It doesn't care about those who lose out because a cheaper source, method or product came along. — karl stone

It cares a great deal if it is their ox that is getting gored.

Capitalism isn't a single entity; it is any number of rationally self interested actors in competition — karl stone

In an ideal capitalist economy, there would be independent capitalists and industrialists in competition. we do not have an ideal capitalist economy.

What we have are a set of interlocked banks, investment companies, and corporations. For instance, Autos, chemicals, and large banks are likely to have shared boards of directors, shared stock holdings, and shared ownership. Many institutions (retirement funds, endowment funds, insurance companies, etc.) own large stakes in capitalist organizations. Never mind individuals who own bits and pieces. They don't have a significant vote.

The point is, capitalists have both shared and conflicting interests. True, geothermal generation would be cheaper. However, J P Morgan may be reluctant to threaten coal or natural gas interests in which it has a large stake. Consolidated Edison may be reluctant to build new generation when it has major debts on existing plant. Wells Fargo Bank may be unwilling to lend the money to build new facilities when it hasn't recouped costs from huge fires.

Lots of good things--important and necessary--do not get done BECAUSE those who have great wealth (banks, corporations, individuals, investments funds, etc.) don't care; they have other concerns.

I'm not an apologist for capitalism; I'm a socialist of the dispossess the possessors variety. I'm only trying to provide an explanation for what you consider mysterious behavior. "Capital" and "Capitalists" are rational in textbooks. In reality, not so much.

Allow me to expatiate a bit more on the tragedy.

"The people" -- everyone pretty much everywhere -- is a captive of the larger economic system in which they operate. Billions of people recognize global warming as a threat to themselves, their families, their communities, and their futures. Still, the people desire to better their material circumstances, and this usually requires drinking from the common cup of fossil fuels and allied industries.

The decision to shift from 1 billion internal combustion engine automobiles to 1 billion battery operated autos was made in a few dozen board rooms far away from the people. And even if every corporate interest voted "Yea" for this shift, it isn't going to happen overnight.

Geothermal energy is a solution to several major problems just as very good public transit is a solution. So again, why not?

Take public transit. Where the economic commitment is extremely high for concrete highways, rubber tires, and individually operated vehicles, there is one extremely good reason to not invest in trains, buses, light rail, trolleys, etc.: the loss of the captive market. (In the United States -- a very large place -- there is no easy alternative to the automobile, except in selected sections of dense urban areas.)

Once upon an ancient time ending around 1955-1965, many American cities had good public transit systems (generally street cars and inter-urban light rail) plus many heavy-rail passenger trains between many cities. The street cars and the passenger trains didn't go out of business for lack of use: it was another decision made in several board rooms.

I happen to prefer all-cotton clothing. I don't want elastane added to my my denim blue jeans and cotton shirts. What do I find? Virtually every clothing maker now uses between 1% and 20% elastane in their clothing. Polyester shirts have dominated the shirt market since the 1970s. The decision to change the fabric content is another board-room level decision. A lot of changes in life come about that way.

Don't "the people" have a say in all this? To a large extent, no. We don't have a say. We want clean geothermal generated energy? Well, too bad. You're not going to get it until we the capital investment banks decide it's worth a lot to us.

Theoretically, "The People" have a say. We can organize our inchoate power and force changes we desire. But there is a very wide gap between what is theoretically possible and what is practically doable.

In the 1960s into the 1970s there were huge nationwide demonstrations against the war in Vietnam. Did these demonstrations force the Nixon administration to withdraw the troops? No, it did not. Did demonstrations force utilities to install solar and wind power? No. It was the falling price of wind and solar, compared to coal, that led to the windmills and solar farms. Etc. Etc. Etc.

"Big oil" didn't come into existence because people wanted a petroleum-based economy. It was driven into existence by capitalists (like Rockefeller) who found there was a market for grease and kerosene, and soon gasoline. What started out as a small business turned into a gigantic industry upon which the present economy was built and came to depend. Before oil there was coal, steel, and railroads which drove the economy.

Capital isn't directed into geothermal energy because it would compete with the sunk investments in petroleum (the whole vast infrastructure).

"The people" would be as happy with geothermal energy as they have been with fossil fuel-based energy (probably happier), BUT "the people" do not have the financial, technical, and organizational capacity to bring an industry into existence. Why not?

Well, start with cost. It takes a large capital investment to drill and capture geothermal heat. Then more capital is needed to build a generating plant. More capital still is needed to set up distribution lines for the electricity. Capital comes from the pool of cash held by banks and various investment firms, who already have a huge stake in fossil/wind/solar energy. It takes decades to pay off the necessary loans to build.

The upshot of this is that investment decisions are top-down, not bottom up. Starting any new industry, or changing an old one, requires the backing of capital. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

So, it doesn't matter to "the people" that there is clean, 'infinite' geothermal energy waiting to be tapped. "The people" don't get a vote on where capitalists invest their money.

