#Patchwork extinction

[patchwork-extinction]

Thank you for your help in dealing with that beast, Rex.

@doors-are-wrong

You're welcome, I suppose. Do you have any idea what it was?

[patchwork-extinction]

[This is as close an image of Patch as I can get to, so here you go]

OOC: rp character picrew chain!!!

https://toon-me-picrew.carrd.co/

No pressure tags:

@abyssiot @archivalassistantriaan @lambstoth3slaughter @quinn-does-radio @jinxedbooks @bolton-buried

[rebeccathenaturalist]

A caveat to this study: the researchers were primarily looking at insect pollinator biodiversity. Planting a few native wildflowers in your garden will not suddenly cause unusual megafauna from the surrounding hinterlands to crowd onto your porch.

That being said, this study backs up Douglas Tallamy's optimistic vision of Homegrown National Park, which calls for people in communities of all sizes to dedicate some of their yard (or porch or balcony) to native plants. This creates a patchwork of microhabitats that can support more mobile insect life and other small beings, which is particularly crucial in areas where habitat fragmentation is severe. This patchwork can create migration corridors, at least for smaller, very mobile species, between larger areas of habitat that were previously cut off from each other.

It may not seem like much to have a few pots of native flowers on your tiny little balcony compared to someone who can rewild acres of land, but it makes more of a difference than you may realize. You may just be creating a place where a pollinating insect flying by can get some nectar, or lay her eggs. Moreover, by planting native species you're showing your neighbors these plants can be just as beautiful as non-native ornamentals, and they may follow suit.

In a time when habitat loss is the single biggest cause of species endangerment and extinction, every bit of native habitat restored makes a difference.

[evidence-based-activism]

Ik this isnt a data based question, but what are the main theories on patriarchy’s origin? There’s the marxist feminist one where agriculture was the main instigator, but most hunter-gatherer societies are not completely feminist and gender equal either. Is it a matter of physical strength + motive + opportunity for men? I was just wondering what you thought about the literature on this topic (of course much of it is purely speculative).

Hey! Okay, so I want to start this out by acknowledging that history is not my field. I am in awe of historians because they're essentially making coherent theories out of a patchwork of surviving evidence. Add to that the language barriers (so many modern languages! exponentially more extinct languages!) and the fact that people just lie (in translations! about primary sources! in! primary! sources! I cannot fathom having to figure out whether or not a primary source is reliable or not because Ancient Guy #24232 lies – but only sometimes) and I am amazed the field is as coherent as it is.

(Yes I am aware many of these things apply to both "hard" and "soft" sciences. The difference is I know how to identify the problems in the sciences :'))

So, with that disclaimer, here is some information! (All sources at the end, this time!)

---

The theories:

I found a bunch of different theories about the patriarchy's origins, but it's unclear to me the extent to where these fall on the "vague possibilities" to "generally accepted as fact" scale. They include:

Agriculture: The theory that the invention of agriculture led to permanent human settlements, at which point hierarchies including the patriarchy emerged. Often connected to the ideas of land rights and defense of land rights (warfare) and the ideas of property rights and inheritance of property (i.e., male control over resources and/or the treatment of women as property).

Fire: A similar theory as the agriculture theory, but centered around the invention of fire. Connected to the idea that the movement of women started being restricted around the time fire/cooking was invented (i.e., that women "stayed at/close to camp" to cook while men left to hunt).

Mobility: A theory emphasizing the differences in freedom of movement (i.e., that the division of men hunting and women gathering). Connected to the invention of fire and agriculture, both of which likely restricted women's movement further than before.

Reproductive capacity: The theory that the differential amounts of investment in reproduction (i.e., men need to ejaculate sperm and women must grow the child, give birth, and nurse the child until weaned) resulted in the patriarchy. Sometimes linked to Marxist feminism, by the suggestion that men regard and treat women as a "means of (re)production". Either way, this theory emphasizes the exploitation of women as a resource.

Physical dimorphism: Linked to the reproductive capacity theory but focused more on other physical differences (e.g., men tend to have greater absolute strength, be physically larger, etc.). Focuses on the fact that men have the physical capacity to assault and control women. Often supported with comparisons to other mammals.

Choice: The theory that men (or some men or multiple groups of men) intentionally started the patriarchy to obtain individual benefits and have since (intentionally and/or passively) perpetuated it out of a desire to maintain those benefits.

Others: Some people may divide out theories in different ways. For example, some may contend that the patriarchy followed the invention of a private property/a class system, in which men controlled these resources. (I have lumped this in with agriculture.) There are likely other theories I am unaware of!

Poking holes in these theories:

All of these theories have inconsistencies and challenges that challenge their explanatory and (particularly) predictive validity. Here are some:

Agriculture: If this theory is true we would expect pre- and non-agricultural societies to be consistently (or at least mostly) egalitarian. But, (as anon indicated) this is not necessarily true. There does appear to be/have been at least a partial division of labor by sex (i.e., men hunt and women gather), although it very likely is not as strict as it's been made out to be (i.e., women sometimes did hunt). Further, the idea that land-rights emerged with agriculture ignores the possibility that early societies formed gathering/hunting "territories", as many animals do. The aspects concerning and effects of land-rights (and possibly even property-rights) could then also be applied to pre-agricultural societies. And, indeed, there is some evidence of warfare in pre-agricultural societies. An even bigger outstanding question is the recent evidence suggesting complex societies/social structures prior to agriculture (Gobekli Tepe). That is, if the theory is that agriculture led to complex social structures which led to the patriarchy, how does one account for evidence of complex social structures prior to agriculture.

Fire: A lot of the same criticisms from the agriculture section can be applied here. But in addition that, this theory neglects to consider the fact that, in at least some of these societies, the majority of calories were provided from the women's gathered food. In addition, it doesn't consider how cooking was the (potential) impetus for advancements in human intelligence and society. I'd then ask: if both of these vital components (food source and food modification for further optimization) were being provided by women, why would this social structure result in patriarchy? Another good exercise is to try and see if you could apply this same argument to the opposite outcome. In other words, if (in some other timeline/reality) society was structured around matriarchies, could this theory be used to explain that? I'd argue, yes, it could (and would arguably make even more sense than the current theory). For example, one could argue: "because women were the primary providers (i.e., provided most calories and tended to fires that allowed for further optimization of resources) in early human civilization, while men's contributions (i.e., hunting for meat) often separated them from the larger group, early human societies developed around women's relationships naturally resulting a matriarchy as these society's grew larger/more complex." The fact that this same theory could be so easily applied to the opposite outcome suggests it may be a post hoc fallacy.

Mobility: I'd apply the same criticisms here as I applied to the agriculture and fire theories. In addition to that, it seems as though this may be conflating a current observation ("patriarchal cultures limit women's movement") with a prehistoric explanation ("differences in men's and women's movement resulted in the patriarchy").

Reproductive capacity: The biggest contradiction to this argument is the fact that we don't (always) see this pattern in non-human animals with complex social structures. As much as 43% of primate (lemurs, monkeys, and apes) species exhibit either female-dominant or egalitarian social structures. The most commonly referenced example of this is the bonobo; this considered significant because humans and bonobos are as closely "related" as humans and the male-dominated chimpanzees. There's a number of other mammals (where the female always carries the young) where this is true, including: elephants, hyenas, orcas, lions, and many others. It's true that these social organizations appear to be less common than male-dominated species, but this challenges the predictive value of this theory (i.e., if reproductive differences were the origin of the patriarchy we would not expect there to be female-dominated mammals). (There is an important note here, that any attempts to categorize animal behavior by humans standards runs the risk of anthropomorphizing. That being said, it would also be biased to completely disregard this evidence.) Again we could also try the "applying this theory to the opposite outcome" approach, and again, I'd argue that the resulting theory is even more logical. Consider, for example: "in early human civilization women's natural control over reproduction afforded them disproportionate social power; as societies grew more complex this natural division of power was codified into society, with women's influence over the family unit ultimately being reflected in, first, cooperative social groups and, later, governments." (Again, this exercise demonstrates that this theory may be an example of a post hoc fallacy.)

