5 ms·
this reads like compulsive, preemptively obedient penance for pretty petty reasons. first of all the idea of cmns as a www is not falsified and still holds as a
by 2-718-281-828 3y ago
this reads like compulsive, preemptively obedient penance for pretty petty reasons. first of all the idea of cmns as a www is not falsified and still holds as a hypothesis. the only problem is that it's not proven and confidence of its existence has been blown a little out of proportion. but what's this fuss about romanticizing and anthropomorphizing nature? i mean so what? this article reads almost like people are dying, arguing "consequences can be far-reaching, affecting policy decisions that impact real people". what are those consequences? that we treat forest and trees with a little more care? i'd argue that the idea of www is closer to reality than the simplified notions of modern forest industry of how soil works. just look at the state of commercial forests. most trees and plants do need fungi - that's scientifically proven. and now we argue about the dangers of buying into fungi also connecting plants? this seems a little overblown.
- tinsmith 3y agoAnthropomorphizing nature is an easy trap to fall into largely because the electric hams in our skulls is programmed to reach conclusions as quickly as possible for the sake of evaluating our reality, and we tend to put a lot of trust in that. Applying human traits to a non-human entity is just one of the many shortcuts we take to reach said conclusions.
- 2-718-281-828 3y agonot sure if you are questioning or seconding my opinion. but anyway - in hindsight many anthropomorphisms in the past have been closer to what we now consider known about nature than what was considered scientific state back then. science considered most animals as emotionless and mindless machines only few decades ago. now even fish have to be treated humane - and don't get me started on mammals and octopusses. from that point of view anthropomorphizing deserves some historical merit and shouldn't be easily discarded as childish nonesense.
- PurpleRamen 3y ago> this article reads almost like people are dying, arguing "consequences can be far-reaching, affecting policy decisions that impact real people". what are those consequences? The obvious part would be wrong calculation of emission-trapping. The article mentions co2 quite often. This could mean wrong claims of health-benefits for living areas, or leading to wrong calculations around climate change.
- 2-718-281-828 3y ago> The article mentions co2 quite often. excuse me? it doesn't mention it even once ...
- PurpleRamen 3y agoIs carbon not co2?
- 2-718-281-828 3y agono, carbon is not co2.
- carlmr 3y agoCarbon as in carbon-footprint is CO2. But only because public discourse is very imprecise. If you want to be scientific CO2 contains carbon, but isn't carbon. In this article it doesn't seem to talk about carbon as CO2.