leicsmac

With respect to discussion elsewhere, again I have to ask: Why does there seem to be a correlation with many people between not wanting immigration/restrictive immigration policy and overlooking/denying this issue that will cause a refugee/ migration problem way beyond anything ever seen before? Would welcome thoughts.

Never mind, at least a few people got to see the exchange before it was deleted.

To paraphrase Hemingway: "Life is a fine thing and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." Yes, humans still have to earn their legacy along the universe. That takes much longer than civilisation has existed yet. But the potential is there, I think.

I can see what you mean Finn and when I didn't have the spoons and things were going on in my personal life, I would have thought the same. But personally, for me, that one issue is so important that any positive input I make, anything that might say neutrals that may be watching, is worth the cost.

Eisenhower called it out so many years ago too.

Can anyone make sense of some of the judging decisions involving GB boxers today?

Bit of a gold rush today for GB! What do you expect from a country that names "World" championships of sports practically only they play?

That is magnificent news, my friend.

Yes. It is unfortunate.

And when those people then vote in number on matters of scientific policy...

Or worse, even fact-checkers themselves are accused of bias and ignored. We are being engulfed in a morass of "truth" and it will end nowhere good.

Critical thinking is so important, yet so many people either can't or won't do it.

Fair to say. We'll have the opportunity and challenge to find out rather soon, though.

I think there are moments of togetherness still, but then for me the more important struggle will always be for international unity than national unity anyway.

"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set – then at least I'll own something that has always worked." - Hermann Goering

I hate the bastards too, but at least they haven't been responsible for about half of all nonviolent human deaths since the Stone Age.

*insert Kojima Metal Gear Solid 2 speech on digital information here* Seriously, the guy had it right over two decades ago.

Also, I'm glad to see some activity in this thread at last - most of it has been me being a nut and talking to myself.

And as far as I'm concerned, the only way this can happen effectively is for the existence of a supranational organisation that would be dedicated to the task and that would have more power than nation states in those situations. Of course, nationalist idiots would balk at the very idea, but at the end of the day if those nations don't simply want to end up fighting for the privilege of being the last to collapse, then on some matters it is one world, or no world, and act accordingly. Funny thing that knowing the nature of entropy drove me the other way philosophically - I think we matter very much as a species and would like to see us continue as long as we can, through attempting to control that entropy as long as we can.

Exactly this. And every single minute of time we can use may be useful.

And a suffragette throwing themselves in front of the Kings horse did a great deal for that conversation, too. But such things cannot and do not alone turn the wheel. Those decisions were, in the end, brought to fruition by policy decisions driven by public opinion brought about in a mostly less dramatic manner. I do understand the argument here, but forgive me when I get frustrated at reasoned scientific voices being ignored because groups like JSO have taken all the oxygen in the conversation and, rightly or wrongly, provided a (maybe temporary) boogeyman to be used as a convenient excuse to ignore the topic. Perhaps a mix of both might end up doing the trick. The Civil Rights Movement in the US needed the acts of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, after all.

Nor do I, for pretty much the same reason - if their purpose is to get public opinion in favour of the action they want then what they are doing now is totally counterproductive. It's reasonably obvious that negative reinforcement of that type (as opposed to positive) is only really effective when you have much more power than they do. But, at the same time, like you, I think the current positive reinforcement alternatives that are happening are not effective enough and are too slow, so I'm buggered to think what would be effective either, short of a bunch of the guys storming a nuclear launch control centre, getting the launch codes and holding the world to ransom for the next few decades.

If the point here is that other entities and individuals with more power share the lions share of the responsibility, then I agree. However for me the best way (and possibly the only way that is truly effective over time) to hold those powerful entities to account in a democratic society is through individuals leading with their vote and their wallet, if they can.

I think I get where you're driving at here mate, but I'm not 100% certain, so would you elaborate if you wish to?