Peterkin

Another word is gullibility. A kinder and more accurate description, perhaps, is willing suspension of disbelief.

The two I've known - a black & tan and a red (more chestnut, really) were alert, lively, smart (enough) and good-natured. But they didn't get on well with other dogs animals - perhaps just because they were raised as onlies. In our house, there was usually a mix of pets. When my SO's Great Pyrenees was ill, the only way we could get her to take medication was hidden in a cat-food sandwich, shared out among all three dogs. She never twigged that she always got the last bite, the one I'd had my thumb on.

Can't hardly tell them apart! Perfect coat and points.

Franz Schubert, Piano Sonata # 664, played by Alfred Brendel. It's a gentle, pensive piece and he has a light touch. It's a welcome respite. Is that an acceptable farewell offering?

I don't know. You must have an underwhelming imagination. I saw the OP question and thought I'd throw in something a little less predictable. Sorry if it upset you!

The washing machine. It's been acting funny, or failing to act altogether; it's only 5 years old and we don't have a spare $600 atm. As long as I can hear it grumbling and moaning, I'm content.

The North Korean dictators must die. That could be brought about revolution or civil war, but neither is any more likely than it being re-taken by South Korea - and it's also unlikely that SK will break up with the US; though NK may be getting ready to detach from China, that trend would instantly end under military threat from the West. What usually does work : Takeover by a bigger nation. That can happen through invasion and conquest, with millions of casualties, or annexation, with only a few hundred thousand. The top 3 administrative tiers of both governments and the top level of civil service, as well as all the generals and police chiefs, have to be removed - how far removed the lower ranks are depends on their willingness to co-operate with the new rulership. Of course, the top government officials and the entire secret service has to be eliminated - not allowed to escape. If the new rulership is smart, they'll know what incentives to offer, and they will go very easy on the civilian populations, disrupting their daily life as little as possible - even if it includes decorating gold statues of the Giant Baby - for a while; let that custom fade away on its own, rather than banning it. Banning and forbidding things people are used to engenders resistance: peaceable cultural habits, religious practice, etc., even if they are contrary to the new rulers' world-view, should be left alone. Appoint the financial and industrial executives of South Korea to reorganize the economy, with guidance from the overlords, but with minimal direct interference. This would mean gradual increments in the standard of living of North Koreans, with no harm to the South Koreans. It's crucial to give neither population any cause to envy or resent the other: the sooner the civilian populations, then the rank and file of armies are reconciled, the less trouble they'll make. Sponsor scientific and professional conferences, school outings, tree-planting weekends, concerts, outdoor fairs and markets, sporting events and summer camps where the people from both sides can mingle while pursuing a pleasant activity. At least, that's how I would do it. But then, I'm not an imperial power.

From the pile in the back yard. When I'm stacking, I rescue any pieces that catch my fancy, for something to do in winter - arthritis permitting. We buy firewood as slab from a small lumberyard that deals exclusively in local maple (Lots of syrup around here, as well!) Some of the trees were old, hollow or variously injured, so there are interesting crannies and knots. That big knot in 'Bones' was original, just needed a little reshaping; I carved the smaller one. Tried a couple of times, but it tends to fall off seasoned wood. OTH, I hardly ever get cracks. It is! You see workmanship like that sometimes in antiques; otherwise, only by artisans. A couple of local guys are very good. We have a talented young blacksmith on the studio tour, as well. They did hold one this year, but we didn't go.

That's beautiful! I always like to see emphasis on some natural characteristic of the wood. It has such interesting and varied character, like no other medium. I usually work around the most attractive original feature of the particular piece. Sand until my arm falls off, which is never quite enough, stain and water-based varnish. I got a lucky break on gel stains - including a blue and a green, a few years ago at Restore. (The old, warren-like, good store, not the new, streamlined, boring one.)

