Buy
Buy

Buy

Count
Count

Count

Breathe
Breathe

Breathe

Adrianisms
Adrianisms

Adrianisms

Puppys Pictures
Puppys Pictures

Puppys Pictures

Allowance
Allowance

Allowance

point
point

point

kill
 kill

kill

contrive
contrive

contrive

ons
ons

ons

đŸ”„ | Latest

Environmental: tughhfggdgvff: picsthatmakeyougohmm: hmmm This is what they like to call Environmental Storytelling
Environmental: tughhfggdgvff:
picsthatmakeyougohmm:
hmmm

This is what they like to call Environmental Storytelling

tughhfggdgvff: picsthatmakeyougohmm: hmmm This is what they like to call Environmental Storytelling

Environmental: ophidahlia: Coca-Cola (and Dixie Cup) pioneered the recycling movement in the 40’s to get people to return valuable glass bottles by charging almost half of the cost of the drink in a returnable fee. Nearly everyone returned their bottles; it was a huge success. When they switched to plastic in the 50’s it became more profitable to just toss bottles away so they used shell organizations to secretly lobby congress and senates to kill recycling bills while simultaneously creating massive ad campaigns to convince the public that recycling was all the consumer’s responsibility. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s public knowledge that gets drowned out in the noise made by their PR firms. Last year Coca-Cola was still up to the same environmental villainry. More recycling advertising campaigns and killed bottle-fee bills which have been long proven to massively boost recycling rates but also push the cost of recycling from the consumer onto the manufacturer. That’s also detailed in the previous link. Don’t ever make the mistake of thinking that large corporations care about this world or anything in it other than profit. They’ll engage in charity as an investment if the campaign offers good return for their brand value and public image, but don’t think for a second we can get capitalists to behave ethically through any other means than forcing them to do it.
Environmental: ophidahlia:
Coca-Cola (and Dixie Cup) pioneered the recycling movement in the 40’s to get people to return valuable glass bottles by charging almost half of the cost of the drink in a returnable fee. Nearly everyone returned their bottles; it was a huge success. When they switched to plastic in the 50’s it became more profitable to just toss bottles away so they used shell organizations to secretly lobby congress and senates to kill recycling bills while simultaneously creating massive ad campaigns to convince the public that recycling was all the consumer’s responsibility. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s public knowledge that gets drowned out in the noise made by their PR firms. 
Last year Coca-Cola was still up to the same environmental villainry. More recycling advertising campaigns and killed bottle-fee bills which have been long proven to massively boost recycling rates but also push the cost of recycling from the consumer onto the manufacturer. That’s also detailed in the previous link. 
Don’t ever make the mistake of thinking that large corporations care about this world or anything in it other than profit. They’ll engage in charity as an investment if the campaign offers good return for their brand value and public image, but don’t think for a second we can get capitalists to behave ethically through any other means than forcing them to do it.

ophidahlia: Coca-Cola (and Dixie Cup) pioneered the recycling movement in the 40’s to get people to return valuable glass bottles by char...

Environmental: bogleech: cazort: marvelousgameofdisneythrones: pangur-and-grim: my favourite part of the Evolutionary Biology courses I took at the University of Toronto was learning that several bird species have 3+ sexes? the ruff bird is a great example - each male variant has a different (and successful!) reproductive strategy, and a different chromosomal sequence. unlike the ruff bird, human sex falls into a bimodal distribution - this means there are two strong peaks (”typical” male and female morphs), with a whole lot in between. evolution is nice way of saying “statistics played out longterm among living organisms”, and evolutionarily successful traits
.aren’t something to hold up as natural or moral, or representative of an advanced state. it’s literally just fuck tactics that make your group size increase. (though fucking isn’t always the best route, as asexual reproduction is massively advantageous as a short-term strategy, and certain species dominate the landscape by switching between sexual/asexual depending on environmental conditions) besides all that, the strength of humankind has always been our ability to work together communally, and that’s straight science. so even if you went down the extremely problematic path of valuing fellow humans based on their potential evolutionary contribution (coughs, eugenics, coughs), there would still be zero scientific basis behind discriminating against trans, non-binary and intersex people.  tl;dr here’s a challenge to all the bigots out there: please stop using “science” as a defence when the actual science is (overwhelmingly) against you. Science: pissing off bigots of all kinds since its inception. I find White-throated sparrows fascinating. They have two color morphs, the bright one: And the drab one: The two morphs have very different behavior. The bright ones are more aggressive, setting up territories and defending them, being more aggressive about defending against predators. They sing more often. The dull ones are quieter and less aggressive. They are more attentive to the nest, and better at feeding nestlings. The morphs tend to make a good pairing for raising children because they specialize in different roles. The dull-colored birds, being more camouflaged, are safer when sitting on the nest, and are better able to hide. The bright-colored birds, being more visible, are better able to intimidate predators and rivals. Interestingly though, both color morphs occur in both female and male birds. And birds tend to pair up with both opposite sex and opposite color morph birds. The dimorphism and different roles that, in most birds, are strongly associated with biological sex, in this species has evolved to be abstracted and separated from biological sex. Some people have described this system as the birds having “four sexes”. It’s been proposed that some life may have only first split into multiple sexes in order to confuse or slow down parasites so maybe some folks get offended cause deep down they just think roundworms will get them
Environmental: bogleech:

