Peterkin

The biggest problem I saw at the beginning -- actually, make that three problems: -indecision - Most government were standing there with their pants down, going, "What? What?" After SARS, Ebola and West Nile, the central health agencies of Canada and the US (and I have to assume, most other countries) developed a plan of action, a set of protocols to follow, recommendations for health care personnel and facilities and a list of supplies. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canada-communicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2019-45/issue-6-june-6-2019/article-3-canadian-pandemic-influenza-preparedness-public-health-strategy.html It wasn't followed closely enough, soon enough or consistently. Governments don't like to budget money for what might not happen under their administration - so they end up spending ten times as much when it does. And when something bad does happen on their watch, they worry first about their popularity, second about the economy... and by then, people are dying, so they scramble around, doing damage control. - poor communication - The news of the early outbreak was kept secret by China, and when it got out of China, was kept a close secret by top security agencies... They usually say, as in the alien invasion movies: "to prevent panic." Wouldn't you rather prevent a million deaths? Government and health authority need to communicate better; governments need to listen better; governments need to be a lot more forthcoming with the people. And the news media need to take responsibility for giving out correct information, coherent instruction and sound advice. If that means fact-checking government handouts and politicians' pronouncements, do that. If it means suppressing some high-profile idiot's remarks, do that. (CBC got its act reasonably together by about the end of March, which wasn't too bad, but they couldn't help themselves reporting all the fringe crap as if it had the same value as the doctors' opinion.) - discord - The worst example we saw, of course, was Trump v. Fauci and then Trump v. sanity, but other 'representatives of the people' also made major gaffes and bad decisions, working at cross purposes with the health advisory boards established by their very same governing bodies. Governments and health officials need to get on the same page - with the latter in the lead, and the former following their advice, so the top doctor and the top administrator send the same message, act on the same principles and have the same objectives. (Also, shutting vaccine laboratories because they're not profitable enough is criminally idiotic. But that's just our Conservatives.... probably.)

U shudder to imagine! I must repaint my keybpard.... or learn to touchtype.... nah, life's too long and I'm too rich....

Why do you suppose unlimited access to money provides anyone with an exciting emotional life? In fact, people who amass great fortunes are excited either by the enterprise itself, which they would pursue even if it didn't make them rich, or about the getting of money - not the having. This type of personality does not grow bored with the accumulation of money in a year or two, nor yet a decade or two. In a couple of centuries, maybe: it's not been documented. Their children, being given access to all the money, sometimes enter their money-making parent's enterprise and eventually take over the business, sometimes feel guilty and renounce it, sometimes have other passions to pursue, sometimes are spoiled and unmotivated; this latter group, because they have the leisure and opportunities, indulge in risk-taking activities like drug use and car racing. The mouse utopia experiment didn't provide for birth control and scientific or artistic endeavour... let alone all the yet-to-be-solved problems that exist in the real world. People in our world who live a long time seem able to fill all of that time, so long as their bodies hold up, with purposeful activity - whether it's work, learning and creative efforts, altruism, travel, politics or sports and games - usually a combination of several of those occupations. I can imagine things to try for the next six or seven hundred years, given reasonable health and the material wherewithal. Beyond that, I don't know yet; something will turn up.

Cool! Let's not jeopardize it by being too proud!

Exactly! Sometimes a single person is humble and proud only a few minutes apart. An footballer when he has scored a goal is proud, but humble three minutes later when he suffers an injury and needs the medics. These states of mind are not originally character traits, but can become habitual. That same footballer, when he's scored a lot of goals and suffered very few injuries, has been praised and rewarded, celebrated and applauded for a few years, start thinking that he's special, better than other men; that he has prerogatives and immunities that other men do not have. Which state of mind becomes so habitual as to be perceived as characteristic of someone depends on three factors: innate attributes (health, talent, intelligence, beauty, charm) early childhood influences (whether they're spoiled, encouraged, disciplined or browbeaten) and the culture in which they grow up (what traits and behaviours it rewards; what abilities and attitudes it values, what opportunities it provides.) That's entirely cultural. If it is false, it's being shown because the society claims to value one thing but actually values another (like young athletes being lectured on sportsmanship and fair play - but being rewarded only if they win - by whatever means). In some cultures, the pretence of Christian values is superficial; everybody know it's just moralistic varnish on a deeply competitive, triumphalist mind-set that values individual achievement - victory, success - above all else. Other cultures have a deeply embedded intolerance of personal pride and do not allow the celebration of outstanding individuals: a show of superiority or self-aggrandizement would be socially unacceptable. People learn to behave - and to a very large extent, feel - as their society demands. The very fact of calling states of mind - states of mind made up of normal, healthy, universal emotions - 'vice' and 'virtue' exhibits that a cultural value system being applied. These are dog-whistle words, indicating what a person is expected to feel, not what is appropriate and natural for that person to feel.

