Posts by Jeremy Andrew
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Sure, but in what condition is it when it gets there? ... Dairying's not only thirsty; it's also dirty.
True. What I was pointing out is that exporting milk powder overseas does not equate to shipping our water out of the country. Whatever the effects dairying has on water quality, it doesn't remove it from NZ.
What additional goodies is it carrying back to the watercourses? What role is it playing in soil erosion and the subsequent compromise of riverine and estuarine ecosystems? I'm not sure that you can mitigate those effects to any great degree.
From AgResearch: If it wins the appropriate research funding, the Tokanui Dairy Research Farm aims to:
* Reduce nitrogen leaching from farming systems by 15-20 kg nitrogen per hectare and maintain that each year till 2020;
Research confirms herbicide runoff may contaminate New Zealand waterways
Monday, 1 May 2006
Research by AgResearch on herbicide runoff from hill country pasture has produced information that could ultimately be used to help reduce contamination of New Zealand waterways.
Cow urine leads to nitrogen in waterways
Saturday, 1 July 2006
It is commonly thought that leaching of nitrogen (N) fertiliser is the main cause of nutrient enrichment in Lakes Rotorua and Rotoiti but AgResearch scientists have found this is not the case. -
It's the umpteen litres of water it takes to produce a litre of milk that is the issue, plus the umpteen more litres of our waterways that get damaged.
Agree there, it takes a lot of water to make milk. And intensive dairying can have nasty effects on the environment. There is extensive research being done on mitigating both those issues.
But it does not remove water from our water cycle, except very locally. The umpteen litres of water it takes to make a litre of milk goes towards either irrigating the land growing the grass for the cows; for the cows to drink; in the cowshed; and in the factories. The first three are all very close to the source, its not only not leaving the water cycle, its not even leaving the watershed. The factory is generally within 100km of the farm, so the water (again not leaving the NZ water cycle) ends up slightly further away from where it would have otherwise.
-
On the bright side, the UK Govt seems to have taken a positive step in an evidence based (or lack thereof) direction with their latest move on homeopathy.
-
95% of the NZ Dairy is exported and therefore lost to our water cycle. The vast majority of that as milk powder, and so requiring more water.
How does dehydrating milk in NZ and exporting the dried result cause a loss of water in NZ? If anything by that measure, milk powder exports should be encouraged over fruit and meat exports.
-
IIRC reputable anthropologists have hypothesised that brewing beer was one of the main reasons humanity developed agriculture and moved from hunter/gathering to more settled communities. Its tricky to gather enough grain for a good mash and brew it up while you're wandering after a herd of dinner. Breadmaking, while made easier by cultivating the crops, can still be acheived by grabbing grain while passing by.
And various other mind/mood altering substances have had a long association with organised and dis-organised religion. -
Off course to provide “choice” people would be free to move from or to the super city as they please.
Boom times for hamiltron methinks
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me -
With luck you meet a member of the opposite sex and muddle through the whole mess of marriage and children and schools and jobs and Society calls this Normal and nobody is rude.
Paging Mr Huxley, call for Mr Aldous Huxley on line 1 - something about a Brave New World...
-
Not sure if that extends to encouraging children to record themselves and share. But even if it did, I'm pretty sure that a child so minded wouldn't be prosecuted for child porn, no?
You haven't been paying attention to the news from the States lately then. There have been several cases of kids in their early teens being prosecuted for taking pictures of themselves - just themselves. They've been charged with producing kiddie porn and ended up on the sexual offenders register.
I'd hope NZ is a bit more enlightened, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something like it happen in the 51st state across the Tasman there. -
There's nothing that says "don't bother" like a pre-emptive declaration that it's all moot.
It worked for the smacking referendum.
-
Viewing child abuse imagery makes you complicit in the crime in the same way being in posession of stolen goods is a crime, even if you didn't steal them, or purchase them from the thief. A friend of mine has a permanent black mark on her record for receiving because a police officer visiting her flat on other business noticed a street sign on the flat wall that some aquaintance of hers had brought over one drunken night. Obviously not the same type of offence etc, but perhaps a closer analogy than watching Saddam do the Tyburn jig.
Then we come back to drawings, animations, CGI, written fiction, etc. The stuff that does not in any way involve the abuse of an actual child. Is a crudely drawn cartoon of Lisa Simpson engaged in a sexual act comparable to an image of an actual child in the same activity?
This is where the evidence needs to exist that viewing any kind of child-related porn can demonstrably lead to emulating the acts in the porn in real life. The equivalent here is if my friend got a piece of paper & crayons and drew a picture of a stop sign, then got done for receiving for having it on her wall.