naitche

I don't think climate change and the decline of 'natural' environments can be so easily separated. With those changes listed in the video Itoero linked would be increased carbon sequestration. Reverses in desertification do the same with better soil health,increased plant growth and more carbon taken up. Less use of fertilizers, pesticides and heavy machinery needed, And it seems much of the advise given to combat these problems is often part of the problem. Progress is being made, less from legislation than from individuals with a more intimate understanding and long term observations testing their ideas and sharing results. Some times risking prosecution and persecution to do it, because their actions may conflict with legislation introduced to appease city based activists with no real understanding of a problems complexities. Its starting to look like livestock can play an important role in preservation and improvement of grasslands. We build our cities on the most fertile lands. We consume what remains, and pump our waste into the oceans, depleting the soils and allowing them to flow into the oceans along with the artificial fertilisers that are needed to stay productive. We allow agriculture to become an industry operated more and more by huge companies who are about appeasing shareholders and assuring steady profits. Not preserving a future or providing a lasting legacy. More power to the money in how we consume, and what we consume. Mono cultures aren't the answer. It seems diversity is. Not just preserving things as they were/are, but increasing and maximising diversity. Yes the world can support a lot more people. It will cost us dearly tho', in quality and diversity of life, opportunity and potential and even our human diversity and abilities. Climate change isn't just about the carbon we release, it just as much about the earths ability to process it and 'heal' itself.

Yes. All the best. An experience to be missed.

Found this by accident and thought it was pretty cool. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nLmM9kcBKs&list=PLa7yKTU1TESVh7BRf8zX6PLDHKmnyZ5d7

Not a 'super brain', far from it, but before modern technology selective breeding over centuries was well on the way to creating a complimentary intelligence in Domestic Dogs. What could be done there with modern technology, information and greater ability to search out desired traits could be utilised to further that past section process incredibly, if it was still seen as beneficial. Not so common as to define the species by any means, but there were and are still (rarely) found , some amazing examples of intelligent responsibility in dogs. Environmental selection was hijacked by the Kennel clubs to meet their own conditions of physical conformity before environmental fitness and ability of response could be considered. The result has been a decline in mental and physical fitness, and response ability to environment that continues. So if you are talking human, I think it could be done, but eliminating environmental selection to do so would more likely bring unintended consequence. Appreciation, morality and other traits not considered, or their roles and manifestations not fully understood could see the benefits of this 'new race' become more a liability or responsibility than intended. Selection in the hands of a few rarely benefits the environment beyond their own understanding and knowledge. Losses of other valued traits happen more gradually and pass unnoticed with generational memory.

Looks that way to me, globally. Not sure if Its restricted to democratic politics or even governmental politics. Looks more like cultural politics in general, More noticeable in countries where cultural unity has been relatively unchallenged in modern history. The root cause must be opposition, surely? Equal and opposite reactions seen a single identified subject, being humanity. Working out its global identity. How that will be expressed, and how much freedom of expression that will leave. Some believe the expression must be uniform for equality in diversity, or to be inclusive of diversity. Others believe a uniform manifestation of what is humane doesn't allow diversity. Restricts the responses available to the more local conditions they are contending. That a uniform disguises diversity where it manifests, and limits responses. Historically, Cultures have been oppressed by other cultures depending on proximity, and how inclusive and/or their relative strengths. They operated with relative autonomy, in relative isolation. We are much more connected now. That increasingly no longer works as we become more connected. I think humanity as whole recognise that past injustice as an attack on the human environment that needs to be rectified for a viable future (of the human race). But are polarising on weather setting conditions gives us our human identity, or weather that hinders our abilities to respond to conditions presented, so they become whats required in a subjective time and place. So some where in the middle would likely be to recognise some spaces need to be limited to a uniform state for a common expectation to be clearest. Held to a reliable condition where thats essential. While other spaces need more freedom of expression or response to meet the conditions that manifest. I don't think the two cultural elements will progress past this by trying to eliminate expression of the opposition or we haven't realy learned from past mistakes. Or that there is a definitive demarcation between the opposite poles. I think we need to be familiar with both perspectives before we can see where compromise is appropriate. Sometimes context is needed. Sometimes its better to have a condition without context. Public vs private. We have to recognise a distinction. JMHO.