Physical dimorphism: The criticism for this theory is almost identical to the one for reproductive capacity. In particular, for primates, sexual dimorphism "does not necessarily constrain intersexual power relationships unless it is substantial". This is notable, because modern (and probably early) humans are considered to display – relatively speaking – limited physical dimorphism. Other matriarchal species (e.g., elephants, orcas, lions) also display physical dimorphism despite having larger males.

Choice: One of the biggest holes in this theory is that patriarchies appear to have emerged independently of each other in various locations. Even if you could conceivably imagine a scenario where one group of men in one location intentionally created a patriarchy, it's difficult to imagine this happening many, separate times, without some other influencing factor. I think this theory also falls victim to the current observation ("many men actively and/or passively uphold the patriarchy") for a past explanation ("a group of men chose to create the patriarchy").

Others: There's likely some other issues/counter-arguments for these! (There's probably also counter-counter-arguments as well!)

---

Conclusion:

So, where does this leave us?

I'd argue that it's most likely that some combination of all these factors ultimately led to the patriarchy. I doubt, however, that we'll ever know exactly what factors were involved or how we got from "there" (i.e., some biological and social differences between the sexes) to "here" (i.e., with a complex social organization favoring men and oppressing women).

It's an interesting thought exercise to consider how these factors could have interacted. I'd like to provide and example, but to be explicitly clear, I am not suggesting that this is the "correct" theory (or even a necessarily likely one) this is purely an example of one way these factors could have, potentially, interacted:

The biological differences between women and men (i.e., reproductive capacity and physical dimorphism), resulted in a generalized, but not completely restrictive, division of labor by sex in early human societies (i.e., men tended to undertake long hunts over large areas and women tended to remain in a smaller area, gathering and cultivating plants and hunting/trapping smaller animals while tending to children). In addition to this, men's greater-on-average strength meant they were primarily responsible for defending early territories (i.e., from animals and/or other groups of male humans). These factors advantaged men who were disproportionately inclined towards aggression (i.e., increased the personal survival and mating success) of such men. However, these differences did not ultimately result in organized social oppression of women (i.e., the patriarchy) until these early civilizations started to grow in size around the advent of agriculture. Once this additional factor was added, women's previously reduced mobility became even more restricted and more formalized. Defense of territory (now agricultural land with far denser resources) and the increase in private property (as increased food production allowed for diversification of labor) also resulted in increased warfare. Again, men inclined towards aggression tended to survive longer and have more success in finding a mate, due to the expansion of conflict over land/property. In contrast, women were increasingly treated like the property of men, as something that provides a resource (e.g., babies) and requires protection from other men looking to obtain that resource. This status change was realized in laws and religions restricting women's movement and behavior (i.e., which also indicates a degree of choice in the process – some men, at some point, must have decided to (unfortunately, successfully) try and codify the policies). As time passed these laws and social norms became more and more ingrained, ultimately leading to the patriarchy we know today.

Again, please recognize that I am not suggesting that this is the "correct" theory of the patriarchy's origins. I add this primarily to showcase how many factors may have interacted, but also to demonstrate how any theory will have problems. For example, holes in the above theory include:

We know women have been, and are, involved with the defense of their families and homes. So, why hasn't this also favored women with naturally high aggression? If it actually has, then at what point did society start emphasizing docility in women? What factor resulted in compliance with this new norm? We also know that men are primarily "protective" of women they consider "their own (property)". So if men were primarily protecting "their" women from other men ... then men were already thinking of women as a resource, implying evidence of a patriarchy prior to this initial time point. If this is the case, then what factor came before this?

Further, if women were treated like a resource (i.e., for reproduction) following the invention of agriculture, what is to say they were not also treated this way prior to the invention of agriculture? If they were treated as such, why are there are other species in which this does not happen? What factors result in these differences?

How was the codification of women's oppression successful when there was, presumably, a point in time in which these norms did not yet exist? We can only assume that early women – as fully realized, independent people – would resist obvious attempts at such restriction, so how were these laws initially created and proposed? To assume there would be no resistance implies that women were either already oppressed en mass prior to the codification of such policies or that they generally supported such policies. Both of these assumptions are likely erroneous: how could there be organized, ubiquitous, oppression of women in complex societies without any centralized organization, and why would one assume early women were any less likely to advocate for their own self-interest than early men?

What degree did choice play? If the patriarchy truly did emerge independently in many different places, and the creation of the patriarchy included at least some element of choice, why do we not have strong evidence of any societies fully rejecting patriarchy? Alternately, do we have any evidence of societies fully rejecting patriarchy (either implementing a matriarchy or true egalitarianism)? If so, are there any other factors that differentiate these societies? Was men's choice to codify laws the ultimate factor? If so, what made them so inclined to codify such laws? If it was purely self-interest, then why were no early resistance movements successful?

Those are only a portion of possible critiques, so clearly the proposed scenario is flawed. My central point is really that any theory will be flawed.

To me, the more important question is what perpetuates the patriarchy now (e.g., patriarchal religions, patriarchal laws, commodification of women's bodies, gender stereotypes, etc.) and what we can do about these factors (e.g., legal opposition, gender abolition, etc.). Most importantly, in modern society, the patriarchy is perpetuated by both active choices (e.g., men choosing to pass laws that restrict women's bodily autonomy, men protecting sexual predators, etc.) and passive actions (e.g., compliance with restrictive gender stereotypes, ignoring sexist rhetoric in organized religions, etc.). It is therefore these choices that we must work to shift.

I hope this helps you! It was an interesting topic to research!

References below the cut:

Hansen, C. W., Jensen, P. S., & Skovsgaard, C. V. (2015). Modern gender roles and agricultural history: the Neolithic inheritance. Journal of Economic Growth, 20, 365-404.

Lerner, Gerda, and Gerda Lerner. The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford Univ. Press, 1987.

Saini, A. (2021). The patriarchs: The origins of inequality. Beacon Press.

Kraemer, S. (1991). The origins of fatherhood: An ancient family process. Family process, 30(4), 377-392.

Wrangham, Richard (2009). Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. Basic Books.

Potts, M., & Campbell, M. (2008). The origins and future of patriarchy: the biological background of gender politics. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 34(3), 171–174. doi:10.1783/147118908784734792

Goldberg, S. H. (1974). The inevitability of patriarchy.

UCL. “Analysis: How Did the Patriarchy Start – and Will Evolution Get Rid of It?” UCL News, 20 Sept. 2022, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/sep/analysis-how-did-patriarchy-start-and-will-evolution-get-rid-it.

Engels, F. (2001). The origin of the family, private property and the state. Wellred Books.

Venkataraman, V. V., Hoffman, J., Farquharson, K., Davis, H. E., Hagen, E. H., Hames, R. B., ... & Stibbard-Hawkes, D. N. (2024). Female foragers sometimes hunt, yet gendered divisions of labor are real: a comment on Anderson et al.(2023) The Myth of Man the Hunter. Evolution and Human Behavior.

Kaufmann, J. H. (1983). On the definitions and functions of dominance and territoriality. Biological reviews, 58(1), 1-20.

Allen, M. W., & Jones, T. L. (2014). Violence and warfare among hunter-gatherers. Left Coast Press.

Curry, Andrew. “Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?” Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/.

Gibbons, Ann. “The Evolution of Diet.” National Geographic, http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/evolution-of-diet/.

Novak, Sara. “Females Dominate Males in Many Primate Species.” Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/females-dominate-males-in-many-primate-species/.

Lewis, R. J., Kirk, E. C., & Gosselin-Ildari, A. D. (2023). Evolutionary patterns of intersexual power. Animals, 13(23), 3695.

Novak, Sara. “Females Dominate Males in Many Primate Species.” Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/females-dominate-males-in-many-primate-species/.

Pare, Sascha. “6 Animals Where Females Reign Supreme.” Livescience.Com, 4 July 2024, https://www.livescience.com/animals/animals-where-females-reign-supreme.

“In Real Life, Simba’s Mom Would Be Running the Pride.” Animals, 8 July 2019, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/lion-pride-family-dynamics-females.

Larsen, C. S. (2003). Equality for the sexes in human evolution? Early hominid sexual dimorphism and implications for mating systems and social behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(16), 9103-9104.

