naitche

The ideas touched on in the 1st article linked by Strange, along with changes in current farming practices suggest that moving away from monocultures and treating farm lands as diverse ecosystems can have very large impacts on carbon sequestration. Interesting results in carbon sequestration have been achieved, along with better water retention, soil fertility microbial action and more by mimicking the effects of migratory herds. Conservation grazing is becoming recognised as a tool for for better land management. Industrialised farming practices appear to be a huge contributor to desertification, and the ability of soils to retain carbon.

My answer would be, to utilise the ability of response. Response-ability, to alter the environment to better favour life, beginning with the subjective individual and their own part in that process.

Quite a few birds can. Some dogs have been known to do so as well, mostly trained, but not always.

Birds, notably crows and parrotts (esp. the longer lived species) have demonstrated huge vocabularies and an ability to create their own sentences from known words. Crows will use tools and have demonstrated an understanding of concepts like displacement. Plenty of video and research, easily found.African Grey Parrots and crows have featured in a lot of this research. I'd be inclined to think this particular behaviour is inherent, or 'Fixed", But would be guessing Dogs bred for purpose, rather than show ring, often display that sort of fixed behaviour. A good herding dog, pointer, retriever or personal protection dog performs its task inherently with without training. Training is to show the dog how you want the task done. These environmental responses seem to decrease rapidly once the show ring starts to dictate 'Standards". Few people using dogs for original purpose will even attempt to utilise a show bred dog.

Correcting myself................ What I will tolerate does not indicate the position I will choose to hold. That doesn't give you the right to assign one on my behalf.

Your example is a group of people who perceive a threat to their chosen manifestation of being, by another. How does "making it worse for them " reduce their perception of threat? Doesn't that reinforce it? Intolerant of tolerance? This may have been directed @dimreepr But what I tolerate does not dictate the position I choose to hold, and you have no right to force that. The results are not likely to be what you intend. As above.

Sorry if you see it that way. I think its more than a platitude. Because.. The question implies a positive value for tolerance. If tolerance has no value, then it wouldn't much matter if I choose to tolerate intolerance, or not. There would be no value to be gained either way. If the goal is to reduce existing freedoms, I think the persons targeted would find that oppressive. If this was directed at me, I haven't so prefer to tolerate. Up to the point where my freedoms and personal space, or other peoples, are threatened.

Why tolerate? Because its intolerant to do otherwise. To promote or increase tolerance with its negative value doesn't make any sense to me. That doesn't mean we should submit or give way to intolerance, or expect that others should. Then it becomes oppression. To demand others give ground or submit to intolerance is oppression. That is a different question. I would not like to be party to oppression in the name of tolerance. A backlash should be expected in that choice.

Would consciousness not be limited by identity ?

Dan Browns Davinci Code, if we aren't just talking classic. I liked Catch 22, once I stopped trying to figure it out, and let it play out instead.

Ambiguous in the circumstances, but I appreciate that ^.

I agree. Sorry, I hit further than I should have I see what you are trying to do and will try to use the feedback. As for my 'disabilities' they haven't been that usually. Here, its self evident. The point I was trying to make was, that is all we can go on here. The evidence.

I did. No one asked you to waste your time.

I would rather over think, than assume I know it all, so theres no further need. I thought behaviour had biological connections. Seem this forum does not encourage further thought after all, and no use to people who might otherwise make use of it, to discover value to themselves in science.

If thats what you'd rather discuss, I accept thats another disability I have. I'm sure you have your own. If thats meant to be encouraging, please try harder. Otherwise, your meaning is unclear and it comes across as bullying on the basis of my disability. I'm disapointed that a science forum would accept that, rather than encouraging people to explore ideas, even they have trouble expressing them. Politics? Its seems you have made associations or some sort of picture after all, that you would prefer to turn around.

Is sexuality fluid? (Gender?) Or is it Identity that is fluid, and sexuality just a condition that manifests according to the values, ( 'factors' or other conditions ) brought to it?

