the wisdom ive learnt is that becoming part of a friend group 1) takes a long time and 2) involves a lot of feeling awkward and left out at first. there’s nothing terrible about this but if you grew up chronically lonely or have any kind of trauma relating to social isolation this likely feels Really Wrong and activates danger signals. but both fortunately and unfortunately it’s just how becoming close to new people works most of the time
another thing that was not intuitive to me as someone who grew up an autistic loner: basically everyone on the planet is starved for connection all the time and almost everything people do is an attempt to reach out to another. most seemingly illogical interactions and behaviours can be explained by this. you have to take as many of these invitations as you can. even if you're wrong you still attempted to bring more warmth into the world
Every day I handle more money than I will ever make. Every day.
At the start of my employment, my boss showed me videos of people stealing, and we both had a chuckle about it. How silly they were! There was a camera overhead, and it’s not to watch the shoppers. See, we can’t actually stop shoplifters. They get away with it maybe nine out of ten times. But we, who are watched and tallied and witnessed? We are always caught.
At first it was hard to hold one hundred dollars bills. An amount I had never seen before. An amount that didn’t exist in my household. It’s normal now. Here is something that is not for me.
“What the hell, I’ll take another,” says the man, pondering our 200 dollar watches. What the hell. Total comes to 580 and not even a flinch in his face. I have been working for 11 hours today and made only 110 dollars. It will go to my rent. Today I work for free, it feels. When I get my check, I will have 35 dollars left for food and saving.
The six hundreds he hands me go into the cash register. For a moment, I imagine having money. Then I put it away, counting out his change.
I know for a fact we sell our products for double what they are worth. That I could be making commission. That they could hand me those 580 dollars and change my life and not even mark the difference in their checkbooks. He’s not the only sale they make today, but I am the reason they made it. He’s not the only one spending 600 dollars, but if I hadn’t spent two hours with him telling me about his life, he wouldn’t have spent any. I go home. I don’t own a watch.
I have watched and rewatched a video on how to make salmon four ways. My shopping list is always the same. Pasta. Rice. Tuna. If I can afford butter it was a good week. I dream of the world I will never walk in, where I can throw the best fish fillet in the cart with a shrug. I hold hundreds in my hand and look up at the camera. I put them under the cash drawer.
I go to work. I scrap together my savings. I eat my bowl of rice slowly. My manager takes a paid week off from work just for his birthday. He owns a yacht.
i wrote this while i was working at orlando’s walt disney world parks.
i was part of their college program. i moved to the state for it. they legally owned the building i was living in and still charged me rent. i ostensibly was being charged to work for them. it was a 2 bedroom apartment and they placed 6 adult women in it in forced triples.
as many as one in ten disney employees have experienced homelessness while working for the company. despite huge efforts to unionize, strike, or otherwise demand fair treatment; disney has refused to increase employee quality of life.
disney admits publicly that a good portion of their success is because the employees (“cast members”) are dedicated, passionate, and selfless. this is never reflected in pay. even “face” characters (ie those that are princesses etc) make barely above a minimum wage.
at the time that i worked there, i made $8.50 an hour. at one point i was asked to create a human shield around a bag because a bomb dog had alerted to it. for eight fucking dollars an hour.
i now work a very cushy office job. i have bought the salmon and cooked it all four ways.
i go to the store. i am nice to the person behind the counter. she looks up at the camera while she counts out my change. there is nothing fundamentally different about her and i.
Under this new ruling, multiple vulnerable groups will be impacted across social care and healthcare sectors. If an autistic person with high support needs, someone with a serious mental illness, or a person with a severe learning disability is locked in a care setting and sedated, but does not actively protest, they will no longer be considered "confined" by the state. They will lose their automatic right to independent reviews, a legal advocate, and protection from closed care cultures.
This ruling states if someone is sedated and does not instigate a complaint regarding their circumstances while ACTIVELY SEDATED, then they have no right to legal checks and balances to preserve their wellbeing??? Is this correct??? The UK is falling apart.
As far as I can tell from reading the statement by Mind and the BBC article, this ruling states that people who don’t have the legal capacity to understand why they’re being physically or chemically restrained/ kept in a locked care home or ward etc. are still able to give “consent” to that treatment in a way that it doesn’t count as a deprivation of liberty.
