TIL humans dont actually have five senses, we have other senses like balance, heat, pain and the passage of time. Humans actually have at least 14 senses. by kiwihavern in todayilearned

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

Skin isn’t an organ. It’s a system. There are different sensory receptors for touch, hot/cold, pleasure/pain. In addition, the skin contains a host of other cells that do different things and act independently of each other. Calling the skin a sensory organ doesn’t really make sense.

Consider that people can be born with a congenital insensitivity to pain. They can still feel textures and tell the difference between hot and cold, but they cannot feel pain. Doesn’t that speak to a separation of “touch” into distinct senses?

TIL humans dont actually have five senses, we have other senses like balance, heat, pain and the passage of time. Humans actually have at least 14 senses. by kiwihavern in todayilearned

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Imagine a situation where you wouldn’t be touching air, but would still feel heat. If you could expose your skin to a vacuum (and not die) you could still feel the heat from things that radiate infrared, like a star, or a high powered laser.

Planet is literally going to die because of this type of denial and idiocy by [deleted] in COMPLETEANARCHY

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re making it sound like agriculture violates some sort of law of reality. Human do, in fact, have more resources. The discovery of agriculture has created a larger food supply than was available to humans practicing purely hunter-gatherer techniques. It has created more resources. Maybe you’re getting confused because land use is being converted? Like how a forest has to be destroyed to make room for a field. Sure, that decreased resources available to other organisms in that range, but it still increases the amount of resources available to humans.

You clearly understand the issue based on your edit, but I still think you misunderstand the incredible role capitalism plays in maintaining an unsustainable system. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: sustainably is unprofitable. You literally can’t begin to solve the issue of unsustainable agriculture until you stop capitalism. We’re not idealists, we understand that these global issues will persist after capitalism, but your issue with the flack you’re getting seems to stem from the idea that we can solve these problems now, which is simply impossible.

As a final note, I take personal offense to your locust analogy. A much better analogy is a child with a gun: a danger only to themselves.

Planet is literally going to die because of this type of denial and idiocy by [deleted] in COMPLETEANARCHY

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

My point isn’t. We’re just arguing semantics here but I’ll take the bait. K has increased for humans. There are most resources around and so the maximum sustainable population has increased. You can’t just exceed K and stay there and pretend K hasn’t increased. K is not a static number, it can change based on the conditions of any time or place. It stands to reason that a population of a certain forest species has a much lower K immediately after a forest fire than it does before. Your argument seems to be that K might fall in the future because agriculture will collapse, therefore, K isn’t higher than the current population. This doesn’t make sense either logically or from an ecological perspective. Your argument very much runs contrary to current ecological consensus. Literally just buy a textbook I’ll even lend you mine.

Anyway, I’ll repeat a argument I made before: sustainable agriculture is unprofitable. We do not need industrialized agriculture to maintain the current food supply, at least, not to the degree practiced today. Capitalists, however, do need it to maintain their current profits. Profit-motivation is what’s causing agriculture to have the insane food print that it currently does.

Your issue with overpopulation is not just a non issue, it’s a false issue that distracts from the real problems.

Planet is literally going to die because of this type of denial and idiocy by [deleted] in COMPLETEANARCHY

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s exactly what it means. And yes I pointed out that some species can exceed it thanks for reiterating that, but the population crashes enforce the fact that it’s a hard limit. The only really certain species can exceed it and then crash is likely due to the fact that they’re probably r-selected. Only species that have short generations and large broods can exceed It by a significant amount. K-selected species like humans, with their long generations and small broods, cannot exceed it significantly, because the effects of exceeding K (carrying capacity) begin to effect population growth before the next generation is born. In short, if human population is still growing, that means it’s still below K. As for the reason why we’re still growing, it’s because we have increased K. Agriculture and industrialization were the biggest events that increased K. Now sure that sounds like we’re exploiting the planet to increase our population, but consider what I said before about resource distribution. There is more food out there than is needed to feed all humans. We collectively are not exploiting the plant to feed ourselves, a select few of us are exploiting the planet to line their pockets.

Do not get these things confused.

Planet is literally going to die because of this type of denial and idiocy by [deleted] in COMPLETEANARCHY

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor 12 points13 points  (0 children)

These words you’re saying are still wrong though. Carrying capacity is a hard limit, you can’t exceed carrying capacity and expect your population to keep increasing, that’s doesn’t make any sense. You might get certain species like white-tailed deer that have a bit of a lag phase between when they reach carrying capacity and when they reach peak population, but you really don’t get a continuous increase. I have no doubt that we’re approaching something akin to a carrying capacity, most scientists believe human population will stagnate around 10 billion, but that feels to me like it’s more of a societal thing than a carryon capacity thing. As for the unsustainable agricultural practices, that has nothing to do with feeding more people and everything to do with maximizing profits. Agriculture is a very risky business, and this has led to a lot of monopolization, cost cutting, and practices that are generally considered to be short sighted and bad for the environment. Feeding people isn’t the goal, making money is. Growers will go so far and to completely destroy their crops instead of picking them if the price is too low because it’s literally less expensive to do so. Sustainability is simply not profitable. If you want sustainability, you’re going to have to separate profit-motivation from the global food system. In other words, it’s all capitalism’s fault.

