Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About naitche

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

595 profile views
  1. Thanks, I' ll check that out. Yes. I think its possible yet to to speed things up though. By taking the actions we can as individuals we demonstrate value in taking them, and promote that direction. Play a part in changing whats expected , by what is seen.
  2. The environment we have, including Govt and institutions are as they are because they've had the support to be. We get the conditions we best support. Negativity supports low to zero expectations of response ability, and leaves the environment to limit the response its getting.
  3. I understand your position and would have followed that several years ago. Also your points made here and else where that its not a matter of capitalism vs socialism. But we are the tide. My own study and observation though all points to the idea that Humanity is a space, whos direction is decided by the messages its operating on. Collectively these seem to be driven by economy and consumerism that are said to drive economic growth and its connection to global stability. The human space has been 'conditioned' by those. They are the conditions we've been supporting for Humanities direction. If we are to support another condition in conflict with that message we do need a paradigm shift that can only alter that direction by supplanting the message we have been conditioned to Volume counts here. Parts of humanity can't alter direction for all until its gained acceptance. Not without opposition. Its a single space that won't be split without creating opositional force. We have just had a coal mining company announce caps on production and diversification into more environmentally friendly technology, driven by share holders. It still looks to me like its the volume of acceptance that will drive change upwards, that we get in governance and institutions what environmental expectation demands. What reflects the direction we have. Environment is does not respond. Expecting that Govt. and institutions will drive change is expecting environment to respond to our needs, instead of our own response shaping the environment. Any actions of Govt. and institutions, as parts of our environment, must have the support to be effective. Govt and institutions can only limit the direction we take, not change it. They are only parts of the direction we take collectively, parts of our environment. They can accept or reject our responses, not direct the form it will take.
  4. Appreciate the link, thank you. I'd been lead to believe the carbon uptake in oceans was increased by the action of nutrients released into them. I agree with that. The last sentence most. I just think the pardadigm shift has to be whole community inclusive one, so its not just tiny handfuls of conscientious people ceasing use of plastic straws. Otherwise it looks too much to me like tweaking the margins, and that within a very narrow perspective of what I will call the political class. Who are mostly not seen to bear any of that cost personally. If humanity is going to change its direction, it has to recognise a new one and the value of changing it, before corporate interests and individuals are held accountable. It is a huge problem and so complex. Focusing on the negatives only, or costs, is not good marketing. There has to be demonstrated benefits to change. People recognising their own abilities to experience them . We need to find ways to give the new direction more value. Ways to demonstrate it. A paradigm shift that includes economies.
  5. Yeah. I still can't understand why there is little to no pressure for Govt. to process and utilise sewerage, and maybe algae resulting from poor water quality. With world wide fertiliser shortages that are essential for farming and often land reclamation thats an area where govts. could 'take actions beyond the scope or abilities of individuals.' I think there are ways to encourage people to do more and remind communities of their more personal abilities to respond to the problems they see while helping to shift attitudes and awareness. With out imposing costs on those least able to bear them. An idea I recently heard of is creating 'Forrests of the dead' where I believe people can bury or scatter ashes on barren land and plant a tree with a plaque that will be tended until established. That idea could reduce costs of burial while creating public spaces, reclaiming lands at little cost. We don't promote the good ideas to offset climate change as much as we promote the urgency and cost. Its too complex a problem to expect simple solutions that can account for and address local conditions. Being willing to pay for action by others demands they prioritise and isolate problems that are not isolated, and by prioritising those we sacrifice environment. I'm pretty sure that encouraging individuals to take responsibility where they can, and to examine their own choices, making change where its within their abilities, is the only way climate action can be effective or 'real'. Anyone heard of the man who has developed a way to remove plastics from the oceans cheaply and effectively? Just a rumour to me but sounds promising.
  6. I don't think climate change and the decline of 'natural' environments can be so easily separated. With those changes listed in the video Itoero linked would be increased carbon sequestration. Reverses in desertification do the same with better soil health,increased plant growth and more carbon taken up. Less use of fertilizers, pesticides and heavy machinery needed, And it seems much of the advise given to combat these problems is often part of the problem. Progress is being made, less from legislation than from individuals with a more intimate understanding and long term observations testing their ideas and sharing results. Some times risking prosecution and persecution to do it, because their actions may conflict with legislation introduced to appease city based activists with no real understanding of a problems complexities. Its starting to look like livestock can play an important role in preservation and improvement of grasslands. We build our cities on the most fertile lands. We consume what remains, and pump our waste into the oceans, depleting the soils and allowing them to flow into the oceans along with the artificial fertilisers that are needed to stay productive. We allow agriculture to become an industry operated more and more by huge companies who are about appeasing shareholders and assuring steady profits. Not preserving a future or providing a lasting legacy. More power to the money in how we consume, and what we consume. Mono cultures aren't the answer. It seems diversity is. Not just preserving things as they were/are, but increasing and maximising diversity. Yes the world can support a lot more people. It will cost us dearly tho', in quality and diversity of life, opportunity and potential and even our human diversity and abilities. Climate change isn't just about the carbon we release, it just as much about the earths ability to process it and 'heal' itself.
  7. Yes. All the best. An experience to be missed.
  8. naitche

