Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
Nature is indifferent in the sense that it doesn't respond to faith or manifestation. Which is probably why they hate it. The natural world in an "unpleasant" reminder that we live in a deeply connected material world where actions have consequences and downstream effects, even if you don't want them to.
This is baby stuff that these grown adults have somehow never internalized.
This was possibly George Carlin's only shitty bit. Every mfer like you described thinks it's profound to point out how we're not trying to save the planet, we're trying to save ourselves. It's like... Yes... We're part of the only biosphere we know exists and that gives us the responsibility to do more of the things that sustain it and less of the things that degrade and destroy it.
They don't like the air you breathe orr the water they drink. Shows in their environmental policies
Right wingers have been told that environmentalists care more about polar bears than people by slick political campaigns paid for by oil companies that want to drill in the arctic. That's an intentional misdirection.
There's also the christian notion that man has stewardship over nature, which is bent to mean that it's there for us to exploit as we wish
mother nature has been killing us for hundreds of thousands of years. since before we were humans even. we're just fighting back!
as a fellow ecologist, I try to ignore the semantic games of CHUDs when they blather on with whatever frame the latest corporate propaganda introduced to them.
I try to focus my attention on something tangible like, what the local soils and climate are like, and how if I had to compost their body, what carbon rich plant material is abundant nearby and easily sourced (straw, wood chips, etc) and then estimate how much I might need, where i might put it, and a layering/aerating strategy such that all that would be left of them 60-90 days later would be some teeth and maybe a cubic meter or so of rich compost.
because that would be the sum total of their positive contribution to the biosphere, and I try to stay positive.
Wow, can their bones really break down that fast?
I'm cutting it real tight because I like to think can push a pile better than anyone who has ever dared to dream, but realistically for best practices it's more like 7-8 months
CW: animal ag, but no pics. https://extension.umn.edu/preparing-livestock-emergencies/composting-livestock-and-poultry-carcasses#time-requirements-2224810
Arent humans bodies usually not good improvement matters for soil quality due to the stomach acids or something? I know it was something, since "tree burials" have become very popular in my country.
the most significant contaminant is going to be probably some shit like heavy metal accumulation, because humans live a long time and can't excrete them out easily. but unless you're talking about like a shitload of people who all had like crazy lead exposure, it probably isn't something to worry about unless you want to use them to fertilize a space for a shitload of leafy greens to eat.
like I wouldn't plant something right into a dead body and expect it to thrive, because all of that complex tissue needs to be decomposed and broken down into plant-available fertility. but decomposition processes can be accelerated through the introduction of free air flow (available oxygen to keep the process aerobic) and an ideal temperature range for thermophilic microbial metabolic processes which I something like 135-160°F (40-60°C).
so you need a big soil thermometer and either a lot of stamina/strong back, or a front end loader to "turn" the pile when it gets too hot or too cool after you've let it cook for a few weeks to get going. the microbes supply the heat. it'll be a lot slower in truly arid climates.
there are calculators for composting various plant materials and animal carcasses. just exchange fascist for swine carcasses. the mature weights and general composition ratios are about the same.
nature recycles everything* it makes!
(* eventually, lignin I'm looking at you)
Lack of exposure to genuine, durable consequences makes people into idiots. All our politicians have spent their lives marinating in a system designed to shield them from accountability and we get the current crop of bozos. The 
has gone so long without a famine that everyone just assumes that food will always be there and can just materialize out of nowhere.
I should probably track down this anecdote, but I read that a Nobel-prizewinning economist once dismissed the impact of climate change on agriculture because it only contributes 5% to the US GDP.
All this is to say that we need to create a new stratum of society whose members are trained to take jumpers to the nipples of anyone with self-destructively idiotic takes so that they can feel what it means for their choices to actually result in something.
I should probably track down this anecdote, but I read that a Nobel-prizewinning economist once dismissed the impact of climate change on agriculture because it only contributes 5% to the US GDP.
That would be William Nordhaus and his DICE model.
LMAO, just watched a Second Thought video on how GDP is pure ass.
Every time ol’ porkchop raises rent solely because he can or all the arbitrary prices on a medical bill, that raises GDP.
Fuck Ayn Rand for coining the term “objectivist” because leftists seem to be the only ideology concerned with the physical and would put our physical world over a concept like an economy (and people have really only discussed ‘the economy’ for about 100 years).
One of the wilder parts of this is that Nordhaus was actually one of the better people on this for a long time, and remains better than a lot of his colleagues. The DICE model at least attempts to incorporate what are called "non-market impacts" into its estimate of the cost associated with climate change--it tries to factor in things like impacts on human health, longevity, and other """"intangibles""" that don't directly contribute to GDP, as well as factor in impacts associated with systemic changes and low-probability/high-impact events. Many other integrated assessment models, especially the early ones, didn't even try. Here's a comparison of a few of the leading model projections (including Nordhaus) for economic impacts associated with climate change from The Stern Review:
Even his worst case scenario is laughably optimistic, but it does at least try to account for some stuff the other models don't, and thus at least gives a slightly more sane estimate of damage. It still doesn't account for so-called "socially contingent impacts" (things like mass migration, war, the rise of far-right governments, and similar things that can happen as a result of environmental destruction), nor does it reach into events that are both low-probability/high-impact AND non-market. This isn't a defense of Nordhaus, but rather an indictment of how bad other economists working in this space have been. I'm about to give a final on this stuff in about, oh, half an hour.
Nobel-prizewinning economist once dismissed the impact of climate change on agriculture because it only contributes 5% to the US GDP.
Probably this one: https://theconversation.com/nobel-prize-winning-economics-of-climate-change-is-misleading-and-dangerous-heres-why-145567
Honestly, in terms of liberal economics, it might even be correct, since GDP is so far removed from things that matter like this by design
That's it, thanks! That'll be 5,000 volts for Nordhaus and the Economics prize selection committee.
"Oxygen doesn't care if we breathe it, so we shouldn't care if there is enough oxygen for us to breathe."
"Hey, if I burn down this house I can just move to the house next door." 
Maybe the neighborhood crows don't like you, but I'm on good terms with them.
Yeah I know we evolved highly complex brains capable of deep emotions and thought but we shouldn't USE it right?