naitche

But they aren't caused by privilege.

I have a lot of problems with the idea that promoting 'our' privileges does anything whatsoever to help those less able, other than to increase their sense of helplessness, and the numbers who will qualify as less-able. If privilege is the problem, All you can do is reduce the problem. Privilege. Disabilities, like privilege, aren't a single thing that can be simply addressed by broad group classifications and redirection of resources to 'classes' of need. It ignores problems faced. This idea doesn't ask us to recognise the problem in front of us.. Only a classification we are asked to compensate. Not help overcome. We just work around it and hope to make it less visible. It doesn't value diversity. It promotes an idea that everything should look the same where ever we stand. Its a promotion of negative values and expecting a positive result. A rejection (get rid of it) of environment instead of recognition ( what can I add to create a positive value.). The reality of whats in front of me to deal with, I'm expected to base on beliefs about classifications of people. And what compensation I owe for my greater value. My own understanding of biophysics and the language that expresses it says this ideology or biological message is faulty and counter intuitive to further evolution. Potential is subject to how we respond to the conditions we are able to recognise. Which requires we first come to know them. Familiarise. Recognise as part of our own conditions to accept and improve. That says conditions should decide our responses, instead of us responding to conditions. That the value is in our own condition, and not our ability of recognition and response. So its now a question of how to repeat your own conditions universally. Anti-diversity. Conditions decided based on value belief. It is backwards to me. Imposing singular perspectives of conditions, whether or not they apply to the reality in front of you. Its the same as Pedigree Dog Breeders who like to say "form follows function" So decide the form and wonder why function doesn't follow'. There is cognitive dissonance on one side of this argument or the other. You see value in form. I see it in function.

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.

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.

This works, and can be clearly seen at work when you gain the perspective needed. Individual response-ability is crucial to the direction taken. Diversity maximises that ability for the cultural identity through demonstration of value, and where/how it can be found. Limiting what can be done is not a positive direction and can only limit environment in unforeseen ways.

While those institutions are supported to do so through the choices we as individuals make. Application of negative values can only reduce environment. Not increase it. Thats an attempt to reduce the environment to an optimal condition. Like pedigree dogs. Clinging to that idea can only continue to reduce . Its rejection of environment. Not a response to an environments to optimise its conditions. Its an inability to respond. Environment is what you have. You can work with it or against it. Working against it does not improve its condition. It reduces the conditions you have to work with. Thats if successful, in opposition..

Sounds like a central perspective of the same principles at work. Opposing cultures struggling for ascendance. Like genetic selection- which message holds most value. And what exactly is the new one? Maybe we should be discussing that. That remains to be demonstrated and the environment can't do that. We demonstrate it to the environment and so form the expectations it holds When we get it right, more of it becomes available for our use. Like when you clean up your backyard. Its all some ones back yard. The value demonstrated by that action increases the available space. As the share holders I mentioned did for their environment. As an identity in its own environment the company expects that will improve its prospects and potential. As parts of our environment, it has no value of its own.. Any value positive or negative is brought to it by how we respond to it, what purpose we can find in it. It gives me the idea idea of a multi verse. Every identified subject has an environment, but also is an environment for all it contains. The selection processes decide what it does contain.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes. All the best. An experience to be missed.

Found this by accident and thought it was pretty cool. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nLmM9kcBKs&list=PLa7yKTU1TESVh7BRf8zX6PLDHKmnyZ5d7

Huh, doesn't seem to have worked. Too tired to try again now...