So if someone is chemically sedated, doesn’t understand that’s what’s happening, but doesn’t complain then they could be seen to be “consenting” to that treatment. That’s true even if they don’t know what the medication is, what the effects are, how long they last or that there might be other options.
Because the presence of “consent” means that a restriction wouldn’t be considered “Deprivation of Liberty” it means these people aren’t entitled to deprivation of liberty safeguards, which including having independent checks to make sure that any restrictions to their freedom is proportionate and that they’re not being abused in that setting.
One of the reasons the ruling was made is that it placed an “undue burden” on local authorities. Basically local governments were like “hey we’re massively failing our legal duties to protect incredibly vulnerable people from abuse, any chance you could let us off so we don’t have to do it?” And the UK Supreme Court agreed with them.
The other hugely chilling “reasoning” behind this ruling (other than finances) is the idea that disabled people cannot be deprived of their liberty if they can’t understand that’s what’s happening. It’s absolutely disgusting.
A version of Matti Alanen's Homo marry in Finland! -video, posted on YouTube on the 28th of April 2014. The original video has Matti, a white man with short brown hair wearing an orange t-shirt, speaking to the camera in heavily accented English while sitting in a darkened room. In this one, the original has been crudely edited to have Matti standing behind an obviously fake podium, instead, with a static image of a billowing Finnish flag as his background. The editor has also added subtitles and background music (an orchestral rendition of the Finnish national anthem) as well as the sound of cheering and clapping at the end of Matti's speech.
i think one of the worst things the left wing internet ever did was push the idea that oppression is basically a virtue, and being oppressed is a sign of your morality. it has made it like…impossible for some of you to hold the idea that most people are privileged in some ways and oppressed in others. AND a lot of you seem to have it in your mind that terrible people cannot be oppressed, and that oppressed people cannot do terrible things, which is a dangerous rhetoric to hold imo.
I think if I put aside like, the poltical and hateful aspect of it, part of the reason people react so strongly and are so frightened of me when I’m in public is because of horror. Like. Their immediete association with a faceless human shaped figure draped in all black is more like
like straight up im pretty sure if you asked people on campus they would have a “ghost story” of their experience seeing a terrifying ghost but in reality it was just me like, getting some mail or working at night. its interesting how peoples brains in my experience jump to “holy fuck a ghost” and start screaming as being the most logical interpretation of seeing me instead of “hey maybe its a muslim woman”.
Anyways this is all to say if I saw a shadow demon or grim reaper i would probably be psyched and say “Assalam alaikum” and then go about my day.
I wanna expand a lil on this cuz its interesting and important, sorry to get a bit more heavy.
I had work today, here’s what I look like often when I go to work, sleeved black jilbab, black niqab, closed toed shoes, exam gloves, headphones.
And here’s also a picture of me, now just at a distance walking down the hallway
And a lot of people’s initial gut reactions to seeing me is fear (including screaming or backing away/turning around) and thinking I’m something scary or a ghost or monster, because I guess their more familiar and ready to believe in ghosts than realize I’m just like. A regular person. In that photo I’m literally just walking and listening to music while working as a custodian.
And like, you might say “well thats an understandable reaction, its not good but its not hurting anyone”. Straight up, in my 3 years living and working on campus, I haven’t made a single friend, no one talks to me because they’re so put off or frightened by my niqab. And each photo of me here is a photo of an exact recreation of what I was doing prior to hatecrimes I’ve experienced. Standing? Suspicious and scary. Walking by myself? Suspicious and scary. Cleaning tables? Suspicious and scary, worthy of confrontation and considering calling the police.
This is all to say like, I think people should look at how they react to seeing an all-black figure. Because if you do, it’s highly unlikely its a ghost, and more likely a normal person.
I made another post about this but I thought I should include it here so people see it.
I’ve gotten messages and tags along the lines of “I might be startled/scared at first but when I realize you’re just a person I would talk and befriend you!” which is very sweet, honestly, and many many steps ahead of how most people treat me. However, part of the post is about that, about how when people see me their immediate reaction is fear and not seeing me as a human being.
