You couldn’t be more reich about that
You couldn’t be more reich about that
Apis mellifera is a much better pollinator for most cultivars produced by agriculture around the world, so it’s been introduced into East, South and Southeast Asia too (and it’s pretty closely related to Apis cerana anyway, and they get along OK).
Also, you’re not accounting for species uniqueness, which is highest in Australia/NZ/PNG, southern Africa and parts of South America. These places also have native bees that are outcompeted and outright attacked by Eurobees.
The truth is complicated, but also simple - this invasive species we tolerate and even introduce because it massively benefits food production for humans.
Varroa mite has entered the chat
ur duuuuumb
I had the same thought. This whole post reeks of the appeal to authority fallacy, simply because the poster (purports to be) a rabbit.
Exaggerated handwringing, they overstated the extent and severity, and this article is probably doing the same
Exactly, just like the meme posted above
They worked out four-crop rotation during the agrarian revolution in the 18th century, they haven’t let fields lie fallow since they worked out how to rejuvenate the soil with crops like turnips that could become horse feed…
Borlaug’s green revolution of the mid-20th century did lead to a rapid reduction in famines across Asia and Africa…
They might just be in a better climate than you! I had far more delicious sun-ripened tomatoes over the summer than I could eat. More than six plants to be fair, but most self-seeded anyway.
It depends how you measure it, and what counts as ‘polluting’. Does broad-scale habitat destruction count? Because there’s a lot more of that in industrial agriculture. Also yields are prioritised over quality, so you’re literally not comparing apples with apples if you’re getting local heirloom varieties from nearby orchards, compared with apples grown in the PNW for the broader market and kept chilled until ready for sale. These are generalisations of course and there are staple crops that are much more efficient when produced with broadacre cropping.
Because on face value it looks like an anti-abortion lyric.
I suspect it’s as ideological as Israel’s actions against Palestinians unfortunately.
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia.
No it isn’t, there’s no implication of that. Just that they won’t reproduce until they see it happening.
Worse, a bot aping a 14yo’s opinion…
I appreciated this comment, that’s a great show and tell story.
It’s too easy to make, and weed is too easy to grow, so neither should be restricted since they’re part of our culture and will be consumed anyway. Broadly true for other drugs as well since they can be got, but it’s not like just anyone can make MDMA (which, if taken in a pure and controlled dose, is safer than both cannabis and alcohol incidentally, with therapeutic benefits too).
It’s just more climate catastrophising. CaCO3 and H2CO3 form a buffer that would minimise the effects of acidification. The idea that all fish would die is dumb. Terrestrial plants produce oxygen by photosynthesis so oxygen won’t disappear from the atmosphere.
Because deer are also invasive and aren’t needed for cattle breeding. Not a great analogy