It is really just one more tragedy of the commons where "the people" get shafted or neglected by the lords and masters of the economy.

Not much in the way of high temperature geothermal resources in Minnesota — karl stone

Perhaps the "cold" areas like Minnesota are the result of the thick granite Laurentian Shield, part of the North American Craton. The Tower-Sudan underground iron mine in northern MN is 2300 feet deep, and is not warm.

Yellowstone would be a great place to operate geothermal plants, at least until the caldera blows up again. National park fans would probably object. No matter. There do seem to be a lot of hot spots in the western US.

Benefits of Geothermal in Minnesota:
Energy savings:
Geothermal systems can significantly reduce heating and cooling costs, sometimes by as much as 70% on heating and 50% on cooling compared to conventional systems. AI text

The projects I have seen here use shallow installations to dissipate heat in summer and and acquire heat in the winter. For instance, a Lutheran church within 2 miles of me uses shallow wells located under the church parking lot to cool and heat. A housing development project within 1/2 mile was / is slated to use geothermal for heating and cooling. ("was/is" because the post is from 2023 and I haven't seen much activity of any kind on this large lot as of 2025.)

Putting in underground pipes to circulate water should be relatively easy given the use of shallow horizontal drilling. A lot of this is done for cable, gas, and water lines. How deep? Don't know.

A heat-pump extracting heat from very cold air doesn't make a lot of sense; taking heat out of 50º water should work a lot better.

Extracting energy in this manner isn't likely to generate electricity. That's OK by me. Geothermal would reduce fossil fuel use significantly.

@Karl Stone

Having very large power plants introduces requirements on the grid that don't currently exist — Benkei

It is the case in parts of the US that any large expansion of electric production (thinking here of wind and solar) requires substantial improvements in regional and national grids which are difficult. Cost is one factor, but that is probably less important than animosity towards having the hardware of the grid marching across privately owned land.

The short answer is, to solve the climate and ecological crisis. — karl stone

The Eternal Return all over again, from about 3 years ago. I thought this horse had been beaten to death.

As for solving the climate and ecological crisis (one and the same): Those who can solve it (petroleum producers, refiners, and distributors; coal companies; car companies; Wall Street investment funds, capitalists ad nauseam) prefer to keep the profits and the doomed future they know.

I can't agree with them, but I can empathize with their stubborn death grip on fossil fuel: It has fueled a long and fantastic period of innovation, economic growth, and prosperity. How could all that good stuff be bad? Indeed, it is hard to imagine. Billions of people can't imagine it, while other billions of people can see fossil fuels as a losing proposition. There's no one, single alternative. Sure, tap geothermal power while we also tap wind power, solar power, nuclear power, wave power, hydropower, and REDUCE CONSUMPTION.

The radical shift from fossil fuel to everything else will be a hard wrenching change. It just isn't going to be a pleasant walk in the park. That's what scares people as much as the doom of global warming.

There are, you know, markets that can mostly meet the diverse wants of the people. Grocery stores in the US do not have many parsnips for sale, while they do have large numbers of carrots available. This is a result of the market, not government policy. If 50,000,000 Americans decided that parsnips were better than carrots, then the ratio of parsnip to carrot would shift in favor of parsnips. (I do not expect this to happen.).

But markets are not beneficent angelic forces. Yes, it can get you apples and oranges, but If you want narcotics, the market can get you those as well.

Elections (in the United States -- the only ones I'm familiar with) not only conflict with the will of the people fairly often, sometimes they positively subvert the people's will. How can this be? Over the years, various rules of weighting representation have given some congressional districts and states more political weight than others. So it is that a majority of people can vote for X candidate, while Y wins the Electoral College vote. Prohibition became law in 1920 because rural voters, who tended to be in favor of prohibition, were more heavily weighted than urban voters.

Elections are managed by the parties, and the party leadership may have interests that are more aligned with elites than with 'the people'. No major party in the US has ever had a platform plank that called for the abolition of capitalism. Hell, they haven't called for even moderate inconvenience for capitalism.

Individuals voters do not always know exactly what they want or how to get it. 100,000,000 voters may be in the same boat. Part of the problem is that sometimes voters can not know what they are voting for because politicians may lie -- as in "liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels".

Anarchism is a great subject! I don't know what, how much, by whom, or when you read about anarchism and communism or socialism. Keep reading! I want to mention a famous Lithuanian - American anarchist, Emma Goldman (1869 – 1940). She never actually said "If I can't dance, it's not my revolution" but she meant it.

Goldman was an anarchist and feminist. While she never said the exact words, she conveyed the idea that revolutions should be joyous and embrace personal freedom, including the freedom of self-expression. It's a call for a revolution that uplifts and empowers individuals, not one that stifles them or demands absolute conformity.

I read her autobiography many years ago and found it inspiring. Leftist activists and thinkers can come off as repressive kill-joys, just as their hard line right-wing counterparts can. So find writers who uplift rather than harangue. Emma Goldman is one -- she's not the only good writer, and there are more contemporary ones. (I haven't read in this field for a long time, so I defer from suggesting authors.)

