>Invite young women into my hedge maze
>Seal the entrance as they wander
>The maze has no exit
Could I get into trouble for doing this?
>>43613706
>Literally building a magical realm
>>43613706
How the fuck do you seal the entrance to a god damn hedge maze? Not to mention, if you were somehow able to instantly erect a goddamn hedge, they're hedges. They can be escaped really, really easily.
Yes?
This isn't really /tg/ related but yes you could.
That's False imprisonment.
>>43613740
seems pretty real to me
>>43613734
Between the indoctrination not to destroy other people's stuff (which is perfectly valid), and the fact that it would likely hurt to do so, having a piece of hedge that you move to close off the exit would get people stuck in most cases, despite how easily it could be overcome. In that way, no human is really any better than any other trained animal.
>>43613734
Like, people don't stay inside hedge mazes because they're trapped, they stay inside them because it's fun and they might get in trouble for messing with the hedge maze. The only thing keeping people inside a hedge maze is politeness. It's pretty easy to escape a hedge maze, you can just push your way through them with a few scrapes or take your time snapping the branches until you've got an easily escapable hole. A hedge is, like, one of the worst ways to keep people trapped. You'd have better luck with Japanese paper walls.
Reminds me of the time I did that to some people in my haunted house.
>>43613769
False means 'Without legal authority'
>>43613706
Yes.
>>43613734
>>43613902
What if the hedges where some sort of thorny plant?
>>43614536
Then you get a bit more cut up on the way out. Yeah it'll hurt like a bitch but hey between that and being trapped in a fa/tg/uys magical realm I'll fucking dive through blackberry bramble any day.
>>43614536
>>43613706
Better idea, have actual walls covered in vines or ivy instead. It'll look like a hedge, but they won't be able to just walk through it.
>>43613706
You're clearly a dickass hedge wizard.
What law of man applies to you, you mad bastard?
>all these anons who've never seen a real hedge
>implying the dainty little ornamental shrubs that people plant for looks count as hedges
An ordimental hedge is to a real one what a lattice fence is to a stone wall. A proper hedge is three feet think, more wood than leaf, and will stop a car going 20. You put a chainsaw to it and you'll break the saw.
People didn't hedge in their houses just for privacy, they did it for security, and it worked damn well.
>>43614761
This guy gets it. You'd have better luck climbing the damn things and walking over the top.
>>43613706
>the hedge is made ofkudzu
>they only have a short amount of time before they are trapped and devoured
>>43613706
Not if you dispose of the bodies.
>>43613706
Yes anon, kidnapping girls is illegal.
>>43614653
>walls covered in vines or ivy instead.
Now people can climb up the walls and escape by walking on top.
>>43615069
Is it fucked up that I get turned on at the thought of a vore maze?
>>43613734
OP, make sure you put electric barbed wire inside the hedges so nobody can escape.
>>43615474
Kudzu then.
>>43615488
The kudzu would eat them before they got halfway up the walls.
>>43615069
Can Goats eat kudzu?
>>43615474
Walls covered in thorny vines?
>>43615488
You have more problems than your shitty magical realm if you introduce kudzu to it.
Is kudzu some kind of fantasy plant?
>>43615666
Yeah, that could work, Satan.
>>43615683
Unfortunately no, it is very real
>>43615685
Nah, if I was Satan I would make iron walls covered in realistic iron thorny vines that are hot to the touch.
>>43615480
It's fucked up that you get turned on by vore at all
>>43613706
>Keeping women inside a maze against their will
Yep, kidnapping is highly illegal in all 50 states of America.
>>43615667
But anon,Kudzu is my magical realm.
>>43615766
Is there some place where it isn't?
>>43615683
It's real and it's eating the Southeastern US.
>>43615721
If Satan was a heavy metal edgy faggot. You can make a perfectly horrible death-trap through purely practical and mundane means.
The impracticality of making a whole lot of iron thorns realistic and also heated is just stupid. You've got to make it look improvised but perfect for the job, crumbling stone walls and thorny crawlers, and also the irony in so much life growing in a deathtrap.
>>43615862
Puerto Rico. Not a state, you see.
>>43615637
>Can Goats eat X?
Yes.
>>43615871
>Satan was a heavy metal edgy faggot
No, you don't understand. He's Satan.
The fact that it pisses you off just makes it better.
>>43615871
>You can make a perfectly horrible death-trap through purely practical and mundane means.
Who said it's supposed to be a death trap? This is torture, anon.
>>43616040
oh jesus. if we take the cultural depiction of satan as valid then that means he's the first ironic shitposter.
>>43616202
>I told this guy to eat the apple and he actually did it the absolute madman.
>>43615683
It's real, but it's not as fast as some of these anons are acting as though it does.
It grows freakishly fast for a plant (up to a foot a day), but it's not like a tentacle equivalent of a venus fly trap or something. It just takes over plants and inanimate objects. They're not a threat to animals or humans.
>>43616261
I'm still buying a goat.
>>43616261
'Merikaner here.
Left window screen ajar for a few days of travel, kudzu overgrew the warhammer display case. Lizardmen, before you ask.
>>43616433
buy a goat
>>43615885
>Kudzu
still pretty illegal
>>43615637
Yes, but it colonizes the goat's body, eventually killing it after it has wandered to an area not yet infested with kudzu and using its decomposing body as fertilizer to fuel yet more kudzu growth.
>>43616743
Unless another goat finds the corpse of the first goat... then it just gets digested.
>>43616261
that's exactly what Kudzu would say to make us put down our guard
>>43613706
>anon interacting with young women
>"can I get in trouble for this?"
I'm gonna say categorically. There is nothing you could change in how your plan works that would make you not get in trouble. You could change it to "say hello and offer a free subway sandwich coupon" and your creepy ass would get in trouble.
stop being creepy, anon.
>>43617062
>creepshaming
>>43617097
Creeps need shaming. How else are they gonna learn not to do creepy shit?
>>43615480
>vore
Anon, please.
>>43615483
Wouldn't that run the risk of burning it down?
>>43613706
OP, you remind me of the babe.
>>43617435
What babe?
>>43617452
Babe with power.
>>43617492
wHAT power?
Y'all mutherfucjers need to learn about buckthorn
I wannahave intercoursewith it
>>43617498
The power of voodoo.
>>43617514
>wanting plants to colonize your urethra and lower intestinal tract
"No."
>>43616261
I though the max was three feet in a day?
>>43617528
Voodoo?
>>43613706
No, David Bowie.
