by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,0742,0752,0762,0772,0782,0792,080. . .2,6342,635»

Nation of ecologists

Hey, can we stop talking about *insert recent nazi-ish troll here*? We don't need to continue to debate what has already been done.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:So, how do folk feel about polymetallic nodule mining, from an environmental point of view?

I've got no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, but it did remind me that an environmentalist party won a Greenlandic election that was held two days ago. Greenland has a vast mining and resource industry, and they recently found a huge mine. However, the party that was elected opposes the mine given that it's in an environmentally unstable area, which I totally agree with.

Uan aa Boa wrote:Cameroi just CTEd, which is very sad. His posting was sometimes pretty gnomic, but it was distinctive and certainly added to the region. I hope he returns, and not just because without him and Errinundera I'm worried I might now be the oldest person here.

That's a shame. I quite enjoyed reading his kind of cryptic RMB posts every once and a while. Didn't always understand him, but it was fun to see what he had to say. Hopefully he just stopped being on the site like Erin.

Ruinenlust wrote:R.I.P. Prince Philip. We should all be so lucky to make it to 99 years old.

Don't like the monarchy, but I still wish him a peaceful rest.

Garbelia wrote:Don't forget eco-socialist-otterism!

While I would be interested what exactly that ideology is, possibly through a factbook detailing it, im only planning on including eco-socialism. If anyone has any recommendations, I'll take them until Sunday, which is the day I start writing the factbook.

Murmuria, Atsvea, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, and 6 othersTerrabod, New ladavia, The Teeth, Middle Barael, Garbelia, and The fabulous islands

Nation of ecologists wrote:That's a shame. I quite enjoyed reading his kind of cryptic RMB posts every once and a while. Didn't always understand him, but it was fun to see what he had to say. Hopefully he just stopped being on the site like Erin.

Their posts were either full of meaning or completely meaningless, and it was fun to try and work our which.

EDIT: I would encourage you guys to read Cameroi's factbooks. They truly blur the border between NationStates and fine art.

Uan aa Boa wrote:Cameroi just CTEd, which is very sad. His posting was sometimes pretty gnomic, but it was distinctive and certainly added to the region. I hope he returns, and not just because without him and Errinundera I'm worried I might now be the oldest person here.

There posts were always slightly confusing due to their philosophical nature and their lack of any punctuation or capitalization, but they also seemed so interesting and certainly an important part of Forestian history.

Ruinenlust wrote:R.I.P. Prince Philip. We should all be so lucky to make it to 99 years old.

Cue “God Save the Queen”

That’s sad. As much as I agree that the Royals are spoiled, he always seemed like a very nice man and it’s sad to see him go. So close to his 100th birthday too!

Uan aa Boa wrote:Cameroi just CTEd, which is very sad. His posting was sometimes pretty gnomic, but it was distinctive and certainly added to the region. I hope he returns, and not just because without him and Errinundera I'm worried I might now be the oldest person here.

Yeah, I worry about that at times too. For purely selfish reasons I was glad when you returned at the end of last year. :)

So I may have made assumptions here about people following the same news as me...

Basically polymetallic nodules are potato sized lumps on the deep seafloor, made of various metals, including the rare earth metals we need for batteries.

The idea is that if we realistically want to ditch cars and petrol we either need to completely get rid of personal vehicular dependence in society, or we need to have more electric cars. To make those cars need rare earth metals. Digging that stuff up on land is getting increasingly difficult. There's not enough of it.

So these nodules are present in huge numbers as a depth of 0 to 20 cm on the seabed.

Tech plus demand now means its economically feasible to harvest them. However doing so will damage formerly untouched habitats. These nodules are plentiful, but take 10 to 100 millions of years to form, so this is a non renewable resource.

To contextualise though, we're talking subaquatic deserts rather than rainforest, and its a lot LESS destructive than increasing surface mining.

So on the one hand, we have the damage of deep sea harvest operations on a finite resource, when as a species we're meant to be growing past that.

On the other, its a pragmatically achievable way to hit carbon targets, without which it may be near impossible to get people to globally abandon fossil fuels.

Good issue eh?