Like I said in the inital post, people’s main association with someone looking like me is horror (shadow demons, wraiths, ghosts), all black figures in media are spooky or evil otherworldly monsters. Most people’s only other exposure is islamaphobic news that again frames someone who looks like me as a scary oppressed other. When people talk about hijab bans or “burka bans” the image that has been pushed is people that look like me. There’s no big mainstream media with someone who looks like me, hell Momtaz from We Are Lady Parts is the first niqabi I’ve seen in the main cast of any media. Otherwise the only exposure to someone that looks like me is horror at best and Islamaphobic politics at worst.
The main issue that makes day to day life in America hell for me is that when people look at me, even if its just for a few seconds, they don’t see me as human. Whether people jump to thinking I’m an actual ghost, a spooky decoration (I’ve quite literally been mistaken for being part of a Halloween display), or see me as a caricature of oppression, or a terrorist, or a criminal (tons of people think I’m dressed in all black to avoid being noticed while I commit a crime, and plenty of people think my niqab makes it so I can get away with crimes) the one common thread is people do not recognize my humanity.
Sure, for some people that only lasts a few moments, but for most it lasts longer or forever. If people talk to me, they’ll likely come to realize I’m just a person, but most people don’t, and countless people only see me in passing in public, and for as long as I exist in their mind, I am never a full person. And too often I’m pressure to talk to people purely just to prove my humanity and that I‘m not some tragically oppressed person who needs saving.
[ID: 1. Collage of shadowy black figures and daemons. 2. OP wearing an all-black outfit, including a niqab which covers their whole face except the eyes. 3. OP walking down a hallway in the same outfit. 4. OP cleaning a table. /end ID]
She got the idea for the study while walking with her advisor at Stanford to discuss her thesis topic, and the paper she eventually published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in 2014 is sharp enough that it should have ended the seated meeting on the day it came out.
She ran 4 experiments on 176 people. Same person tested twice. Once sitting, once walking. The creativity tasks were the standard ones psychologists have used for decades to measure how good a brain is at generating novel useful ideas.
81% of participants in the first experiment produced more creative ideas while walking than while sitting. In the second experiment, 88%. In the third, 100%. Every single person walked into a more creative version of themselves. On average, people generated 60% more novel useful ideas the moment their legs started moving.
The skeptical question is the obvious one. Maybe it was the fresh air. Maybe it was the scenery passing by. Maybe it was the change of environment doing the work, not the walking itself.
Oppezzo killed every one of those explanations with one experimental decision. She put people on a treadmill facing a blank wall. No scenery. No fresh air. No environmental change. Just legs moving in place while staring at white drywall. The 60% boost held.
Then she ran the experiment that closed the case completely. She took participants outside in two conditions. Half of them walked through a Stanford courtyard. The other half were pushed through the exact same courtyard in a wheelchair. Same outdoor stimulation. Same scenery passing at the same speed. The only difference was whether the legs were moving.
The walkers produced dramatically more novel high-quality ideas than the wheelchair group. The outdoors did almost nothing on its own. The walking did everything.
She also tested the opposite kind of thinking. Convergent thinking. The kind where there is one right answer and you have to narrow down to it. Word puzzles where 3 words share a hidden fourth word that connects them. The seated participants did slightly better on these. Walkers got slightly worse.
Walking is not a general intelligence enhancer. It does one specific thing. It opens up the divergent search inside your brain. The part that generates options. The part that produces unexpected connections. The part that takes a problem and finds five ways into it instead of one.
When you need to converge on the single right answer, sit down. When you need to find the answer in the first place, get up.
The mechanism is now well understood. Walking selectively activates what neuroscientists call the default mode network, the system inside your brain that runs when you are not consciously focused on anything. The DMN is where mind-wandering happens. Where memories cross-reference each other. Where ideas that have been sitting in separate folders inside your head finally bump into each other.
When you sit at a desk and force yourself to concentrate, you suppress the DMN. When you walk at a natural pace, the executive part of your brain gets just busy enough handling the walking that the DMN comes online and starts doing the work that focus was blocking.
The most useful finding in the entire paper is the one almost nobody quotes. The boost did not turn off the moment people stopped walking. Participants who walked first and then sat back down stayed elevated. Their next round of seated creativity work was still significantly better than people who had been sitting the whole time. The rest lingered for at least several minutes after the legs stopped moving.
