Jump to content

naitche

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    193
  • Joined

Community Reputation

14 Neutral

About naitche

  • Rank
    Baryon

Recent Profile Visitors

1091 profile views
  1. Any 'difference' must be . Surely difference is not the same thing as equality. Accepting diversity isn't happening if you want to eliminate it. Inequality is context and perspective dependent. It doesn't decide a persons potential or value to their environment beyond an arbitrary context or perspective. i think acceptance of diversity is where equality comes from. Understanding that any persons perceived or contextual weaknesses or 'faults' affect just a fraction of a persons reality. Its relative, but doesn't decide 'value' or potential. Context and perspective give value. Or withhold it.
  2. @Ken Fabian I don't think personal emissions purity is possible either., given the societies and economies we are part of. I do think altering those will be result of personal choice though, to support alternatives. We are not emission free. I would not claim that. But still carbon neutral. Maybe even sequestering more than emitted. If those choices were taking us back to the dark ages, It would be because we rejected the technology you mention instead of promoting it.. Judgement is not needed and is counter productive from all sides. Demonstration of advantages is far more effective. Nice for us when the lights of the city go out with power outage, and we demonstrate a beacon of light on our mountain top. Or the drought devastates the country side, and this bit of land resists the dessication longer, and recovers faster with better soil health and diversity. Soil that is better able to take up carbon each year. Carbon tax makes this work more expensive. Credits for sequestration - where are they spent and to what end? Not everyone is in a position to do what we have/do. But there are changes they could make, or promote in their local communities that take advantage of new technologies and this action assists govts to understand better where they can facilitate the changes people are willing and able to make. Where Govt. action will be supported. A cumulative effect would alter societies and economies where it counts. In targeting local environments with positive change, not negative punishment. I believe adopting and promoting specific projects would achieve far more than protest and fear. More empowering. Fear of doomsday and helplessness seems more counter productive. If Govt. won't step up under this scenario, where environment is held to be 'responsible', what does it matter what individuals do now?
  3. A s a person who does not live as nearly as anybody else, I see that making changes where you can, does not have to make life much more difficult. It gives control of the burden you are able to shoulder. Where carbon taxes etc may be seen to distribute the burden equally, I don't believe it does. The cost of is often greatest to those who can least afford it and may interfere greatly with their ability to make changes and improvements to facilitate diversity and mitigation at a local level. Where the benefits of doing so are most often positive, making life in the longer term less difficult. I see making personal changes as setting up the environmental expectation that its needed. That climate change is accepted as as a condition.A demonstration of alternative response to environmental needs. 'Acceptance' implies personal responsibility, not environmental responsibility. Carbon taxes and similar 'solutions' I think are imposing costs on the environment for our own responses to its condition. The block a direction, but don't provide one, where personal responsibility can demonstrate potential of others. I don't see that the meaning of responsibility in our human identity differs from the biologically accepted interpretation. I agree. So I don't see the benefits of climate protests while protesters are still supporting the industries they blame in their consumer choices.The industries have the power and money to influence they do because we support them. I don't see that minds will be changed, or that we can influence alternate directions until we accept new ones. Personally. Growth and consumerist messages are unchanged until we follow and promote or demonstrate others. To do other wise seems to feed the idea of corporate or elitist conspiracy, re-enforcing the idea. We don't even have to insist people 'believe' in climate change. Its easier to show that the human footprint is dangerously huge, and needs to be reined in multiple areas that also impact on climate change.
  4. No. But hes more likely to react negatively, having a negative impact on his environment. We don't tend to nurture what we see to have negative value.
  5. Then maybe we should look at what contributes to that Human condition, that so many don't accept it. Why is personal responsibility discredited? Why is it implausible? I don't think a positive outlook obscures faults, but allows acceptance of them. Acceptance is needed before we can familiarise ourselves with the cause and recognise the potential of bringing new responses. If we don't believe there is potential in the conditions we have, 'change' is more likely to mean attacking conditions. Getting rid of those conditions, without understanding their cause. Reducing environment to 'favourable' conditions instead of causing more favourable conditions. Reducing environment to favourable conditions ignores diversity and perspective of locality. Does not recognise environment, which is sacrificed. That tends to cause unforeseen problems else where. And more sacrifice of environment because positive potential isn't being sought. We aren't looking to add anything, just reduce it to an ideal of perfection that ignores response-ability. pessimism
