upvote_test_act
upvote_test_act on Hacker News
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=biodiversity+and+human+...
You didn't say the person in Alabama "does not enjoy as much local produce", which you maybe meant. If you assumed the audience would understand what you actually meant despite your wording, well then, all the comments taking issue with your statement should be evidence for you that they did not.
In response to these comments, instead of attempting to state your point more clearly, you insult your audience's intelligence and double down, acting like what you said was perfectly clear (it wasn't) and we're all just "offended" (we're not).
I'm only trying to point out-- because you seem genuinely incredulous at some of the responses you've received-- how much the above communication style makes you sound like a belligerent asshole to anyone with regular human feelings.
If you can't see that, I'm afraid you'll continue to have these "I don't get why everyone's got such an attitude, I literally only said x !" moments.
I roundly refute this frankly riduculous assertion. It shows a grave lack of understanding of the actual mechanisms that maintain the natural world in a state fit for human habitation.
If you think that it's optimal problem-solving for humans to just ignore any and all evidence that they would be healthier if they interacted differently with their environment at scale, that's just arrogance.
It's absolutely nothing more, although I predict you'll keep assigning primacy to your gut feelings because engaging in thorough analysis would involve admitting you were wrong, which would make you feel bad.
Please point me to literally anything other than your own bullshit assertions whose only support is that they make your feel good about being the "always-right-guy" once again.
Looking at your comment history, I can tell you're the type of insufferable technical person whose general attitude towards interacting with others is "well, I'm almost always right, so I'm just gonna permanently rock with the assumption that anyone who isn't me is an idiot whose opinion I can ignore."`
Those of us with fully-functioning emotional subsystems know right away it's not worth putting much effort into engaging with you, since you'll just automatically dismiss any conclusion that's different from your own.
The benefits of this style of stunted mental engagement with the world are obvious and easy to understand: changing your mind about something requires both lots of brain-based energy expenditure and (more importantly) the emotional maturity to admit you might've been wrong about something. I don't blame people like you for deciding to live this way-- it's much easier! Also, in this way you cleverly avoid the emotional pain of accepting that your own analysis was found wanting. Shit, if I weren't so naturally curious about understanding the world the way it actually is instead of just reinforcing my own paper-thin ego, I'd take the same attitude!