Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

14 Neutral

About naitche

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

979 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Quite a few birds can. Some dogs have been known to do so as well, mostly trained, but not always.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Sorry if you see it that way. I think its more than a platitude. Because.. The question implies a positive value for tolerance. If tolerance has no value, then it wouldn't much matter if I choose to tolerate intolerance, or not. There would be no value to be gained either way. If the goal is to reduce existing freedoms, I think the persons targeted would find that oppressive. If this was directed at me, I haven't so prefer to tolerate. Up to the point where my freedoms and personal space, or other peoples, are threatened.
  14. Why tolerate? Because its intolerant to do otherwise. To promote or increase tolerance with its negative value doesn't make any sense to me. That doesn't mean we should submit or give way to intolerance, or expect that others should. Then it becomes oppression. To demand others give ground or submit to intolerance is oppression. That is a different question. I would not like to be party to oppression in the name of tolerance. A backlash should be expected in that choice.
  15. Would consciousness not be limited by identity ?
  • 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.