That doesn't imply colonialism, at most imperialism. — Lionino

Which is why I called the US an empire.

There are millions of pure Amerindians in Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, etc. — Lionino

And they're not complaining about their and their ancerstors' treatment by the current and past European regimes? Maybe they do - to the European God. It's not like anyone else could hear them.

A lot of people would certainly be out of a job and perhaps worse still, bereft of purpose. — Benj96

That certainly opens a couple of potentially interesting topics!
Can the purpose of someone's life be the acquisition of knowledge?
If the omnibenevelont entity were willing to impart knowledge as readily as wikipedia is, why would such people resent the opportunity to learn from him?
I suspect a much bigger obstacle is people who do not with to acquire knowledge at any price.

If you are talking about colonialism, everybody did that or tried to before the 20th century century, that France or Portugal were so good at it is a point of virtue, not of vice. Yankees didn't, they were colonised instead until the 18th century, so I couldn't possibly be talking about colonialism. — Lionino

You could, if you looked at the history of US involvement. Both in the middle and far east, the US took over power in European colonies, just as it did in North America and indirectly in South America.

Without Europe's colonisation of sub-Saharan Africa, do you think the countries there would have developed to be able to exploit the Molybdenum mines that are important for refinement of petroleum? — Lionino

Were we talking about the plunder, disarrangement and corruption of sub-Saharan Africa? I thought this was about the series of Middle East crises that resulted in the 9/11 attack, and all that insane, costly, ineffective warfare resulting from the US response to that.

It is always interesting how people say Europe "plundered" — Lionino

My reference to plunder was in the context of Mesopotamia in the two world wars. As to the 'peacetime' plunder of Africa, that's been ongoing since c.1650 and will continue yet a while, now China's in the game.

If anything, it is some American countries that should complain to Spain that their gold was plundered, but yet we don't see them doing so. — Lionino

The extinct hardly ever complain.

Britain was there before them, and France and Italy... Europe dragged its two big wars across those lands, plundering the resources and exploiting the population, altering the division of territories with no regard to national identities or needs. And it was Britain that shoehorned modern Israel in there.
The US just took over the European franchise when its own power waxed as theirs waned. That's why it keeps trying to put an alliance front on the wars it wages there: they're all part of the colonial legacy.
Of course it was logical, from the POV of generations of smouldering resentment and suppressed rage, to attack the biggest empire's centers of financial, military and political power with its own weapons - if successful, it would have been a significant symbolic act. As far as it got, it was merely destructive and the US government was able to both spin it as victimhood and suppress commentary on the rationale. And an immortal capitalist slogan was born: Go shopping or the terrists win!

I meant 'it's a totalitarian mindset'. — 180 Proof

I don't understand how "to improve everyone's welfare" is a totalitarian mindset. Come to think of it, I'm unclear on the concept of a totalitarian mindset. Wishing all people (omni would also include other species, I suppose) is a mindset, and it does imply a kind of totality, but it doesn't seek to oppress or coerce anyone.

As for benevolence ... to improve everyone's welfare.

This sounds totalitarian. — 180 Proof

Only if he had the power to impose his ideal solution on everyone, rather than just to teach possible solutions that everyone could implement as they see fit.

Keeping it to themselves could be seen as permitting ignorance, propaganda and delusion to wreak havoc on the world when one clearly knows better. — Benj96

Except, one also knows that any attempt to teach humankind to behave better results in crucifixion or at least a cup of warm hemlock.

Would you even believe them? — Benj96

Sure, if they performed enough feats of knowledge and kindness. But they would have to do it either on a large public platform (which is dangerous to themselves) or in my living room (which doesn't give them very much scope for the demonstration.)
If they are not also omnipotent or at least invulnerable, big knowledge and big compassion won't give them any power to change things.

Would you want to speak to them? — Benj96

If they preformed the demo in my house, I guess I'd be obliged to talk to them and also feed them. If they did it on CNN, I wouldn't get a chance to talk to them.

