. The BRAND is what resuces us. We see the logo, the colors - and know what to buy.
    2
  31. So anitviral properties ! CoVid-19 anyone ?
    2
  32.  Awakened2Truth - Disciple of Jesus the Christ  CO2 is the base to life on earth * - Yeah, so what. Was doing just fine the last 400,000 years with 150 - 280 ppm - no need to increase it by 40 % to 400 ppm (within 100 years most of it within 50 years). - "Little Ice Age" is not the correct term it was a cooling period. And the degree of cooling / or warming before until 1300 is within the range of change that we ARLEADY HAVE now. it is 0,8 degree Celsius GLOBABAL AVERAGE temperature increase. That is nothing within a day - and HUGE for the whole globe. It means that the oceans (2 thirds of the planet) warmed as well. - Taking the average of 1950 and deduct 4 degrees Celsius (globally on average - and we would be well on our way into the next ice age, then it had 4 to 6 degrees less, the 6 degrees being the most bitterly cold phases). The global average temperatue is roughly 15 degrees so 0,8 degrees more is not to be taken lightly. ANY MORE and we are out of the range of "can manage the deviations". The sunspots ARE NOT shown to have an impact on the temperature (global average) on earth. I know that is a urban legend, but it is still not true. That there were little sun spots during the cool time does not PROVE the two phenomen have anything to do with each other. SOLAR output was slightly REDUCED in the last 40 years (nothting that should alter temperatures) - but there was certainly no reason at all that global average temperature should have a steep rise.
    2
  33. If cattle eat their natural fodder - grass - it is more expensive to produce meat. (and also dairy products are more expensive). Ask the nations that had rationing on meat (and fat, butter, milk, cheese) as soon as WW2 started. Even in the U.S., the horse whisperer Monthy Roberts remembers that some older horses (which he loved) were driven to the slaughterhouse when the U.S. enterered the war. The devastated boys were told this was necessary to feed the soldiers. (it is possible that their father got a much better price for the horsemeat and decided not to keep the horses anymore. Or the government gave the incentive so that no fodder would be "wasted" on non-productive animals. The horses had won medals in their prime, and were used for riding for children etc. so they earned their keep before the war). These days they burn down the rain forest, and the local oligarchs have cash crops with soy beans etc. THAT makes the cheap meat production possible in the wealthy countries. Our grandparents were not too stupid to raise chicken and pigs properly. It is more expensive if you can only use the resources of your nation and the farmers are supposed to make a living. (instead of exploiting the land of poor people in de facto dictatorships. Chicken was a sunday meal back in the day. In Europe it was meat twice a weak even in the 1960s and 1970s. Cheese (from grass fed cattle), cold cuts and sausages were expensive as well, so instead of having a cold dinner they often had a soup and something lighter. During the week they had other food (pancakes, pies, something with potatoes, or some stew with a sausage or a little meat - but lots of other ingredients to "stretch" the meat).
    2
  34. It is difficult to pull CO2 out of the air ?? - there is sophisticated technology: It is called PLANTS - or ALGAE.
    2
  35. You just left when it got interesting. go to 7:10 uncanny I cannot say what it the real and the robot face
    2
  36. Uses the word "natural gas" * (it is FOSSIL GAS). Glosses over the problems to store CO2 deep in the earth (for cheap he says - really ?) And for how long willit stay there ? Over time the process if Carbon negative - yes but how long will that "over time" take. And did he include the energy use for transporting the lime stone to the oceans (provided we can do that) ? * some marketing genius came up with the word "natural" gas. It is fossil fuel either won from normal extraction sites or by fracking (in which case the tiny gas bubbles in rock are extraced by use of a lot of poisonous chemicals AND water AND enormous pressure). Some natural gas is won when one lets organic matter rot w/o oxygen (or one can do so in tanks and with giving the bacteria some help). But that is a tiny amount.
    2
  37.  @mrchordstriker  Robin Norwood: Women who love to much. (the term "love" is loosely).
    1
  38.  @bealtainecottage  Lovely just did a short check - and subscribed.
    1
  39.  @antediluvianatheist5262  Savory shows that during the rainy season considerable amounts of water come down - but they cann help the land if it all runs off quickly (even worse the rain likely will cause erosion). - As for the creeks holding water AGAIN (even in the dry saison) and about holding back water in land with just enough (saisonal) rain : see the ABC documentary youtube(dot)com/watch?v=-4OBcRHX1Bc&t=174s How Peter Andrews rejuvenates drought-struck land | Australian Story Another person included in the project was Tony Coote - they call it natural sequence farming. Their land too looked good and the creeks had water - when the neighbour's land was dry. from the comment section of that video In India we call it check dams they works well in terms of slowing down water flow, helps ground water table up,all bio-diversity thrives around these little water bodies it’s a wonderful idea to implement it costs minimal too. This same phenomenon of water retention and land rejuvenation was observed in the USA when beavers were reintroduced to parts of the country where they had been wiped out by fur trapping 100 years prior. The beavers build dams of wood and mud to create habitat they can live in and as in this documentary, the land could hold water again and desert became oasis.
