in some way I wonder if it'd been any different if the dishpan was hooked up to a series of lights and if the experimenter had just shocked the cells or anytime it guessed the wrong light — Moliere

These sorts of experiments have already been done long ago. Neuronal networks don't seem to care if they're electrocuted, burnt, stamped on or otherwise 'punished' (this is not strictly true, but it sounded better rhetorically). The point about the noise wasn't to provide some form of negative feedback (picking white noise at random), it was to prove that unpredictable feedback was indeed a negative feedback constraint (as opposed to, say dopamine circuits in a larger cortex).

The playing of Pong was the trivial part of the experiment (though important to the demonstration of the set up), the important bit was that the cells avoided uncertainty (noise) even at a level of network complexity so low that other feedback systems, such as neurotransmitter availability, are still miles away.

It demonstrates Friston's model because uncertainty avoidance has been shown to be capable of driving feedback, and as such other forms of feedback seem more like multipliers than drivers (which is what Friston's model would predict).

"no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' are causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that one single subject (namely, Putin) is causing”. Better now? — neomac

Yes, but that's exactly what I thought you meant in the first place. I then listed several examples of "local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty" that were causing more "economic, infrastructural, human, political damage" than Putin and you said that wasn't what you meant.

Can you clarify how you're measuring "economic, infrastructural, human, political damage"?

there are people believing in astrology or magic, after all. So what? Here, I’m not interested in discussing doxastic surveys, I’m interested in discussing reasons wrt rational standards intelligible to me. — neomac

I'm not talking about astrology, I'm talking about experts in their field. Again, if you're going to just dismiss expert opinion because it is in opposition to what you prefer to believe then we cannot have a discussion.

I don’t even understand your claim that my position and your position are both plausible. What do you mean by “plausible”? — neomac

I simply mean that neither position is contradicted by overwhelming evidence to the contrary and each position is supported in the field of qualified experts. Basic minimum standards. I didn't think this would be complicated.

You didn’t provide any sharable method to assess the plausibility of different position in absolute or relative terms. — neomac

Again, this is basic stuff. A position is plausible if it is not contradicted by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In technical fields it ought also have support from at least some experts in that field. There's nothing controversial to argue with here.

why on earth would you still claim that my position is plausible after questioning all the reasons I have to hold my position — neomac

Under determination. We've been through this already. If you didn't understand it the first time I'm not sure a second go round is going to help. A fixed pool of evidence can support multiple theories since any given pool of evidence supporting a theory is not exhaustive of all the evidence there is.

would our positions be still both plausible in case of irreconcilable differences in values? — neomac

Yes, of course. Values are not amenable to assessment of plausibility since no evidence can be brought to bear on them.

the discrimination between rational and irrational expectations remains and is relevant for my decision process. — neomac

You're not discriminating between rational and irrational, for Christ's sake. You're not God. You're discriminating between reasons you prefer and reasons preferred by others. You not agreeing with a set of reasons doesn't render them "irrational", epistemic peers disagree, it's quite normal and doesn't require one party to have lost the power of rational thought.

history is rich of cases where disruptive technologies or new socio-political arrangements were consciously implemented, so one should take into account that too to formulate rational expectations. — neomac

Then how does an historical failure to address poverty have any bearing on the rationality of a moral claim that we ought address poverty?

you didn’t present any such analysis to support your claim that “Western countries should ‘mount a multi-billion dollar campaign’ to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts”. So nothing rationally challenging in there. — neomac

One more time for the slow ones at the back... You are the one claiming my position is flawed ("irrational" now, apparently). My not having proven your position wrong is not evidence that my position is wrong. I have no interest in proving your position wrong.

You keep doing this (pointing to a failure to prove my position as if it were supportive of yours). Are you seriously of the opinion that our two positions are mutually exclusive (such that if my position is wrong, yours must be right)?

In other words, it's Biden. — frank

An alternative take, if you're interested.

