Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)EM
Posts
41
Comments
986
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Pretty sure there are crops you can rotate in that replenish the soil.

    Potassium is produced by breaking down potassium-rich rocks. Plants cannot replenish it like they replenish nitrogen.

    There’s also a literal shitload of organic waste that humans generate that can be used for a similar purpose instead of burying it in landfills.

    We do produce a lot of potassium-rich waste - sewage and food waste, for example - but most of it is also rich in other nutrients. So you can add a little of it, but adding too much of it can cause other problems (like eutrophication).

    The other solution is to buy potassium fertiliser. A significant amount of this is produced in Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, and I'm guessing its trade is being affected by the ongoing war.

  • ultimately it's the choice of the individual if they're okay with the work or not

    Ah, the free choice between degrading yourself and starving. I too would have preferred the path of regulation, but I can understand the courts being so disgusted that they just blanket ban it.

    this feels like Chinese conservatism forcing "modesty" on women.

    I don't know much about Chinese society, but in South Korea (and to a lesser extent, Japan), it is mainly feminists pushing against practises that objectify them, with furious opposition from certain men, and even the authorities dragging their feet.

  • are these cafes quite degrading to women?

    Short answer: usually

    Long answer: they cater to customers with a maid fetish. It is possible that some staff do not mind, or even enjoy, working there. It is possible that a maid cafe might put clear boundaries, and protect its staff. But in the real world, most of the time, yes it is quite degrading.

  • At this point, an Ukrainian military victory is extremely unlikely. But equally, it would be expensive for Russia to capture western Ukraine, and even more expensive to hold it. So the most likely outcome is some sort of negotiated peace. At that point, wouldn't Ukraine get a better deal if they are in a position of at least some strength?

  • FWIW, book three is basically "a feminized society is incapable of making the hard but necessary choices".

    That is one way of reading it. Another is that the vast majority of humans will do the decent thing even if it ends up backfiring on them. Which, if anything, is wildly optimistic. I would also point out that of the two species in conflict, the one that played decent went on to become a galactic civilisation, while the other died out.

  • Europeans have a stake in Botswana's elephants as humans same as Botswanans have a stake in, say, the Parthenon or Stonehenge: as humans, as a shared human heritage.

    Europe had its elephants too. Lions once lived in southern Europe, and wolves in Britain. Aurochs roamed all of Europe except Scandinavia. Wonder where all that shared heritage went.

  • We (India) don't have that, mainly because blood bags don't grow on trees, but there's a question about sleeping eight hours the previous night that always seemed irrelevant. Now that I think about it, it might have been added for this purpose.

  • There already are laws dealing with specific issues. So I guess the main advantage of making this a fundamental, rather than just a legal, right would be that it would bind governments. This will support challenges to laws diluting environmental protections, as well as allow lower courts to pass orders on issues where no specific laws already exist.