Shalotte, Ordealius, Chan island, Mount Seymour, and 11 othersDaarwyrth, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, Uan aa Boa, The void territories, Northern Wood, Simbolon, Lura, Middle Barael, Nation of ecologists, and Garbelia

Nation of ecologists

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:So I may have made assumptions here about people following the same news as me...

Basically polymetallic nodules are potato sized lumps on the deep seafloor, made of various metals, including the rare earth metals we need for batteries.

The idea is that if we realistically want to ditch cars and petrol we either need to completely get rid of personal vehicular dependence in society, or we need to have more electric cars. To make those cars need rare earth metals. Digging that stuff up on land is getting increasingly difficult. There's not enough of it.

So these nodules are present in huge numbers as a depth of 0 to 20 cm on the seabed.

Tech plus demand now means its economically feasible to harvest them. However doing so will damage formerly untouched habitats. These nodules are plentiful, but take 10 to 100 millions of years to form, so this is a non renewable resource.

To contextualise though, we're talking subaquatic deserts rather than rainforest, and its a lot LESS destructive than increasing surface mining.

So on the one hand, we have the damage of deep sea harvest operations on a finite resource, when as a species we're meant to be growing past that.

On the other, its a pragmatically achievable way to hit carbon targets, without which it may be near impossible to get people to globally abandon fossil fuels.

Good issue eh?

Hmm, so it appears we are damaging the environment to help it eh? Well, it depends on where these nodules are located. Are they in a biodiverse area with a large amount of endangered animals? And can it be done safely so that it doesn't damage the water or area around it?

Also, I think we do need to move past cars entirely. They just aren't sustainable. Buses, subways, bikes, monorails etc. are much better for the environment and would require less rare earth mining. I believe that electric cars aren't the future, but rather electric buses and public transport are.

Uan aa Boa wrote:Cameroi just CTEd, which is very sad. His posting was sometimes pretty gnomic, but it was distinctive and certainly added to the region. I hope he returns, and not just because without him and Errinundera I'm worried I might now be the oldest person here.

Do you wanna bet on that ?

The most serene republicans

Murmuria wrote:Que boa lição de Geografia do Brasil. Obrigado.

Wait a minute, you can speak portuguese?

The most serene republicans wrote:Wait a minute, you can speak portuguese?

My friend, I am Portuguese. Greetings from Lisboa !

Shalotte, Einswenn, Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, and 6 othersLord Dominator, Terrabod, Middle Barael, Nation of ecologists, Garbelia, and The most serene republicans

20 seconds in and already Forest's first situation has appeared, in this case a far right troll clearly intent on nothing but antagonising us. I was away during this entire mess, but I'd just like to thank the forest rangers and government for acting on it when it became clear that diplomacy was untenable.

The most serene republicans

Murmuria wrote:My friend, I am Portuguese. Greetings from Lisboa !

Oh, that makes a lot of sense. Greetings from Recife!

Chan island wrote:20 seconds in and already Forest's first situation has appeared, in this case a far right troll clearly intent on nothing but antagonising us. I was away during this entire mess, but I'd just like to thank the forest rangers and government for acting on it when it became clear that diplomacy was untenable.

How can we allow such an absent leader to stay in power?? jk jk jk don't necromantize me

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
So I may have made assumptions here about people following the same news as me...

Basically polymetallic nodules are potato sized lumps on the deep seafloor, made of various metals, including the rare earth metals we need for batteries.

The idea is that if we realistically want to ditch cars and petrol we either need to completely get rid of personal vehicular dependence in society, or we need to have more electric cars. To make those cars need rare earth metals. Digging that stuff up on land is getting increasingly difficult. There's not enough of it.

So these nodules are present in huge numbers as a depth of 0 to 20 cm on the seabed.

Tech plus demand now means its economically feasible to harvest them. However doing so will damage formerly untouched habitats. These nodules are plentiful, but take 10 to 100 millions of years to form, so this is a non renewable resource.

To contextualise though, we're talking subaquatic deserts rather than rainforest, and its a lot LESS destructive than increasing surface mining.

So on the one hand, we have the damage of deep sea harvest operations on a finite resource, when as a species we're meant to be growing past that.

On the other, its a pragmatically achievable way to hit carbon targets, without which it may be near impossible to get people to globally abandon fossil fuels.

Good issue eh?