Biden’s New National Security Strategy: A Lot of Trump, Very Little Obama

Did you know you're a closet Freudian? — Srap Tasmaner

I didn't. I shall seek a cure immediately.

I thought it was the superior man’s property. — NOS4A2

No, I thought it was the superior man's property, you thought it was the property of the one who tilled it. Thus we disagreed as to whose property it was.

You were about to enlighten me as to how we resolve that dispute between you, me, and the 7 million other people who have a legitimate say in what you (or I) do with our piece of rainforest without any formal system of representation.

Unfortunately there was a typo: "no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' are causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin”. — neomac

That's not really clarified matters - something 'causing' Putin doesn't make sense. so I thought you meant that nothing else in that list is causing as much damage as Putin... but then you denied that too. So I'm at a loss.

there are salient empirical regularities also in human & social sciences: psychology, sociology, economy, anthropology, history and geopolitics, according to which we can assess what individuals, collectives, States can do. So by “likelihood” I was referring to such assessments. — neomac

But such assessments vary - different people reach different conclusions. So I don't see how that makes any progress. You're still just providing an option. Don't forget the argument here. I'm not claiming your position is irrational. You are claiming mine is. You disputed my position, not the other way round. If the best you've got is that your position is plausible, then we have no disagreement.

how about the claim “Western countries can ‘mount a multi-billion dollar campaign’ to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts”, what are the historical evidences or geopolitical actual dynamics that would support it? I really see none — neomac

I don't. Neither do hundreds of academics and campaigners committed to promoting such an action. Again, if the best you've got is "I don't think that'll work" then fine, I'm not claiming it definitely will. If your claim is "No-one thinks that will work", that's a far bolder and more unlikely claim (given the existent campaigns for just such an outcome). It would need similarly bold evidence. As has been highlighted before the fact that some people agree with you is not evidence for a claim that everyone agrees with you.

I’m not concerned with “humanitarian improvement” in such generic terms. — neomac

Well then we probably have very little to talk about. I assume my interlocutors share such concerns. If not, then our differences are probably more to do with irreconcilable differences in values.

I addressed the rest of your objection when talking about human creativity in history. — neomac

You really didn't.

Better but not fair. That's better and more fair:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine — neomac

So when a post makes claims about Russian war crimes I expect you've been similarly at pains to point out Ukrainian transgressions to ensure a fair hearing? How far does this need extend? Ought we include the US's misdeeds too, just to get a proper picture? Probably ought to list the Wagner group too, and maybe Chechen loyalists. British intelligence services, German arms dealers, Turkish negotiators... Or...we could read posts like grown ups and assume that not everything has to contain moral condemnation of Russia.

Really? That's all you could come up with in terms of Ukrainian war crimes??? — Olivier5

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/

We have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war

Better...?

Yes, just ask. — NOS4A2

What, the whole planet? There's 7 billion of us. Through what mechanism ought we 'just ask'? One at a time?

Maybe I’m naive but I thought theft and robbery would be the last resort, so consider me surprised. — NOS4A2

There's no theft and robbery until there's property. We're discussing who owns what so we cannot already be thieving and robbing it can we? We have yet to establish who's property it is.

Still, not bad for apokrisis, @Isaac, and anyone else in the free energy camp. — Srap Tasmaner

I missed this yesterday.

Yes, I saw this in preprint some months ago (last year even, I think). I forgot all about it and here it is in full published majesty. It's a good piece of work.

Much misinterpreted already, and it's only been published for a few days, but, that's neuroscience...

before their lives are totally consumed by continuous crisis and stress. — hypericin

Biafra 1967.

You're about half a century late.

...oh, or did you mean Westerner's lives...

Oh, you see “Putin is the biggest threat to civilisation because I reckon he is” as equivalent to "no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin"?! Coz I don’t: in my claim I didn't talk about "biggest threat to civilisation". So far just more strawman arguments. — neomac

To be fair...

[There are] no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin" — neomac

...doesn't make grammatical sense. I've had to do some charitable reading. Why don't you try again to formulate what you're saying.

