Peterkin

For one thing, they play better soccer. For another, a large contingent of kids just coming of age (here they are again - those youngsters!) grew up with the game, and a lot of girls, denied participation in boy sports at an early age, have role models and heroes in that league, and they will probably come out to games in increasing numbers.

Which side is that? Never mind; I realize that this part of the matter is far off topic. What I'm really curious about is why people occasionally suggest that substantive change, or progressive change, in any area of public life cannot take place until a certain generation has died off. Why is it considered more likely that a fresh young cohort will achieve what the youth of the 1960's and 70's failed to achieve, or regain what we did achieve that is now being destroyed? Opposite points of view on social issues are older than I am, older than democracy, older than sport.

I understand that games have been long co-opted as commercial mass entertainment. I agreed that it's probably too late to reclaim them. Re-purposing is a concept I find problematic here: the purposes that competitive sport used to serve in early societies do not apply in modern ones. The functions it might serve now are divided by age, class and financial status: physical fitness, business team-building, the social solidarity of fandom, access to education for underprivileged youth, to teach the children the importance of winning, lucrative careers, investment opportunities, big cash prizes and advertising contracts, etc. Fun and friendship are irrelevant.

I always appreciate this kind of remark, especially accompanied by a big happy grin at the prospect of my imminent demise. I'm working on it.... OTH, not all young people are progressive.

I didn't mean to set a value on evolution. It doesn't 'go toward' anything, either good or bad; it's simply an on-going, undirected process of selection for survival that takes place in nature. My distinction was between fitness selection and imposed order. Imposed order has purpose and direction, but doesn't always contribute work to the survival of either the imposing or imposed-upon organism. That means, traits are acquired as an expedient, or a burden; as soon as the purpose is no longer served, the acquired trait is abandoned. For example, a generation of Eastern Europeans had to learn Russian in school. Once the USSR imploded, not only did their children not learn Russian, but even the older people stopped using it and forgot most of it. The something different a future generation becomes will be the result of many forces, some of which we can see, some of which we can surmise, and some of which we cannot predict. A great many people have had to become bilingual because of colonialism coming to their homeland, or themselves being forced to flee their homeland. Some citizens of ethnically diverse nations become bilingual through childhood exposure; relatively few people become bi- or multilingual by choice.

I wonder, as a side-bar, whether team sports might not change in regard for and enforcement of the rules if the teams were mixed sex; the players might exhibit a lower level of aggression. But hockey fans, for example, would hate that: they appreciate "the physicality" of the game (read fouling, fighting and brawling) They're paying watch gladiatorial combat. I wonder how much that lust for violence contributes to the insistence on the status quo. And i sometimes wonder it's contributed to rendering most sports unenjoyable to those of us who used to play for fun.

I wouldn't call it evolving. Imperialism, whether by force of arms, persuasion or economic pressure, is an imposition of one culture on another rather than a natural development. So, whether the transformation is permanent or temporary depends on how long the empire can hold on to its colonies, satellites and dependent allies. There is some small movement among colonized peoples of North America to reclaim their own heritage and language. We also see fierce backlash against Anglo-American domination in the Middle East, while China appears both ready and able to start a new cycle of imperialism. While the language of business has been English for a while now, economic power is not as concentrated as it may appear on the surface https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/billionaires-by-country but more diverse, mobile and pervasive. There is no guarantee of continued American world dominance. At the moment, it looks like a tussle between the US and China - which I suppose would make it bipolar - but a lot of variables are unpredictable. Will the US tear itself apart in civil strife? Will climate change or pandemic wipe out major populations? Will Russia and the rest of the world blow one another to smithereens? Will the financial machinations of a few unprincipled players collapse the global economic structure? The trend we can see is of the past; not necessarily of the future.

It means that even the devil he knows (intimately) is preferable to people who might change the unbalance of power.

Probably true. Oh well.

I'd be okay with that. Suppose you exclude the brutal sports from co-ed classification and keep them segregated? Probably most women could live with that, but it still leaves the transgendered out in the cold. I suppose, if they really wanted to play American football or rugby, they'd have to out in different leagues for the best fit. Of course, big mass-strength-twitch sports already exclude a lot of men, and team sports divided by age disadvatage slow-growing boys, while unfairly benefiting fast-growing girls. How about the experts and organizers of each sport coming up with an innovative system of classification for their sport; try out a few ideas and see what works? They wouldn't have to spectate: they could participate.