We. Not the people of the distant future. They may have a quite different definition. I already amended my post to the reference that suggest individual evolution (which, incidentally, was a joke, howbeit a misplaced one) to "what a human can become" No, but it does change the organism; i.e. cause it to become something different. Indeed. But with our present capability, we can already affect mutations that nature could not. Presumably, humans of the future will be able to direct their gene pool at will, and over shorter time-spans. When discussing "forever", some of that kind of mutation might also be considered. Sounds fine.

Where in biology is it carved that change has to be generational? Every organism changes over time, from inception to annihilation. Some organisms go through metamorphoses and/or stages in their life cycle; most simply mature, deteriorate and decline. If the decline of aging is halted at some point - and how is that point determined? What's the biological mechanism whereby it is halted? Is it truly halted or merely deflected? What happens instead? If they become immortal past reproductive age, there can be no new offspring except through alternative means: cloning, frozen embryos, DNA splicing.... The old stock would still eventually succumb to attrition - boredom, if not fed-upness would drive them to extreme sports and risk-taking behaviours - and the new ones, howbeit genetically derived from a dwindling populations of immortal dotards, might still have variants artificially added, through splicing, chemical alterations to their in-vitro amniotic fluid and nutrient, or implanted electronics. They would also be raised by immortal dotards who are not birth-parents, and or robots. We don't know what they might become. If the aging is halted while the subjects are still fertile, they would need to restrict their reproductive protocol, which, again, would affect the gene pool differently, going forward from that point. Of course, humans might just continue on continuing on, until they all died of violent clashes over scarce resources.

Oh. In that case: Given enough time, who knows what a human can become?

Given enough time, who knows what a human can become? Evolve, devolve or de-evolve? Given enough opportunities, one human might have many different lives and identities. I think all of those scenarios have been explored in science fiction.

How does time spent on Earth signify in the valuation of a human life? Life has no intrinsic value; value can be lost or gained by quality of life and how it's lived. If a wife-beating thief lives only 30 years, while a medical researcher who coaches underprivileged youth lives to 95, is the latter less worthy than the former? Anyway, the ones who live forever probably won't stay on Earth after the Collapse.

The picture is mixed, at this point. Brand new technology and very promising, but not yet widespread. It is far more expensive than dirty burning, but such a facility should last a long time, and produce some usable byproducts, as well as carbon that will have to be stored - which is yet another question mark. There is some literature floating around, including good sources, but my internet connection is iffy because of a storm right now; i can lose it any second. Tomorrow....

Maybe not to most people, but a greater percent (36) of the Dutch than most other nation do use bicycles as their most common form of transport. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/8/28/17789510/bike-cycling-netherlands-dutch-infrastructure The Danes do better. https://denmark.dk/people-and-culture/biking It's a matter of public decision-making: what people want their cities to be like to live in; getting the government action required to install the infrastructure; letting a culture develop in favourable conditions. In north American cities, councils flip and then flop on the issue as fickle voters choose people-first progressives in one election, then business-friendly conservatives the next. Bike lanes and share rides in; support program cancelled. Not if the incinerator is equipped with carbon-capture filters - which, according to recent regulations, it has to be. It can't stink, and it must save both the water and the ash residue. All renewable sources, even coal if the byproducts are processed properly. But not nuclear - because of its waste product That's a lot worse than *shudder!* - wood as biofuel.