More combative or sure. These arguments in person? More often not I would say. Anonymity would be part of it. The reason might be people do think if the subject needs change, then it needs discussion to find the best way forward. Without offence to other subjects more personally. With out exacting a payment in kind. And without with out equating historical with inherent. I choose relative anonymity because who or what I am is not relevant to my reason (for being here). Or to how it should be received. If you insist qualifications for where an identifying word can be used, Thats an insisted meaning qualified by other than sex. Other meaning is not historical, Its recognition is insisted. Believed. Inherent. Language is environmental. Its a human construct we shape to express concepts as we recognise them. What and how we recognise changes as we evolve, and the language with it. Yes it affects how we see things. Its designed to show them and reflect what we see to others. I recognise an identifier of sex and use it accordingly to reflect that to others. If that offends some one familiar to me I will try to modify my speech within reason so as not to offend. Unless I feel the offence is used as a personal attack, based on belief. An attempt to categorise me (sexist) based on past experience and people, not the conditions or person present. I think ignoring that is like ignoring evidence because the result is not what you think should happen. I do believe Trump and Brexit are results of ignoring that. People feeling falsely categorised, denied space and opportunity because of it, so claiming it if they believe the opportunity is there. If you set up an oppositional force, its going to meet resistance. You don't eliminate 'isms' because the causes are repeated in tackling it. This isn't an attempt to argue you out of your opinions. Its an attempt to give other perspectives that I think are important to understand if others aren't to be disadvantaged. You can say they aren't. But the theme of these arguments says otherwise. Many feel and say they are. I think ignoring that is like ignoring evidence because the result is not what you want to see. As for not doing this in R.L, it is personal then. The intent is not to attack personal belief. Its to look at what beliefs we are promoting as a whole. Meh. I don't know enough either, to like or dislike her. I can still respect or not specific responses to conditions she meets. Being made public isn't the problem so much as judgement, based on beliefs. Assuming offence to T-May on her behalf as a woman, and that the word woman is inherently sexist. That it must convey more than sex. I'm not arguing that people should or should not be offended. I am arguing against acceptance of the word 'woman' as inherently sexist as an identifier because I see that offence being reinforced rather than changed. If my anonymity offends, I chose it because I don't think any conditions I may have should affect my reasoning, or be seen to.

Agreed. Not by multiplying offence by the numbers of women when they don't all share the same value. So I don't think your math works. Numerically, women as opposed to men would be roughly 50/50. I don't think their value is in their numbers, but as individuals. The majority of women I know would prefer people not see some thing wrong with that identification.

For my part it has nothing to do with anonymity. I agree that most here would likely apologise and move on including myself. Its obviously a sensible choice to avoid conflict, and make clear your intent is not antagonistic. I disagree with assuming offence on the behalf of others because they are women. Has T May commented? If not she has my utmost respect for acting in her capacity as P.M, not as woman. That is her role in this instance. I would also respect her decision to challenge it on her own behalf, and could still see a P.Ms strength in that. There would have been no offence given or taken if someone hadn't assumed it, and made it public. Most women I speak to see it as sexist to assume offence on their behalf and make allowances for language based on nuance they feel has no place in our language. So who is right? Thats for women to work out as people. Not us to decide for women. In the meantime, if we stop giving recognition to concepts that don't belong with the word, we can still respect the wishes of individuals, as individuals. You think Corbyn should have acknowledged it and moved on. Its still his decision and without knowing the conditions from his reality perspective with absolute certainty, we can't be sure what he should have done either. Because some people see bifurcation of the sexes as recognition of a diversity. Based on sex. Nothing else. Who says different means unequal? Or that we should see it as unequal?

The concept being expressed was stupidity. Followed by an identifier, singular and specific. if being identified as a person of a specific sex is offensive because of the concept it conveys, setting arbitrary rules on its use as an identifier only reinforces the idea of an an arbitrary concept.

Agree. So if we believe the word 'woman' conveys more than the sex of a person, its sexist to them. Its not wrong to perceive it sexist or not sexist. Our belief will decide our personal response to its use. Neither belief is universal to women. Its not for us to decide which belief should govern our response to women as a demographic. Its arbitrary. Sexist to assign assume or tie a belief to a sex. Some women might believe the word 'woman' in conjunction with stupid is sexist due to concepts historically conveyed beyond sex. Other women might see additional concepts have been expressed, but believe the word 'woman' used correctly does not include those. I think the easiest solution would be to stop attaching concepts beyond sex to use of the word 'woman'. Not alter our use of the word to allow that they are there The word Woman shouldn't be ambiguous or arbitrary. Used correctly, it should convey sex and only sex. To allow that it could convey any more ensures it will continue to convey more, because we limit its use on that assumption. We accept that it does convey more than sex. I see that acceptance hindering its evolution to match the concept to the reality we ( say we) recognise. It would make no difference. Unless you accept the concept of "woman" is synonymous with other traits.I don't see its use with 'stupid' implies its synonymous with stupid. My mistake. Intent was the wrong word. Concept would have been better. I think the language used in your example was incorrect because A) it was referring to an action or concept not within the definition of a Jew. Jew can only be effectively verbed in that manner while we recognise the connection. And b) If there was no racist intent, then you didn't recognise the concept conveyed. You were aiming for an entirely different one. The word Jew used in that instance was used independent of religious recognition.

The quote seems appropriate to me, if a quote is wanted. I would say accept it for the value it presents, not judge it on the conditions of the person who presented it. The contribution shouldn't be devalued because the person is judged to be unworthy of making it. " Yeah but shes a woman" would not be accepted as reason to reject the quote.

Was that using language correctly though, or giving a word meaning it did not have? Because I agree that should be avoided.