I should have have included the 3rd approach, Of viewing every thing as either self ( identity, ) or environment ( the conditions we have ) Comments made by Eric H and others including myself seem to indicate that reduction is not always a result of faith. But the idea of blocking or shielding seems to hold. If conditions are subjective limitations, over come through recognition and response, I'm going to say purpose gives direction (or dimension) . Direction and purpose are inherent to biological identity for its integrity. Much of its condition is also inherent, which affects Response. So maybe accepting or taking in conditions beyond the self , Conditions Response. Redirects response and purpose to upholding integrity of the secondary identity, and the conditions its founded on. The most beneficial manifestation of 'Faith' in the Religious sense, could be to block that secondary conditioned response. Keep it open to diverse direction, and ability of response. Still gives me some concept of what a multiverse might be. Needless to say, mathematics are not my strength and might explain why I have so much trouble untangling and expressing the values I need @Strange

Yes, thank you.

Because I think it indicates there are basically two ways to approach the problem. One is from the perspective of environment, and the other as identity. Environmental perspective would be some thing adds value, subtracts value, or has neutral effect. It does not respond. It can only reject based on those values. Support or rejection isn't from the 'area' of environment, its from the content of environment. Weather or not a condition can find support there for its values. Based on those it has, and their ability to recognise another. A person who who does not 'identify' with that condition as 'Human' or part of a common Human direction (in evolutionary terms) is more likely to see it from that perspective. The person who sees their identity as some thing other, or independent of that condition. The person who puts faith in their own conditions of being or identity as the 'correct' manifestation of Humanity. The condition that 'shields' their Humanity from these 'other' conditions or harm. If their own conditions of being were universal to the Human environment, the threat of those 'other', harmful conditions would not exist. Then they could recognise a common identity as theirs. So to varied extents, faith imposes its own conditions on its environment. As 'Right' for Humanity or Identity. And reduces its environmental diversity to do so. The second approach would be to recognise a set of Human conditions are not what they could be, or not contributing effectively to the human condition and to find out why, and how that can be corrected or improved at its source. What are those 'conditions' acting on? Because everything is reduced to identity or environment. Identity is what is accepted as part of self. What that self takes response -ability for, or respond to, to uphold its self condition. From your point, or perspective, as a single human organism, your dimensions and conditions are decided, by your genetic make up or internal direction with external factors being affective to that condition. But your genetics have for the most part limited your own condition or point and its evolution is finished. I think cultures do the same for humanity, and we need to be careful in how we allow a Human identity to define itself. Recognition of its parts does not mean acceptance of their conditions. Just recognition of them as something to work with instead of against, to establish mutual values that don't detract from either. That contribute to the available space of both through their interaction. like our own cells do for their body content and condition.

Sorry. I see I did that, but it wasn't my intent.

Re: Characterisation of a condition. I mean the same as the accepted definition. Characterising a cultural condition by either giving or deducting characteristics that don't fall within that conditions strict definition. Or Characterisation by association. It seems to me we are in agreement that is damaging to the human environment. Then use characterisation to combat it.

Perspective is a big part of this. The perspective chosen will have a lot of bearing on measurement, if identity as a space holds up to scrutiny. We can measure it from a perspective of environment, where its a condition to be accepted or rejected. Your proposed measurements seem to suggest that perspective. Rejection though doesn't just target White Nationalism. To be effective it would need to target the supporting or contributing factors that may not in themselves be harmful conditions . Being White is likely the main one. So that part of the Human environment is discredited. Or 'we' could view white Nationalism as a condition within the body (or 'space') of a 'Human identity', that unchecked, is harmful to that body. With supporting factors that could be known and understood, or recognised, and addressed.(response) As a perspective of being (human) that can be corrected. Recognition of potential, or response, would be the positive value to the Human space. White Nationalists are unable to recognise the value of other conditions. What values or conditions are they perceiving, and Why? Why do they feel they need the shield or faith of white Nationalism? What messages are they acting on and why the need to bang on the walls to be heard? Devaluation?

Thank you. I know I am well out of my depth here, yet this is where trying to solve a problem has brought me and its hard to let go. It will need to be one piece at a time or it will overwhelm me. So this space of identity. I will define it as the area or environment of its being. Its conditions and dimensions decided by Response ability. What it can come to know, recognise and respond to. Does that make sense?

I agree with both of these comments. I think perspective is a limiting factor of identity. I will answer a lot more. I've little time over Easter.

Sorry. I know I am not doing this effectively. I try to give too much information at once among ( lots of ) other things. I will try to do better. Its been a very long day and I'm not fit for it now.