right now, nothing; I'm sitting here; the entertainment computer and large screen are in the warmer room, over there. At lunchtime, I watched a Nature of Things episode about the butt and its hole. Interesting, but just not the same without David Suzuki.

Anyway, if you want to reach a goal within a certain time that means you can't dilly dally and take longer to reach it than you have to. In that sense, it can be foolish to be patient and wait to reach your goals if you can reach them sooner. The word "wait" is a four letter word. As such the word "wait" is not in my vocabulary, at least not when it comes to setting goals. — HardWorker

That could work fine, or it can backfire. If you're too eager to get things done, you may charge at them ill-informed, without having considered the consequences and costs or possible fallout, or made alternate plans in case of failure. This is why most men marry women.
If that's sexist, I can go the long way around this house: This is why impatient, go-ahead, goal-oriented people benefit from the active presence in their lives of cautious, far-sighted, result-oriented people.

It's anyone giving a speech, who has just been asked to "be more pacific", rolling his eyes at the question, internally wondering, "how in hell can I get any more pacific than this?"

No.
Nor is it in any other way significant. It's a visual pun of no great impact.

I'm not sure acting is necessarily any more traumatic than going to a big family gathering, a big digital art exhibit, a crowded city, flying on a plane, — Count Timothy von Icarus

Those things happen one time, for a few hours, not long days of shooting. You don't know how many rehearsals, how many 'takes' and how much waiting around in between is behind a two-minute scene in which the audience actually sees the baby.
It's nothing like daycare, which is specifically designed around the needs of the child.

And the school play is nothing like professional cinematic acting. Infants are not taught public speaking when they appear on a television program. Small children - depending on how small - may enjoy the limelight, but they do tend to become damaged over time. https://www.medicalbag.com/home/specialties/pediatrics/the-life-of-a-child-star-why-some-go-crazy-and-others-dont/
If success creates mental health issues (in adults, too, incidentally) imagine what failure does to a little kid who was promised stardom.

Don't employ actors who don't know they're acting or don't want to.
Babies have no choice. Nobody under age 5 should be used - and I mean used - for the enrichment or entertainment of adults. Whether they cry or not, the lighting, the noise, the presence of strangers, the incomprehensibility of the situation and the irregularity of schedules has to be stressful. Does it create traumatic aftereffects? Who knows? If it's unpleasant for the baby at the time, that's bad enough to stop doing it. You must have a baby scene? Use a dummy or a robot or animation. Most cinematic 'newborns' are unconvincing anyway: they look three or four months old. So the scene doesn't work and the kid is stressed - no winners except the ambitious parents and their agents.

Animal acts are somewhat different. Many cats, dogs, parrots and horses enjoy performing and being admired, as well as the treats. Most dogs will do what they're trained to do. Guiding the blind requires dedication and constant attention; bomb-sniffing is a helluva lot more dangerous; and finding corpses in collapsed buildings is so stressful, search-and-rescue dogs burn out and become depressed. So do their handlers and the other humans on their team. It's less likely to happen to performing dogs. If it does, their stage career is over. But they were willing participants while it lasts.

Not olive oil? I’m surprised. — Mikie

We're not health-freaks, foodies, purists or particularly well off. Besides, it burns too easily.

Wait a minute. The USSR collapsed peacefully, after which Russia went through a period of deformation, then reformation, now deformation again. Is reform the next stop? — BC

When pigs fly... Hell, no! None of them will peacefully reform any time soon, to any kind of new configuration in which they would willingly surrender any of their autonomy. World powers don't: they even remake their gods in the image of their own mortal rulers.

I have seen no proof presented that breaking up large nation-states is an unalloyed good or even slightly helpful. — BC

No human endeavour is unalloyed, even less any that involve large numbers of people. China may be unified in its suppression of minorities and its expansionist ambition - I have no inside information on that. Russia doesn't seem to be at peace within itself, nor all of the same mind as to its 'foreign policy'. And the United States is most definitely not united atm.

so it seems the whole thing is DOA until China reforms. — RogueAI

And Russia reforms and the US reforms. They won't do it voluntarily, not any of 'em. So they'd have to break up - very probably thorough violent conflict - before any kind of re-forming can take place. Which really does not bode well for the world.