Would you like them or despise them? — Benj96

I find it very difficult to dislike any benevolent person, even if they have halitosis, poor communication skills and unpleasant personal habits.

And how do you think humanity would react as a whole? — Benj96

Hardly at all. Humanity as whole is suspicious of knowledge (though individually we pretend to admire it) and contemptuous of kindness (though individually, we welcome it directed to ourselves, are jealous of it directed to anyone else and resentful if any material expression of it is expected of us.)
Anyway, if that alien landed on Earth with no protective gear, as soon as he knew everything about the planet, his head would explode, and 10 seconds isn't long enough to get to know someone.

The concept of "rights" as expressed in codes of conduct is a human idea. But the general practice exists in all social animals that are capable of individuation and autonomy (have a bigger brain than ants and bees). Every flock of wild geese, pack of wolves and colony of beavers has a social organization that recognizes the needs of its members and accords them each a degree of self-fulfillment. That degree is limited by the needs of the group. If the balance between rights and obligations is faulty, the society loses cohesion, becomes stressed and might cease to function. (As we see in modern human societies.)

The idea of according rights to every member of our society is far older that the idea of "human". It is therefore natural. The idea of depriving some members of a society of their rights, or bestowing unearned privilege on a few while placing the full burden of obligation on the less privileged is entirely human. It is therefore artificial. In all other social species, privilege is hard won and carries greater obligation.

The idea of according every member of every society the same rights that we all want for ourselves is also a human one, and is entirely rational on the grounds that it would greatly reduce stress and conflict in all societies.

Western thinking - of course it exists - has so clogged up people's brains that it takes an immense epistemological effort to rise from the frog's perspective and build up the maximum distance in order to understand these things. — Wolfgang

Kudos on attaining that Olympian perspective!

OTOH, is it not possible that there are conditions that all human beings - or possibly all sentient beings - desire for themselves? While the 'values' of many cultures dictate that autonomy, security, wellness and opportunity are distributed unevenly among the members of society, nevertheless those members aspire to what their culture denies them. This is why the bravest and most desperate among them escape to what they hope are less oppressive cultures. It seems to me that the UN charter (Which is not a uniquely western idea) names some of these conditions that all people hope for, even if they are not permitted to aspire to.

Disclaimer: I did not have the patience to read the entire essay; can only respond to the opening and closing remarks.

The West thinks that its interpretation of values is the only correct one and tries to impose them on everyone else. — Wolfgang

The West does not think, and all the people who live in this undefined western region do not think with one mind. Nor do they all share the same values, or even interpret specific values in the same way. "The West" is a diverse, incoherent and frequently self-contradictory human construct.

Capitalism is the currently dominant world economy and all of our infrastructures, both physical and political, are dedicated to capitalist pursuits. But there are strong religious currents in most cultures, which dictate unprofitable values and are at odds with efficient commerce. They are also at odds with one another and inimical to universal human rights and freedoms. The UN declaration would still be valid if both capital and religion went deservedly extinct - and then it might have a chance of prevailing.

The Body responds to certain natural drives which are tied to procreation. The soul, a thing, we think of as -unique to humans*-has displaced Body's procreation with its multifarious made-up forms. Some individual souls believe their made-up forms to be Natural to the Body, and accordingly "right." But they are the workings of the soul, supernatural, made-up. Their form has no better claim to natural than those of other souls. — ENOAH

Ummm. Okay.... I can't cope with that.

Or how does the fact that they can trace the root of our laws etc. suggest they are not artificial, or that being artificial, they are simultaneously natural? — ENOAH

They don't. They're not. So what?

Then so I understand, these social values, they're natural? — ENOAH

Natural and truth simply don't enter into it. It's true that humans are social animals, that all social animals have social rules and norms; it's natural that they should, else their social structure would break down. The values human societies elaborate are in response to their experiences, beliefs and requirements over time. That's where the anthropologists come in. But I guess you think how things evolved is irrelevant. I disagree; I think what's irrelevant is classifying human ideas as Fact/Fiction; Natural/Artificial; True/False.