  6. I don't think we can so much predict the path evolution will take, but it seems if there is familiarity with and acceptance of environments, there will adaptive responses to those. Physical or behavioural depending on need. Humans seem to seek out familiarity and acceptance of new environments.
  7. Private family owned farms around the world are being reduced to subsistence due to land degradation (that increases with pressures to compete with corporate owned farms) and climate change effects. Informed plantings can reverse that in most instances, and increase income- But carbon taxes add to the subsistence levels makng those improvements often out of reach to the land that would benefit. Maybe a fund could be set up, for contributions from those with no where to plant but wish to, to supply the means for those with the land but lacking materials. Fertiliser and plants supplied, If it could be done without some middleman looking to profit.
  8. I think this misinterprets or disregards the role of response. Life can only spread to suitable habitats. But familiarity, recognition and response to habitats, (physical and behavioural) can change the definition of suitable. Life cannot avoid extinction, when extinction is an outside force. The dinosaurs could not avoid that asteroid. If they had, like man, familiarised and come to recognise a wider environment ie the universe, they have a greater chance of finding a response that could avoid that asteroids impact. Or like man, recognise the possibilities of spreading their own habitat to include off world, through familiarity, recognition and response. The dinosaurs did not recognise an environment, so lacked the ability to develop a response.
  9. Forrests are being planted in deserts,with some very promising results. Not always requiring piped in water either. In the middle east, the Sahara, China Ethiopia and more. Research has shown solar panels and low growing plants can be compatible, increasing wattage output through cooling the panels and depending on the plants chosen, can improve water efficiency and yield of plants. Sewerage could be a low cost, readily available fertilizer. It may be costly, but essential if land degradation is to be halted or reversed. Less costly by far to those on site and dependent on the land, providing an income and increasing soil fertility and water retention/available ground water. Having trouble loading links and no time to try again but they are easy to find I'm thinking solar panels over (smaller farm) Dams could also benefit in some instances.
  10. The ideas touched on in the 1st article linked by Strange, along with changes in current farming practices suggest that moving away from monocultures and treating farm lands as diverse ecosystems can have very large impacts on carbon sequestration. Interesting results in carbon sequestration have been achieved, along with better water retention, soil fertility microbial action and more by mimicking the effects of migratory herds. Conservation grazing is becoming recognised as a tool for for better land management. Industrialised farming practices appear to be a huge contributor to desertification, and the ability of soils to retain carbon.
  11. My answer would be, to utilise the ability of response. Response-ability, to alter the environment to better favour life, beginning with the subjective individual and their own part in that process.
  12. Quite a few birds can. Some dogs have been known to do so as well, mostly trained, but not always.
  13. Birds, notably crows and parrotts (esp. the longer lived species) have demonstrated huge vocabularies and an ability to create their own sentences from known words. Crows will use tools and have demonstrated an understanding of concepts like displacement. Plenty of video and research, easily found.African Grey Parrots and crows have featured in a lot of this research. I'd be inclined to think this particular behaviour is inherent, or 'Fixed", But would be guessing Dogs bred for purpose, rather than show ring, often display that sort of fixed behaviour. A good herding dog, pointer, retriever or personal protection dog performs its task inherently with without training. Training is to show the dog how you want the task done. These environmental responses seem to decrease rapidly once the show ring starts to dictate 'Standards". Few people using dogs for original purpose will even attempt to utilise a show bred dog.
  14. Correcting myself................ What I will tolerate does not indicate the position I will choose to hold. That doesn't give you the right to assign one on my behalf.
  15. Your example is a group of people who perceive a threat to their chosen manifestation of being, by another. How does "making it worse for them " reduce their perception of threat? Doesn't that reinforce it? Intolerant of tolerance? This may have been directed @dimreepr But what I tolerate does not dictate the position I choose to hold, and you have no right to force that. The results are not likely to be what you intend. As above.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.