I think hydrogen may be the fuel of the future, genuinely renewable if enough can be produced by electrolysis using renewable energy, and avoiding the politics of oil and rare metals. I believe the car industry thinks the same and views battery power as an interim solution. There are obstacles with the infrastructure of hydrogen supply needing to be put in place, but hopefully these can be surmounted.

Reducing the use of cars however they're powered would be good, because they cause social as well as environmental problems. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK more and more retail is out of town or on ring roads and not connected by public transport to where people actually live. This creates ghettos and is the main cause of food deserts among people who can't access cars. The many other benefits of urban spaces friendly to cyclists and pedestrians are well documented.

Thanks for flagging up the undersea mining issue though, I wasn't aware of it. I've kind of withdrawn from closely following the news as the pandemic has worn on.

Ordealius, Murmuria, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, and 7 othersTerrabod, The void territories, Middle Barael, Nation of ecologists, Garbelia, Difinbelk, and The most serene republicans

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
So I may have made assumptions here about people following the same news as me...

Basically polymetallic nodules are potato sized lumps on the deep seafloor, made of various metals, including the rare earth metals we need for batteries.

The idea is that if we realistically want to ditch cars and petrol we either need to completely get rid of personal vehicular dependence in society, or we need to have more electric cars. To make those cars need rare earth metals. Digging that stuff up on land is getting increasingly difficult. There's not enough of it.

So these nodules are present in huge numbers as a depth of 0 to 20 cm on the seabed.

Tech plus demand now means its economically feasible to harvest them. However doing so will damage formerly untouched habitats. These nodules are plentiful, but take 10 to 100 millions of years to form, so this is a non renewable resource.

To contextualise though, we're talking subaquatic deserts rather than rainforest, and its a lot LESS destructive than increasing surface mining.

So on the one hand, we have the damage of deep sea harvest operations on a finite resource, when as a species we're meant to be growing past that.

On the other, its a pragmatically achievable way to hit carbon targets, without which it may be near impossible to get people to globally abandon fossil fuels.

Good issue eh?

I'm a bigger fan of it than clearing mountaintops to get more coal, but still very suspicious of any new mining operation, especially in the ocean. Honestly I still feel like the problem is more so the proliferation of the concept of the car, electric or not. But that sure ain't getting fixed any time soon

I was also under the impression they were mostly from near hydrothermal vents and threatened that fauna, not out on the abyssal plain? I would prefer to be wrong, though.

Also hey, haven't posted here in a while 👋

Ordealius, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, Terrabod, and 5 othersThe Teeth, Middle Barael, Nation of ecologists, Garbelia, and The most serene republicans

Uan aa Boa wrote:I think hydrogen may be the fuel of the future, genuinely renewable if enough can be produced by electrolysis using renewable energy, and avoiding the politics of oil and rare metals. I believe the car industry thinks the same and views battery power as an interim solution. There are obstacles with the infrastructure of hydrogen supply needing to be put in place, but hopefully these can be surmounted.

Reducing the use of cars however they're powered would be good, because they cause social as well as environmental problems. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK more and more retail is out of town or on ring roads and not connected by public transport to where people actually live. This creates ghettos and is the main cause of food deserts among people who can't access cars. The many other benefits of urban spaces friendly to cyclists and pedestrians are well documented.

Thanks for flagging up the undersea mining issue though, I wasn't aware of it. I've kind of withdrawn from closely following the news as the pandemic has worn on.

The never word is often exposed years later by smarter people but I don’t think we can ever get rid of vehicle usage like we have now in the united states. The landmasses are just too huge.

As an example, London has over 8 times my cities population but only 2 times its size.

Sure we have a lot of really dense cities too, but UK has more and it makes sense that they do.

I could never travel in my city efficiently enough by bike and our transportation system is awful. But we’re still the 30th largest city in America.

Personally, climate change is way more important to the earth’s health as a whole than biomes in the ocean. Getting everyone on electric vehicles at the cost of ocean habitats is absolutely worth it from a utilitarian perspective.

Effazio, Murmuria, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, and 6 othersUan aa Boa, Middle Barael, Nation of ecologists, Garbelia, Difinbelk, and The most serene republicans

The Cypher Nine wrote:The never word is often exposed years later by smarter people but I don’t think we can ever get rid of vehicle usage like we have now in the united states. The landmasses are just too huge.

