Peterkin

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!

okay.... Philosophically speaking, morals/wisdom should be considered on its merits: what does it benefit society and individual, at what cost? Not because it's believed to come from a god who wouldn't hesitate to immolate you for all eternity.

How is that related to the moral teaching of anybody? All the peasants were told about how popes get to be popes is that Jesus appointed Peter as his representative on Earth, who gets to anoint kings and lay down canon law. They only know it through religion, which is to be taken entirely on faith, never examined, never questioned, never criticized. Organized religion sleeps with politics. Politics borrows from philosophy. Individual ethics are influenced by all of these things.

No. You conflated religion with philosophy and ethics. Abraham was in the Holy Bible, not in Washington; it was specifically the Holy Land those peasants ran off to liberate from the heathen; it was a pope who sent them there.

It matters, because Socrates doesn't tell anybody to take his only child up on a mountain and slit his throat - and then say, "Just kidding! Here, take some other guy's prize ram to kill instead." The Buddha doesn't send thousands of inadequately armed and provisioned peasants on a crusade against another, similar god's thousands of fools to massacre one another over possession of a patch 'holy' desert. Philosophically speaking, morals/wisdom should be considered on its merits: what does it benefit society and individual, at what cost? Not because it's believed to come from a god who wouldn't hesitate to immolate you for all eternity. Very good question! How do you discover the answer? Socrates thought he was smarter than everybody else. Most philosophers think they are. Maybe some of them are, maybe not. Either way, they're not necessarily better suited to work out the best course for another another person than the person herself. The function of a judge is to interpret the law. The function of a jury is to weigh the evidence as presented by two advocates who also know the law. The jury is not burdened with 'finding' justice; their job is to decide whether a fellow citizen - one of their own peers - deserves to be punished for something he's accused of.

Good, but not foolproof detective work; just as well I can't be convicted on this evidence. I read about the phoebe - not sure I've ever seen one on the wing - in a Barbara Kingsolver novel, which has been translated into 20 languages. I read it in English, thought it a pretty name and didn't associate it with tyrants in any way; it seems an unassuming little insectivore. I do know the eastern kingbird, which also doesn't seem to me particularly regal.

One of several. Why do you assume Canadian? (I don't know any tyrant flycathers well enough to drink with) Do Brits not spell their own language properly anymore? I'd far prefer to think: "Your turn!"