ForestBoard

Nation of ecologists wrote:

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.

I disagree. We can’t give up cars, but we can give up the use of fossil fuels for transportation. We should use hydrogen or solar powered cars.

The Cypher Nine wrote:

No one wants to ride in a bullet train like the Chinese do in America.

Clearly you haven’t met a Gen Z person, no offense. We’ve all always dreamt of high-speed rial, not only because it is fast and cool but also because it’s environmentally friendly and a feasible alternative to cars and planes.

There was a whole meme about our desire for high-speed rail, and even a Vox article breaking down why it’s so popular. https://www.vox.com/2021/3/10/22303355/gen-z-high-speed-rail-biden-map-meme-buttigieg

As for electric cars vs trains, my view is why not both? Just like we’ll need both renewable energy and nuclear to fight climate change, both a reduction in meat and more sustainable farming practices, so too will we need both electric cars AND public transport if we want to effectively help fight the climate crisis.

The most serene republicans wrote:

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?

Sure, but it would have to be on the Discord, so as not to break the RMB rules.

The most serene republicans wrote:

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?

Well, believe it or not, it has been played before, so feel free to start it again.

region=forest/page=display_region_rmb?postid=34150084#p34150084

New Kvenland wrote:

I agree, actually, I shouldn't have just said trains, I just know they're a popular example. Buses and trolleybuses would be great, although there's definitely more of a stigma with them that would have to be addressed.

Buses are miserable. In cities, any form of public transportation that is at the mercy of car traffic is mostly punishment. I often walk faster than they move. And in rural areas, the stops are frequently ill-considered, in relation to how they would be used by people without cars. So often I've seen stops alongside a ditch, with no sidewalk access, and no shelter. In fact, I can't think of a single good experience taking a bus through a rural area.

Being on a train or a subway or an elevated feels like efficiency and progress; being on a bus feels like hardship. No one cares about the people who have to use buses, and so no consideration is paid to how they will run or be used.

Of course, this may simply be another instance of a uniquely American problem, I'm not sure...

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.

But we could (and probably need to) rethink human population spread.

To be honest I don't think we can have our cake and eat it.
We're just going to have to get used to not being able to do everything we want.

Tech isn't going to get us out of this mess and I think it's too late to hope we can make tech that will mitigate the damage.
One way or another, if we survive much longer, we're likely going to end up living like most indigenous people did pre-contact, which varies from region to region, but I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

Northern Wood wrote:

Buses are miserable. In cities, any form of public transportation that is at the mercy of car traffic is mostly punishment. I often walk faster than they move. And in rural areas, the stops are frequently ill-considered, in relation to how they would be used by people without cars. So often I've seen stops alongside a ditch, with no sidewalk access, and no shelter. In fact, I can't think of a single good experience taking a bus through a rural area.

Being on a train or a subway or an elevated feels like efficiency and progress; being on a bus feels like hardship. No one cares about the people who have to use buses, and so no consideration is paid to how they will run or be used.

Of course, this may simply be another instance of a uniquely American problem, I'm not sure...

It is not uniquely American, I second your assessment from down under. I take the bus into university because they are electrifying the train line and running substitute buses in the meantime. It stops at fewer stops than the trains, and aside from the express bus that doesn't stop anywhere expect where I get on and get off (which conveniently only runs at peak hours and not usually when I need it), it is slower than the train.

This electrification project is actually infuriating. It has been delayed so much it's ridiculous - it was supposed to be completed years ago, and just recently they delayed it yet again so now the entire line is closed until November. I think by the time they finish electrifying the line I won't even need it because I'll have graduated...

Novian Republics wrote:

Somehow my timber industry eradicated itself without my involvement (I haven't been answering issues since Summer 2019).

nation=novian_republics/detail=trend/censusid=19

Oh well, at least I got a new banner.

Maybe from GA bills?

Nation of ecologists wrote:

Well, after some consideration here are the ideologies I plan on including in the GII (Green Ideology Index), in no particular order:

Environmentalism
Green Politics
Green Liberalism
Eco-Communism/Eco-Marxism
Eco-Socialism
Eco-Social Democracy
Green Conservatism
Radical Environmentalism
Anarcho-Primitivism (why does autocorrect hate anarcho?)
Green Anarchism
Deep Ecology
Eco-Libertarianism
Eco-Capitalism
Eco-Fascism
Primalism
Eco-Feminism

If anyone has any other ideas, please feel free to contact me.

