I recently read this and was surprised at how good it was. I loved Orwells Animal Farm, but didn’t like 1984 that much, so I wasn’t expecting to enjoy it; I read it more to get some insights of the war. But the book is not just informative, it is also really funny at times, and the story is just wild.

I second this recommendation.

If you have objectively proven that atheists are wrong, that means that you must have proven that God exists right? I do not think that is possible without God showing himself, and not just to you, but to others too. If these atheists have not seen God, you have in fact, not proven that they are objectively wrong.

Also, there are many arguments that atheists use. For example, some atheists believe that the Bible can not be right because parts of it were written long after the events that they describe (for example gospels written maybe 50 years after Jesus’ death, meaning most if not all eyewitnesses have died).

As a Christian myself, I do not believe you can objectively disprove atheism. And to claim not liking God is the only reason for their beliefs is ignorant, if not worse.

It’s bad at reproducing good hair, so it’s good at reproducing bad hair; that would be my guess.

I am studying something related to biology, so I know something about this stuff. However, i am no expert either and there is some speculation in this comment.

Fish populations can grow at a certain rate. When there are very few fish, there are not enough fish to breed effectively. On the other hand, when there are too many fish, there is not enough food for everyone, leading to a smaller growth. Somewhere between this is the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). This is the point where the growth in population is the highest. If you want to do fishing sustainable, you need to make sure that at the end of the season, there is exactly as much fish as the MSY needs. This way, there will be more new fish next year than otherwise.

However, if you catch too many fish, rhe population will drop below the MSY-treshold. This means that next year, there will be less newborn fish, which means you can’t catch nearly as much. If you continue overfishing, the population will very quickly die out. So after a few years of overfishing, there will barely be any fish left, which means that fishing sustainably leads to more fish in the end. It is a bit more complicated than this, and fish population depends on more factors, but this is the basic idea. This is what I know fairly certain.

I think the big difference between farming and fishing in this case is that with farming, you have less risk of the population dying out. Fishing is more like hunting: if you hunt too much Bison, they will die out. But with breeding cattle, the risk of cattle dying out is small.

There are a few other things though. If you farm crops unsustainably, the soil will lose its fertility, meaning you will in the end not farm as many crops, or you will need a lot of manure, which is not sustainable either.

On top of that, I believe I have heard some time ago, that sustainable farming does lead to better meat, but I may be mistaken I’m this.

In the Netherlands beavers had been hunted into extinction by mid 20th century (I don’t know exactly when they went extinct). In the 80s beavers were reintroduced from the DDR and now there are over 5000 beavers in the country. In western Germany populations have been rising too, and these are just what I know from the top of my head.

Beavers are definitely doing great right now around the world and that is uplifting news indeed!