I mean how much of a result does anyone get for ranting generalizations about homeless people? Why waste time on that?

Sounds like your issue is crime (throwing a brick is illegal) not the homeless.

What do you mean “living here isn’t a right?” What a bizarre statement. No local or state government in the U.S. has the legal authority to block people from being there, freedom of movement within the U.S. is literally a constitutional right encoded in the Privileges and Immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution.

At first I thought this was a reasonable position but I read more about the situation and changed my mind.

The fact is, when you have a marginalized group you often get a very large number of people, a majority even, who hold views they don’t recognize as hateful, but they are. They can’t fathom that their views are hateful because they are so common.

When a forum formally doesn’t allow hateful posts but many people don’t understand how their views are hateful, it can be very hard to moderate. Imaging moderating a sub on LGBT rights in 1980 of the Japanese in 1942.

You could always go over to Nextdoor where people getting their pitchforks out against homeless people is a daily routine that doesn’t ever get locked or deleted.

If the trees you found are truly resistant, could you not use another variety of chestnut as a rootstock?

Could you imagine the human and environmental cost of evacuating Miami, New Orleans and New York? What wilderness areas are going to be clear-cut to make housing for millions upon millions of people?

Climate change is going to raise sea level by a few inches in 50 years by the most pessimistic forecasts. Cities are feasible as defensible spaces because you have enough economic productivity there to afford to spend billions to protect them with levees and pumps, it’s just a fraction of the overall economic activity. Far more value exists in the housing and infrastructure already there.

If you limit your comment to vacation communities and sprawling exurban development in coastal wetlands and on sand bars, it makes more sense. Those are big swaths of land with relatively few structures and restoring the wetlands help absorb wave energy to protect the land just behind it. That’s not the case for densely populated areas. You’re only going to accelerate climate change processing enough steel, wood and concrete to evacuate and build new cities.

Succulents and cacti also begin their lives with taproots if they sprout from seed, and then develop a different type of root system later on.

Cacti are really diverse in the types of environments they grow in (some root in cracks between rocks, some grow in sandy soil, some grow in clay soil, some climb trees etc) so it’s hard to generalize. Some can have deep roots, at least as deep as the soil allows, but if you cut the taproot the new roots that form will still be able to go deep in that case. And some succulents (like aloe and agave) are monocots so they form a fibrous root system in which old roots die and new ones sprout from the base. The best way you plant them can vary—I would say my advice on planting here is specific to woody shrubs and trees.

Specifically in the case of trees, roots that grow in a container can turn and circle around the edge of a container. When the tree gets potted up or planted in the ground, the roots will still be circling, and as the tree trunk grows thick it will eventually reach the point that the circling roots are choking it off. This is referred to as “girdling.”

Yes I want the list of “races” lol. You’ve never provided a single credible source whatsoever. That was part of the request.

I mean I see you went back to the 19th century pseudoscience list of 5 races except this time you deleted the existence of native Americans completely and split Asia into two?

Ok. I guess that makes sense because you picked Charlton S. Coon, a controversial anthropologist who was active in the early 20th century, died in 1980 (before genome mapping existed) and was widely discredited even at the time for being deeply unscientific.

Anyway here are some more sources for you:

https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/

It’s from 1996 so you’ll probably say it’s too “woke” since it was articulated well into the 20th century, but it’s where actual researchers are right now on this matter.

And here’s what general anthropologists say about race today:

https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583

Meanwhile you ought to look up human genetic haplogroups. You can research mitochondrial haplogroups and Y chromosome haplogroups. It’s a real effort to understand human populations through genetics rather than 19th century “takes.”

Interestingly, haplogroups are poorly correlated with race (because your definition of race cannot be determined by DNA). Choose any one haplogroup and find a map and see how it’s distributed, it doesn’t follow racial boundaries. Instead you’ll find they chart a directional trail of human migration patterns, from the Middle East into Asia or from Central Asia into the Americas etc but absolutely bisecting subjective “racial” boundaries.

Anyway I think I have gotten all I need to out of this. I know the thread is very long but I hope some other folks decide to read through it and get some good info.

What are the five major races, who considers this to be the case, and where are your scientific references?

I can find you a concrete scientific definition of the color orange, it’s a section of the electromagnetic spectrum between 622 and 597 nanometers. Other portions of the electromagnetic spectrum are the same level of hierarchy, they can be named and verified independently, and even if another observer has a different sense of color they can agree that a section of the electromagnetic spectrum is measurable and equivalent.