I don't do much anymore, for various reasons.
We stopped eating meat some 40 years ago, which forced me to be creative with vegetables, pulses and tofu - found Eastern dishes very helpful, and there are excellent cookbooks. More and more meatless products are available all the time, so it gets easier and I can do less work.
My SO is diabetic, so a diet heavy on greens and nuts is particularly good for him.
He also walks as much as arthritis permits and is very disciplined keeping his weight down.
Coffee and tea in moderation; limited sugar and salt; fats pretty much restricted to judicious amounts of vegetable oil and margarine. We don't go overboard: a well controlled daily diet allows for some indulgences, like processed vegetarian products, chocolate, things like pizza or cheesecake when we go out to out to eat and social occasions.

A world government without some Bill of Rights similar to what America has is a non-starter. — RogueAI

The UN declaration is better. And the US doesn't agree to most UN treaties either.

For a country frequently looked to as a global leader, the United States has consistently failed to step up in international partnerships. In fact, the United States has one of the worst records of any country in ratifying human rights and environmental treaties.

So, it seems spring is your favorite season! — javi2541997

No, I like early summer best. June, when the landscape is as green as it can possibly get, flowers bloom in profusion, my tomatoes and peppers are growing nicely, the cucumbers haven't got powdery mildew yet, the birds are teaching their fledglings to fly and we can have breakfast on the deck.
But for sheer, heartbreaking beauty, there is nothing like an April sunset. ...
except maybe that Andalusian filly I watched playing in a meadow one late afternoon. My word, that was one gorgeous horse: every line, every toss of the mane, every step was a poem.

The one unequivocally beautiful thing in the plains is the sky. — Moliere

I don't know... I've spent some quality time in the prairies. True, that unbelievably big dome of sky can be enchanting whether it's high and clear or building up a mountain of clouds on the horizon. But I also like the oceans of grain and grass, and the whispering poplars and changing colours. Wherever you are, you can find something beautiful - even in big cities.

I have to wait nine or ten months to see the ochre-coloured sun again... — javi2541997

I have only three before my favourite spring twilights begin. In between, we're likely to have opaque veils of snow blowing across the road, dark dismal days, freezing rain, slush, fog... everything we least desire. But there is beauty in northern winters, too: brilliant ice-crusted mornings and clear sunny days with bright blue sky over virginal snow-fields...

Various areas of the US have affinities with each other that are not represented by state boundaries. — BC

I've always been in full agreement with that. The same is true of Canada. The prairie provinces have more in common with the prairie states, geographically, economically, in demographics, religious and political conservatism, than they have with Ontario, Quebec* or the west coast. The west and north-east coasts also have more south-north affinity than east-west.

Obviously, I have a huge problem with Canada joining the vastly more powerful US, because our political and judicial systems would be subsumed by what I consider a badly designed and damaged arrangement. However, if self-defined regional governments were re-invented from the ground up, all of them might work better than they do now.

*Far beyond any chance of reunion with the Francophile American population; they've taken very different paths, neither of them boring, I'll give 'em that!

Yes, it is an interesting thought-experiment. Forces us to think about how people actually live and think; what might benefit them, what they would prefer.... Besides, whatever solution precludes armed violence is preferable. But we have to be aware that all those firearms and all those long-smouldering hostilities do exist and will not be denied.

Yes. Everyone should do more of it.

Did he also shove Labrador and Newfoundland in with New England? I doubt it. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, maybe. What have Iowa, Oklahoma and Ontario have in common? No, the geography is all screwed up. I don't exactly understand the second map. All those areas - well, everywhere, really! - can expect to undergo changes, many of which are unpredictable. Not to mention the flood of climate and economic refugees pushing right up through the middle with not enough water or food, getting shot at and no way to retreat.
It may be a fun game to play today, but the main driver of actual events will not be politics but nature.