We shouldn't tell others what social preferences they should have...because all sexuality is natural (as opposed to my, we shouldn't tell others what social preferences they should have...because all sexuality is artificial--for post prehistoric humans) — ENOAH

Neither. Why we shouldn't tell others what preferences they have - whether social or sexual - because, as long as they're not hurting anybody or disturbing the peace, their preferences are none of our damned business, and oppression, especially in the realm of personal conduct, is detrimental to social coherence.

I don't see how you can maintain this distinction between natural and artificial, if you insist that human beings are natural. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't believe that we were built by aliens and dropped on this planet. I cited the meaning of the word artificial: "made by human beings". I use it according to its dictionary definition. Made on purpose, out of raw materials that are found, dug up or growing wild.

But if that type of "making" is supposed to be natural, then what about making knowledge through teaching, and making ethics, norms, and social conventions? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I mentioned the construction of ideas: conceptual artifacts. The creative process comes naturally to species with volition and reason; the product of artifice practiced by artisans is an artificial artifact.

I don't see how you can maintain this distinction between natural and artificial, if you insist that human beings are natural. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's easy. Living organisms are generally natural - that is, growing out of other organisms, rather than constructed by design (although some lines are becoming blurred with genetic technologies), while machines and implements and structures are man-made. Once we have a truly bionic man, another line will be blurred.

Some birds dance as mating ritual; some mammals fight. Maybe prehistoric humans danced and fought. Natural. — ENOAH

Modern ones still do. Nothing fictional about that.

What's your point here? Why would it be necessary to distinguish between a natural fruit and a synthetic one? — Metaphysician Undercover

The wax, plaster, wooden, ceramic or plastic one would have no nutrient value and probably taste bad, even if it didn't break your teeth. Which artificial fruits are synthesized in such a way that they taste and nourish like the real ones?

I think that to maintain the distinction between natural and artificial, we need a third category, supernatural, to provide for the separation between them. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why? Found in the wild/ made by design. Simple; gods need not enter in.

I am not saying there should be laws imposed or not imposed. Rather the opposite. — ENOAH

Please stop saying something and then telling me you meant the opposite and then saying you didn't mean the opposite. It's very confusing.

Since sexuality is, in my submission, artificial, no one practice is "true." — ENOAH

Truth has nothing to do with it. Sexuality exists; it's absolutely real. No one practice is exclusive; many practices exist.

I don't see the contradiction you do. — ENOAH

I wish you could!
I think I understand what you mean, but you have a peculiar way of expressing it.
I agree that people should not tell other people what their sexual preference or practice ought to be, except insofar as they're protecting potential victims. But it's not tied to truth and falsehood; it's tied to social values. And they're not all rational or practical.

So I assume that you are saying that "artificial" is just a special type of "natural". — Metaphysician Undercover

No: I'm stating that artifice is an attribute of creatures whose intelligence and imagination enable them to build complex structures from simple materials. The creatures are natural; what they do is in their nature to do; the things they produce are artifacts. Artificial means "made by human beings" as distinct from things that occur naturally. (Nobody, finding a pocket-watch on the forest floor, would mistake it for a pine-cone, and nobody except a theist already pledged to a particular mythology, would think either was created by a supernatural being: one grew; one was made. )

On the conceptual level, the same intelligence and imagination enables humans to extrapolate and project, analyze and juxtapose, elaborate and embellish ideas, including those ideas that originally arose from biological drives, desires and instincts. You can still divide the natural from the artificial - in fact, you'd better, when it comes to fruit, or another person's sincerity, or your own behaviour.

Archeologists and anthropologists spend a good deal of time and thought on the reconstruction of how human cultures evolved, so you can to a large extent trace our laws and mores backward through changes to their influences and discover the probable reasons they came about.

