Peterkin

You can put me down any way you like. What I am in theory is anarcho-communist - in the original sense of communal, or tribal governance, with wide latitude for individual freedom. In modern practice, I'm a liberal socialist; I vote for the platform closest to my favoured agenda, within the confines of a very imperfect party system in a very imperfect first-past-the-post election format. Of course I would prefer to participate in consensus decision-making, rather than dictate to others how they should live or have anyone in authority dictate to me. Yes, a rational form of government would put the competent and cool team leaders in charge of energy production, vaccine distribution, school-building and disaster relief, because the Brownies and Betsies have not been doing a heckuva job. The very few people I know well just want to be left alone to do their art or science or fixing cars or growing blueberries, while somebody else makes sure the showers are hot and the beer is cold and there's corn flakes on the grocery store shelf. They don't want to spend their life pulling administrative strings or ordering anybody around. It seems reasonable to me to share labour and responsibility, as well as assets and knowledge.

Is that what you really desire? Because you're definitely not speaking for me.

No, it certainly doesn't sound like any definition of democracy I ever heard. "total control all by themselves" - of what - everything? Law, commerce, health & welfare, employment, civil rights, environment, natural resources, national security, policing, jurisprudence and corrections, public safety, infrastructure, education, agriculture, energy.... I don't think most people would want to be in sole control of all that. It's way too much work that we're not qualified for, and way too much responsibility, even if we were. I have a lot of trouble with the alternative, as well, but I'm more inclined to believe that many people (probably not the majority, though) are willing to place their faith in some heroic individual they've chose to follow. Many people are that gullible. And that ready to shove their fellow citizens out of the decision-making process.

I don't know that they should prefer democracy. If they do prefer it to whatever form of government they have, I know what I think it should be, but I can't tell what people of another culture would think it should be; they may have a quite different attitude, different priorities. Any form of government works, as long as its rules are both known and adhered to by a solid majority of the participants, both in leadership positions and the polity. No form of government works equally well for all of those participants. Why I prefer democracy is that - according my criteria - it works better for a larger portion of the population than any other system that I know of from recorded history, and further contains the mechanism of its adjustment and improvement. Appropriate guardrails... Now, that really is a tall order! I know some of the safeguards I would like installed: 1. Actual, rather than nominal division of powers. The judiciary should not be political, either through election or appointment. The house of direct representatives (parliament or congress or bundesteg or national assembly) should be independent of the party affiliation of any other tier of government, both national and regional - preferably free of all party affiliation, period. It should elect from among its own ranks, the chief administrator, who should command the armed forces to act only at the (duly advised, debated and decided by open vote) behest of the representatives. The senate or its equivalent, which represents regional/vested/group interests should be elected independently from the lower house. 2. Real, rather than nominal, separation of church and state: an entirely secular state. 3. The barring of all monetary interest from the selection and election of candidates for offices, and from all official government decisions, including the appointment of government agency directors. 4. Independent public broadcast media to inform the people of the activities of their representatives, and during elections, the policy platforms, programs, schedules, speeches and voting records of all candidates. And also that, Yes!

Oh, I see. It was purely about the selection of leaders. In the UK, they also have a parliament, political parties and elections, not unlike the US. That system gave them Boris Johnson. It seems to me that both methods fall somewhat short in quality control, but at least they have a back-up. I'm ready to move on now.

Go! Have at the royal spawn!

What it does mean in each country is a product of that country's history. No nation-state, including the USA, which puff-prides itself on the pretense, invented itself from a clean slate on a principle. Modern nations are more like ancient houses, many times damaged by fire and war and flood, patched up, renovated, added-on, adapted over many generations. Their forms of government contain all of that history, as do their laws and cultures and social strata. It's fashionable in the 20th+ century to call one's form of government democratic, whether it actually involves the majority of the population or not: formulas are observed, speeches are made, assemblies are held, motions are gone-through. As long as the theory and form exist, there is a potential for reform in the direction of true democracy. What it should mean, everywhere, is that the interest of every citizen, regardless of their station in life or the esteem in which their society holds them, is represented in the administration of the government, in the application of its laws, in the rendering of social services, in access to resources and infrastructure, in rights and responsibilities and contribution. The means and methods and mechanisms may vary, but the principle shouldn't.

Sorry for the misunderstanding: none of this was about me. That reference was to ordinary good manners as regards obituaries. The monarchy does have significance for many British citizens and expatriates, and even quite a few in the Commonwealth countries. In my unhumble opinion, it's inappropriate to insult them in a moment of sorrow, even if you don't understand what they're sad about. And all the Christian martyrs. *sigh* In another venue, I'll be happy to discuss how such attitudes and monsters are formed.

Does that belong here? One could find ways to describe how various nations choose their leaders that are no more flattering, but we could maybe avoid them for a day or two after the death of someone a lot of people admired, whatever their reason for doing so.

But not easy! It's not easy being Charles, either.

