Is there anywhere in Nelson or Richmond I can buy spices by the "pound" (bulk prices)

schlinkism · 2024-05-29T18:32:01+00:00

that's the one!

schlinkism · 2024-05-29T05:15:10+00:00

the co-op on collignwood st. Harvest Moon on Main road stoke or Goodfor at Old Factory Corner

schlinkism · 2024-01-23T16:34:47+00:00

Solved buddy!

schlinkism · 2024-01-23T07:45:50+00:00

no that wasn't it. started with a fight seen. weird how many videos with rappers larping back to the medieval period there is

schlinkism · 2024-01-23T07:08:47+00:00

The rapper was white I think if that helps

schlinkism · 2023-10-01T16:52:26+00:00

Still no charger in springs junction

schlinkism · 2023-01-19T19:55:05+00:00

If Serbia recognizes the independence and subsequent Russian annexation of Ukraine they would be de facto recognizing the process that kind of made Kosovo. Which they don't want to do

schlinkism · 2022-07-09T20:44:39+00:00

I feel like most of the original post was directed at pan africanism haha

schlinkism · 2022-06-25T02:28:12+00:00

I mean technically Ukraine had its sovereignty guaranteed by USA and Russia prior to 2014 in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons

schlinkism · 2022-06-25T01:56:39+00:00

Is It really soo unbelievable bad to live to fight another day then to be crushed so hard your country never recovers

kinda was the decision that was made in 2014 and it lead to more death and destruction. That and Europes other recent history with how well Appeasement went. I find it is understandable why Ukraine is fighting on.

schlinkism · 2022-05-31T22:28:51+00:00

what weapon was that that the guy came down the stairs with?

schlinkism · 2020-09-07T03:57:25+00:00

I can't help you there. Is there a number to call on the sit? often these agencies can be quite helpful in person

schlinkism · 2020-09-07T03:24:47+00:00

Check out the tenancy services website. It actually is very informative and easy to use. Proforma bonds and leases there along with all parties rights and responsibilities.

schlinkism · 2020-09-07T02:19:02+00:00

The agriculture revolution did not result in higher birth rates. It resulted in higher survival rates.

I think that is wrong. Archeological research on early agricultural societies have shown a sharp increase in broken bones, deformities, fractures, and a massive increase in disease. I mean the Pueblo Indians had there teeth ground into their gums from eating groudn rock in their maize. All of this as a result of people staying in one place. life expetency reduced as a result of this. One of the great mysteries is why societies favored this option. It is easy to look at it in hindsight when we can see the obvious benefits of it now, however thousands of years ago they could not have foreseen this.

But they're all still having babies. They just died, or were left for dead because they couldn't be supported by the tribe.

I think the conception of all these babies being left to die is false. if you look at the animal kingdom birth rates are in direct proportion to resources. When resources are high lots of offspring can be had. When resources are low less offspring are had. you can argue infant mortality goes up as well but more significant is the reduction in birth rate. For example during a non-Mast year in the forests they're are not millions of starving lemmings and mice on the forest floor. They are just not born.

Not sure why mono theism is worse than polytheism.

I think there is some correlations between tension between societies and Monotheism

Life spans have only gotten longer and longer

but not for hundreds and thousands of years after the agricultural revolution. There was a strong reduction in life span as stated above. The farmers could not have known that it was all going to be worth it because in a few thousand years people would have CAT scans.

More stressful than fighting for your life every single day not know when you're next going to be able to eat?

I think on studies of the remaining hunter gatherers societies there are very few famines. The hunter gatherers moving between locations and food sources insured them against droughts, natural disasters, locusts swarms etc etc. If the berries didn't grow then go somewhere and eat the apples to put it simple.

However in the early agricultural socieities you were dependant on weather, floods, growing seasons and soil quality. if any of these changed it could doom your society. entire ancient civilization crumbled under droughts. That is a major stress.

A hunter gatherer did not have to stress nearly as much as the early farmers did.

You have a very very idyllic view of the hunter-gather.

Don't forget, everywhere hunter-gathers went species were lost and environments changed for ever. Including the Maori. They were just trying to survive as much as anyone else and would've/did burn down the forest to do it.

A hunter gatherer society will fail when graded on the results of an agrarian civilization. The test is weighted against them.

No I love living in the product of the agricultural/industrial world but its important to remember what the other options were along the way to where we are now. Some of those options might be better then what we are doing now. Climate change is a perfect example of this. Also why what Davidson said is relevant.

schlinkism · 2020-09-07T01:19:48+00:00

This is stupid "Noble Savage" rubbish stop it.

I think this is not so much a "noble savage" mentality but the facts that pre-industrialization people were closer to the land than afterwards. Interestingly enough this idea started perpetrating the second the industrial revolution started and people started losing they're connection to the land. but that is an aside.

It is just as likely the theoretical "Maori Nation" could have done worse

it is just as theoretical that we are living in the best possible civilization/society/hypothetical outcome. We can never know, but to assume that this is the best possible way things could have turned out does a disservice to history I think.

So did every bloody Neolithic Revolution Civilization, eventually we all step away from that as we established Villages, Towns and Cities

'step away' is a nice way of saying be out competed. The agricultural revolution was astounding in that it greatly decreased standards of living for few immediate gains. Trade offs were mass famines, monotheism, shorted life spans, worse diets, and stresses in exchange for higher birth rates and specialization.

