Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: what's your phone number?

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 207040 times) previous topic - next topic

Resi, Pingu, rosedarling, VoxRat, DaveGodfrey, Dave Hawkins (+ 1 Hidden) and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41875
That link is the most amazing thing ever Faid.
It was created by the Inebriatti to confuse you.
Just another conspiracy.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41876
I'm an INTP.  Read up on them.  I suck at many things.  But I'm really good at a few things.

Bahahahahaaa. No.
Oh come on, Martin, Bluffy is pretty good at sucking. He even admits as much.

I'm just laughing that the master salesman who is good at selling things to rubes, thinks he's an intp.
It wasn't my idea that I am an INTP. I was told that by a nephew who is a health professional. And I'm not a master salesman ... just managed to become pretty good.


Quote
Although popular in the business sector, the MBTI exhibits significant psychometric deficiencies, notably including poor validity (i.e. not measuring what it purports to measure, not having predictive power or not having items that can be generalized), poor reliability (giving different results for the same person on different occasions), measuring categories that are not independent (some dichotomous traits have been noted to correlate with each other), and not being comprehensive (due to missing neuroticism)

Quote
The interesting - and somewhat alarming - fact about the MBTI is that, despite its popularity, it has been subject to sustained criticism by professional psychologists for over three decades. One problem is that it displays what statisticians call low "test-retest reliability." So if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality category compared to the first time you took the test.
A second criticism is that the MBTI mistakenly assumes that personality falls into mutually exclusive categories. ... The consequence is that the scores of two people labelled "introverted" and "extroverted" may be almost exactly the same, but they could be placed into different categories since they fall on either side of an imaginary dividing line.[58]

Quote
Although meta-analysis claim support for validity and reliability,[67][68] studies suggest that the MBTI "lacks convincing validity data" and that it is pseudoscience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism

Health professional, eh?
Bluffy endorses Price and UnSavory, holds to YEC, trusts anyone or thing that tells him he's right, so why couldn't some unnamed nephew be a "health professional". Hell, Bruno, who beats you to a pulp could be considered a "health professional", got you to the doctor, didn't he?
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41877
"It clearly shows how little animal diversity is left, a diversity that is shrinking daily."

Relax.

500 million years from now all that diversity will be restored. It's inevitable!

Just ask Darwin.

Or Voxrat and Pingu.
Ah, another good demonstration of Bluffy's complete misunderstanding of evolution. And Darwin, not to mention Voxrat and Pingu.
Sort of like the pretty good salesman doing a sales job in which he demonstrates a complete ignorance of insulation, infiltration and construction.
Are we there yet?

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights, have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41878
What's particularly hilarious is that Hawkins - the guy who dismisses "octohattery" as "Fake Science" states  -  as a fact  - "I'm an INTP", based not on any actual MTBI results, but on the casual comment of someone who calls himself a "health professional". 

It is only octohattery if it doesn't agree with Dave. When it does, it is totally authoritative. That is just real science, man.
Was Price an octohatter?
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41879
The Dutch spend a lot of money and effort keeping Ven lakes in place,
Well, shit, have they tried large herbivores?
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41880
The Dutch spend a lot of money and effort keeping Ven lakes in place,
Well, shit, have they tried large herbivores?

They have, not far from Amsterdam. It hasn't been going well, really.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/27/dutch-rewilding-experiment-backfires-as-thousands-of-animals-starve

ETA it isn't as awful as painted, and some species are doing well, but I suspect they overstocked to begin with, not accounting for a number of possibilities. And the Dutch really don't like seeing animal suffering up close.

Depending on winter conditions, hundreds or thousands of deer may die here each year. But they are in the woods, predators and scavengers eat them. The Dutch experiment may need a few wolves.
  • Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 11:07:02 AM by borealis

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41881
The Dutch spend a lot of money and effort keeping Ven lakes in place,
Well, shit, have they tried large herbivores?

They have, not far from Amsterdam. It hasn't been going well, really.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/27/dutch-rewilding-experiment-backfires-as-thousands-of-animals-starve
Quote
"You'd expect 20 or 30% to die of natural causes including starvation each year but the population grows in summertime and there is no control mechanism - normally you'd have predators such as wolves but it's too small an area to have predators."
Why didn't they just put them in moving cages? Those mimic predators quite well, I'm told.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41882
"I don't believe there has ever been as many wild herbivores" 

So you think that Smith et al are mistaken?

On what basis do you think this?
I distinctively remember you telling us the graph talked about EMISSIONS, not animal numbers. "Read, rite, rithmetic" much, you fucking hypocrite?
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 #41883
Here's the link to the Smith paper again

http://biology.unm.edu/fasmith/Web_Page_PDFs/Smith_et_al_2015_PNAS_on_methane.pdf
... where you will find no estimate of the number of herbivores ever being as large - or larger - than the number of cattle/sheep today.

Go ahead! Try to find one!
Right, but you do find a chart which says that ruminant emissions were roughly comprable to today's numbers.
same thing, right?

No it doesn't show "slightly less ruminants" ... it shows slightly less ruminant EMISSIONS ...

You guys really need to get back to basics ...

Reading

Riting

Rithmetic.
Jackass.
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.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41884
hypocrisy is pretty much the inevitable product of ...

Afdave's Fifth Law:
The truth of all previously established facts and conclusions are subject to their being convenient to the argument I am presently making.

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

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41885
I'm an INTP.  Read up on them.  I suck at many things.  But I'm really good at a few things.

Bahahahahaaa. No.
Oh come on, Martin, Bluffy is pretty good at sucking. He even admits as much.

I'm just laughing that the master salesman who is good at selling things to rubes, thinks he's an intp.
It wasn't my idea that I am an INTP. I was told that by a nephew who is a health professional. And I'm not a master salesman ... just managed to become pretty good.
Are you sure he did not say "NPD", and you misheard?
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 #41886
I know, low-hanging fruit. Guilty as charged.
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 #41887
Less turbidity and erosion from mechanical disturbance of watercourses is one of the positive results which can result from cell grazing. Inadvertently so, but positive nonetheless.

There is also a clear negative involved. Remember the reason many farmers adopt cell grazing is because they have been promised they can run 2 or 3 or x times the stock.

It all comes down to water.

Cattle require staggering amounts of water.

Far far more than most other herbivores. Very water inefficient are cows.

The easy solution is to let your stock source their own, with all the issues that accompany that; destabilisation of banks, erosion, turbidity, increased nutrient load, algae blooms, fish kills etc. etc.

The up-side of the easy way is all the costs of all the negatives are externalised. "They're blaming me for siltation on the reef, I'm 400k away, they're dreamin".

Cell grazing requires extensive water management. All those little paddocks need water supplied directly. Supplying water to all those little paddocks needs miles of polypipe and heaps of troughs and pumps and maintenance and control and stuff. Once you have all that and all the fencing managing your stock becomes much easier. If you turn the water off in this paddock and turn it on in the next and open the gate they will move themselves. I've seen places with automatic gates as well, whole place managed from the holiday unit on the Gold Coast.

Reduction in mechanical disturbance of watercourses can be an inadvertent yet positive result of cell grazing.

That's great and all, as I said it inadvertently solves the watercourse damage problem (not broadscale erosion but that's another issue). The big downside for the operator though is that you now have a system which can supposedly run x times more stock and it cost so much to install and more to run that you now have to run x times the stock just to stay afloat. All the water costs are internalised.

Bad season or surprisingly dodgy and optimistic projections from the cell salesman and you are buggered. You no longer have the option to destock in the bad times or as a simple management option. Place ends up trashed. Watercourse is looking much better though.
Designed by an octohatter no doubt. Poor design makes for poor results in any endeavor.  Go visit someone successful like Greg Judy or Chad Peterson or Joe Hopping or hundreds of others.
Dave, you are an idiot's idiot.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41888
Quote
Ok so we're in flat out denial of info like that provided by the Smith paper.

You really have a hard time with the old all/some/none problem don't you?
Dave really has a problem with heroes.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41889
"It clearly shows how little animal diversity is left, a diversity that is shrinking daily."

Relax.

500 million years from now all that diversity will be restored. It's inevitable!

Just ask Darwin.

Or Voxrat and Pingu.
You could not be stupider. You are a parody of yourself.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights, have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41890
Wow, this place got brutal the minute Pingu left. 
It's turned into the Lord of the Flies.
Now we know she's not around, we have been spared the fear of disappointing her, and all of a sudden no one is afraid of hurting dumb Dave's feels.
  • Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 12:36:56 PM by Zombies!
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41891
"It clearly shows how little animal diversity is left, a diversity that is shrinking daily."

Relax.

500 million years from now all that diversity will be restored. It's inevitable!

Just ask Darwin.

Or Voxrat and Pingu.
You could not be stupider. You are a parody of yourself.
Calm down. It was a joke.

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights, have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41892
"It clearly shows how little animal diversity is left, a diversity that is shrinking daily."

Relax.

500 million years from now all that diversity will be restored. It's inevitable!

Just ask Darwin.

Or Voxrat and Pingu.
You could not be stupider. You are a parody of yourself.
Calm down. It was a joke.
Jesus you are unfunny.  Like, five year old sitting next to you on a long flight trying to figure out humor unfunny.
"Knock knock"
"Whose there?"
"baloney"
"Baloney who?"
"TWELVE!!"
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41893
"It clearly shows how little animal diversity is left, a diversity that is shrinking daily."

Relax.

500 million years from now all that diversity will be restored. It's inevitable!

Just ask Darwin.

Or Voxrat and Pingu.
You could not be stupider. You are a parody of yourself.
Calm down. It was a joke a pathetic and obvious attempt to dodge real issues.
FIFY
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41894
"It clearly shows how little animal diversity is left, a diversity that is shrinking daily."