Oh, this is too good not to get a piece of. Love all these projects! I don't do any precision work myself - lack the skill and patience - but I mess around with bits of maple sometimes. Carve them into bookends, mostly.

That's the single most important reason I think mainstream news has to re-establish its reliability, re-earn the trust of the public. Commercial broadcasting networks have been so preoccupied with sponsorship and ratings that they let hard news, solid, competent journalism slide, in favour of spectacle and sensation and partisan agendas, and cringed from saying anything unpopular or that some powerful lobby would find objectionable. People lost confidence in the 6 o'clock news and turned to the internet. We all did - but some of us are more intelligently selective of our sources than others are prejudicially selective of theirs. But when the worst bilge is spewing out of the highest office in the land, there isn't much news media can do. And when the internet sources are manipulated by agencies from the dark side, you can't trust anybody.

The biggest problem I saw at the beginning -- actually, make that three problems: -indecision - Most government were standing there with their pants down, going, "What? What?" After SARS, Ebola and West Nile, the central health agencies of Canada and the US (and I have to assume, most other countries) developed a plan of action, a set of protocols to follow, recommendations for health care personnel and facilities and a list of supplies. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canada-communicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2019-45/issue-6-june-6-2019/article-3-canadian-pandemic-influenza-preparedness-public-health-strategy.html It wasn't followed closely enough, soon enough or consistently. Governments don't like to budget money for what might not happen under their administration - so they end up spending ten times as much when it does. And when something bad does happen on their watch, they worry first about their popularity, second about the economy... and by then, people are dying, so they scramble around, doing damage control. - poor communication - The news of the early outbreak was kept secret by China, and when it got out of China, was kept a close secret by top security agencies... They usually say, as in the alien invasion movies: "to prevent panic." Wouldn't you rather prevent a million deaths? Government and health authority need to communicate better; governments need to listen better; governments need to be a lot more forthcoming with the people. And the news media need to take responsibility for giving out correct information, coherent instruction and sound advice. If that means fact-checking government handouts and politicians' pronouncements, do that. If it means suppressing some high-profile idiot's remarks, do that. (CBC got its act reasonably together by about the end of March, which wasn't too bad, but they couldn't help themselves reporting all the fringe crap as if it had the same value as the doctors' opinion.) - discord - The worst example we saw, of course, was Trump v. Fauci and then Trump v. sanity, but other 'representatives of the people' also made major gaffes and bad decisions, working at cross purposes with the health advisory boards established by their very same governing bodies. Governments and health officials need to get on the same page - with the latter in the lead, and the former following their advice, so the top doctor and the top administrator send the same message, act on the same principles and have the same objectives. (Also, shutting vaccine laboratories because they're not profitable enough is criminally idiotic. But that's just our Conservatives.... probably.)

U shudder to imagine! I must repaint my keybpard.... or learn to touchtype.... nah, life's too long and I'm too rich....

Why do you suppose unlimited access to money provides anyone with an exciting emotional life? In fact, people who amass great fortunes are excited either by the enterprise itself, which they would pursue even if it didn't make them rich, or about the getting of money - not the having. This type of personality does not grow bored with the accumulation of money in a year or two, nor yet a decade or two. In a couple of centuries, maybe: it's not been documented. Their children, being given access to all the money, sometimes enter their money-making parent's enterprise and eventually take over the business, sometimes feel guilty and renounce it, sometimes have other passions to pursue, sometimes are spoiled and unmotivated; this latter group, because they have the leisure and opportunities, indulge in risk-taking activities like drug use and car racing. The mouse utopia experiment didn't provide for birth control and scientific or artistic endeavour... let alone all the yet-to-be-solved problems that exist in the real world. People in our world who live a long time seem able to fill all of that time, so long as their bodies hold up, with purposeful activity - whether it's work, learning and creative efforts, altruism, travel, politics or sports and games - usually a combination of several of those occupations. I can imagine things to try for the next six or seven hundred years, given reasonable health and the material wherewithal. Beyond that, I don't know yet; something will turn up.