Aside from how one wants to analyse it, my conviction is that a rational “ought” (as in “X ought to do Y”) must fall within what a subject “can”. Therefore rational expectations about what individuals, collectives and states likely can do are key to formulate rational oughts. — neomac

The latter doesn't follow from the former. First you talk about the rational constraint on formulating what one ought to do (that it must fall within the bounds of what one can do), then you proceed to talk about likelihoods. Neither Kant, nor any rational argument prescribes that what one ought to do is connected to what is likely to succeed.

I take “ought”-claims grounded on very “unlikely” expectations about individuals, collectives and states to be implausible and irrational. — neomac

I see. So if I consider supplying arms to Ukraine is very unlikely to yield any humanitarian improvement, then we ought not do it?

my answers would be “unlikely” for all — neomac

Except that...

that may depend on the issue — neomac

...and...

At best you could say that Russia is not perceived as a serious threat to the American national interest by some American military and/or geopolitical experts. But evidently they aren’t very influential... — neomac

And then there's this classic (you and @ssu would get on well)...

There are no historical periods in which the West didn’t meddle in regional conflicts while at the same time mounting a multi-billion dollar campaign to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world — neomac

So because it's never happened before, it can't happen. Well. It's a good job you weren't around in the early twentieth century pointing out that never before had all the nations of the world got together to form a single organisation for co-operation and diplomacy. They'd have shelved the whole project.

Seriously? "If it hasn't happened in the past it can't happen". What kind of approach to ethics is that?

In conclusion, as long as your “oughts” are grounded on unlikely expectations about how individuals, collectives and states behave, your “oughts” are irrational. And since a world where Western countries “mount a multi-billion dollar campaign” to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts, is grounded more on your wild imagination than on what one can see as likely from history or geopolitics, then neither your expectation nor your prescription is plausible. Period. — neomac

This just confuses 'ought' with 'is'. You're describing the way the world is, not the way it ought to be. Following your principles no progress would ever be made. Imagine if in the middle ages someone were to describe the world of human rights, freedom of expression, secular government, democracy that we have now. You'd be the twat saying that all that was impossible because we live in a world where kings rule by divine power and religion is mandated by all powerful churches.

There’s always that other niggling option of voluntary cooperation, where we can work together towards a solution. — NOS4A2

Hang on. A minute ago you had s right to your garden because you tilled it. Now you're saying we could come to some arrangement?

What about the rainforest? Cycles the oxygen for everyone on the planet. You're going to need an awfully big hall to hold that meeting...

If only there were some system of representatives to simplify this mass negotiation process... Oh well, one can only hope...

I still fail to see how one justifies the other. — NOS4A2

I don't.

Now what?

It’s a stupid question. — Xtrix

Yes, but I'm about to nick @NOS4A2's garden, so don't pull the plug just yet.

You believe you are entitled to the figurative and literal fruits of another’s labor because you think you can do a better job. — NOS4A2

No. I'd turn your garden back to a state of nature. No appropriation of any fruit (figurative or otherwise), in fact a rejection of the fruits of your labour.

A man has no right to use nature to provide for his own survival. — NOS4A2

Too right he doesn't. See . The 'use' of nature without proper constraint is just about to wipe out the planet's lungs.

The question is about what happens when we disagree over the proper treatment of some piece of land.

Your efforts to skirt around it are obvious — NOS4A2

The question...

Do you really disagree, though? — NOS4A2

The answer...

Yes — Isaac

Not sure in what way that counts a 'skirting around'.

Why is it your wilderness? Is my garden on your property? — NOS4A2

Yes. I've explained that land rightly belongs to the person who will look after it best. In the case of your garden, that is me (I'm an excellent gardener), you've already done enough damage with your 'cultivation', so you should leave immediately.

Do you really disagree, though? — NOS4A2

Ah! The old 'you agree with me really though' argument. I wondered how long it would take to get there.

That you can't wrap your head around anyone thinking differently is your problem, don't project it onto others.