You would get arrested for snorting coke instead.
>>43615480
Yes. You fucking weirdo.
>>43613706
>Could I get into trouble for doing this?
First, OP you creepy fucker, yes.
So much this >>43617062
Now, as to the issue of getting out of a hedge maze:
As >>43614761 points out, hedges are pretty secure by themselves.
To be certain your enclosure cannot be squeezed through by determined individuals, like >>43614622, you can surround the outermost hedge with a chain link fence.
>>43615050
>You'd have better luck climbing the damn things and walking over the top.
Ideally, the chain link fence would be topped with razorwire to discourage climbers and surrounded by an second hedge to obscure the ugly fence.
>>43613734
>How the fuck do you seal the entrance to a god damn hedge maze?
Here: >>43613868
>a piece of hedge that you move to close off the exit
However, to maximize confusion and security, the hedge piece should be fitted into a massive potting tray.
Then once your guests are within the enclosure, you remove the hidden plank covering a shallow trench at the entrance and set the potted hedge, complete with fence section, into the trench.
If you truly feel it necessary, you could further secure the movable hedge piece by having it overlap the outer hedge as well.
It's not that hard. Any BBEG gardener could do it easily.
>>43615683
>Is kudzu some kind of fantasy plant?
Kudzu is not a fantasy plant, it is sci-fi.
>>43615854
God damn it, I love /tg/.
You might get in trouble if you actually seal the maze and they escape.
Instead, You should have secret entrances and movable walls so that you can change the layout and effectively trap them, without actually cutting off the exit.
But you would need to be very quiet and make sure never to move walls within earshot or the jig is up.
If you want to cover up your own footstep and activities as you follow them, I suggest including a lot of ambient noise. Such as wildlife, screams or the sound of running.
>>43617435
>>43617452
>>43617492
>>43617498
>>43617528
For the prize of 1 internet, can you name the movie that is derived from?
Hard Mode: Don't just use a search engine.
>>43617754
First of all, it's been mentioned several times.
Second of all, you need to be over 18 to post on 4chan.
>>43617754
are you serious?
>>43617754
Jupiter Ascending.
>>43617754
Muppet Maze, starring David Bowie's bulge.
>>43617771
>First of all, it's been mentioned several times.
>Second of all, you need to be over 18 to post on 4chan.
You whippersnapper
>>43617777
>are you serious?
Perfectly serious
>>43617812
>Jupiter Ascending.
I did not see that one
>>43617855
>Muppet Maze, starring David Bowie's bulge
heh
I'm sorry, the answer I was looking for was The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer (1947) starring Cary Grant and Shirley Temple.
No prize.
Better luck next time anons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLRmtYjpEfU
(I apologize for the looped clip. I suppose they thought they were being amusing)
>>43618020
huh, you learn something every day
>>43617528
who do
>>43618122
Over the years I've tried to remember only the obscure and misleading trivia.
Like, on what show did Andy, Aunt Bea, and Opie debut?The Danny Thomas Show
It has gained me absolutely nothing.
Archive this thread
>>43618208
http://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/43613706/
>>43618169
ya voodoo
>>43615683
Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu
>>43615512
>>43616743
These people are idiots.
>>43618428
>yfw when the kudzu gets you.
>>43618428
>These people are having fun
Fixed that for ya, you stuffy fuck.
>>43613706
>Reports of missing women from nearby village
>Mysterious maze, possibly filled with traps or monsters
>Some unknown man running it all
You sound like a quest you give to your players
>>43618546
>mfw
>>43615637
>>43615968
This is why you can order goats in SS13.
>>43619113
The police will probably be unamused, even if you hide loot in the maze for them.
>>43617614
>>43613868
>I can move a piece of hedge to "seal" the entrance
>For some reason they can't move it back out again
They don't need to climb it or destroy it, they just need to move the goddamn hedge you used to seal the entrance out of the way.
>>43613706
>Could I get into trouble for doing this?
Holding someone against their will is a crime, yes.
>>43613706
Yes, that's against the law.This would probably be a good setting for that women-in-peril rpg some people were homebrewing last week, especially if semi-sentient plant monsters are inhabitants of your Magical Realm
>>43624951
>They don't need to climb it or destroy it, they just need to move the goddamn hedge you used to seal the entrance out of the way.
I did not go into the details here >>43617614, but any large section of hedge large enough to block the entrance while containing and concealing a section of chain link fence is going to be heavy.
I would recommend using a hand truck or forklift to put it in place.
If the young woman in question is capable of moving the potted hedge and fence out of the trench herself by hand, then I think she has well earned her escape.
For that matter, the same goes for any young woman prescient enough to bring cutters.
>>43613706
Did you make her sign a waiver first?
Nobody reads them really.
>>43625302
If you use such a heavy hedge then I have doubts about its structural soundness. But ok, you used a forklift to trap a woman.
Did you make sure to take her cellphone away first? because police might want to have a word with you about it.
Also, I am guessing the hedge you are using is the thorny bramble kind so they can't climb it?
>>43625586
Seriously this.
Literally tell her what to expect, but make it SOUND like you are just giving her a touristy spiel.
"Oh, you know, we just make everyone sign this cause we've had people lost for DAYS in there. Some people even say the maze CHANGES around them."
Course, the anon in question probably doesn't have the charisma necessary to pull that off.
>>43625777
>Did you make sure to take her cellphone away first?
Not at all. I am not OP creeper.
I am merely discussing the proper structure of a quality hedge maze trap.
To answer your question, taking away phones would dissuade anyone from entering.
Better just to build it where there is no coverage.
The canny girl with a Sat-phone wins again.
>I am guessing the hedge you are using is the thorny bramble kind so they can't climb it?
Of course. Also, I did mention razorwire obscured at the top.
>>43625777
>>43626236
>2015
>not putting signal jammers in your hedge maze of rapey doom
>It's a hedge maze with berries and wild game
>It's a hedge maze with fountains of pure water
You'd be doing them a favour really.
is there fiction about this? movies, books, shoddily-written magical realm, anything really.
Bonus points for rape and realistic settings.
>>43627210
puh-leeeeeeezeeeee
>>43613706
Anon I thought we told you to never approach women again last time.
>>43617097
Well, yeah. You are supposed to shame creeps. They actively harm other people, you twit.
>>43628172
>You are supposed to shame creeps. They actively harm other people, you twit.
To be fair, sometimes they just force them to eat eggs.
>>43628172
>Well, yeah.
>You are supposed to shame creeps.