Give me an exhaustive list of human “races” that has a well-defined archetype and fits into just five distinct categories.

Taproots are unnecessary. They form because all seed plants initially begin with a single root bud that pushes downward; in monocots they are replaced by fibrous roots and in dicots they eventually reach deeper soil with less oxygen so the growth slows and lateral roots become dominant. Depending on the local environment, some trees never develop significant taproots even if they come from a species that frequently forms them in other circumstances.

If a tree trunk is generated by shoots sprouting from a root system, that particular tree never has a taproot to begin with. If a tree is generated by a cutting, it never has a taproot to begin with. Yet a seedling in the same species starts with a taproot because that’s how they emerge, and it lasts as long as it suits the tree before other characteristics dominate.

So for your purposes, all that matters is that the roots that are there are in soil and they get what they need from it (water, nutrients) and that none of the trunk tissue, which is different on a cellular level, is beneath soil since it suffocate and rot.

Find the root flare, which is the part of the trunk that grows thicker as it approaches the root system. This is the base of the tree that needs to be above soil. Alternately you can find the top lateral root and situate that part of the stem at the soil’s surface.

Remove any coiling/circling roots that could girdle the tree. Give it good water to start. New feeder roots will branch off from the entire root system. They’ll be kept in balance by hormones produced in the top. With that in mind, avoid trimming anything from the top now because that’s what produces hormones that tell the roots how much to grow to catch up. Get it through the stressful establishment phase by giving it extra water.

Well, you haven’t really resolved the incoherence of being able to “accurately” determine something that is defined differently based on who the observer is—which means it’s not as cut and dry as you’re saying. But I’m glad I’ve gotten you to at least to the point of describing genetic ancestry based on regional genetic populations rather than “race.”

I also hope you’re given up on the “there are 5 races then divided into subraces” thing which is straight up 19ty century pseudoscience that was never scientifically valid by modern scientific standards, has been falsified by modern genetics, and if you wanted to somehow force the human population into genotypes as a scientific model you wouldn’t be able to do it like that. As I said there is more genetic diversity (as in more disparate genetic groups) in sub-Saharan Africa alone, all of whom would be read as “black” in most situations today, than in all the rest of the world put together, and Eurasian and African populations have been mixing for as long as they have existed—even if you trace these racial classifications to their supposed “original” state whatever that is if you arbitrarily chose a time period, they were mixing even then.

Arab is a cultural identity based on language containing different genetic populations that overlap with non-Arab populations moreso than they do with each other, “Mediterranean” is even more incoherent, and no ethnic groups anywhere would fit coherently into any phylogenetic tree (which you’d need to do to delineate races and subraces) the way other organisms are.

Why don’t you follow the thread back to where it started and see the context? Your stance is all over the place.

You’re position is so bizarre. Since starting this thread you have admitted that race is a culturally-constructed, non-scientific concept, but claim there is a scientific test that can “100%” (whatever that means) measure it and organize people into it in a way that isn’t as subjective and interpreted as the classification system itself.

You’ve rejected every source I have provided you demonstrating that “race” is a lot more complicated and unstable than you insist, in one plane cherry-picking a single line in a scientific article and framing it in a way that contradicts the article’s core findings, and then when I provide sources that use plain relatable language for you, you dismiss them as inadequately scientific.

You keep bringing in new topics that don’t even support your argument, maybe just show off what you think you know? And then you’re claiming I’m ignorant because I didn’t bring these things up first, then when I explain how they fit into the modern scientific understanding of population genetics rather than 19th century race theory you shift to random new sources, all the meanwhile bringing up racial classifications that fell out of use more than a century ago and never acknowledging when part of your position is debunked.

You meanwhile have not presented any scientific source whatsoever that backs up your ideas. There’s nobody with any credibility in genetics that thinks the human population can be divided into 5 races, that is an idea that was gone long before genetics even existed as a field. Nor is there anybody in genetics who thinks there is any such a thing as race with clearly-defined and objective boundaries.

Other than that, I’m really not sure what your position even is other than you don’t like feeling challenged and want to keep arguing.

If anybody cares to follow this thread I think they may learn some things. But this is clearly a concept you are emotionally attached to.

Where are you getting this info on Arabs? It’s a cultural identity, and Persians and central Asians such as Afghans don’t identify as Arab and don’t speak Arabic unless they are religiously educated.

There are Arabic people and non-Arabic people all over the middle east, in communities right next to each other, but a DNA test wouldn’t know the difference because of the high gene flow between populations living there. A pop DNA test like 23 and me might report correlates with other users who self-identify as Arab but would find the same genes in many non-Arabic communities in the region, since the identity is not based on genetics.