*Please note that some of these sources are books that I have not read in their entirety. I also don't necessarily agree with all/any of the content, as I am merely presenting them as sources for the various theories/counter-arguments. They should all be read critically.

**Please also remember my disclaimer ... I did my best, but there are probably more/other/better sources on these topics out there.

[niqhtlord01]

Humans are weird: God Snatchers.

( Please come see me on my new patreon and support me for early access to stories and personal story requests :D https://www.patreon.com/NiqhtLord Every bit helps)

To the Harbargi the coming of the “Celestial Ones” was a time of joyous celebration.

They would look up into the sky as these creatures beyond size darted the outer rings of their humble world and would feast on the crystalized ores that circled the planet. From the planet surface it appeared that the gods themselves had come to their humble home to feast on the fruits and reward them with their protection. A rather superstitious belief, but not completely untrue when considered in the wider perspective.

 The planet was indeed surrounded by several dozen rings of asteroids and as a result the planet was plagued by repeated meteor showers. This made life on the surface increasingly hazardous as the bombardment would often destroy any large settlements on the surface and reduced habitable lands to a fraction of the overall surface. Many Harbargi were summarily forced to live in large underground communes that were connected via an elaborate, although fragile, series of tunnels and passages.

This natural disaster was diminished when the “Celestial Ones” would migrate in system and consume a large portion of the asteroids trapped in the gravitational rings. It was said they would eat the majority of multiple rings before they departed along their way. For a time afterwards the rate of meteor showers was reduced and the population could live and farm on the surface of the world.

Millennia passed by and this partnership worked for everyone; until the dreaded day the humans arrived.

It is believed that humanity first learned of these creatures during an exploration mission in the year 2791. At first they were regarded with scientific inquiry, they soon gained a much larger focus of interest when it was announced that the digestive tracks of these creatures worked as a natural refinery.

The excrement was in fact the most condensed mineral ore the universe had ever seen; even far outpacing the most advanced refineries. So naturally many industrial tycoons and geneticists wanted to have a “closer” look at them, and within three generations the creatures were all but extinct.

Geneticists were able to reproduce the chemical composition of their stomachs after examining the stomachs from both deceased and living organisms. Before this the more simple minded industrialists rounded up countless numbers of them and strapped them into massive facilities where they were fed a constant stream of minerals.

While humanity saw an increase outflow of refined materials, the Harbargi were not as thrilled with the sudden loss of their “Celestial Ones”.

With fewer and fewer creatures present to eat the asteroids, the meteor showers began happening with increasing frequency. The Harbargi were forced to retreat deeper underground for longer and longer periods of time. Eventually it became centuries since anyone had seen one walking upon the surface of their homeworld, which had been reduced to little more than a patchwork of craters. Their last words recorded in a lone stone monument that despite everything remained the last structure to survive on the surface.

“Death to the God Snatchers”.

[bonefall]

Don’t know if this is the right place to ask, but could you talk more about zoos? I’ve seen many people say that zoos are inherently exploitative and that we should instead focus on advocating for wildlife preserves, etc., but I’m not sure what to think of that. You seem to know a lot about wildlife protection, so what’s your opinion on this?

There are folks faaaar better than myself to talk about the issues of zoos specifically and I'll try to toss in some sources so you can go and learn more, but let me try and explain my mindset here.

Summary of my opinion on this: BOTH of these things can be poorly managed, and I broadly support both. They should exist in tandem. I am pro-accredited zoo and am extremely sensitive towards misinformation. I also do think the best place for animals to be is in their natural environment, but nature "preserves" aren't inherently perfect. They can also be prone to the capitalist (and colonialist) pressures that less informed people believe they're somehow immune to.

Because of the goal of my project being to make the setting of WC accurate to Northwestern England, my research is based on UK laws, ecology, and conservation programs.

On Zoos

On Nature Reserves

An Aside on Fortress Conservation

On Zoos

The legal definition of a Zoo in the UK (because that is what BB's ecological education is based around), as defined by the Zoo Licensing Act of 1981 (ZLA), is a "place where wild animals are kept for exhibition to the public," excluding circuses and pet shops (which are covered by different laws.)

This applies equally to private, for-profit zoos, as well as zoos run by wildlife charities and conservation organizations. Profit does not define a zoo. If there's a place trying to tell you it's not a zoo but a "sanctuary" or a "wildlife park," but you can still go visit and see captive wild animals, even if it's totally free, it's a marketing trick. Legally that is still a zoo in the UK.

(for fellow Americans; OUR definition is broader, more patchwork because we are 50 little countries in a trenchcoat, and can include collections of animals not displayed to the public.)

That said, there's a HUGE difference between Chester Zoo, run by the North of England Zoological Society, which personally holds the studbooks for maintaining the genetic diversity of 10 endangered species, has 134 captive breeding projects, cultivates 265 threatened plant species, and sends its members as consultants to United Nations conferences on climate change, and Sam Tiddles' Personal Zebra Pit.

Sam Tiddles' Personal Zebra Pit ONLY has to worry about the UK government. There's another standard zoos can hold themselves to if they want to get serious about conservation like Chester Zoo; Accreditation. There are two major zoo organizations in the UK, BIAZA and EAZA.

(Americans may wonder about AZA; that's ours. AZA, EAZA, and BIAZA are all members of the World Association of Aquariums and Zoos, or WAZA, but they are all individual organizations.)

A zoo going for EAZA's "accreditation" has to undergo an entire year of evaluation to make sure they fit the strict standards, and renewal is ongoing. You don't just earn it once. You have to keep your animal welfare up-to-date and in compliance or you will lose it.

The benefit of joining with an accredited org is that it puts the zoo into a huge network of other organizations. They work together for various conservation efforts.

There are DOZENS of species that were prevented from going extinct, and are being reintroduced back to their habitats, because of the work done by zoos. The scimitar-horned oryx, takhi, California condor, the Galapagos tortoise, etc. Some of these WERE extinct in the wild and wouldn't BE here if it hadn't been for zoos!

The San Diego zoo is preventing the last remaining hawaiian crows from embracing oblivion right now, a species for which SO LITTLE of its wild behavior is known they had to write the book on caring for them, and Chester zoo worked in tandem with the Uganda Wildlife Authority to provide tech and funding towards breakthroughs in surveying wild pangolins.

Don't get me wrong;

MOST zoos are not accredited,

nor is accreditation is REQUIRED to make a good zoo,

nor does it automatically PROVE nothing bad has happened in the zoo,

There are a lot more Sam Tiddles' Personal Zebra Pits than there are Chester Zoos.

That's worth talking about! We SHOULD be having conversations on things like,

Is it appropriate to keep and breed difficult, social megafauna, like elephants or cetaceans? What does the data say? Are there any circumstances where that would be okay, IF the data does confirm we can never provide enough space or stimulation to perfectly meet those species' needs?

How can we improve animal welfare for private zoos? Should we tighten up regulations on who can start or run one (yes)? Are there enough inspectors (no)?

Do those smaller zoos meaningfully contribute to better conservation? How do we know if they are properly educating their visitors? Can we prove this one way or the other?

Who watches the watchmen? Accreditation societies hold themselves accountable. Do these organizations truly have enough transparency?

(I don't agree with Born Free's ultimate conclusion that we should "phase out" zoos, but you should always understand the opposing arguments)

But bottom line of my opinion is; Good zoos are deeply important, and they have a tangible benefit to wildlife conservation. Anyone who tries to tell you that "zoos are inherently unethical" either knows very little about zoos or real conservation work, or... is hiding some deeper, more batshit take, like "having wild animals in any kind of captivity is unlawful imprisonment."

(you'll also get a lot more work done in regulating the exotic animal trade in the UK if you go after private owners, btw. zoos have nothing to do with how lax those laws are.)

Anyway I'm a funny cat blog about battle kitties, and the stuff I do for BB is to educate about the ecosystem of Northern England. If you want to know more about zoos, debunking misconceptions, and critiques from someone with more personal experience, go talk to @why-animals-do-the-thing!

Keep in mind though, again, they talk about American zoos, where this post was written with the UK in mind.

(and even then, England specifically. ALL UK members and also the Isle of Man have differences in their laws.)