Unless you're putting it under the banner of "eco-socialism", social ecology (IE libertarian municipalism IE the Rojava model) definitely deserves a place on the list

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:

Well, believe it or not, it has been played before, so feel free to start it again.

region=forest/page=display_region_rmb?postid=34150084#p34150084

Oh, so there is a precedent huh? I'll post my list in a moment

Get well soon.

Nation of ecologists wrote:

I was debating whether I should include it or not, given that it's kind of a mash-mash between municipalism, eco-socialism and communism. But I think it's unique enough and actually kind of used, so I'll include it. That brings the grand total for the GII so far to 17.

I think you should include Social Ecology, since it is more a combination of Anarcho-Collectivism and Environmentalism, and I although Anarcho-Collectivism is within the banner of Socialism, it is distinct enough that I think Social Ecology would merit its own spot on the list. I mean if you are making a distinction between Eco-Communism and Eco-Socialism, you should also include Social Ecology. Besides, already two different autonomies have implemented Social Ecology (Rojava and the Zapatistas), which certainly makes it more successful than at least some other ideologies on this list.

Kepler-0085 wrote:

Well, would you look at that, it got sorted out really swiftly,
Basically what happened, i got a rare eye disease, and got appointed to a doctor in Brno today, luckily his daughter had the same disease as me.
he made an operation on me and fixed it, but now i have to wear special glasses
So that's my story of how i nearly got blind, now im just color blind and have to wear special glasses
and my condolences to the royal family of uk

Hopefully you will get better soon!

Chan island wrote:

So I’ve been grappling with a question that is proving difficult to get Google to pin down for me; which place do the most invasive species come from? Like, are there any regions that are net exporters of species that in other regions are invasive? For example the Burmese python is invasive in Florida, but native to Myanmar so tally one for Myanmar.

All I've found so far is a study that brushed on it, but the chart that came with it was general to the point of uselessness.

At the risk of being entirely general and theoretical about it, I would say Eurasia has contributed the most species that would be invasive to the other regions of the globe. In general, large places have more species and more competition, whereas smaller places, more isolated places, and place with less geographical and climatic variety would have more niche species that can't make it elsewhere or alternatively that would prove to be more susceptible to things from places that were bigger and more complex. Also, the point of departure for many things that humans have spread around the world has been where we came from, which in the last several hundred years has mostly been Europe and Asia. This is not to say that things from smaller places with more simplified ecosystems don't wreak havoc elsewhere, like the spread of the Epipremnum aureum (i.e. the common "pothos" houseplant) from an island in Polynesia to many tropical areas around the world, of course.

But on balance, and without a shred of evidence gathering, I would say that as one combines 1. a large, connected area that 2. has a lot of species already and that 3. human have lived in for a longer period of time and 4. from which they have gone to many other places probably contributes more species that would be invasive to other regions. Whereas places that were 1. smaller, 2. more isolated and/or more simplified, with 3. smaller or more isolated human populations that 4. were themselves visited upon by people from other regions in the last, say, half-millennium would stand a lower chance of contributing invasive species. Think of the imbalance with Australia. Lots of things come there and destroy the native ecosystems and human societies, but few Australian things have gone on to overrun the Middle East or Europe, say.

But that's just armchair speculation from someone who still thinks of humans as "the" invasive species, despite having been disabused of my incorrect use of terminology, so I may be wrong. Perhaps Antarctica is whence the invaders come.

---

Kepler-0085 wrote:

Basically what happened, i got a rare eye disease, and got appointed to a doctor in Brno today, luckily his daughter had the same disease as me. he made an operation on me and fixed it, but now i have to wear special glasses. So that's my story of how i nearly got blind, now im just color blind and have to wear special glasses

Aww, I'm sorry to hear about that, Kepler. Make sure you wear the glasses and do whatever other care practices the doctor instructed you to do. Eyesight is extremely precious, as I'm sure you've got a newfound appreciation for. I'm glad to hear that you were able to be looked at and that they could help you. But don't try to rush the recovery process; better to be overly cautious than to get overconfident and cause some kind of further injury. Best wishes for a full and complete recovery! *sending positive energy and whatnot*

The most serene republicans wrote:

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?

Ok so I'll start:
1 - My family's coat of arms includes a communist dog (kinda similar to Garbelia's flag)
2 - I punched the younger brother of our current mayor in the face and I don't regret it
3 - I've never had any sort of soup in my entire life