>They actively harm other people, you twit.
WTF has happened to /tg/?
>>43629987
>>43629987
after the nazimod era, trolls were bolstered by the idea that complaining could get results, and newfags were convinced that /tg/ couldn't handle adult themes as a result.
>>43630029
He got banned for being a tripfag troll, while the shitposters who suggest FATAL in every other system thread get off scott free.
>>43613868
>In that way, no human is really any better than any other trained animal.
first: you're one of them too
second: you're not as clever as you think you are. >>43613902 has the right of it. that shit occurs to everyone instantly.
just get a rape dungeon like all the normal psychopaths. you can maybe keep it in a greenhouse if your other hobby is gardening.
>>43630171
/tg/ has managed to do chargen, and fight death battles. It was fun. I kinda miss FATAL Friday
>>43629987
Nothing. You have just been murdering yourself so much on shitholes of paranoid echoing that you can no longer tell mainstream, sensible moderation from your viewpoint of radical self-delusion.
>>43630069
They weren't trolls, they were legitimate pro-censorship posters. And when they did get results, they knew they just had to keep it up. And newcomers who likes censorship (incomers from anti-free speech forums) who saw them and their results knew this was somewhere they could call home.
>>43630281
There is no one more pathetic than the newfag that likes to pretend they were around pre-NM. Your third-hand stories and scattered screencaps are not a good example of how this board used to function.
>>43630069
>>43630281
>We should be able to post any "adult theme" ideas we want because free speech
>Except any ideas that suggest we're wrong
Rah-bah-bah to the both of you.
/tg/ has never been a hugbox, even to creeps
>>43630281
they were trolls, this was the consensus at the time.
>>43630395
nobody mentioned free speech, anon.
They just mentioned the change in board culture to a complaining-based one. Which is entirely true. Why try to make something good when you could just complain about things you don't like?
>>43630395
>Unmoderated forum where you could post adult stuff without getting banned is a "hugbox for creeps"
That is not what a hugbox means anon
>>43617426
>Wouldn't that run the risk of burning it down?
nope because dont dare to call simpsons stupid
>>43626152
No anon has the charisma to pull that off. You can't do the carnival barker spiel against a single person without seeming overbearing. For the average fa/tg/uy we're talking, at best, one step removed from bowl of eggs territory.
>>43630474
does it count if I have charisma on accident?
I get away with a lot of shit I really shouldn't because I happen to have a handsome face. Which is kind of out of place on my horrible body, but I hide that part.
>>43617426
>Wouldn't that run the risk of burning it down?
Speaking of fire. How far apart does the hedge need to be for fire to be a viable method of escape (and not just suicide)? I am thinking wind condition are also important
also, betcha you wish you had a chinese army shovel now
>>43630474
Fuck you buddy I worked as a barker once.God I hated that job so much. I hated the glares you got. I hated having to harass passerby's I know what it's like to be on both ends of the barker and it sucks. But dammit I needed the money!
>>43630497
>he can't dig with his bare hands
>he can't dig hardened soil and compacted clay with punches
If you can't do this given infinite time, you are doomed.
>>43630504
don't hate that job, I love those guys.
If I go to a carnival and I don't have one of those guys around, I make it a point to not spend shit.
>>43630511
>he
are you in the right thread? we are talking about young attractive women being imprisoned in a hedge maze
>given infinite time
Nobody has infinite time, being trapped without food, water, or shelter inside a hedge maze especially limits your time and stamina efforts. You could dig yourself out with your bare hands given infinite time, but you would die of thirst, hunter, or exposure first
>>43630533
anon, you dig a hole, and then set a fire.
And you can subsist off of the dew of the hedge and your wits for as long as need be.
>>43630419
>nobody mentioned free speech, anon.
>>43630281
>And newcomers who likes censorship (incomers from anti-free speech forums)
Your point about a culture of complainers is true enough.
However, this chain was started in response to an anon "shaming" a creep.
If you are a creep, /tg/ will call you out on it.
>This is /tg/.
>Your waifu is shit.
>Your favorite edition sucks.
>Your opinion is objectively wrong.
Now, let's take a stupid post and see if we can make something broken and glorious.
>>43630069
It's not about adult themes. Most (read; 98%) of people find creeping on people repulsive.
If you can't handle being insulted over the internet, you should probably move to a 3rd world country.
>>43630592
If you'd follow modern trolling themes, it's certainly about adult themes.
Anything that even involves a lady nowadays is magical realm.
Gotta keep up with what the trolls are up to.
>>43630566
>>43630592
if you can't deal about someone complaining about you complaining all the time, maybe you should take your own advise.
>>43630435
>That is not what a hugbox means anon
By "hugbox", I was referring to both the concept of not shaming creeps and the idea that /tg/ should be free of those who disagree with whatever "adult theme" they like.
>>43630740
I can deal.
I deal by complaining about it.
Seriously though, I'm not complaining, just pointing out that /tg/ has a rich, lusterous history of pointing out that OP is a creepy faggot.
>>43630764
they've got as much right to be here as I have to bring up how it was agreed nazimod era was a dark age by everyone involved afterwards, and complain about newfags.
The road goes both ways.
>>43630808
I don't disagree with you on that.
I just am complaining about people acting like /tg/ isn't fucking creepy.
>>43630686
>Anything that even involves a lady nowadays is magical realm.
I've seen this.
Describing the waitress as having busty cleavage is not necessarily an intro to erp or magical realm.
>Gotta keep up with what the trolls are up to.
I did let my subscription to the latest literature lapse.
>>43630808
I agree completely.
They have a right to be here and get creepshamed.
Just like you have a right to post and receive a hearty "Rah-bah-bah!" from me.
Party on.
>>43630915
It's good to know that while we might be ready to shank each other for our differences, we recognize that the shankee and shanker are both legitimate in their actions.
>>43613740
False imprisonment requires the victim's knowledge that they are imprisoned.
>>43630277
>mainstream, sensible moderation
?
>>43630395
But you're the one LITERALLY advocating a hugbox.
>>43631274
Nah.
see
>>43630915
and
>>43630566
Well, at least this thread was good for awhile.
>>43631771
It still could be.
Anybody know of any modern fantasy hedgemazes, aside from The Shining?
>>43631724
You say that like you've defended your point...
>>43631882
I did and am now done doing so.
>>43613706
This thread is pointless.
Can someone draw a maze where I can draw a line to escape?
>>43632029
>>43631967
Except that's a blatant lie.
>>43631251
The moderate stance. The median. The commonly held.
