Peterkin

No, I don't. It never occurred to me to add nutrients, since the ecosystem of a natural pond is self-fertilizing.

I was unaware. Apologize for my insensitivity; it comes of ignorance.

I agree and I think that teacher would agree with you. OTH, I'm also convinced that without the crucial reduction in emissions, all other approaches would not avail. I don't think Dr. Short's intention was to lay out a proposed solution, but merely to explain her frustration with climate education as it currently stands. She may have wished to teach the various other factors involved, and the various long-term responses governments, industries and populations could implement to combat it; what's been tried, what has failed, what new technologies are available. Presumably, these were not in the curriculum. When the actions of the responsible parties fall this far short of requirements, this late in a crisis situation, there is little point in teaching what might have been effective strategies 3 or 4 decades ago to people who have no power to affect anything in this decade.

Only two countries are named on that document. Scotland might take umbrage, but it does vindicate the nation status of Northern Ireland. I was initially referring to the map in the OP, which depicts what I mistakenly believed was three previously identifiable nations. @Endy0816 has since explained As the population involved is under 2,000,000, it could, in theory be appended to either the red or the blue section without upsetting the balance of Electoral College representation. 4 countries it is, then. But I still don't think they'd want to join the USA.

Humans.

What would you like to discuss?

How do you impose duty on a discipline, or methodology or concept? It's not alive, it's not responsive; it doesn't exist in any physical or palpable form. Tasks are assigned to and undertaken by human beings, individually or collectively.

Which has been answered hundreds of times. Science can also say, and has said what they should do, which was in the question. What they will or won't do because of the other craziness was not in the question. No, Love, hate, relationships, poetry, art, music, literature, and spirituality are not problems. They are human experiences and activities. They don't require solving. People are capable of creating problems in each of those areas of endeavour and they're equally capable of solving their individual problems in their individual ways. No intervention required. The same goes for personal, societal and racial problems: people make them; people solve them. That's life. While there is an ultimate scientific solution to life, most of us don't consider it an optimum outcome - at least, not just yet.

Does all truth depend on whom you ask? Is nationhood a matter of opinion? I said "some people describe it as such". I also said they're wrong.

Very true. But it has been one in the past, unlike Northern Ireland. Besides, my reference was jocular and somewhat ironical. Cornwall is conservative in its voting habit; it endorsed Brexit by 56%, shooting itself in the economic foot, so to speak, and wouldn't likely vote to join another big country.

What? The quote said global warming. As for emotional problems, medical science has had a rocky road. Currently, however, clinical psychology has a better track record with them than religion, or at least, doesn't drive so many disturbed people to gruesome martyrdom. On the other hand, it has supplied the inquisitors with effective tools for extracting confession and recantation from apostates and continues to supply their modern counterparts with ever increasingly sophisticated devices. By science solving the problems confronting humanity, I didn't mean we expected scientists to come up with a formula to fix everything. We expected the knowledge provided by science, and the reasoning process that produces knowledge, to permeate the human population through universal education. The 1950's, 60's and 70's saw a great expansion in public schooling, general literacy and numeracy, more advanced studies, college and university enrollment. My cohort expected that trend to continue and include all the countries that were once called 'backward', then 'underdeveloped' and are now optimistically and indiscriminately labelled 'developing'. (I have often questioned that last word...) Who says those are problems in need of solving? Give us efficient birth control, food security and shelter from storms, we can figure out our music, football and love lives!

Can and has. Also many other questions that philosophy wrestles with and politics play football with. Unfortunately, the answers science provides are based on the assumption that we all want a rational, equitable, sustainable outcome. But since we don't, we can't accept the straightforward answer: Turn off the goddam combustion engines by 1970.

Not on the partition map and not a country, though some people describe it as such.

They'll be rolled up later - and hardly matter anyway, in the global scheme of power.

Cornwall?

Relevant article that someone has just brought to my attention:

Also in population and area. There is no reason to repartition a country that's already made up of three countries... one of which would rather be in the European Union anyway, as would London. Quite a different map! And, btw, where is Ireland? Have they got to row around to the other side? At least Gibraltar is already home.

Than raw emotion? Because science has a lot more narrative, direction and detail. Than spirituality? Because spirituality is private and can't be effectively communicated, while science has a voluminous, finely tuned vocabulary accessible to all. Than art? It's not. That's why they make such familiar bedfellows: each enhances the other. Than watching grass grow? Well, that is science, the very core of science.

I'm not sure Kenney and his ilk aren't counting on the collapse of their public health care system to raze it to the ground and institute a private one. They're cynical enough - but are they evil enough? And do they not realize that their own voter base is dying off? Far righters do tend to myopia. Not so much anymore; to garble a metaphor, the various wings of the nut-factory are gathering under a single flag: It's so easy to generate and harness fear to the requirements of domination. The second quote is from an editorial, but I think he makes a sound observation.