You might want to look into Anarcho-syndicalism, too. Their thinking involves the role of trade unionism which might be a bit dated now. Other leftist groups (Socialist Labor Party, New Union Party) see a critical role in industrial unionism, which is a broader base than trade unionism. Neither of these groups are anarchist.

Anarchism, socialism, communism, trade unionism, industrial unionism, and so on are part of the rich history of American labor struggles which were never consistent, simple, or unified.

One difference between anarchists and socialist/communists: Anarchists tend to think in terms of horizontal leadership and decision making. Deciding by consensus, for example. Communists tend to think in terms of vertical decision making: The leader decides and the rank and file complies). There are deficiencies and advantages in both systems.

It is a good idea to remember our evolutionary history. The capacity to experience, commit to memory, and recall was developed way before our arrival on the scene. What do (other) animals use memory for?

a) to remember where they put their food (some mammals and some birds have excellent location memory)
b) to remember who their mate is (in species where that's important) -- which goose is mine?
c) to remember where home is
d) to remember what is dangerous, and what it looks/sounds/smells like
e) to remember who is in my group, and what their and my rank is

and so on. Luckily, animals don't have to remember when taxes are due, when the next dental hygiene appt is, where to vote, how much the post office now charges for a letter, what brands my partner insists on, did I ever read a book by Nietzsche, or which lies did tell whom and for what purpose? But memory can reliably handle all that, excepts when it slips up.

I don't think we know, yet, precisely how a memory is stored, and where in the brain it rests, nor how we find it 15 years later. But we, geese, crows, squirrels, dogs, and elephants remember what we need to remember. We know what losing the capacity to recall or remember looks like in dementia. Alzheimers demonstrates how critical memory is to being whatever we are.

1. No.
2. I can't recall his being there.
3. I distinctly remember that he was not there.
4. I remember noticing at the time that he was not there. — J

Right. Memory isn't a record we can replay to double check attendance. It's not quite reliable enough.

Way-finding is largely memory based. Some animals (and people) navigate by remembering landmarks of some sort. Some have a less overt memory of turns, distances, direction--memory based, but maybe less conscious. I rarely get lost -- my spatial navigation is fairly good. Some people I know get lost very quickly. Way-finding is so ancient a function it's classified as part of the reptile brain.

Gadgets like smart phones, gps map devices, and the like off-load memory tasks, with the result that really very useful memories of telephone numbers, addresses, way finding, and the like are degraded. Writing itself probably degrades memory, something people worried about around 3 or 4 thousand years ago.

One can improve memory using deliberate practices. People doing classic psychoanalysis learn to remember their dreams (by taking notes immediately upon waking). Gradually their dream-memory improves. Students learning history, German, music, or whatever, also improve memory skills using various systems.

The thing is, a lot of functions combine in our brains: sensation, imagination, dreaming, memory, emotion, proprioception, the installed knowledge base (whatever we have solidly learned), physical drives, physical and mental disorders, etc. But still, memory function can be teased out by various testing routines.

I'm an old man. I've been sorting out stuff, and trying to reduce the inventory of miscellaneous stuff. One of the thoughts I have: This object (say an old shirt) isn't technically useful to me now, but it triggers memories of a time and place. If I get rid of my deceased partner's old shirt, will the memory that goes with it still be readily recalled? On the one hand: Yes, the memory is independent of the prompt. But if I don't have the prompt, how will I access the memory?

I am somewhat concerned more about forgetting than recognizing a memory as a memory. If I go by memory alone, there were long stretches of time when I didn't shop for groceries, did not do laundry, and never swept the floor. There were no servants doing the work, so I must have. From that same time periods I can vividly recall the smell of the Boston subway. From a different place and a slightly different time I do remember doing chores -- sometimes in detail.

"Memory" can be implanted, it seems. Do I remember an actual ice box on our back porch (circa 1950) or is this memory a plant from the recollection of older siblings? I can't tell which it is. It's a visual memory, no other sensations. My older siblings are pretty sure I wasn't there when the ice box was,

Can a memory even be implanted which is multi-sensual--there is a visual image, sound, smell, and maybe touch. There are all sorts of sensations making up memories of swimming when I was young. The smell of the water, it's chill or warmth, the water's color (brown in the crick, blue in the pool) and sounds.

At least sometimes we can fact-check a memory. Other times we just have to go by probability--like it is highly improbably that in 1970 I neither did laundry nor shopped for groceries. But I can't dredge up how these tasks got done. Where was the laundromat? Where was the supermarket?

Where should I start? — Quk

You might rummage through popular music of the 20th century to look for the antecedents of Rock and Roll. It didn't just burst on the scene without precedents. That doesn't take anything away from its genius or originality. Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms all had antecedents, too. "There is nothing new under the sun!" Nothing totally new, anyway, 99% of the time.