>>43618169
You do!
>>43631274
Nah. "I should be able to post anything I want, and only my opinions should be visible, and no one else can ever contradict me" is hugboxing. Whether it's about niggers, or porn, or kittens, or attack helicopter genders isn't the issue. The behavior, the desire, is hugboxy. Free speech means the freedom to DISAGREE, you stupid fuckstick.
>>43630404
>no one could ever have been bored with yet another thulsa doom repost factory!
Fuck off, shitposter.
>>43632029
I spent 55 minutes on this
>>43613706
If you need to ask if something could get you into trouble, it probably will get you into trouble.
>>43632478
Common where, RPGnet?
>>43613769
Underrated post
>>43632497
Calm down. What contradiction are you referring to? This looks like a strawman.
>>43632574
That would have had more merit if you said it when we were discussing reactions to nazimod after the nazimod days.
I love mazes.
I made one back when minecraft was new that was 500x500 in size.
Nobody solved it.
>>43615637
Cows can graze a field of kudzu to death fairly easily.
It's also not actually that durable a plant and performs poorly when conditions are less than ideal.
No one wants to admit it but it's like a 4/10 on the invasive species scale.
>>43633141
So what's a 10/10 invasive species?
...Humans?
>>43633035
Are we judging the merit of people's posts now? Alright: yours has zero.
>>43633219
rats.
>>43628172
does anyone have screen caps of /tg/ giving dating advice? The ones that worked out preferably.
>>43633219
>Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) is a serious invasive plant in the United States. It has been spreading in the southern U.S. at the rate of 150,000 acres (610 km2) annually, "easily outpacing the use of herbicide spraying and mowing, as well increasing the costs of these controls by $6 million annually".[1] This claim, however, has recently been disputed, the United States Forest Service estimating an increase of only 2,500 acres per year.[2] Its introduction has produced devastating environmental consequences.[3] This has earned it the nickname, "The vine that ate the South".
Compare to:
>In western North America, the current outbreak of the mountain pine beetle and its microbial associates has destroyed wide areas of lodgepole pine forest, including more than 16 million of the 55 million hectares of forest in British Columbia. The current outbreak in the Rocky Mountain National Park began in 1996 and has caused the destruction of millions of acres of ponderosa and lodgepole pine trees. According to an annual assessment by the state's forest service, 264,000 acres of trees in Colorado were infested by the mountain pine beetle at the beginning of 2013. This was much smaller than the 1.15 million acres that were affected in 2008 because the beetle has already killed off most of the vulnerable trees (Ward).[1]
Pic related, very close to what I witnessed with my own eyes. An entire industry has sprung up from making furniture and such out of beetle kill trees, since they break out into forest fires if left standing (which I also witnessed).
To my knowledge, Kudzu has never lit anyone on fire.
>>43633288
I would ranks cats higher, given the number of extinctions they pull off.
>>43633219
Sugar Cane toad is probably up there. That and pigs in Hawaii, or beavers in South America.
>>43633387
>That and pigs in Hawaii
you mean
>pigs in everywhere
they are a menace in israel, they are a menace in north america, they are a menace in south america. Pigs are a very successful invasive species.
>Sugar Cane toad is probably up there.
I will look it up. But that reminds me that in north america the lousians brought the bullfrog in order to farm it for meat, it spread out and is a serious invasive species, having exterminated multiple local species by eating them all to death
>>43633322
I don't think kills are what are really counted on in invasive species, just their pure ability to adapt to their environment and thrive in it.
>>43633387
Pigs get seriously underrated. The Aussies have a real bad rabbit problem as well.
Also, all the best invasive species live in florida. They get pythons AND snakeheads!
>>43633475
is the gator eating the python or vice versa?
>>43616229
>he actually ate the apple, what a retard
I WAS ONLY PRETENDING
>>43633455
You know, I gotta wander, isn't this whole invasive species thing just a case where people panic about evolution working as intended? "Oh no the biodiversity is going down as the super retarded fail species get killed". Yes, but then the invasive species mutate and evolve and replace it with new and different bio diversity. Over 99% of all species to have ever existed have gone extinct. This is the whole point of evolution, replace things with better adapted things
>>43633455
I think the usual measure is how much disruptive impact they have on a native ecosystem.
That said, cats are still way far up there. I see many feral cats everyday and they seem to thrive.
>>43633494
>Everglades National Park staff photographed this image of an alligator and Burmese python locked in a struggle.
We may never know. I suspect the python has won.
>>43613706
>so help me, the ass was fat
>>43633509
People freak out about invasive species because it's directly caused by human intervention, and has unforseeable and occasionally absolutely crippling effects.
All of human society is based around NEVER, EVER LETTING EVOLUTION DO ITS JOB HOLY SHIT
Can you imagine a society that functioned on survival of the fittest, instead of the mutualistic monkey system we have now? For one, no more old people or cripples. Or doctors, even.
>>43616229
that is pretty funny. Although to be fair this is also a retcon which doesn't even make any fucking sense.
In the original hebrew bible the serpent is NOT satan in disguise, it is just an animal. A cool talking one. Whose punishment was to be modified to slither on the ground, lose the ability to talk, and be innate enemy of mankind.
Satan only appears in the book of job. Where he is an angel who disagrees with god about job loving god unconditionally, then god does horrible thing to job and job still loves him, eventually satan admits job loves god unconditionally and god rewards job with double the wives, sons, cattle, slaves (because he killed all the originals. The are still dead btw)
Anyways, the reason I say that the retcon doesn't make sense is that it fucks up the timeline entirely if satan is already evil in the garden of eden since that predates the actual rebellion and being thrown out of heaven thing.
>>43633509
I've thought about this too. It's going to sound weird but a stable ecosystem is important to the "homeostasis" of the land, so if you remove an important grazing animal you may end up overrun with weeds that will strip the soil of its nutrients and then *bam* you've got a desert now.
Not to mention biodiversity is extremely important to scientific research. The South American rainforests are one of the few things standing between us and a resurgent global plague, never mind the ongoing effects of global warming.
You have to think of an ecosystem as an economy of energy that starts with the sun. If you break that economy, then a whole area becomes less fecund.
>>43633509
Because it isn't that at all. Introducing a profoundly new species from a completely different environment is extremely rare in nature, and can have immediate and catastrophic consequences significant enough to cause collapses of entire environmental systems.
It is as 'working as intended' as an open-cut gold mine or a coal seam gas well.
