Jump to content




  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Nightstrike's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (15/16)

  • Collaborator
  • First Post
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Thirteen Years In

Recent Badges

  1. I watched the first ... 3 seasons, I think, of game of thrones. I read the first few books as well. I think perverts of all kinds are a little (hopefully a whole lot, but maybe I'm too kind) over-represented in the show and in the books. They seem to enjoy causing suffering to others and a decadent life for themselves. Morality and good intentions, even some degree of it, causes them to die horrible deaths in that story. In any case, it doesn't make me enjoy the story as much as if there'd been some little hope for humanity, or for the reader to have something decent to cling to when reading. The occasional boob would have been acceptable, though. Wheel of time certainly have some horrible things happening, and the good guys (there are such in WoT) usually make it out alive. Some die, of course. They would be reborn in the endless wheel (they or the same soul, at least), so maybe that's a glimmer of hope. I don't feel that WoT makes it out as a pleasure to read about the specifics of each horrific event that happens, but that's me and maybe others feel differently.
  2. Catch crops and monocultures are not the same thing, a catch crop is a second crop grown on same land. All crops are dependant on fossil fuel, if they're grown commercially. I mean, even if they use cow dung or similar, they still use fossil fuels, and there's never enough dung or guano or whatever to fertilize every field all over the world. If they didn't use the chemicals, then we wouldn't feed 7 billion people. I don't think that most farmers are incompetent or generally bad people. They would switch to something better if there was a good alternative. If they haven't and won't, then I think it's safe to assume there isn't one. I think wheat and similar (the usual grains) are not generally grown together with a catch crop today. Rice is grown together with other rice varieties sometimes, so it's not a monoculture (I don't know if that's the usual case, but it happens), but it's not a catch crop either.
  3. Maybe I was wrong about that. Soil erosion seems to happen in nordic nations as well, but then it's water erosion. Well, I don't think it's a big problem, anyway. I think they try to take care so it doesn't happen. They could grow catch crops, perhaps, otherwise they would have to have no food crops on such land that is vulnerable.
  4. I meant "it" as in catch crops (one annual and one biannual or similar) or polyannuals. I don't know how it is in other parts of the world, but 1) and 2) of what you mentioned is not a phenomenon here. Farmers here have mostly been farmers for generations, they are well educated for the most part, and they want to pass the land on. They'd be dumb to do anything to damage the land they live off of, and soil erosion and degradation in general is probably less of a problem here than in dryer areas. As soon as they have a solution that works well, then any current paradigm should naturally be abandoned for the new way of doing things. There is some research going on here on catch crops (plant breeding). It's not on the market, but maybe it will be.
  5. Are the farmers onboard with it? If they are onboard, then problem is fixed. I bet they're willing if it's a system that works, right?
  6. Yeah, I think I still stand by what I said. Inefficiant in one way, but you need an alternative that is better and that works in other ways. It's wheat, barley, rice and similar that feeds us today.
  7. http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/magazines/global/monocultures-towards-sustainability/monocultures-towards-sustainability-editorial I'm not convinced they're actually presenting a viable solution in that article. Some things said are probably also questionable, and I think they're more or less saying that there are issues.
  8. Inefficient in what way? Not in the yield way, in any case. And how is the number of planets to support us calculated? Is it based on average of the world or something? Because otherwise I think they're probably vastly underestimating our overpopulation. We should probably need a lot more than 100 planets - for all humans on the planet - in order to live without consuming more energy and space than the ecosystem can handle without being very much affected by our living our lives. It is inefficient because it erodes massive amounts of top soil (which is the product of millions of years of weathering and coevolution with the relevant microbes and fauna and therefore cannot be replaced) and as such it is in essence bankrupting the next and future generations in terms of arable land and soil. It is able to extend the life of such soils by the use of fertiliser but the production of those too are not only energy intensive but have high costs to other ecological systems - such as water and air (think algal blooms, groundwater contamination, and nitrous oxides as well as CO2 emissions) - and as multiple studies have shown, that only goes so far before returns begin to shrink relatively fast. Monocultures are also highly susceptible to pests and diseases and so in order to maintain the yield, energy must be constantly invested in genetic modification or new pesticides which in turn has its own environmental cost and debt (such as selecting for increasingly resistant pests), when an efficient system would accept that there will be some loss of certain crops due to pests and minimise that by planting a variety of complementary crops to both increase the community's resilience as well as generally stabilising the soil far better than monoculture in the process. In other words, efficiency is about minimising costs while maximising a desired output, and