Sure, by the dictionary definition, that is tradition. I don't deny that the non-native plants can be passed from one generation to the next just like anything else. The lack of distinction between native and non-native plants in the context of "tradition" just seems a bit misleading.

"I would not want to promote research on animals -- fortunately, only my back is twisted, not my mind."

– Linn Pulis, polio victim

"The cruel experimenter cannot, in the same breath, defend the scientific validity of vivisection on the grounds of the physical similarities between man and the other animals, and then defend the morality of vivisection on the grounds that men and animals are physically different. The only logical alternatives for him are to admit he is either pre-Darwinian or immoral."

– Richard Ryder, former vivisectionist

"I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race. The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further."

– Mark Twain, father of American literature

It just seems arbitrary. What about 5 years old? Most cultures on the planet could then claim that smartphones are traditional tools of their culture, even though they were designed somewhere else, manufactured somewhere else, installed with software developed somewhere else... In the context of plants, this seems almost to disregard the historical importance of native species. If a non-native plant was introduced to a culture only 50 or 100 years ago, but the culture has been around for 1000+ years, then the ancestors of those same people, who would by all accounts be considered part of the same culture, would not even recognise it. Which generation gets to decide what constitutes a cultural tradition vs a modern practice?

Cow pasture accounts for about 80% of Amazon deforestation since 1970, but feedcrops like soya are still a significant contributor. Animal agriculture excluding cow pasture accounts for an additional 12% of deforestation, and part of that is soya monocultures. Perhaps the bigger problem with soya cultivation in the Amazon is the opportunity cost that is not apparent from the deforestation numbers: it is often grown on former pasture lands that could have otherwise reforested themselves.

That said, you're right that not buying soybeans from Brazil would have little impact, as the vast majority of the soybeans produced in Brazil are fed to "livestock" animals.

To be clear, the vast majority of the soybeans produced in the Amazon (and elsewhere) go towards "livestock" feed, so buying edamame or tofu isn't really contributing much (if at all) to Amazon destruction, Atlantic Forest destruction, Cerrado destruction, or any other soy-related destruction in Brazil.

...And I just saw another instance providing a basic explanation in the sidebar. baraza.africa has a "What is where?" section. Something like that on slrpnk.net that includes this explanation or links to your comment here would probably help the newbs.

Possibly pushing your definition of "cucumber" a bit, but Cucumis anguria comes to mind. Probably not fit for the swamp, but in a container in full sun, it could work.

One consideration is the seasonality of the fruits that you grow. Additional fruit-bearing plants would ideally produce during gaps between the other fruit seasons so that you have a continuous harvest for as much of the year as possible. That's something that will be specific to your area though, so I can't really advise.

If you toss in any native plant seeds that you can find and then don't mow, the lawn will eventually reforest itself. (If you were in North America, I would recommend Robinia pseudoacacia.) Less work than mowing 1-3 times a year. In the beginning, pulling the grass at the edge of the clover can help a lot, and it only takes a few minutes every month or so.

GitHub

Windows

privacy

Pick two and call me back.

Not even fair to compare to 2024. This year is on track to be the warmest non-El Niño year on record.

Some highlights:

Far-right authoritarian pundits and political actors, from Matt Walsh to Elon Musk, all seem to have gotten the same memo instructing them to fixate on “low” fertility and birth rates. Musk has claimed that “population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming” and that it will lead to “mass extinction.” Some liberals are flirting with this narrative, too.

In her Atlantic piece, Bruenig argues that the left should claim the right-wing birth-rate rhetoric in order to justify putting forward modest welfare policy increases. Well, at least for those who have children. But at the same time, instead of taking a moment to wonder if Millennials having fewer kids will really lead to human extinction, she unfurls her banners and from the parapet declares triumphantly: “humankind is excellent—the paragon of animals”! This is a pretty unequivocal reinforcement of a particular human supremacist ethic. This ethic, also gleefully championed by fascists like Matt Walsh, is central to the value system currently annihilating life on earth and is apparently shared by every commentator on this issue. This idea can be found running through not just Bruenig’s leftism and Walsh’s rightism, but through Ezra Klein’s centrism as well. His “abundance agenda” espouses spreading human development and quietly accepting the demise of all the wildlife that would have otherwise inhabited the land being developed, or whose habitat will suffer the consequences of expanded fossil fuel energy systems, like catastrophic climate change.

But the bigger problem with Walsh’s argument is that it only makes sense if you care about the quantity of human life more than the quality of human life. Sure, it is technically low cost to impregnate someone. But in the U.S., providing a stable, healthy, safe, and enriching upbringing for a child has become increasingly difficult due to rising costs of living, stagnant wages, and disinvestment in public goods and services. When someone is making a choice about whether to have a child, they ought to be anticipating loving that child and wanting the best for them. So a rational person should look at the conditions in which the child would be raised and make an educated judgment about whether they would be able to provide safety and stability. The world as it is simply contains a scarcity of these things, and they are diminishing thanks primarily to the actions of leaders committed to Walsh’s ideology.

When authoritarians bemoan falling birth rates, they’re not really concerned about children’s health and well-being or about imminent human extinction. They’re concerned with maintaining a certain system of production that is dependent on cheap, abundant, and disposable labor.