Yes, nature perseveres and finds a way, because the system design is almost impossible to break, no matter how easy to disrupt. But because it is so easy to disrupt, especially at the hands of humanity and its capacity to inflict catastrophic immediate and long term change, it does incur a responsibility to not fuck shit up too hard. Because we are a part of that environment, eventually as we fuck shit up more, we only fuck ourselves over.
>>43633541
>All of human society is based around NEVER, EVER LETTING EVOLUTION DO ITS JOB HOLY SHIT
>Can you imagine a society that functioned on survival of the fittest, instead of the mutualistic monkey system we have now? For one, no more old people or cripples. Or doctors, even.
Except we were discussing the attempt to halt evolution in the ENVIRONMENT and not in HUMAN SOCIETY dumbass.
Also, the claim that doctors are anti evolution is as retarded as claiming that social
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_grooming
herd animals perform on each other is wrong. As well as claiming creatures such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleaning_symbiosis
are all anti evolution. A patently ridiculous claim. Doctors are entirely within the realm of evolution.
Old people have nothing to do with evolution because they are already unable to breed, and keeping them around provides a distinct evolutionary advantage of providing valuable advice to youngsters. It is also worth noting that some animals such as elephants do protect their old.
As for cripples, I assume you meant to say inherited disabilities since physical injury has nothing to do with your genetics. For those, its not like anyone is breeding with autists anyways and the instinct to nurture them is important to humanity's success.
Also, how do you explain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication
where animals and plants in use by humans evolve to be more "fit" for that role?
>>43633219
Rabbits in Australia
>>43616388
Get girl goats, boy goats stink and will ram your bitchass knees
>>43633752
You might have missed the point entirely.
We've gotten to the point where we are doing our fucking best to interrupt commonly termed 'natural" courses of life in order to benefit humanity.
The reason invasive species are something we freak out about is because it's when some dumbass fucked up and altered the evolution and ecosystem of some area to fuck humanity over.
>>43633786
Maybe we evolved to the point where we interrupt "natural" courses of life and freak out about invasive species.
>>43633584
>I've thought about this too. It's going to sound weird but a stable ecosystem is important to the "homeostasis" of the land, so if you remove an important grazing animal you may end up overrun with weeds that will strip the soil of its nutrients and then *bam* you've got a desert now.
You aren't removing it, it is being removed by other animals. And generally speaking, a single animal is not enough to completely destroy an ecosystem. New animals move in to fill the vacated role. At absolute worst new species can be intentionally introduced to balance things out
>Not to mention biodiversity is extremely important to scientific research.
You still have bio diversity. Some species go extinct and new species evolve to replace them. The pigs in south america are not going to stay identical to the pigs in northern europe for long.
>The South American rainforests are one of the few things standing between us and a resurgent global plague
The south american rainforests are not going to disappear due to invasive species. They are at most going to change slightly in composition. Also, what plague?
>never mind the ongoing effects of global warming.
Oh god not a warmer. and please explain how "biodiversity" has anything to do with this? I am all ears.
>Yes, nature perseveres and finds a way, because the system design is almost impossible to break
Which is exactly why invasive species are not a big deal. Interestingly a little research shows the entire concept originated in nazi germany. trying to apply national policy to nature. (hey, remember mao in china doing that? 40 million starved to death when he took over farming)
>>43633816
look buddy, if you want to ignore the discussion and just argue semantics, then you're free to. But nothing will get done.
>>43633837
I'm just saying that that kind of thinking is rarely applied consistently.
>>43633837
>assuming all anons are the same
that is a different anon
also, semantics are kinda important
>>43633825
The flaw in all your arguments is that you are talking about a scale of time so large that they are not beneficial to humans.
We need biodiversity within the next hundred years, not biodiversity in 50,000 years.
>>43633848
The only difference that kinda squabbling will make is that there will be quotation marks around every single term so that you know to just fucking go with it.
>>43633825
>doesn't believe in global warming
>doesn't understand the threat of invasive species
>believes biodiversity will just come back in any kind of useful time
>ignorant of economic calamaties caused by various invasive life
goddamnit anon, stop letting your politics fuck over your pocketbook.
>>43632832
Are you retarded? Can you not follow a reply chain?
So, um, back on topic, does anybody else thing a short campaign involving a hedge maze, lots of plant type monsters, and possibly some creepiness at night has a lot of potential for fun times? If so, how would it be best pulled off?
>>43632714
To 4chan, retard. Surprise, your newfaggot ass isn't representative of any board, let alone ones that have lasted a decade.
>>43633893
can you?
The end conclusion of the reply chain is that it's just as valid to bitch about bitching about creeps as bitching about creeps is.
Stop being sensitive just because other people bitch about your bitching, gawd.
>>43633861
>We need biodiversity within the next hundred years, not biodiversity in 50,000 years.
1. you are vastly underestimating the rate of evolution. It is related primarily to rate of reproduction. There is already bacteria that evolved to eat plastics that simply did not exist 50 years ago.
2. need it for what, specifically? You were saying how it would cause global warming?
3. typically invasive species threaten so few animals that they can be preserved in captivity for research purposes at a fraction of the cost and effort of trying to exterminate the "invader". And it would actually succeed (if you read up on it, plenty of animals went extinct while humans were trying to save them by killing off the invaders, and failing to kill them fast enough, instead of just protecting some in captivity). If you exclude insects then there are few actual animals who are threatened by extinction, and can be preserved by humans directly rather than trying to exterminate the invader
>>43633905
why is it that newfaggots claim to have been here forever, while ignoring board history?
/tg/'s always been sexual creeps. /tg/'s also always been people bitching about sexual creeps, at least since nazimod days.
/tg/'s also always been about people bitching about people bitching about creeps, and so on and so forth.
>>43633931
warming and climate change is an entirely different conversation, which you can argue out with the majority of modern science.
And we need biodiversity for, surprise surprise, having all sorts of rare and unusual creatures and chemicals running around. We can't just "catalogue the creatures at risk", because we don't even know they exist yet.
You are effectively asking us to have retroactive time based omnivision when it comes to what races are in danger and what aren't. Which just isn't feasible until we invent time travel.
>>43633931
>if you exclude insects, no.1 source of pharmacological discoveries behind plants and the ocean...
let's not exclude those.
>>43633895
Shut the fuck up we're talking about ecology.
>>43633931
Genetic diversity in multicellular species, once destroyed, takes an incomprehensible amount of time to come back. Bacteria can reproduce 3 times per hour under optimal conditions and don't even have a nucleus, so don't even try to compare them to larger organisms.
