Beware of missing the forest for the trees!

Humans are quite capable of thriving on an entirely meat based diet - https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2015nl/apr/eskimos.htm

I personally wouldn't enjoy it much, but am willing to acknowledge that it's physically possible.

Can you think of a herbivore with that ability? Most herbivores are quite willing to eat a bit of meat occasionally, but by definition don't only eat meat. Here's a deer eating a bird for example, which is really not unnusual, but deer really are herbivores:

Beautiful job to all folks involved and don't let the people who can't see the forest for the trees bring you down.

Looked lost to me, but towards the end it must have recognised some area of the forest. Hopefully it can find it's mother again (which might have abandoned it when it got stuck).

You do understand that he and others like him are a large part of why there isn't a salmon fishery in the East anymore, right? Well, overfishing, and loss of habitat. Now we're quickly doing that here in the West. Lose the salmon, you'll lose the forest.

Interesting idea, but I have two main problems with this premise.

Firstly, it's not like we've got a lot of resources invested in the search. If I have a few people people to search a large forest for a particular type of tree, I'm going to use large scale searches looking for big obvious examples... I'm not going to do a sweep search to look at every tree.

Secondly, it doesn't take into account what's required for intelligent life to develop. He picked an example of a sports team - Manchester United - but didn't take into account that the best players (which I suggest is equivalent to intelligence) are all in the premier league, which comprises 20 teams. There are hundreds of other teams out there that would hardly blip on a skillometer (which I suggest is equivalent to a mind gauge).

OK, that second example got a little stretched and frankly weird, but it's key that we're looking for intelligent life, not all life, because intelligent life gives off more signals. Probably. No one really knows.

Something uplifting:

http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/02/corvids-could-save-forests-from-the-effects-of-climate-change/

Uhm, hold on a minute there... just remember where @JustSaying is from. Remember the Varian disaster of 89AD? The treachery of Arminius in the swamps of the Teutoberg Forest?

I was quite sure there was a video here on the subject, but haven't been able to find it. Here is a very brief overview of the way the battle went (although it doesn't describe the treachery involved in Arminius leading the trusting Romans into the trap):

Awesome. It's amazing how close you can get to such a powerful wild animal.

In India and Africa the large game animals have learned to regard the vehicles in much the same way as they regard trees. they know they're there, they just don't bother with them in any way.

When we were in India on a tiger safari we had a very similar experience. The amazing thing was that people live and work in these forests. 100yds down the road from the situation in the video may be a party of women collecting firewood. Or one time we found a mahout looking for his elephant that had wandered off in the night!

Tigers are incredibly beautiful animals. they have a quality that sets them apart from lions and other big cats. They are so different in the wild to the animals you might see in zoos. If you've ever wanted to see what real natural beauty looks like then go and see the wild tigers, they're breathtaking.

Exactly @newtboy...

These people are promising massive violence to defend people who were found guilty of violating the law, who purposely set fire to a forest... "They didn't mean for it to get out of control." Yeah, doesn't matter. I don't understand how they can't comprehend that. How it is an overreach of government to try them via a court of law, found guilty and then sentenced to the minimum?

I like how Fox spins it about how it would be if it were blacks, but I think a better example would be if they were Muslim. If they were Muslim Fox and the Republicans would all be screaming about how they are Radicalized Islamic Terrorist. Trump would undoubtedly be calling for Muslim Americans to be put into Internment Camps "temporarily" "while we can figure out what is going on with these people". He'd then say once we carefully vetted them, we'd let them go, but keep track of them, those we can't vet, we'd kick out... and his supporters would fall over themselves agreeing. They'd be mad at any Democrat or media who doesn't use the term "Radicalized Islamic Terrorist" rather than "Jihadist" or "Radicalized Jihadist".

Yet if somebody called these people for what they are, which is Radicalized Christian Terrorist, they'd blow a gasket. They'd say that their faith has nothing to do with it, though the leader said he was led by God to do this. Or they'd argue that the term can't apply here, and can't apply to the guy who murdered people at the Planned Parenthood clinic. "These people are freedom fighters, not terrorist." They are standing against the oppressive power of the Obama administration, and probably point out his middle name again.