Essentially, Cowen is suggesting eliminating programs for the elderly and the poor and diverting that money to subsidize childbearing people. His mention of Christian Science is telling, as adherents of this sect tend not to live as long as the general population. He doesn’t say it explicitly, but by focusing on eliminating welfare for older and poorer citizens, he is advocating for a demographic strategy of producing lots of offspring and letting the ones he deems less evolutionarily fit, mainly the older and poorer, die off. This is called "r-selection" among other species. It’s a strategy used by creatures, like some rodents, fish, and insects, often when there is environmental scarcity of resources. Apparently it’s a strategy that Cowen sees fit for humans. We need to call this what it is: a clear example of 19th-century social Darwinism and a grim case of, like Walsh, another far-right authoritarian advocating for quantity of human life over quality of life. It is a view of life that is fundamentally incompatible with maximizing well-being, health, and happiness for all.

Whether delusion or propaganda or both, “demographic collapse” is a false problem. The fact is, the human population will absolutely never disappear due to a low fertility rate, unless there is some environmental impact on the physiological ability to reproduce.7 This is not impossible, given all the known and unknown effects of chemicals and plastics permeating the environment, which are already negatively impacting hormones and reproductive health.8 Microplastics have been found in every human testicle—and region of the planet—where they’ve been looked for. But even with these pressures, the human population continues to grow (while wildlife continues to decline).

If the quantity of human life does one day stop growing and actually starts to decrease, it is likely that, in many places, if history is any guide, the quality of human life will be fine and could even increase with it. Perhaps more importantly today, the quality and quantity of non-human forms of life—which, unlike Musk’s mass-human-extinction lie, are in a state of actual mass extinction—would receive a vital respite. More forms of life would have more good opportunities to exist. As with many other issues, if the right wing’s greatest fears were to come true, it would almost certainly be fine for everybody… except, maybe, a few oligarchs.

Some highlights:

Far-right authoritarian pundits and political actors, from Matt Walsh to Elon Musk, all seem to have gotten the same memo instructing them to fixate on “low” fertility and birth rates. Musk has claimed that “population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming” and that it will lead to “mass extinction.” Some liberals are flirting with this narrative, too.

In her Atlantic piece, Bruenig argues that the left should claim the right-wing birth-rate rhetoric in order to justify putting forward modest welfare policy increases. Well, at least for those who have children. But at the same time, instead of taking a moment to wonder if Millennials having fewer kids will really lead to human extinction, she unfurls her banners and from the parapet declares triumphantly: “humankind is excellent—the paragon of animals”! This is a pretty unequivocal reinforcement of a particular human supremacist ethic. This ethic, also gleefully championed by fascists like Matt Walsh, is central to the value system currently annihilating life on earth and is apparently shared by every commentator on this issue. This idea can be found running through not just Bruenig’s leftism and Walsh’s rightism, but through Ezra Klein’s centrism as well. His “abundance agenda” espouses spreading human development and quietly accepting the demise of all the wildlife that would have otherwise inhabited the land being developed, or whose habitat will suffer the consequences of expanded fossil fuel energy systems, like catastrophic climate change.

But the bigger problem with Walsh’s argument is that it only makes sense if you care about the quantity of human life more than the quality of human life. Sure, it is technically low cost to impregnate someone. But in the U.S., providing a stable, healthy, safe, and enriching upbringing for a child has become increasingly difficult due to rising costs of living, stagnant wages, and disinvestment in public goods and services. When someone is making a choice about whether to have a child, they ought to be anticipating loving that child and wanting the best for them. So a rational person should look at the conditions in which the child would be raised and make an educated judgment about whether they would be able to provide safety and stability. The world as it is simply contains a scarcity of these things, and they are diminishing thanks primarily to the actions of leaders committed to Walsh’s ideology.

When authoritarians bemoan falling birth rates, they’re not really concerned about children’s health and well-being or about imminent human extinction. They’re concerned with maintaining a certain system of production that is dependent on cheap, abundant, and disposable labor.

Essentially, Cowen is suggesting eliminating programs for the elderly and the poor and diverting that money to subsidize childbearing people. His mention of Christian Science is telling, as adherents of this sect tend not to live as long as the general population. He doesn’t say it explicitly, but by focusing on eliminating welfare for older and poorer citizens, he is advocating for a demographic strategy of producing lots of offspring and letting the ones he deems less evolutionarily fit, mainly the older and poorer, die off. This is called "r-selection" among other species. It’s a strategy used by creatures, like some rodents, fish, and insects, often when there is environmental scarcity of resources. Apparently it’s a strategy that Cowen sees fit for humans. We need to call this what it is: a clear example of 19th-century social Darwinism and a grim case of, like Walsh, another far-right authoritarian advocating for quantity of human life over quality of life. It is a view of life that is fundamentally incompatible with maximizing well-being, health, and happiness for all.

Whether delusion or propaganda or both, “demographic collapse” is a false problem. The fact is, the human population will absolutely never disappear due to a low fertility rate, unless there is some environmental impact on the physiological ability to reproduce.7 This is not impossible, given all the known and unknown effects of chemicals and plastics permeating the environment, which are already negatively impacting hormones and reproductive health.8 Microplastics have been found in every human testicle—and region of the planet—where they’ve been looked for. But even with these pressures, the human population continues to grow (while wildlife continues to decline).

If the quantity of human life does one day stop growing and actually starts to decrease, it is likely that, in many places, if history is any guide, the quality of human life will be fine and could even increase with it. Perhaps more importantly today, the quality and quantity of non-human forms of life—which, unlike Musk’s mass-human-extinction lie, are in a state of actual mass extinction—would receive a vital respite. More forms of life would have more good opportunities to exist. As with many other issues, if the right wing’s greatest fears were to come true, it would almost certainly be fine for everybody… except, maybe, a few oligarchs.