But we do know because thousands of hardworking scientists have devoted their lives to answering this question.
If you want to have fun speculating wildly then be clear that this is what you’re doing and don’t frame it as things that “will” happen.
Sorry this is a pet peeve of mine because I think it feeds into a paralyzing pessimism. People need to understand that we aren’t doomed to feel like they can work for a better future.
There is absolutely, unequivocally, no evidence that this will happen and no serious scientific prediction that this will happen from climate change has ever been made.
The science illiteracy here is getting almost as bad as the right wingers.
Damn that seems like a core feature. Not sure I’ll use it without this.
Yeah you’re right, I probably stated it over-broadly. I’m more talking about the typical prehistoric human diet but there were exceptions.
Right, that’s what I mean. Agricultural societies were likely better organized and more populous and so better able to defend and expel rivals from their lands. Foragers were forced into increasingly marginal lands over time, and all forager societies today exist on land that is essentially unsuited for agriculture, which is the only reason they have survived to this day.
Oh interesting. I was told by someone once that you want to set your radius smaller which seemed counterintuitive but this explains why.
I paired up before online dating was really a thing but I’m always curious about this strange world I never experienced.
Since there’s no written record, it’s hard to know for sure but I believe it was because agricultural communities were able to reproduce much faster and live at much higher densities, so they tended to win conflicts and displace societies based on foraging—even though foragers had better quality of life and didn’t normally experience the food shortages people imagine.
That said, modern foraging societies have largely converted to agriculture after being subjugated and not because they were hungry. So there is some evidence to support this hypothesis.
I know it’s a joke but this is science memes and it plays into a widespread misconception about early humans that we were some kind of blood drenched carnivores. Not true. Humans have always mostly eaten plants supplemented with some meat or other animal foods.
Wait, really? But if the ranges dot overlap then there’s no chance of a match, right? Or am I misunderstanding how tinder works?
All true but just fine again may depend on your definition. It’s going to cause major inconvenience for everyone at minimum I think.
Just wear non-woven gloves (I usually use rubber), cut the fruit open, scoop out the seeds, and then scoop the flesh from the skin. The glochids are all in the skin so this method works perfectly.
First time I used gloves that were fabric and I got poked every time I put them on from that point on.
The newly sprouted pads are also quite tasty but a bit more difficult to prepare so I’d start with the fruit.
deleted by creator
And I don’t see an alternative, other than growing an extra long beard, converting myself in mud, and becoming a druid
I don’t understand. Are you implying that’s not the obvious solution here?
Coconuts were introduced to the Caribbean region by humans. They didn’t just float there.
Is it practical for vehicle charging though? From what I’ve seen, typically these periods of abundant green energy are only for short periods of the day or year. At other times, additional energy will be generated by gas or other dirty source.
Overall a good summation of most of the facts, however, they did gloss over an important issue with EVs and the grid.
Yes, the grid can handle the additional load with proper development, but adding any new load to the grid at this point will necessarily slow our transition away from fossil electricity, unless you somehow charge only during times of excess renewable energy. Currently, this is not possible.
Also, I think there’s lots of other useful things we might find to do with cheap excess energy that will be available at certain times. I don’t know exactly what but pumping or desalinating water is one possible idea. Sort of an inverse peaker plant—a cheap piece of infrastructure that may sit idle for a time but kicks on when there is more energy than we can use to do some practical work.
Whoever made this has some legit plant knowledge.
For those unfamiliar, the plant in the image is a crape myrtle, Lagerstroemia indica. However, most crape myrtle cultivars are actually hybrids with other species. Catawba is one of only a few common varieties that is in fact pure L. indica.
I may have stated it slightly too strongly but this is wild speculation on Hansen’s part. Show me a published prediction.
Even if what he said was accurate, burning that much fossil energy is almost certainly impossible.