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.

@Athena

The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives — BC

Bought the book and regret it, somewhat. There wasn't much in it that I hadn't heard about at one time or another, and the book is 17 years old. Not that things have changed that much, but some of the examples cited are off-putting--like references to MySpace, a former and now pretty much defunct active social site.

Nick Turse, the author, names dozens of consumer brands that receive revenue from sales contracts with the military, everything from cake mixes to toilet cleaners to bowling alleys.

I don't find much significance in the fact that General Mills sells Cheerios to the army, or that Apple sells its consumer devices to the marines. Much more significant are military contracts with research universities. Research is generally funded by grants and contracts--government or corporations, generally. Engineering research (mechanical / electrical / chemical / molecular / biomedical...) is shaped by the needs of the grant-making entities. Which devices, which kind of circuit, which chemical/molecular processes, which drug, etc. receives the greatest attention is determined by the source of the money.

A research department could focus on green energy generation or it could focus on better drones to deliver bombs to blow stuff to smithereens. It might focus on cancer research or bio-weapons. All sorts of alternate possibilities. Since money, intelligence, time, and space is always limited, grants determine what will get done and what will not get done.

Another downside of the military/industrial complex is that in order to keep military planners and civilian producers happy, a steady (and probably increasing) share of money goes for weapons and a decreasing share remains for civilian purposes. Again, money, intelligence, time, and space are always limited, and more nuclear powered aircraft carriers cuts down on upgrades to civilian water and sewer systems. Compare that shiny new bomber and the rusting bridge you use every day.

A worthy guide is Dante's inferno. — tim wood

Dante's Inferno makes me nervous. The Nine circles of hell are: Limbo (unbaptized and virtuous pagans), Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Wrath, Heresy, Violence, Fraud, and Treachery.

The only one which I could not, under any circumstances, qualify for is Limbo. One way or another, I fit the rest. Hence, my concern.

Just for those who aren't familiar with the term, "The Pale" of Settlement was the area restricted for Jews created by Catherine the Great. The Pale of Settlement included all of modern Belarus, Lithuania and Moldova, much of Ukraine and Poland, and small parts of Latvia and the western Russian Federation. The only way to legally move from the Pale of Settlement into other parts of Russia was to convert to Orthodox Christianity. Or one could emigrate.

People living "beyond the pale" (in gentile areas) had a higher social ranking than Jewish people within the Pale of Settlement. So, paradoxically, being "beyond the pale" might be a good thing.

What puts Socialists either "within the pale" or "beyond the pale", depending on how you want to slice it, has nothing to do with kittens. It is that we want to take your real property away from you. We're not interested in your crappy furniture from Target or your cheap clothing from Walmart. We're going to take your wealth-producing property--that apartment building you rent to people; the jewelry store you own; your factory producing widgets... If you are a billionaire, you'll probably be stripped of everything down to and including your shoestrings.

@Athena I just came across this book on Amazon:

The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives (The American Empire Project)
by Nick Turse (Author) Format: Kindle Edition

Part of: American Empire Project

A stunning breakdown of the modern military-industrial complex—an omnipresent, hidden-in-plain-sight system of systems that penetrates all our lives.

From iPods to Starbucks to Oakley sunglasses, national security expert Nick Turse explores the Pentagon’s little-noticed contacts (and contracts) with the products and companies that now form the fabric of America. He investigates the remarkable range of military incursions into the civilian world: the Pentagon’s collaborations with Hollywood filmmakers; its outlandish schemes to weaponize the wild kingdom; its joint ventures with Marvel Comics and Nascar, and he spotlights the disturbing way in which the military, desperate for fresh recruits, has tapped into the online world by “friending” young people on social networks.

A striking vision of a brave new world of remote-controlled rats and super-soldiers who need no sleep, The Complex will change our understanding of the militarization of America. We are a long way from Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex: this is the essential book for understanding its twenty-first-century progeny.

$10 on Kindle

Trump is our Hitler — Athena

I loathe Donald Trump in so many ways that it is difficult to disagree here. I'll at least say, "Not yet."

Trump isn't in the same league as Adolph Hitler. Trump is more like the pissed off dictator of a banana republic. That doesn't make him harmless, of course. Banana republic dictators tend to be bad news.

