Gloomy

Thanks. If anybody is interested, I saved this article about said planet. It does, imho, a good job of going a bit deeper into the paper without beeing to technical (speaking from a lay persons perspective)

https://www.universetoday.com/154536/planet-found-in-the-habitable-zone-of-a-white-dwarf/

You forgot to put the /s in.

Jtlyk, you can use a custom keyboard, like Swift Key. Many have the option to scale according to your preferences.

I wish, but most humans are stuck on the "there was a road untill here, we will find a new one. No need to slow down for that. There always has been a road." sentiment.

Very true, that's exactly how it feels to me.

... Horses, Sheep

It's the animals enlaved for our plesure that have the highest likleyhood to survive short term, I agree.

But do you act this way when someone says "yeah bleach is known as an effective cleaner" just because you cannot spray bleach on literally every mess in literally every scenario with every surface? I dont think you do.

Well I for sure woudnt say: "Bleach is the most efficient cleaner, it's hard to find a better proven chemical fakt. "

;)

You are shifting the goalposts here. I argued against hunting beeing, and I quote:

Its pretty proven at a 5th grade reading level of study, and even more proven with every grade up.

Its actually kind if hard to find a more proven aspect of biology.

You are the one who claimed that it's 1000 % proven that hunting is good pest control. Which is not true.

I didn't argue against it beeing efficient in some locations. I argued against it beeing "hard to find a more proven aspect of biology" that it is so.

So either show me some scientific backup or admit that you might have been a bit of there (it happens to the best of us, no big deal).

That doesnt change the fact that in areas where we have removed or reduced predator populations, replacement hunting does show to help fill the gap and keep prey populations within healthy limits.

Please read the study I posted earlier, which shows how this is not universaly true, or, as I have said before, at the very least controversal.

Look at the american deer conundrum as your prime example. When we stop hunting them in areas low in predation, they start destroying their already fragile ecosystems with overgrazing.

Regarding this i would like to direct you to this study:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.5729

Specifically, recreational hunting was unable to decrease deer densities sufficiently to protect growth of the majority of Q. rubra seedlings, as reported elsewhere (Bengsen & Sparkes, 2016; Blossey et al., 2017; Simard, Dussault, Huot, & Cote, 2013; Williams et al., 2013). This inability of woody species to transition from seedlings to saplings over much of the eastern US, and not just of palatable species (Kelly, 2019; Miller & McGill, 2019), occurs in a region where recreational hunting is widespread, ubiquitous, and accepted by the vast majority of citizens (Brown, Decker, & Kelley, 1984; Decker, Stedman, Larson, & Siemer, 2015). Some authors claim that hunting can reduce deer browse pressure on herbaceous and woody species, but browse reductions were either small (Hothorn & Müller, 2010), or we lack information about differences in hunting pressure in reference areas that also saw improvements in woody and herbaceous plant performance (Jenkins, Jenkins, Webster, Zollner, & Shields, 2014; Jenkins, Murray, Jenkins, & Webster, 2015). We therefore need to reject claims by wildlife management agencies that recreational hunting is sufficient to allow forest regeneration and can protect biodiversity (NYSDEC, 2011; Rogerson, 2010).

To be fair, they are talking about hunting beeing the only method used here and also can't find prove, that other measures (like only protecting the plants) and no hunting are enoth. There just is not enoth clear data to support either side right now. Hence its controversal.

Show me a study tust proves it then please.

You are confidentaly wrong here, my friend.

For one it realy is something that depends on the global and local region. There are multiple studies that point to a lack of evidence towards a clear answer. I'm not invested enoth to hunt down to many examples, so I'll just quote this 2016 Australien study:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305655680_Can_recreational_hunting_control_pests_on_public_lands

Public lands in Australia are increasingly being made available to recreational hunters to take introduced mammals such as wild pigs, goats, deer and canids. These species can cause substantial damage to environmental or agricultural assets, and it has often been argued that recreational hunting contributes to the amelioration of these impacts by reducing pest population densities. This position has been vigorously disputed by some parties. However, there is little locally-relevant evidence to support either side of the debate, and hence little evidence on which to base useful policy.

Even clearly pro hunting websites have liste of pros and cons to hunting as pest control, like this one

https://huntingandnature.com/index.php/2023/09/04/hunting-as-a-form-of-pest-control-pros-and-cons/

So no. It is not a clear cut matter, nor is it proven beyond any doubt.

That's why most off them have to be "unlocked" first. Usually they need to be pushed inwards for a second and then they jjmp out and can be turned. It's realy just a regional thing between US and EU