Genetic tests don’t use scientific classifications because as you admit those classifications are not based in science, they can only guess and assign probabilities as to how you might identify or your ancestors might have identified. Based on the other users and their self-reporting.

You ought to do some more reading, dunno where you get your info. There is no “Mediterranean race” either, that’s an arbitrary category from the 19th century that is no longer in use.

https://www.livescience.com/7384-genetic-ancestry-tests-hype-scientists.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/02/12/466379200/can-you-tell-your-ethnic-identity-from-your-dna

https://www.popsci.com/story/science/dna-tests-myth-ancestry-race/

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192269#abstract0

There is no scientific definition of “race” because it is a social construct that does not align well with genetic groups. If you wanted to develop a scientific model for genotypes they would not even remotely fit with anybody’s idea of race. There would be a dozen groups in sub-Saharan Africa and one encompassing everyone else on Earth, if you want to dial it down a level people in India and Europe would be the same subgroup, and most major ethnic groups on earth would be a mix of 2-3 genetic lineages.

Arabs are commonly conceived of as a race but its really a linguistic group with a dozen different genetic populations, some closer to Western Europeans and some closer to East Asians, if you were guessing by genes alone. There would be no way to know if someone is “Arab” because you’d guess they were either white, south Asian, East Asian or some combination.

Almost everybody in Spain has some of the same genetic markers you find in North Africa.

South and Central Americans are a complex mix of every other ethic group on earth. You’d never know someone was Latino or Hispanic based on genetics.

Etc etc. Genes don’t tell you what somebody’s “race” is because social constructs of race don’t align with biological heritage.

Science is “woke propaganda” now… I love this. Reveals so much about the dysfunctional politics we live in these days.

It refutes the main point in this thread which is that race is consistent and stable. There are no distinct boundaries between races, genetic or otherwise. You could create any arbitrary number of real genetic categories and find them splitting populations perpendicular to “race.”

You can use DNA to assign a percent likelihood that an individual has ancestry from such and such groups but almost everyone in the world has a complex ancestry and genetic groups don’t even conform to the 19th century “there are 5 races” bullshit.

I mean in the 19th century they literally said sub-Saharan Africans and abrogininal Australians were the same group, which is not backed up by genetic analysis in the slightest. Nor are sub-Saharan Africans a cohesive genetic group when there is more genetic variation in that region than in the rest of the human population combined.

From a science perspective, the concept of race you are trying to promote is like a young earth creationist’s concept of natural history.

Ok so you’re going with the 19th century European definition of 5 races, which you definitely without a doubt cannot differentiate based on DNA.

For further reading: https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1438.epdf?referrer_access_token=1u453IadnAJtzRnSpsAkudRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PevsLAjUxPF6S_h9AMfqllAg0AiEsJsLQTEfkI6TkPd26jwdSNfCDpHFbJIalaUI61JlyiY55NkgS9XqNvo-F6HLyKYH0Mf_IJW9DvQ0ST3OSaL6lTsEwTI7BjDSpqvmIgpFnw5tBeGCFhejcmo5X0w5l1TZk-wF7IVmU8ElwmZ59c7WIsznbTmobTvij6dzF0XA0RCBH_yzlmofO82uiZ&tracking_referrer=www.theatlantic.com

Ok, let’s see you define race then. What is race, how many races are there and what defines each one?

If you can’t do that, it’s not a scientifically valid concept.

You can’t tell someone’s race from a DNA test since you can’t even define race consistently in the first place.

Ya lol people are so committed to the idea that race is a fixed, concrete thing yet they can’t even define it.

What does “en masse” have to do with anything in this thread? You made an absolute statement about certain genes being completely nonexistent in various racial groups unless there has been mixing but people have been mixing since before those identity groups have existed as a social concept.

Lol that’s a hilarious idea, that human migration is a new phenomenon

It can’t. A DNA test can assign a probability that someone has ancestry in a population, but there are no “genetically pure” races, mixing has gone on for as long as populations were ever separate.

You can still use it for plants. It won’t aerate as well as the larger pieces do, but in its most basic form it’s just fine particles of rock, which is what soil is (mostly) made of.

The fines aren’t as useful for for potting blends but they will still add bulk and lightness to garden soil.

I also use perlite fines mixed with sand and Portland cement to make concrete flower pots. It makes the concrete lighter and makes it more permeable to air with similar properties to terra cotta.