As opposed to a grand scheme authored by Hitler, Trump has a box full of personal resentments. He's a film-flam man whose ambition has been both met (2016 and 2024) and frustrated (2020). He's been investigated, indicted, tried, and in some cases found guilty. His alleged financial genius has been shown to be frequently fraudulent. He has been aided and abetted by a Republic Party which has gone in for far-right wing lunacy. Knowing his risks, he prudently stacked the Courts with as many sycophants as he could.

Now he is in a position to get even. That is largely what he is doing, but not entirely.

His policies toward migrants isn't personal, I gather. It's just policy. His proposals to absorb Canada, Greenland, Panama, and Gaza are crazy (not that insanity would prevent an attempt). His concern about antisemitism on campus is a smokescreen. His tariff schemes are lunatic--they can't produce the intended results.

Whether Donald Turnip personally resents woke politics, or whether he is just personifying right-wing resentment towards liberals, I don't know. But his efforts to dissolve the Department of Education, slash research budgets, lay off droves of government employees, appoint hacks to high positions, and so on is Hitleresque, and will degrade the quality of civil service to the public for a long time.

Hitler's Nazi administration was sloppy in many ways. Trump's administration is likewise sloppy. There is little professional quality, precision, and validity to many of his actions. This will make his various executive orders more difficult to undo.

Please focus more closely on the military-industrial complex. — Athena

OK. But would you please say more about what was it that the US copied from German / Prussian bureaucracy. Or, how was German / Prussian bureaucracy different than, say, French bureaucracy?

I don't believe that the US had the basis for a Military Industrial Complex (MIC) before WWII. What we had was a very large industrial establishment largely focused on consumer production/. The Great Depression suppressed consumer demand, of course. Military production ended the 1930s depression for us, just as it ended an earlier depression for Germany.

The US prepared for WWII by marshaling the huge industrial resources of the country for military production. Ford, General Motors, Kaiser aluminum / ship building, aircraft manufacturers, Westinghouse, petroleum products, General Electric -- everybody, basically -- switched to a command economy in military goods.

At the end of the war production shifted back to consumer production. There was a substantial lag-time between the end of WWII and the beginning of the Cold War which again required more military production. I haven't read much about this, to tell the truth, but I am presuming that the pattern of WWII military production was the basis for the MIC. Companies that were in a position to do so went after the large military contracts. Tight budget control over military production seems to have been absent from the get go, so there were a lot of "cost plus" contracts -- a gravy train.

Military production was spread around across congressional districts, so otherwise small companies in podunk towns received bits and pieces of production, and big companies received big hunks. The people liked having the steady jobs, which made the otherwise burdensome appropriations and taxes acceptable. This distribution of contracts produced public buy-in for the high-cost products.

Consumer production steamed full speed ahead; there was the tremendous boom in housing production after WWII, and a boom in all the stuff that people hadn't had the money or availability to buy. And there was new stuff, like televisions.

So the MIC developed in a "guns and butter" economy.

A critical aspect of the MIC was the production of political consent for the Cold War, military production, atomic bombs, B52 fleets, missiles, and so on--all very expensive, dangerous stuff. The military itself, were one interest group, members of congress who wanted to get reëlected were a second interest group, military product producers and their investors / employees were a third interest group, and the fourth interest group was the public who were daily reminded of the Soviet / godless communist threat to peace, freedom, motherhood, and God Himself.

The press and the public relations industry wasn't itself an interest group here. They were the instrument by which the public was fed information, misinformation, lies, fantasies, and so on.

The MIC was successful in its effort to sell the military/industrial POV to the public and congress. That was the danger Eisenhower addressed, and many trillions of dollars later, here we are.

I will soon have to leave this alone to pursue life support activities. But one more post.

What is your understanding of a military industrial complex? — Athena

A combine (mutually supporting) of the military and arms producers (corporations) which advocates for the specific interests of the military and corporations. The MIC is powerful because the number of agencies and employees is quite large and the financing is enormous. It is large enough to have a strong influence (able to steer, in some cases) national policy. It's a bad thing.

What does culture have to do with manifesting or not manifesting democracy or authoritarianism? — Athena

The culture is the all-encompassing ground from which politics arises -- anything between democracy and authoritarianism. The culture of France is quite different than the culture of Russia, for instance. Cultures exist over time, and the history of France and Russia are quite different as well. Culture is not concrete--it's not stiff, unyielding, and capable of supporting any amount of weight; it's more malleable, like a metal--with sufficient force it will bend.

