Barley_Man

Iranians can sometimes be surprisingly pale while isrealis can sometimes be surprisingly dark, there are of course the mizrahi jews but the beta isreal population are straight up black. I don't think it's as much a race thing as it is a western aligned vs non-western aligned thing. Other western aligned countries like Taiwan also get overwhelmingly positive media coverage despite not being white. The fact that Iranians are Muslims also contribute a lot to their bad media image. Lots of isrealis could fit in with Iranians without any problem looks wise but absolutely not culture wise.

Palm trees are monocots and are therefore related to grasses, however they are not grasses themselves. Monocots are a really broad group though. Kinda like saying a certain animal is a mammal. Important distinction but still very broad.

Trees are not a taxonomic group. It's rather a description of characteristics the most important of which is having a woody trunk. For example there are tree legumes and non-tree legumes. A species of tree can therefore be more closely related to a non-tree than to other trees. However it's totally true bamboo is not a tree. A grass could in theory however hit all the characteristics that are required to be tree and would then be considered as such, however no such grass happens to exist.

Bamboo is kind of a tree in this case which is an area I know more about and I think many of these factors would apply to bamboo as well. First forests used to actually be more rare than today before humans came along. Europe and North America was covered by endless plains which were grazed by huge numbers of ruminant animals. Any tree that would try to grow would get grazed before it could grow so tall that the animals couldn't eat it anymore. That's why grass thrives in such an environment, it's practically made to get grazed. Once cut it quickly grows back again. Once ancient humans came along and hunted most of the grazing animals extinct forest suddenly started spreading like crazy until almost the entirety of Europe was forested (which was then to a large extent deforested again after agriculture was invented). Grass simply can't compete against trees for sunlight. Therefore I would expect less or none bamboo in areas with a huge grazing wild life populations. And I don't mean animals that would eat the leaves, but the ones that would eat the new seedling.

Another thing that limits trees is moisture. In general the drier the climate the less beneficial it is to be a tree. That's because deep roots are of no benefit in dry climates (but they are of huge benefit in humid climates during drought). Grass which generally have very shallow roots suck up all the rain before it can penetrate deep into the soil while deep tree roots never get any significant amount of water. Trees handle drought well but constant dryness is very detrimental for them. Dry areas also tend to have wild fires which also hamper trees. It's simply better to be a grass (if moderately dry) or a cactus like plant if it's extremely dry.

Another factor is soil conditions. Now I don't know what soil bamboo prefers but I doubt it's all soil. Soil can have huge impacts on things like pH and water availability. For example in far Northern Europe where I live you can tell that you are standing on sandy soil if all around you are spruces and pines. If you however see lots of leaf trees you are probably on a silt and clay soil. This is because conifers handle both dry and sour soil better than the local leaf trees which leads to more conifers on sand. Bamboo is probably also limited to a certain soil condition.

I hope that can at least help you develop more theories on why bamboo is not everywhere. Something important to remember is that just because a plant can grow well in a certain location doesn't mean it will be found there. That's because plants are always in fierce competition. I bet bamboo if intentionally planted and cared for could thrive in lots more places than its found naturally, but it just happens to not be the best plant in that location, meaning it's outcompeted over long time scales.

Fertility rate is calculated by dividing every age group in the country into groups and multiplying them by how many children that age group are currently having to estimate how many children a woman is going to have during their lifetime. So if today's women have on average 1 kid in their 20s and 1 kid in their 30s, and none after, that will give a fertility rate of 2.0, no matter how many women are actually in their 20s or 30s. So there being a lot of old people does not change the results. Fertility rate is dependent on how many children women have during their reproductive years. Birth rate however is affected by their being a lot of old people because birth rate numbers are just the number of children born per year per a 1000 people. So the birth rate of Japan would look comparably much worse than the fertility rate. Fertility rate is therefore considered to be a fairer metric.

Latin American countries have recently had a collapse in birth rate, even since that chart from 2017 was made. Colombia has dropped to 1,2 in 2023. Fertility rates are collapsing almost everywhere and I think it's because of how globalisation is spreading anti natalist culture around the globe. It's so drastic and so consistent in nearly every developed country.

As someone who lives in a country where giving birth is free that sounds absolutely insane to me. Are these birth costs in the US at least covered by common medical insurance or is it always that bad? It's a miracle that the US birth rate is one of the highest in the western world when the conditions are like this...

Spending money on families hasn't been shown to help in any way whatsoever in increasing the birth rate. You have countries with close to free day care and generous monthly child subsidies with the same or even much lower fertility rate as countries that give just about nothing at all. I still support these kinds of policies just for the sake of helping families and their kids, but doing it for the only purpose of helping the fertility rate is futile. Honestly I don't think the government can do much at all to help the fertility rate. It's a cultural issue first and foremost. And the government can't (and I think shouldn't!) do much to change the culture of our society. You see people living in poverty with 9 kids just because they belong to a certain religious or ethnic group who values children above all else. That's the main issue. How important is children to the culture? Is it prestigious to be a dad or a mom? Is personal success measured in how you've built your family or is success measured in how much money you make?

For anyone who hasn't heard it there is a banger song about him: https://youtu.be/PaZXPx1kdtg

That's correct. The Samaritans used to speak Samaritan Hebrew, then Samaritan Aramaic and then Palestinian Arabic which was then the main language for at least 800 years. However as I understand they have now mostly switched to Hebrew as they have integrated into the isreali state. This is however a very modern phenomenon.

Alfalfa is drought tolerant compared to other forage legumes like clover. This means that during drought the alfalfa will fare better and also yield better than clover or a grass like Timothy or blue grass. However as you can see pasture is also on that list you linked. Fodder crops are harvested for their entire biomass above ground and the amount of biomass is very large. It's a very productive crop and makes a lot of fodder and this fodder is mostly water. Therefore it takes a lot of water to grow. The water required is not extreme in any way however and where I live alfalfa is a rainfed crop that only very rarely has any water deficiency symptoms. The extreme amounts of water applied to alfalfa in the south east of the USA is only because of the desert climate there. Growing beans, corn or potatoes there also requires insane amounts of water. If potatoes were chiefly grown in the desert southeast you bet you would see news articles going around about how terrible potatoes are. In the end it's only a matter of matching the right crop to the right climate. Even the most water hungry crop on earth will not require irrigation in the most rainy place on earth.

Alfalfa is a great crop. It has deep roots which store carbon in the soil, it is drought tolerant, it's high yielding and it's nitrogen fixating meaning it improves the soil quality and does not require nitrogen fertilizer which normally is a huge carbon footprint. Overall fantastic crop if you need fodder for ruminant animals. The big problem is farming it on an absurd scale in the middle of the damn desert. Alfalfa does not require irrigation in regions with ample rainfall.