The harsh reality is the weak would die off and humans would maintain a much smaller population that the rest of the environment could actually support

Wow, so you’re just an eco-facist huh. Feel free to tell everyone with chronic health conditions that they should die so you can live in some imagined paradise.

I don’t know that there’s a lot to be gained from further interaction, but I’ll clarify what I meant about agricultural vs non-agricultural societies:

The traditional view is that societies are either sedentary agricultural societies or nomadic hunter-gatherer ones. And to be fair the majority of societies we’ve discovered fall largely into one or the other category.

The problem is that they don’t fall fully into one or the other category, and we keep finding evidence of societies that break that understanding entirely.

Firstly, many hunter-gatherer groups engaged in wide-scale wildlife management techniques, such as setting fires to remove old growth vegetation and encourage new growth. They also engaged in wild planting, such as the planting of berry bushes and oak trees, in order to harvest their fruit at a later date.

This quite naturally segued into classical agriculture over many generations. There is a lot of evidence of nomadic groups moving between planted fields during one part of the year and hunting grounds during another.

Secondly, we’ve found settled societies that appear to depend entirely on hunting and gathering. One example is Poverty Point in Lousiana, with another being Gobekli Tepe in Turkey (I’ve linked print sources this time since you don’t watch videos). These sites appear to be settled gathering sites with some permanent populations and some temporary, all depending entirely (as far as we can tell) on gathered food, not agriculture.

It definitely appears that there is more of a spectrum of activity, not the clean break that is the traditional view.

I will reiterate that there is plenty of information out there for you to learn. You seem to have embraced a dangerous ideology based on an incomplete understanding of these topics. If you think I’m incorrect, please, by all means, do your own research.

1- Openly encourage billionaires to set up their wierd techno-facist Epstein island on your land.

2- [REDACTED]

3- The world has fewer billionaires all of a sudden.

Up until they get hacked, and then face lawsuits for improper storage of personal information. This seems like a no-win scenario for these apps. Not that I’m losing any sleep over it, mind.

Your first link is an argument by literally one guy that hunter-gatherer societies had more time because they ‘desired less’. Which is obvious nonsense - of course a society can spend less time to make less! He makes no attempt to compare the efficiency of work - how much is gained per hour of work. He also counted ONLY time spent gathering food as ‘work’, completely omitting everything else like food prep, gathering firewood, making clothes, etc. This directly contradicts what he was attempting to argue in the first place.

There is also the giant bugbear in the room- Mr White Man is suggesting that poor health, high infant mortality, lack of protection from extreme weather, etc, are acceptable for Those People to endure if they technically work less. Something I find to be morally abhorent. Frankly, I would argue that just existing in such a society would count as work compared to the quality of life most of us enjoy.

Your second link is about a study of a single tiny ethnic group of 359 people. It is suggestive, but not enough to draw broad conclusions from. They, again, make no attempt to compare quality of life or measure how much is actually gained per hour of work.

There has been plenty of good research over the past couple decades that has cast new light on hunter-gatherer and nomadic groups, including the realization that the line between ‘agricultural’ and ‘non-agricultural’ is practically non-existent. There is a wealth of material out there to explore. I would personally suggest (youtube warning) Ancient Americas, Milo Rossi, and Stefan Milo. Please do not engage in crank science, even if you have the perception that it is anti-status quo.

CAWST?!?!?

How about we not legally mandate this bullshit at all? Parental controls and child-friendly accounts are a thing that already exist. I don’t want a bunch of pigs spying on my child to determine if their internet activity is ‘acceptable’. Fuck that.

Oh hey, lab notebooks. We did those all through high school. I was surprised that other people didn’t. It was tedious, but I appreciated how neat and orderly it was. My handwriting still sucks tho.

Incredible detail for such a tiny canvas.

I like how the dom is shown with a much larger coffee lmao

For most families in the Eurosphere, if a boy wanted to go to school in a dress instead of pants, they would probably face significant social pressure to not do so.

Clearly this means that boys are being FORCED to wear pants and we should ban them from being worn.

/s

Unless someone can prove that some harm comes from wearing a frickin’ headscarf, this law is just racist bullshit.

…I kind of like it. It makes for a very definitive tone.

Agree with them enabling horrible shit, of course.

Good post.

Conscript the entire US populace into the army. Send them right back to their civilian jobs but now everyone legally has access to all of the veteran’s benefits.

Got invaded just outside the Undead Parish on a replay. Took some damage and muscle memory slammed that Estus button. The invader did the ‘fall on knees’ emote and I made various emotes to communicate my abject apology. We backed up and rebuffed before bowing and re-engaging. He kicked my ass and then bowed again as I died. 10/10 interaction, no notes.

Ah, so we’re bringing back tiger cages. Dissolution of empire rebounds on the core, etc.

Study: “Treating depressed men who commit domestic violence can reduce the amount of domestic violence that occurs.”

Internet scum: “WHAT ABOUT THE MEN??? THOSE FEMINAZIS ARE TRYING TO DRUG US!!!”

…are you aware of what ‘antidepressants’ are for? The answer may shock you.

Was this article written by JD Vance?

Cope harder lmfao

make intentionally shocking art game gets banned surprisedpikachu.jpg