There's a difference between something being relevant interpretatively and something being visible. — Judaka

I’m not suggesting that we can ignore what we see in front of us. What I’m trying to add is that the idea of focusing on difference does not help to overcome the problem of differences. And I also think that when people begin this focusing on the differences they actually create a very basic understanding, or a stereotype, of the two sides. Which is not too far removed from the mentality of racists.

But if you take the original idea as memes being like viruses...they don't survive because they are useful to their host, they survive because they can be passed between people, and spread amongst the population, and are capable of adapting evolutionarily in order to survive the hosts mechanism of defence... — wax

I think this where memes actually differ from a gene, and is possibly the weakness in the potential of memes. A gene is passed on and survives because it does actually offer an advantage, or at least a sustainable position in its environment. So it is useful. A meme would still need more than just the ability to be passed on like a virus. Viruses eventually kill their host, unless the host builds up an immunity. Virus kill off whole populations. Memes are still just ideas. Though having just said that they could or can , and obviously do, create a physical advantage. But you can’t know that at the time, so why hold on to it? I don’t know if it’s helpful comparing memes to viruses.

Have I just talked myself off the page?

If my culture didn't care about the things I care about - could I still care about them? To what extent am I focused on things for reasons that have nothing to do with causation or truth, but simply prevalence? Are the interpretations I have of things always based on what I want them to be or did I just have to have an opinion about something because everyone else does? — Judaka

I think this is a very interesting point. The gay marriage argument, among others, was that it was ‘the right thing to do’. That’s a very persuasive argument. It became impossible to have a conversation. The argument for blacks is because of history, Colonialism, etc. We all ‘know’ what is right and wrong.

You’re right. All Western countries have similar provisions in their constitutions. I assume we all live in the West? I don’t think Saudi Arabia has that compunction. — Noah Te Stroete

This is interesting. Because you don’t actually know where I’m from, what sex, what religion, or colour. You debating only my thoughts, where we are all the same, were it not for the pretensions of our culture.

People in groups often say 'we should present a united front'... — wax

These groups may not necessarily represent the whole community in their efforts. Though they may believe they speak for everyone they operate as a small collective. Though I feel this conversation is beginning to slide sideways, as it often does.

By the way, we are not all American in this conversation.

Yes, I see what you meant. Though laws are enacted for the anonymous individual.

Laws cannot be written for individuals, — Noah Te Stroete

But isn’t it the case that they are?

But, what is “being black’, being ‘gay’?

that makes the assumption that emphasising differences is a counter productive thing to do. — wax

That’s what I’m suggesting.

Yes, I understand that. But my point was it goes towards emphasising difference, which is the problem. Unless blacks and gays think differently and are that different.

I am not trying to remove all prejudice, I am just asking whether if you wanted to remove a prejudice, whether it would be best to try to make it irrelevant interpretively or not. — Judaka

It occurred to me today that when I make my posts, in response to other posts, I have no idea if the poster is female or male. It was an odd sensation, because I wouldn’t even be able to identify them by subject, writing or argument.

Even in this conversation someone mentioned a particular music in relation to blacks.

So focusing on race, even in an effort to reduce or eradicate racism, creates or emphasises the differences. But how do we ignore what we see and all the cultural baggage that goes with it. Why do we say black? Why take pride in being black? Why think we are white? The effort to eradicate it creates the difference.

I once saw a teacher writing out a maths formula on the white board, explaining it as he went. When he was finished I felt compelled to say “That was pure poetry”.

Sorry, Ilya B Shambat, I know that doesn’t address your post.

I thought that large numbers of buffalo were wantonly shot -- and not slaughtered, maybe just skinned for their hides -- as a way of depriving the plains Indians of food. Is that true? Don't know for sure at this moment. — Bitter Crank

That’s my understanding, too. Though in the end it makes no difference why they did it.

What is still important?
— unenlightened

Is this your question?
— Brett

Yes. That is the question I am asking myself and the paper is asking itself — unenlightened

The obvious question, to me, leading on from this, is what do we need? What is it we should take with us through to the other side and what should we leave behind? Who do we want to be?

that in the dark ages, one must hunker down in an abstemious cooperative community dedicated to the preservation of knowledge. — unenlightened

This is interesting.

I didn't throw the hand grenade into the room, I merely mentioned it was there. Don't shoot the messenger. — unenlightened

I wasn’t intending to shoot the messenger. I just wanted to clarify your intention.

“an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture—often with the aim of conveying a particular phenomenon, theme, or meaning represented by the meme.”

“a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme.”

Take a dog who is the pet of someone. Maybe by their interactions they pick up on a way of thinking, which enables them to understand something they wouldn't have been able to understand if they had just been born into and lived in a pack of wild dogs. — wax

I think it’s very likely they will have a different understanding of us, and a ‘vocabulary’ that wild dogs wouldn’t have.

It seems to me me, though, that even if a dog understood a meme, would that dog be able to pass it on to another dog. If the meme goes no further than one dog is it actually a meme?

Could you consider hand signals and voice commands to a dog as being a meme?

If things like memes are actually part of how the mind and society work.
If an animal is somehow capable of picking up on a powerful meme, is it possible, for a brief moment, for the animal to have a more powerful insight or thought? — wax

Has this idea about memes been confirmed? A meme might appear as a simple visual shot of meaning, or a phrase, but, really, what sort of meaning?

What is still important? — unenlightened

Is this your question? I mean is this the point you’re trying to make?

If we’re mentioning Noah, are we talking about after the flood?