You do not need to do creative work while walking. You need to walk before the creative work. The brain holds the state.
Okay this is the problem with sharing pop science stuff online and content aggregation accounts
The study is real, it's very easy to find by searching up the author's name + study. Give it a read yourself. It's written in a pretty accessible way imo.
Note that it does not put forward any explanations for why this effect happens, only that it does. In the conclusion it posits many possible reasons for why, and that it's most likely nothing to do with the specific action of walking, merely any semi automatic repetitive activity. They also acknowledge the study did not account for the social company the walkers were in, which is a pretty massive factor imo. Considering the conclusion brings up MANY alternative explanations and future experiment possibilities, it's decidedly not "killed every alternative explanation" like the tweet says. The actual paper ends like most scientific papers, listing alternative possible explanations, these are preliminary results, more research is needed, wider demographics of people need to be included, etc.
Another thing is the phrasing of these tweets are like red flags flapping in the wind to me. Any short form social media content that's 1. Pop science 2. Conveys absolute certainty 3. Ends with self improvement biohacking adjacent advice, should set off alarm bells.
Look at the implications that if the tweets were true, it would mean wheelchair users and people with mobility issues would be inherently worse at creative tasks.
So who is this person that's tweeting this, rephrasing this paper in a "helpful" way that is sure to get shares from people who really value being creative and are looking for any way to become more creative in their -
OFC ITS AN AI BRO
You wanna see what his recent articles look like?
CAN WE STOP GETTING BAITED INTO PLATFORMING GRIFTERS
Thank you! There were so many red flags in the first post's language. The original paper straight up says that the mechanisms weren't isolated! Also there is no single part of the brain responsible for creative idea generation, it involves communication between multiple brain networks.
Glad I wasn't the only person who looked at this and thought that it was weird to say this study is SO perfect when the way it's framed here directly implies that people who can't walk are inherently less capable of being creative than people who can.
I can't leave a reply but to the disabled people in the notes who now genuinely seem to believe their mobility issues have robbed them of their ability to be creative pls don't think that! That's not what this study said! You're dealing with ableist misinformation from an AI bro, the study did not make these claims. I encourage everyone who's shared the version without the corrections to take them down, this misinfo is hurting already clearly hurting disabled people and should not be spread.
Something I'm thinking about with the current situation in the Strait of Hormuz is how economic reality and actual, real life industrial capacity clashes against economic fiction and gambling. 20% of the world's oil and gas supply is currently stuck, with other goods heavily affected (fertilizer most prominently), actual oil infrastructure has been blown up to hell with years of reconstruction ahead, there are already shortages in major countries... and "the markets" keep going up and down like nothing is happening, a total disconnection from reality
And in a way, they are reality, aren't they? Somehow the financial class of the imperial core is able to do whatever they want with numbers and ignore the actual reality that affects millions of people. You cannot make oil barrels in a computer, you cannot speculate on the price of a crop that underperforms because of fertilizer. But they try anyways.
I'm already used to this in Argentina. Liberal economists who say that inflation is a "purely monetary phenomenon" who believe everything can be summed up to numbers and gambling with exchange rates and debt while the actual factories, farms, schools and daily budgets of people suffer and decay. The "real economy" they say, as far as I'm concerned the "real" economy is the only one that exists. However, somehow they manage to impose their strange, nonsense gambling idea of the world upon us, with real effects, like a religion.
And this is of course to say nothing about the actual deaths and suffering in Iran, and so many other nations. It's all completely disconnected from reality from them. Just one look at a grieving mother with a child dead from a missile should stop everything on its tracks, force resignations, make these people fall one by one. Yet the world turns as always, and they double down, against the disgust and repudiation of the world (and no matter how bad things might seem, the world realizes), they triple down, preaching cruelty and genocide.
Someday there will be a reckoning. Not out of cosmic justice or anything, but because they cannot simply keep ignoring reality and getting away from it.
I'm not gonna articulate this well, but there's this phenomenon I keep seeing on the left that I'll call "bean soup rhetoric," wherein someone fails to understand that they are not the target audience for a particular message, or just can't conceptualize why a speaker would craft their message differently to resonate with a target audience that doesn't already completely agree with them.