    What are you listening to right now?

    Found this by accident and thought it was pretty cool.
  9. naitche

    Can we create a superbrain?

    Not a 'super brain', far from it, but before modern technology selective breeding over centuries was well on the way to creating a complimentary intelligence in Domestic Dogs. What could be done there with modern technology, information and greater ability to search out desired traits could be utilised to further that past section process incredibly, if it was still seen as beneficial. Not so common as to define the species by any means, but there were and are still (rarely) found , some amazing examples of intelligent responsibility in dogs. Environmental selection was hijacked by the Kennel clubs to meet their own conditions of physical conformity before environmental fitness and ability of response could be considered. The result has been a decline in mental and physical fitness, and response ability to environment that continues. So if you are talking human, I think it could be done, but eliminating environmental selection to do so would more likely bring unintended consequence. Appreciation, morality and other traits not considered, or their roles and manifestations not fully understood could see the benefits of this 'new race' become more a liability or responsibility than intended. Selection in the hands of a few rarely benefits the environment beyond their own understanding and knowledge. Losses of other valued traits happen more gradually and pass unnoticed with generational memory.
  10. naitche

    Polarization of US politics

    Looks that way to me, globally. Not sure if Its restricted to democratic politics or even governmental politics. Looks more like cultural politics in general, More noticeable in countries where cultural unity has been relatively unchallenged in modern history. The root cause must be opposition, surely? Equal and opposite reactions seen a single identified subject, being humanity. Working out its global identity. How that will be expressed, and how much freedom of expression that will leave. Some believe the expression must be uniform for equality in diversity, or to be inclusive of diversity. Others believe a uniform manifestation of what is humane doesn't allow diversity. Restricts the responses available to the more local conditions they are contending. That a uniform disguises diversity where it manifests, and limits responses. Historically, Cultures have been oppressed by other cultures depending on proximity, and how inclusive and/or their relative strengths. They operated with relative autonomy, in relative isolation. We are much more connected now. That increasingly no longer works as we become more connected. I think humanity as whole recognise that past injustice as an attack on the human environment that needs to be rectified for a viable future (of the human race). But are polarising on weather setting conditions gives us our human identity, or weather that hinders our abilities to respond to conditions presented, so they become whats required in a subjective time and place. So some where in the middle would likely be to recognise some spaces need to be limited to a uniform state for a common expectation to be clearest. Held to a reliable condition where thats essential. While other spaces need more freedom of expression or response to meet the conditions that manifest. I don't think the two cultural elements will progress past this by trying to eliminate expression of the opposition or we haven't realy learned from past mistakes. Or that there is a definitive demarcation between the opposite poles. I think we need to be familiar with both perspectives before we can see where compromise is appropriate. Sometimes context is needed. Sometimes its better to have a condition without context. Public vs private. We have to recognise a distinction. JMHO.
  11. naitche

    'Stupid Woman'