How was Germany different from the US when the US mobilized against it? — Athena

My understanding is that Germany transitioned from a scattered batch of small statelets to a unified nation under Bismarck (a long story made crudely short). Germany played a large role in WWI, and lost; (Everyone 'lost' in that war, but the Central Powers were defeated.). The Allied Powers imposed a heavy penalties on Germany which were intended to keep Germany weak. Germany, beaten, bitter, and resentful ignored the penalties and rearmed -- in the process stimulating its economy.

Hitler and the Nazi Party led the process of rearmament and reorganization of German society with the intent of 'purifying' German society, acquiring lebensraum, and getting even with the Allies. The German Plan wasn't a state secret. The details were laid out in domestic propaganda.

In order to control the country, the Nazis shut down the previously existing political parties, purged the police, universities, and government of opposition, and in general terrorized the population so that doubters kept their mouths shut and followed orders.

The United States had emerged victorious from its Civil War and WWI. It had acquired lots of lebensraum earlier and had access to rich resources on its own soil. It was buffered by 2 oceans. it was generally wealthy and had a vast industrial base. It wasn't a paradise, of course. There were losers in the American system, and winners. Most people were in-between. The US was a secure society which had found the means to control politics, education, business, government, and so on without having to resort to terror or brutality (most of the time, anyway).

The US didn't declare war on Germany for the sake of Europe or because we found Germany intolerable. WWII began in Europe in 1939 and much of Europe was under Nazi control before Pearl Harbor, 12/7/1941.

What do you think fascism is? — Athena

The term "fascism" is a bit slippery, but in general: it is authoritarian; it is nationalistic in the extreme; it tends to be masculine--not in the sense of "men vs. women" but in its rhetoric and symbolism -- Fatherland, for instance, as opposed to Motherland; military vigor; etc. It's regressive and anal retentive in its drive for order and control. German fascism was intensely antisemitic, but the same was not true for Italian fascism. It subverts religious institutions for its own purposes.

On Hitler: It's worth noting that Hitler and the Nazis never won a national election. He didn't have power on the basis of popular assent. His power depended on duplicity, cruelty, terror, and threat of death--and the threat was not idle.

It's difficult to make sense of Donald Trump's behavior. Lopping off large hunks of the CDC or NOAA, for instance, simply do not make sense. He's either stupid, very corrupt, slightly insane, or all three.

cromulent — flannel jesus

Congratulations. You are the first person to use "cromulent" on The Philosophy Forum.

"Cromulent" is a made-up one that has gained recognition, especially due to its appearance in the animated television show The Simpsons. It means "acceptable".

How many Americans would turn against Trump if they knew the truth? The Germans were good people just like you and I but they believed the lies — Athena

Trump might not be as much an aberration as left/liberal types think. Trumpism has precedents. If you look over the history of the US, particularly since the Civil War (now some 160 years ago), there have been several highly illiberal, fascistic movements -- the KKK; anti-labor / union busting organizations; America First / isolationism; actual Nazis and Nazi sympathizers; white supremacists / white separatists; Christian nationalists, etc. They are a plague in the body politic.

Why, then, are we not a fascistic country? The government played a role in suppressing movements which threatened to rock the boat -- on the right and on the left both. Americans, by and large, have not bought into extreme ideology. (Perhaps extreme right wing ideology has had more success than extreme left wing ideology.).

BTW, not all the Germans believed the lies; not all the Soviet citizens believed the lies; not all Americans believe the lies. Trump's administration is not 100 days old, yet, so give resistance time to congeal. There were, over the weekend, large demonstrations against Trump across the country. Demonstrations, of course, generally do not deliver knock-out punches. Anti Vietnam demonstrations went on for quite a long time before the war ended.

More significant resistance will arise in the courts (or not; we'll see). Perhaps Republicans will lose control of Congress in two years (2027). Or not; we'll see. There is a good chance that Trumps tariff frenzy my trigger a recession. We the People don't like recessions, and we may be spurred to resolute and decisive action. Or not; we'll see.

In the meantime we have imbeciles in high office, which is a disaster in itself.

Whether and to what extent volunteers save money for an organization is questionable. It partly depends on the effectiveness of the volunteer manager. There are, as you indicated, other reasons to use volunteers. like building a base of support and good public relations. Some grants require the grantee to raise a share of the grant and volunteer time can be given a cash value and be counted toward the amount required.

You are quite right that volunteering contributes to community. That's not a small benefit.