Personally, I feel the winter sun is different from the autumn sun. — javi2541997

Of course it is. The same sun's rays hit different parts of the earth at different angles and intensities at every minute as the Earth orbits and rotates, while the atmospheric conditions also keep changing.

your lament — Hanover

My what???

over the dissolution of state's rights — Hanover

Over which???

The states had way too much independence at the time of federation; that's why the southern ones were given that concession to keep slavery in what purported to be a union based on the principle

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That, plus the independence states already held from the colonial arrangement, were the fatal flaws that doomed this nation to disunity.

It was fought to protect the institution of slavery by a confederacy that did nothing to try to protect the individual state rights within its confederacy. — Hanover

Obviously. However, the fact that they still had slavery in the first place, and were determined to spread it to new territories, which would then outnumber the slaveless states, made war inevitable. Besides, that was the cover story.

States' Rights The Rallying Cry of Secession
Southerners consistently argued for states rights and a weak federal government but it was not until the 1850s that they raised the issue of secession. Southerners argued that, having ratified the Constitution and having agreed to join the new nation in the late 1780s, they retained the power to cancel the agreement and they threatened to do just that unless, as South Carolinian John C. Calhoun put it, the Senate passed a constitutional amendment to give back to the South “the power she possessed of protecting herself before the equilibrium of the two sections was destroyed.”

Hardly any war is really about its slogans and recruiting cons.

As to the division between the left and the right, that geographical division is best defined not by drawing a line somewhere north of Maryland and meandering south of Missouri, but instead by drawing circles around major metropolitan areas and leaving out suburban and urban areas — Hanover

That's not how it originally happened; that's just how it plays out with the opposing powers: upward mobility and education vs economic morbidity and facile propaganda.

the insurgents would be left fighting over ideology alone, — Hanover

Each civil war is different. They're not 'insurgencies'; they're popular uprisings over unbearable oppression or mismanagement, or irreconcilable differences over religion, or factions supporting two or more bidders for the seat of government, or - indeed, ideological rifts too deep to bridge. Oddly enough, this next one may well have a genuine element of states rights in some cases, depending on whether a truly egregious far right regime takes federal power.

In any event, the last great resurrection ended with a handful of crazies getting locked up after storming the Capital. — Hanover

And you think that made them and their "cause" disappear?

Cats & dogs seem intelligent enough. — 180 Proof

Oh, yes. I was talking about the sophisticated mental feat of recognizing another as being a self, like themselves. Whether fish understand this within their own species, we don't read their behaviour well enough to be sure; social species with which we can't communicate effectively, obviously do. But we can communicate with exceptionally clever birds, like parrots and crows: they recognize us as sentient.
Domestic cats and dogs have a greater capacity for communicating across species gaps (I find that quite remarkable, actually), as they do with us. Clearly they recognize one another and us as being just as self-aware as they are, to have individual personalities, temperaments and volition. Within their social group, they have friends, rivals, status; they know which family member is most inclined to play, to snuggle with, to open doors or cans on demand, etc.
But this recognition doesn't seem to extend to prey - in this, they are very like humans - and probably all predators: they categorize and objectify selectively.

That is the theory of a-biogenesis (literally 'life from non-living'.) — Wayfarer

The great leap to which referred earlier. What I'm asking is: had the non-life been evolving to that point, or did evolution begin there, like a biological big bang?

But there's another point, which is that the theory of evolution doesn't account for how life originated. — Wayfarer

So what? I thought nobody attributed conscious to non-life.

Philosophically, I'm of the view that organisms are categorically different to inorganic matter in a variety of ways - they seek homeostasis, heal from injury, grow, replicate, and (naturally) evolve into new species. — Wayfarer

That's what I said! So, there is no disagreement here.

