Burrito
flora_explora @ flora_explora @beehaw.org Posts 2Comments 626Joined 2 yr. ago
flora_explora @ flora_explora @beehaw.org
Posts
2
Comments
626
Joined
2 yr. ago
I think the right analogy would be to say "you are not inside your skull, you are your skull". And I would count this as a more or less correct statement.
The takeaway message: to maximize your number of potential friends, focus on making invertebrate friends and don't bother with the few billion humans ;)
But biomass shouldn't be relevant here, right? Individual numbers determine how many friends you might potentially have.
Most Diptera pics I've got on iNaturalist are of Tipula and Nephrotoma. They are really sweet and gentle friends. Except for when they get scared and they start flying around panicky.
Fair points, you're certainly right about the lack in quality of the article. And I totally get why you feel offended by something with a sexual or even bdsm connotation immediately being considered derogatory or scary. I think this is really a counterproductive statement for someone to make if they wanted to talk about offensive language. Shaming sexual deviancies is offensive in of itself.
As far as the article goes, the word gimp isn't necessarily seen as problematic because of its sexual reference but rather as a derogatory term for disabled people. And just because many people agree that they don't care, doesn't mean we shouldn't care. Democratic decisions fall flat when they deal with issues of minorities. The large majority of people doesn't care about disabled people. So basing ethical considerations on the majority's opinion is really no good idea. Same goes for other discriminatory language and slurs where always the same arguments are presented. I think the article does a great job of portraying the gatekeeping biases of such discussions.
Not sure if 'aerial rootlets' is the best term here. There are various forms of adventitious roots that could be called 'aerial' and whose main function is not for attachment. Like the aerial roots of orchids (often with the velamen radicum) or aroids. Climbing aroids usually have two types of adventitious roots, i.e. anchor roots that are like the 'aerial rootlets' in the picture above and feeder roots that are growing down to the ground to access water and nutrients in the soil.
Your whole basis for calling fire alive is to anthropomorphize it... Sure you can use human terminology for fire and feel it is alive. But then anything can be alive, even a painting, a stain on the wall or a single atom if you like.
Homeostasis is not a sufficient criterion for life and there is a certain quality that is different in entities that fall under the scientific definition(s) of life. Fire isn't even an entity in itself I would argue. Or how would you describe what is part of the fire and what isn't? It cannot evolve on its own either, it follows certain principles and won't evolve new ways to burn.
Tbf I would have gasped because of the violent action of breaking a pencil in half, no projection of personality needed...
Hm, I see how this would be universal. But at how do you define 'secure its own existence'? Is the sun a living being because it keep on burning? Are some chemical reactions that preserve the environment they are happening in living beings? Are any cyclical reactions or maybe even the nutrient cycles or water cycles living beings? The more you get into the details of what life is and isn't, the more you see that it probably isn't a binary distinction between living and not living.
Ah OK, I couldn't tell. So what would you say would be a better definition and what would you like to see included? I'm not really familiar with Data, maybe some background would be helpful...
Sorry, I'm unfortunately too much of a literal, analytical thinker to continue this line of joking. Maybe I don't even fall into the definition of life myself, who knows...
I don't have a good source and I think it may be a more complex, but at least in Germany various media have frequently cited a number of 70% insect biomass decrease over the last 50 years or so. As a biologist, I wouldn't be surprised if isn't even more if you compare it to preindustrial times and the decrease in biodiversity is probably much higher as well.
More or less yes, that's the type of virus we learned about in biology class at least. Although there are various shapes a virus can have. Like covid that is round or other viruses that look more like bacteria.
They actually don't have a metabolism, that's why they don't fall into the definition of life in the first place.
Source Wikipedia: "Although they have genes, they do not have a cellular structure, which is often seen as the basic unit of life. Viruses do not have their own metabolism and require a host cell to make new products. They therefore cannot naturally reproduce outside a host cell"
You may see me as an obnoxious ass, but it is just my autistic brain trying to make sense of it...
Why not for research? I could imagine there are some very specific research projects that could make that necessary or interesting enough.