When I was a young man in the 1960s (or a boy in the 1950s) I didn't especially like rock and roll. Now, pushing 80, I very much enjoy listening to music from that era (not all of it, of course). And I still like Chopin, Mozart, Bach, Praetorius, et al.

Is there an aesthetical link between the sounds of the industrial era and the sounds of Rock music? Can Rock only work in an industrial environment? Or is that pure coincidence? — Quk

Someone told an early 20th century composer, Arnold Schoenberg, maybe, that they didn't like all of the dissonance and noise of contemporary music. He told them they were born in the wrong century.

Per Karl Marx, the state of production (industry, the economy, etc.) has a strong influence on culture--music, for instance. I'm not knowledgeable about how, exactly, the instruments that were played in 1600 were modified or newly invented over the course of the following 400 years, but they were. Just compare an 1750 piano with a 1950 piano. The Saxophone was invented in 1846. Consider that the first musical recording was in 1888--pretty primitive. Then came 78 rpm record; 33 rpm records; stereo records; audio tape recordings; CD recordings; etc. The first radio broadcast of music was 1906. The quality of radio broadcasts continuously improved.

All the changes that have arisen since the late 19th century industries has made huge changes in how we experience music, and yes, in the music itself.

What Cleopatra didn't have, among other things, was electricity. It would be difficult for any rock and roll band in the last 75 years to create the sound we associate with rock and roll without amplification of instruments and voices. It takes more than a drum and simple harp to do rock and roll.

There is something to the idea that rock and roll also requires sex and drugs. The ancient world had both, but, you know, without a disco ball, a few electric guitars, drum sets, microphones, huge base speakers and powerful amplifiers and all, it just doesn't work.

Never mind my "lust and trust" quip. The person who said it was describing the transition from eros to a more complex love, casual to more serious. I like it because it belongs to an important time and place for me (gay liberation in the early 70s).

But to get serious, we need to reference some Greek terms. It isn't that the Greeks experienced emotions that we do not, but they developed a vocabulary which is maybe more efficient than English's terms.

philia (affectionate friendship)
eros (sexual desire)
agape (unconditional love)
storge (familial love)
Philautia (self love)
mania (obsessive love)
meraki ("to do something with soul, creativity, or love)
ludos (playful, noncommittal love - from Latin)
xenia (the moral obligation of hospitality)
eroteuo (this verb can mean to love, say, an artwork, or a house)

These are not different parts of love, they are different kinds of love. All the various kinds of love, in your phrase "love as a whole", are what attaches us to one another, and without which we would not exist.

It takes a lot of love to make us human.

A human infant will not thrive without loving care--not just food and warmth, but touch, stimulation, eye to eye contact, and so on. From infancy onward, love in its various kinds builds the complex fabric of both personality, mind, and society.

a Grecian urn — GregW

Keates and his overwrought urns and lines of verse!

Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

I've always been reluctant to embrace this statement. Truth defining beauty defining truth: one large abstraction defining another even larger one.

There are many manifestations of beauty for which we should be grateful. Men, trees, mountains, planets (now that we have closeups), galaxies, flowers, horses, houses, towers, oceans and beaches, lakes, rivers, springs, cars (mostly in the past--now they all look alike), sculptures, paintings, film, photos, music (especially music), and more -- much more.

But is a beautiful horse, car, or tree "truth"? Was Keates thinking of a beautiful object conforming to Plato's forms? What about horse shit, car wrecks, and rotten trees? Bombed out Gaza is not beautiful, but there is a grave truth there.

Does Keates think that scientific truths are beautiful? (Don't know enough about the man.) What about Germ Theory; fission; DNA; gravity waves; the speed of light; continental drift? These are, as far as we know, real, true, and reliable. Are they beautiful in the way Greek sculpture, architectural proportion, urn-shape and urn-decoration is beautiful?

Perhaps. But "truth" seems dicier than beauty. Most people would probably agree that Mount Fuji is beautiful. Suppose it blew up (it could; it's considered an active volcano.). Suppose many were killed in the blast. Would it still be beautiful?

Truth, as Trump has demonstrated, is slippery. I think it is true that Donald Trump's policies are a threat to democracy and our economy. Millions will dispute that view. So is it true?

I don't know how it is for others, but when I was young, I was much more needy than I am now. I would expect a person's notion of love to change with age. — Athena

In my youth, sex had an intense urgency; love was more intense than, too. Our "first love" is remembered until we die, and that intense feeling is, perhaps, once and done. The love between mates may cool yet deepen over the decades, and if death parts us from them, we remember them with painful loss for a long time, also till we die. Now, in my old age, sex isn't urgent at all, and in love I feel complete. I have loved and been loved in return. I live alone now, content. I suppose I am waiting to die -- though I am certainly not rushing it.

