Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TR: Turning the gain up on this shit.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - borealis

1
What astounds me is that Dave has been there. On the ground. Seen rainforest in all its splendour. And yet, here we are.

I can only guess he has a sort of self-inflicted blindness when it comes to plants, be they daisies or vanilla orchids or lambkill.

I wonder how many of those edge colonising plants are things like dumb cane or bead vine or castor plant or whatever plant it is that poison dart frogs ingest their poison from.
2
It's probably pretty normal for the past several centuries at least.

Probably not much to do with smol penors either.
3
The faster does matter but what matters more is that it isn't slowed by the canopy in terms of systemic delay. When the water does not buffer in the trees all of it goes to the creek all at once.to the forest floor, it keeps raining gently for weeks or months where for the canopy it rains hard with frequent breaks.

It isn't just buffered physically by the leaves. A lot of water is absorbed or evaporated or drunk by insects, birds, amphibians and other animals, either straight off leaves and wet branches or in the hollows of branches or in the cups formed by the multitudes of bromeliads and other water-collecting epiphytes (orchids, ferns, mosses, lichens, etc., that grow in the tree branches and do not have roots in soil).
4


My first introduction to Peterson was a video clip where he said that there's something wrong with any woman who's over 30 and not prioritizing family over career, so I am extremely fucking shocked to learn that this virulent anti-Marxist believes in forced redistribution of sex.

So he's a rape culture advocate?

Sounds like some sort of less fundie version of The Handmaid's tale

IMO, he's part of the current backlash against feminism by male supremacists who still cannot get it through their tiny heads that women possess self-determination and aren't just here to act as a support system for a man and his genetic offspring. He offers a modicum of academic legitimacy to men who want this to be true. He lets them feel good about a set of attitudes their culture is rapidly rejecting*.

*Although it's already taken more than a century.  :awgee:
5
Here.
I'll click it for you:
Quote
Soil Food Web

By Elaine R. Ingham


:pwned:



Reposting in case Dave missed it.
6
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 

But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?

Why or why not?

Do you even know if any of the big canopy trees can be coppiced successfully? There's a wide variety of species, some are palms, which definitely cannot be coppiced,, some have buttress roots which you'd need to coppice 30 or 40 feet above the ground, others have stilt roots, etc.

You don't know. Because you are utterly ignorant about botany.

What ordinarily happens when a single large canopy tree falls is that other canopy tree species saplings grow very swiftly to replace it, since canopy trees actually are 'sunlight loving'.
7
I wonder how many centuries those 'sun-loving species' have been desperately clinging to life on the rainforest floor just waiting for Dave's salvation?

Every time Dave hears something he doesn't like and can't honestly refute, the profanity and name-calling come out. Go ahead, Dave. I know you're pissed off, yelling at and insulting a woman will surely make you feel better. Launch a few more feeble rounds of verbal abuse. It sure makes you look like a fine specimen of a fundagelical Christian manly man.
8
Dave, what do you think.clearing half the rainforest does to these soil organisms?
That's a good question.  A lot depends on how the trees are removed. If we just cut some trees down for the purpose of coppicing and sunlight penetration then not much will change other than more vigorous growth of the Sunlight Loving species on the forest floor. You will still have the deep roots of the cut trees in place along with the Abundant microorganism communities surrounding them. So that would not change. This would be my preference over completely removing trees, roots and all.

What on earth makes you think that plant species adapted to surviving on the shaded rainforest floor would suddenly become 'sunlight-loving'?

More of your botanical ignorance. Rainforest canopy trees do not grow 'deep roots'. They have evolved to take advantage of the uppermost layers of composting detritus, and have widely spread shallow root systems, buttress root systems, and stilt roots.
https://rainforests.mongabay.com/0502a.htm

photos

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=amaon+rainforest+tree+roots&FORM=HDRSC2
9

holy crap it's "not looking good"?  this moron needs some impulse control.  for some reason that exclamation point at the end really ticks me off too.

Because it's so fake. He hasn't a single empathetic bone in his body, but he's just bright enough to try to clumsily fake what he thinks is expected.

It's even more evident (and repulsive) if you listen to him talking about 'Gahd' and 'thoughts and prayers'.
10
Maybe Dave should read that overview of soil micro-organisms I linked earlier. it's a student page - you know, what students of soil biology are being taught - and answers some of his questions about how they work. Spoiler - poop not really a factor.
11
Jesus, Hawkins.
Take some fucking lithium.