When I work that out, I’ll be sure to invite you to my Nobel Ceremony. — Wayfarer

Is it the current scientific consensus that inanimate matter evolves from to simple to complex in a similar pattern to organisms?

I think the leap from inorganic matter to organisms is just that - a leap. — Wayfarer

Where does evolution begin? Did inanimate matter evolve? If not, how is this relevant?

Crabs and lobsters are sentient beings, but would we call them 'consciously aware'? — Wayfarer

Why wouldn't we?

If "consciousness" suggests more than just some degree of (i) awareness or (ii) self-awareness but also (iii) self-awareness of others-as-self-aware-selves, then "conscious" organisms have to have biological capabilities – repertoire of behaviors – complex enough to recognize other "conscious" organisms as "conscious" organisms like themselves (with a self) — 180 Proof

I think this requires a level of intelligence and reasoning far beyond mere consciousness.

(also, i've heard the term Sapience to refer to 'rationality' or whatever it is we're discussing as a 'higher' form of whichever of the above two is, in fact, the more peculiar). — AmadeusD

I think that's what I mean in the above. An organism can be awake, register changes, respond to stimuli, without thinking. It can do all that, plus feel some level of fear and need, without thinking. It can do all that, become aware that other active things in its environment can be pursued or evaded, without understanding that they, too, are aware of this. I don't think a cat realizes that the injured mouse or bird in its mouth is anything more than food or a plaything. It takes a pretty high level of cognition to identify another organism as being like itself. Humans have yet to master this feat with any consistency of application.

Sentience refers to the capacity to perceive and experience sensations or feelings, such as pain, pleasure, emotions, and basic awareness of one's surroundings. — Wayfarer

The oddest word out there is 'emotions'. What humans mean by that word is ambiguous - when not prejudicial - in reference to the experience of non-humans. Anything with nerves, or even primitive chemical receptors, perceive sensation, differentiate beneficial from harmful environmental conditions, seek the first while avoiding the second.
Whether a negative input can be called 'pleasure' or 'pain' is problematic: we use these words imprecisely and hardly ever attempt to draw a comprehensible distinction between the perception of harmful input and the experience of pain.
'Basic awareness' is evident in any organism that actively responds to change in its environment (It's not probable that sunflowers and morning glories are active in their response to sunlight, but it's evident that a paramecium moves away from negative chemical stimuli.)

I very much doubt the elements of that definition come as a package. Rather, I think they're consequent and cumulative, as evolution built on simple capabilities and equipment to produce ever more complex ones. No solid lines in between; just continuity.

and people on the ground where the problems occurred would have to work out solutions. — BC

But at least they'd get a chance to do it! People can do this; they have done this. Sure, there will be disruptive elements to deal with; there will be attempts at corruption to guard against; competition and aggression will have to be given constructive outlets; conflict between individuals will need mediation; resources must be distributed fairly; the young must be guided... People have done all of these things successfully when they were free to find their own solutions.

Fascism is, of course, another possibility. Let's hope that it does not become a reality in any way, shape, manner, or form. — BC

I'm very much afraid several of its forms are looming on the horizon.

You've had plenty of advice, here and elsewhere. Maybe you can still read a couple of self-help books. Whether you take any of the advice or not; whether you make any effort or not, I stopped caring about an hour ago.

Would there have to be an enforced uniform standard before you agree to separation? Who would this regulator be? — Elysium House

how independent should they be in terms of varying methods concerning police tactics, justice system reform, free speech policy, and so on? — Elysium House

For me, the preferred overseer would be the the World Court, under UN auspices. Not only is their
declaration of human rights completely acceptable, but this would also insure parity and co-operation among police forces. Next best candidate would be Interpol.

Would you accept other states (local governments) running their governments differently given that your government outlaws or corrects the issues you’ve mentioned? — Elysium House

Differently, yes. Inhumanley, no.