"The 'God Made Trans People' billboard is stupid! God didn't make me! I'm an atheist!" Okay. The billboard sits along a major highway in Kansas. We can deduce that the target audience is not you—it's the centrist evangelical Christians driving along that road who could probably be persuaded to become allies as long as we choose our words carefully and don't make them feel attacked for not already knowing everything about trans rights issues. Another one I see a lot is, "We shouldn't be talking about how right-wing legislation catches [privileged in-group] in the crossfire when [marginalized out-group] suffers far more!" I know. I agree with you. Which is why you and I are not the intended audience of this argument!
The entire point of rhetoric is to win over someone who doesn't already fully agree with you. In this case, let's say that someone is Jennifer, the moderate center-right mom in your neighborhood who doesn't really know or care about transgender issues but would be absolutely horrified by the idea of her teenage daughter having to submit to an invasive inspection of her body just to be allowed to play soccer. Tell her, "Banning trans students from sports will inevitably subject all student athletes to invasive gender-policing," or "Legal restrictions on gender-affirming care will make it harder for you to access the hormone replacement therapy you take to treat menopause symptoms," and she is more likely to question her existing beliefs and listen to the rest of what you have to say than if you lead with leftist talking points that she already has a calcified opinion about or which she thinks do not personally affect her.
Tailoring the argument to the things she already cares about does not mean we're forgetting that she has more privilege than most—entirely the opposite, in fact. A privileged ally can be extremely valuable. Jennifer votes in every election. And so do all the other ladies at her book club, and church, and in the PTA, and those folks listen to Jennifer. There's a reason both parties were courting suburban women so hard in the last election cycle! If we can find common ground with her on this, if we can get her calling her representatives and talking to her friends and phone-banking and door-knocking and making a stink, that's how the needle starts to move. If I can convince her to take her support away from the candidates who are actively restricting my rights and throw it toward those who want to restore and expand those rights...then I'm sorry, but Jennifer is a more valuable ally to me than the people who agree that the legal boundaries of gender ought to be abolished altogether but refuse to actually do anything except complain online about how both sides are equally bad because the right is trying to force everyone to drink the cyanide kool-aid while the left keeps serving bean soup and they don't like bean soup
Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö haluaa muuttaa boreaalisten luonnonmetsien määritelmää. Jopa 65 prosenttia näistä metsistä putoaisi ennallista
Olemme kiistanalaisessa metsässä Evolla Hämeenlinnassa.
Metsä on Natura-alueella eli osa EU:n laajuista suojeluverkostoa.
Korkeat kuuset kurottavat kohti taivasta ja tuulen kaatamia puita makaa maassa. Kuollutta puuta on suhteellisen paljon ja jokunen palokantokin on muistona menneistä metsäpaloista.
Tämän noin 90-vuotiaan kuusikon kohtalo riippuu siitä, miten Suomi määrittelee boreaalisen luonnonmetsän EU:n ennallistamisasetuksen suunnitelmassa.
---
Boreaaliset luonnonmetsät ovat ennallistamisasetuksessa merkittävässä roolissa. Boreaalinen luonnonmetsä kuuluu EU:ssa ensisijaisesti suojeltaviin luontotyyppeihin.
Se tarkoittaa, että EU:lla, ei siis vain Suomella, on tästä luontotyypistä erityisvastuu.
Tämä metsä Evolla on määritelty boreaaliseksi luonnonmetsäksi EU:n luontodirektiivissä. Jatkossa se voi päätyä joko ennallistettavien metsien piiriin tai hakkuisiin, riippuen päätöksestä.
Sama koskee noin 78 000 hehtaaria luonnonmetsiä Suomessa. Määrä vastaa noin 100 000 jalkapallokenttää.
Se on noin pääkaupunkiseudun maa-alan kokoinen alue.
---
Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö haluaa muuttaa boreaalisten luonnonmetsien määritelmää niin, että jopa 65 prosenttia näistä metsistä putoaisi EU:n ennallistamisvelvoitteen piiristä.
Ministeriön mielestä, että Evon metsän kaltaiset metsät kuuluvat talousmetsiksi eli ennen pitkää hakkuisiin eivätkä ennallistamisen piiriin.
