Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: Febbolution

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 211332 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39675
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
Well you're right about one thing. Nothing will be destroyed- Because you'll never get to do any of those things.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39676
As the ordained chief steward over all of nature, it is not Mankind's job to make every tiny little decision, just as it is not the job of the CEO of Ford Motor Company to make every tiny little decision involved in running his company.
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
Fortunately, other posters aren't tired of arguing with
you, so the thread goes on.

What, specifically, will grow in your gaps that can feed sheep and goats?
At the risk of watching Borealis' head explode yet again, my answer is...

"Don't know don't care"

Because nature Knows Best. The sheep and goats will select what they want to eat from what is there.

Just like they do here in Missouri.
So tell me- What mechanism does Nature (who, of course. Knows Best) have in place, to make sheep and goats instinctively know whether a plant that they have never seen, smelled or tasted before is good to eat?

Does she softly whisper in their ear?

Or is there, in fact, some other mechanism? If so, do you know what that is, and how it applies to your sheep and goats?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39677
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39678
Big buttons.
Dave, it would help if you had the rudiments of knowledge about the ecology of the places you're proposing to apply things into. Because if you push the same button in one biome there's no indication that it will have the same effects in another.

What happened to rabbits when they were introduced into the UK Dave?

What happened to the same rabbits when they were introduced into Australia?

Same "big button" Dave, right? So why does nobody care about the former but the latter is considered a disaster?
Why do I bother?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39679
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
I can't tell, Dave: is this
1) You backing off of the "strips" and switching to proposing feeding your livestock in light gaps, or
2) You saying that the "strips" are merely light gaps?
I'm backing off talking about strips for now because I saw too many exploding heads.  One can be a Buddhist. Or one can be a nudist. But if you are a nudist Buddhist, people's heads will explode.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39680
Big buttons.
Dave, it would help if you had the rudiments of knowledge about the ecology of the places you're proposing to apply things into. Because if you push the same button in one biome there's no indication that it will have the same effects in another.

What happened to rabbits when they were introduced into the UK Dave?

What happened to the same rabbits when they were introduced into Australia?

Same "big button" Dave, right? So why does nobody care about the former but the latter is considered a disaster?
It is a constant source of amazement and Fascination to me to watch grown men with Advanced Science degrees literally unable to rub two neurons together enough to realize that moving some goats and sheep from Dadanawa Ranch to Southern Guyana is in an entirely different category than bringing rabbits from overseas to Australia. Does this moron not realize that there already are herbivores of similar size and Habit in the southern Guyanese rainforest already? Like deer for example? Does he not realize that there are plenty of jungle predators to keep them under control if they were to go feral?

WTF?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39681
I'm backing off talking about strips for now because I saw too many exploding heads.  One can be a Buddhist. Or one can be a nudist. But if you are a nudist Buddhist, people's heads will explode.
::)   Right.  The whole reason you can't make a case is that mere normals can't keep up with your Brilliant Mind, Running Circles Around them.  So, in an act of condescending mercy, you're going to spare their "heads exploding" .

Textbook raging narcissism.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39682
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
I can't tell, Dave: is this
1) You backing off of the "strips" and switching to proposing feeding your livestock in light gaps, or
2) You saying that the "strips" are merely light gaps?
I'm backing off talking about strips for now because I saw too many exploding heads.  One can be a Buddhist. Or one can be a nudist. But if you are a nudist Buddhist, people's heads will explode.
So, you're avoiding even the most important details about your "plan" because so many people pointed out why it's a recipe for disaster.

Got it.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39683
Big buttons.
Dave, it would help if you had the rudiments of knowledge about the ecology of the places you're proposing to apply things into. Because if you push the same button in one biome there's no indication that it will have the same effects in another.

What happened to rabbits when they were introduced into the UK Dave?

What happened to the same rabbits when they were introduced into Australia?

Same "big button" Dave, right? So why does nobody care about the former but the latter is considered a disaster?
It is a constant source of amazement and Fascination to me to watch grown men with Advanced Science degrees literally unable to rub two neurons together enough to realize that moving some goats and sheep from Dadanawa Ranch to Southern Guyana is in an entirely different category than bringing rabbits from overseas to Australia. Does this moron not realize that there already are herbivores of similar size and Habit in the southern Guyanese rainforest already? Like deer for example? Does he not realize that there are plenty of jungle predators to keep them under control if they were to go feral?