But I'm not in the business of researched analysis, merely of hand-waving gestures you can take or leave, according to whatever criteria you wish to call rational. — unenlightened

I’ve reread your first post and I take note of your “hand-waving gestures”. Which is, I guess, “just putting this out there”. Is that right? You threw a hand grenade into the room.

I have found that people choose a scenario and a probability depending not on what the data and its analysis might suggest, but what they are choosing to live with as a story about this topic. That parallels findings in psychology that none of us are purely logic machines but relate information into stories about how things relate and why (Marshall, 2014). None of us are immune to that process. Currently, I have chosen to interpret the information as indicating inevitable collapse, probable catastrophe and possible extinction.

Of course this is not a logical decision, it’s not even based on data and analysis, it’s a scenario individuals chose to live by. It’s a psychological decision that reveals everything about the individual. Of course some people might be lying when they say they chose to respond positively, who can know? Who can know if someone going with ‘inevitable collapse’ isn’t also lying, or doesn’t even know why they would chose such a thing, or doesn’t even know what they’re saying, being an irrational condition.

A little bid of levity, Unenlightened.

However, ‘fear is already dominating ’ was not answered.

Fear is already dominating, and doesn't need my little thread. — unenlightened

What percentage of the population would you use as evidence that fear is already dominating?

Why for me?

I’ve read this a few times but I can’t understand what you’re getting at. Can you give me a bit more?

I probably should have said that celebrity attained its perfect form in America.

Okay, maybe it’s not an American phenomen. What about the rest of my post, then? I don’t understand this response of jumping on a word or sentence that’s not the subject itself. The American comment is really an aside. The crux of the post is celebrities replacing actors in my response to Wallows post about actors.

What’s disturbing is that we have children believing that the world is going to end in ten years.

If I had left out the word ‘insanity’ how would you have responded to my post?

There’s something about your first post that I didn’t like, but I wasn’t sure what it was. Now I realise that it’s the whole issue of fear. The stakes may be very high and you and others may feel that fear, as a last resort, is called for. But I don’t want to have our problems addressed through the lens of fear. There are probably a long list of reasons for this position, but my main concern is how can anyone think and act rationally under the shadow of fear.

It’s probably true that there are some out there who can function under fear, and I suppose those are the ones who might make the decisions. But then again I don’t like the idea of those decisions being removed from me and being made on my behalf. Because if I’m living under fear I can’t even be sure about their position, about the quality of their decisions. How can we think theses things through then vote under these conditions.

This reminds me a little of the fear ramped up during the Cold War, until children were taught to hide under school desks and families bought their own nuclear bunkers. The insanity was high then and this doesn’t look so different.

One prominent feature of the US that surprises me is the fascination with people who act out different characters on television and the movies. I don't know how to describe the fascination with actors. Why do people love seeing their favorite actor on television play out a cop or evil villain, or some such person on camera? — Wallows

I think what an actor is may have gone astray over the years. Actors play a part written by the playwright, who has a desire to express something through characters he creates, or through his understanding of a character. Those sort of actors invest a lot in developing those characters for the stage or screen. Sometimes they may even be psychologically affected by the process.

What you might be referring to is “Celebrity”, which has subtly taken its place. This has nothing to do with acting. Though all countries seem to have taken it up it seems to me that it’s originally an American phenomenon.

Is agreement for the benefit of the weak or the strong? An agreement gives security to the weak and advantages to the strong. Though that’s not the only form of agreement.

But what if you have nothing to trade?

What is the Human Agreement? Is there one? Do we agree to get along? — tomdollar

With or without written or tacit agreement I think we agree day to day to get along. The slightest perceived threat and the agreement becomes shaky. After all, why do we need agreement unless there were these perceived differences in the first place. All agreements are perceived by each individual as serving their interests, maybe it’s protection, gain or some sort of freedom, whatever it’s for it’s a trade.

Life strives to reproduce itself, whether it has weak genes, abnormal genes or successful genes. We are all the result of a long line of successful genes.

We were not born with any point in mind. People have children because of their innate desire for them, not because those children might be scientists, or be happy, or create art. We are born to keep life going in our successful form. All life strives to reproduce itself.

Being alive, with the hope of passing on those genes, is the only point. Death certainly ends the point. But if life has been created from those successful genes then it was not pointless.

Yes, and all this overwrought discussion triggered by an old snake oil salesman.

Dr Jem Bendell is a Professor of Sustainability Leadership and Founder of the Institute for Leadership and Sustainability (IFLAS) at the University of Cumbria (UK).

He focuses on leadership and communications for social change, as well as approaches that may help humanity face climate-induced disruption.

A graduate of the University of Cambridge, he had twenty years of experience in sustainable business and finance, as a researcher, educator, facilitator, advisor, & entrepreneur, having lived & worked in six countries. Clients for his strategy development included international corporations, UN agencies and international NGOs. The World Economic Forum (WEF) recognised Professor Bendell as a Young Global Leader for his work on sustainable business alliances. With over 100 publications, including four books and five UN reports, he regularly appeared in international media on topics of sustainable business and finance, as well as currency innovation. His TEDx talk is the most watched online speech on complementary currencies. In 2012 Professor Bendell co-authored the WEF report on the Sharing Economy. Previously he helped create innovative alliances, including the Marine Stewardship Council, to endorse sustainable fisheries and The Finance Innovation Lab, to promote sustainable finance. In 2007 he wrote a report for WWF on the responsibility of luxury brands, which appeared in over 50 newspapers and magazines worldwide, and inspired a number of entrepreneurs to create businesses in the luxury sector.

This is not an impressive resume for discussion on climate change.