The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#41  Postby tuco » Jun 02, 2019 11:24 pm

More specific? Consumption. More details in XR thread.

Why exactly is climate change a problem? Because the planet is warming. Why is this a problem?

It is yet to be supported that CO2 is the most pressing. It's the most widely accepted and easiest to address. It is not certainly the conclusion of the IPBES Global Assessment. What does even mean .. its the most pressing? You need to be more specific. Carbon footprint is not the same as ecological footprint, which is the topic of this thread.

Even XR seems to focus mostly on CO2, climate change, which again is not in line with IPBES Global Assessment.

https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/the-emergency/

and that is despite they link to stuff like this, in A “biological annihilation” of wildlife in recent decades means the Sixth Mass Extinction in Earth’s history is under way.: Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines - https://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089

The likelihood of this rapid defaunation lies in the proximate causes of population extinctions: habitat conversion, climate disruption, overexploitation, toxification, species invasions, disease, and (potentially) large-scale nuclear war—all tied to one another in complex patterns and usually reinforcing each other’s impacts. Much less frequently mentioned are, however, the ultimate drivers of those immediate causes of biotic destruction, namely, human overpopulation and continued population growth, and overconsumption, especially by the rich.


Its all in the XR thread in posts about IPBES Global Assessment and others.

---
edit: How can the government regulate consumption? With regards to obesity in the West and well-being as the thesis of Sam Harris being an objective measure of moral good, I propose that the government implements food stamps. I mean that would surely lower obesity rates and positively influence well-being, right? Now let's go vote for it. Sure
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#42  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 03, 2019 1:09 am

Why exactly is climate change a problem? Because the planet is warming. Why is this a problem?


Are these rhetorical questions? I assume you're aware that anthropogenic climate change doesn't just mean that the planet will get warmer. There are numerous other factors, such as changes in weather patterns, ocean levels rising, degradation of coastlines, acidification of the oceans, forests retreating, damage to already stressed ecologies, flooding and droughts, and so on.

It is yet to be supported that CO2 is the most pressing.


Well, international scientific institutes have made it pretty clear.

It's the most widely accepted and easiest to address.


If it was that easy to address then the international scientific community wouldn't be worrying about it, protestors wouldn't be on the streets calling for governments to get their fingers out of the rectums and do something.

It is not certainly the conclusion of the IPBES Global Assessment.


It is the conclusion of numerous other scientific studies, and it's hardly like the IPBE's assessment doesn't recognize it as a primary factor. In fact, the IPBE report doesn't rank the issues at all, so your contention is not borne out.

What does even mean .. its the most pressing?


It's common English. It means that it requires immediate attention and the reason why it is pressing is because it has the potential to enter a run-away scenario which will make it increasingly difficult to deal with and the consequences increasingly more widespread and damaging.

You need to be more specific.


You're replying to a post where I asked *you* to be more specific.

Carbon footprint is not the same as ecological footprint, which is the topic of this thread.


Indeed, and I've already talked about various elements of ecological footprints in this thread.

Even XR seems to focus mostly on CO2, climate change, which again is not in line with IPBES Global Assessment.


Because it is the most pressing and it assuredly is not out of line with the IPBES assessment. Because we need to do something right now before the situation becomes unmanageable. It's easy to plot the trajectory here - governments and nations are not curbing their C02 emissions fast enough to effect the changes the scientific community have identified as being necessary if we are not to see global-level conditions deteriorate dramatically in a very short period of time.

Other problems are also important, but in many cases they are multifarious - fixing one element doesn't effect a solution for all areas, for example we could stop palm oil plantation, deforestation, and habitat loss in Malaysia, but other countries would still be doing it, so solutions for many problems are constrained.

Similarly, many of the problems, while terrible in themselves, are limited in scope - plastic pollution in the oceans is something we need to address to protect the species which are most at threat from it, but not to the same priority as the effect of C02 emissions with respect to ocean acidification which would affect all oceans, and all life in the oceans.

