It’s an investment? Just like an office building or a company car?

Depends. Is it stable? Does it pose a threat to passer bys ?

I‘d have to get my tables from work. It highly depends on the species, soil, size, location, age, natural area of the species and so forth. A decently sized oak at around 100-150 years old usually gets weighed in at around 2000€. Variation however is a given.

Trees prevent soil erosion, keep water clean, provide the basis for many beneficial insects and so forth and so on. They have a giant value in our financial system.

All of these views are valid. A tree has to be seen for what it can provide. If it’s more valuable to society and nature as a tree, leave it be. If other trees can gain from it being removed earlier than its natural decay demands, I’d argue to remove it.

The maturity of a tree does not affect wood density. Density is determined by the stand density the year the ring is added along with factors such as soil moisture, temp etc. the inner rings will have the same density, whether the tree is harvested after a few years or after 200 years provided the tree stayed healthy.

Inside job

You realise how sexual morality is different from views on what constitutes a human being?

You don’t want the Catholic Church there. The bible differentiates between Fetus and children.

Acacia

Don’t worry: they will sell you purified air soon enough.

Not every judicial system is built on retaliation. Some are built on rehabilitation and a secure society.

If there is one thing that you can rely on it’s German bureaucracy to be precise in it’s documentation. So I’d trust the numbers here generally….

A lot of these bodies were Ukrainian back then.

Like you are averse to using the SI-System?

He fucked with other rich people’s money, that’s the thing they don’t like.

It’s another spin on the aforementioned restaurant. It’s from a hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. In said restaurant (Milliways) the cows have been bred to wanting to be eaten and expressing said wish directly to the customers.

I don’t like food that talks to me before I eat it.

The phylogenetic results, combined with these other lines of evidence, suggest that the high mortality in 1918 among adults aged ∼20 to ∼40 y may have been due primarily to their childhood exposure to a doubly heterosubtypic putative H3N8 virus, which we estimate circulated from ∼1889–1900. All other age groups (except immunologically naive infants) were likely partially protected by childhood exposure to N1 and/or H1-related antigens.

The Spanish flu apparently had the N1 complex present, to which the 20-40y population wasn’t exposed. At least that’s my limited understanding after skimming the paper.

They argue that people born before 1889 (?) were exposed to a virus similar to the Spanish flu, whereas people born in a timeframe directly thereafter were not. They experienced a different virus that wasn’t as closely related. Thus their antibodies weren’t as prepared.