You would think so, but hat we've done, in the case of woodland termites is urbanize them - we just brought them, along with their food, into the cities, where we become more aware of their activity. Aware and annoyed -- without thinking about the vital role they play in nature: they're part of the recycling brigade. The grassland is a different story: termites don't hurt the grass, until the cattle have already damaged it and leave nothing for the insects to eat but the roots. In fact, left to their own devices, they would do more good than harm. Yes. We poison our own environment and habitation to get rid of them - except in the places I mentioned where they go unseen. Even in the forest, when we go in to cut timber, we leave a lot of unwanted dead limbs and stumps behind - waste wood that choke all the new growth if something didn't actively break it down into usable mulch and compost. How much better to not import them from the forest in the first place? https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/plastic-waste-building-materials-canada/ I like wood, too. So we can make the frame and shell from recycled plastic and put a wood facing on it, where it's exposed and uninviting to termites. Just one suggestion. Anyhow, I think this whole termites and climate change 'problem' is a red herring. Yes, they make methane and carbon dioxide - they always did, without anybody getting upset, until we, who produce a whole lot more of those harmful gases, needed a scapegoat "Hey Look over there! Thetermitesdoneit." The plants are not here for us; we are here only because the plants were here first. The insects are not here to help or hurt us; they were here before us, maintaining a system that made us possible. They didn't mess it up; we did.

This is new to me, so the only evidence I have so far are those two articles, about the most termite-infested cities in the US and the desert termites on overgrazed pasture. There are a couple of reasons I don't think humans are particularly effective in controlling termites. The intensive safety measures - treated lumber, barriers, chemical sprays, etc. - are only applied in rich countries, and even there, only in the rich portion of the rich countries, which also have more or less invisible high-density poor portions. So, the 'nice' new subdivision is termite-free until the houses start losing their curb appeal, decline in resale value, are bought by people who can't afford up-scale pest control. Until it gets run-down and really cheap, when a new wave of ambitious immigrants or yuppies buy them all them up and start a gentrification phase: they rip out all the rotten bits and throw the material in huge dumpsters, buy all new pressure-treated lumber and add on decks and things... You know what I mean about the life-cycle of cities? In warm climates - of which there will be more as time passes - wood rots faster. Humans are profligate in their use of building materials. New housing may be termite-proofed, but I doubt the demolition dumps are. Where we spray for termites, we also kill the spiders and wasps that prey on them; and at least deter, if not eradicate the snakes, lizards and rodents. Humans get involved in ways that mess up balances and proportions and processes. Here's one study says they are not declining as the forests and wetlands recede: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5288252/ Where is 'here' and how global are those requirements? IOW, poison spray, yes?

I understand it; I just don't see how I can mitigate the context of then with the slightly more advanced knowledge of now. .

Because I was questioning the quantity. I had never heard the assertion "termites produce a lot more methane than cattle" before, and that was the first article that came up when I started looking into the subject. At the time, in the circumstances, it appeared to make sense. In retrospect, of course, like the outset of so many enterprises it looks absurd.

Only, the post to which I was responding was about termites and methane. What I questioned was the quantity of methane released. Mistermack has since been vindicated in his assertion, though his "I read somewhere" took me a little while to track down. And I'm still not advocating for termites. I'm suggesting that if we reduce the use of dead trees in our construction, we might provide less food for termites to turn into anything we don't want in the atmosphere. In the old growth forest, termites, and all the other cellulose-reducing organisms have only what dies naturally to feed on. If we kill trees and drag the carcasses into heavily populated, protected environments, where the termites have no natural enemies or hazards to contend with, and an unlimited food supply, since we keep replenishing the dead wood with repairs, extensions and renovations, we encourage urban termite population explosions. The only means we have of keeping them in check is through the application of copious amounts of toxic chemicals to which they become immune (through a far more rapid turnover) faster than we do.

Better than what? It wasn't a contest between termites and cattle. I'm not suggesting we should cultivate termites; I'm suggesting that a great deal of that termite emission - if it is, indeed a more prolific emitter that cattle are* - happens, not in mature forest but in human buildings made of lumber, the forest floor after timber cutting and overgrazed fields; i.e. due to human activity. * again, it seems, yes .... but Nature could take care of the natural emitters - had done so, effectively for millions of years between volcano-geddons and ice-age melts - but can't handle the extra dumped into the system by Industrial Age Man.