The role of healthy forests in sequestering greenhouse gasses is so well-documented that I don't even understand why you would think that invasive species have nothing to do with preventing climate change.
The main issue of invasive species isn't driving other species extinct but disruption of ecosystems, so your third point doesn't even address the most pressing problems.
>>43633879
>Hurr durr I am a warmer
Listen you retard, even the warmers admitted that global warming is shit, they now call it "climate change" and claim it causes "bad weather" instead of warming. Warming would actually be beneficial, if it was even going on. The earth is actually getting cooler. Also, the whole warming scam was not only used to make oodles of money (my personal favorite is gore buying up a bunch of beachfront property for a fraction of its value right after his movie came out, where he claimed said beachfront property is going to be flooded; also celindra), its based on ridiculously large amount of false fact fabrication which the warmers keep on getting caught making. Meanwhile they ignore the fact that other planets in our solar system have identical fluctuations in temperature to earth (indicating that it is the sun that is responsible for said fluctuations)
For example, the IPCC's head of hurricane studies has resigned because the politicians went out and fabricated the results his team got and claimed they have found evidence that there are now more hurricanes from global warming. When in fact his team found this to be a lie.
India left the IPCC when the IPCC officially cited an opinion piece from a canadian highschooler claiming that the himalia mountains have fully melted, even though it is patently false and they have examined them in detail.
The USA has shown heating by closing 450 out of 600 weather stations. Prioritizing those who show cooling (further out from civilization) over those who show heating (city based measuring stations; whose data is dubious)
Then you have hilarious tidbits like the global cooling scare in the 1970s where humanity is causing global cooling with their pollution and USA congress is debating painting the polar ice caps black to solve this - front page of new york times
Nobody has managed to actually prove carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, all the warmist pridictions failed to happen.
continued in next post
>>43634151
This is like the first result on google http://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
>Durr gurr invasive species cause GLOBAL WARMING
I am still waiting on an explanation of HOW
>Hurr hurr all life will die out and become a post apocalyptic desert
It really wouldn't.
>Durr 50k years is not meaningful
Humans have been around for close to 2 million.
>Durr economic calamaties
I think you need to look up the word calamty in the dictionary. Also explain how the damage to the economy is not outweighed by the benefit of harvesting said invasive species when appropriate (not all invasive species can be harvested) as well as the extreme costs of extermination.
>>43634167
explain to me exactly how beetles that eat trees are at all a fair trade for the world's maple syrup supply.
How can you be so bad at money while still having food to eat? It's unbelievable.
>>43634051
Meanie poo-poo face
>>43634151
uh, anon.
We're in the tail end of an ice age, shit's gonna get warmer regardless.
You really need to stop thinking with your politics and start thinking with your wallet.
>>43634021
>let's not exclude those.
The reason to exclude those is because they are not actually threatened by any invasive species AFAIK. And there is also literally nothing we can do about insects. There are unfathomable amount of undocumented insect species. Too many to categorize.
Insects diversity is indeed valuable for medical research
>The role of healthy forests in sequestering greenhouse gasses is so well-documented
Except you are still falsely claiming that invasive species turn forests into DESERT instead of turning forest into a slightly different forest with slightly different trees.
It is also relying on the false assertion that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, furthermore, you have yet
>Genetic diversity in multicellular species, once destroyed, takes an incomprehensible amount of time to come back.
Assuming you are the anon I was replying to, you literally said 50k years. Also, again, what kind of biodiversity is it that you specifically need it to exist in the wild? Medical research I can understand but that can be preserved via animal preservation rather than a futile extermination campaign against the invader. What is the benefit of the native "ecology" remaining "pure" and untainted.
>>43634203
>doesn't know CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Well, there's your problem.
>>43634184
>explain to me exactly how beetles that eat trees are at all a fair trade for the world's maple syrup supply.
That isn't what I said. I said that overall the balance is in favor of the invasive species economically as a whole. An individual species like that beetle might be a net economic loss, but it is not a CALAMITY like anon claimed.
>>43634203
>can be preserved via animal preservation
It literally cannot, as "new, undiscovered chemicals" come from "new, undiscovered creatures".
You are asking us to have time travel or complete causal knowledge of all bugs. That's just dumb.
The best we can do is try to maintain ecosystems while collecting the important bits in them.
>>43634214
>Religiously believes CO2 is a greenhouse gas despite the fact that a fuckton of evidence shows otherwise.
>>43634224
It's a calamity, bro. People have lost life and limb over this.
And we get net economic losses from nearly every, if not every single invasive species that occurs. If the creatures were valuable enough to justify hunting them down to "harvest', they wouldn't be invasive in the first place.
>>43634233
>religiously believes in a small pile of evidence next to a large pile of evidence
>shit at managing money
>>43634225
>It literally cannot, as "new, undiscovered chemicals" come from "new, undiscovered creatures".
1. No it does not you retard. The vast majority of creatures have not had their entire chemical composition mapped out
2. We are literally talking about INVASIVE species anon, by definition the difference between a non-native and an INVASIVE species is that the invasive species is exterminating a KNOWN native species. If nobody knows that the creature exists than it is not categorized as an invasive species because nobody knows it is one.
3. Such unknown primarily exist among insects only. There are very few complex larger animals which have not been categorized
>>43634238
>It's a calamity, bro. People have lost life and limb over this.
Oh, this I have to hear. Please share how people have lost LIFE AND LIMB over the tree beetles. I am all ears. (ps, "some people died" is in fact NOT the definition of the word calamity)
>>43634259
>missing the point
Anon, we cannot catologue the VALUABLE, NON INVASIVE SPECIES because we don't know which ones are valuable.
Your suggestion requires time travel, which we cannot do.
>>43634272
when an entire industry shuts down, there are inevitably some losses to the various forms of poverty death.
Though, really, at this point, you're just arguing semantics because you don't want to admit bad shit happens to people because of environmental fuckups.
If it was your livelihood that got fucked, you would agree it's a calamity. You hypocrite.
>>43634250
>religiously believes in a small pile of evidence next to a large pile of evidence
FALSE
warmists have been falsely claiming that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and have failed to prove it for 18 year. They have exactly zero evidence for it that isn't a debunked fabrication. They are constantly being caught trying to fabricate data.
I don't "believe" anything but in rigorous scientific process and that shows that warmists are fucking shits on par with "christian scientists" or creationists. All three are groups of retards who religiously cling to their belief. It just so happens that warmism comes from the religious belief that industry is bad (aka being a fucking hippy).