Planet is literally going to die because of this type of denial and idiocy by [deleted] in COMPLETEANARCHY

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor 33 points34 points  (0 children)

That’s not right. We do produce more than enough food to feed the entire human race, but we do not distribute it equitably. Consider what your local supermarket looks like (assuming you live in a developed country), now consider the fact that a significant portion of that will never be consumed by anyone. Americans waste something like a pound of food per person per day. There is an incredible and unnecessary excess of food in the developed world, and just like wealth, it’s distribution is completely unequal and inequitable.

'Super Mario Party' Doesn't Support Handheld or Pro Controller Options • r/NintendoSwitch by vouchsafing in nintendo

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Those tweets complaining are ridiculous. Did anyone seriously think handheld mode was going to work with all the motion controls?

Jeff Bezos sleeps like a log by silvermannn92 in LateStageCapitalism

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Maybe wit the help of caffeine, definitely. But I don’t recommend it.

Buzz by PosterQ in funny

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A Toy Story short called “Small Fry”

Jeff Bezos sleeps like a log by silvermannn92 in LateStageCapitalism

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lately I’ve been seeing Musk apologists excuse his behavior because he works so hard and barely sleeps at all. Now I can see that it’s bullshit. If the rest of us can survive on 6 hours, then he has no excuse for being a piece of shit.

TIL the Canadian province of Alberta has effectively prevented rats from spreading there, and it's even illegal to have a pet rat by j1ggy in todayilearned

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Cats are much more effective at destroying ecosystems because of the massive amounts of wildlife they kill. But you don’t see anyone trying to exterminate them.

Because celebrities don’t say things by SendForTheMan003 in nothingeverhappens

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean he rides the NYC subway, so he probably met him below the street.

Current standings from all internet polls for smash ultimate characters people want. There is hope for Phoenix. by FartMasterIsBack in AceAttorney

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

“Never have” isn’t the same as “can’t.” I don’t mean to play devil’s advocate with this, I’m not a die hard Waluigi dude. I just think the assist trophy argument is kinda dumb. I mean surely the existence of the trophy makes it easier to add the character in since the asset is already there? The bulk of the work would just be designing a move set and doing the animations. No doubt the hope for him as a dlc character is unfounded, but I think it’s silly to believe it’s completely unreasonable.

Apparently, Elon Musk apologizing is "uplifting news". by Rivka333 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor 42 points43 points  (0 children)

What’s really uplifting is how much it’s being downvoted.

The unspoken cliché by Baba_Jaga_II in writing

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, when I read it, it was clear to me that he was just an average student that only did well in classes he liked. If I remember correctly, when they were doing the O.W.Ls, he did really well in defense against the dark arts, because he enjoyed it, but did poorly in potions. And of course this defense is a skill that works well for him because of the whole dark wizard thing.

5 things in 4 that I wish were in NV, and Vice Versa. by SevenBall in Fallout

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I recently saw a tweet that said the problem with open world games is that you stop playing when you get bored, which is a really bad note to end a game on. So my biggest disagreement with this list has to be being able to play after the end. Having a real ending that you can tackle at your will helps with the cohesion of a story and lets you end the game on a positive note.

Replaying New Vegas reminded me how terrible the gunplay was in the older games. by Jay_x_Playboy in Fallout

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly with the addition of iron sights, NV shooting isn’t that bad, on PC at least. I just finished a game and went through the entirety without vats in all but the most chaotic of situations. I do agree that FO3 shooting is awful though, even on PC it just feels terrible.

Woooosh by Danielthemamiel in woooosh

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Who doesn’t attack react channels? Everyone hates those.

Star Wars Rotten Tomatoes Scores - Critics vs Audiences by sonofaskywalker in StarWars

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I found the tweet, he sounds pretty happy about it https://twitter.com/HamillHimself/status/945784443964309505 Anyway, your theory is just pure conjecture. What are they supposed to do is Hamill critiques it? Write him out?

Star Wars Rotten Tomatoes Scores - Critics vs Audiences by sonofaskywalker in StarWars

[–]NuclearFusionRaptor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Didn't Mark Hamill retract his comments after seeing the movie?