the dodo might hold the crown as the most famous extinct animal, and granted, they deserve it. they were the first species that humans acknowledged they had led to the extinction of. that’s a really significant title! but comparatively speaking, the death of a species of fat flightless pigeon with no natural predator on a tiny island isn’t half as horrifying as what happened to passenger pigeons.
the sheer scale at which these birds existed, and their subsequent extinction, is something i cannot wrap my head around. i know what happened – i’ve read novels upon novels about this, i’ve seen the pictures, i know all the details, but the more i think about it the more i realise i can’t possibly process it to its fullest extent because i wasn’t there. i didn’t live through that. i’ll never be able to fully understand how sudden it was.
these birds were over 5 billion strong at their peak. when they travelled, they allegedly blacked out the sun for thirty minutes at a time. they formed rivers in the sky, and there’s art and record of this from dozens of people. it wasn’t just one person’s poetic interpretation. these birds existed in an overwhelming quantity, and no doubt because of that that people took them for granted.
they were plentiful. they were obnoxiously plentiful, and yet humans took them out so cleanly and quickly and efficiently that from this species, from this five billion-strong species, we have only a single picture of a passenger pigeon squab.
these birds faded out of existence in the span of someone’s lifetime.
And now you know why we have the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It’s not to inconvenience those who whine when you can’t keep a crow feather you found on the ground or a taxidermy owl without papers at an antique shop. It’s because by the time the law was passed in 1918 the commercial hunting of birds was so incredibly destructive that it was already to late for several species, and many others were on the brink.
We have a HUGE abundance of wildlife compared to how many places in the US were by the turn of the 20th century. Not just birds, but mammals and other species. From the MBTA of 1918 to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, all of these and more are there to keep us from doing the same damned thing we did before. Only now we have SO MANY MORE PEOPLE who are sucking up even more habitat and other resources wildlife need.
if u kill a bug that’s cool, i kill bugs all the time, but if a person says, “hey, i am going to be upset if you kill that bug, please let me take it outside,” and u respond by killing the bug just to hurt and ridicule them, i’ve got some bad news for you
ur a fucking asshole
this is it. this is the most controversial post i’ve ever made on tumblr dot com. i’m getting actual hate for this. people are arguing with this.
literally all i said was “don’t be purposefully malicious to hurt another person’s feelings, because if you do, that person will think you’re an asshole.” this is some grade school shit right here. this is kindergarten. god, this is pre-school. if you’re purposefully mean to people? you’re an asshole. you’re the bad guy. i get that you think you’re edgy and interesting, but actually you’re the most boring person on the planet.
i fucking hate all of you. you think you’re intellectually superior because you’re rude, but actually, you’re just rude. congratulations on letting everyone know that you’re a rude annoying asshole. god. you’re all four years old. i literally feel like i’m explaining the concept of ‘bullying’ to a class of four year olds right now.
Hey there US friends! If you’re voting using these machines (Hart eSlate) or similar ones right now or in the near future, make sure that the machine has NOT changed your ballot before casting it, ‘k? It’s apparently an already known problem, and has been for years, but has never been fixed.
i guess it’s time to talk about halloween candy again! in short: you should eat it if you want to!
a healthy relationship with food absolutely involves what we call “fun foods”– foods you eat bc you enjoy them (taste, memory associations, celebration, etc.) even if you’re not in need of their nutritional value. pleasure is GOOD and it’s good to experience it thru food! and if you are in need of calories and free candy can help provide them, wonderful.
remember the intuitive eating concepts of unconditional permission to eat and challenging the food police. you get to have as much candy as you want, whenever you want it. that means you can have some now, and you can have some later, too. there’s no need to freeze it or throw it out to prevent yourself from eating it–the candy is not dangerous or “sinful.” this is a great opportunity to practice following your body’s cues, and to trust them.
if you’ve been candy-restricted in the past, you might eat more than you’re comfortable with. you might even feel sick to your stomach. that’s good data! note it, and reject guilt–you’re learning. and guess what, you STILL have unconditional permission to eat. if you find yourself wanting more in the future, you can have it (this also lets you stop when you want to, bc the candy and your permission to eat it aren’t going anywhere). experiment. observe. trust.
so instead of approaching one of the best parts of this holiday with fear and defensive planning, approach it with curiosity: which candies do you enjoy? how much of them feels good? how does unconditional permission affect your candy-eating behavior, in the short and long term? what’s it like to just eat it sometimes, without doing any mental work at all?? have fun! you’re gonna be okay!
Lemme tell you a story.