Many and various, but at its center were two main principles: bolstering the spirit of her people, especially in peril and hard times, and maintaining sound diplomatic relations with the Commonwealth. I don't pretend to know how it all fit - nations, their histories, attitudes and sentiments, are complicated - but it seemed to work. In any case, whether I personally value a particular job make no difference: I respect anyone who gets up every morning, resolved to carry out to the best of their ability whatever they believe they should be doing. We may be about to find out. Certainly some things, and probably quite a lot we [especially outsiders] haven't considered. That's only latterly. She and GB have a much longer history together.

I'm neither British nor a monarchist. But I had a lot of respect for that old lady. She did her job well, faithfully and bravely, and sometimes in very trying conditions. Times like this, I wish I believed in an afterlife. I'd like to think she's somewhere, having a good talk with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

A lot of people - most notably and influentially, conservative politicians - have declared Covid "over". (But the economy! The economy! The economy!) A lot of people are tired or have given up. Many are just bored with restrictions and stopped caring. Of course, the health-care systems are collapsing and people are dying in emergency waiting rooms. But they're wandering the streets and retail outlets without masks and pretending they're immune when they're not. Meanwhile... https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/worldwide-graphs/#countries-cases

No. They're icky, but harmless. The fact of living in an apartment is in itself further evidence that the culprit is a flying insect that thrives on rotting vegetation. Both the larva and the adult are annoying, but their life-span is short and neither can harm you. Don't leave food or drink sitting out uncovered, don't let any fruit in a bowl or basket become overripe, clean well any surfaces or containers where it has already happened, and you should be quite safe.

Okay, I'll do that. The reason I didn't quote the next bit was that I don't think thicker skin or thermoregulation are viable options and really didn't want to go into why the incredibly clever scientific experimentation in those directions will not make very much difference. That's what everyone who tried to warn people about pretty much anything, ever, has been called - in the early stages, before they were declared an enemy of the people.

What difference does that make? He lies about everything, all the time. He always did, from a military cadet Sound at all familiar? to a real estate 'developer', to "reality" show star So by the time he raised his profile high enough to be lapped-at by the pre-pacified Republicans, why would you expect otherwise? And having gotten away with four years of it, why would he change at the end. and on. It fortunate if you really are in Europe and can't vote for DeSantis, who is a good a faithful apprentice. .

Front: Some people have ideas. Back: I Don't Care Do U?

If it feels good, why not? They have, six or seven times in the course of a century, during which all the world's informed experts and amateurs understood the danger, understood its causes, understood what remedial measures needed to be taken, and all the world's political and religious leaders had informed advice. They talked about it.... and... opted for short-term personal advantage. I suppose we could try to put a new spin on why it happened, the way they did after each of the wars, a different narrative in each participating nation, but the dogs and robots won't be interested. Thing about intelligence is: It's so much better at creating messes than at preventing them.

You do. You do! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/09/far-right-europe-rise-electionshttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/09/far-right-europe-rise-elections The poster fathead: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/viktor-orban-american-conservatism-admiration/671205/

You would think. And yet, previously, you stated: Lots of warning, lots of clever-boots, lots of available technology - no decisive action. The huge down-side of competitive, rather than collaborative intelligence is that it overwhelmingly favours short-term individual and familial advantage over long-term group and species survival. That's why the ants will inherit the earth. Plus, they're meek. Thanks for that interesting read!

Pray on that!! Why not? Comparative studies are pretty thin on the ground. The only thing we're sure of is that the Really Big Winner of the Intelligence Wars is wiping out itself along with all other life because it got too smart too fast.

Sure, but this presupposes competition. Algae don't need to be very smart to be essential to all other life. Exactly. Competition poses problems. Problem: How to get my food? Solutions: speed, power, stamina, stealth, cunning. The last is the most cost-effective: he wins. Mostly, not always. The other traits are very useful and may be more applicable in some instances. OTOH, when the niches are full and the only competition in which you have the chance of an advantage is against your own kind, that can be self-defeating, self-destructive. Under those conditions, your better bet - and most certainly the better bet of your offspring - is in co-operation. That's where intelligence takes central importance. It enables you to communicate, share information, pool resources, co-ordinate effort and pass your experience forward to the next generation. The trick of intelligence is in deciding which to do when.

Nice teeshirt motto. The pope exists. Jesus may have existed. God/gods, very unlikely - any of 'em. People have both ideas and agendas, all the while they have needs and desires.

I'm not sure I understand it. We [humans] surely have been looking at intelligence the wrong way, i.e. from an anthropocentric perspective, which starts with the assumption that we're the smartest thing in the universe, except maybe our gods, and sometimes we outsmart even them. Lately, though, we've become a little more objective and open-minded, so that we measure the intelligence of other species not just by how well do on human tests compared to humans, but to how well they solve problems in their own environment. Intelligence isn't necessary to survival at all, except in the solving of problems like: How do I find my usual food? Okay, if my usual food is unavailable, what else can I eat? This smells like food, but it's too hard to bite. How do I open it? How can I get to my spawning place? Okay, if this route is blocked, how do I get around the obstacle? If my nesting tree has been replaced by building can I nest in that? Is it safe? Where to build?

All hardship does that, as does all major change. But extinctions create a lot of unoccupied territory and ecological niches, where species that had previously been prey or adjuncts to more dominant predators have a chance to develop their potential. Just think of the scope for rats and cockroaches when we're out of the way!