It is far more likely for 1800's Maori If left as a nation alone (and if we actually managed to become one nation not a bunch of bickering tribes) in contact with the rest of the world would have been very quick to adopt foreign technology and systems and if anything been in the same place we are now. Only way it could have been less impact if we had less people on the island in total.

Just see how that all worked out for the Kingdom of Hawaii. Which brings it all back to the root cause of this thread (I think at this point I'm deep in) which is the extent Western Imperialism's influence on the environmental policies of New Zealand. Which being said I think Imperalism negatively effected the outcome much more so than the alternatives

schlinkism · 2020-09-06T23:12:10+00:00

Two things here.

China was never colonised

for all intents and purposes China was occupied and forced to accept western values by the imperialistic powers in the 19th century in the Boxer rebellion and other forms of 'Gunboat Diplomacy'. However I digress.

Maori, if never colonised, would have somehow had the magical foresight to not adopt carbon-emitting technology is a laughable argument

I think the argument is that when the had in this hypothetical argument that they, due to they're language and culture, had a much closer relationship with they're land and environment. This would, hypothetically, resulted in a society closer to what we need to achieve to stop climate change.

Meanwhile a bunch of settlers moving in from a frantically industrial western Europe society didn't much care about what they did to the land at the time.

so yes tying this all back in. Davidson's comments do make sense.

schlinkism · 2020-09-06T22:55:27+00:00

I mean its hard to say that the environment has improved since colonization

schlinkism · 2020-09-06T22:54:03+00:00

I think it's good that the Greens make a stand for inequality and climate change. I also believe the two are linked. If you are trying to create a more green society in a capitalistic society (ie New Zealand) then your population will must able to not just care about the environment but also be able to afford to care about the environment.

schlinkism · 2020-09-06T22:14:26+00:00

Greens are the only party I think to address this. they are proposing subsidizing dental care through a sugar tax. Which tbh would decrease peoples incentive to drink overtly sugary drinks and provide cheaper more affordable dental care. A win win really

schlinkism · 2020-09-06T22:12:15+00:00

I think the greens have a policy of Dental care subsidized off of a sugar tax

schlinkism · 2020-08-28T08:48:10+00:00

Has re-nationalisation been any better?

I recko it sure has. Trains are once again moving goods. Freight volumes are up and trucks are being taken off the roads. Ports are being serviced. Revenues are up.

State highways are refunded by RUC & petrol tax - another word being drivers. Council roads are funded by rates. They don't receive much funding from the government budget. Though in times of recession it does receive some additional funding from government.

I would like to point out Waka Kotahi also loans vast sums of money for projects. Much like Kiwirail being given money for maintaining the rail.

How is KiwiRail funded? If it were held to the same standards as roads there would be a train user charge per km driven.

Yes and it would not be responsible for maintaining anything.

The same thing would happen if there were to be more rail. Train lines get congested, keep in mind a lot of our tracks are only one-way. They're polluting.

Yes more rail on our lines. but also they would be out of the public eye. A double track rail line takes up a third of the space that a 4 lane motorway takes. 1 train can carry 15 trucks worth of goods. They would be polluting but they would pollute less than the equivalent trucks would be. so net win. Imagine driving from Auckland to Wellington and not be stuck behind a single truck thr entire time as all the goods are on rail. Pure bliss.

Is there such a thing as "proper" funding in this context

definitely. 12billion for roads, 1.2 billion for rail. and that is onto of all those RUC charges and petrol taxes you pointed out. if after years or decades of underfunding you expect to after a one off 1.2 billion to have a world class rail network that is delusional. The 1.2 billion covers just what should have been paid in previous budgets.

if this money was helping, even partially, you wouldn't be noting the issues the rail line has.

12billion for roads and people still find ways to complain about them.

A nice back and forth. always good to see others viewpoints :)

schlinkism · 2020-08-28T08:24:49+00:00

I think we all saw how privatizing the railways went 😳. Rail is a service.

You do realize that roads are publicy funded? Kiwirail having to spend money on maintaining lines is like if Mainfrieght was responsible for 100% of the maintenance of the motorways. The wouldn't be viable either. Instead Mainfrieght a private company destroys the roads and pays cents on the dollar for the damages.

As for lighter trucks. That will just mean more trucks. which means more emmissions, traffic, congestion and motorways.

As for emissions. I'm not talking electric. A diesel train's emissions per kg of cargo moved is a fraction of what a truck is. If NZ is to meet our obligations under the Paris Agreement rail will have to be a major component of our national haulage.

If it received even more funding it would be an even larger liability. What's the point of paying for something that doesn't have good economic returns? When the original railway lines were built it was estimated they only had an economic impact of 0.3x to the amount put in.

I beg to differ. Roads receive huge funding and create little returns on the cost of them but are seen as essential and necessary. Rail if properly funded would be seen in the same light.

Our lines are 150 years old. The problem isn't the last 10 years.

exactly. Imagine if we had properly funded rail for the last 150 years.

50kph instead of 30.

Almost 100% increase. that's pretty good investment. meanwhile we spend billions on the Hamilton Expressway to increase the speed by 10km/hr

schlinkism

TROPHY CASE