The fact is that C02 emissions have so many drastic impacts on so many different elements of the environment that it simply is the most vital thing to solve in this generation. That atmosphere is something essentially all life on the planet has evolved over geological time-scales to depend on, and we're changing it drastically in a very short time frame.

and that is despite they link to stuff like this, in A “biological annihilation” of wildlife in recent decades means the Sixth Mass Extinction in Earth’s history is under way.: Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines


Indeed; it's not a good situation. However, C02 emissions also play a not insignificant part of that biological annihilation, and left unchecked, its effect will grow increasingly worse. Solving globe-wide habitat loss, deforestation, pollution, invasive species, disease, conflict with humans etc. is important too. But they remain diverse problems without any single solution, whereas C02 emissions impact all of these situations and is a single solveable solution if governments take the necessary steps.


edit: How can the government regulate consumption? With regards to obesity in the West and well-being as the thesis of Sam Harris being an objective measure of moral good, I propose that the government implements food stamps. I mean that would surely lower obesity rates and positively influence well-being, right? Now let's go vote for it. Sure


While you may not be wholly serious there, you reiterate my point: many of the crises we face have no simple or single solution given the mechanisms of our democratic societies.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#43  Postby tuco » Jun 03, 2019 2:50 am

OK ...

so if I agree it's the elephant in the room, it's the most pressing, it's very urgent to use phrasing couple of posters used, are you going to recognize its only a part of the problem and that transformative change is needed? Because I do not really care it's the most pressing or not. I care that people realize they need to do more than to send money to offset programs if they want to have a sustainable future.

Deal?

---
edit:

Like this guy

Animavore wrote:Not that I'm knocking these individual efforts to reduce our carbon, I do it myself, but unless there is a top-down change, starting with government policy, our efforts are for naught.



does he realize it or not? I am not sure he does because I only see carbon and climate change. And then claims that biking to work It’s not going to move the needle on climate change.
Last edited by tuco on Jun 03, 2019 3:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#44  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 03, 2019 3:03 am

tuco wrote:OK ...

so if I agree it's the elephant in the room, it's the most pressing, it's very urgent to use phrasing couple of posters used, are you going to recognize its only a part of the problem and that transformative change is needed?


I will repeat what I said earlier: it's not 'part' of 'a' problem. It's one of many disparate and multifarious problems, distinct in and of itself.

The only link all the problems necessarily share is due to the function of our population size.


tuco wrote:Because I do not really care it's the most pressing or not.


I think you probably do if you care about any of the other problems. The only way you could not care is if you don't give a damn about what happens to the environment, and your posts don't seem to convey that position.


tuco wrote: I care that people realize they need to do more than to send money to offset programs if they want to have a sustainable future.


Which might be enlightening if you could quantify exactly what it is that people would actually need to do to have a sustainable future. I think any of us here would be hard-pressed to come up with a comprehensive list. I am not even sure if anyone on the planet would be able to produce such a rigorous treatment for all 7 billion of us.

Personally, I opt for the simplest argument here: the problem is 7 billion people. If there were 2 billion of us, current levels of profligacy would not have an unsustainable effect on the environment.


tuco wrote:Deal?


I'm afraid that conveys no sense to me whatsoever. What formal agreement is it you wish to engage in here?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#45  Postby tuco » Jun 03, 2019 3:15 am

Of course, it's quantified, it's in the IPBES Global Assessment report what is needed to stop nature from declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history, which is the point, the problem here, which is why XR, at least allegedly, exists and which is why we have The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey and not The tale of our carbon footprints as best we can convey thread, while climate change is only a part of this.

To your last question, I do not want to engage in anything anymore. I made mistake, again, engaging in the first place. Sorry about that.
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#46  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 03, 2019 3:37 am

tuco wrote:Of course, it's quantified, it's in the IPBES Global Assessment report what is needed to stop nature from declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history, which is the point, the problem here, which is why XR, at least allegedly, exists and which is why we have The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey and not The tale of our carbon footprints as best we can convey thread, while climate change is only a part of this.


That's a completely different kettle of fish.

What you said was:

I care that people realize they need to do more than to send money to offset programs if they want to have a sustainable future.