(If anyone has other zoo education tumblr blogs in mind, especially if they are European, lmk and I'll edit this post)

On Nature Reserves

Remember how broad the legal definition of a zoo actually was? Same thing over here. A "nature reserve" in the UK is a broad, unofficial generic term for several things. It doesn't inherently involve statutory protection, either, meaning there's some situations where there's no laws to hold anyone accountable for damage

These are the "nature reserve" types relevant to my project; (NOTE: Ramsar sites, SACs, and SPAs are EU-related and honestly, I do not know how Brexit has effected them, if at all, so I won't be explaining something I don't understand.)

Local Wildlife Site (LWS) Selected via scientific survey and managed locally, connecting wildlife habitats together and keeping nature close to home. VERY important... and yet, incredibly prone to destruction because there aren't good reporting processes in place. Whenever a report comes out every few years, the Wildlife Trust says it often only gets data for 15% of all their registered sites, and 12% get destroyed in that timeframe.

Local Nature Reserve (LNR) A site that can be declared by a district or county council, if proven to have geographic, educational, biodiversity, or recreational value. The local authority manages this, BUT, the landowner can remain in control of the property and "lease" it out (and boy oh boy, landowners do some RIDICULOUS things)

National Nature Reserve (NNR) This is probably closest to what you think of when someone says "nature reserve." Designated by Natural England to protect significant habitat ranges and geographic formations, but still usually operates in tandem with private land owners who must get consent if they want to do something potentially damaging to the NNR.

Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (pronounced Triple S-I) A conservation designation for a particular place, assessed and defined by Natural England for its biological or geographic significance. SSSIs are protected areas, and often become the basis for NNRs, LNRs, Ramsar sites, SACs, SPAs, etc.

So you probably noticed that 3/4 of those needed to have the private ownership problem mentioned right in the summary, and it doesn't end there. Even fully government-managed NNRs and SSSIs work with the private sectors of forestry, tourism, and recreation.

We live under Capitalism; EVERYTHING has a profit motive, not just zoos.

I brushed over some of those factors in my Moorland Research Notes and DESPERATELY tried to stay succinct with them, but it was hard. The things that can happen to skirt around the UK's laws protecting wildlife could make an entire season of Monty Python sketches.

Protestors can angrily oppose felling silver birch (a "weed" in this context which can change the ecosystem) because it made a hike less 'pretty' and they don't understand heath management.

Management can be reluctant to ban dogs and horses for fear of backlash, even as they turn heath to sward before our eyes.

Reserves can be owned by Count Bloodsnurt who thinks crashing through the forest with a pack of dogs to exhaust an animal to death is a profitable traditional British passtime.

Or you can literally just pretend that you accidentally chased a deer for several hours and then killed it while innocently sending your baying hounds down a trail. (NOTE: I am pro-hunting, but not pro-animal cruelty.)

The Forestry Commission can slobber enthusiastically while replacing endangered wildlife habitats with non-native, invasive sitka spruce plantations, pretending most trees are equal while conveniently prioritizing profitable timber species.

I have STORIES to tell about the absolute Looney Tunes bullshit that's going on between conservationists and rich assholes who want to sell grouse hunting access, but I'll leave it at this fascinating tidbit about air guns and mannequins which are "totally, absolutely there for no nefarious reason at all, certainly not to prevent marsh harriers from nesting in an area where they also keep winding up mysteriously killed in illegal snares, no no no"

BUT. Since Nature Reserve isn't a hard defined legal concept, and any organization could get involved in local conservation in the UK, and just about anyone or anything could own one... IT'S CHESTER ZOO WITH THE STEEL CHAIR!!

They received a grant in 2021 to restore habitat to a stretch of 10 miles extending outside of their borders, working with TONS of other entities such as local government and conservation charities in the process. There's now 6,000 square meters of restored meadow, an orchard, new ponds, and maintained reedbeds, because of them.

It isn't just Chester Zoo, either. It's all over the UK. Durrel Wildlife, which runs Jersey Zoo, just acquired 18,500 acres to rewild in Perthshire. Citizen Zoo is working with the Beaver Trust to bring beavers back to London and is always looking for volunteers to help with their river projects, and the Edinburgh Zoo is equipped with gene labs being used to monitor and analyze the remaining populations of non-hybrid Scottish Wildcats.

The point being,

Nature preserves have problems too. They are not magical fairy kingdoms that you put up a fence around and then declare you Saved Nature Hooray! They need to be protected. They need to be continuously assessed. They are prone to capitalist pressures just like everything else on this hell planet. Go talk to my boy Karl he'll give you a hug about it.

"Nature Preserves" are NOT an "alternative" to zoos and vice versa. They do not do the same thing. A zoo is a center of education and wildlife research which displays exotic animals. A nature preserve is a parcel of native ecosystem. We need LOTS of nature preserves and we need them well-managed ASAP.

We could never just "replace" zoos with nature preserves, and we're nowhere near the amount of protected ecosystem space to start thinking of scaling back animals in captivity. Until King Arthur comes out of hibernation to save Britain, that's the world we live in.

An Aside

My project and my research is based on the isle of Great Britain. The more I learn about the ecosystems that are naturally found there, the more venomously I reject the old lie, "humans are a blight."

YOU are an animal. You're a big one, too. You know what the role of big animals in an ecosystem are? Change. Elephants knock over trees, wolves alter the course of rivers, bison fertilize the plains from coast-to-coast. In Great Britain, that's what hominids have done for 900,000 years, their populations ebbing and flowing with every ice age.

Early farming created the moors and grazing sheep and cattle maintain it, hosting hundreds of specialist species. Every old-growth forest has signs of ancient coppicing and pollarding, which create havens for wildlife when well-managed. Corn cockle evolved as a mimic of wheat seeds, so farmers would plant it over and over within their fields.

This garbage idea that humans are somehow "separate" from or "above" nature is poison. It's not true ANYWHERE.

It contributes to an idea that our very presence is somehow damaging to natural spaces, and to "protect" it, we have to completely leave it alone. NO! Absolutely NOT! There are places where we have to limit harvesting and foot traffic, but humans ALWAYS lived in nature.

Even the ecosystems that this mindset comes from rejects it, but this shit doesn't JUST get applied to British people who become alienated and disconnected from their surroundings to the point where they don't know what silver birch does.

It's DEADLY for the indigenous people who protect 80% of our most important ecosystems.

It's a weapon against the Maasai people, stopped from hunting or growing crops on their own land. It's violence for 9 San hunters shot at by a helicopter with a "kill poachers on-sight" policy, as one of the world's LARGEST diamond mines operates in the same motherfucking park. The Havasupai people are kept out of the Grand Canyon that they managed for generations because they might "collect too many nuts" and starve squirrels, Dukha reindeer herders suddenly get banned from chopping wood or fishing, and watch wolves decimate their animals in the absence of their herding dogs.

It's nightmare after nightmare of human displacement in the name of "conservation."

That all ties back to that mindset. This idea that nature is pure, "pristine," and should be totally untouched. There are some starting to call it Fortress Conservation.

You can't begin to understand the criticisms of modern conservation without acknowledging that we are still living under the influence of capitalism and colonialism. Those who fixate on speaking for "animals/nature/trees who don't have a voice" often seem to have no interest in the indigenous people who do.

Listen. There's no simple answer; and the solution will vary for each region.

Again, my project is within the UK, one of the most ecologically devastated areas in the world. There are bad zoos that the law allows a pass. There are incredible zoos that are vital to conservation, in and outside of the country. There's not enough nature preserves. The best ones that exist are often exploited for profit.

I hope that my silly little blog sparks an interest in a handful of people to understand more about their own local ecosystems, and teaches folks about the unique beauty even within a place as "boring" as England.

But, my straightforward statement is that I have no patience for nonconstructive, broad zoo slander that lumps together ALL of them, and open contempt for anyone who tries to sell nature preserves like a perfect, morally superior "alternative." We need them BOTH right now, and we need to acknowledge that zoos AND preserves have legal and ethical issues that aren't openly talked about.