In fact, it's more the opposite. I'm thinking that the "laws", any and all of them--which, to my mind, have evolved to displace the "natural" practices--are artificial, might therefore be recognized as artificial, and that none of them, therefore, should be imposed; and, especially not imposed under the guise that they are so imposed because they are true or natural. — ENOAH

Whoa! That's a lot to digest.
Given that you explicitly stated

to say sexuality which harms or oppresses is unacceptable — ENOAH

How could you have meant the opposite? In what way do you make something unacceptable, except by writing it in law?

And then: Laws do not 'displace' natural practices; they regulate human interactions in a society. Everyone still urinates just as the other animals do; they're just not allowed to do it in other people's front porches or on the on the sidewalks where other people walk. Mother's still breastfeed their babies, but in some societies, they're not allowed to do it in public. People still indulge in sexual activity, both procreative and recreational, but each society puts different limits and controls on what kinds of sexual activity are acceptable and in what setting.
Laws are artificial, and we all recognize that they are artificial; indeed, many humans pride themselves on not living by 'the law of the jungle'. We make things: houses, transport vehicles, clothing, tools, rules, music, ritual - and we know that these are man-made artifices; nobody pretends they are natural.
There is only one instance I know of where dogma decrees what sexual practices are 'unnatural', and that's in the religious doctrine of war-like peoples, whose national interest is vested in submissive females bearing a maximum number of replacement soldiers. More enlightened societies impose laws for the protection of the vulnerable, especially children.

This is the real tough nut: " that none of them, therefore, should be imposed"
You mean strong, aggressive people should be allowed to kill, rape, enslave and loot to their heart's content? No laws at all?

But for human mind, and experience, we've gone too far, and are literally at a point of no return (to our real natures). — ENOAH

Especially in energy technologies, profligate reproduction and overconsumption.
But there is nothing to be done about that.
Beavers have to live someplace; finches have to live someplace; mice have to live someplace. They construct what their mind and imagination can design from the materials available. If those are considered artificial constructs, fine. Man also constructs. And that's the way it is. Evolution doesn't run backwards, even if some disagree with its outcomes. Perhaps we can be cavemen again after the total collapse of civilization.

I don't get it. It seems like you're providing more "evidence" that what we've constructed is not natural. — ENOAH

All human society as we know it is artificial. And yet it's natural that an intelligent, imaginative species should elaborate on its social organization, and it's natural for such a species to evolve complex regulatory systems as its numbers grow.
The fact that we have medicine doesn't negate the naturalness of illness. The fact that we build washrooms does not deligetimize the digestive process. The fact that we write laws does not make conflict unnatural. The fact that we set social norms for mating and reproduction doesn't make those activities unnatural.

I.e., those male humans who engaged in the systemic oppression of women were naturally selected as the fittest. — ENOAH

Among lions, probably. Among humans, wealth and power are also artificial. Do you really feel any society today is dominated by those most fit to lead?

So, why does this need saying?

Because we are attacking one another by weaponizing Truth, and no position is true. — ENOAH

I'm not. Are you?
Those who do have agendas that do not include truth.

The only functional judgment one can make--and as far as I'm concerned, in human existence, functional is as close as one can get to truth--is to say sexuality which harms or oppresses is unacceptable, all else is just one of our stories. — ENOAH

"just one of our stories"??? Their myths and legends and self-generated self-images are what groups of people go to war over, burn down one another's towns, kill and torture for.

So you think all the current rules and social norms regarding sex and reproduction should be replaced by one principle, written as law? Your principle - with no metric for the definition of 'harm' - while admirable, is just as artificial as any other human-created law.

Pastrami on rye awaited me. Imagine how difficult that was. — Hanover

Almost as traumatic as figuring out how to reset the clock in the car. Discovered that the new car has a DST button. I found a solution for the clock problem: let them wind down. Some are in deep forgotten storage. Seventeen assorted dead watches are waiting for me to assemble them into a work of art that has yet to be conceived. The one I used to wear stopped early in the pandemic and I neglected to replace the battery.
They have never since caused me to miss a meal.

And those natural drives are the source, in Reality or Nature for the Fiction which we construct. — ENOAH

Of course; our drives and our experiences are the source of all our story-making.

