naitche

Not the full answers you are looking for, But I remember a talk given by a a geologist of his trip to a recent (under 10 year old) volcanic island and the teams excitement at finding the 1st plant. Much fuss and conjecture trying unsuccessfully to identify the species . One of researchers wives solved it. It turned out to be a tomato plant growing out of the excrement of one the research team. Bird/sea mammal droppings, and ocean borne seeds and weed (coconuts etc) combine to start the process.

An expansion of 'self' reality. With recreational drugs and and music capable of enhancing at deeper levels.

My theory is that language connects us to culture, As shared value beliefs for 'correct, rightful or valid' expression and/or manifestation of being. That Art in any form provides or re-enforces connection to cultures beyond our own limited identities or 'selves'. Re-enforces cultural values and connectivity, creating patterns or representation of shared perspective values. Cultural connection and expression. Of values both positive or negative, but shared 'in common' to identity, beyond self.

Curious- Is Space considered a physical thing?

If it feeds the ideologies you are trying to end, could it be?

My perspective is that If humanity is going to be viewed as 'One' entity in evolutionary terms, destroying monuments is comparable to humanities cells (us, our collective body) refusing to recognise the foundations of our present day existence. The environment that shaped us. History may be recorded else where, and more completely, but our monuments better express the condition of our humanity in the past, when these events occurred and how we have altered our condition today. 'History'in facts and figures may not be of interest to everyone, but what our Humanity was built from, and its potential manifestations should be. Monuments remind us as 'people in common' , that the value of good intentions for humanity, depends on recognition of humanity in its entirety. We don't have to accept any manifestation of humanity as it is, but it doesn't work better through destruction of its parts. Individual responsibility to humanity as a single entity would mean looking for the causes of its unacceptable manifestations, and working to correct them. The faulty perspectives of humanity represented by these monuments can't be got rid of by repeating the same mistakes. A person has their own perspective. If it results in harm to humanity, it doesn't change because you refuse to accept its validity. The perspective causing harm changes when you give whats needed to alter that perspective. You are the subject of your environment. I don't see how our human environment will be subject to the force of our demands. Not without an equal and opposite reaction.

@joigus I think this boy is fortunate to have you as his tutor. I appreciate the value you find in the process.

Tea tree oil, can be diluted quite a bit. 150 ml to a litre works well enough. Mosquitos still hang around and even land, but I haven't had an actual bite while wearing this and the product has quite a few other uses that make it a handy item. ( disinfectant, fungicide etc)

I would add not to push for understanding when he gets stuck- if you find you are explaining some thing he just can't get, move on to some thing hes done well to reinforce the success already gained and write the instruction out for him in a simplified step by step format for him to look at before the next session. Takes the feeling of pressure off. Don't dread the physics, he might surprise you. Concept over detail to start with there may help.

I don't think it is independent of the natural world, or some thing that that escapes from the laws of physics and biochemisty. Looks to me like it falls under biophysics and the laws of selection. Recognition and response to environmental conditions and demands. The free choice to recognise and familiarise. To base response on understanding. recognition and familiarity.

Or you, the entity, + environment. In this case I would see the 'enforcer' as an environmental factor This definition to me is = to our biological capabilities for recognition of, and response to, environment. Responsibility. We can choose to recognise (familiarise and understand to the best our abilities) the environment we have.... in order to affect the environment we might have. Free will seems to me to be a choice of response- ability- or not. In that case free will would be limited by environmental conditions, increased with recognition and familiarity.

Maybe not from arid to rain forest, but see regenerative farming for some pretty spectacular results. Key is keeping soils covered. With some sort of mulch where plant life has left it bare. It can be profitable.....If more immediate shorter term profit is sacrificed. There could be incentive to change farming practices with carbon sequestration rewards for farmers. At this time, farmers are seen more as part of the problem. There are groups trying to show how that could change to make them a bigger part of the solution. Regenerative farming appears to be quite effective. I'm very happy with the results here. Fence lines can give a pretty dramatic comparison.

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.

@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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quite a few birds can. Some dogs have been known to do so as well, mostly trained, but not always.

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.