First, increasing the population is a bad idea. I have always agreed with you on that problem, but I have no idea how to change people's mind-sets - especially the hard right's, and fanatical religionists' which I can't even fathom. But there really isn't more land to be had for industrial farming, unless it's taken away from breathing, which would be counterproductive, human population-wise. However, as I've pointed out before, the practices of industrial farming are unsustainable anyway, so expanding them doesn't seem like a good idea, either. Far more concentrated urban industrial, vertical, and mixed farming is required, and the re-purposing of buildings that already exist and are no longer serving their original function. https://hbr.org/2020/07/what-should-we-do-with-45000-half-empty-public-buildings https://www.loveproperty.com/gallerylist/91648/abandoned-industrial-buildings-for-sale As for the building material, you can stop cutting down trees! There's a rage of brand new industries for that! I doubt it. What they'll actually plant in 30 years barely begins to replace what burned in just one year. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MOD14A1_M_FIRE This one is very good site for all kinds of forest information https://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/2020/en/

Yes.... but. Where? They do, yes.... but: And then, termite activity is not restricted to old-growth forest; much of it is directly related to human habits and habitats. In nature cycle, termites play a vital part in the biological economy of their environment, but cities are not a natural environment. As for comparing them to cattle, that's not exactly relevant to forests, since forests are regularly razed and burned to make way for cattle, which also makes way for more termites - and, of course, cattle are rarely allowed to fill their natural ecological role. I have some reason to question this. However, a great of CO2 is released by forest fires, which are seriously exacerbated by climate change and human activity. Up to a point, that's true the bigger problem, again, comes with human activity: And, of course, the young new forest is incapable of sheltering the biodiversity that a mature forest can. Where have all the insects and birds and animals supposed to live while waiting for their ecological niches to be re-established? This was a whole month ago, but there was no notification and I missed it - I'm very sorry. In case you're still intrested, I'll try to answer. Urban farming? That link was probably a news item - and they change every day. Here is a good, not rose-coloured, look at the subject as it stands today. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/15/11660304/urban-farming-benefits It's a start. Plant-based meat alternatives and cultured meat are entirely different products. The first is mainly processed from root crops and legumes, with a great many additions, like nuts and grains and usually a whole lot of salt, all done in giant industrial factories, from plants grown on giant industrial farms. You're better off making your own veggie burger - which isn't all that hard. Cultured meat is meat: muscle tissue, cloned from animal cells. Yes. The estimates by friends and foes of the concept diverge so widely as to be informationally neutral. Right now, it's significantly more expensive to cultivate animal protein than to raise and slaughter free-range animals (not counting land use and degradation) and vastly more expensive than large-scale industrial farming of the non-organic regular product (not counting environmental factors, which have no immediately palpable $$ value) as every new technology is in the development stages. Here is a very thorough - and I think excellent - study. You'll get no argument from me! I'd rather grow trees than cattle or pigs any day! But if you want to cut down your trees and eat your mutton, too, that's an option. Better yet, food forests of several varieties can satisfy different requirements. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdsnp8X89ZE (I may have cited that before: I'm very keen on forest farming.)

I didn't say that. I said I had not expected to have to back up with external corroboration something I offered as an observation from my own perspective. Referring to the weather events to which we had been accustomed. To which I then added: And that was the point: What we've been used to, what we had been able to predict and prepare for, no longer holds true, so we'll need to change our attitudes, expectations and habits. This, too, is a mere unsupported opinion. Only this time, following upon expert advice, I expect it to be discounted.

Revoking the odious comment is insufficient....

Sorry, I didn't realize that a simple observation had to stand up to such rigorous standards. As I have no wider acquaintance than three counties in a single province, and no direct knowledge that country people elsewhere also keep gasoline reserves for their vehicles, farm equipment and generators, I withdraw the remark. That doesn't mean I can't think it's what we need.

Personal experience. I've been living the country for about 30 years; seen my share of bad weather and power outages; have a pretty fair idea of my neighbours' preparedness for emergencies. Most city people, which is what I was before, don't have that capability - or awareness of the necessity - for self-reliance. Urban and rural are different mindsets. You mean, municipalities have been replacing their emergency vehicles with electric ones, before they installed recharge infrastructure? That really is irresponsible! Wasteful, too.

Unless your supply lasts longer than the emergency - which it usually does. Eventually, the gas stations and everything else will be working again. Generally, when there is a very bad storm people are not all that eager to be blown off the road or have a tree fall on them. So they stay put, hunker down, conserve energy. And they're sensible enough use power, water, food and gas reserves as little as possible. In most situations, they can hold out longer than the storm. With climate change, we can't predict how long each inimical event will last; there is no precedent. The pandemic has already prompted many of us to lay in extra supplies in case of scarcity (except microchips - we overlooked that), and with more bad shit coming down the pike, we'll learn to be more provident in general. I hope we also learn to be less wasteful and self-indulgent. That's even more true globally.