I would speculate that the human's version might have been fore the male to present some physical potential, and for the female to present a certain pelvic feature. — ENOAH

They just had to be healthy and willing. Later on, the males decided they didn't need to wait until a female was willing. In fact, taking females against their will was also a way of humiliating their male rivals. Eventually, societies came up with safeguards against internal strife, including rules the prescribe acceptable forms of mating. Patriarchal societies included rules that strictly enforced the rights of males (and inferiority of females) in order to assure fathers of the genetic purity of their offspring - usually for the purpose of land inheritance.

I say the stories displaced procreation with Fiction, and that Therein lies the craving etc. — ENOAH

I don't think so: people are still making lots of lots of little people. They seem quite capable of navigating the rituals of their various cultures.

That's all I'm saying. — ENOAH

But why does that need saying?

But, for Humans, sexuality: dating, and romance, birth control, fertility intervention, marriage and matrimonial laws, both ecclesiastical and civil; rituals, restrictions, mutilations, fetishes, and positions, references, proclivities, size, fashion, and technique, are all human constructions, — ENOAH

The mating rituals to which we are accustomed may be invented by human cultures, but the fact of mating rituals goes back 500,000,000 years. Birds and lizards do it; fish and mammals that never heard of 'social constructs'; they just follow their instinct and biological drives. That's all about sexual reproduction. However, there are always some members of many other species that do not conform to the norm.

some so deeply foundational to human Mind and History that they seem natural. And that’s hetero-sexuality.
Gay sexuality is similarly constructed. — ENOAH

Both occur naturally in many other species that do not construct social roles.

I’m saying reproductive mating and same sex mutual releases of whatever sort may or may not be natural; but all human sexuality, across the board, is Fictional. — ENOAH

Humans are story-tellers. We weave stories around everything, and more stories around the things that have the most profound effect on us: love, war, brotherhood, parenthood, awe and death. We also evolve rituals, rules and limits on those matters. The stories - superstitions, imposed regulation and rituals do affect people's lives and beliefs, but they do not alter the underlying natural drives.

Fair enough. You don't actually have to die or get seriously ill in order to be adversely affected by outside pressure to conform, and most of the human population conforms to inconvenient, uncomfortable, harmful and destructive systems of behaviour due to external pressures.
DST is just one more senseless, crazy thing in a world entirely run on insane values and principles.

As there is a forecast of about 10 billion people flying this year, probably about 5 billion will be non leisure. — Sir2u

So, we can look forward to another pandemic. What fun!!

This is probably true, but it does not explain the cause. there are various reports that suggest the entire effect can be attributed to disruptions in sleep patterns rather than changes in ambient light exposure or person's internal clock. — Sir2u

The disruption of sleep patterns is caused by messing with the clock - so, same difference. If you have the freedom to go to bed whenever you like, of course you could mitigate the effect of disruptive external pressures. But working people, especially working parents, rarely have that luxury.
DST doesn't bother me, since I'm long retired from a regimented working life and set my own hours of operation, according to my own biorhythms - as everyone should.

The idea of authority does play a critical factor and authoritarianism. — Jack Cummins

It's consolidation of power in the [few] hands of designated agents. The strucuture may be decreed by religious dogma, caste distinction, military might or economic status. In each case, those who have much get more - and it is their mission to get more, until they control everything - and those "who have not, it will be taken away, even the little that they hath". Jesus, the biggest rebel in alternate history, knew whereof he spake.

The whole nature of political philosophy involves looking behind the assumptions of political structures and ideological assumptions. This questioning in itself may be the beginning of rebellion. — Jack Cummins

Indeed, it must be. Such questioning begins at an early age, when the child feels that the rules and constraints imposed on him are unfair or when she realizes that adults tell lies. If satisfactory answers are not forthcoming, and especially if the child is punished for asking, the questioning grows into rebellion.

That's not exactly what I meant. Suppose we keep to one culture for the moment.