cazort:

marvelousgameofdisneythrones:

pangur-and-grim:

my favourite part of the Evolutionary Biology courses I took at the University of Toronto was learning that several bird species have 3+ sexes? the ruff bird is a great example - each male variant has a different (and successful!) reproductive strategy, and a different chromosomal sequence.
unlike the ruff bird, human sex falls into a bimodal distribution - this means there are two strong peaks (”typical” male and female morphs), with a whole lot in between.
evolution is nice way of saying “statistics played out longterm among living organisms”, and evolutionarily successful traits
.aren’t something to hold up as natural or moral, or representative of an advanced state. it’s literally just fuck tactics that make your group size increase.
(though fucking isn’t always the best route, as asexual reproduction is massively advantageous as a short-term strategy, and certain species dominate the landscape by switching between sexual/asexual depending on environmental conditions)
besides all that, the strength of humankind has always been our ability to work together communally, and that’s straight science. so even if you went down the extremely problematic path of valuing fellow humans based on their potential evolutionary contribution (coughs, eugenics, coughs), there would still be zero scientific basis behind discriminating against trans, non-binary and intersex people. 
tl;dr here’s a challenge to all the bigots out there: please stop using “science” as a defence when the actual science is (overwhelmingly) against you.

Science: pissing off bigots of all kinds since its inception.

I find White-throated sparrows fascinating. They have two color morphs, the bright one:
And the drab one:
The two morphs have very different behavior. The bright ones are more aggressive, setting up territories and defending them, being more aggressive about defending against predators. They sing more often.
The dull ones are quieter and less aggressive. They are more attentive to the nest, and better at feeding nestlings.
The morphs tend to make a good pairing for raising children because they specialize in different roles. The dull-colored birds, being more camouflaged, are safer when sitting on the nest, and are better able to hide. The bright-colored birds, being more visible, are better able to intimidate predators and rivals.
Interestingly though, both color morphs occur in both female and male birds. And birds tend to pair up with both opposite sex and opposite color morph birds. The dimorphism and different roles that, in most birds, are strongly associated with biological sex, in this species has evolved to be abstracted and separated from biological sex.
Some people have described this system as the birds having “four sexes”.



It’s been proposed that some life may have only first split into multiple sexes in order to confuse or slow down parasites so maybe some folks get offended cause deep down they just think roundworms will get them

bogleech: cazort: marvelousgameofdisneythrones: pangur-and-grim: my favourite part of the Evolutionary Biology courses I took at the...