It's far more complicated than that. People, with very few exceptions, are both selfish and altruistic, competitive and co-operative, individualistic and social. These traits, as well as several others, occur naturally in +/-99% of humans; in 80%, they occur in a relatively narrow range of proportions. How each of those traits, and more importantly, the expression of those traits develops in a growing child depends largely on their environment. What traits and behaviours are valued by the authority figures and role models in the child's private life? What attributes are rewarded and which ones are punished by the child's culture? He will act in what he perceives in his own interest - to win rewards and avoid punishments. His own interest includes the seeking of approval, esteem and love from other people, as well as material gain, status and liberty. How he balances those two sets of needs depends on his self-concept, which is formed through social contacts, beginning with the primary care-giver. Also legally, since they're the ones making the law. Greed and gluttony are instinctive behaviours rooted in scarcity. Even though we have no need to fight over water, food and shelter in modern developed nations, we nevertheless continue to institutionalize scarcity : Civilization, which was built as a buttress against scarcity and competition for scarce resources from other human tribes, created a whole new form of scarcity. Human society was rigidly stratified, which arrangement funnels wealth and power upward - invariably, in all kinds of governance and in all ideologies. This leaves a wealth-vacuum at the bottom of the pyramid, and solidifies all those agencies, institutions, laws and traditions that preserve the dominance of elites. And foster the perception of scarcity by artificial means : coupling access to necessities with ownership of money, constraint of reproductive freedom, income insecurity, and the ubiquitous divisions and group rivalries fomented by interested parties keep people at and near the bottom of the social pyramid in a constant state of anxiety, which prompts them to get whatever they can whenever they can, before the opportunity is snatched away. Ironically, it also keep the people at the top in a constant of anxiety for their own security, which prompts them to take repressive measures against the bottom, which causes more anxiety and resentment, which.... Through the same methods that created the situation in the first place. The elites need to wake up to the unsustainability of their current methods and call forth their social intelligence. It's already happening - though far too slowly compared to the external changes that are happening much too fast.

I didn't like the Tyson version of Cosmos, either when I first saw it. My bugaboo was the cartoons, rather than his tone. Also, his ship of the imagination looks like it was made by Samsung and everything was too flashy. But then, I decided to cut him some slack - it can't be any picnic to follow Sagan. And the representation of scientists was a more fair and inclusive. All the same, the first Cosmos series was a landmark of my youth - along with many others of my generation. But it contained the Big Lie that bedazzled my generation: we believed Science could accomplish anything, solve any problem, overcome all obstacles, keep on improving and improving the world and unite humanity. Which reminds me, one my SO's favourite SF movies is Contact, which I didn't think was at all realistic and had what I considered a major miss on the God question. I liked Close Encounters, even though it was equally implausible. Adult programming in any genre is hard to come by. When they label something as 'adult', they mean violent and dirty - but what we're craving is intelligent and advanced. The last little while we had satellite tv service, we subscribed to a science channel. Hugely disappointing! Most of the programming is juvenile and sensationalistic (Who murdered King Tut? War of the dinosaurs!) Their best stuff was the nature shows we get free on public television. However, You Tube has the Feynman lectures - I don't know whether you have to pay for them, but it's more worth subscribing to than Prime (unless you want to save on mail order shipping). We really enjoyed this one, Fun to Imagine.

Sweet???

They'd only leave again, like they did Europe.

We have them, too. I've been admonished for mentioning this threat in a global context, so I won't, but as local threats go, it's quite bad enough. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/09/19/analysis/shocking-anti-vaccine-protests-plagued-canadas-election-spawned-resurgent-far Meanwhile, the most conservative and permissive administration in the country, the premier who has been loudly "open for business" as the Delta variant rampaged through his province, finally backed down - just a couple of months too late. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/kenney-military-alberta-health-care-1.6181646 And the idjit is trying to cut nurses' salaries! What he actually wants is to privatize the provincial health care system - which was built up with public funds. They're everywhere! PS It's difficult for anyone with even the most tenuous hold on reality to reconcile the picture on that big flag with this picture.

That's also true. I didn't say it was a majority of corporations that see the need for change. But some are beginning to. (I've been reading a book.) Capitalism on the 20th century predatory and profligate model is obviously unsustainable, just like the world it feeds on. Some top executives and shareholders are smart enough to see that and take steps toward 21st century self-preservation. The author , who seems to know whereof he writes, doesn't give them terrific odds of succeeding: about 12% probability, as compared to 60+% of catastrophic collapse or decline and fall.