What I'm saying is that society bases that on
what is harmful to humans and what is beneficial to humans.
josef: «What I'm saying is that society bases that on
what is harmful to humans and what is beneficial to humans.
Not exact matches
Frankly, most industries, indeed most
human activities,
are harmful to the environment, so the question for the public
is what are we willing
to condone for our own comfort and well
being.
When we ignore it, trying
to be more angel than
human,
what is repressed often returns in distorted and
harmful forms.
Researchers here
are cataloguing
what makes cancer cells dangerous down at the level of individual genetic changes, how and why pathogens like malaria evolve
to be more (or less)
harmful and how
humans adapt
to those changes.
However,
what does not pose a threat
to humans can
be harmful to your pets.
They
are actually saying you should eat a small amount of fermented veggies with every meal
to prevent the conversion of nitrates
to nitrosomines (which
is what is so
harmful to the
human body).
What they found
is that A) yes, protein restriction appears
to work in middle - aged
humans, and B) very high (> 20 % E) protein diets
are less
harmful if from vegetable sources.
What the public missed Since attending a rally on Feb. 16 at Wekiwa Springs State Park, which
was organized
to emphasize the
harmful effects of
human encroachment in the area, I have felt compelled
to express the impact the rally should have in eliminating some of the deteriorating conditions of the springs, rivers and aquifer.
What is the single most
harmful thing
humans are doing
to Earth?
A physicist
is no more likely than a sociologist
to know
what human emissions will
be 50 years from now — if a slight warming would
be beneficial or
harmful to humans or the natural world; if forcings and feedbacks will partly or completely offset the theoretical warming; if natural variability will exceed any discernible
human effect; if secondary effects on weather will lead
to more extreme or more mild weather events; if efforts
to reduce emissions will
be successful; who should reduce emissions, by
what amounts, or when; and whether the costs of attempting
to reduce emissions will exceed the benefits by an amount so large as
to render the effort counterproductive.
What seemed
to them, in a cloud of missionary zeal, like a good idea (frankly, they could not
be reasoned with, nor
were they interested in evidence, history,
human nature, or logic) turned out
to a
harmful, failed philosophy that, if adopted, would have wreaked incalculable harm, not only on their own nations, but on the whole World.
The FY 17 Labor, Health and
Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Committee specifically passed a funding bill that zeros out Title X.
What's more, the bill includes a
harmful policy rider that would interfere with access
to safe, legal abortion.