Would you actually lay claim to a garden someone else has built and cultivated — NOS4A2

Yes. As @unenlightened had already speculated...

stop ruining it with your wretched building and cultivation of my lovely wilderness. — unenlightened

I think the wilderness belongs to those who look after it best, so your crappy efforts fail to secure you your right of ownership I'm afraid.

upon disagreeing, physically take what he has built and cultivated? — NOS4A2

Of course. You ruined my wilderness. I'd definitely use what force I have at my disposal to requisition it and return it to its proper state.

if theft is your aim, you’ll just have to take it, won’t you? — NOS4A2

It's not theft, your claim to ownership failed. It's my garden.

Deliberation — NOS4A2

Alright. We have a big long discussion. We still disagree. Now what? Fisticuffs?

Now we weigh that against your justification — NOS4A2

By what process?

How does your superior gardening abilities justify your claims to it? — NOS4A2

How does you having created it and nurtured it such that it wouldn’t exist had you not done so justify your claim to it?

How do your gardening abilities justify you having another person’s garden? — NOS4A2

How does you having built it, planted it, and tilled it justify you having it?

It’s always someone else. — NOS4A2

Not just someone else. You.

I can justify it. I built it, planted it, and tilled it. If you can justify why it is yours, perhaps you can have it. — NOS4A2

I'll have a crack. I'm a better gardener than you, so I deserve it.

because you cannot single out this someone else — NOS4A2

It's you.

Oh, you see “the war in Ukraine is the single highest toll of avoidable deaths and misery in the world right now” is the same as "no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin"?! I don't: in my claim I didn't just talk about deaths and misery, and "single" wasn't qualifying the "costs". — neomac

Then I return to being completely at a loss as to your argument. It seems to be little more than "Putin is the biggest threat to civilisation because I reckon he is"

How likely is that... — neomac

I don't know why you're asking these questions of likelihood, they seem completely unrelated to the point at hand. I'm disputing your claim the the Western world ought to help Ukraine best Russia by military force. I'm not arguing what is most likely to happen, the two are, tragically, quite unrelated.

Nonetheless, your answers (to whatever end)...

How likely is that Western citizens members of ethnic minorities (say Ukrainians, Iranians, Taiwanese) will see regional conflicts (like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Iranian revolts against the Iranian regime, the China's claims over Taiwan) as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in? — neomac

Moderately likely.

How likely is that Western commodity traders and industry who partnered with some state muddled in some regional conflict, will see regional conflicts as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in? — neomac

I don't care.

How likely is that the piece of Western economy relying on Western commodity trades and industry will see regional conflicts as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in? — neomac

Again, I don't care.

How likely is that Western political representatives and media industry who feed on ideological, religious and national differences and global threats or opportunities will see regional conflicts as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in? — neomac

Very unlikely.

How likely is that Western military and/or geopolitical experts (like Mearsheimer or Kissinger) will see regional conflicts as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in, especially when allies, strategic partners and Great Powers hostile to the West are involved? — neomac

Moderately likely, there's a range of opinion from isolationists to full on hawks.

How likely is that historians would find historically plausible to expect that Western countries “mount a multi-billion dollar campaign” to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts? — neomac

Pretty likely.

How likely is that for any of the above subjects “meddling in regional conflicts” equates to everything except 'supply arms to’? — neomac

Unlikely. Our main means of meddling in conflicts is to supply weapons.

How likely is that for authoritarian regimes (like Russia, Iran and China) their “meddling in regional conflicts” equates to everything except 'supply arms to’? — neomac

More likely. Authoritarian regimes are often also more militaristic and so more likely to actually take part, but only if the conflict is local.

Do you think we have an obligation to protect other humans in a natural disaster? — schopenhauer1

Of course.

I just mean that I am interested in hearing both critical and non-critical points raised. — Graeme M

I'm not preventing anyone from posting noncritical content. I'm not going to make up some placatory praise just to stroke your ego.

So your answer is no. It's that simple. — Graeme M

If you're going to ignore my actual answer and replace it with the one you'd prefer to respond to, then the question wasn't asked in good faith. So why don't we start with what you really meant by asking it.

The question is "Do you think it ethical to own human beings, breed them for your own ends, and kill them when you wish to further those ends?" Your answer is no. — Graeme M

No. Don't tell me what my answer is. My answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no depending on the circumstances. It's not my problem that you're too dogmatic to accept a nuanced answer.

We don't save people from natural disasters simply because human rights mean we should. — Graeme M

Human rights are currently limited to the treatment of humans by other humans.

You are arguing that we ought extend them to the treatment of animals by humans.

The point I'm making by bringing in natural disasters and natural predation is that you've provided no argument for why (if we're going to extend the scope of human rights) we should not extend them to the treatment of humans by natural forces or the treatment of animals by other animals.

It's you who are equating human rights with our ethical sensibilities. The argument is that if human rights do not apply to natural disasters (yet our ethical sensibilities clearly do) then human rights are clearly bounded by factors other than our mere sensibilities.

I do not believe Ukrainians are fighting for an abstraction like this, do you? — Srap Tasmaner

Some I'm sure, but not all. I don't believe that 'Ukrainians' are an homogeneous group all fighting for a single definable reason. But I was talking about the foreign policy of our governments, not the motivation of Ukrainian soldiers.

My point is that there's no humanitarian objective in assuring something like a nation's 'right to exist'. For a third party (us all as outside observers) the loss of Ukrainian control over some territory ought have absolutely no moral weight, it matters not one jot who owns what, it matters how the people within that territory are treated.

If we're concerned that Russia will treat the occupants worse that Ukraine would (I've argued against this assumption, but let's hold it for the sake of argument) then the humanitarian problem is the way the Russian government treats its subjects, not which parts of the world it owns. We don't solve that problem by repelling it from Ukraine. The problem still exists, everyone in Russia still suffers from it. We solve the problem by enforcing changes in the way Russia is governed. And if we can do so, then, again, it doesn't matter one jot which bits of land they have control over.

We could claim that it's a numbers game (we don't want Russia to control more people the way they do), but that would be a ridiculous claim because the numbers involved are tiny compared to the effort put in - we'd be better off losing $40billion in sanctioning China with over a billion people whose lives might be improved by any human rights gain thus made. I don't buy that we're in Ukraine to secure a minor improvement in the human rights of the citizens there by ensuring they're controlled by the world's number 122 in the corruption index instead of the world's number 136. There are easier ways of making a few points gain in human rights, as Ukraine's recent history has shown.

to say "self determination" instead is just shorthand for saying they want their families, homes, businesses, friends, libraries, parks, opera houses, and, you know, etc., not to exist only at the mercy of a large group of armed people who don't even live there. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think this can be right because it's the case no matter what, governments rarely live in the places they govern. Ukraine is 800 miles across there's no single notion of people who "live there" that makes any sense here. Many of the Russian soldiers probably live closer to Donetsk than the government in Kiev do. And let's not pretend the government in Kiev aren't "a large group of armed people". The Amnesty International report I cited earlier details the treatment of the people of this region by government forces prior to the invasion. Their families, homes, businesses, friends, libraries, parks, opera houses were hardly in a a state of Utopian freedom.

we can still understand, at least intellectually, why they are fighting, and call that "what they're fighting for". — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. I agree. I've said as much before. What the Ukrainians fight for, though, is not our concern. We ought not have foreign policies geared around helping other nations achieve whatever it is they happen to want, we ought have foreign policies geared around achieving the greatest humanitarian improvements we can practically achieve.

If the Ukrainians are passionate about their own self-governance and want to fight for it, that's entirely their lookout. It should be absolutely no concern of ours, and in fact, if, by fighting, they put more people at risk of humanitarian crisis than they would by surrendering then we ought actively oppose their decision.

What I'm arguing against is the oft repeated theme that it is 'up to the Ukrainians' and we ought support them in their decision. 'The Ukrainians' are not a unit, it means absolutely nothing other than that some ruling classes made some deal to draw a line around some particular bit of the map. There's no moral weight whatsoever behind what an arbitrarily drawn sample of the human race want to happen.