Ympäristöjärjestöjen ja ympäristötutkijoiden kanta ministeriön suunnitelmaan on selkeä.
– Tämä on Suomen luonnonsuojeluhistorian suurin vedätys, jota maa- ja metsätalousministeriö määritelmän muuttamisella pyrkii tekemään, sanoo Suomen Greenpeacen maajohtaja Touko Sipiläinen.
Sipiläisen mukaan kyse on metsätalouden näkökulmasta pienistä hehtaarimääristä. Suojelun näkökulmasta nämä olisivat sen sijaan juuri niitä metsiä, joita olisi tärkeää suojella, jotta luontokato saadaan Suomessa pysähtymään.
– Suomessa tarvitaan lisää metsien suojelua. Jos lähdetään muuttamaan tällaista määritelmää, niin ulkopuolelle jää juuri niitä rajatapauksia, joista kehittyy sitä kaikista arvokkainta suojeltavaa metsää, kun sen annetaan olla rauhassa ja kehittää monimuotoisuutta entisestään, Sipiläinen sanoo.
---
Myös ympäristöministeriö on aiemmin todennut, että ennallistamisen piiristä määritelmämuutoksen myötä poistuva pinta-ala olisi metsätalouden näkökulmasta mitätön.
Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö on valmistellut ennallistamisuunnitelmaa yhdessä ympäristöministeriön kanssa.
– Hallitus epäonnistui surkeasti vanhojen metsien suojelupäätöksessään. Tässä olisi mahdollisuus ikään kuin korjata tätä. Mutta päinvastoin, ollaan valmiita aika härskiin vedätykseen sen takia, että saadaan kuitenkin aika pieni määrä metsää pois suojelun piiristä, Sipiläinen sanoo.
Hallitus päätyi määrittelemään vanhat metsät niin tiukoin kriteerein, että suojelun määrä jää tutkijoiden mukaan liian pieneksi. Jäljellä olevien vanhojen metsien suojelua edellyttää EU.
---
Valtion metsiä hallinnoiva Metsähallitus on määritelmän muuttamisesta samoilla linjoilla maa- ja metsätalousministeriön kanssa.
Se tarkoittaisi hakkuiden sallimista osassa nykyisin boreaalisiksi luonnonmetsiksi merkityissä metsissä, myös muun muassa tällä Natura-alueella.
---
Maa- ja metsätalousministeriöstä ei haluttu kommentoida määritelmän muuttamista Ylelle asian keskeneräisyyteen vedoten.
Maa- ja metsätalousministeriön johtava asiantuntija Katja Matveinen sanoi kuitenkin aiemmin Ylelle, että syy määritelmän muuttamiselle on se, että nykyinen määritelmä rajaa sitä, missä ja miten metsätaloutta voidaan harjoittaa Suomessa.
– Talouskäytössä olevia metsiä voi päätyä suojeluun, hän sanoi Ylen jutussa.
---
Toinen ennallistamisasetuksen kansallisen suunnitelman valmistelija ympäristöministeriö vastustaa boreaalisten metsien määritelmän muutosta.
Ministeriön ympäristöneuvos Mikko Kuusinen sanoi aiemmin Ylelle, että muutokselle ei ole ekologisia perusteita, eikä sitä ole syytä eikä tarpeen muuttaa.
– Se perustuu käytännössä suojelun minimoimiseen, ei tieteeseen, Greenpeacen Sipiläinenkin sanoo.
EU:n luontodirektiivissä boreaalinen luonnonmetsä määritellään lähinnä laadullisin kriteerein, kuten vanhojen puiden ja vanhalle metsälle tyypillisen lajiston perusteella.
Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö esittää, että boreaaliset luonnonmetsät määriteltäisiin ennen kaikkea metsän iän mukaan.
Metsähallituksen Björkqvistin mukaan uusi boreaalisten luonnonmetsien määritelmä pohjaisi EU:n habitaattimanuaaliin. Se on luontodirektiivin virallinen opas.
Lyhyessä englanninkielisessä kuvauksessa esimerkiksi metsien lajikirjoa ei ole kuvailtu kovin tarkasti, toisin kuin Natura-luontotyyppioppaassa, jota on tähän asti käytetty boreaalisten luonnonmetsien tunnistamisessa.