As an example, London has over 8 times my cities population but only 2 times its size.

Sure we have a lot of really dense cities too, but UK has more and it makes sense that they do.

I could never travel in my city efficiently enough by bike and our transportation system is awful. But we’re still the 30th largest city in America.

Personally, climate change is way more important to the earth’s health as a whole than biomes in the ocean. Getting everyone on electric vehicles at the cost of ocean habitats is absolutely worth it from a utilitarian perspective.

We might be stuck with vehicles, but that doesn't mean we need cars. China's about the same size we are and absolutely covered in railroads. Why put a bandaid on the problem (and ignore several others) with electric cars instead of using much more efficient and environmentally friendly electric trains, whether as intra- or intercity transit?

Edit: not to say I'm anti-transitioning away from gas cars (although I'll miss the sound of a good engine a bit), I just don't think replacing our glut of cars with another glut of cars is the right solution

Effazio, Murmuria, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, and 4 othersUan aa Boa, Middle Barael, Nation of ecologists, and The most serene republicans

New Kvenland wrote:We might be stuck with vehicles, but that doesn't mean we need cars. China's about the same size we are and absolutely covered in railroads. Why put a bandaid on the problem (and ignore several others) with electric cars instead of using much more efficient and environmentally friendly electric trains, whether as intra- or intercity transit?

Edit: not to say I'm anti-transitioning away from gas cars (although I'll miss the sound of a good engine a bit), I just don't think replacing our glut of cars with another glut of cars is the right solution


Usually the problems with electric trains are that a) they’re more expensive and less economically viable to run than diesel trains, and b) there often is a lack of space to build the rails: trains require a lot of infrastructure to run, and although they may be more efficient than cars, they aren’t favoured by governments.

Buses, however, can be run on the existing road networks and require little infrastructure. In my opinion, if buses get more efficient and are cheaper to buy in an eco friendly form, they could be the future.

Effazio, Murmuria, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, and 4 othersMiddle Barael, Nation of ecologists, Garbelia, and The most serene republicans

New Kvenland wrote:We might be stuck with vehicles, but that doesn't mean we need cars. China's about the same size we are and absolutely covered in railroads. Why put a bandaid on the problem (and ignore several others) with electric cars instead of using much more efficient and environmentally friendly electric trains, whether as intra- or intercity transit?

Edit: not to say I'm anti-transitioning away from gas cars (although I'll miss the sound of a good engine a bit), I just don't think replacing our glut of cars with another glut of cars is the right solution

A lot of problems have nothing to do with what is objectively the best solution but rather what is the most feasible solution.

No one wants to ride in a bullet train like the Chinese do in America. Thats the first issue. So lets say we get past the cultural hurdle of individual freedom here well then you have to imagine how this infrastructure even gets put into place.

A lot of people make the mistake of assuming that upgrading infrastructure is easier when you’re a rich nation but its actually harder. During our industrial revolution we built and built and built. We have had the highest GDP for most of the modern century. Essentially, China grew slower and thus better planning was able to be done.

We would have to radically alter how the united states looks infrastructure wise which not only takes money but an immense amount of time/energy. We’ve tried to pass infrastructure bills for decades and it hasn’t happened. Now we’re trying again.

Electric cars don’t require checks from congress, they aren’t impeded by the cult of individual liberty and they are way better for the environment long term. Thats why I believe it is the solution we should be focusing on.

Although the United States in general has a much less dense pattern of land use than other highly developed countries, I do believe that bicycles are a much more viable option for many trips than the current mode share reflects. Unfortunately, transportation and land use planning for most of the post war period prioritized (and prioritizes) automobile mobility over all other forms of mobility. The result is a system that is uncomfortable at best or outright hostile at worst to anyone choosing to use a bicycle (or even walk) for mobility. What is really lacking for cycling to be viable is dedicated infrastructure: ideally fully separated bicycle lanes covering a large portion of the city area, supplemented by a network of protected lanes and slow speed bicycle friendly streets. Supplemental infrastructure which I find is often lacking includes sufficient bicycle parking, bikeshare facilities, and facilities connecting bicycle infrastructure to transit. This sounds like a dream wish list but actually the cost of this infrastructure is significantly lower than building a similarly good quality automobile network.