There may be a rigid religious establishment that dictates what everyone's moral stance should be regarding things like sex, speech and school curricula. You can expect various groups to rebel against those dictates: advocates for equal marriage, reproductive choice, freedom of the press and secular education. These 'rebels' would write letters and editorials, campaign for candidates who agree with them, fund publications that support their cause, etc. That is, they would likely keep their public activity within the bounds of existing law, while disregarding the law in their private lives, thus risking legal repercussions and public opprobrium.

There may be repressive, bullying fathers in a patriarchal society, who demand unquestioning obedience from their children and claim the right to direct the children's lives. Some children would rebel against that authority; disobey the father's orders, refuse to abide by agreements the father makes in their name (like arranged marriage or choice of career) defy the father's edicts regarding companions, mode of dress, selection of college course and leisure activities. Again, these rebellious youths are non-violent - in fact, passive in their resistance.

At a much earlier age, a child may rebel against the rules imposed on him by parents - whether those rules are reasonable or not. The form this rebellion takes is usually ineffectual tantrums and embarrassing scenes in public places.

Then, there may be a regime in place that really does oppress all or most of the people. Rebelling against that kind of regime is far more difficult and dangerous: the people need to be quite desperate before they rise up. When they do, however, it's very likely to be violent, and countered with even heavier violence from the state. Such revolutions fail and drown in blood far more often than they succeed. When they do succeed, they tend to be vengeful and blood-thirsty in their turn at power.

There are as many kinds of rebellion as there are 'establishments', traditions, authorities, beliefs and systems to rebel against. There are also many kinds of 'rebel' and many ways to be rebellious.
I'll choose several examples and explain my take on them, when I have a little more time.

I think that there are a lot of people flying because of business, and I would suppose that they are under some sort of pressure with little time to recover. — Sir2u

And that is wrong! Anybody sent abroad by their employer should be given time to recover from the flight before they're expected to carry out an assignment effectively. Smart employers already know this.

Well after reading that I would also suggest that all of the places that work on rotating shifts should also be stopped. — Sir2u

Except hospitals and emergency services. Sometimes staffing a place is essential; most times it's a matter of making more money.
As to the question of shift work, it's not quite this simple. For some families, survival depends on both parents of young children working full-time: one has to be taking care of the children while the other is at work. For some people, night work is preferable for other reasons. Generally, people on regular night, day or evening shift do better in terms of sleep pattern and emotional adjustment than people on rotating or variable shift, but that is by no means universal. Also, of course, there is a social life to consider.

Working in a capitalist economy is difficult and complicated enough, why make it worse by screwing with the clock?

By pay attention, I meant attach some significance to and try to identify the origin and meaning of the imagery. Treating dreams as entertainment - as a down-time activity for the mind to indulge in - is perfectly legitimate. Dreams have many functions in normal day-to-day living, which include fixing new knowledge in long-term memory, visualizing the day or task ahead, consolidating our comprehension of some area of thought and getting anxieties sorted and out of the way.
If we are unable to dream for an appreciable length of time, we face health issues that go beyond drowsiness and lack of focus.

If your dreams are more fun than informative, rather than 'boring', I would opt for well-integrated and well-adjusted. I can say from my own experience that, after resolving those long-standing issues, my dreams also turned happier, often enjoyable - though the creative and warning aspects persist.

I would guess, because you don't pay attention to them. Perhaps you have a trouble-free life with few difficult challenges. It's also possible that you are more integrated; more in touch, consciously, with your emotions and imaginative machinery than most people, so that you don't need much prompting from the subconscious regions.

What have you learned about yourself or your life from a dream? — Tom Storm

Is this question open to the public?
My answer would be: a lot! Several of my best art pieces were literally 'dreamed up' - though I admit that a couple of others I dreamed, I didn't have the skill to carry out. Two major emotional problems resolved - one of them a biggie that had haunted me for a decade. One obstacle identified; one inhibition overcome. Many warnings of potential and imminent difficulties, before I was consciously aware of the signs; several useful insights into the way I relate to the world.

