Im proposing building guillotines again. Just in case.

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.

Dogs would be a good example for ring species, which show the outer limits of the species definition, if they they occurred in the wild in their many diverse forms. But since they are not, I’d group them as one species still, as their origin is artificial and so are, at least partly, their means of reproduction.

In theory: yes, most likely. In practice? No.

Pigs definitely have a social intelligence that at least rivals those of dogs, if it doesn’t surpass it. Just because we keep them in a way that traumatises them from an early age on, doesn’t mean pigs aren’t socially intelligent. Wild boar and the like form highly complex social structures and are quite able to communicate in between one another. The only thing pigs actually express more than dogs is the utter disregard for anything but their own survival when under duress. This however might be explained by the way they reproduce. Pigs are K-Strategists, whereas dogs aren’t.

Usually you’d go to the bank with the project and they ask you for securities, oftentimes the house your building or the ability to garnish your wages. Also they demand to know how much you’ve saved so far. Can’t give loans to everyone?

Why not? The concept is fairly easy to grasp and if I want a loan for a house, the bank can ask me to prove that I was able to put aside enough money beforehand to be able to chip away at a credit from now on.

And rightfully so. That movie was an utter atrocity.

To be frank, that’s the fault of most of the worlds forest management systems. You get what the article calls „new wood“, when you raise trees in open spaces. There they can rapidly expand and grow, and be felled early on. If you see forestry as plantation circles, which most of the world still does with those enormous clear cuts, you will get this kind of growth. However, if you raise forests in a more adaptive model with focus of the individual tree and a constant management, you can still manage to produce wood that is like the „old growth“ shown here. The trick is to keep the natural development of the forest in a stasis, where you take out just enough trees to promote the sprouting of new trees, but can control the rate at which they grow. This varies of course from species to species. Ideally, you have a specialist administrating the process and monitoring the appropriate amount that can be felled.

That’s the biblical way!

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?

Badner.

I think the case about dialect I made in response to OPs question is the better explanation.

You obviously work in a far more open an relaxed sector than I do. I administer in forestry services within Germany. Usually we get foreign subcontractors to do hard labour felling trees (European competition laws are the main culprit). It is important for everyone’s safety that they understand precisely what is at stake. Anyone not using precise language and relying on the information gained trough insufficient means is a moron in that field of work. And thinking, that, understanding a little of what was being said is enough to gather the entire context, a lot of the people we work with rely on that. To combat that we partially switched to pictograms.

As mentioned in another comment: it shouldn’t be. Youth culture has embraced this in part. However it lacks a certain finesse and makes it difficult for some people to differentiate on whether you wanted to use plural or singular for some people, especially in dialects which tend to omit the ending which would otherwise clarify the gender or singular/plural.

Edit:

Example: „Gibsch ma mal da Bleistift!“ (Singular) „Gibsch ma mal d‘Bleistift!“ (Plural)