With regard to transit, I agree with the previous comments that buses provide a great opportunity for future mobility with their relatively low startup costs and efficiency at carrying moderate loads. And I also agree that in many American cities existing bus infrastructure is often a joke afterthought that is "for poor people" but I think that for many cities in the US building a quality bus network is much more viable than light rail or heavy rail networks.

The question is why we need to move and travel so much? Now we have communication devices like never before. We have nowdays computers in our pockets and we can work from home or one could use near office for the work if it's a white collar job, no need to get to the actual officebuilding. Some jobs require moving but then you can use public transportation or bicycle. People fly and drive for fun but then there is a big price to pay which is kinda expensive from energy and pollution standpoint: Every vehicle takes a lot of resources, you need to also transport it aboard usually and before that you need rare materials for it (nowdays everything is so electrical) and you need to transport those materials also to the factory and assembly lines, you need somekind of energy source (natural gas, gasoline, diesel, electricity) for the machine which will pollute at some point in the making proseses propably and so on... Hydrogen could be usefull but still kinda dangerous and often it needs fossil fuels in the making proces.

Before modern era humans didn't travel so much or if they did it took some real effort and a good reason to go really far. Yeah yeah, it's good to see other places and cultures but it's different when milllions of people do it daily/weekly, yearly around the world. Individual freedoms have darker side when you start to think about it - Liberal people usually say everything is fine as long as you don't hurt others, well maybe we are not doing it directly but indirect sh1t pile is drowning us in the sea of pollution and killing plants and animals in so many ways. And let's be honest: we know how much modern day slavery, pollution, animal torture and other harm is behind almost all the things we consume and everything is tied to consuming... I think we need more a lot more rules for consuming and we need to stop buying sh!t we don't need, but I guess it might be too late now. People are not gonna give up this lifestyle, they already have so much and still they want a lot more.

MAN by Steve Cutts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGMYdalClU

Effazio, Ownzone, Daarwyrth, Ruinenlust, and 6 othersLord Dominator, Uan aa Boa, Hoochlandia, Middle Barael, Nation of ecologists, and Garbelia

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:So I may have made assumptions here about people following the same news as me...

Basically polymetallic nodules are potato sized lumps on the deep seafloor, made of various metals, including the rare earth metals we need for batteries.

The idea is that if we realistically want to ditch cars and petrol we either need to completely get rid of personal vehicular dependence in society, or we need to have more electric cars. To make those cars need rare earth metals. Digging that stuff up on land is getting increasingly difficult. There's not enough of it.

So these nodules are present in huge numbers as a depth of 0 to 20 cm on the seabed.

Tech plus demand now means its economically feasible to harvest them. However doing so will damage formerly untouched habitats. These nodules are plentiful, but take 10 to 100 millions of years to form, so this is a non renewable resource.

To contextualise though, we're talking subaquatic deserts rather than rainforest, and its a lot LESS destructive than increasing surface mining.

So on the one hand, we have the damage of deep sea harvest operations on a finite resource, when as a species we're meant to be growing past that.

On the other, its a pragmatically achievable way to hit carbon targets, without which it may be near impossible to get people to globally abandon fossil fuels.

Good issue eh?

I think it's a fantastic issue!

It'll be a good way of gauging whether or not our species is capable of learning from its past mistakes in any meaningful way. Do we take the short-term gains at the expense of the environment, or do we sacrifice those gains for the sake of long-term sustainability?

I already know what the answer will be (I'm also part of the problem, as is every single person reading this), but it'll be interesting to watch nevertheless.

Chan island wrote:20 seconds in and already Forest's first situation has appeared, in this case a far right troll clearly intent on nothing but antagonising us. I was away during this entire mess, but I'd just like to thank the forest rangers and government for acting on it when it became clear that diplomacy was untenable.

Are you trying to tell me that you're NOT here 24/7?!

I call for a new vote! This is an outrage!

Chan island, Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, and 7 othersTerrabod, Simbolon, Middle Barael, Nation of ecologists, Garbelia, Difinbelk, and The most serene republicans

Hello everyone, I am looking for a political term that may or may not exist. So here is the question: is there a word for the sneaky practice of asking people to vote on multiple things simultaneously, so as to secure their approval for a list of things, even though they would not have approved of some items on that list if they had been asked to vote on them separately?