[littlesliceofimmortality]

hey henry i was going through ur circus au tag and i was wondering do u have any lore for this specific au??? im VERY curious i really like the designs esp mingus and norm (worlds most predictable phrase) :-)

HII MICH :-) smile! my circus au started as "lol wouldnt it be funny if cowboys instead of clowns were a separate species & went extinct". & now it makes me sick

ITS NOT EVENthat much different than the canon story ingame!!!! its just flashier & showy-er & LOUD. mingus demands attention, especially. her being a lioness does in fact mean callum had a pet lion. Alot wrong with him

she had callums ringleader outfit retailored to fit her, fun fact! (shes VERY large, almost scraping 7ft). its different cloth though & the gold studs had to be replaced & coattails needed lengthening & etc... so maybe it really isnt the same

(GINGIs made up of the same cloth as callum, however! the original CIRCUS tent, with polka dots and all !!! and who am i to argue that callum didnt embody the entire city of dialtown?) (mingus is very mad about this fact & actively denounces it)

rather than living on the outskirts of town, norm was found as a lone ranger out in the open prairies of Wisconsin (i cant elaborate here. thats another rant & theres too many parenthesis already) . instead of being immediately executed As is normal procedure, mingus recognizes him as a fragment of history & essentially forces him to join the ragtag rundown circus she runs

since dialtown is already a group of misfits, not many of the cast oogled at the new rodeo clown (it was a HUGE fight on what he'd "star as", & mingus finally relented to him keeping the cowboy hat & paper bag) (if he acts up she threatens to categorize him as a "freak show" and shred his bag)

mingus doesnt treat him as a thing with feelings alot of the time & moreso a thing to help get her pawpaw back. since right now hes. kind of a statue. shes opened up & put back together his head so many times & had to repair him & ward off rust so often that now ALL of his head is golden. not patchworked, but rather, polished

the city is only KNOWN as a city & NOT a travelling circus anymore is because of this, actually. its too much work to transport callum around in the state he is. so mingus dug her heels in & hammered in the tent poles hard. immovable force. not going anywhere til she can step down & let her pawpaw lead again

he was objectively better at it, anyhow. she knows this but WILL bite you if you say it to her face. callum was a magician too, after all! had tricks up his sleeve. much sneakier when hes pulling strings behind the curtains. he had his "assistant" too (aka the other half of the entire show) , which mingus TRIES to replicate, which... i love tango, but nobody can compare to marla

all of this is very upsetting to norm. everything about it, really. worst anyones ever done it. however hes just as stubborn as mingus and will NOT be used as a tool! (thats the ONLY reason, trust) (theres totally nothing about how he'd rather idolize crown in his mind & is a little terrified of whatd happen if he came back & saw the state of everything)

[bisonofyesterday]

Bison’s Big Cool NEW YEARS EVE December 2024 Art Dump!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

my GOTY's unconventional can you guess what it was

here's some Patriots and Phenomenal art for the holiday season! (lifted from a Drawpile)

i love Superman, he's quickly becoming my favorite superhero of all time (next to the Fantastic Four), here's some doodles of those guys, i TRIED to make my own take on Brainiac but while i think this design gives me Doom vibes i don't think i nailed it very well, i probably should just stick to the 80s robo-skeleton look, YES my definitive Brainiac is MAwS's version how could you tell? also my Lois is Asian because i think she should be

i've been reading TONS and TONS of comics, more than any past year, and one of those was the apparently beloved Warworld Saga! as someone who's only experienced very lacking takes on Warworld and Mongul before reading (DCAU, Young Justice), i was FASCINATED by this patchwork planet of despair and cultural infighting shown in Warworld Saga, basically, Warworld roams the stars enslaving entire races and subsuming them into itself, Mongul (a ruling family title, not one guy) constantly preaching a creed of might makes right, might makes peace, and those who are weak (aka races who end up extinct within Warworld's bowels) deserved it, this is down even to individual action, your status on Warworld is represented by the length of the chain around your arm, you start with your hands tied together, but after winning your first few battles the chain grows longer, ergo more freedom of movement, it represents strength AND freedom despite you still being enslaved!! i thought the whole thing was so dire and a story about Superman being trapped and bringing actual justice and kindness to it and its population felt very powerful to me, how does the figure of ultimate hope help a planet that doesn't want to be saved?

UNFORTUNATELY Warworld Saga is not interested in this story, it is, instead, interested in its weird ancient Kryptonians, something i was not interested in, so when Superman rather easily rallied together a rebellion and Mongul was murdered by an upstart villain during the climax, i was sorely disappointed, it's a good story! don't get me wrong! i just fell in-love with the Superman vs The Pitt from Fallout 3 in my head that i was not given

uh what was i talking about? oh yeah anyways this is my redesign for Mongul, i think his comic design looks stupid, frankly, and probably why he keeps getting shunted in adaptations in spite of his potential, the man looks AND acts like a very lame Darkseid, so i tried to stay true to what i liked while keeping the Mongul of Warworld Saga in mind, my Mongul here is a bit more transparently alien AND more heavyset, my inspirations were Ultimate Thanos, regular Thanos, God of War's Hercules, and of course God of War's Thor, he's the ultimate gladiator who Superman has to prove himself against

anyways here's some weapons from By Jove! and a traced drawing of By Jove! Zeus as the Zeus from Fortnite because i think it's funny

happy new year!

[the-insomniac-emporium]

SWORDTEMBER '24, DAY 11: PATCHWORK

Item ID: E6-2411 Item Name: Sir Teddyson the Brave Category: N/A Origin Point: Unknown Owner: Unknown, Dockworker? Description: A medium plush stuffed animal, worn from many years of being carried around. Traditional Earthen design, somewhat resembling the now-extinct polar bear. This item, referred to as a Teddy Bear, is a common comfort item for human children. Close to the left leg of the bear is a small tag, labeled with the bear’s name: Sir Teddyson the Brave. While many traditional bears do not come with accessories, this item is dressed as an Earthen warrior known as a knight, equipped with armor, a cloak, and detachable sword with shield. Due to the item’s age, it has been previously torn in several places. These spots have been thoroughly repaired with new stitches and, where necessary, scraps of different fabric. The end result is a patchwork of materials that has clearly been adored for several generations. Cataloger’s Notes: If we don’t figure out who this belongs to, I am going to cry. This lil guy has all the markings of something passed down between family members. Who knows how many children have held this thing? How many parents or older siblings have worked to repair the damage, just to ensure a young one will have something to comfort them and keep them company.

-----

Nobody seems to know where the bear came from. It has all the marks of something accidentally left behind by another employee, having been found in the parking lot instead of in the loading bay, but so far no one has inquired about any lost items. As such, it had fallen to Cynthia to catalog the item so they could legally put it into temporary storage. Only a handful of the FPA’s employees are human, and she was the first one in for the day, so she had been deemed the best fit to handle such a “culturally significant” item.

Currently, she’s in a video call with Naomi, trying not to get too emotional while talking about the bear in her hands. To her credit, Naomi is listening intently, occasionally offering up anecdotes about her own childhood plush (a teddy styled like a ronin, whatever that is), and overall being very supportive. They’ve been talking for over an hour now, the time passing without notice, and Cynthia has just about finished her write-up on Sir Teddyson.

During a quiet moment, with Naomi stepping away to talk to her brother about his planned homecoming, the sound of footsteps and voices grows louder from the hallway. A moment later there’s a knock at her office door, and she presses the button to let them in. Immediately the conversation pauses, and a rather frazzled looking dockworker steps inside. He’s a Bophellian, a bipedal species with slanted eyes and a thin layer of fur covering the body, with traditional silver jewelry adorning his pointed ears. In one hand he holds a phone, the other covering the device’s speaker.

“Hi, hello, I’m so, so very sorry to interrupt, but-” the man (Xerro, according to his nametag) says, stopping when his gaze lands on the teddy bear. That’s all it takes for him to visibly relax, a rush of air coming from his lungs. Quickly, he says something into the phone, the speech too fast for Cynthia’s translator to parse. “Again, sorry to interrupt, but my daughter left her Knight Bear here when my wife picked me up yesterday. We spent a couple hours looking for it last night, but I see you’ve found it”

Relief fills Cynthia, and she’s more than ready to hand the bear over (she’s never been introduced to Xerro before, but she’s talked to the other dockworkers enough to hear he’s a beloved coworker). Still, Xerro hangs up the phone after confirming that he found the bear, and proceeds to provide photo evidence of the bear being his daughter’s. Apparently it had been given to her by her birth father, who had passed when she was only a few years old. Since then, her mother had married Xerro, who had been more than happy to raise the little one, regardless of a difference in species.