Indeed, I work at delaying it. I am still delighted to learn new things. My current book is "The British Are Coming: From Lexington to Princeton". I've heard American history since 7th grade, but now I'm finding the (new) gory details of the revolution from both British and American POVs fascinating. It took 78 years to get here, but I'm glad to have arrived.

Isn't love more than lust, more than physical or sexual desire? — GregW

Love is more than lust. It can also entail comfort, security, warmth, and acceptance. The 'feeling' of loving or being loved isn't exclusively a sexual sensation but may be accompanied by it. We are embodied beings; thought, emotion, and physical response are combined. Even the sense of God's love may have a sexual dimension (thinking here of the Ecstasy of St Theresa of Avila). She wrote:

I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron's point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it. The soul is satisfied now with nothing less than God. The pain is not bodily, but spiritual; though the body has its share in it. It is a caressing of love so sweet which now takes place between the soul and God, that I pray God of His goodness to make him experience it who may think that I am lying.

"The body has a share in it." That is the case, and the necessity of our embodiment as physical beings. What St. Theresa experienced included 'awe' -- a sense now totally degraded in that damned dead-horse-word "awesome". But 'awe' means "a feeling of reverential respect mixed with fear or wonder." Run of the mill love or sex may be 'awesome', but a terrific experience of love might invoke actual awe.

Like when I walk along the river on a sunny day, I can not help but be overwhelmed by a good feeling and feel gratitude for this experience. — Athena

We have an inventory of feelings, senses, and emotions which arise from experiences in the physical world as well as from encounters with ideas, such as those found in great speeches, powerful poetry, or moving novels, and science books. Perhaps what you feel on your sunny river walk is not love, but not therefore worth an iota less. I also am moved by beautiful landscapes as well as by wild storms -- thunderstorms or blizzards. Even an ordinary day with wind and strong gusts can be a significant experience. A good storm is physically exciting, objectively frightening, and altogether fascinating.

These are experiences not to be 'desired' but to be had when they are available.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

Love is a combination of lust and trust. Desire for love -- either to be loved or love someone -- has an essential physical component that accompanies the emotion and thought of desire (for love). Love is said to make the world go round. Nobody ever said that the desire for the beautiful and the good makes the world go round. Of course, "love" requires an object. Free-floating objectless love is... what?

I tend to discount the ancient philosophers when they say things like "non-lovers desire the beautiful and good". Or that the beautiful and the good is loved by all.

Sure: who wouldn't desire what they think is good? Who wouldn't desire what they think is beautiful? Quite possibly Plato, you, and me would not find the same things good and beautiful. I suppose Plato and Socrates spent some time coming to a pat conclusion about what is supposed to be considered beautiful and good. You and me might be in complete agreement with Plato and Socrates, or not. Plato and Socrates also might not have experienced sexual/love desire the same as me.

Were it up to me to disclose anything to anybody, I'd advise the aliens that they get the hell away from this solar system at warp speed before a) something bad happens to them and/or b) they acquire some of our very bad traits.

It would be clear to long-time planetary observers that our species possessed considerable intelligence as an admixture of brains and primitive behavior which would make us unsuitable as participants in enlightened societies.

Now, IF these intelligent aliens insisted on hanging around earth, I would suspect that they were pursuing a plan to exploit our animal behaviors in some way not to our advantage.. Perhaps they need some low value soldiers in a war. They would have recognized soon that we could be coaxed into berserker behavior. We have reached a large population from which enough crazy berserker-types could be recruited. And if the rate of human death in the alien's war were quite high, so what? What good were we to them?

High levels of intelligence and technology do not tell us much about the state of the aliens' hearts (if they even have hearts). They could be bright, shiny, and ever so smart but still be children of the Prince of Darkness (to employ earthenware).

Welcome!

I think of myself as a "big picture" thinker; however "big picture" thinking had better anchor itself in relevant details if is going to be of any use. The world is a very detailed place but we (humans) have a large but very limited capacity to process all the possible details.

If you are looking for a cheap book to read in the toilet, Amazon is selling "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" by John Maynard Keynes for 39¢. Such a deal!

All important observations! I have a high efficiency toilet which empties the bowl with 5 quarts of water, much less than inefficient toilets. The bowl can also be emptied by rapidly pouring 32 oz of water from a height of 3 feet (+/-) above the bottom of the bowel.

Part of this is owning to gravity and fluid dynamics (don't ask me what, exactly). I wonder what role the shape of the bowl plays. Are some shapes more efficient than others?

A horse might be able to produce a flush by urinating into a toilet bowl. However, while you can lead a horse into the bathroom, you can't make them urinate.

Ask yourself: are you reluctant to use a trough urinal in a busy public toilet? Do you feel inhibited in that setting? What sort of risk do you perceive? Do you require some sort of partition between individual urinals? Do you use a toilet stall to urinate? Just how pee-shy are you? Does it bother you if other men speak to you (about anything) in a public toilet? Do you wash your hands after urinating? Do you use a piece of paper to pull open the public toilet door when you leave? How clean does a public toilet have to be for you to feel OK about using it?