Cool! Let's not jeopardize it by being too proud!

Exactly! Sometimes a single person is humble and proud only a few minutes apart. An footballer when he has scored a goal is proud, but humble three minutes later when he suffers an injury and needs the medics. These states of mind are not originally character traits, but can become habitual. That same footballer, when he's scored a lot of goals and suffered very few injuries, has been praised and rewarded, celebrated and applauded for a few years, start thinking that he's special, better than other men; that he has prerogatives and immunities that other men do not have. Which state of mind becomes so habitual as to be perceived as characteristic of someone depends on three factors: innate attributes (health, talent, intelligence, beauty, charm) early childhood influences (whether they're spoiled, encouraged, disciplined or browbeaten) and the culture in which they grow up (what traits and behaviours it rewards; what abilities and attitudes it values, what opportunities it provides.) That's entirely cultural. If it is false, it's being shown because the society claims to value one thing but actually values another (like young athletes being lectured on sportsmanship and fair play - but being rewarded only if they win - by whatever means). In some cultures, the pretence of Christian values is superficial; everybody know it's just moralistic varnish on a deeply competitive, triumphalist mind-set that values individual achievement - victory, success - above all else. Other cultures have a deeply embedded intolerance of personal pride and do not allow the celebration of outstanding individuals: a show of superiority or self-aggrandizement would be socially unacceptable. People learn to behave - and to a very large extent, feel - as their society demands. The very fact of calling states of mind - states of mind made up of normal, healthy, universal emotions - 'vice' and 'virtue' exhibits that a cultural value system being applied. These are dog-whistle words, indicating what a person is expected to feel, not what is appropriate and natural for that person to feel.

We. Not the people of the distant future. They may have a quite different definition. I already amended my post to the reference that suggest individual evolution (which, incidentally, was a joke, howbeit a misplaced one) to "what a human can become" No, but it does change the organism; i.e. cause it to become something different. Indeed. But with our present capability, we can already affect mutations that nature could not. Presumably, humans of the future will be able to direct their gene pool at will, and over shorter time-spans. When discussing "forever", some of that kind of mutation might also be considered. Sounds fine.

Where in biology is it carved that change has to be generational? Every organism changes over time, from inception to annihilation. Some organisms go through metamorphoses and/or stages in their life cycle; most simply mature, deteriorate and decline. If the decline of aging is halted at some point - and how is that point determined? What's the biological mechanism whereby it is halted? Is it truly halted or merely deflected? What happens instead? If they become immortal past reproductive age, there can be no new offspring except through alternative means: cloning, frozen embryos, DNA splicing.... The old stock would still eventually succumb to attrition - boredom, if not fed-upness would drive them to extreme sports and risk-taking behaviours - and the new ones, howbeit genetically derived from a dwindling populations of immortal dotards, might still have variants artificially added, through splicing, chemical alterations to their in-vitro amniotic fluid and nutrient, or implanted electronics. They would also be raised by immortal dotards who are not birth-parents, and or robots. We don't know what they might become. If the aging is halted while the subjects are still fertile, they would need to restrict their reproductive protocol, which, again, would affect the gene pool differently, going forward from that point. Of course, humans might just continue on continuing on, until they all died of violent clashes over scarce resources.

Oh. In that case: Given enough time, who knows what a human can become?

Given enough time, who knows what a human can become? Evolve, devolve or de-evolve? Given enough opportunities, one human might have many different lives and identities. I think all of those scenarios have been explored in science fiction.

How does time spent on Earth signify in the valuation of a human life? Life has no intrinsic value; value can be lost or gained by quality of life and how it's lived. If a wife-beating thief lives only 30 years, while a medical researcher who coaches underprivileged youth lives to 95, is the latter less worthy than the former? Anyway, the ones who live forever probably won't stay on Earth after the Collapse.