Environmental: factfiction emiliusthegreat Follow partybarackisinthehousetonight releases pack of dads into home depot* go....be free hotcommunist invasive species encroach on lesbian territory dreaming-shark This is a common misconception because they're such similar environments, but you should be aware that dads are native to Home Depot, while lesbians are actually native to Lowe's. At this point, however, both dads and lesbians have made themselves at home in both Home Depot and Lowe's to the point that trying to separate them back into their original ranges would probably do more harm than good to the delicate ecosystem of large chain hardware stores. ailithnight A properly raised and socialized Dad will be perfectly comfort- able cohabiting with Lesbians. Its not really "encroaching on another's territory". You wouldn't say that about foxes in a forest that also homes bobcats, would you? No. It's just two different species that have both evolved to live in similar/the same environment. As long as they recognize each other as equals, Dads and Lesbians are more than capable of cohabitation. Now, if you were to release a pack of Lumberjacks into a or Home Depot, that's where chaos will reign. Being adap far harsher and more demanding environment, the Lumberjacks would simply push Dads and Lesbians both out and also consume far more than a sustainable amount of resources. It would be like releasing bears at a country club. chequerootlurks As a former timber-harveste... I feel this is potentially accurate in theory. But highly improbable in actuality. Lumberjacks, like most megafauna species generally require more space than the average hardware store, even a big box store could provide. The misconception is that Lumberjacks are a social species because of how they often work and live together. This is a matter of necessity, not preference, and a survival technique for thriving under the Log Boss. A "pack" of Lumberjacks, if not under the environmental pressure of a Log Boss will naturally disperse until they each have a wide territory Lumberjacks rarely fight for territory. One on one, a Lumberjack could drive out a Dad or Lesbian, however the latter tend to travel in social packs. Lumberjacks will passively retreat on the presence of large numbers of people. Kind of like Sasquatch Getting a "pack" of Lumberjacks assembled would be hard enough unless they were forced into a Hardware Store by a LogBoss. In that case, they would already be in a heightened and potentially agitated state far above their natural behavior. This artificial scenario can be likened to a circus animal running amok If it had been in the wild, the incident would not have occurred. Free-roaming Lumberjacks are the cryptids of the Hardware system. They are surprisingly quiet and unobtrusive Please stop labeling Lumberjacks as dangerous roving social predators. They are intermediate level omnivores and remarkably peaceful unless threatened. katy-l-wood As a hardware store worker I can say that this is all 100% accurate. The delicate ecosystem of large chain hardware stores
Environmental: factfiction
 emiliusthegreat Follow
 partybarackisinthehousetonight
 releases pack of dads into home depot* go....be free
 hotcommunist
 invasive species encroach on lesbian territory
 dreaming-shark
 This is a common misconception because they're such similar
 environments, but you should be aware that dads are native to
 Home Depot, while lesbians are actually native to Lowe's. At this
 point, however, both dads and lesbians have made themselves at
 home in both Home Depot and Lowe's to the point that trying to
 separate them back into their original ranges would probably do
 more harm than good to the delicate ecosystem of large chain
 hardware stores.
 ailithnight
 A properly raised and socialized Dad will be perfectly comfort-
 able cohabiting with Lesbians. Its not really "encroaching on
 another's territory". You wouldn't say that about foxes in a forest
 that also homes bobcats, would you? No. It's just two different
 species that have both evolved to live in similar/the same
 environment. As long as they recognize each other as equals,
 Dads and Lesbians are more than capable of cohabitation.
 Now, if you were to release a pack of Lumberjacks into a
 or Home Depot, that's where chaos will reign. Being adap
 far harsher and more demanding environment, the Lumberjacks
 would simply push Dads and Lesbians both out and also
 consume far more than a sustainable amount of resources. It
 would be like releasing bears at a country club.
 chequerootlurks
 As a former timber-harveste... I feel this is potentially accurate in
 theory. But highly improbable in actuality.
 Lumberjacks, like most megafauna species generally require
 more space than the average hardware store, even a big box
 store could provide. The misconception is that Lumberjacks are a
 social species because of how they often work and live together.
 This is a matter of necessity, not preference, and a survival
 technique for thriving under the Log Boss.
 A "pack" of Lumberjacks, if not under the environmental
 pressure of a Log Boss will naturally disperse until they each have
 a wide territory
 Lumberjacks rarely fight for territory.
 One on one, a Lumberjack could drive out a Dad or Lesbian,
 however the latter tend to travel in social packs.
 Lumberjacks will passively retreat on the presence of large
 numbers of people. Kind of like Sasquatch
 Getting a "pack" of Lumberjacks assembled would be hard
 enough unless they were forced into a Hardware Store by a
 LogBoss. In that case, they would already be in a heightened and
 potentially agitated state far above their natural behavior. This
 artificial scenario can be likened to a circus animal running amok
 If it had been in the wild, the incident would not have occurred.
 Free-roaming Lumberjacks are the cryptids of the Hardware
 system. They are surprisingly quiet and unobtrusive
 Please stop labeling Lumberjacks as dangerous roving social
 predators. They are intermediate level omnivores and remarkably
 peaceful unless threatened.
 katy-l-wood
 As a hardware store worker I can say that this is all 100%
 accurate.
The delicate ecosystem of large chain hardware stores

The delicate ecosystem of large chain hardware stores