Yeah, these last few pages Dave's appeared to be outright hysterical. Or at least very emotional.

Seriously, Dave, you having a difficult time irl? If so, hope it's not too terrible.
12
Peterson is such a jackass.
13
Nah. Heinz is a contrarian. I don't think he even likes Trump; he just likes to think of himself as practical and unbiased, which leads him to falling over backwards to defend some really heinous bullshit.
14
Alternative to slash and burn:

Quote
Slash-and-char is an alternative to slash-and-burn that has a lesser effect on the environment. It is the practice of charring the biomass resulting from the slashing, instead of burning it. The resulting residue matter charcoal can be utilized as biochar to improve the soil fertility.

In that context, charcoal can be made by numerous and varied methods, from the simplest (an earth cover on the pile of wood, with strategically placed vents) to the most sophisticated (a modern equipment or plant that recuperates and processes strictly all exhaust gases into pyroligneous acid and syngas).

Slash-and-char offers considerable benefits to the environment when compared to slash-and-burn.[citation needed]

It results in the creation of biochar, which can then be mixed with biomass such as crop residues, food waste, or manure, and buried in the soil to bring about the formation of terra preta. Terra preta is one of the richest soils on the planet - and the only one known to regenerate itself.

It moreover sequesters considerable quantities of carbon in the safest and most beneficial fashion, as opposite to the negative effects of the slash-and-burn. Switching to slash-and-char can sequester up to 50% of the carbon in a highly stable form.[1] The nascent carbon trading market that sponsors CO2 sequestration projects, could therefore help supplement the farmers' income while supporting a decrease in the pace of deforestation and the development of a more sustainable agriculture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash-and-char

15
We were talking about nutrients getting leached away due to the heavy rainfall. Vox rat seems to think that this doesn't happen in the rainforest because of the types of plants in the rainforest. I say that it has nothing to do with the types of plants in the rainforest but has everything to do with the healthy soil in the rainforest in which we find organic minerals which don't get leached out instead of inorganic minerals which do get leached out.

Obvious strawman is obvious.

No-one is saying nutrients don't leach "because of the types of plants in the rainforest". The nutrients don't leach because they are in the biomass, not in the soil.

If Dave actually read all the words in sources and knew what all the words mean, he'd be much better off.

Example: he keeps marvelling about soil micro-organisms, does not catch on that no one else is surprised about the role played by bacteria, fungi, etc., and thinks their existence somehow makes his argument.

https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Nitrogen_Cycling_in_Tropical_Rain_Forest_Soils

Please note:

Quote
A unique population of microbial species resides in tropical rainforests, many of which cannot be found in any other biome.

You ain't in Kansas anymore, Davey. Or Missouri.
16
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
I have a theory that observing Dave Hawkins over a period of years is appalling enough to cause anyone to veer at least a couple degrees to the left. There's your alt-light, low information, conspiracy believing, Trump loving, evangelical fundy flim-flam salesman revealed in all his glory, and underlying the ridiculous nature of the subject matter of his threads, it is a scary revelation.
17
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
Pretty sure uncool possesses both intelligence and a sense of common decency. Inevitable conclusion.
18
Definitely something wrong with that boy.

While Thunder Bay is not rumoured to be a bastion of perfect racial harmony, apparently there are not enough coffee loving alt-rightists to keep a formerly popular coffee shop in business. Yay TB.

I feel bad for his family. I doubt they're as 'on board' as he claimed, especially with that gruesomely creepy bit about his daughter.
19
And for Voxrat ...

Multiple choice ...

Rainforest plants (like all plants) require NPK plus many other trace minerals.  What form do we find it in? (In rain forest soils)

A) Water soluble minerals?
B)  In bacteria, fungi and other microscopic "livestock"?
How is cutting down rainforest trees and the symbiotic fungi that help with nutrient uptake, going to improve the soil in a massively rainy environment?

He thinks grass is sufficient to replace the enormous quantity of biomass represented by rainforest foliage etc.

He thinks rainforest micro-organisms will process grass exactly as they process rainforest foliage.