    1
  40. The higher temps and more CO2 damage the corall reefs which are the fish nurseries of the oceans.
    1
  41.  @Tenebrousable  If a tax is not meant to raise revenue but to trigger a change (meaning it can be revenue neutral) - government can easily protect low income citizens. Even in Finland a lot of people live in more densely populated areas. Or the whole village works in the nearby city. Could the government generously fund car sharing, public transportation. Minibusses, give out taxi vouchers to citizens ?? Australia did something like that - the households were compensated for the carbon tax expenditures (electricity). Consumers that were energy efficient could use a part of the money for other things ;) Companies selling solutions (with less output of CO2) got more attention. - Companies got a nudge (shove) to invest in reducing their CO2 output and their use of electricity. (In Australia a lot of it is produced with coal fired plants). Lots of doom and gloom scenario ("Whining is the salute of the merchants") - and then they did. Companies that had been very much against the carbon tax THEN argued to keep it (of course: they wanted their investments to PAY OFF). And there is economy of scale. As long as it is the goodwill of a few a mass production solution or a service do not kick off in a market. When it becomes widespread the offers become better and cheaper. So often it turns out it is not that expensive or that there are added benefits. (Of course the government also could have given out zero interest loans to help out businesses with the transition - someone should inform them about MMT or QE for The People - if they can get out of bed with Big Finance, that is). After 1,5 years the doom and gloom scenarios had been debunked but they got a new Prime Minister that is best buddy with the coal industry (which can hardly compete even w/o carbon tax, certainly not the older plants). Every time the global installed solar panel volume has doubled (their capacity, not area, or invested money) - the prices go down by 20 %. That trend is going on since the 1980s when the first panels powered satellites (price was not the issue then). It has nothing to do with time at all. Only demand (with government help !!) triggered improvements in price and quality. So every time incentives are given for consumers and businesses to buy panels - technology and industry make huge leaps forward. The last wave was also triggered by the - clumsy and unsatisfactory - German initiatve (Energy transition). Contrary to common belief Chancellor Merkels is no friend of green energy (she is a friend of Merkel, then Big Biz and Biz Finance and then the party - and then maybe other businesses and wealthy citizens. In that order.). She had political reasons (Fukushima) - and you can see it in the way the "transition" is set up that her heart and convictions are not in it. Now that the transtition kicks off globally Germany is dragging it's feet !! instead of reaping the fruits of the efforts of the national economy. But NOW the Big energy providers have even more objections. And the Germany car industry with their evolutionary dead-end the diesel engine. So now Merkel is asleep at the whell instead of making sure Germany is positioned at the top. The German car manufacturers NOW massively invest in solar to hydro and solar to gas. Like diesel that is complicated technology - while electric cars are easy to build. So China could compete with them easily. Well, maybe something good will come of that as well - not so much for use in verhicles but to store away the huge surplus for heating - the surplus that is possible if a lot of collectors are set up in sunny regions (a few % of the Sahara covered by panels could power the world with PV - not only electricity needs, all energy. That is not practical right now - but it shows HOW MUCH energy the planet receives from the sun. Most of it is reflected immediately back into space or the earth would overheat. So panels are just a way to insert another layer of use before the energy finally leaves the planet. You can also see it in WHO is made to pays for the switch. Low income consumers who cannot offset higher energy prices with taking advantage of the subsidized offers for energy saving or producing. That said: Still something good came out of it. The German effort triggered enough demand and cost reduction to make panels viable in sunny U.S. states like California and Texas (even w/o subsidies). They have much better conditions, peak demand for cooling aligns with peak production, so less batteries were needed (they also were more costly). The panels harvest more and at the right time. THEN the increased sales of solar panels in sunny areas triggered - FINALLY - massive spending on battery and storage research (the effort of TESLA helped as well). It is viable to INVEST in research NOW not only for production but especially for storage. When that is solved (and it is around the corner) other forms of electricity production will not be able to compete (not coal or nuclear - only hydro from at least mediium sized plants or wind if the conditions are good). If there are now some more improvements with solar panels - let's say 10 % and a break through with batteries - another 10 % there ( a good thing if it wasn't Lithium, solid state sounds promising) - the Australian coal industry can go home. Solar will blow coal out of the water in sunny Australia soon. PV also works on cloudy days, as long as there is daylight. If storage is less expensive - well that takes care of peak production and the night, and the rainy days. If panels are cheaper you can just afford to have the over capacities on the roof or the wall. People also afford to have a car that has 10 times the weight of what is transported (often one driver and a few possession). That is a huge waste of energy and resources. If need be, the sometimes plentiful suplus energy (when you err on the safe side regarding size of the installation) could heat swimming pools if no other good use is found, just to get rid of the surplus. At least until there are more (quiet, efficient, clean) electric vehicles.