WTF?
Missing the point as usual.

OF course, your plan is much more dangerous than the rabbits.

The detailed effects of major changes to a critical and complex ecosystem are difficult to predict, as it was difficult to predict the effect of rabbits.  However, we can be sure that your "plan" would bring many major changes to the rainforest, and we can easily bring up some obvious issues. Such as destroying the environment of the majority of organisms.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39684
Big buttons.
Dave, it would help if you had the rudiments of knowledge about the ecology of the places you're proposing to apply things into. Because if you push the same button in one biome there's no indication that it will have the same effects in another.

What happened to rabbits when they were introduced into the UK Dave?

What happened to the same rabbits when they were introduced into Australia?

Same "big button" Dave, right? So why does nobody care about the former but the latter is considered a disaster?
It is a constant source of amazement and Fascination to me to watch grown men with Advanced Science degrees literally unable to rub two neurons together enough to realize that moving some goats and sheep from Dadanawa Ranch to Southern Guyana is in an entirely different category than bringing rabbits from overseas to Australia. Does this moron not realize that there already are herbivores of similar size and Habit in the southern Guyanese rainforest already? Like deer for example? Does he not realize that there are plenty of jungle predators to keep them under control if they were to go feral?

WTF?
Dadanawa Ranch isn't in the rainforest you clueless fuck. Its in the Rupununi Savannah.

WTF indeed Dave.

Which herbivores of similar size and habit are in the Guyanese rainforest on this list Dave?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_of_Guyana
Why do I bother?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39685
Honorable Robert M. Persaud, Guyana's Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment
     "Guyana is globally recognized for its unique biodiversity and for having one of the lowest deforestation rates in the developing world..."

Dave Hawkins: 
     "Hold my beer*..."


* or raw goat milk, as the case may be
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39686
Honorable Robert M. Persaud, Guyana's Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment:
    "Guyana is globally recognized for its unique biodiversity and for having one of the lowest deforestation rates in the developing world..."

Dave Hawkins: 
    "Hold my beer*..."


* or raw goat milk, as the case may be


I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39687
Trump isn't a real business man.
That's not what's been said. What has been said is Drumpf is not a very good businessman. He hasn't really done all that well, certainly not in comparison to others and certainly not in comparison to his own and his supporters' own appraisals of his success.

Trump is going to start World War 3 with China.
This is also false. No one has suggested Drumpf is going to start World War 3 with China, what has been said, and it's pretty much happened, at least the opening shots, is Drumpf has started a trade war with China.

Trump is going to piss off China and not be able to reduce the trade deficit. 
That's certainly possible. So far his efforts haven't made that any less likely.

Trump is not going to be in office in January of 2019 and will probably wind up in jail.
Yes, that was a bet Pingu made with VoxRat. It's the nature of bets, the bettor believes there is enough of a probability of something happening they are willing to risk a stake, in this case, a fairly small amount of money to be paid to a charity that does good work (at least in her opinion (mine too)) that she very likely would have donated to anyway, so not much to lose there. More of a minor manifesto than a huge risk.

And last but not least... You can't raise goats and sheep in light gaps in the rainforest.

Oh my sides!

Nobody has said one can not raise sheep and goats in a light gap in a rain forest. But you aren't dealing honestly here, your plan as you have stated it numerous times from the very beginning of this venture is to convert the entire planet to your fantasy, that includes all the rain forest, all the boreal forest and all the temperate forest as well as the near deserts of the high plateaus and all of the swamps and pretty much everything else. It's as I suggested before with the fellow making the sales pitch to his reluctant partner with the promise he'll just put a little of his dick in.

And it's not so much of a matter of one could not raise sheep and goats in a light gap in a rain forest, but for how long one could do that.

And there's the whole issue of whether or not that's a good use of rain forest. Is it good for the rain forest. Really don't care about the sheep and goats well being, there are lots of places where they can browse, even get paid for doing so, at least the goats. There's a fellow around here that makes a living renting out his goats to clear overgrown plots of land. It's a win, win, win solution, the goats get fed, and get to get out and about and have a bit of adventure, their tender makes money, the plot gets cleared of weeds and berry vines and whatever else, it costs the land owner very little, it's very light on the land ecologically (the land even gets a tiny bit of "uppening" due to the inevitable goat shit) and passersby get a little bit of entertainment.