There are several good films and books on the history of toilets. Here's an interesting one from England: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ftazg

AI, which never toilets itself whether it's full of shit or not says:

The history of the toilet spans millennia, evolving from basic pit latrines to modern flushing systems. Early civilizations like the Sumerians and those in the Indus Valley used pit toilets and rudimentary sewage systems. Over time, toilets evolved into chamber pots and later, "garderobes," which were enclosed rooms with a seat and a hole leading to a pit or cesspool. The first flushing toilet was designed in 1596 by Sir John Harrington, but it wasn't until the 19th century that flushing toilets became more widespread, thanks to advancements like the siphon system by Thomas Crapper. — AI AI AI

I remember reading a book about bathrooms in a bookstore back in the 60s which was about the architecture standards and requirements of bathrooms. Like, precisely how high should a toilet bowl be? How far off the floor should the rim of a urinal be, and how best to prevent splattering? Plumbing requirements, sanitary issues, how many toilet stalls and sinks in public facilities (like college arenas, concert halls, airports, etc.)

Worth noting: about 1/3 of the Indian population practice outdoor excretion (because they have no alternative). There are numerous disadvantages to having several hundred million people shitting outside -- poor sanitation, disease transmission, bad aesthetics, safety risks (for women, particularly), etc.

One thing about the modern toilet and bathroom: whether public or private, a high level of industrialization is needed to produce, transport, and install all of the utilities and equipment in several hundred million bathrooms. This wasn't possible until very recently.

Cities are still working on the problem of handling the huge volume of sewage that we produce: Chicago, for instance, is doing a decades long project to build deep storage tunnels and surface reservoirs to hold back 17.5 billion gallons of sewage when it rains. Without the system, a normal rain storm results in dumping a lot of untreated sewage into the Chicago "sanitary canal" which eventually ends up in the Mississippi River.

There is a very good reason WHY people have to be paid to work.

I spent quite a few years trying to find a way to get payed at jobs I didn't like much and at the same time pursue a psychologically and spiritually satisfying life. I did not find such a way. Sometimes I worked at jobs which I very much liked, and which provided some of the satisfactions I was seeking. Then it was fairly easy to enjoy life on and off the job. But that was not the usual experience.

Another approach I used was saving money so that I could afford unemployment (which on its own wasn't quite enough). The periods of not working for 6 to 9 months were very helpful. But, one has to be single and live simply to pull this off.

A critical difference between a life-deflating job and one that is life enhancing is the will of management (usually in a specific person) to dominate and control VS encourage innovation by individuals to reach the goals of the organization. There were two jobs which featured the latter approach: the first was at a university library unit that served media users (a la 1970s). The Library boss was extremely controlling, while the subunit where I was working was run by an innovator. The second was 10 years later at an urban AIDS project where the education group was all about inventing novel (and effective) means to increase knowledge and reduce risk taking. Again, the agency boss was, among other things, an arbitrary and capricious controller, while the head of education was a professional MPH who recognized the need for fairly off-beat ways to reach target populations.

The amount of pay was somewhat inverse to the level of enjoyment. The worst jobs I had tended to be the highest paying. "More pay, more shit." Up to a point, anyway. I didn't reach the "high pay low shit" experience.

To summarize: this entire world we currently live in is primarily built on fear, ego, and greed. These factors affect not just everything we do externally, but especially what happens to us internally. So many people nowadays are mentally unwell, or they live in fear, or suffer from depression, because of the deeply embedded illusions we are falling for. The stories we are telling ourselves and each other right now are deeply sickening and inhuman, which is a great shame. But there is still freedom to be found: you can dispel these illusions, reject the inhuman system, and begin to live authentically and freely. — Martijn

Your writing brings to mind Erich Fromm, a German-American social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist. One of his most popular books was The Sane Society. In a nut shell, the book asserts that we live in an INSANE society where sanity and craziness are inverted.

I'm not sure there are any entire societies that are sane. There are certainly communities within societies that are more or less crazy, more or less sane. But sanity in a crazy society is a difficult project.

I'm also not convinced that craziness is a unique feature of our contemporary society (say of the last 125 years). If we go back 10,000 years, won't we find the individual person contending with the demands of the tribe, family, village, local king, priest, etc?

The root of our individual and collective problem is the combination of animal drives coupled with a complex mind. I'm not elevating the mind above animal drives, because they are inextricably combined. Other animals do not live stress free lives by any means, but they don't usually adopt remarkably crazy adaptations to life. For instance, they don't become obsessed with the latest fashion, the latest diet, the latest political theory, the latest and greatest art, their location in the layers of prestige, and so on. That's our specialty.

Do lions and wolves become depressed? I don't know. Briefly, maybe, but probably not for years and years. (I've experienced long periods of depression -- now happily gone in my old age.)