The week before Halloween last year, my kids’ school sent out their weekly newsletter. This time, they included an “article” written by a local nutritionist. It had recommendations about how to “help your child learn moderation this Halloween.”
They suggested that parents strictly monitor their kids candy intake. Parents were supposed to put all the candy in a bowl on the counter, and then tell the kids they could have three pieces each day. No more! This method, they assured us, would help our kids learn self-control around food. It would teach them moderation. It would make them good eaters.
Yikes.
See, here’s the thing. I have read a heck of a lot about nutrition and weight science over the years. Do you know what I have never seen? I have never seen any evidence that carefully and rigidly restricting access to desired foods predicts better health and well-being, for kids or adults.
You know what I have seen? Lots and lots of evidence that dietary restriction predicts eating disorders, negative body image, and weight gain. I have seen evidence that restriction leads to reactive over-eating (i.e., eating to the point where you feel pain or sickness). I have seen evidence that forbidding your child to eat certain foods leads to guilt, and shame, and fear around food.
Just eat the Damn Candy Sharon! And let your kids eat it too.
I just want to mention that in my last ask (if tumblr didn’t eat it) I
only ask about the apex predator thing cause I have an idea for a one
shot story. I am doing my own research but just wanted to hear what you
think from a medical perspective who understands it better
Opposable thumbs.
It’s a bit of a weird question, because animals and nature don’t work like this. There’s no animal that’s a ‘perfect killer’ or it’s going to out-compete its prey and starve. Real animals, especially apex predators, are also highly adapted to the environment in which they live. Tigers and Great White Sharks are both excellent and successful apex predators, but if you take one and put it into the habitat of the other, it’s not going to do so well.
Predators in general are killing to eat. If they’re not hungry then why spend the energy? There are always exceptions to the rule, of course (domestic cats, feral dogs, foxes) and these exceptions cause significant ecological damage when they predate too heavily on their prey species, and may even hunt their preferred prey to extinction.
An animal isn’t just a killing machine, either. As a species they need to be able to interact with other individuals for reproduction. They may need to groom themselves or construct shelter.
If the question is rephrased as ‘what traits make an animal especially destructive or good at killing other animals’ then the answer is versatility, adaptability and being just a little bit better at things than the other species living in the area. I mean, Brushtail possums were introduced to New Zealand and developed an appetite for birds! Just because they could!
So the traits required are highly dependent on the environment the animal is in, as well as what other species are present. But to be honest, humans do a pretty good job at fitting your original description.
If you want to write a story where people are being chased by a genetically engineered “perfect killing machine”, big cats are already pretty good at being lethal towards humans. A very bored super-tiger could do the trick. Or a sneaky and fairly large wolf. Or a bear. Or an extremely venomous and target-oriented wasp.
There is no one perfect killing machine because there is no one perfect killing situation. Pick your situation and decide what would be most dangerous in that context. Forests? Something sneaky and quiet, maybe able to drop from the trees. Think large panther. Open areas with nowhere to hide? Speed and endurance to outmatch a human. Again, wolves. Wolves are apex predators that can take on a wide variety of prey. Cities? Maybe something small and venomous. A determined spider monkey with a scorpion tail would be terrible. An entire troop of them would kill all sorts of people.
Probably you’d want whatever it is to be trained to hunt specific targets, otherwise it’d eventually get tired or go after an easier target.
So, you know that entire HHS thing. I’ve thought about it some more.
We should all be worried.
They are redefining sex discrimination to refer to only discriminating against people because they have a dick or a vagina.
This goes far past trans people.
There are some cases in the courts right now that people think are LGBT cases.
But they effect absolutely everyone.
Fired for refusing to wear makeup? No longer sex discrimination.
Fired for refusing to cut your hair when women wear it long? Not discrimination.
Told you have to wear high heels every day? Not discrimination.
Basically this would mean that obliging people to stick to traditional definitions of gender presentation at all times would not be discrimination.
It’s not just LGBT people. it’s every guy with a ponytail. It’s every woman who doesn’t see the need to waste an hour a day and hundreds of dollars on makeup. It’s every woman who wants to actually NOT injure her legs and back by wearing heels.
This is not just an LGBT+ issue. This is an everyone issue.
All of those discriminatory dress codes? No way to fight, because it isn’t your genitalia, it’s stuff you “can change.” (The same argument is used about black people and their hair).
Sadly, there’s only so much we can do to fight this as it’s a pure executive branch thing…except to get our congressmen to update the law. Which means voting for ones who don’t think this is a good thing.
BettSplendens Tumblr Evac 