The war is currently in Donbas. So there's a border region either side (the rest of Ukraine one side, Russia the other) What moral reason is there to take more account of the views of the people on one side of that border than the other? Why not ask the Russians on the Ukrainian border what they feel? It's an arbitrary line on a map and doesn't delineate any racial grouping of like-minded peoples.

I'll also say that I'm betting a lot of Ukrainians are grateful there was already a state apparatus in place, and an armed forces, else they would absolutely be at the mercy of any armed group, whether a foreign government's army or criminals and outlaws. Part of the point of the state, and worth preserving even though it can be abused, as Russia is doing. — Srap Tasmaner

I think that's exactly the point I'm making. The colour of the flag above the parliament doesn't matter. The quality of the government does, and so effort put into retaining one colour over another is only of value to the extent that it represents the least harmful way of improving (or maintaining an improvement) in that quality.

With Ukraine, the two governments in question are not that far apart in terms of human rights and the human costs of maintaining one over the the other are enormous (some 40,000 dead in a year). There are easier and much less costly ways of improving the human rights record of whatever government happens to be in control of any given region. Who that government happens to be ought not be any more important than a matter of regional administrative bureaucracy.

I’m not convinced that “the war in Ukraine is the single highest toll of avoidable deaths and misery in the world right now”. — neomac

There are no "local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty" causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin. — neomac

is your conviction that we, the West, should “mount a multi-billion dollar campaign” to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world while avoiding to meddle in regional conflicts around the world like in Yemen and Ukraine? Is that it? — neomac

Roughly, yes. Where by 'meddle' you mean 'supply arms to'.

I haven't denied that NATO is one reason — ssu

...

It was never was about NATO membership in the first place. — ssu

You asked if we have obligation to save wild animals from natural disasters — schopenhauer1

That's a question, not a proposition.

he thus refuted your idea that we have no obligation to the natural world — schopenhauer1

Where have I said any such thing?

Beings who can reason and beings who can not reason does make a difference when discussing how they interact. — schopenhauer1

That's just a repeat of the assertion, not an explanation of it.

I'm saying IFF you had the means to protect, why not? — schopenhauer1

I can't improve on @Bitter Crank's answer. It would be outrageous hubris.

it's bizarre to cling on to this idea that "NATO made Putin do it". — ssu

Just a quick reminder...

If you want to give a serious counterargument, how about actually engaging in what I say and not a strawman? — ssu

Oh and a bonus gem from the same post...

My point is that Putin invaded Ukraine because of a) wanting to make Russia great again, b) because of NATO enlargement — ssu

Because there is a distinction with the "natural world" and the human world. The natural world is that which does its thing without human (beings who are self-aware and can reason) influence and conversely, doesn't directly influence humans. — schopenhauer1

There is a distinction between redheads and blondes. It doesn't imply we have a different ethical responsibility to each. Simply pointing to a difference in property isn't an argument for difference in ethical treatment.

there can be a case that, if humans have the time and resources, why not go above and beyond (supererogatory actions) and preserve that which might be saved? — schopenhauer1

Well, if you're asking me directly, my answer is because it would be ridiculous. Same answer as I'd give to most such ethical extremes. I think it's absurd to pluck an ethical principle out of our intertwined biological and cultural milieu and then, for no reason at all, follow it through to whatever ends, even the destruction of the very wellspring which birthed it. What would be the point?

Should others then stand idle by, if they propagandize (their population) into justifying/eliciting a world war, nuclear war, a(nother) catastrophe? — jorndoe

No, but we should, in our planning, take account of the effect of such propaganda. If Ukraine invading Russia is out ofvthr question, then Russia considering Donbas to be Russia matters a lot.