The picture is mixed, at this point. Brand new technology and very promising, but not yet widespread. It is far more expensive than dirty burning, but such a facility should last a long time, and produce some usable byproducts, as well as carbon that will have to be stored - which is yet another question mark. There is some literature floating around, including good sources, but my internet connection is iffy because of a storm right now; i can lose it any second. Tomorrow....

Maybe not to most people, but a greater percent (36) of the Dutch than most other nation do use bicycles as their most common form of transport. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/8/28/17789510/bike-cycling-netherlands-dutch-infrastructure The Danes do better. https://denmark.dk/people-and-culture/biking It's a matter of public decision-making: what people want their cities to be like to live in; getting the government action required to install the infrastructure; letting a culture develop in favourable conditions. In north American cities, councils flip and then flop on the issue as fickle voters choose people-first progressives in one election, then business-friendly conservatives the next. Bike lanes and share rides in; support program cancelled. Not if the incinerator is equipped with carbon-capture filters - which, according to recent regulations, it has to be. It can't stink, and it must save both the water and the ash residue. All renewable sources, even coal if the byproducts are processed properly. But not nuclear - because of its waste product That's a lot worse than *shudder!* - wood as biofuel.

You would think so, but hat we've done, in the case of woodland termites is urbanize them - we just brought them, along with their food, into the cities, where we become more aware of their activity. Aware and annoyed -- without thinking about the vital role they play in nature: they're part of the recycling brigade. The grassland is a different story: termites don't hurt the grass, until the cattle have already damaged it and leave nothing for the insects to eat but the roots. In fact, left to their own devices, they would do more good than harm. Yes. We poison our own environment and habitation to get rid of them - except in the places I mentioned where they go unseen. Even in the forest, when we go in to cut timber, we leave a lot of unwanted dead limbs and stumps behind - waste wood that choke all the new growth if something didn't actively break it down into usable mulch and compost. How much better to not import them from the forest in the first place? https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/plastic-waste-building-materials-canada/ I like wood, too. So we can make the frame and shell from recycled plastic and put a wood facing on it, where it's exposed and uninviting to termites. Just one suggestion. Anyhow, I think this whole termites and climate change 'problem' is a red herring. Yes, they make methane and carbon dioxide - they always did, without anybody getting upset, until we, who produce a whole lot more of those harmful gases, needed a scapegoat "Hey Look over there! Thetermitesdoneit." The plants are not here for us; we are here only because the plants were here first. The insects are not here to help or hurt us; they were here before us, maintaining a system that made us possible. They didn't mess it up; we did.

This is new to me, so the only evidence I have so far are those two articles, about the most termite-infested cities in the US and the desert termites on overgrazed pasture. There are a couple of reasons I don't think humans are particularly effective in controlling termites. The intensive safety measures - treated lumber, barriers, chemical sprays, etc. - are only applied in rich countries, and even there, only in the rich portion of the rich countries, which also have more or less invisible high-density poor portions. So, the 'nice' new subdivision is termite-free until the houses start losing their curb appeal, decline in resale value, are bought by people who can't afford up-scale pest control. Until it gets run-down and really cheap, when a new wave of ambitious immigrants or yuppies buy them all them up and start a gentrification phase: they rip out all the rotten bits and throw the material in huge dumpsters, buy all new pressure-treated lumber and add on decks and things... You know what I mean about the life-cycle of cities? In warm climates - of which there will be more as time passes - wood rots faster. Humans are profligate in their use of building materials. New housing may be termite-proofed, but I doubt the demolition dumps are. Where we spray for termites, we also kill the spiders and wasps that prey on them; and at least deter, if not eradicate the snakes, lizards and rodents. Humans get involved in ways that mess up balances and proportions and processes. Here's one study says they are not declining as the forests and wetlands recede: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5288252/ Where is 'here' and how global are those requirements? IOW, poison spray, yes?