naitche

No I didn't. I said it was lazy to make that assumption. I don't believe minority is the problem either. Minorities exist because of conditions that affect all of us, as a collective. Thats why they are relative and why we should care to improve. Minority is an act of division from our commonality.. And can be an effect of those conditions. Again. Neither Minorities or privilege are subject to our 'self' conditions. They are conditions of our shared environment and when minority is a problem, there are reasons separate from minority itself as an entity and common to 'our' whole. This is what the language says in combination with accepted biological law. It does not negate your perspective in any way. It just says you are not seeing the whole object/environment/condition for all it contains. Its parts. You are seeing it as subject to your 'owned' environment. Its relative. Not subjective. There is more to the 'problem' than your own perspective allows if minority is all there is to it. You have identified a division/minority. Fine. You've set it aside. But you still haven't identified its sum. The division is not helpful in recognition of a whole. You still don't know what to do with it apart from making up for its deficit else where. Dispersing the deficit rather than solving it.

Where have I suggested it doesn't? It does and is one of the properties of the object you are looking at. Depending on conditions internal to that object. But you are looking at it subjectively, in relation to yourself and your perceived privilege. It is not subject to your privilege or your self. Its parameters move independent of your privilege. Its external to your "self.' Its relativity is in its common purpose. Not the similarity of its parts and conditions. Environment makes demands. We either meet them, or we don't. Making demands of your environment seldom works to do anything other than reduce available available environment and responsibility.

I think theres a huge difference. If the problem is an excess, you equalise by elimination. And lower the median measurement overall. Its a reductionist solution, based on negative values. Privilege = bad. Remove privilege and ability of response to conditions faced. Assigning negative value to beneficial conditions (of your perspective or position )will lessen those. If not in your life time, in human evolutionary terms. If the problem is a lack, you add value. And increase 'privilege' and the median by which its measured. In my world there are people, who don't get good jobs because they are not positioned to attain that function. If I can understand why, the factors that position them there, or what is lacking, I might not be able to alter their position, but I can almost certainly add value to it. I think its lazy to say the guy down the back isn't up front because some one else is.The fact is one is in a prime position and another is not. Those positions or points exist. Eliminating any of them does not add value to the score. You can assign positive and negative values to diverse conditions, and eliminate the negative for a net loss. Or we can find ways to add value. To improve functionality to purpose from the points of reference we have. Improve diverse conditions for a net gain. Form follows function The above link shows that as a collective we have diverse points of reference or perspective to the purpose or function of throwing an object into a basket. Some favourable, others less so. It doesn't help us understand or utilise those points, or to maximise their function or purpose. There is no value to any of those points but what we assign. They exist only in relation to the function or purpose at hand. If 'we' identifies a collective. So yes, if your purpose is to equal - outcome, or functionality, diversity of form or function is a hindrance to those predictions. Form would decide function if thats the measure you use. Its hindering that equal-outcome if you think the form of your privilege and position gives you greater value. And you think you can correct that by making the value a negative. That does nothing to increase response ability for whats needed. If your goal is reliability to function, you need to look at and understand the individual points of reference. (or diverse parts ) Their conditions and position . Their properties and relativity of purpose . How the the overall conditions of that space are affected by position, relative to the other points of its existence. You are searching and reaching potential in those actions. Maximising abilities of response to a changing environment. You are more familiar and have more knowledge of @VenusPrincess than I have. You are looking at their post from a different place than I am. I saw no argument against equality of value. Only an assertion that measurement of equality against conditions, or points of perspective implies one. What is the measure of equality? Nothing.

But they aren't caused by privilege.

I have a lot of problems with the idea that promoting 'our' privileges does anything whatsoever to help those less able, other than to increase their sense of helplessness, and the numbers who will qualify as less-able. If privilege is the problem, All you can do is reduce the problem. Privilege. Disabilities, like privilege, aren't a single thing that can be simply addressed by broad group classifications and redirection of resources to 'classes' of need. It ignores problems faced. This idea doesn't ask us to recognise the problem in front of us.. Only a classification we are asked to compensate. Not help overcome. We just work around it and hope to make it less visible. It doesn't value diversity. It promotes an idea that everything should look the same where ever we stand. Its a promotion of negative values and expecting a positive result. A rejection (get rid of it) of environment instead of recognition ( what can I add to create a positive value.). The reality of whats in front of me to deal with, I'm expected to base on beliefs about classifications of people. And what compensation I owe for my greater value. My own understanding of biophysics and the language that expresses it says this ideology or biological message is faulty and counter intuitive to further evolution. Potential is subject to how we respond to the conditions we are able to recognise. Which requires we first come to know them. Familiarise. Recognise as part of our own conditions to accept and improve. That says conditions should decide our responses, instead of us responding to conditions. That the value is in our own condition, and not our ability of recognition and response. So its now a question of how to repeat your own conditions universally. Anti-diversity. Conditions decided based on value belief. It is backwards to me. Imposing singular perspectives of conditions, whether or not they apply to the reality in front of you. Its the same as Pedigree Dog Breeders who like to say "form follows function" So decide the form and wonder why function doesn't follow'. There is cognitive dissonance on one side of this argument or the other. You see value in form. I see it in function.