Effective organizations, though, depend on paid staff to operate, which is as it should be. That doesn't take away from the usefulness of volunteers.

If our continued existence isn't a philosophical issue, what is?

A bright and cheerful future! I can't wait.

Climate migration is going to increase. Even communities imbued with charitable generosity in destination zones will be able to absorb only so many people. Then what? Enter the autonomous drones?

When in history have they acted in the interest of the world as a whole predominantly and consistently? — ChatteringMonkey

I would be happy if governments acted in the interests of their own populations, predominantly and consistently, never mind the whole world. This concern is highlighted by Trump's current predations.

One can die — unenlightened

I'm working on it.

Of course we need collective action which has to begin here and there without evidence that everyone else will join in. It has begun and is accumulating. Some states, some utility companies, commit to low carbon electrical generation. Some others don't, some others do. But then it becomes apparent that wind and solar are actually cheaper than fossil fuels. And here and there other states, other utility companies order up some turbines and solar farms. Faster change would be better, of course.

How we could survive in a post‑collapse world — unenlightened

So, here and there some individuals and communities survive -- probably more because they were lucky than because they pivoted, adapted, and adjusted continually. The title is too optimistic. It should be "How we might POSSIBLY survive in a post-collapse world, but don't bet on it".

Or maybe I'm pessimistic because I'm old and all the pivoting, adjusting, and adapting that is called for sounds absolutely exhausting.

Millions if not billions of tons of methane. This is one of the tipping points, it’s already well under way. — Punshhh

Absolutely!

Could you please provide a link to where this claim is made? — Agree-to-Disagree

That would be my fecund mind. I thought it was obvious that I was joking.

#1 I think that the land that is above the craton in the USA is arable. — Agree-to-Disagree

#2 The Rocky mountains also run down the west coast of the USA. — Agree-to-Disagree

Both of these observations are correct. Very good.

The depth of soil covering much of the US (let's say north of the Ohio and Missouri Rivers) has been accumulating since the retreat of glaciers from this area about 10,000 years ago. Over that time, between 20 and 100 inches of topsoil has formed (figuring an inch ever 100 to 500 years depending on specific conditions). Across large areas, the topsoil accumulated on top of various subsoils left by the receding glaciers forming soil with very good structure.

Northern Canada consists of tundra which is a treeless biome characterized by cold temperatures, short growing seasons, and permafrost, typically found in Arctic and alpine regions. Tundra is not "soil"; the plant matter hasn't been warmed up long enough to decay into humus. Further, the tundra does not have the firm structure of soil which would allow it to be cultivated, even if other factors (like temperature) allowed it. When tundra thaws, it becomes soft and squishy and will produce tons and tons of methane which will add to global warming.

There are large swaths of Canada covered by boreal forests. Leave the trees alone.

So, even if the average daily temperature of the tundra is the same as central Kansas, it will take a very long time for the tundra to dry out, decay, and become tillable fertile soil. In addition to that, there is no certainty that the temperature so close to the North Pole will ever be warm enough to grow whatever you want to plant.

Our best bet is to grow food for direct human consumption (no large animal feed; maybe no animal feed at all) wherever there is already good soil, sufficient water, and tolerable climate. If we can't grow enough food on the good land that exists now, then the population will shrink. I don't like that, but it seems inescapable.

There have been more than 50,000 heat-related deaths and more than 200,000 related to cold in England and Wales since 1988, new official figures show. — Agree-to-Disagree

200,000 people were suffering from hot weather. Then they took shelter in aggressively air-conditioned offices. All dead within hours.

Won't Canada and Russia gain a lot of arable land? — Agree-to-Disagree

Canada will not gain a lot of arable land, even if its territory warms up. What are the obstacles?

a) The Canadian Shield, for one. The Shield is the craton or hard rock core of North America and most of it is either exposed or very close to the surface.



b) the Canadian Rockies. Wheat doesn't grow well on mountain sides. Much of western Canada is mountainous.

A lot of Canada is flat, wet, and forested. It won't become good farmland.

The parts of Canada that can be cultivated are being cultivated.

Prosperous individuals can reduce consumption across the board. Live in less space; heat less; cool less; drive less; fly less; eat less (meat from big animals); buy less clothing; buy less furnishings; buy less appliances. Walk more; bike more (using your own power); use public transit more; neglect your lawn more; garden more; read more; socialize more; pray more (it might help).