    More combative or sure. These arguments in person? More often not I would say. Anonymity would be part of it. The reason might be people do think if the subject needs change, then it needs discussion to find the best way forward. Without offence to other subjects more personally. With out exacting a payment in kind. And without with out equating historical with inherent. I choose relative anonymity because who or what I am is not relevant to my reason (for being here). Or to how it should be received. If you insist qualifications for where an identifying word can be used, Thats an insisted meaning qualified by other than sex. Other meaning is not historical, Its recognition is insisted. Believed. Inherent. Language is environmental. Its a human construct we shape to express concepts as we recognise them. What and how we recognise changes as we evolve, and the language with it. Yes it affects how we see things. Its designed to show them and reflect what we see to others. I recognise an identifier of sex and use it accordingly to reflect that to others. If that offends some one familiar to me I will try to modify my speech within reason so as not to offend. Unless I feel the offence is used as a personal attack, based on belief. An attempt to categorise me (sexist) based on past experience and people, not the conditions or person present. I think ignoring that is like ignoring evidence because the result is not what you think should happen. I do believe Trump and Brexit are results of ignoring that. People feeling falsely categorised, denied space and opportunity because of it, so claiming it if they believe the opportunity is there. If you set up an oppositional force, its going to meet resistance. You don't eliminate 'isms' because the causes are repeated in tackling it. This isn't an attempt to argue you out of your opinions. Its an attempt to give other perspectives that I think are important to understand if others aren't to be disadvantaged. You can say they aren't. But the theme of these arguments says otherwise. Many feel and say they are. I think ignoring that is like ignoring evidence because the result is not what you want to see. As for not doing this in R.L, it is personal then. The intent is not to attack personal belief. Its to look at what beliefs we are promoting as a whole. Meh. I don't know enough either, to like or dislike her. I can still respect or not specific responses to conditions she meets. Being made public isn't the problem so much as judgement, based on beliefs. Assuming offence to T-May on her behalf as a woman, and that the word woman is inherently sexist. That it must convey more than sex. I'm not arguing that people should or should not be offended. I am arguing against acceptance of the word 'woman' as inherently sexist as an identifier because I see that offence being reinforced rather than changed. If my anonymity offends, I chose it because I don't think any conditions I may have should affect my reasoning, or be seen to.
  12. naitche

    'Stupid Woman'

    Agreed. Not by multiplying offence by the numbers of women when they don't all share the same value. So I don't think your math works. Numerically, women as opposed to men would be roughly 50/50. I don't think their value is in their numbers, but as individuals. The majority of women I know would prefer people not see some thing wrong with that identification.
  13. naitche

    'Stupid Woman'

    For my part it has nothing to do with anonymity. I agree that most here would likely apologise and move on including myself. Its obviously a sensible choice to avoid conflict, and make clear your intent is not antagonistic. I disagree with assuming offence on the behalf of others because they are women. Has T May commented? If not she has my utmost respect for acting in her capacity as P.M, not as woman. That is her role in this instance. I would also respect her decision to challenge it on her own behalf, and could still see a P.Ms strength in that. There would have been no offence given or taken if someone hadn't assumed it, and made it public. Most women I speak to see it as sexist to assume offence on their behalf and make allowances for language based on nuance they feel has no place in our language. So who is right? Thats for women to work out as people. Not us to decide for women. In the meantime, if we stop giving recognition to concepts that don't belong with the word, we can still respect the wishes of individuals, as individuals. You think Corbyn should have acknowledged it and moved on. Its still his decision and without knowing the conditions from his reality perspective with absolute certainty, we can't be sure what he should have done either. Because some people see bifurcation of the sexes as recognition of a diversity. Based on sex. Nothing else. Who says different means unequal? Or that we should see it as unequal?
  14. naitche

    'Stupid Woman'

    The concept being expressed was stupidity. Followed by an identifier, singular and specific. if being identified as a person of a specific sex is offensive because of the concept it conveys, setting arbitrary rules on its use as an identifier only reinforces the idea of an an arbitrary concept.
  15. naitche

    'Stupid Woman'

    Agree. So if we believe the word 'woman' conveys more than the sex of a person, its sexist to them. Its not wrong to perceive it sexist or not sexist. Our belief will decide our personal response to its use. Neither belief is universal to women. Its not for us to decide which belief should govern our response to women as a demographic. Its arbitrary. Sexist to assign assume or tie a belief to a sex. Some women might believe the word 'woman' in conjunction with stupid is sexist due to concepts historically conveyed beyond sex. Other women might see additional concepts have been expressed, but believe the word 'woman' used correctly does not include those. I think the easiest solution would be to stop attaching concepts beyond sex to use of the word 'woman'. Not alter our use of the word to allow that they are there The word Woman shouldn't be ambiguous or arbitrary. Used correctly, it should convey sex and only sex. To allow that it could convey any more ensures it will continue to convey more, because we limit its use on that assumption. We accept that it does convey more than sex. I see that acceptance hindering its evolution to match the concept to the reality we ( say we) recognise. It would make no difference. Unless you accept the concept of "woman" is synonymous with other traits.I don't see its use with 'stupid' implies its synonymous with stupid. My mistake. Intent was the wrong word. Concept would have been better. I think the language used in your example was incorrect because A) it was referring to an action or concept not within the definition of a Jew. Jew can only be effectively verbed in that manner while we recognise the connection. And b) If there was no racist intent, then you didn't recognise the concept conveyed. You were aiming for an entirely different one. The word Jew used in that instance was used independent of religious recognition.