You don't have to go so far. The roadways only need to be permeable, or convex (whichever is appropriate to its use) in order to collect water, and a light colour, to reflect sunlight, instead of absorbing it. OTH, your house walls - what isn't covered in vegetation, need to be thick and heat-retentive, to cut down on heating/cooling. You need not depend on solar energy (which still carries a biggish ecological burden in its batteries and distribution system); you can augment it with whatever natural energy is most readily available in a locale: wind (This is one of many available models https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/04/06/could-this-be-the-safest-most-powerful-wind-turbine-in-the-world) wave or tide generators (not sure about these; they seem to need a lot of unwieldy infrastructure and mechanical devices https://www.alternative-energy-tutorials.com/wave-energy/wave-energy.html https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/tidal-energy/) and of course, good old hydro, which ought to be done on small scale, according to local ecology and conditions, instead of damming the big, life-blood rivers, so that the trickle that finally reaches the ocean is too shallow for salmon to negotiate. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/planning-microhydropower-system Of course, the most important, decisive aspect of power is how it's used. We've been unforgivably wasteful for a very long time. We need to make our houses and factories far more efficient (and wherever possible, self-sufficient) https://www.nxtcontrol.com/factory-ecomation/ and we need to rely a lot less on technology and a lot more on human motive power - we'd be a whole lot healthier, too. There are ideas and experiments and projects all over the world - and people (I mean normal people, not eco and architecture geeks like me) hardly ever hear about them. If you build earth-sheltered, packed earth, straw-bale or cob house, or build thick rock walls to collect heat, you have protection from heavy weather, and a lot less sail surface for the wind get hold on. If you then make the roof a low curve, it's a natural shelter. https://www.buildwithrise.com/stories/underground-homes You have to make sure you're digging above the water table and the flood-plain of the nearest river. With city apartment buildings, this is more complicated. I would very strongly recommend low-rise, low-profile, blunt-cornered buildings with deep cellars and reinforced exit tunnels. Those tall forest-buildings in Milan and Singapore look beautiful, but they are vulnerable, and hard to escape from. Put a berm around the whole complex, https://www.stantec.com/en/ideas/elevating-low-rise-development-its-a-swell-idea and you're practically home-free - plus some really good skateboarding, sledding opportunities for the residents... Here is a cool design for a public building https://www.visitnorway.com/places-to-go/eastern-norway/oslo/oslo-opera-house/

no Relevance to gender?

yes thanks

I don't appreciate being implicated in people's personal feuds.

So, this is just wishing, not practical speculation on future resource-management.

Where would the produce and energy come from? Ordering is easy; delivering is work. Michelin meals are not exactly "processed"; the house would need some very fine robotics with a range of chef skills... I doubt a self-catering home will be within reach of the vast majority. On the contrary, it looks as if the future will have to be a whole lot less lavish than past we're accustomed to.

A lot of water collection [where legal] and storage retrofits are already available, and there is a ton of information on grey water recycling. The Earthship home designs were developed in the desert and are entirely self-sufficient - as I believe every house should be, for survival necessities, and every community should be for conveniences and comforts.

No pages 'convinced' me. My two basic opinion on sports: They should not be segregated or commercialized. It's unlikely that I'll see either of those desiderata come to pass, but I have certainly never advocated keeping the old system of classification. All I suggested here was a side-by-side comparison study of the old system with a new one. What are you on about? I'm for scrapping all categorization (whether by sex, gender, race or age.) and adopt leagues based solely on skill level and physical type (size, weights, shape, muscle mass - whatever applies in a given sport) If small, weak women can't find a male opponent in their class, they'll have to play against kids, or however it works out that everybody gets a chance a play. It is supposed to be play, not this crippling, life-consuming, objectifying grist-mill of a business. I'm not mis-anything-istic by policy, although I do have mis-feelings about some persons at some times.

Like this? https://thedigestonline.com/community-human-interest/sustainable-cities-of-the-future/ Or this one? https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/10/19/welcome-to-the-milan-apartments-where-300-humans-live-in-harmony-with-21-000-trees The future is among us.

Ear-tag from a cow?

Try a size/skill vs sex/age categorization for five years and see what happens. If oddly gendered individuals find their way into sports from which they had been barred, good for them. If they don't fit in, think of some other way. Nobody should be prevented from doing what they love, just because of old rules, based on outmoded assumptions. Sports and games should not be about exclusion.

They're coming to take away your guns. They're coming to take away your trucks. They're coming to take away your cattle. They're coming to take away your supremacy. (Maybe we should?)

I like these. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_QbbMBLhug

It might be more productive to start from what isn't wrong and work outward, in all directions, from there.

You know the refrain: "Now is not the time for legislation; now is the time for thoughts and prayers."