I feed cows food that will make them poo a lot. So I can get them to fart and poo more and more intentionally.
Just so I can hear Democrat Politicians whine more, about their myth that they made up to make money for themselves.
Sometimes, I leave the refrigerator open on purpose for minutes at a time.
It might cost me a couple more dollars each year, but it makes me smile for the same reason mentioned up above.
I always throw my STRAWS in the garbage.
More of the earth’s surface is now populated by humans than at any time in history and the standard of living world wide is higher than it has ever been.
Go 950 kms SSW of Perth and tell me how many people are in that location.
Why, what does that have to do with what we’re discussing? There will always be uninhabited places on the earth but more of it is habitable and inhabited today than at any time in history.
The original claim was:
SammFlyover Country
amadeus:
Exactly. And we are so enamored with our own success. Due to our big brains. How do you define biological success. By biomass, or the ability to extinct ourselves.
Well, considering that we humans now occupy and thrive on the vast majority of the planet and continue do defy all dire predictions of procreating ourselves out of a place at the dinner table, I’d say that qualifies for biological success and the fact that despite having developed the ability to extinct ourselves, we have not shows intellectual success as well.
Why do you hate people? Would you rather be a ■■■■■■■■■■
I like it. 
I have an antique boiler that I don’t want to upgrade because I like the way it looks.
But it just CONSUMES gas in the winter like an old Chrysler Imperial.
I had one of them.
1960 baby blue imperial
500 cu in engine
It was so big the Navy could have landed aircraft on the hood.
Well, if you’re talking about thriving in diverse environments, or biomass, or any number of measures, I suspect that bacteria are more successful than humans. And I don’t think they attribute their success to their big brains. Oil has been our success. But it can only be depleted, not renewed.
Just because most of Australia is uninhabitable (or at least uninhabited) doesn’t mean humans aren’t thriving all around the planet. You need to get out more.
Yep … the original claim was correct.
950 kms SSW of Perth would not be in Australia.
The claim that “we humans now occupy and thrive on the vast majority of the planet” is not correct.
Who cares?
You apparently do as you have responded more than once.
Of course it is. We may have to retreat to more hospitable climes after a bit, but we can thrive anywhere on the this planet and have.
It’s only polite to respond. That’s how I was raised.
I suppose there are different definitions of biological success. If it is biomass or the area of the planet occupied, the winner is not humans. If it is our ability to wipe ourselves out, we are the winners. Just because we haven’t done that in the last few decades that it was possible, is evidence pretty much of nothing at all.
I maintain that the human Neolithic experiment is still that. An experiment. It is very young as human experiments go.
I would assume that 590 miles ssw of Perth is somewhere on the continent of Antarctica.
Actually, looks like that is simply a section of open ocean with no land nearby.
Very much my point; one that was completely missed by some.