The IPBES report does not quantify what individuals should do, or in fact, explain in any way, shape or form what people need to do to have a sustainable future. It explains and quantifies the problems human society's impact is causing, but it offers no suggestion as to how an average person can do more than sending money to offset programs.


tuco wrote:To your last question, I do not want to engage in anything anymore. I made mistake, again, engaging in the first place. Sorry about that.


Why do you always devolve into this silliness Tuco? It's not a 'mistake' to engage people in discussion on a discussion forum - that's what we're all here for. When people actually substantively engage your posts, you play this condescending beat as if no one's worthy of your time or effort. Presumably we are worthy of your time and effort, or you wouldn't be here making posts... no? Am I wrong?

So, all I asked from you was to be more specific - it seems you don't like anything you write even remotely challenged, even when done so perfectly civilly, wholly within the spirit of a discussion where information is exchanged.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#47  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 03, 2019 3:42 am

IPBES Report wrote:By transformative change, we mean a fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values.


Ok, so let's say that I defer to this. Transformative change is what's needed. A system-wide reorganization of goals and values... so how do I go about doing this myself? What can I actually achieve? Or do I have to achieve this via democratic processes where I put my vote towards a representative who also defers to this in order that they try to make the political changes necessary to achieve the desired end?

It assuredly doesn't tell me whether I should do X or not do Y. In fact, the suggestion appears to be that doing X and not doing Y cannot be enough: that the entire scope of human activity has to be re-engineered. How can even the most sympathetic individual attain this?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#48  Postby tuco » Jun 03, 2019 3:58 am

Wunderbar. That is all I wanted to hear, that you understand that being carbon neutral does not equal sustainable future nor does it equal preservation of nature.

If you should do X or Y .. I assume you are educated, intelligent and adult, you need to decide this. See "liberal paternalism". For some flying is hard to give up because they have mother or father across the world, for some others it's driving a car because where they live there is no public transport and they are not going to do Tour de France to get to work, and yet for someone else its even I dunno having a large collection of shoes simply because they have a thing for them. We are individuals thus 'oughts to' in question cannot be normative, universal.

The point is, I repeat, that if we want to have a sustainable future, and want to have kids who will live in such future, the rational thing to do is to lower consumption and pollution through a change of our habits and collective behavior. Who talks about this? I know I do. Others I see saying ... government must take action. Well, fuck me, of course, I thought we were beyond this point, at least on this board, but it's not the only body who must take action.
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#49  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 03, 2019 4:41 am

tuco wrote:Wunderbar. That is all I wanted to hear, that you understand that being carbon neutral does not equal sustainable future nor does it equal preservation of nature.


But you were already aware from numerous posts I've written and that you've replied to that I never made such a contention.


tuco wrote:If you should do X or Y .. I assume you are educated, intelligent and adult, you need to decide this.


The thing about being an educated, intelligent adult is knowing that ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge, that there are realms of expertise unavailable to most people who either lack the tools or time to master the topics. At such times, I believe it's perfectly reasonable for an educated, intelligent, and mature adult to acknowledge their limitations rather than to pretend to knowledge they don't actually possess.





Ok, but again that's not something your or I can do, it's something that governments or companies would do on our behalf.


tuco wrote: For some flying is hard to give up because they have mother or father across the world, for some others it's driving a car because where they live there is no public transport and they are not going to do Tour de France to get to work, and yet for someone else its even I dunno having a large collection of shoes simply because they have a thing for them. We are individuals thus 'oughts to' in question cannot be normative,...


I agree, and that's what I was referring to earlier with respect to the complexity of finding solutions in a democratic system. A tyranny can easily impose such norms - China is better suited to dealing with climate change than liberal democracies simply because an order from the top becomes law, no matter how infringing on individual liberty.


tuco wrote: universal.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2691361]#p2691278

Spearthrower wrote:For me, it's neither.

Rights are something humans contrive, usually from sound ethical reasoning, and bestow upon citizens of a society. Privileges are just a special, often more restricted form of a right.

Having babies/reproduction is something that essentially all living things do. It's no more a right than breathing, or metabolizing, or growing. I don't think it's something that can be decreed or forbidden without tyranny being involved.

However, there's no doubt that there are too many humans for the world to sustain given modern consumption and its impact on the environment. So what can be done?