You do not have a "larger pile of evidence", you have a huge pile of disproven hoaxes with zero remaining evidence
>>43634299
>religiously believing things were debunked
Damn religious right.
>>43634276
>Anon, we cannot catologue the VALUABLE, NON INVASIVE SPECIES because we don't know which ones are valuable.
>Your suggestion requires time travel, which we cannot do.
No, my suggestion is literally "instead of trying and FAILING to exterminate invasive species while watching the endangered species go extinct (which is happening right now IRL), it would be cheaper, more practical, and actually doable to simply preserve said endangered creatures in captivity for future scientific study while allowing nature to take its course in the ecosystem at large"
>>43634318
>It would be cheaper to just let the boar fuck all our farms and national parks guys, no really!
>We can totally harvest them afterwards!
>Ignore the big where they are dangerous animals that are more expensive to find and process than the resulting meat and hide is worth
If invasive creatures didn't inherently damage the economy, we wouldn't give nearly as much of a shit about them.
>>43634309
>religiously believing things were debunked
No, I actually examined the evidence, as well as the wealth of caught warmist hoaxes. I even literally posted a couple. Can you please contradict them?
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
Here is the open letter by the head of the hurricane research department of the IPCC, they invited him, then they fabricated the data he collected, then he quit.
Ironically when the letter was first published he was still listed in the IPCC's own website as their hurricane expert.
Heck, have a list of warmist scandals, one of the first results on searching
http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/
What I've always been pissed about Co2 dumping is this:
GIMME THAT FUCKING CO2 YOU WASTEFUL CLODS
I NEED THAT SHIT
I'M GROWING AQUIFEROUS PLANTS OVER HEA
I NEED SOME HEAT TREATED STERILE CO2 FOR CHRIST SAKES
do you know how much BULLSHIT you have to go through to get access to an industrial exhaust pipe?
>>43634346
>When I said biodiverse ecosystem I really meant FARMS you guys
double facepalm anon
>>43634383
Sorry anon, you misunderstand.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm laughing at your inability to understand scientific works, your lack of fiscal responsibility, and that you think you can produce useful biodiversity in any kind of useful timeframe.
no, "by the time this civilization ends" isn't useful.
>>43634405
you were the one arguing "hey guys, let's just let the invasive species do whatever they want. What's the worst that could possibly happeeeeeen"
Every incident of invasive species is bad for the local economy. Even untapped wilderness has a direct economical value, which invasive species damage.
If it was actively beneficial to the economy, people would hardly give a shit and it might not even get noticed as invasive.
>>43634405
Hogs destroy wetlands and forests due to aggressive rooting behaviors and will kill and eat juvenile animals.
>>43634299
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this has been known since 1896.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
We've known about the greenhouse effect since we set foot on the South Pole, would you kindly get the fuck off this planet.
>>43634385
Yes, CO2 sequestering is possibly the dumbest thing ever.
CO2 is desperately needed by anyone who is trying to grow plants of any kind. Not to mention literally all the CO2 from fossil fuels used to be in our atmosphere before it was lost and removed over time. We only have 0.036% of air being CO2 and it is a serious limiting factor in the growth of plantlife
Incidentally, more CO2 means more plantlife means lower temperature as the plants absorb sunlight and convert it into chemical energy instead of letting it disperse as heat
>>43634405
Are you from America?
Here in Australia we are rather well aware of how damaging invasive species can be, to both local fauna/flora but also to economy. The two aren't mutually exclusive. To give you but a few examples from our country:
>Cane toads
>Feral pigs/Goats
>Rabbits
>Foxes
All of these invasive species have a dual action of damaging wilderness AND farmland. Ungulates and rabbits in particular contribute to soil erosion, which leads to salination and is one of the biggest problems Australia currently faces. Although it would be false to claim feral animals are the ONLY cause of these issues (really we shouldn't be farming them here either), they are certainly part of the problem.
>>43634430
>>43634468
why the rewrite on this post?
>>43634469
technically, anon, "more CO2" means LESS plantlife since if it's gaseous CO2 that means it is not in fact a plant.
Ideally 100% of CO2 would be in use becoming delicious plants.
Unless there's some use for it that isn't making delicious plants that I don't know about.
>>43634485
Thanks to incredible sleep deprivation and general exhaustion, I had completely forgotten about wireless telegraph.
>>43634469
This is a nonsense argument. Nobody is suggesting all CO2 be removed from the atmosphere or CO2 levels even be decreased past pre industrial levels (this would actually also cause climate change in the form of cooling). Furthermore, increased CO2 is dangerous not because it would render the planet unlivable or be toxic, but because it would change the climate --- you know, that thing called climate change? -- in ways that would be detrimental to humans specifically, such as rising sea levels. We would not die out from increased CO2, but it could cause a humanatarian crisis.
The sunlight absorption from plants is not something i've ever seen discussed as a significant contributor at the levels of CO2 change we are talking about here. Do you have a citation specifically about increased plant life from CO2 vs heat absorption?
>>43634479
With the exception of toads all of those are profitable to hunt, creating new economies to compensate for the damage and losses they cause.
The solution to farming damage is not a costly and ineffective widespread extermination campaign that fail to work, but putting up a goddamn fence, as well as other localized per farm methods of defense. Animals menacing crops is nothing new and has nothing to do with a species being native or invasive. Invasive species are not inherently worse for farmers than the native species.
And in regards to soil erosion. You said it yourself, its mainly caused by the agriculture not the animals. And again, the claim that they would lead to deforestation is utterly ridiculous. Rabbits, pigs, and foxes have been around europe since forever and did not cause desertification there.
>>43634523
>technically, anon, "more CO2" means LESS plantlife since if it's gaseous CO2 that means it is not in fact a plant.
You are falsely assuming it came from burning a plant. Instead it came from burning fossil fuel and it will result in more plants because it is not going to remain in the atmosphere, it will rapidly be absorbed by plants, increasing the net amount of plantlife on earth
>>43634545
Not him, but I am suggesting we remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere because I waaaaant it.
>>43634545
>Furthermore, increased CO2 is dangerous not because it would render the planet unlivable or be toxic, but because it would change the climate --- you know, that thing called climate change?
That thing that is objectively false. I have still not seen any counter arguments to
>>43634383
>>43634151
>>43634167
other than "hurr durr you are a climate change denier pls die"
>>43634567
Rabbits are profitable to hunt. Meat and pelts can earn you a fair amount of money.