Why am I not still depressed? Because retirement allowed me to get the hell out of the rat's nest and rat race of working. (It wasn't 'the work' per se; it was the negative aspects of the work-system. I flourished in some work places, failed to thrive in most of the others.)

It has been a big story. I don't think it became 'big news' just because media elected to make it big. According to BBC reporters on the scene, there were many people from around Europe who had traveled to Rome specifically to be present (from his death to his replacement). Plus it is a jubilee year and that had brought extra visitors in.

Then too, the Roman Catholic establishment knows how to put on a good show and they have a great stage there at St. Peter's, and that helps. If it were left up to Methodists to manage the funeral--or worse, Baptists--it would have been more of a blip in the news cycle. Size matters, and there are a lot more Catholics (1.2 billion) than Anglicans in the world.

I was somewhat surprised that there was not more coverage of the reaction of Catholics in Chicago. But then, once Mr. Prevost became a priest he moved on and up from his Chicago roots. There were a couple of interviews with former classmates in Chicago which were about what one would expect.

Would it be a good thing if the conclave was open? The rule about sausage and law not being made in public comes into play here. Who knows (other than the cardinals) what goes on under the veil of the holy spirit and mysterious proceedings? What horses were traded? Who was shafted in the process and by whom? Etc.

Awkward it is, but there is a lot of awkward juxtapositions within Christian (or any other religion's) institutions. For example, the matter of the church's wealth in the presence of poverty. Granted, the church isn't as rich as it used to be, what with various dioceses bankrupted after sexual scandals, another awkward matter.

Sex, wealth, earthly power, etc. is much less awkward (but not nicer) in secular institutions, because they set out to be in the world and of the world. So one isn't surprised (and not delighted) to find corruption in the corporate suites on Wall Street, Hollywood, Washington, Canberra, Moscow, or wherever. But the church (broadly) is supposed to be in the world but not of the world. It's a tough act to pull off--no easier now than 1000 years ago.

The "figure" may transcend nationality, but the pope is also a real-life politically, geographically, socially, theologically, and intellectually rooted person. He is elected, after all, by cardinals who do not have to transcend anything too inconvenient.

Pope Leo the 13th -- 1878-1903 -- was big on advocating for the rights of workers, calling for fair pay, fair working conditions, and the right to join unions. As far as I know, he did not consign capitalists to the lowest pit in hell. I'll take care of that when I become pope. Will I have to convert to Catholicism first?

There always was, is, and will be endless bitching and carping regardless of who is elected pope, president, mayor, or dog catcher. As the Bible says, the people are grass, quick to wither. So, some are thrilled and some are appalled by Pope Leo XIV's election.

A North American Pope seemed the least likely source; I thought an African or Asian pope would have signaled where it is that Catholicism is most actively increasing in population.

I agree. Life is good. And time goes by so fast when you are alive!

Say what you will and accept the consequences. Or, tailor what you say to suit the sensibilities of people who do not accept the notion of absolute free speech.

Obama's election. Conservatives could not deal with a black man as president, so to cope they tried to "other" him and went down a rabbit hole of birtherism, qanon, pizzagate, antivax, stolen election nonsense where conspiracies and enemies are everywhere. They're still falling. — RogueAI

No doubt a good many conservatives disliked the idea of a black Liberal president, but they were able to get on with life as we know it. Some people to the right of Attila the Hun, however, were filled with acute cognitive dissonance. The rabbit hole of birtherism might be a specific reaction to Obama, but I don't see the rabbit holes of stolen elections, Q-anon, pizza gate, anti-vaxing, and so on being unique to the Obama election reaction. It seems like there is always a sizzle of conspiracy out on the edge of the pan that never turns into a full boil (which would be very bad news).

Trump promoted the stolen 2020 election conspiracy quite deliberately and in the long run, successfully, as a strategy to keep his base motivated.

Good points.

I think the adults who need safe spaces, trigger warnings, and other such things are operating on a level similar to infants.

I would like to concede that I don't think it was always this way. — Brendan Golledge

No, it wasn't always this way. I'm 79. I'm glad that I was an idealistic young man in the 1960s and not now in these years of national decline and climate crisis. Who is responsible for so much of the decline and climate crisis? Capitalists, of course. Consumers who drank the various flavors of Kool Aid the capitalists were selling. Blame the liberals, conservatives, communists, fascists, farmers, factory owners, democrats (small 'd'), dictators, Democrats and Republicans. All of us. The moral issues before us now are far more grave than a war in SE Asia which was a life and death matter for millions. Now we have life and death conundrums affecting billions--all of us.

A lot of things aren't the way they used to be (and at the same time, some things haven't changed a bit). I'm not confident we will find a lot of common ground to discuss morals and politics.

I am tired of the general low quality of discussion on this forum, so I don't even really care anymore. — Brendan Golledge

Says you while scrapping the bottom of the barrel of comments.