I know one other person who experienced a major breakthrough - identifying a serious problem and discovering what they needed to do. And, of course, numerous instances of the answer to problem in computer programming, engineering design or scientific research coming to someone in a dream.

Is there any data on how many people die from strokes and heart attacks caused by unnatural time changes to a person's internal clock? — Sir2u

I doubt it would be easy to document, given the number of old people making international flights twice a year. Another issue that could perhaps be taken with that argument is that people fly voluntarily, and in most cases, on vacation, so that they have a chance to recover from jet-lag, while people living under mandated time-changes have no choice and no time to recover.

There are a few other side-effects. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/7-things-to-know-about-daylight-saving-time

Nevertheless, I agree with this part:

Maybe Americans should stop flying all over the world — Sir2u

So should everyone else.

A good deal of the 'creative process' - technological, scientific and artistic - takes place while dreaming. In dream state, the mind of free of external distractions and ego-pressure, thus free to re-image the problem, the idea, the device, the relationship or whatever has been occupying the same mind while awake. By re-image, I mean create situations and dreamscapes in which we can put parts of a puzzle in different configurations, including impossible ones and those that seemed impossible, but now that you see it from another perspective, turns out to be possible - that's the Eureka moment that jolts you awake and into your shoes and back to the drawing board. Dreams are able to make the "what if?" graphic and reachable.
This is probably where the myth-making function resides: a myth, or spiritual idea, is simply excellent story-telling raised to revered status - usually by the social prominence of the dreamer.

On the emotional level, the same kind of thing happens. Our dreaming mind is able to cast the people we know into different roles, so that we are able to express how we really feel about them, unrestarined by obligations and social mores. The dreaming mind also re-figures our internal conflicts and repressed fears, in graphic images, which sometimes suggest what we need to do to improve the situation.
On the most mundane level, as we dream about the new skills we are learning or the new environments in which we are expected to function, dreams provide a kind of safe rehearsal place, allowing us to acclimatize and gain confidence.

What the dreaming mind uses as raw material is whatever images we have stored in memory. It can't create anything unique; it can only recombine what we already know.

In the more northern latitudes, where DST is rigidly implemented, we still have to get up in the dark and, if we have a longish commute or errands on the way, as most working women do, arrive home in the dark all winter long. Wage-earning people still need the lights on while they have breakfast and supper. So we haven't gained anything by the twice yearly inconvenience and disruption of our biorhythms.

I see no reason why everything in the world, including sunlight, should be subject to the convenience of business. It's certainly no good for anyone else!

Maybe all those and then some.

Okay. It's good to know that all publications always abide by the law and that there is a law on the books to cover every situation in which publishing certain articles, images or commentary could cause someone an injury.

I don't think decisions about what articles to publish have anything to do with day-to-day practical sense and navigation. — AmadeusD

Really? If you were the managing editor of a widely circulated news outlet, would you never ask:
If I print the address of a material witness in a murder trial, will that person be in danger as a result? If I print the salient details of the police investigation, will the integrity of the trial be compromised? If I print the opinions of a popular public figure who believes the accused is guilty, will the trail be fair? If the trial was fair and a dangerous criminal was convicted, is it wise to publish the names of the jurors? Is it reasonable to publish the location of the schools that criminal's young children attend?

No area of human endeavour is beyond the scope of intelligent reasoning.
I said no endeavour, not no hum. Evidently, some ideological factions are.

I suppose it does. Civilization may not be worth saving, but I believe reason is --- was --- would have been --- whatever the correct tense is now. Yes, the loss of rational thought applied to decisions does make me profoundly sad.

"common sense" has nothing to do with publishing articles. — AmadeusD

That's the saddest thing I've read all week!
It's official: we can add post-reason to post-truth in the designation of our era.

I wasn't talking about rules. I was talking about common sense.

Two news outlets, like any two people, may interpret the same facts differently. They may choose different events to report on and provide more or less information regarding each event they do report. None of that is a problem, until one of them publishes non-factual information.