As an aside, what would be the best system for strengthening religious vibrancy given the powers allowed in this discussion? Is such a thing desirable in your mini-state? — Elysium House

I don't desire it, but many of the citizens would, so of course it has to be allowed scope. In my experience, the period of liberal ecumenicalism of the late 60's and early 70's worked pretty well. There was a proliferation of break-away congregations for the deaf, with folk music, etc. Such a tolerant environment can only exist in a prosperous and optimistic period.

how independent should they be in terms of varying methods concerning police tactics, justice system reform, free speech policy, and so on? — Elysium House

I'll have to give that some thought - after having a birthday drink with my SO. Might be a while....

Is a plant conscious because it can, and never fail to, grow toward a source of light and solve a maze — Outlander

Recent science indicates that trees and other vegetation in a forest communicate with one another through a complex network of fungi. You could consider that the brain of a communal entity. Whether individual plants have similar capacities is doubtful but not impossible. (Bad news for conscientious vegetarians!)

What about a severely disabled person who can basically only respond and react to stimuli such as pain, hunger, light, shock, etc? Are they conscious? — Outlander

If they react, yes. If they're catatonic or in a coma, you can't tell.

I doubt if worms could speak they would have very much to say! Or would they? — Outlander

"Stop the pain!" comes to mind, quickly followed by "I want to stay alive." The trout would say much the same, and so would the man.

Or where is the cutoff point? — Benj96

I would say plants are not, but I'm not at all sure about that, given recent discoveries. So I'll only say that plankton probably are not, bacteria probably not, but amoeba and paramecia are. They respond to stimuli and environmental conditions; actively seek food and favourable temperature. They 'know' what's inside and outside of their membrane (skin) and what their physical requirements are. To me, that's awareness the difference between 'self' and 'other', and that's how I define consciousness.

Finally, do we not ultimately base this in the "how much of us do we see in them?" — Benj96

Not necessarily, because some people deny consciousness even to dogs (contrary to the evidence of their own experience) and human babies. I don't know why that is - I don't know why they should be so jealous of this most attainable and least reducible commodity.

A guaranteed income would go a long way to solve the abject poverty problem. — BC

So true! As would more resources allocated to low-income housing, welfare, health and other and social services, as would curbing the power of property speculators and moneylenders.
Making the police deal with societal problems with force turns them into villains instead of protectors and attracts the wrong kind of people to policing.

All that is true - but so is overreaction to peaceful protest, breaking up legal strikes, 'clearing out' homeless encampments by any means, smashing down doors and shooting dogs, property forfeiture, and various other abuses. Having a warrant often just means the judge is on the same side as the vested interest that got him elected.

No but a sufficient amount of a revolutionary mob, will act as if a single mind (pace French and Iranian Revolutions.. and ensuing reigns of terrors). — schopenhauer1

Not quite an accurate depiction of either event.

"Who" is CHOOSING to support this these authoritarian factions? — schopenhauer1

Factions always exist. They are always supported by their supporters, who are not always of a single mind. Left-leaning organization tends to resemble herding cats, while far-right groups tend to be far more regimented, usually with a much more forceful leadership than the democratic ones. When the left loses power and influence, the right is ready to move in and consolidate power. After that, it doesn't matter whether the population at large support them: they have the army and police and no compunction in using either.

So, your theory fails that it is some axiom. — schopenhauer1

It was a general observation from history, no more.

But when they've been seriously wounded, failing to rebound stronger than ever, a people should not really take all of the blame. — Vera Mont

is not the same as

only focus the blame on the external force — schopenhauer1

But... whatever... The Left is just wrong.

What would a “demilitarized” police force look like compared to now? — Elysium House

It would be constituted locally, for the needs of the local population, without all the heavy armaments, license to search, seize and destroy. Powers limited to keeping the peace and enforcing the law: to serve and protect, not dedicated to vested interests.

These toxic political elements, can you describe what you are referring to so I have a better picture? — Elysium House

Oh, you know, regular death- and rape-threats against jurists and journalists; voter intimidation, gun lobby.... and, of course

The path for US government will be bi-directional according to this principle, a devolving of power to state and on to local government on the one hand, — unenlightened

Their revenue base is small and uncertain; they would have to depend too heavily on big business, which, in turn, would exert too much influence. Which is already the case in many jurisdictions.

and submission to, and support of, global organisation - the UN, court of Human rights, and other multi national bodies on the other. — unenlightened

I can't see Americans doing that. So far, they've resisted any submission to any international agreement.

The best solution, of course, would be blanket electoral and legislative reform. De-politicize the judiciary and law-enforcement. Separate state and church in fact, rather than theory. Enforce freedom of the press. Abolish the electoral college, lobbying and PACs. In fact, take financial patronage out of the process entirely; fund elections publicly and equally. (And forchrissake set a time limit on the damn things - the way things are, governance is one neverending political rally.) Bring in UN election oversight, as you might for any failed state trying to regain political stability, in order to prevent fraud and accusations of fraud.
Once you had legitimate, uncontested representative government - at all levels - they could go one to streamline and reorganize their agencies in a rational manner.
What are the odds of that happening in this dimension?

I think your implicit premise is that if "the West" interferes, the ONLY response is to then move to radicalism or authoritarianism. — schopenhauer1

No, I didn't imply anything of the kind. No nation is a single unified entity that feels, thinks and acts with a single mind. The premise I was attempting to back up was that when there is external interference, the balance of power between/among existing factions shifts or even collapses. When a democratically elected regime is overthrown before it's well established, because of massive financial and/or military support for one of the authoritarian factions, the democratic forces are weakened, often fatally. Then the fear-mongers, the scapegoaters, strongmen and religious revivalists gain ascendancy. They are able to consolidate power far more rapidly than a democracy that depends on consensus from the people. By the time the liberal factions can recover and regroup, all the repressive mechanism are in place.

But what if an outside, much bigger power - say the USA or some imperialist nation - interferes? Or actually invades? Or undermines the economy? How are the democratic factions in a small country supposed to defend it? — Vera Mont

If nobody intervened, you'd be justified in saying "It's all their own fault. They made the wrong decision." But when they've been seriously wounded, failing to rebound stronger than ever, a people should not really take all of the blame.

For whatever sociological or psychological reason, they chose poorly as to how to formulate their new government. — schopenhauer1

But the first coup wasn't their idea. That was interference from a world power with hugely disproportionate economic resources.

Easier said than done. — jorndoe

Especially when you're in prison, in exile or dead.

But that's what they wanted, silly! — schopenhauer1

People are silly a lot of the time. Especially when they're disillusioned and feel betrayed, they tend to reach for the security blanket of tradition.

A lot of the mess originated in Cold War policies. — schopenhauer1

Sure. they were instrumental in making that. Big Four, you know? And the whole Israel mess.

Do you think there's any way states would (or could) become self-governing and communally prosperous? — Elysium House

I can imagine 8 or so separate regional 'nations' working in some kind of uneasy trade and diplomatic relationship - so long as the populations are allowed free movement, so that people can find where they belong.

Given a shift in attention from the national to the local, would that change the math at all for you? — Elysium House

Yes, I think it might. The federal departments would have to be dismantled, which could not possibly done without disruption, and there is a huge problem with distributing resources, transportation, utilities and services. It would certainly not be easy, but I think there are enough brains and technology in America to get it done... if it were possible first to demilitarize police forces and neutralize the most toxic political elements. I can't see a way to that.

Why didn't they overthrow the Shah and form a democratic government then? — schopenhauer1

Cos they wanted him in power, silly!

Yes, American foreign policy during the Cold War was short-sighted, and in this case was going along with the last gasp of Britain's imperialism. — schopenhauer1

And then took over primary role with its own form of imperialism. It's still short-sighted, Look at the mess they made of the middle east in the last 30 years.

Well anyways, you actually make my point that the unintended consequences of interfering in volatile revolutions (like the Arab Spring) — schopenhauer1

and the American war of independence...

Yes, I do see where you're coming from.