It was a very cute story, all in all, with some adorable photos (including one where Xerro was dressed up in a homemade knight costume for his daughter’s birthday). By the time he left, Sir Teddyson in hand, Cynthia felt her heart full with joy. Once his footsteps faded, she resumed her call with Naomi and updated her on the conclusion to the story they had become so invested in.

[eternal-gromnommer]

In celebration of this year's Kaijune, I decided to re-watch Pacific Rim: Uprising to check if it really was as bad as everyone was claiming it was and I remember it being.

It...kinda was.

Heaps of wasted opportunities, character arcs that went nowhere, random pointless death of Mako Mori (boo!) and a whole new cast of teens who have little appeal and just rehash the story beats of the first film.

Which is a shame, because it did have a lot of cool ideas that could have been better-executed. Like the hybrid-drones, or Obsidian Fury, the kaiju-brain controlled Jaeger.

But by far the biggest wasted opportunity was the rather bland and underwhelming Mega Kaiju, which just looked like a bigger Kaiju with the component parts barely evident. So for Kaijune I whipped up a redesign of how I'd try to make it look more distinct and have the component parts accounted for.

Raijin, Hakuja and Shrikethorn remain mostly unchanged, just with more distinct palettes to highlight the patchwork nature of the fusion and with a reduced number of digits to make the fused limbs less cluttered.

The centerpiece of the Mega Kaiju head is Raijin's inner head, with Shrikethorn's inverted upper jaw now forming the lower jaw and Raijin and Shrikethorn's original lower jaws forming a "collar" around the neck. Hakuja's head is split entirely in half to form "horns" and the tusked lower jaw similarly bisected to form "mandibles". Raijin's four head-plates are all present, with the bottom two on the chest and the top two forming a crest atop the fused head. Ten eyes from Shrikethorn, six from Hakuja and sixteen from Raijin add up to a total of 32: way more than canon!Mega Kaiju's ten.

The redesigned Mega Kaiju also has eight limbs instead of six. The two main forearms are a fusion of Shrikethorn and Raijin's arms, while a smaller pair on the chest are Hakuja's intact frontmost limbs. The two pairs of hind legs are Hakuja's four back legs, with the middle pair fused to Raijin's legs and the back pair fused to Shrikethorn's legs. Hakuja's dorsal armor plates now stand up like spikes on the Mega Kaiju's back, and the tails are partly Raijin and partly Shrikethorn, with Hakuja armor plates forming spear-like tips.

And finally, as a stitched-together Frankensteined kaiju, the seams are still clearly visible, made from the ripper drones that tore apart the three components and sewed them up into one. The seams and stitches occasionally leak blue kaiju blood now and then: furthering the Mega Kaiju design as a mutilated, tortured monstrosity, clearly not designed to survive very long and merely live long enough to wreck its immediate foes, reach Mount Fuji, and jump inside to its death to fulfill the Precursors' master plan to trigger a massive eruption and cause a mass extinction event.

[patchwork-extinction]

I am what is left behind when everything stops. It will come, and everything will be left behind. I am a patchwork of scraps. My name is Patch, and I am a creation of The Extinction.

[OOC: yeah, this is @randomvoices again]

[swampgh0stt]

This was originally my piece for the Freak Show zine, which I was supposed to be a guest writer for. However, there were personal reasons for me dropping, as well as some discomfort for the way certain topics were being treated in the server. I haven't posted anything MHA related for a while, but I'm slowly coming back around to it. So, I might as well share this. cw: ableism, trauma episode, heat stroke, vomiting Geten is not a Himura in this; I've always written him as an Inuk from Alaska, & it's going to stay that way.

Geten had his suspicions for a while now. 

His co-captain would often miss meetings, which was usually chalked up to his careless nature. The Ice User could agree with such, if not for the other odd behaviors: Delayed responses to one-on-one conversations, which Geten originally mused as nothing more than Dabi’s idiocy showing itself. Sometimes, Dabi would just respond to things that weren’t even said, as if the words had muddied up in his mind. Was it just an act when he was withdrawn from group conversations, or something more? To remove himself from group settings when his fellow dogs from the League were quick to indulge themselves? 

He was in the company of allies, but always alert. Dabi would study whatever room he found himself in, reading the space like prey awaiting a stalking predator. 

Yes, there was the possible explanation that Dabi just didn’t trust anyone. That was glaringly obvious with the way he carried himself, detached from the rest of them. Even his own pack of mongrels would make attempts to include him, but often to no avail (from Geten’s observations). In his opinion though, there was a clear distinction between his obvious distrust and his hypervigilance -- which lead Geten to his hypothesis: 

“Dabi’s deaf.” 

Re-Destro paused in his own long-winded ramblings, most of which had gone unnoticed by the Ice Man. Ignoring his Grand Commander’s words in favor of musing over a mutt like Dabi? That was even more shameful than he cared to admit. If pressed on why he bothered to waste the time, there was a perfectly good excuse: Liability. A co-captain who struggled to hear? Was that really who they wanted in a position of power? 

The Grand Commander stared expectantly, prompting Geten to continue once he realized. “Not fully… Obviously,” he mumbled. “But partially, I’m sure.” 

Re-Destro hummed in thought. He knew better than to question his most loyal’s keen eye. Unlike most of the Liberation Army, Geten was not born and raised in an urban environment. Hell, Geten wasn’t even from Japan. He had grown up on the untamed Alaskan coast, keeping alive a culture that had been pushed to the brink of extinction. His use of foreign practices and (what Re-Destro assumed was) a dead language made the Ice User invaluable. He saw things that often went missed by others. And then there was his combat abilities… 

“Leave him alone.”

The immediate shutdown was ill-received. Geten balked at his Grand Commander (because he didn’t care about the loss to the mutts, Re-Destro was his leader till the day he died). “Why?” it was unlike him to question any decision Rikiya made, but recently… 

“Because it doesn’t matter.” Rikiya waved off the faux concern with a scoff. “Shigaraki knows what he has.” It was impossible for him to not realize, right? “It’s none of your concern.”

That was not the answer he wanted to hear, but Geten chose to bite his tongue for the rest of the meeting. He could go vent out his frustrations after.

-----

Fire was his strength. There wasn’t much in this world that could stand against the destructive, incredible power of fire. Razing down entire rotting ecosystems, just to breathe life back and make way for something better. It was supposed to be a gift, in this world, until it was wielded by the wrong hand. In regards to the gift his dear father bestowed upon him, Touya was in no shortage of drawbacks. The snide remarks of his patchwork skin meant nothing to him now, having made peace with that necessary sacrifice so long ago. He felt accomplished when he pushed himself beyond his own limits, triumphantly rejoicing in his mind to a man that would not hear him, over a younger sibling that was not around. 

His Conquests, as he so happily claimed: Overcoming a previous version of himself that was cast aside. The rest of the world had ripped away any validation to his own existence, but Touya carved out his own. 

He just had to entertain the whims of Shigaraki and the League, until the time was right. Most of his days were boring recently, leaving him time to plan (when he wasn’t keeping an eye on Hawks). He ran through his scheme multiple times a day, envisioning the execution right down to every fine detail. Touya nestled back into his pillows, languishing in a soft mattress while he ignored whatever bullshit assigned duties were given for the day. He couldn’t care less about the PLF, or the cult-like followers within it. 

And then there was his co-captain. 

There was a pounding at the door, pulling a grimace back on Touya’s face as he sat upright and stared. He didn’t bother getting up to open the door, nor did he need to. The Ice User slammed it open for him. “Anigit!” Get out. And his tone was as icy cold as his Quirk. 

Touya’s blue eyes rolled before he fell back on his bed again. 

Geten was in no mood for it. “Are you stupid?” He snapped back, resting his hands on his hips. “Too dumb to execute simple tasks properly? That’s why you hide away in here all the time--” 

“No,” Touya interrupted. “Just not dumb enough to play your goofy cult games--”

“You think you’re so much better than everyone else,” Geten ran right over his snide remarks with venom dripping from his words. “But you’re useless. And even worse, you’re useless with a bad attitude.”

