Is it scientific to say that water will become clearer without fish?

This sentence is not scientific in nature, but it makes some sense philosophically.

If the water is too clear, there will be no fish; if the water is too clear, there will be no fish; if the water is too clear, there will be no fish; if the people are too smart, there will be no fish. No more companions.

In a natural sense, besides fish, there are other living things in the water. Frogs, crabs, and aquatic plants are also living things, so it is not scientific to say this in a natural sense. If "fish" represents all living things in the water, then it can be said that this piece of water has no meaning of existence. "Water is the source of life." Even if there is no life, is this a piece of stagnant water? Just like if there are people, there will be a society. The more people there are, the more complex and cruel the society will be. But without people, who will a society, no matter how simple and just, serve?

What does it mean if a female classmate doesn't want to break through the window in gay theory?

This will also end get out of class! 5 coaches who had good results but were dismissed, and now there is Tuchel

Raymond Lowe character introduction

I want some good sentences and paragraphs.

Zhao Zilong's classic lines.

Find a novel

English translation of poems about the Mid-Autumn Festival

Don't make up your own famous sentences about time, the more the better.

Complete collection of healthy aphorisms

Famous sayings about savoring life