It is a deceptive and dishonorable practice and happens in Turkey quite often. The government may propose, say, 10 different constitutional amendments, and then there is a referendum to see if the people approve of the amendments. The problem is, people are not given the right to say yes or no to each individual amendment, the referendum ballot only has one YES and one NO on it - you have to say either yes or no to everything. This is a heinous tactic for getting people to agree to disagreeable things, of course - you can maximize your chances of getting assent, if, say, 9 out of 10 amendments are good and reasonable, while the last one is bad and potentially disastrous. But you can forever capitalize on the positive sides of the 9 amendments to get people to say yes.

So what I am asking is, is there a word in English that succinctly describes this process of making people vote on multiple things simultaneously? I feel like there is a word that refers to that, but it eludes me at the moment.

Edit: OK, just learned that the concepts I am after are covered by terms like 'riders' and 'omnibus bills' I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_bill

Ordealius, Ownzone, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, and 7 othersTerrabod, Northern Wood, Middle Barael, Nation of ecologists, Garbelia, Difinbelk, and The fabulous islands

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:Edit: OK, just learned that the concepts I am after are covered by terms like 'riders' and 'omnibus bills' I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_bill

I believe there is an NS issue on this topic: https://nsindex.net/wiki/NationStates_Issue_No._294

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:Hello everyone, I am looking for a political term that may or may not exist. So here is the question: is there a word for the sneaky practice of asking people to vote on multiple things simultaneously, so as to secure their approval for a list of things, even though they would not have approved of some items on that list if they had been asked to vote on them separately?

It is a deceptive and dishonorable practice and happens in Turkey quite often. The government may propose, say, 10 different constitutional amendments, and then there is a referendum to see if the people approve of the amendments. The problem is, people are not given the right to say yes or no to each individual amendment, the referendum ballot only has one YES and one NO on it - you have to say either yes or no to everything. This is a heinous tactic for getting people to agree to disagreeable things, of course - you can maximize your chances of getting assent, if, say, 9 out of 10 amendments are good and reasonable, while the last one is bad and potentially disastrous. But you can forever capitalize on the positive sides of the 9 amendments to get people to say yes.

So what I am asking is, is there a word in English that succinctly describes this process of making people vote on multiple things simultaneously? I feel like there is a word that refers to that, but it eludes me at the moment.

Though we usually use it for laws being voted on by Congress, not public votes, an "omnibus bill" is a bill that combines multiple unrelated items into a single vote. It doesn't carry the implicit suggestion of any one specific part being bad, just the part where they're including many different things in a simultaneous vote. Sometimes, less-desirable legislation will be attached to more desirable or "must pass" bills, in order to get stuff through that wouldn't otherwise pass. Those clauses are often referred to as "riders"- bill which "rides along with" the main bill - which are attached either to promote what we call pork-barrel spending (government funds being committed to local pet projects that probably don't deserve it), or to get tax breaks for niche constituents (such as a tax break for manufacturers of toy bows and arrows, who just so happen to have their factory in the home district of the congressperson who introduced the clause). Riders can be added, however, for other purposes, and may even get attached by hostile legislators in order to prevent a bill from passing. These things are often permitted as a form of political "logrolling" - a cooperative process in which different legislators basically support each other's riders, so that their own riders also make it through.

-EDIT-
D'oh! You found the things in question while I was writing. I'll leave the post up, in case others are curious!

It may also be worth looking at concepts of severability and inseverability - the quality of whether or not a part of a law or bill can be struck down without simultaneously striking down the entire law.

Shalotte wrote:I think it's a fantastic issue!

It'll be a good way of gauging whether or not our species is capable of learning from its past mistakes in any meaningful way. Do we take the short-term gains at the expense of the environment, or do we sacrifice those gains for the sake of long-term sustainability?

It'll not likely be an Issue for NS though, as we've already got two issues about rare metals in batteries, and that's likely enough for some time, even if deep sea mining is a parallel thing.

The most serene republicans

So, I know the forest RMB is supposed to be more or less serious, but does anyone want to play two truths and a lie?

«12. . .2,0742,0752,0762,0772,0782,0792,080. . .2,6342,635»

Advertisement