Not the full answers you are looking for, But I remember a talk given by a a geologist of his trip to a recent (under 10 year old) volcanic island and the teams excitement at finding the 1st plant. Much fuss and conjecture trying unsuccessfully to identify the species . One of researchers wives solved it. It turned out to be a tomato plant growing out of the excrement of one the research team. Bird/sea mammal droppings, and ocean borne seeds and weed (coconuts etc) combine to start the process.

An expansion of 'self' reality. With recreational drugs and and music capable of enhancing at deeper levels.

My theory is that language connects us to culture, As shared value beliefs for 'correct, rightful or valid' expression and/or manifestation of being. That Art in any form provides or re-enforces connection to cultures beyond our own limited identities or 'selves'. Re-enforces cultural values and connectivity, creating patterns or representation of shared perspective values. Cultural connection and expression. Of values both positive or negative, but shared 'in common' to identity, beyond self.

Curious- Is Space considered a physical thing?

If it feeds the ideologies you are trying to end, could it be?

My perspective is that If humanity is going to be viewed as 'One' entity in evolutionary terms, destroying monuments is comparable to humanities cells (us, our collective body) refusing to recognise the foundations of our present day existence. The environment that shaped us. History may be recorded else where, and more completely, but our monuments better express the condition of our humanity in the past, when these events occurred and how we have altered our condition today. 'History'in facts and figures may not be of interest to everyone, but what our Humanity was built from, and its potential manifestations should be. Monuments remind us as 'people in common' , that the value of good intentions for humanity, depends on recognition of humanity in its entirety. We don't have to accept any manifestation of humanity as it is, but it doesn't work better through destruction of its parts. Individual responsibility to humanity as a single entity would mean looking for the causes of its unacceptable manifestations, and working to correct them. The faulty perspectives of humanity represented by these monuments can't be got rid of by repeating the same mistakes. A person has their own perspective. If it results in harm to humanity, it doesn't change because you refuse to accept its validity. The perspective causing harm changes when you give whats needed to alter that perspective. You are the subject of your environment. I don't see how our human environment will be subject to the force of our demands. Not without an equal and opposite reaction.

@joigus I think this boy is fortunate to have you as his tutor. I appreciate the value you find in the process.

Tea tree oil, can be diluted quite a bit. 150 ml to a litre works well enough. Mosquitos still hang around and even land, but I haven't had an actual bite while wearing this and the product has quite a few other uses that make it a handy item. ( disinfectant, fungicide etc)

I would add not to push for understanding when he gets stuck- if you find you are explaining some thing he just can't get, move on to some thing hes done well to reinforce the success already gained and write the instruction out for him in a simplified step by step format for him to look at before the next session. Takes the feeling of pressure off. Don't dread the physics, he might surprise you. Concept over detail to start with there may help.

I don't think it is independent of the natural world, or some thing that that escapes from the laws of physics and biochemisty. Looks to me like it falls under biophysics and the laws of selection. Recognition and response to environmental conditions and demands. The free choice to recognise and familiarise. To base response on understanding. recognition and familiarity.

Or you, the entity, + environment. In this case I would see the 'enforcer' as an environmental factor This definition to me is = to our biological capabilities for recognition of, and response to, environment. Responsibility. We can choose to recognise (familiarise and understand to the best our abilities) the environment we have.... in order to affect the environment we might have. Free will seems to me to be a choice of response- ability- or not. In that case free will would be limited by environmental conditions, increased with recognition and familiarity.

Maybe not from arid to rain forest, but see regenerative farming for some pretty spectacular results. Key is keeping soils covered. With some sort of mulch where plant life has left it bare. It can be profitable.....If more immediate shorter term profit is sacrificed. There could be incentive to change farming practices with carbon sequestration rewards for farmers. At this time, farmers are seen more as part of the problem. There are groups trying to show how that could change to make them a bigger part of the solution. Regenerative farming appears to be quite effective. I'm very happy with the results here. Fence lines can give a pretty dramatic comparison.

Any 'difference' must be . Surely difference is not the same thing as equality. Accepting diversity isn't happening if you want to eliminate it. Inequality is context and perspective dependent. It doesn't decide a persons potential or value to their environment beyond an arbitrary context or perspective. i think acceptance of diversity is where equality comes from. Understanding that any persons perceived or contextual weaknesses or 'faults' affect just a fraction of a persons reality. Its relative, but doesn't decide 'value' or potential. Context and perspective give value. Or withhold it.