Maa- ja metsätalousministeriön ehdotus on peräisin viime syksynä julkaistusta Luhti-hankkeen tutkimuksesta, jossa määritelmän muuttaminen nousi esiin.
Suomen ympäristökeskuksen tutkijat irtautuivat siitä koettuaan, että tutkimusta ohjattiin poliittisesti.
– Siinä ei pitäydytty alkuperäisessä, sovitussa tavoitteessa ja EU-raamien sisällä, vaan tuntui, että luontotyyppien tunnistamista ja hyvän tilan määrittelyä lähdettiin venyttämään, Kukkala sanoi aiemmin Ylelle.
---
Ympäristöministeriön mukaan riskinä on merkittäviä hallinnollisia ja juridisia vaikutuksia. Komissio voisi edellyttää Suomea osoittamaan palauttamistoimia tai uusia Natura-alueita. Kyse voisi olla jopa EU:n suojelurahojen takaisinperinnästä.
---
Suomi on myös sitoutunut suojelemaan ja ennallistamaan boreaalisia luonnonmetsiä. YK:n luontokokouksessa Montrealissa vuonna 2022 sovittiin, että tavoitteet suojelualueiden määrän kasvattamisesta 30 prosenttiin etenevät vuoteen 2030 mennessä.
Samalla sovittiin myös luonnon tilan parantamisesta ja heikentyneiden elinympäristöjen ennallistamisen kasvattamisesta 30 prosenttiin.
Tällä viikolla asia on poliittisessa valmistavassa keskustelussa. Ennallistamissuunnitelma lähtenee lausuntokierrokselle ensi viikolla.
– Tämä on lopulta ympäristö- ja ilmastoministeri Sari Multalan käsissä. Hänen olisi nähdäkseni nyt tärkeätä viheltää peli poikki, Sipiläinen sanoo.
Ministeri Multala ei halunnut kommentoida asiaa Ylelle.
there's a lot of talk about reading comprehension and one thing i think is the biggest barrier to people on this site getting better at it is simply... rushing. rushing to share something you haven't understood, rushing to have an opinion without taking the time to think about it, rushing to declare that you don't understand something
take these tags, on somebody else's post (condolences pip)
the thing is. this is what i would call an inside thought. nobody would have known you didn't get it if you didn't tell them that. if you recognised that it was important but didn't have the headspace to process it, you can reblog without commentary for others, or to come back to later. or you can save it somewhere and wait until you DO have the capacity to read it over a few more times, ponder it, consider what it might mean, figure out how to understand it, and THEN reblog it
but no. rushing to reblog while it is still opaque. rushing to admit to ignorance rather than spend the time to achieve understanding. perhaps hoping that somebody will break it down for you more simply, though to my mind it was quite simply phrased in the first place. never stopping to take the time first
comprehension is not always instant! sometimes it takes a bit of time for something to percolate after you read it; sometimes you need to read it a few times; sometimes you realise you don't have the context for it and either go and get the context or accept that it's not for you right now
please just simply slow down. you don't always have to respond to everything within a second or two. it is okay if it is not an instantaneous understanding. we all need to get more comfortable with thinking more slowly and more deeply and more carefully, and not letting our instant split second responses drive us all the time, because they are a barrier to genuine reflection
People are so stupid about snakes. If there's a little black racer chilling outside just leave it alone, you don't have to kill it, it's probably dealing with all your pests for you, jesus christ
An idea that exists in the sphere of public consciousness in Finland is that Finnish people have a "unique relationship with nature," which I guess is supposed to signal the fact that We Got Trees Here and Some People Think That's Nice. Anyway, my partner's workplace recently started ordering Maaseudun Tulevaisuus (Future of the Countryside or something), a magazine that basically acts as the mouthpiece for the agriculture and forestry industries. All of the stories she has told me about having been featured in that magazine sound like they basically amount to "I fucking hate nature why is it getting in the way of my industry."
titsay
gummygunk
jbbartram-illu
snowghoul
discoholicmusic
germansingergirl
annaxmalina
pixelskylines
areudirty