Well, there's the Rosling-esque idea of education; that's not just education about the ecological impact of human flourishing, but education in the sense of creating prospects, of life goals, of ensuring women have access and liberty to use birth control and to partake in education and work.

There's political (dis)incentivization, where people can be rationally confident their fewer children will survive, where they will have access to needs, to education, to reasonable lifestyles, and where the elderly will have a social security net that doesn't require their adult children supporting them.

Unfortunately, all political scenarios are fraught with economic privilege. It's relatively easy (given no concern for tyranny) to make having more than 2 children economically undesirable through policies that increase costs or take away benefits from having more, but then setting that bar high enough to impact the wealthiest is disproportionate for lower earners.

And that problem also affects the educational component because our societies are founded on poorer people being in greater abundance than richer people, where the greater numbers of lower income work for the few higher earners. We can't envision a society, at present, where everyone's a rich employer, because then who would they employ?

It's all a catch-22 - I think all we can hope for is that current birth-rate trends continue and that humanity reaches a stable population while technology catches up to limit and manage our impact on the environment. It's the Star Trek appeal, but the only way out I can see is technological, not ethical or political.




tuco wrote:The point is, I repeat, that if we want to have a sustainable future, and want to have kids who will live in such future, the rational thing to do is to lower consumption and pollution through a change of our habits and collective behavior. Who talks about this? I know I do. Others I see saying ... government must take action. Well, fuck me, of course, I thought we were beyond this point, at least on this board, but it's not the only body who must take action.


The issue, I think, is consensus. Even if you, me, and every single person attending this forum were deeply concerned about their ecological footprint and worked hard to minimize their impact on the environment, we're still not even a drop in the ocean. Our efforts would, while potentially be self-satisfying, have no discernible impact on the trajectory of these problems. So either all humanity somehow arrives at a mutual understanding independently through reasoning, conscientiousness, and knowledge... or governments perform one of their primary roles - to set out rules and regulations for the benefit of the society they represent. Perhaps you have more faith in humans than I do? But I don't expect the significant majority of people to willingly give up their creature comforts for some future benefit they neither perceive now nor will be alive to enjoy. What happens when you educate people and they still choose to ignore the ramifications of that knowledge? All that's left really is coercion.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#50  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 03, 2019 5:38 am

tuco wrote:Wunderbar. That is all I wanted to hear, that you understand that being carbon neutral does not equal sustainable future nor does it equal preservation of nature.

If you should do X or Y .. I assume you are educated, intelligent and adult, you need to decide this. See "liberal paternalism". For some flying is hard to give up because they have mother or father across the world, for some others it's driving a car because where they live there is no public transport and they are not going to do Tour de France to get to work, and yet for someone else its even I dunno having a large collection of shoes simply because they have a thing for them. We are individuals thus 'oughts to' in question cannot be normative, universal.

The point is, I repeat, that if we want to have a sustainable future, and want to have kids who will live in such future, the rational thing to do is to lower consumption and pollution through a change of our habits and collective behavior. Who talks about this? I know I do. Others I see saying ... government must take action. Well, fuck me, of course, I thought we were beyond this point, at least on this board, but it's not the only body who must take action.


tuco wrote:The only important thing here, the point, is that the government alone will not solve the problem of a sustainable future for us and that it matters what we do, even if the government does nothing. I think you know this so you don't need to worry.


Hm. The government is always doing something. When your argument is finally revealed as the trivially obvious observation ("it matters what we do") you started with but omitted to make clear, the rest of most lengthy discussions with you basically reduces to wasted time.

There's very little I actually do in order to maintain what I imagine is a clear conscience. There's a lot of stuff I don't do, but that's another matter entirely. A lot of crappy legal and ethical analysis fails to keep straight obligations and prohibitions. I don't know if this is analogous at all to supply and demand, where there is actually a theoretical equilibrium mediated by price. I'm sure you can see how coercion is going to figure in all this.

As an ideal, Individual liberty or choice seems "wunderbar". Since this basically means the old principle that my neighbor's nose ends where mine begins, the larger the population, the less we should expect individual liberty and choice to be so effective.