@Ken Fabian I don't think personal emissions purity is possible either., given the societies and economies we are part of. I do think altering those will be result of personal choice though, to support alternatives. We are not emission free. I would not claim that. But still carbon neutral. Maybe even sequestering more than emitted. If those choices were taking us back to the dark ages, It would be because we rejected the technology you mention instead of promoting it.. Judgement is not needed and is counter productive from all sides. Demonstration of advantages is far more effective. Nice for us when the lights of the city go out with power outage, and we demonstrate a beacon of light on our mountain top. Or the drought devastates the country side, and this bit of land resists the dessication longer, and recovers faster with better soil health and diversity. Soil that is better able to take up carbon each year. Carbon tax makes this work more expensive. Credits for sequestration - where are they spent and to what end? Not everyone is in a position to do what we have/do. But there are changes they could make, or promote in their local communities that take advantage of new technologies and this action assists govts to understand better where they can facilitate the changes people are willing and able to make. Where Govt. action will be supported. A cumulative effect would alter societies and economies where it counts. In targeting local environments with positive change, not negative punishment. I believe adopting and promoting specific projects would achieve far more than protest and fear. More empowering. Fear of doomsday and helplessness seems more counter productive. If Govt. won't step up under this scenario, where environment is held to be 'responsible', what does it matter what individuals do now?

A s a person who does not live as nearly as anybody else, I see that making changes where you can, does not have to make life much more difficult. It gives control of the burden you are able to shoulder. Where carbon taxes etc may be seen to distribute the burden equally, I don't believe it does. The cost of is often greatest to those who can least afford it and may interfere greatly with their ability to make changes and improvements to facilitate diversity and mitigation at a local level. Where the benefits of doing so are most often positive, making life in the longer term less difficult. I see making personal changes as setting up the environmental expectation that its needed. That climate change is accepted as as a condition.A demonstration of alternative response to environmental needs. 'Acceptance' implies personal responsibility, not environmental responsibility. Carbon taxes and similar 'solutions' I think are imposing costs on the environment for our own responses to its condition. The block a direction, but don't provide one, where personal responsibility can demonstrate potential of others. I don't see that the meaning of responsibility in our human identity differs from the biologically accepted interpretation. I agree. So I don't see the benefits of climate protests while protesters are still supporting the industries they blame in their consumer choices.The industries have the power and money to influence they do because we support them. I don't see that minds will be changed, or that we can influence alternate directions until we accept new ones. Personally. Growth and consumerist messages are unchanged until we follow and promote or demonstrate others. To do other wise seems to feed the idea of corporate or elitist conspiracy, re-enforcing the idea. We don't even have to insist people 'believe' in climate change. Its easier to show that the human footprint is dangerously huge, and needs to be reined in multiple areas that also impact on climate change.

No. But hes more likely to react negatively, having a negative impact on his environment. We don't tend to nurture what we see to have negative value.

Then maybe we should look at what contributes to that Human condition, that so many don't accept it. Why is personal responsibility discredited? Why is it implausible? I don't think a positive outlook obscures faults, but allows acceptance of them. Acceptance is needed before we can familiarise ourselves with the cause and recognise the potential of bringing new responses. If we don't believe there is potential in the conditions we have, 'change' is more likely to mean attacking conditions. Getting rid of those conditions, without understanding their cause. Reducing environment to 'favourable' conditions instead of causing more favourable conditions. Reducing environment to favourable conditions ignores diversity and perspective of locality. Does not recognise environment, which is sacrificed. That tends to cause unforeseen problems else where. And more sacrifice of environment because positive potential isn't being sought. We aren't looking to add anything, just reduce it to an ideal of perfection that ignores response-ability. pessimism

I don't think we can so much predict the path evolution will take, but it seems if there is familiarity with and acceptance of environments, there will adaptive responses to those. Physical or behavioural depending on need. Humans seem to seek out familiarity and acceptance of new environments.

Private family owned farms around the world are being reduced to subsistence due to land degradation (that increases with pressures to compete with corporate owned farms) and climate change effects. Informed plantings can reverse that in most instances, and increase income- But carbon taxes add to the subsistence levels makng those improvements often out of reach to the land that would benefit. Maybe a fund could be set up, for contributions from those with no where to plant but wish to, to supply the means for those with the land but lacking materials. Fertiliser and plants supplied, If it could be done without some middleman looking to profit.

I think this misinterprets or disregards the role of response. Life can only spread to suitable habitats. But familiarity, recognition and response to habitats, (physical and behavioural) can change the definition of suitable. Life cannot avoid extinction, when extinction is an outside force. The dinosaurs could not avoid that asteroid. If they had, like man, familiarised and come to recognise a wider environment ie the universe, they have a greater chance of finding a response that could avoid that asteroids impact. Or like man, recognise the possibilities of spreading their own habitat to include off world, through familiarity, recognition and response. The dinosaurs did not recognise an environment, so lacked the ability to develop a response.