Relax.

500 million years from now all that diversity will be restored. It's inevitable!

Just ask Darwin.

Or Voxrat and Pingu.
You could not be stupider. You are a parody of yourself.
I supoose daves serious response, "I do not give a single fuck", was not much better.
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.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41895
"It clearly shows how little animal diversity is left, a diversity that is shrinking daily."

Relax.

500 million years from now all that diversity will be restored. It's inevitable!

Just ask Darwin.

Or Voxrat and Pingu.
You could not be stupider. You are a parody of yourself.
Calm down. It was a joke.
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I don't think the cataclysmic decline in biodiversity reflected in that graphic is a laughing matter.  I don't think anyone here but you does.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41896
"It clearly shows how little animal diversity is left, a diversity that is shrinking daily."

Relax.

500 million years from now all that diversity will be restored. It's inevitable!

Just ask Darwin.

Or Voxrat and Pingu.
You could not be stupider. You are a parody of yourself.
Calm down. It was a joke.
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I don't think the cataclysmic decline in biodiversity reflected in that graphic is a laughing matter.  I don't think anyone here but you does.

Depending on how many facets of fundamentalist teachings Dave actually includes in his personal belief system, I can sort of see where his 'joke' comes from. We know he's a young earth creationist, believes Noah's Flood actually happened in recent times, certainly believes the earth was made for humans, but idk if he believes humans are meant to 'use up the earth'*. as some do. If he does, from that point of view, the extinction of life except humans and their livestock would be of no concern to him, therefore amusing that other people find that pov grotesque.

*To be fair to fundies, I've only rarely seen people espouse this belief, and most of them were members of the Rapture Ready forums, and not all were in agreement.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41897
"It clearly shows how little animal diversity is left, a diversity that is shrinking daily."

Relax.

500 million years from now all that diversity will be restored. It's inevitable!

Just ask Darwin.

Or Voxrat and Pingu.
You could not be stupider. You are a parody of yourself.
Calm down. It was a joke.
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I don't think the cataclysmic decline in biodiversity reflected in that graphic is a laughing matter.  I don't think anyone here but you does.
You misunderstood the target of my laughter. My laughter is not at the loss of biodiversity which, as you say, and I agree, is no laughing matter.  The target of my laughter is darwinists who think all this biodiversity originated from inanimate matter with no intelligent input.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41898
"It clearly shows how little animal diversity is left, a diversity that is shrinking daily."

Relax.

500 million years from now all that diversity will be restored. It's inevitable!

Just ask Darwin.

Or Voxrat and Pingu.
You could not be stupider. You are a parody of yourself.
Calm down. It was a joke.
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I don't think the cataclysmic decline in biodiversity reflected in that graphic is a laughing matter.  I don't think anyone here but you does.

Depending on how many facets of fundamentalist teachings Dave actually includes in his personal belief system, I can sort of see where his 'joke' comes from. We know he's a young earth creationist, believes Noah's Flood actually happened in recent times, certainly believes the earth was made for humans, but idk if he believes humans are meant to 'use up the earth'*. as some do. If he does, from that point of view, the extinction of life except humans and their livestock would be of no concern to him, therefore amusing that other people find that pov grotesque.

*To be fair to fundies, I've only rarely seen people espouse this belief, and most of them were members of the Rapture Ready forums, and not all were in agreement.
I absolutely do not believe that humans are meant to use up the Earth. Do you think I would be doing what I'm doing on my 10 acres if I believed that?


  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41899
"It clearly shows how little animal diversity is left, a diversity that is shrinking daily."

Relax.

500 million years from now all that diversity will be restored. It's inevitable!

Just ask Darwin.

Or Voxrat and Pingu.
You could not be stupider. You are a parody of yourself.
Calm down. It was a joke.
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I don't think the cataclysmic decline in biodiversity reflected in that graphic is a laughing matter.  I don't think anyone here but you does.

Depending on how many facets of fundamentalist teachings Dave actually includes in his personal belief system, I can sort of see where his 'joke' comes from. We know he's a young earth creationist, believes Noah's Flood actually happened in recent times, certainly believes the earth was made for humans, but idk if he believes humans are meant to 'use up the earth'*. as some do. If he does, from that point of view, the extinction of life except humans and their livestock would be of no concern to him, therefore amusing that other people find that pov grotesque.

*To be fair to fundies, I've only rarely seen people espouse this belief, and most of them were members of the Rapture Ready forums, and not all were in agreement.
I absolutely do not believe that humans are meant to use up the Earth. Do you think I would be doing what I'm doing on my 10 acres if I believed that?



I'm glad to hear it.

But yes, if you believed as I described, you wouldn't care about anything but feeding humans through the end times and would not care about other animals.

You must see, though, that your attitudes toward wildlife are very blasé and certainly appear deliberately ignorant and uncaring.

You never answered my question about Savory and game hunting, btw.