There you go, nonetheless. It just isn't trivially obvious that population size also matters, beyond the notion that government alone will not solve the problem of creating a sustainable future for human beings and the ecosystem. What government encourages on the supply side (of population, too!) is a bit of a problem, and we sort of know what is supposed to happen if somehow we contrive to stop that.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28463
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#51  Postby Svartalf » Jun 03, 2019 9:36 am

I don't collect plastic bags, but any I get are put in reserve to be reused as trash bags... I seem to collect more than I throw out though.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 1096
Age: 49
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#52  Postby tuco » Jun 03, 2019 11:01 am

What I do not understand, why dont you, both of you, comment on this:

Animavore wrote:Not that I'm knocking these individual efforts to reduce our carbon, I do it myself, but unless there is a top-down change, starting with government policy, our efforts are for naught.



Seriously. Its bullshit, I point it out, state the trivial and obvious yet both of you invest time and energy to comment on my posts. The day I will figure this out, will be my happy day.
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#53  Postby juju7 » Jun 03, 2019 11:12 am

Spearthrower wrote:

Personally, I opt for the simplest argument here: the problem is 7 billion people. If there were 2 billion of us, current levels of profligacy would not have an unsustainable effect on the environment.



That is nonsense. Not everybody contributes equally.
User avatar
juju7
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 905

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#54  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 03, 2019 11:16 am

tuco wrote:What I do not understand, why dont you, both of you, comment on this:


Who is 'both of you'?

Is one of them me?

I can't answer for whoever the other person is, but I can for me: because there's nothing there I choose to comment on. I come here to discuss things with people, not make comments on videos.


tuco wrote:
Seriously. Its bullshit,...


It's not 'bullshit'.


tuco wrote: I point it out, state the trivial and obvious...


You realize that when someone states the trivial and obvious, then there's no reason to reply to that?

Instead, replies tend to be generated when someone states something that is contentious, as you did, which is why I responded to that with discussion.


tuco wrote:... yet both of you invest time and energy to comment on my posts.


I... what?

If you can produce a scenario where I don't need to invest time and energy to comment on your posts, then I am all up for welcoming this brave new world.


tuco wrote: The day I will figure this out, will be my happy day.


When you do, please let me know what you mean as you don't make a lot of sense to me.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#55  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 03, 2019 11:25 am

juju7 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

Personally, I opt for the simplest argument here: the problem is 7 billion people. If there were 2 billion of us, current levels of profligacy would not have an unsustainable effect on the environment.



That is nonsense. Not everybody contributes equally.


By the same token, if (or when) the population reduces from 7 billion to 2 billion, not everybody is going to sacrifice equally. So, what else is new? I mean, it might only reduce to 6 billion, or to 4 billion, but the principle holds.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28463
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#56  Postby tuco » Jun 03, 2019 11:27 am

Oh might be half a happy day for me. So since the post in question does not contain enough sentences you could quote and mental masturbate over you dont comment on it. Well, I dont enjoy these exchanges so perhaps if I keep my posts short, I will escape your attention. That is kind of cool.
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#57  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 03, 2019 11:30 am

juju7 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

Personally, I opt for the simplest argument here: the problem is 7 billion people. If there were 2 billion of us, current levels of profligacy would not have an unsustainable effect on the environment.



That is nonsense. Not everybody contributes equally.



And that is a non-sequitur.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#58  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 03, 2019 11:31 am

tuco wrote:Oh might be half a happy day for me. So since the post in question does not contain enough sentences you could quote and mental masturbate over you dont comment on it. Well, I dont enjoy these exchanges so perhaps if I keep my posts short, I will escape your attention. That is kind of cool.



You don't seem to enjoy any exchanges here.

But then again, it's not really anyone's job to be enjoyable for you.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#59  Postby tuco » Jun 03, 2019 12:03 pm

Seems to work. Little surprised you did not break it into 4 quotes but I will take it :)
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#60  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 03, 2019 1:13 pm

tuco wrote:Seems to work. Little surprised you did not break it into 4 quotes but I will take it :)



You seem to have a laundry list of things you don't like other people doing.

I break things into quotes to make it clear what I am addressing. It's standard practice when clarity of dialogue is desired.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest