Seeking the meaning of life is not replacing life with meanings, but trying to find what makes life happy and worthwhile. — Corvus

Then it's the wrong question.
"Meaning" is necessary for a conveyance or container: it exists for its content - the information it delivers. What does the skull and crossbones label mean? It's a warning that the bottle contains poisonous material. What does 'onomatopoeia' mean? The formation of a word from a sound associated with what is named. What does a red and blue marine flag mean? This ship is directing its course to starboard. What does life mean? That something is not inanimate or dead. That's what the word 'life' means. The property of aliveness itself cannot be interpreted as information. We are not mere symbols to convey a message to some external intelligence.

Just so.

A particular life can be observed, examined, scrutinized, studied analyzed: it can be described. It can be influenced, modified, damaged, improved, enlarged, diminished, prolonged or curtailed.
Valid questions might be: What is required to prolong my life? How can I spoil that man's life? Could this child's life be made happier? How might that woman's life be more rewarding?

Why should I care?
I
Really
Don't
Care
Do U?
Trumps, trumpers, trumpeters
with guns and muddy boots
on other people's carpets
breaking things
broken things
fragmentation

No, that's too heavy for an annoyance. But i did, for fun, paint on the back of a jacket:
I Care
Don't
You
?

High school students want economics classes as much as they want math classes. — Athena

At least the math is accurate and true. They can apply it to non-capitalist-propagandized economics later, should they be so inclined.

However, as long as we had a wilderness to the west, we had real freedom. — Athena

"We" - white protestant males - had freedom to kill and displace Indians, extirpate entire species of plant and animal, blast holes in mountains, clear-cut hillsides, drain swamps, divert and dam rivers, disrupt ecological balance, claim land and mineral rights. That's the kind of freedom still being touted to debt-slaves and wage-slaves, the disenfranchised and marginalized.
Even back then, the women and children, indentured and enslaved people were unfree as well as unsafe. The big commercial franchises with government patronage - mining, rail, mail, weapons - had a whole lot more freedom, plus the capability to exploit imported labour, who had none or very little freedom and no rights.

We need to wake up to reality and I think that is as likely as high school students demanding a class in economics. But as things keep getting worse there is hope we will eventually want to understand our changing world and new realities. — Athena

Sure... assuming there is an eventuality in store for any humans at all. I'm quite convinced there isn't one for the united states of America... unless, of course, it's reconfigured into several separate unions. The current arrangement isn't working and has never worked for more than a few decades at a time, and even in those periods, for only part of the population.

Searching for an answer to your question could bring meaning to a life! — universeness

What for? Life is its own meaning, its own purpose, its own narrative. The search for some artificial meaning is a huge waste of life... and lives. I mean, look at the result when lots of people find their "meaning" in a god or cause or national aspiration! Or when one loud enough asshole finds his own meaning in manipulation and domination of others.

What you said is a nice popular mythology. — Athena

I meant it as refutation of the nice popular mythology of the rugged individualist, Davy Crockett spirit of America: barely constrained personal freedom; unbounded national ambition.
Of course it was never true: of the 2.5 million American citizens, only adult white unindentured males had any freedom at all, and for most of those men, freedom was limited by economic and social constraints.

The notion of individual liberty was false then and is even more false now, but people keep waving flags and supporting antisocial policies in defense of the illusion.

It's nothing to do Gilgamesh or ancient Mesopotamia.

They know what they want and like a dog will fight to have what they want. This is the mentality of Trump followers. — Athena

They have no frickin idea what they want or why. They have a long-nurtured sense of grievance and want revenge, want their 'manhood', want things to be like the good old days that weren't, when they were masters over Africans, Indians and wimmin. Trump promised to make America "great again" - which means, make America theirs again.

It's nothing to do with dogs, a loyal species that will fight to the death not only for its own pack rights and offspring but for its human masters.

"I want it so I will take it." — Athena

That's the sociopath they follow, not the masses who are swayed by folksy rhetoric.

Why would life - the essential property that distinguishes passive matter from energy-consuming matter that knows itself - need any more meaning than that? Why is life not sufficient in itself?

My problem with it comes due to it's later connection with the British Empire as 'the greatest empire in history' and as an indication of military might. — universeness

Your problem means nothing to the average working yob. Nor does the historical background. There are still old imperialists who take pride in past 'glory'. If you want to encourage a grass roots movement, you need in sync with grass roots sentiment.

I knew you two would find common ground! — universeness

Cassandras of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose that's not already lost.

So trade unions are banned or what? I don't think so. — ssu

or what. A sneaky piece of legislation in 27 states that does the opposite of what it says.

A right-to-work (RTW) law gives workers the freedom to choose whether or not to join a labor union in the workplace. This law also makes it optional for employees in unionized workplaces to pay for union dues or other membership fees required for union representation, whether they are in the union or not.

Right-to-work is also known as workplace freedom or workplace choice. While the name of the law implies that it provides freedom to workers, critics argue that it weakens unions and empowers corporations instead.

Well, if you're workers vote and think against their own interests... either they are genuinely idiots or you are just condescending towards your fellow citizens. — ssu

Maybe both and some other stuff as well, like they're brainwashed relentlessly from the cradle onward.
Then factor in the egregious voter suppression and poll manipulation in state elections, and you only ever have a minority - a carefully selected minority - actually represented.

Our synthetic children might be our genome's salvation. — 180 Proof

Unless the mutant ants take a dislike to them. Maybe it's time for another species to be dominant.

A socialist grass roots movement, launched after an independent Scotland is realised? or a new grass roots socialist movement within the whole of Britain? — universeness

For best possible outcome, I would hope for the second.

I would start with something more simple like a national campaign to officially remove the 'Great' from 'Great Britain' or officially remove the name 'United KINGdom,' and the British Monarchy. — universeness

Save your campaign funds. You just lost a fair chunk, if the not the majority, of the working class. People don't like 'greatness' taken from their self-image. Not too sure they'd go along with abolishing the monarchy, either. Maybe in a couple of generations - but by then all the stalwart trade unionists will have died off, too.

As the USA 2024 election gets closer, I do get the impression from online American folks discussing such, that this is almost a civil war of words, that could really turn into violent insurrection. Perhaps the most important election ever held on the planet.
Would you agree with that? Do you think it's that bad? — universeness

The American civil war never really ended. The South has been nurturing the hope of rising again, has never concealed its smouldering resentment of the North or stopped displaying its defiant secessionist icons. Now, CW II is palpably close, it' very likely to break out. There are some interesting question associated with that prospect. However it turns out, it can only be bad for an awful lot of people and devastating for the country.

Well, every 9 out of 10 American workers don't belong to a trade union, so I guess you are in the minority. — ssu

Not really. The minority of rich and their politicians make the laws, make the rules of employments, make the system in which workers have no choice but try to make a living. The same minority also control the broadcast media and convey the information (propaganda) that favours them and turns workers against one another, convinces workers to vote and think against their own interests.

Unlikely you don't think that way, but those that think that changing your job is the cure if your salary / working conditions suck and think it's all about the individual, do usually think so. — ssu

Except I don't think that, either. On the contrary: without union protection, every employer is equally empowered to exploit the workers. Many state governments, and the current supreme court support employers' rights at the expense of workers' rights.

How aware is the average American, of the direct affects, that the now imbalanced SCOTUS is having or can/will have, on eroding/weakening the protections the average American currently has, against the increasing level at which "corporations will be freer to act in their own interests." — universeness

How aware the average American is of anything is not so easy to gage. All we can see is what's on the media, and they are largely muzzled on controversial subjects. I suspect most Americans are still clutching the tattered constitution and claiming it will shield them from bad government, in spite of recent Supreme Court decisions that illustrate the opposite. None of the sitting judges look ready to kick off any time soon, so this SCOTUS can certainly cut up any safety net the people still have.
But, if Trump or one of them manages to grab the White House next year, court intervention won't be necessary: they'll dissolve or defund the beneficial agencies (or do as Trump did, appoint the agency's worst enemy to its directorship) and tear up the constitution itself.

This is all a logical progression - regression, I guess, would be more accurate - from Reagan (I date the inevitable slide into the middle ages from the Reagan/Thatcher/Mulroney Axis. Though Nixon had made a pretty good start at unravelling America, Carter was a brief glimmer of hope. 20 or so states are almost there already; they're poised to disenfranchise women and minorities and turn their states into feudal duchies.

I'm not seeing a silver lining there. Lots' of stormclouds gathering here, too.
Scotland may do better. Is independence still in the cards? Mind you, the EU is not in great shape either, atm. So... unless Putin blows us all into the stratosphere, we shall see.

Just being a bit silly over here, so don't mind me. But we agree, by your criteria, a dead dog is not a real dog. — Nils Loc

Okay. It's a real corpse.
It was remiss of me to set a single criterion. Maybe i can do better with corpses?

But at least we've made a liar of the thread title.

So I'm guessing what is real, depends on your criteria of what is real as it might concern the borders of identities. — Nils Loc

A canid is a chien is a koira is dog. Whether each is real or imaginary doesn't depend on labelling laws but on whether they can bite.

A 30% genetic difference is HUGE. No mammal is so genetically remote from humans. This number is closer to the difference between humans and reptiles.

It is not inconceivable that both DNA itself, and its content, could evolve independently this closely, if in fact they represent globally maximal solutions to the problems they solve. — hypericin

Why would they need to solve the exact same problems on a completely different planet? What are the odds of all suns and planets capable of supporting intelligent life having the same gravity, air, vegetation, light, climate and topography as Earth? On Star Trek, about 95%. But in reality?

It's not inconceivable that long-ago reptilian, amphibian or even possibly avian ancestor evolved elsewhere and became capable of space travel many thousands of year ago. But that 1. the reptiles would be just like the reptiles here, 2. that the reptiles were required to adapt to major changes in their environment and 3. that they would have evolved into the general configuration of a bipedal human is a longer stretch.
After all, the most successful species on Earth stopped changing as soon as they achieved a form and lifestyle they could sustain for millions of years. Why did ants and octopi never become bipedal mammals?

They will be back and they will be millions! — universeness

Then they'll have to be killed all over again.

If you think all collectivism is socialism, then you get what you deserve. — ssu

What? Why would I think that?

You cannot be a true socialist and be a gangster. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
You have to stop being one to become the other. — universeness

:clap: :clap:
That's why it's always necessary to eliminate the true socialists when you take their flag.

The Great Terror of 1937, also known as the Great Purge, was a brutal political campaign led by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin to eliminate dissenting members of the Communist Party and anyone else he considered a threat. Although estimates vary, most experts believe at least 750,000 people were executed during the Great Terror, which started around 1936 and ended in 1938. More than a million survivors were sent to forced labor camps, known as Gulags.

"If the job sucks, then just get a new job!". — ssu

...which sucks in all the same ways, since the owners are sleeping together - with the senator at the foot of their bed.

That won't deter the true believers. "Deep state conspiracy to silence our spokesman strikes again!"

Wonder why all the aliens died in South America... Mayhap, that's where Maussan gets permission to explore?

I think it would be huge philosophically — frank

Maybe, sorta, academically.

The JW telescope may have detected a molecule on an exoplanet that is only made by living things on earth. — frank

Exciting for some scientists and a lot of fans.

It's most likely a joke, in my opinion. — flannel jesus

A rather elaborate one, by appearances. They must have some objective to go to the trouble.

Are they stupid? — flannel jesus

I don't think so. But there are motives that can make intelligent people behave stupidly. Strong desire to believe in the implausible is one of them (see organized religion, political rallies, war, etc). To be noticed? Drum up interest in exobiology, a hitherto undervalued branch of science? To attract UFO tourism?

Questions like, should this footage elicit a change in beliefs at all? — flannel jesus

Not for me. Probably for many others, perhaps it should, but won't. The ones who reject the idea of alien life, will brush it aside as a hoax. The ones who are interested in science will ask questions - just as they always have. The ones who believed UFO sightings will say "I told you so!"

Do we have good reason to trust that these are real aliens? — flannel jesus

Not at the moment. I don't know anything about the information source. Sounds legit, but it seems UNAM only vouched for the age, not the composition of the bodies.

What do you guys think of the Mexican aliens? — flannel jesus

I think ET never went home, after all. Married a Condor lady?
No, that's silly.
I'm wondering about the 30% genetic difference. If they didn't evolve on earth, where did they get all the humanoid genes? If they did, why are there only two bodies? If they had the technology for cadmium implants in 1020AD, and the ability to give multiple birth, why didn't they thrive?
It all sounds quite improbable, which makes me suspicious.

If a can of peaches falls on your foot and breaks a couple of toes, you can be pretty sure both the foot and the can are real. How you know is from direct physical sensation. That doesn't prove the peaches inside the can are real, and you won't find out for some time: you'll probably be sitting an emergency waiting room instead of eating your canned peaches.

I think that if the trade unions are apolitical would be better as then their members understand that the union is simply for there for their salaries and working conditions — ssu

They can't do that in North America. The moneyed interests have political power through campaign financing and lobbying. That's why they're able to control governments and defeat trade unions - as well as working people and poor people; that's why they are able to take more and more and more.

Oxfam report : Poverty has increased for the first time in 25 years. At the same time, these multiple crises all have winners. The very richest have become dramatically richer and corporate profits have hit record highs, driving an explosion of inequality.....
he richest 1 percent grabbed nearly two-thirds of all new wealth worth $42 trillion created since 2020, almost twice as much money as the bottom 99 percent of the world’s population,

Should working people not have political representation to defend themselves?

Good grief, Virginia, there is someone who sees through the glass even more darkly than I do !

I read some of your link and do not understand how it applies to concerns about our freedom. Do you want to explain what concerns you? — Athena

No. It's not about my concerns. You said Americans value their freedom to do as they please over co-operation with others. I replied, and it went on from there, - thusly:

- I know US citizens are strongly opposed to one world government because they fear that would diminish their power to do as we do. — Athena


- All over the world! - V

- Why is it so important that we have the freedom to do as want? — Athena

- Because you are a or the major world power. Nobody likes to give up power. (see white supremacists... or nazis). Many individual Americans have no power at all and very little freedom of action, even while their "leaders" shout slogans about liberty. (Even while some of their financial elite were active collaborators with the Reich, just as they presently collaborate with undemocratic, repressive governments.)

However, the nations that are dominated, bullied, oppressed and intimidated by major powers would have a great deal to gain. It's all in the perspective. - V

It was about how Americans regard individual freedom of action and what they're willing to sacrifice for it.

One does not risk his job, his income and the support of his family because he gets angry. — Alkis Piskas

You have evidently not seen collective rage at a long-suffered injustice. That's the stuff revolutions are made of.

Arguably some cases of media coverage of public mourning are beneficial, insofar as it encourages more meaningful kinds of charitable support for those affected by the loss. — Nils Loc

That's possible - at least in the case of shootings and road accidents. But I'm pretty sure that isn't the media's prime motivation.

As for 'loving' national icons and sports heroes - that's not love as we as we experience love in our personal lives; it's idolatry, a form of worship. That is shaped by the image they present, or that is presented of them by publicists and journalists. Diana's image was all warm and cuddly; a nice girl embodied a fairy tale from our childhood: people identify with that. As also with athletes who achieved the fame and fortune so many children dream of.

What's much harder to comprehend is the adulation of psychopaths and monsters. Do they also represent the childhood dreams of their followers? That's a terrifying thought, given the number of followers they attract.

[ if you want the benefits of a society, pay your dues and mind the rules.]

Which are those "benefits"? — javi2541997

[police and fire departments, roads, bridges, harbours, traffic lights, schools, hospitals, old age pensions, media and communication network, electricity, public transit and sanitation, running water and sewer systems.]

Those are public services which are covered up by taxes. — javi2541997

Yes. In a society. With dues and rules.
A club, a union, a country, a fraternity, a professional organization - they are all societies that have constitutions, laws, obligations and membership fees.

Not quite clear to me, esp. the last statement, but it's OK. — Alkis Piskas

Employers exploit the worker's financial insecurity to keep them from complaining about conditions and pay: they're afraid of losing their jobs. This fear is used by employers all of the time; if it's not enough, they use more direct intimidation, and sometimes police.
If the workers are angry enough and united in their anger, they overcome their fear and move against the employer in spite of the dangers.

I am not sure but I think your freedom may be, anarchy and I think anarchy is intolerable. — Athena

It's not my freedom. It's the American conservatives'. Yes, they are intent on tearing down the federation. https://www.commoncause.org/resource/u-s-constitution-threatened-as-article-v-convention-movement-nears-success/

As long its not too violent, I'll do it.

What a union really does is negotiate -- striking is just a tactic in that process of negotiation, and it's basically the last resort. — Moliere

Exactly! It's a huge gamble for the members: the strike pay is much less than they have been accustomed to live on, and lower-level jobs don't pay enough to accumulate savings; if the company has pension and health plans, they cease when the job does. The management, on the other hand, has huge salaries, lots of assets and a very comfortable severance package in case the company is dissolved. The workers have nothing to fall back on.
And that's one way conservative governments break unions: issue a legal back-to-work order and mandatory arbitration, or what they do in the US: declare union membership 'optional'

Research shows that states with RTW laws see higher employment but lower wages for workers (but higher executive pay). Studies also point to lower unionization rates.

... or just, like in the good old days, send in the cops.

In 2012, the Guardian had made the link with a previous South Yorkshire police operation, this one against thousands of striking miners, which took place near Rotherham on 18 June 1984 and was notoriously dubbed the Battle of Orgreave. Scenes of police violence, including horse charges and officers beating miners with truncheons, dominated television news that day. No police were charged for their actions. Instead, the incident led to the prosecution of 55 miners who were arrested at Orgreave and charged with riot.

but if you want the benefits of a society, pay your dues and mind the rules. — Vera Mont

Which are those "benefits — javi2541997

I believe that your country has feeble, underfunded and possibly criminal trade unions. Corruption can happen anywhere. But I imagine you still have police and fire departments, roads, bridges, harbours, traffic lights, schools, hospitals, old age pensions, media and communication network, electricity, public transit and sanitation, running water and sewer systems... those benefits.

It seems to me that if a fellow worker has fallen on hard times the others ought to rally around him and help him rather than to penalize him, ostracize him, and abandon him to the whims of some union administration. But that would be the social thing to do. — NOS4A2

Every year, more than 25 scholarships, bursaries, awards and grants – totalling more than $300,000 – are available to UFCW Canada members and families.

Unionized workers typically bargain for a package of wages and health benefits — giving them a vested interest in containing health care costs. And some union members have more than just skin in the game; they also have a seat at the table when it comes to deciding on their health benefits.

He hasn't been ostracized and abandoned. He's still deciding whether to betray and abandon his fellow workers. Even though he has been enjoying whatever benefits the union previously won by putting their own livelihoods on the line.
Meanwhile, the company that offered him no health insurance will abandon him when they close the mine, pull out all their money and set up again in some other country where people are even cheaper.

A collective that excludes the needs and wants of its own members is not a collective, least of all any sort of community. — NOS4A2

Which collective? Which of its members? Every nation-state excludes of the needs and wants of some citizens - often, the majority of its citizens - and yet demands their absolute loyalty and ultimate sacrifice.

As you mentioned the rest are expected to pay up and fall in line. — NOS4A2

Yes. The miners are expected to be loyal to the owner, who is free to fire them at any time. They have to pay their taxes, while the owner can write off his private jet as a business expense. The miners are far more likely to die in work accidents than the owners who cut costs by reducing the number of pillars. The workers are supposed to understand that their livelihood depends on the owner, but the owner can forget that he's nothing without the workers.

In a union, at least no pigs are born more equal than any horses.

I think this formulation works for me reasonably well. Over the years, in jail and outside, I have met a lot of people conveniently called 'bad'. — Tom Storm

conveniently
Not out of ignorance that they feel and think like other people. Not from a cultural assumption that people only do illegal things if they are bad people. Not because they were given all the same advantages, opportunities and choices as 'good' people, but because they're assigned to a convenient social role.
We know - but it just doesn't suit our current purpose.