So... we have people, driven by God and faith to promise violence if their political ends aren't met... Sounds like terrorism to me. Oh... and that particular God and faith is Christianity. So Radicalized Christian Terrorism. Pure and simple... unless we need to drop the term Radicalized if this is what Christianity is about now... though I'm fairly sure the Jesus of the Bible would object, then again he'd object to pretty much everything the political right stands for, but that's a rant I've done tons of times here.

Crazy thing is, if the government uses force, then the political right and media will feel justified, and say "see, we are being repressed". They've learned from ISIL and the rest, the best way to radicalize people is to make them fear they are being oppressed. ISIL drives up terror attacks, sold as freedom fighting to their people, which result on people turning against Islam as a whole, which is their publicly stated goal, and when that happens it makes it easier to recruit more and more people to their cause. So Radicalized Christian Terror groups like this are using the same tactics, by forcing situations where they are put down by force. Great recruitment tool, and the brain dead follow lock step into falling for it. ISIL is the bad guy (and they are, no question) and they are the good guy for doing the exact same thing? They are both evil. Both misdirected. Both missing the point we are all in this together. One world. One humanity.

I wish the so called Left Liberal Media would stop calling them militants and start using the term Radicalized Christian Terrorist as that is more apt. Of course they still call Vaccine Deniers and Climate Change Deniers, Skeptics, which they aren't. So no hope for America anytime soon.

Ok. Our 10,000 sparkler device is ready. Where shall we set it off? I know! How about that field of dry grass next to the forest?

In the case of this particular example the airline did cite that reason (I remember the forum buzz about it at the time).

But, I still agree with your point there. I've never been keen on the vapers who like to belligerently assert their "right to vape" everywhere they can without engaging their brains, or a bit of basic consideration.

Doubly so when snus so easy to order online & "stealth vaping" in public spaces is so easy to do.

That said, most of the negativity I've had & seen personally over the subject has been largely moralistic in nature. Specifically either "still bad for you!" or "think of the children!".

This may have been a bad example, but I could dig you up about as many media & campaign group hit pieces as you'd care to read.

Right now it's resulting in some deeply ill conceived legislation. I recognise that some sensible legal regulation is needed, but that is not what's happening at the moment. It seems like a double pronged shafting from the tobacco/pharma cartel and the morality police.

Maybe I'm just too emotionally invested on that one.

As for the other bit's. Your dealing with classic scattershot Slavoj. He writes in a much more ordered way than he speaks, but he is still very much a stream of consciousness when he gets going.
I enjoy "truffle hunting in the forest of knowledge" like that, but I understand why it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

I this case, I don't think the specific examples are as important as the idea he is expressing (to him or myself).

That said, couldn't said health organisation be seen as pushing a moral position there? I guess your arguing it was beneficial to their business in some way? (not informed enough to have a strong position either way on that, but I think I can see where your coming from)

As for it being more dangerous than overt totalitarianism. The argument would be that you can see and fight overt ideologies, as such they are considerably less of a threat in modern developed countries.

Here I think, it would be "more dangerous" simply in the sense that there is a greater danger of anything significant actually happening.

Naturally the jackboots and piano wire kind is infinitely worse in practice. But there seems considerably less danger of that kind of totalitarianism gaining a serious foothold in most of our cultures than in times past.

The policing of peoples thoughts, language and consensual behaviour on the other hand (epitomised by the PC gone mad crowd). Could perhaps be said to be more dangerous, simply in the sense that it has more potential to do actual damage.

You could accuse that of being a bit hyperbolic, but that's our Slavoj.

I'm thinking that if one were stranded in such a forest, your time and energy might be better spent in hiking out, or maybe in finding and cultivating edible plants. Given his hit ratio, he'd be going hungry most days.

Your video, Creepy Footage of Forest Floor Breathing, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.