    1
  42.  @truthbetold818  In the last 800,000 years CO2 was at 280 ppm maximum (or below that at some times). Plants did fine, just fine. During the ice ages it was lower, even down to 150 ppm. Nontheless there were vast grass steppes and large herds of grazers (if there is not enough rain grass will prevail). But even then in sheltered valleys other, more demanding plants flourished. If there were areas with enough rain they were covered with trees, even in the cold areas: Think central Europe, or Crimea (it got more rain - it was close to the glaciers but trees grew. The Black Sea moderated temperatures. Mountain ranges shelter it from the North and they caputure rain. Water and temperature were the limiting factors NOT CO2.
    1
  43.  @truthbetold818  The limiting factor for plants ? Sunlight, temperatures overall / the extremes, length of growing period and too much or too little water. Nutrients, wind or salt play a role as deterrent, but with sun and enough water some hardy pioneers will move in, even with no soil and no nutrients. In come some ground cover pioneers, they and later grasses build soil for 1000 years, and bushes and trees take it from there. IF they have enough RAIN. CO2 is available all over the planet - unlike space, sunlight, water, nutrients. A plant in the shade or on bad soil is not deprived of CO2, that's the only thing plants can always have.
    1
  44.  @truthbetold818  Now we have added 47 % to that maximum of 800,000 years and most of it was added in the last 70 years. Will that unprecedented FAST increase of CO2 (not only in the last 800,000 years there is NO precedent in the climate history of the planet) disrupt natural cycles ?? Answer: Yes, and they can already measure that: Certain ocean currents slow down and the jet streams that circle the arctic (and the antarctic) in the winter have weakened. The models showed it would happen, but they did not expect it to happen so fast. More like: in 30 or 40 years. Texas Feb. 2021 was not a freak event, that will happen again, within the next 10 years, likely earlier. In winter the cold air used to stay put in the Arctic. the jet streams that "fence off" the poles are the stronger the larger the difference of temperatures is between Arctic and equator. If the Arctic ocean is way too warm that has effects on the air temperature in the Arctic and the fence gets weak, spreads out, meanders and is wobbly overall. That is what they observe all year round, but normally in winter that temperature difference got more pronounced so the cold air got locked in and we were protected from it. Now you have freak events where the Arctic is too warm (by 30 degrees Celsius) and the South of the U.S. gets a part of the cold air that used to stay in the Arctic in winter. And the infrastructure is not at ALL set up for that.
    1
  45.  @OverTaxed42Long  "Toxic pollutive things" are a Chinese not a global problem. They harm their citizens, may give them asthma or whatever - but they do not change the climate. China uses ONE THIRD of energy per person compared to the U.S. and they have become the work bench of the world, that needs energy. While the U.S. has outsourced manufacturing, a lot TO China.
    1
  46.  @OverTaxed42Long  Not to forget that solar panels would not have had that fast price drop w/o China going big on solar (it would have happened but not nearly as fast). Same for wind energy. 20 or 30 % of all new cars are EV's. That is heavily subsidized and that market (thanks to the Chinese government subsideies) massively drives battery research.
    1
  47. SHORT term cycles (like El Nino, El Nina) do not have a LASTING EFFECT on global average temperatures or the climate - the effects even out. The SOLAR SPOT 11 year cycle does NOT have an impact on average global temperatures. There would be plenty of evidence (NASA !!!) - but there isn't. AT. ALL. I know the opposite is widely claimed in the bloggersphere. - Well NOT by actual scientists.
    1
  48. 7:00 gullies that carry torrential rain as runoff = erosion, and the infrequent but often strong rains do not benefit the land. That has nothing to do with no or frequent grazing by lifestock. That land would need some earthworks to stop the rain, and then maybe protecting vegetation even from wildlife until it has recovered. There are also areas in the U.S. where the natural vegetation evolved with SMALLER animals, none as large as bisons and cattle is a burden, they are too heavy. (that is a problem in Australia where the plants developed to deal with soft footed kangaroos, that are not as heavy as cattle).
    1
  49. Meanwhile black locust is growing like weed in certain areas (I seem to remember it can fix nitrogen from the air, that gives it an edge over other trees. Once it decomposes it becomes good compost). As it is invasive in some parts of the U.S. it has to be managed, one could plant other trees instead to have a good mix between native and exotic species - that would be jobs for rural folks that like the outdoors. Black locust makes for excellent fence posts, it does not rot in soil. I think it also grows in AL.
    1
  50.  @skonstas4683  What you also forgot is how much carbon they suck out in the first 20 - 40 years.
    1