How about a different sort of talks and negotiations, one that's more direct, persistent, ongoing? Central/involved leaders have a direct line and are expected to talk with the rest frequently, promoting negotiations, perhaps compromises, and initiating putting guarantees on paper (formalized). They'd be recorded or something, so the world could figure out what's on their minds. This would sort of force participants to think about and address things, not just listen to their own generals. — jorndoe

Isn't this something like the UN? I mean, I think it's a great idea, but you need to flesh out some of the details.

the borderless world is a neat idea, sort of... It's just far from the current world, whether by traditions, cultures, whatever, and doesn't seem feasible, at least not for a good while. — jorndoe

Of course, very far. But we don't have to actively promote nationalism, we can just reluctantly accept its current existence. Putting who owns what above human lives is always reprehensible, sometimes monstrous. We're neither Westeners, nor Russian's nor Ukrainians, were just people. I find all this bollocks about a 'nation's right to exist' really sickening. The last thing we want in this excessively divided world is more fucking divisions.

were are not kings with dominion over the earth with all animals as our subjects for protection. — schopenhauer1

Why not. Why are we not morally responsible for other animals?

Well, we should try to if they are in our protection. — schopenhauer1

On what grounds do they become "in our protection". Why are the gazelles on the African savannah not in our protection, but the humans at risk from the drought are?

There are no "local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty" causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin. — neomac

Sometimes I don't quite know what to say yo some of your responses. If you're seriously convinced that the war in Ukraine is the single highest toll of avoidable deaths and misery in the world right now then I don't think my producing any contrary figures will help.

A few million are currently at severe risk of starvation (according to UNICEF) in Afghanistan.

Off the top of my head, something like 10-20,000 are killed in the Myanmar conflict in a year, a few thousand a year every single year for decades in the Mexican war on drugs. The US supported war in Yemen has killed over a million with a similar annual death toll to Myanmar.

A failure to tackle air pollution kills 100,000 or more people every year in India. Even here in England there are something like 100-150,000 deaths a year from all causes that could be avoided through public health interventions.

There's wars in Ethiopia and Somalia which, coupled with famines, cause thousands of deaths every year. Half a million children are at risk of death from the latest drought and that's barely even made the inside pages of most newspapers, nearly twice that in Sudan...

But my feelung is that none of this is going to penetrate your social-media-soaked echo-chamber. So yes, Putin's invasion of Ukraine is the worst event ever, no one else ever does anything this bad and we definitely ought to throw as many Ukrainians as we can get our hands on at him to protect ourselves from his blatant attempt to take over the world. It's definitely not a regional conflict like hundreds before it.

So why do we protect other humans from natural (non-human) causes of harm, but not other animals?

this recent counteroffensive carried out by Ukraine is a huge embarrassment for Russia and this is something which adds more fuel to the fire. — Manuel

Yes indeed. Russia's had enough real failures to account for before even thinking about the social media exaggerations of it's incompetence. They've really got to pull a massive victory and fast. There's a host of options they might try toward that end which we ought to be trying everything in our power to avoid. Unfortunately social media has a mind of its own.

The referendums don't really mean anything — jorndoe

What I'm asking is if Russia think those areas are part of Russia and they defend them as they would any other part of Russia, then the belief that "Ukraine could never successfully invade Russia" seems to imply Ukraine could never successfully invade Donbas. Or, vice versa, if Ukraine have good chance of retaking Donbas, then they have a good chance of invading Russia and taking Russian territory. I don't see how an opinion (like that of the UN) can affect relative military strengths.

As you know, personally I think that it's a balanced metric. I think NATO-supported Ukraine could retake Donbas, but it will be a hard fight. But I'm not also trying to claim that Russia's fears were nonsensical because NATO-supported Ukraine could be no threat to them territorially, so I've got not contradictory beliefs there to try and reconcile.

The referendums mean a lot. They mean that the regions being fought over are now considered (by the Russians) to be part of Russia. That means that, in their eyes, Ukraine are now the aggressors. If you seriously don't think that means nothing then you've massively underestimated the Russian propaganda effort. If they can turn an invasion into a 'special operation' then think what they can do with a couple of maps showing the new 'officially voted for' border of Russia.