Lastly, there's whether or not we should go with your fantasy of all an all meat and milk diet for everyone. That is, in its very definition, a monoculture. And in your rendition of it, a global monoculture.

All from the mind of a known internet crackpot suffering from severe MINDKaPPing. One with little to no relevant education, training and/or experience in any of the many diverse fields such a venture involves and a rather unsavory disposition. That alone pretty much disqualifies it or him from serious consideration.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39688
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?

Looks like you found your answer:

Quote
A common event in the tropical rainforest is the fall of an emergent tree, usually during a tropical thunderstorm. In fact, it is estimated that tree turnover rates in some rainforests are every 80-135 years. When one of these giants--laden with lianas connected to neighboring trees--falls, it takes out a sizeable portion of the canopy. This hole in the canopy is known as a "light gap" because direct sunlight reaches the floor in contrast to the usual 1-5 percent under full canopy conditions. The opening of a light gap brings many changes to the section of rainforest.

The light gap is rapidly colonized by the same pioneer species that colonize clearings including trees like cecropia, balsa, macaranga, musanga, and bamboo, and shrubby plants like gingers, bananas, nightshades, climbing lianas, and rattan palms. These species are well-adapted for rapid growth, but not for long-term existence in the forest. Their often white wood and leaves with poor chemical protection are subject to infection and infestation by insects. Generally, these pioneers flower rapidly and produce numerous fruits, but are soon overtaken by the hardier, better adapted hardwood trees which fill in the gap in the canopy. Many forest tree species are dependent on light gaps to complete their life cycle.

As a result of the increased light and abundance of fruits produced by gap colonists, light gaps are areas of increased animal activity. Carnivorous animals follow the herbivorous animals that are attracted to the fruiting plants.

I don't see anything about leaching :dunno:
Exactly.

Leaching is related to industrial ag not small scale HMG.

These boneheads don't get that.
Yeah, that's it. Leaching is caused by industrial ag. That's a fact, for really reals in real reality.
Except you might want to explain how that rain forest soil got so low on nutrients. Was the Amazon rain forest the result of ancient astronauts or even the Quantum Engineers conducting industrial agriculture way back in history, before there was any rain forest. And they killed off all the soil life and destroyed those soils and then just left it there to its fate. To be taken over by jungles and all sorts of nasty beasties.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39689
Oh crap why did it copy all that?
Because .html is not .txt
This is the guy that was going to try to build a simulation of his island prison? 
The guy that can't make basic forum functions work, and hasn't mastered cut and paste?


And in his mind, the next Global Dictator, by popular demand, of course. In consideration of his BRILLIANT high speed mind.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39690
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.  I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."
But babee, it's just the tip, that's all!
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39691
Big buttons.
Dave, it would help if you had the rudiments of knowledge about the ecology of the places you're proposing to apply things into. Because if you push the same button in one biome there's no indication that it will have the same effects in another.

What happened to rabbits when they were introduced into the UK Dave?

What happened to the same rabbits when they were introduced into Australia?

Same "big button" Dave, right? So why does nobody care about the former but the latter is considered a disaster?
It is a constant source of amazement and Fascination to me to watch grown men with Advanced Science degrees literally unable to rub two neurons together enough to realize that moving some goats and sheep from Dadanawa Ranch to Southern Guyana is in an entirely different category than bringing rabbits from overseas to Australia. Does this moron not realize that there already are herbivores of similar size and Habit in the southern Guyanese rainforest already? Like deer for example? Does he not realize that there are plenty of jungle predators to keep them under control if they were to go feral?

WTF?
Dadanawa Ranch isn't in the rainforest you clueless fuck. Its in the Rupununi Savannah.

WTF indeed Dave.

Which herbivores of similar size and habit are in the Guyanese rainforest on this list Dave?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_of_Guyana
Deer.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39692
I'm putting Zombies on ignore along with RAFH ... S/N ratio is just too low.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

I tend to doubt Bluffy even knows how to put someone on "Ignore", one of those things his BRILLIANT high speed mind is just too BRILLIANTLY high speed to even consider attempting. Sort of like the famous hyper-light fighter pilot hero dismissing the idea it would even be worth considering landing on that little dirt runway down there.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39693
Trump isn't a real business man.