Finally, Touya stood, stomping down on the ground. He sulked out of his room, his heart pounding as the Ice User’s words nestled in, reverberating through his mind. They bounced around, his words morphing and deepening, taking on the same tone as Endeavor. 

Endeavor. 

His blue eyes glared ahead as he stomped down the hallway, ignoring whatever barking Geten was doing behind him. Hands were shoved into his pockets as his shoulders slumped forward. He wasn’t sure when his Quirk began responding to his emotions (Touya was sure he had them in check!), but it was hard to miss the bright blue glow illuminating off him in the hallway. ‘No, not again.’ He had grown beyond this. 

And yet, there he stood again-- brought to a pause by the sudden pain of heat dancing across his skin. The small space was filled with the crackle of flames springing to life, overwhelming him as abruptly as the rage he felt. 

He needed to get control. He couldn’t get control.

“Dabi..!” Geten’s voice was nothing more than a muffled plea, drowned in the roar of blue fire. “Dabi, that’s enough!” 

The heat was unbearable as he inched closer, causing sweat to bead down his sides. He was so used to the antagonistic relationship they shared, he didn’t think twice of it until now-- now, when Dabi’s fire was raging out of control. Now, when there was a legitimate threat to the Paranormal Liberation Front, to their cause, to Re-Destro himself! Geten frosted his hands over in a thin layer of ice and pulled the hood of his parka just a bit tighter. He dared take another step forward as frustration twisted his stomach in knots. “You damn crybaby!” He raised his voice, his throat protesting against the smoke he inhaled. 

Touya dropped to his knees, his fingers threaded in black hair. Icy blue eyes were as wide as saucers, staring at nothing in particular. His thoughts were racing, taking him away from the training arena, away from Deika all together. He was back in his childhood home, pleading for validation all over again. He could clearly see his mother’s panicked gray eyes staring him down, could hear his father tearing Shoto away with declarations of his own importance and separation from the rest of his siblings. 

Never good enough, just as Enji had proven time and time again-- Geten reaffirmed with his snarls. He caught Touya at the wrong time, and now he couldn’t bring his own flames to heel. 

With a violent heave, Touya nearly face planted against the floor. He barely managed to catch himself as he lurched forward, unsteady hands supporting his trembling body. Saliva dripped from his lips, threatening to spill whatever contents were in his stomach. Too much heat. He couldn’t stop. He would surely burn up--

All at once, his fire was snuffed out. Ice water washed over him, dousing out the fire where he had failed to do so himself. A white boot came up and violently kicked his shaking form to the floor.

Geten slammed his heel down to pin his co-captain, and ripped the hood of his parka back. “You bastard!” He shouted, his throat scratchy and voice strained. “Taima!” That’s enough. “You could have burned the whole complex down! Didn’t you hear me!?” 

Dabi was silent for the first few moments, staring out in utter confusion. Didn’t you hear me? The words barely registered in his mind, but he dared not look up at the one who started it all: “No…” His own voice was barely above a whisper when he spoke. 

“Qanuikkavit!?” What’s wrong!? Geten seethed, his eyes wild as he stared down at his pathetic co-captain. “What the Hell happened!?” 

Touya’s trembling form curled further in on itself, the nausea and pain from nearly roasting alive (again) rooted deep in his gut. Geten finally stepped away and knelt down beside the Flame User; was that guilt he felt? He let out a shaky breath, trying to calm his nerves so he could focus more on Dabi. “I’m sorry,” he apologized, his voice still scratchy from smoke inhalation. 

For once, he would concede that he had gone too far.

[mariacallous]

LONDON (AP) — For holding a sign outside a courthouse reminding jurors of their right to acquit defendants, a retiree faces up to two years in prison. For hanging a banner reading “Just Stop Oil” off a bridge, an engineer got a three-year prison sentence. Just for walking slowly down the street, scores of people have been arrested.

They are among hundreds of environmental activists arrested for peaceful demonstrations in the U.K., where tough new laws restrict the right to protest.

The Conservative government says the laws prevent extremist activists from hurting the economy and disrupting daily life. Critics say civil rights are being eroded without enough scrutiny from lawmakers or protection by the courts. They say the sweeping arrests of peaceful demonstrators, along with government officials labeling environmental activists extremists, mark a worrying departure for a liberal democracy.

“Legitimate protest is part of what makes any country a safe and civilized place to live,” said Jonathon Porritt, an ecologist and former director of Friends of the Earth, who joined a vigil outside London’s Central Criminal Court to protest the treatment of demonstrators.

“The government has made its intent very clear, which is basically to suppress what is legitimate, lawful protest and to use every conceivable mechanism at their disposal to do that.”

A PATCHWORK DEMOCRACY

Britain is one of the world’s oldest democracies, home of the Magna Carta, a centuries-old Parliament and an independent judiciary. That democratic system is underpinned by an “unwritten constitution” — a set of laws, rules, conventions and judicial decisions accumulated over hundreds of years.

The effect of that patchwork is “we rely on self-restraint by governments,” said Andrew Blick, author of “Democratic Turbulence in the United Kingdom” and a political scientist at King’s College London. “You hope the people in power are going to behave themselves.”

But what if they don’t? During three turbulent and scandal-tarnished years in office, Boris Johnson pushed prime ministerial power to the limits. More recently, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has asked Parliament to overrule the U.K. Supreme Court, which blocked a plan to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda.

Such actions have piled pressure on Britain’s democratic foundations. Critics say cracks have appeared.

As former Conservative justice minister David Lidington put it: “The ‘good chap’ theory of checks and balances has now been tested to destruction.”

GOVERNMENT TAKES AIM AT PROTESTERS

The canaries in the coal mine of the right to protest are environmental activists who have blocked roads and bridges, glued themselves to trains, splattered artworks with paint, sprayed buildings with fake blood, doused athletes in orange powder and more to draw attention to the threats posed by climate change.

The protesters, from groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and Insulate Britain, argue that civil disobedience is justified by a climate emergency that threatens humanity’s future.

Sunak has called the protesters “selfish” and “ideological zealots,” and the British government has responded to the disruption with laws constraining the right to peaceful protest. Legal changes made in 2022 created a statutory offense of “public nuisance,” punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and gave police more powers to restrict protests judged to be disruptive.

It was followed by the 2023 Public Order Act, which broadened the definition of “serious disruption,” allowing police to search demonstrators for items including locks and glue. It imposes penalties of up to 12 months in prison for protesters who block “key infrastructure,” defined widely to include roads and bridges.

The government said it was acting to “protect the law-abiding majority’s right to go about their daily lives.” But Parliament’s cross-party Joint Human Rights Committee warned that the changes would have “a chilling effect on the right to protest.”

Days after the new act took effect in May, six anti-monarchist activists were arrested before the coronation of King Charles III before they had so much as held up a “Not My King” placard. All were later released without charge.

In recent months the pace of protests and the scale of arrests has picked up, partly as a result of a legal tweak that criminalized slow walking, a tactic adopted by protesters to block traffic by marching at low speed along roads. Hundreds of Just Stop Oil activists have been detained by police within moments of starting to walk.

Some protesters have received prison sentences that have been called unduly punitive.

Structural engineer Morgan Trowland was one of two Just Stop Oil activists who scaled the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge over the River Thames near London in October 2022, forcing police to shut the highway below for 40 hours. He was sentenced to three years in prison for causing a public nuisance. Judge Shane Collery said the tough sentence was “both for the chaos you caused and to deter others from seeking to copy you.”

He was released early on Dec. 13, having spent a total of 14 months in custody.

Ian Fry, the United Nations’ rapporteur for climate change and human rights, wrote to the British government in August over the stiff sentences, calling the anti-protest law a “direct attack on the right to the freedom of peaceful assembly.” Michel Forst, the U.N. special rapporteur on environmental defenders, in October called the British laws “terrifying.”

The Conservative government has dismissed the criticism.

“Those who break the law should feel the full force of it,” Sunak said in response.