I am not very impressed with female moral behavior in large groups. — Brendan Golledge

In general, I'd say one should not be very impressed with human moral behavior in large groups. As Immanuel Kant said, "Nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of mankind." Nothing truer was also never said

And you gave no examples of inconsistency on the right. — Brendan Golledge

OK, so "law and order" and the January 6th attack on the capitol by right wingers.

It's nice if there are smart women out there, but I was talking about statistical trends rather than individual people. — Brendan Golledge

Smart women have always been a trend, just like smart men.

I don't find much similarity between your interpretation of the left/right divide and what I understand of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. The idea of stages of moral development is reasonable; Kohlberg's explication may not be altogether reasonable. His view of women's moral development (as opposed to men's moral development) has been criticized. Your interpretation is decidedly not reasonable.

One thing consistent across morals and politics is inconsistency. People may profess a moral value and then act against it. Why? Because behavior is not guided by simple rules. Rather, our algorithms guiding our behavior are complicated. That said, we tend to behave in somewhat consistent ways.

at least they can see the inconsistency of the left and reject it. — Brendan Golledge

And the left can see the inconsistency of the right and reject it.

Pre-conventional morality is only concerned with power. People in this stage don't have genuine moral opinions, but only act off of reward and punishment. So, they will do whatever authority tells them to do, no matter how transparently stupid it is. — Brendan Golledge

Kohlberg assigns pre-conventional morality to infancy and pre-school. Can we say that adolescents and adults operate at this level? I don't think so. Some people claim that they performed acts deemed to be immoral because they were "only following orders". It's a cop-out under the duress of an indictment. The indicted made a series of moral decisions which placed them in the position of being ordered to perform immoral acts.

Morality has to account for the fact of power at all stages and from all POVs. Conservatives who say "I voted for Trump but I didn't vote for this!" are rethinking the implications of Trump's power. The left has also had to account for the fact of power. Having the power to allow public drug use (thinking here of highly addictive drugs like narcotics, meth, cocaine, fentanyl) has brought on intolerable behavioral problems, high levels of homelessness, and social dysfunction, which have proved intractable.

Another feature across politics and morals is short-sightedness. It's sometimes unavoidable, and sometimes it's a choice. Plastic was a wonderful thing when it was first introduced widely to consumers some 75 +/- years ago. We didn't foresee the trillions of plastic containers which we are stuck with now. On the other hand, someone with a memory voting for Trump might have foreseen that he would, if possible, enact extreme policies. He had described them clearly enough.

As an exemplar of sophisticated, mature moral judgement in a woman, I suggest you look at Dorothy Day, an anarchist / socialist who became a Catholic and spent a lifetime working for economic and political justice. She died 45 years ago and is now being considered for sainthood. Her own view on the matter was "Don't call me a saint: I don't want to be dismissed that easily!"

It's difficult to even imagine an entirely--or largely--unregulated large economy. How would an economy even become successfully large without regulation and governance in place at an early stage of development?

As you say, regulation becomes a problem only when it protects consumers from irresponsibility and outright predation.

Trump/Musk's rip-snorting chainsaw attacks on government agencies (USAID, Education, CDC, etc.) are an example of the kind of dis-regulation desired by ideologues. They want to disable services to the undeserving, like third-world people with tiresome diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, AIDS, and so on. In their view, students will conform to the locally run school or be damned. They find the third word of Center for Disease CONTROL offensive.

The way in which AIDS and other diseases came to the first world from the third world is a warning about how dis-regulation is a really stupid blunder. Disabling the IRS at least makes ideological sense -- the fewer agents available to audit the returns of wealthy tax evaders,, the better.

In all, the ideological urge against regulation is cynical. it's like the attacks on universities masquerading as a suppression of antisemitism. It's bullshit.

the quote isn't precisely apropos, but its thrust is in the ballpark: "If at age 20 you are not a communist, you have no heart. If at age 30 you are not capitalist you have no brain." - George Bernard Shaw, possibly.

The young are more likely to settle on radical sounding politics and moral severity for the same reason they are likely to settle on any other far-out sounding thing -- music, clothing, slang -- whatever. One's youth is embarrassing later in adulthood.

Then too, as much as young people won't/don't/can't admit it, the young tend to be kind of stupid (this opinion based on my experience). It's unavoidable. Why, after so few years, would they be otherwise?

For my part it took many years, several decades really, to become the sensible person I now wish I had been at 18.

@Athena. The military part of the complex has had an influence on civilian rhetoric, rituals, and practices.

Language that was once used exclusively in the military has leaked out into police, fire, first responder forces. Those who died while on duty used to be called fatalities or dead. Now they are called "fallen". Employees of the army used to be called soldiers; now they are called warriors. A fallen warrior has become a secret object.

I found considerable discord at the funeral of a brother who had retired from the army. The family wanted to use several 'martial' gyms and the Methodist pastor rejected their choices as inappropriate. The church did not have American flags in the front of the church. This change had apparently caused a number of veterans to leave the congregation. The ashes urn was covered with a liturgical cloth, rather than the flag which some people wanted. More angst.