Yeah it's not like historically when one creature has come to dominate an ecosystem there have been any negative consequences, sure we'll be fine.

How much carbon does it support compared to bare rock?

Well, as the parent said burning peat is the problem, not drinking the water that runs off it (or whisky made from it).

You speak as though nationalism was inherently bad.

I don't see how wages quintupling is a race to the bottom. Oh wait, you're looking at it from your own side!

I hear the economists field is really a commons and they've made a bloody mess of it, some are calling it a tragedy.

Are you saying that those Jezebels were asking for it? I think your prejudice is showing through.

When I was a boy we grew potatoes and I pulled them up for our dinner, no herbicides were required. It was reasonably hard work and like all children I despised it as it was "my job". So there is one part of a possible solution, have families growing their own food in an environmentally friendly way, a much better use of garden space than acres of grass or exotic plant follies. I also listen to a lot of stories of people picking fruit in the old days and they generally say it was a lot of fun and quite a social activity, getting out in the sun and chatting isn't really that hard when you're not being treated like slave labour.

If Facebook went down for a few days it would be the bigger news than the war in Gaza, my bank has more down time than facebook.

I thought we were going to need a lot of new jobs in our post-work society? Farming is more interesting and productive than a lot of work I see people forced to accept these days. Or are you going to tell me that because things will be more expensive we'll all lose out? One of those tides that doesn't lift the big boats so can't lift any small ones, maybe?

No, liability will be assumed when you click OK on the 50 page EULA agreement that appears everytime you press the start button.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you don't need to sign any disclaimers when you accept payment to participate in a clinical trial of new drugs, those dumb multinational drug testing companies would never think to cover their ass like that.

The main point these idiots seem to be ignoring is also the fairly obvious point that there are perverse incentives here for the subjects to take part in multiple trials, they can't be monitored properly as they are hard to find (He's dead in a storm drain as a result if the test drugs but we can't find him so he was never part of the study). Also the big one: "Are you suffering any negative effects from these drugs we have a massive financial stake in, remember we're paying you"

The publisher does a lot more work than Amazon in this scenario, they literally just add the information you give them to their database... I completely fail to see how they figure that is worth 30%, I think they have chosen that number as it is the highest possible amount they can add while making themselves look like they get the least.