Sapience and sentience is what you are looking for.

Most animals are sentient but not all sentient animals are sapient.

An ape can realize its him in the mirror while a goldfish can't

As of non biological neurons, computer simulated neural networks are the closest thing. But they are neither sentient nor sapient yet.

[removed]

Where did I say any of that?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

90 species of whale, 2 elephants , 2 cows, 2 primates, 5 rhino, 2 hippos, 1 horse 48 deer but some are tiny. I don't know. Sounds reasonable.

Also is this by average weight? Minimum adult healthy weight? Some dogs are 100 lbs.

Yes, because they are so arid, that there is just no water to form ice.

[removed]

I was thrilled to see that we're getting closer to the definition of intelligence bit by bit (here the emphasis should be on "bit by bit") when I first learned the notion "Relevance Realization". A guy called John Vervaeke does a very good job in explaining it.

Do you remember carbon credits? Incentives to try to encourage carbon reduction? When you offset pollution with another form of pollution, you haven't reduced pollution, just moved the source. We shouldn't ignore one source of pollution for another because we support one industry over the other. We should be reducing all pollution as much as possible, not adding new sources and types of pollution.

That's not how I read the above comment at all.

I saw it saying something more like "if the satellites create a problem, you could offset that by a small reduction in an existing terrible industry". But, as I pointed out, I don't have sufficient information to connect them as substitutable effects.

This opinion shows little concern for the environment or the future impacts on the environment from new technologies. You want to ignore potential issues because there are already issues. Compounding the problem will never fix it, and adding more trash burning isn't a fix. Prevention of future pollution should be as important as stopping current pollution, otherwise what is the point?

[removed]

Isn't there some parts that are not frozen 365?

[removed]

Earth can't spread its resources to correct every little thing, we need to focus on bigger items. Aluminum oxide in our water is probably minor compared to the acidification of the oceans, also plastic pollution, mercury, etc.

Yes it might contribute but it's minor and so I'd say forget about trying to solve it, fixing it wouldn't change the course in any major way.

Ok, but again, that issue doesn't negate the possible environmental impacts of burning off tons of metal in the atmosphere by a different industry. Does SpaceX get a pass because coal companies are bad? We should be limiting this type of waste and pollution, not trying to wave it away because a different industry is worse.

Coal plants burn what you throw in them, and coal isn't pure. That's how you get things like radioactive coal ash.

The questions to ask next would be along the lines of:

• what metallic contents are found in typical fuel coal?
• how much of that gets into fly ash?
• how different are near-surface metallic emissions and stratospheric metallic emissions?

But I don't have data for those.

[removed]

The typical colour range of urine is from light yellow to deep amber. The urobilin pigment, commonly known as urochrome, is the main cause for this colour.The colour of the pigment depends on whether your pee is water-diluted or more concentrated. The colour of your urine gets lighter as you drink more water and become more hydrated.
The chemicals and pigments in the foods you consume, as well as the drugs you take, also affect the colour of your urine. These modifications are fairly common and generally pass quickly.
An underlying medical problem may be indicated by certain colour changes.

There was a tundra ecosystem in Antarctica until around 12 million years ago, when it got covered in ice and became too cold to support most life. The only two flowering plants known to still survive in Antarctica are Deschampsia antarctica and Colobanthis quitensis.

Interestingly, Antarctica wasn't always at the south pole. It once had a tropical, then later a temperate climate, so there are likely some very interesting animal fossils hiding beneath the ice (assuming they weren't destroyed by repeated freeze-thaw cycles).

Well, you can test in a lab if masks worn properly or a good approximation of that filter out aerosols or dust and to what degree. As for "as worn in real life" is something you can also not control for in a double blind study. These studies have to exclude confounding variables as well as possible, too. You will have to do population studies, I don't see a way around that.

There are more impacts on the environment than just climate change. Burning off tons of metal to be washed down into our water sources is probably something that should be discussed and not waved away because coal plants contribute to another problem.

[removed]