I thought Rosa Parks did just sit in her damned place on that bus. She didn't give up her rightful place, based on just one of her conditions. She didn't allow one condition to define her identity as less deserving of space. Less deserving of common Humanity. The goal was recognition of value to the common identity of humanity. Not recognition based on different needs and conditions. Based on common ones It caused a lot of offence, to a lot of people in its day. It didn't mean the offence was excusable, rightious (deserving right of way). It was based on belief. Changing language to recognise unique needs of an identified group, based on its differences, enshrines that difference into language. So language emphasises the difference, Removes it further from common humanity. Language used correctly is not sexist. The intent its used for might be.

I have not argued otherwise. Where do you get a denial of that? #Me too is a movement that illustrates past and current injustice. It also illustrates the change away from acceptance of such injustice, and the empowerment of women to challenge it. I don't claim the job is done. The point I was trying to make is the methods of getting there seem the bigger conflict in this thread and more generally.

Historical context of sexism. I think its a mistake to bring that context into the present, with out evidence its the same context today. Conditions change and that needs recognition too. I think its agreed (here) that sexism is some thing that needs to be changed . Seems to me this is mostly about how individuals react to that expectation. By direction, that allows for individual conditions/conditioning, or by universally imposed conditions/conditioning . I think an assumption of sexism where the evidence does not clearly support that asks that we adhere to conditions rather than respond to conditions presented, as best we can. That history shouldn't decide conditions today. Like DrP, I think stupid is more insulting than 'woman' and as a singular it should not be taken as a slur against women in general.

I don't think there is any way to predict that. Your mention of insects has me confused. To what purpose would you consider 'domestication' to be useful? What form would this domestication take? My own feeling is that selective breeding of (mammal) pets will be phased out through environmental pressure. That would make it far more likely that 'farmed' animals for human consumption would follow the same path eventually.

So a collective of people working towards a goal need to work towards a common purpose, or direction. Not toward preset conditions.

As has been pointed out, Selective breeding has been ongoing since domestication. What effect selective breeding has will depend on the purpose and environmental conditions bred for. A written standard, as in the case of 'Pedigree" animals, becomes the environmental conditions to be met for 'recognition' or positive identification as a distinct sub-group from the original. Any diversity is only brought by the purpose and environment of the breeders able to find value in those 'standard conditions'. When no other purpose than the standard conditions themselves are recognised by the registering body, diversity is lost until there is no purpose or value to be found.

Effective climate action varies according to local needs and conditions. Applying a universal 'cost' to adapting to climate change will have unintended consequence. It doesn't provide direction, or change the current direction. It doesn't present solutions. It blocks direction. It will interfere with efforts to tackle climate change effectively, according to local needs and conditions. It sacrifices local conditions.

We're conditioned for consumption to drive economic growth. Maybe the Diderot effect is the positive feedback of consumptive status.

Its not hard to see how with the food and medicines I've had to compost or dispose of and the physical demands .

In 40 degree heat since Christmas without one, Refrigeration looks pretty good ATM.

On the other hand, Looking for bad behaviour is expecting it. Just as looking for the best in people sets that expectation. We create what we expect.

If identity is a space, it must be defined by its direction. Identity is fluid. Until that identity defines its 'self,' by its condition. Once 'fixed' in that position, Other directions are closed from that point. As long as that identified culture distinguishes its 'self' from its surroundings by the conditions that keep them apart. These theories taken in their entirety support this. A perspective best seen with 'you' as one point. Your own identity as an organism is a condition, 'fixed' by its genetics ( or belief in the condition to be maintained. Your organised body is your evolution complete). Everything beyond your own self is environment. Your condition is a small part of another whole. How It will be defined is dependent the culture you identify with. What 'culture' you belong to, and how inclusive that is to other cultures. Cultures set conditions by agreement. Agreement is achieved by what conditions can be recognised by a culture and the diversity it allows in deciding what belongs, or what does not, to preserve the integrity of the cultural identity. So cultures behaves like genes, and how inclusive a culture is to its environment and conditions decides its purpose or direction as part of humanity. Culture seems to decide the conditions of Humanity that can/will be recognised as part of a common self that can be worked with to maximise potential. What it accepts, to take response- ability for, in providing demonstrations of positive direction shared in common. The manifestation of conditions permitted to maximise Human potential, Or decide it.

The Human identity needs to change direction. Thats our environment. The present condition of that environment doesn't support the new direction. Its condition is directed to growth and consumerism, in direct conflict with conservation of resources. thats needed to preserve potential for new direction as conditions alter or manifest. Governments can't create support for the new direction. Our actions support it. Or they don't. Governments can only impose conditions, in hopes they drive us in the new direction. That demonstrates the price of adapting to climate change But accepting new direction means taking responsibility for it, and its conflict with the old. Until we accept that at an individual level, The human condition isn't supportive of the new direction. The benefits aren't being demonstrated. Thats pretty much beyond the resource of governments. When responsibility is accepted at the individual level, then Government can be informed how to support or facilitate collective actions beyond the means or scope of individuals. Asking Government to take responsibility for climate action is denial of our ability to respond to our own conditions, which demonstrate the benefits of changing them. Demonstration of benefits is needed to drive support.