Even more worrying, some legal experts say, is the “justice lottery” facing arrested protesters. Half the environmentalists tried by juries have been acquitted after explaining their motivations, including nine women who smashed a bank’s windows with hammers and five activists who sprayed the Treasury with fake blood from a firehose.

But at some other trials, judges have banned defendants from mentioning climate change or their reasons for protesting. Several defendants who defied the orders have been jailed for contempt of court.

Tim Crosland, a former government lawyer turned environmental activist, said it’s “Kafkaesque if people are on trial and they’ve got a gag around their mouth.”

“That feels like something that happens in Russia or China, not here,” he said.

To highlight concern about such judges’ orders, retired social worker Trudi Warner sat outside Inner London Crown Court in March holding a sign reading “Jurors – You have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.” She was arrested and later informed by the solicitor-general that she would be prosecuted for contempt of court, which is punishable by up to two years in prison. Britain has strict contempt laws intended to protect jurors from interference.

Since then, hundreds more people have held similar signs outside courthouses to protest a charge they say undermines the foundations of trial by jury. Two dozen of the “Defend Our Juries” protesters have been interviewed by police, though so far no one apart from Warner has been charged.

Porritt said the aim is “to bring it to people’s attention that there is now this assault on the judicial process and on the rights of jurors to acquit according to their conscience.”

IS BREXIT TO BLAME?

Many legal and constitutional experts say the treatment of protesters is just one symptom of an increasingly reckless attitude toward Britain’s democratic structures that has been fueled by Brexit.

Britain’s 2016 referendum on whether to leave the European Union was won by a populist “leave” campaign that promised to restore Parliament’s – and by extension the public’s -- sovereignty and control over U.K. borders, money and laws.

The divorce brought to power Boris Johnson, who vowed to “get Brexit done,” but appeared unprepared for the complexities involved in unpicking decades of ties with the EU.

Johnson tested Britain’s unwritten constitution. When lawmakers blocked his attempts to leave the bloc without a divorce agreement, he suspended Parliament -- until the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that illegal. He later proposed breaking international law by reneging on the U.K.’s exit treaty with the EU.

He also became enmeshed in personal scandals – from murky funding for his vacations and home decoration to lockdown-breaking parties during the pandemic. He was finally ousted from office by his own fed-up lawmakers in 2022, and later found to have lied to Parliament.

“People were elevated to high office (by Brexit) who then behaved in ways which were difficult to reconcile with maintenance of a stable democracy,” said Blick, the King’s College professor.

The populist instinct, if not the personal extravagance, has continued under Johnson’s Conservative successors as prime minister. In November, the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that a plan by Sunak to send asylum-seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda was unlawful because the country is not a safe place for refugees. The government has responded with a plan to pass a law declaring Rwanda safe, regardless of what the court says.

The bill, which is currently before Parliament, has caused consternation among legal experts. Former Solicitor-General Edward Garnier said “changing the law to declare Rwanda a safe haven is rather like a bill which says that Parliament has decided that all dogs are cats.”

But Blick says Britain’s unwritten constitution means that checks and balances are easier to override than in some other democracies.

“Nothing can actually be deemed clearly to be unconstitutional,” he said. “So there’s no real blockage (on political power) other than that’s where you come back to self-restraint.”

A DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT?

In Britain’s system, Parliament is meant to act as a bulwark against executive overreach. But in recent years, the government has given lawmakers less and less time to scrutinize legislation. Because the Conservative government has a large House of Commons majority, it can push bills through after perfunctory time for debate. Many laws are passed in skeleton form, with the detail filled in later through what’s known as secondary legislation, which does not receive the full parliamentary scrutiny given to a bill.

It increasingly falls to Parliament’s upper chamber, the House of Lords, to scrutinize and try to amend laws that the House of Commons has waved through. The Lords spent months this year trying to water down the anti-protest provisions in the Public Order Act. But ultimately the upper house can’t overrule the Commons. And as an unelected assortment of political appointees, a handful of judges and bishops and a smattering of hereditary nobles, it’s arguably not the height of 21st-century democracy.

“Of course the Lords is indefensible, but so is the Commons in its current form,” William Wallace, a Liberal Democrat member of the Lords, told a recent conference on Britain’s constitution. “The Commons has almost given up detailed scrutiny of government bills.”

Since Brexit, academics, politicians and others have been debating Britain’s democratic deficit in a series of meetings, conferences and reports. Proposed remedies include citizens’ assemblies, a new body to oversee the constitution and a higher bar for changing key laws. But none of that is on the immediate horizon — much less a written constitution.

The protesters, meanwhile, say they are fighting for democracy as well as the environment.

Sue Parfitt, an 81-year-old Anglican priest who has been arrested more times than she can remember as part of the group Christian Climate Action, has twice been acquitted of criminal charges. She, too, was interviewed by police after holding a sign outside court reminding jurors of their rights.

“It’s worth doing to keep the right to protest alive, quite apart from climate change,” she said.

“It would be difficult for me to get to prison at 81. But I’m prepared to go. … There is a sense in which going to prison is the ultimate statement you can make.”

[apocalypse-post]

Ah, another one who serves The Extinction. Hello there.

@patchwork-extinction

Hey hey 🤙 Nice to see I’m not gonna be the only one left once the world goes to hell 🔥😎

[r0bita]

The more I think about it, Porcupamon digivolving into Astamon makes for an interesting "rags-to-riches" story.

Porcupamon - Very unlucky digimon who have to resort to wearing patchwork teddybear costumes to avoid being hunted to extinction. Was pushed into the Dark Area (probably for being too stabby and pokey) so they were not put there by choice.

Astamon - Arguably one of the most beloved and respected digimon in the Dark Area due to their charismatic personality. Very protective of their companions. Probably runs a powerful syndicate, if not an entire army of demons. Is basically royalty.

[niqhtlord01]

Humans are weird: God Snatchers

( Please come see me on my new patreon and support me for early access to stories and personal story requests :D https://www.patreon.com/NiqhtLord Every bit helps)

To the Harbargi the coming of the “Celestial Ones” was a time of joyous celebration.

They would look up into the sky as these creatures beyond size darted the outer rings of their humble world and would feast on the crystalized ores that circled the planet. From the planet surface it appeared that the gods themselves had come to their humble home to feast on the fruits and reward them with their protection. A rather superstitious belief, but not completely untrue when considered in the wider perspective.

 The planet was indeed surrounded by several dozen rings of asteroids and as a result the planet was plagued by repeated meteor showers. This made life on the surface increasingly hazardous as the bombardment would often destroy any large settlements on the surface and reduced habitable lands to a fraction of the overall surface. Many Harbargi were summarily forced to live in large underground communes that were connected via an elaborate, although fragile, series of tunnels and passages.

This natural disaster was diminished when the “Celestial Ones” would migrate in system and consume a large portion of the asteroids trapped in the gravitational rings. It was said they would eat the majority of multiple rings before they departed along their way. For a time afterwards the rate of meteor showers was reduced and the population could live and farm on the surface of the world.

Millennia passed by and this partnership worked for everyone; until the dreaded day the humans arrived.

It is believed that humanity first learned of these creatures during an exploration mission in the year 2791. At first they were regarded with scientific inquiry, they soon gained a much larger focus of interest when it was announced that the digestive tracks of these creatures worked as a natural refinery.

The excrement was in fact the most condensed mineral ore the universe had ever seen; even far outpacing the most advanced refineries. So naturally many industrial tycoons and geneticists wanted to have a “closer” look at them, and within three generations the creatures were all but extinct.

Geneticists were able to reproduce the chemical composition of their stomachs after examining the stomachs from both deceased and living organisms. Before this the more simple minded industrialists rounded up countless numbers of them and strapped them into massive facilities where they were fed a constant stream of minerals.

While humanity saw an increase outflow of refined materials, the Harbargi were not as thrilled with the sudden loss of their “Celestial Ones”.

With fewer and fewer creatures present to eat the asteroids, the meteor showers began happening with increasing frequency. The Harbargi were forced to retreat deeper underground for longer and longer periods of time. Eventually it became centuries since anyone had seen one walking upon the surface of their homeworld, which had been reduced to little more than a patchwork of craters. Their last words recorded in a lone stone monument that despite everything remained the last structure to survive on the surface.

“Death to the God Snatchers”.