He still thinks poop is magic. In fact he's a bit fixated on feces in general.
20
I just think there is too much negativity being attached to everything that Trump does.

Previous presidents, from Bush to Clinton and Obama, have promised to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, but never kept those promises. Trump kept his promise, and the liberals attack him for it.

Obama did use military bases to house illegal children immigrants. Trump just talks about doing it, and the headlines scream that he is a monster.
I am beginning to see liberals as the most dishonest people on the planet.


You appear to see 'liberals' as a monolithic group. In my country, 'Liberals' most often refers to the Liberal Party, which currently is the government. In Australia, something different is implied re government.

In any case, I think you'd find most of the members of this forum don't identify as 'liberals', but as some other point on the political spectrum.

Iirc, the children Obama's gov't was trying to house were a really large influx of unaccompanied children. (In fact, you can read about it here:)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2014/07/22/where-is-the-obama-administration-housing-the-immigrant-kids/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.35ea8b47f102

In Trump's case, the government is talking of routinely separating children from their parents when they cross the border seeking asylum, and is calling it a 'deterrent' - iow, taking children from their mothers as punishment for seeking asylum, even if it turns out these families do qualify for some kind of status in the US.

I hope you can see the difference.
22
To be honest, though, there are people for whom I do have contempt*, and who would not be welcome in my fantasy commune, were I to fantasize about organizing a commune.

* because of their "ideas", though that word seems a little euphemistic when applied to unshakeable prejudices and tribal loyalties**.

**  ETA:  and, of course, shitty ethics.

To be sure: and that's one of the many reasons communes are such delicate organisms. Their continued existence depends on   a robust philosophical agreement among members, and that is hard to get and harder to maintain over time, because people grow and change, or can't change when necessary, or take in partners who don't meet the approval of the others.

Dancing Rabbit seems to have done okay so far. Reading some of their members' words, it looks like they've kept their philosophy loose and their rules fairly simple. But none of them appear to be really old yet, and that's one place where the current concept of a commune tends to falter. Their 'village' isn't big enough to have figured out how to care for seniors and people with chronic illnesses, so that care gets farmed out to the outside world. So there's never a sense of certainty about one's permanent place, and that means everyone holds back a little, not trusting the community to care for them in the long run.
23
HMG has become all things to all environments.
Well ... that first initial does stand for "holistic"
Looks like it stands for 'hocus-pocus'.

More a case of 'hock it and pocket (the money)'. You can't learn a whole lot about most of Dave's heroes ideas by reading their websites. Nope, you have to pay for the books/videos/workshops/internships. Now, I have no real problem with that. Some of their ideas are good, or at least better than what may be standard in some situations. They need to make a living too.

But that means keeping ordinary research out of the picture, because then all their 'secrets' would be free.

Of course it also means it isn't really on to talk to them about Dave's 'interesting' creationist reinvention of their strategies.
24
"It's you that expresses contempt for other humans"

No.

I express contempt for their ideas.

What were those particularly vile epithets you hurled at me again? And their connection with my ideas?

Quote
I would never express that contempt by curtailing their rights as humans.

For example, they would have just as much right to their share of good land under my land allocation plan as anyone else would.

Oh yes, the 'right' to be relocated far from their roots, homes, communities, extended families, careers... Dave, it is a damn good thing that your fantasies have not the slightest chance of coming to fruition.

And yet you could, if you weren't so eccentric about virtually everything (except, apparently, sales), actually do some good by pursuing the idea of a nice eco-friendly, food-growing commune/co-op on your fertile Missouri property.
25

Humans are pretty amazing. It's too bad you think that we are just another animal.

I agree, humans are amazing. It isn't 'too bad' that I think we are animals. We are animals. Mammals, with most of the same needs, strengths, and weaknesses of other mammals. If we can't respect other animals and their environments, we are going to make the kinds of destructive decisions and mistakes that will also hurt us in the long run.

It's you that expresses contempt for other humans, refusing to accept the conclusions drawn from the earnest work of scientists, calling people who strive to understand the world 'ivory tower octo-hatters', spitting hate at women who disagree with you, ignoring well understood realities, and clinging to religious fantasies that the vast majority of religious people abandoned decades and even centuries ago. You're the living embodiment of the fictional man in a flood who prays to God for rescue and refuses to recognise the help God sends him because it isn't in supernatural form.