Peterkin

Yes, it is a feedback loop: economic development causes climate change; economic development is rated as higher priority than extinction due to climate change; therefore economic development takes precedence over climate change mitigation, resulting in more and faster climate change. Yes, we are doomed.

Any subtropical tide pool. Maybe more than one.

Top 10 Countries in Which to Live (World Happiness Report 2022): Finland — 7.821. Denmark — 7.636. Iceland — 7.557. Switzerland — 7.512. Netherlands — 7.415. Luxembourg — 7.404. Sweden — 7.384. Norway — 7.365. Top 10 Greenest Countries in the World (2022 EPI): Denmark — 77.9 United Kingdom — 77.7 Finland — 76.5 Malta — 75.2 Sweden — 72.7 Luxembourg — 72.3 Slovenia — 67.3 Austria — 66.5 Switzerland — 65.9 Iceland — 62.8 Top 10 Countries with the Highest Personal Income Tax Rates - Trading Economics 2021: Ivory Coast - 60% Finland - 56.95% Japan - 55.97% Denmark - 55.90% Austria - 55.00% Sweden - 52.90% Aruba - 52.00% Belgium - 50.00% (tie) Israel - 50.00% (tie) Slovenia - 50.00% (tie) Seems like the Scandanavians are doing something right.

Nor do I . I could challenge each of the numbered statements for veracity. This one, however, is accurate, so far as it goes. Hence my skepticism as to the assertion that those struggling people are given a choice between short and long term survival. And, of course, my next question would be: Is it really the "extreme left wing activists" who control the circumstances in which those people struggle, or is it other, more power entities which could, were it in their own interests, effect an improvement in those people's lives and at the same time, the planet's?

No, that's what I have called people who express a high level of insincerity in public discourse. The guy has an agenda and a well known strategy. Listen to the catch-phrases, the dripping sarcasm, the innuendo. He knows his audience and how to play it. I don't believe he's reachable by means of argument, because his agenda is not fact- or reason-based; it serves a different purpose. But I do apologize to sharks! It won't happen again. Yeah, that's where I bailed, when the guy said poor people were given the choice. Not the billionnaires, not the global corporations, not the movers and launderers of vast quantities of crime profit, not governments - it's down to the non-white poor. Even if he eventually came up with a reasonable suggestion, his style was too odious for it to be worth waiting for.

That was never within the realm of possibility with sharks like this guy.

"combat racism by treating people based solely on the content of their character" "woke culture that we must all oppose" "our culture" "western values" Having made those points, three times, he will not make any of those points for the fourth time. "That's all." (He's just getting started.) "You wish to save the planet. And for tonight, and tonight only, I will join you." "in worshipping at the feet of St. Greta of climate change." "Let us all accept... that we are living though a state of climate emergency... I join you in this myth." "What are we going to do about it?" "It's going to be decided in Asia and Latin America by poor people who couldn't give a shit about the planet" Sorry, that's all I had the stomach for.

Any idea how much of the biomass represented there is from trees?

I'm rereading Timothy Findley's Famous Last Words - and it's even more chilling than the first time. No way am I revisiting Headhunter!

No.

He's been fomenting since before the election he stole.

Thanks! That's super cool (cheap pun). I've known about this place for a long time, but have never been inside.

That works better for an astronomer, than a tightrope walker. Of course, most of us would not be served well by either focus: we need to look at the road, at the screen, at the classroom, at the camera, at what our hands are doing. And that's a fine slogan for people who are able to carry on doing the work they chose and love. For others, retirement makes sense. I have not found this to be true. What I'm wondering is: Do you have a purpose in offering us this bumper-sticker medley?

It sounds more like a computer game world than the one I'm living in.

Who does the implementing?

When does that take effect? So far, all we've had was warring and competing factions. I get the UN index. They have a theory of how humans ought to live, they set that standard as a goal to achieve, and they can measure progress toward, or I assume away from, that goal. That's what progress means: motion in a given direction toward a specified destination. This goal was not identified in the OP. Nor was "efficiency" defined. So, OK, you adopt the UN's aspiration as an absolute goal. That's fine; it's a pretty good standard. And you want to make an index like the UN's? What for?

I don't see a any definitions of 'civilization' and 'efficiency'. Is there a performance standard or benchmarks for efficiency? Is civilization as whole, globally, from 6000BCE to the present, the entity under consideration, or some sub-units, such as nations or regimes? Over what period of time? Are there criteria to be included and excluded? Is there a unit of measurement? A host of problems. But my biggest one is with 'efficiency'. The word suggests that the system being assessed has a specific function to perform, and there is some absolute known standard of product quality, cost/gain ratio and production time to meet. The most efficient social organizations are those depicted in Brave New World and Kazohinia where no progress or evolution is possible, because maximum efficiency has already been achieved. You can probably set up criteria for work/hours per citizen, energy usage, food consumed, waste generated, allocation of resources to productive vs non-productive activities. But how will such an index ? I just can't picture how this would work.

There are all kinds of landlords, not all equally innocent of avarice and fraud.

That's not just old people; that applies to most homeless people. Something bad happened, then another bad thing and another, they lost control of their life, had a breakdown or self-medicated to excess, until finally, they couldn't afford the mortgage or the rent and utilities.... The cracks keep getting wider and more people fall through.

How old a kid? When I was 10, we packed a minimum of belongings and left our home. I was very much aware that we would never go back, never see that apartment, or that city, ever again. It was terrifying, even though I was with both my parents. My brother was 5, and pretty much took things as they came. Later, he had only scrappy memories of the next eight months, while I retain every landscape, voyage and temporary shelter to this day. I do understand why some old people, on losing their home, lose the will to live. And why people with mental health issues can't possibly get better until they have a safe place of their own. Not an institution, not a hostel, not a rehabilitation camp with bunk beds - a room with a door they can lock and a light they can turn out or leave on and a bed where nobody else is allowed to crash, except by their invitation.

No. That was a facile example. It was Americans believing that complex problems have simple solutions that do not involve them having to examine their past actions, or give up anything of their comfort and convenience. Closing their eyes to consequences and sweeping past injustice and present disparity under rugs. That might even be true. For about five minutes. But you have not detailed the costing and funding, let alone the legislations required to make your solution available to all c600,000 homeless Americans, and who knows how many world-wide. Who's going to sort out the drug addicts from the alcoholics from the mildly or severely mentally ill from the people who just got evicted because their landlord wanted to flip a tenement into an upscale condo and give each of those people the help appropriate to their need? There are plenty of good ideas, but not enough support or resources. When you resort to force, a whole lot of people fall through, or get stuck in, a whole lot of cracks.

That's true. I did caricature the OP suggestion, since I found the approach objectionable and have some idea where such approaches lead in real world situations. Donald Trump showed us an example of how detaining illegal immigrants can go very badly wrong. Any mass detention can - and they usually do. We know too many instances to leave our guard down when any facile blanket 'solution' to a societal problem is proposed, especially if that solution involves people indiscriminately rounded up by police.

Good, aren't they? Nature tries everything, until something works really well, then leaves it alone for a few million years.

OK, I agree. I had assumed the objective of the OP was to solve both problems of homeless addicts. However, if you put people who intend to keep using in an urban setting, there could be trouble from/with the neighbours, among other possible setbacks. Neither would I hardened users together with those who are trying to get clean (and/or sober); that probably wouldn't turn out well. So the villages would have to zoned as 'safe sites' or 'drug-free' or 'dry', and I certainly wouldn't put children in non-recovery communities.