while one can argue, if the desired output is to only feed the world's population for the next few decades, it industrial monoculture is pretty efficient, if the goal is to feed the world's population for the next century and beyond, it is in no way efficient because of the costs it incurs far outweigh (or completely obstruct) the output you are expecting to get. That is of course just my professional opinion (that others happen to share in modified versions), so you can come to your own conclusion. For a beginner's review on parts of the issue, see: Monoculture is the planting of one crop on a single field, so maybe loss of top soil would be affected in a good way if they planted crops that weren't annual or biannual, but then they'd probably have to use more chemicals to reduce weeds. Some have the idea of planting 2 crops at the same time for purpose of avoiding leaching of nutrients into the ground water and/or flowing water, but I think it's mostly 1 annual and 1 biannual crop planted at the same time. Soil issues may be affected in a good way, then. If it works out well for the farmer, then sure, why not. Otherwise it's a bad idea. <---And that is for the grain crops (the ones most grown/the ones who feeds many of us), since catch crops seems more common with vegetable crops. "Professional opinion" - have you studied agriculture as well? Yeah, it's gotta depend on definitions, surely. 70 million people on the planet was a lot for most of human history, but we're not hunter-gatherers anymore, and even they caused extinctions.
  9. And I think it's sad that elephants are endangered and pandas are vulnerable (I think that's the definition they are using, but I could be misremembering something). I don't know what we should do about it. Maybe we must accept that elephants go extinct eventually. If human population can't handle elephants living, then I guess elephants must go extinct. I don't really have any solution to overpopulation, either. We've expended our existence beyond what nature offers other animals, but maybe we will have epidemics or natural disasters reducing our numbers eventually. I don't think we can be more than 7 billion people indefinitely. China has been pumping ground water for a long time, and eventually it will run out. They'll have to import more of their food then. That could cause problems, eventually. I bet they're not the only ones. Geologically locked groundwater takes millennia or longer to refill, and that's what they're pumping. I think they import more food than they export even now.
  10. Inefficient in what way? Not in the yield way, in any case. And how is the number of planets to support us calculated? Is it based on average of the world or something? Because otherwise I think they're probably vastly underestimating our overpopulation. We should probably need a lot more than 100 planets - for all humans on the planet - in order to live without consuming more energy and space than the ecosystem can handle without being very much affected by our living our lives.
  11. Humans can increase their population number by a factor of 5 (easily) every 30 earth years.
  12. I don't think they usually say how many seasons they'll make. I think they renew one season at a time. If they don't make a profit during the first 1 or 2 seasons, they'll probably cancel it. Or close to a profit, at least. They might reckon they'll sell enough DVDs and blue-rays in the long run if they just miss the revenues required for a profit. Or maybe they'll cancel it anyway if the reviews aren't great, so they can concentrate on introducing a new series. They seem to cancel a whole lot of shows nowadays after just 1 or 2 season. They are probably looking for the next big hit series, and cancel many way too soon because of that. Too bad. I'm not sure Peter Jackson would be available. He seems to make movies with very big budgets. I don't know what the budget could be per season for WoT. Maybe something like 50-100 million dollars? Just a guess, so I could be way off... It would be interesting to know how they select actors for different roles. I would guess some of the villains would require great acting skills, so there might be some more or less known names there. The major good guys would have a lot of spotlight too, so maybe they want good actors there too, but they'd be young, so maybe the pay-checks would be less (per working hour at least). Less known names among the young ones, I would guess. If there are known names, then it seems to me they usually pick actors that have had similar roles before. A former villain plays villain again, and so on.
  13. I'm waiting more or less impatiently too, but I expect they won't go public until they have something else to go public with as well. Such as someone who's been cast, or something like that. So it could probably take a while. They might be in negotiations with how many episodes there'll be, what the budget will be in exact terms, and similar. That's what I would guess, but I know very little of such a process. I don't know about standard procedures for such things, and if you don't know about that, then it's probably unlikely you can guess what to expect.
  14. Semirhage would be around 1.87 meters in height (even taller than Lanfear), dark in skin, wavy hair and quite beautiful. Also sadistic in nature - more evil than Lanfear, if that's possible. Descriptions will probably break down at that point. They will probably have to change that when they're adapting it to screen. Artistic freedom or whatever.
  15. Jessica Lange played in American horror story. I didn't see all the episodes, and most of what I saw was from one of the seasons. She made a pretty evil impression there. She's been known and well received by critics for a long time, so she might never have come with a small pay-check. Not the most beautiful woman in the world even when she was young, I think.
  • Create New...