So can you explain why Australians built a fence across the middle of their entire, retardedly huge nation to keep those revenue-generating bunnies out?
>>43634590
Healthy forests, swamps, etc. decrease effects of anthropogenic climate change. Introducing invasive species fucks with forests, swamps, etc. Influence of human activities on climate increases. Are you happy now?
>>43634567
>With the exception of toads all of those are profitable to hunt, creating new economies to compensate for the damage and losses they cause.
http://www.pestsmart.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/CountingTheCost.pdf
720 million dollars in NET economic damage alone.
> but putting up a goddamn fence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit-proof_fence
>Rabbits, pigs, and foxes have been around europe since forever and did not cause desertification there.
Australian top soil is particularly 'dusty' and weak, often sitting over a shallow layer of bedrock. Native plants that have adapted to survive in these arid conditions have not evolved mechanisms to deal with constant grazing/trampling like European grasses and low bushes have. Furthermore, root systems are often relatively easy to expose here due to shallow topsoil. Australia is prone to desertification from ungulates BECAUSE they are invasive - your european example completely and utterly misses the point.
It's clear you have absolutely no idea how invasive species work.
>>43633219
Roaches
>>43634567
None of those are profitable to hunt. You're also grossly underestimating the size of farms. I live near to a small commercial farm, it's six hundred non-continuous acres. You want to know a cheap way to cull a hog population? Have an open season year round with zero bag limits or weapon restrictions.
And yes, invasive species are usually worse than native species because most invasive species lack natural predators to keep them in check.
>>43634637
>Healthy forests, swamps, etc. decrease effects of anthropogenic climate change. Introducing invasive species fucks with forests, swamps, etc. Influence of human activities on climate increases. Are you happy now?
No, because I literally answered this in the very first post after the claim that invasive species cause climate change was first raised.
I addressed it by saying that invasive species do not result in a desert, they take a forest and change it to be a slightly different forest with different species of trees. You still have a forest. native trees are not inherently better than "foreign" trees. If they were we would want to help the "better" trees counter invade
>>43634567
Protip:
IF ANY INVASIVE SPECIES IS PROFITABLE TO HUNT, IT IS NOT INVASIVE
THIS IS BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN HUNTED TO DEATH
AN INVASIVE SPECIES CANNOT BE PROFITABLE TO HUNT FOR LONG, OR IT WILL STOP BEING INVASIVE AND START BEING ENDANGERED
>>43634665
I believe you missed >>43633322
>>43634665
>I addressed it by saying that invasive species do not result in a desert
You're objectively wrong. See:
>>43634641
The report specifically talks about desertification in relation to feral animals.
> You still have a forest. native trees are not inherently better than "foreign" trees
Foreign trees don't grow in central Aus areas due to poor minerals and highly arid conditions. Either you have a Eucalyptus forest or you have a desert.
>>43634665
>I am ignorant and cherrypicking
Invasive ungulates are a huge cause of desertification you pampered hypocrite.
invite me I want to watch this
>>43634650
>None of those are profitable to hunt.
>You want to know a cheap way to cull a hog population? Have an open season year round with zero bag limits or weapon restrictions.
You literally just contradicted yourself. If they weren't profitable to hunt then an open season would do literally nothing since nobody would actually hunt them.
Also, year round open season with no limits =! a costly extermination campaign that is NOT WORKING. In fact it is literally free (although it still doesn't work in many cases). I have no issue with unlimited hunting allowance for such animals.
>And yes, invasive species are usually worse than native species because most invasive species lack natural predators to keep them in check.
There are predators everywhere, heck in the example of australia was that rabbits and foxes are invading a tthe same time. Foxes are literally rabbit hunters
https://youtu.be/dMoS9uB4dSg
>>43634679
>IF ANY INVASIVE SPECIES IS PROFITABLE TO HUNT, IT IS NOT INVASIVE
No, the definition of an invasive species is a non native species that is endangering a local species.
And the vast majority of invasive species were introduced in the first place because they are profitable to hunt.
>>43634769
>You literally just contradicted yourself. If they weren't profitable to hunt then an open season would do literally nothing since nobody would actually hunt them.
They are profitable because the govt puts a bounty on their heads. It COSTS the taxpayer to hunt these animals. They don't generate revenue.
Forgive the hominem but you are starting to sound really ignorant, anon.
>>43634720
Anon, no one is paying you to teach this man biology. There is a good chance he is just trolling you, in fact this post >>43634769 uses an argument from the simpsons.
Please don't strain yourself. He does not understand that if any of his suggestions were true, invasive species would not be an issue at all.
>>43634782
and they rapidly became NON profitable to hunt.
A wonder how that works. It's almost like there are too many of them, and goods made out of them dropped sharply in value, and now they are a pest species that we have to actively spend money on.
>>43634717
>I believe you missed >>43633322
I did not, the loss of said forests is unfortunate, but the costly extermination attempts have failed, and the land will not lie barren, rather it will be replaced with new forests of trees more resilient against said parasites.
>>43634782
He was arguing that if something is profitable to hunt then we would kill them faster than they reproduce.
The problem is that people seriously underestimate how quickly animals fuck more animals into existence.
>>43634769
This post reminded me of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War
>>43634801
Thanks anon, you're right - although it's dangerously close to 'jokes on you i'm just pretending to be retarded' at this point.
As an aside: oddly enough, he is probably paying me to teach him biology - my salary is (very partially) covered by the NIH and NHMRC, and I'm currently blowing off steam at work, so if he is an americunt or ausfag he literally pays a part of my salary.assuming he has a job I guess
>>43634843
it's true, anon.
If something is profitable to hunt, we DO kill them faster than they reproduce.
It's a problem of the fact that if there are too many, then they become less valuable as time goes on and more materials come in.
Basic supply and demand.
>>43634799
>They are profitable because the govt puts a bounty on their heads
Which is not what anon said, he said all it would take is allowing people unlimited hunting would effectively exterminate them. Nothing about a bounty.
Also... does the australian government even actually limit hunting of invasive species?
>>43634846
>implying someone that bad at managing money has a job
he's cared for by others.
>>43634864
They actively have days dedicated to hunting invasive species.
>>43634769
Cheaply culling a hog population doesn't mean you're making a profit, it just means you're spending as little as possible to do so. In the example I gave the government puts the entire burden on its citizens to pay the expense of culling hogs. Also hunting isn't free.
Hunting rabbits and foxes isn't profitable as you'll always make more money industrially raising them for meat and pelts.