Trump is going to start World War 3 with China.

Trump is going to piss off China and not be able to reduce the trade deficit.

Trump is not going to be in office in January of 2019 and will probably wind up in jail.

And last but not least... You can't raise goats and sheep in light gaps in the rainforest.

Oh my sides!
Leaving out the quotation marks is not going to convince anyone these are not fake quotes.

As for the "real businessman", would you not want your president to be at least a "good businessman"? Not just an imbecile asshole with an inheritance?
Why would you think I'm trying to convince anyone that they are real quotes? 

And if you don't think he's a good businessman, then you simply don't know much about being in business.
I tend to doubt thinking Drumpf is a good businessman is a criteria for knowing much about being in business.
But you missed the point of "good". It does not mean, in this context, that he is responsible for a good bottom line.
You do realize that sometimes screwing your subcontractors and fucking old people out of their life savings and lying your ass off comes back to bite you. Not always, but sometimes. Just like con-men are not always successful in their cons and sometimes they get caught and they sometimes get their just rewards.

Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39694
And what will replace them when they are eaten?  Don't the nutrients end up being made into goat, Dave?
ETA:
Quote
Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
No, you won't do anything.  What have you done to feed the homeless?  Nothing.
                                            What have you done to improve your carbon footprint? Nothing.
                                            What have you done to improve your shack, like rendering? Nothing.
I get it, Dave.  You are an angry troll living in a pile of haybales, shitting in a bucket, yelling at a bunch of people who are smarter than you are, about everything.  They're laughing at you.  They poke fun at your "F" bombs, your pathetic forays with hookers, your inability to learn.
But guess what? 
You did, and continue to do this stuff to yourself. 
You could actually be a contributing member of society, instead of a laughing stock
Well, hypothetically speaking, it's possible that a person could do that, but in the real world, with a real Bluffy, there's not a rat's chance at a cat show.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39695
Big buttons.
Yep, there's Bluffy. In full bloom. Discussing his favorite subject: What an amazingly BRILLIANT guy He is, endowed as He is with His high speed mind that runs circles around other people.

Totally MINDKaPPed.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39696
I'm putting Zombies on ignore along with RAFH ... S/N ratio is just too low.
So you're just going to pretend you don't see his posts, while carefully reading them in the hope you'll find something to comment on and strike a 'gotcha'?

Because that's what you do with RAFH.
Ooooh, now that you describe it like that, it feels kinda of icky.
Are we there yet?

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39697
Big buttons.
Dave, it would help if you had the rudiments of knowledge about the ecology of the places you're proposing to apply things into. Because if you push the same button in one biome there's no indication that it will have the same effects in another.

What happened to rabbits when they were introduced into the UK Dave?

What happened to the same rabbits when they were introduced into Australia?

Same "big button" Dave, right? So why does nobody care about the former but the latter is considered a disaster?
It is a constant source of amazement and Fascination to me to watch grown men with Advanced Science degrees literally unable to rub two neurons together enough to realize that moving some goats and sheep from Dadanawa Ranch to Southern Guyana is in an entirely different category than bringing rabbits from overseas to Australia. Does this moron not realize that there already are herbivores of similar size and Habit in the southern Guyanese rainforest already? Like deer for example? Does he not realize that there are plenty of jungle predators to keep them under control if they were to go feral?

WTF?
Dadanawa Ranch isn't in the rainforest you clueless fuck. Its in the Rupununi Savannah.

WTF indeed Dave.

Which herbivores of similar size and habit are in the Guyanese rainforest on this list Dave?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_of_Guyana
Deer.
Which deer are you comparing your livestock to? There are three kinds that live in Guyana, according to that list: white-tailed, red brocket, and grey brocket. Which have similar habits?

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39698
Sorry, uncool.  You have been added to the ignore list...
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39699

At the risk of watching Borealis' head explode yet again, my answer is...

"Don't know don't care"

Because nature Knows Best. The sheep and goats will select what they want to eat from what is there.

Just like they do here in Missouri.

Your 'don't know, don't care' attitude is the main reason you get so much aggro from the rest of us. You're the poster child for the havoc humans cause in the environment.

What if 'nature's knowing best' is that goats have no business there and should starve or sicken and die?

Lol you don't let your animals select what they want to eat in Missouri! You only let them eat what YOU decide they should eat.