A lot of people will be on the move to escape the severe downsides of global heating. Climate refugees will find a cold welcome in the territories into which they move. Good luck on making peaceful, equitable adjustments.

The globe will experience a population loss across many species, including our own. Fresh water is already one of the choke points. Paradoxically, there will be far too little clean drinkable water in some places, and far too much fresh water in other places. Salt water is already encroaching on coastal cities.

How do you think we can reach more people with this idea? — Alonsoaceves

Many people are willing to donate their time and energy to civic projects. Research on volunteering finds that "over 28% of Americans formally volunteering through organizations and over 54% informally helping their neighbors. The kind of volunteering found in this research is not the same as volunteering to serve full time in some form of civic service for one or two years.

It might be the case that Peace Corps, VISTA (Volunteer In Service to America), or Americorps requires an "historical moment" where young people want to delay college or career in order to work on meeting neglected civic needs. The material benefits of participating in these programs are not very great, but the personal rewards can be quite high. I don't know how to create the desired "historical moment".

Another approach used in some countries is to have 1 or 2 years of mandatory national service, either in military or civilian service. I'm not enthusiastic about mandatory military service, but certainly civilian service would be helpful for many countries, including the United States. However, as @Count Timothy von Icarus points out, "voluntary" would be better than "mandatory" in terms of commitment.

The volunteers are the primary beneficiaries of these programs, because they arrive; they do their thing; they gain experience; they leave. There might well be zero follow-up. The recipients of volunteer services benefit, but it often takes long term input to make significant changes.

0

I wonder whether ADHD is a disorder at all. — Tzeentch

That's a good question, and one which could be asked about a number of disorders. Homosexuality, for instance, used to be a very serious problem (still is in some places). For a long time smoking was not considered a problem. Now it is. Cannabis used to be a big problem in many places. Now it's not.

"Time makes ancient good uncouth" the poet said. And the uncouth can become good.

Good idea but not new and it is entirely do-able.

I was in VISTA for 2 years, back in the late 60s. It's now part of Americorps. It was a very good experience. Participants probably get more than they give, depending on where they serve and what their skills are. Young people usually don't have a huge stock of technical knowledge to share, but they do have enthusiasm, energy, and open minds. However, older even 'old' people can participate and they bring a different set of skills and capacities than young people.

No doubt many children are spending far, far too much time looking at screens displaying content that was designed to engage and hold attention for purposes of commerce. So I'm happy to blame screens. However, when ADHD became a public / school health issue, there were only the big screens at movie theaters and the little screens at home.

In the late 1960s children already had access to sugar, caffeine, food dyes and other additives. Along with the bad stuff, poorer children did not have access to a high quality diet. It might be the case that highly processed food and lack of quality food plays a part. Unhealthy food is still plentiful and many children still do not have access to a quality diet.

Most of the suggested causes or contributors are environmental.

Are there aspects of home life, apart from diet and electronics, that might contribute to ADHD? Are there aspects of the classroom that might be causative?

Is it possible that ADHD is not new at all, but that long standing behaviors became incompatible with the way schools are operated?

Damned if I know what it is, but according to the American Psychiatry Association:

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common mental disorders affecting children. Symptoms of ADHD include inattention (not being able to keep focus), hyperactivity (excess movement that is not fitting to the setting) and impulsivity (hasty acts that occur in the moment without thought). ADHD is considered a chronic and debilitating disorder and is known to impact the individual in many aspects of their life including academic and professional achievements, interpersonal relationships, and daily functioning (Harpin, 2005).

ADHD became a "thing" in the 1960s. I first heard about it in 1969 when I was working at Boston State Mental Hospital; there was an investigation going on into whether giving stimulants to hyperactive children would work. At the time there were a batch of theories about why some children were hyperactive: eating too much sugar, too many soft drinks with caffeine, food dyes, too much television, chaotic home life, bad schools, and so on. Paradoxically, some stimulants acted like sedatives in pre-pubescent children.

Some of us (young idealistic radical types) at the hospital thought that hyperactivity was a diagnosis of black boys who didn't behave in school. We also thought it unlikely that wealthy white suburban boys would be given these drugs. But, what did we know?

55 years later, ADHD has become part of the furniture. There is still doubt about it. I notice that quite a few older people I know (i.e., people in their 70s) are good at sitting still, but they display a marked level of inattention. Their attention is scattered and their ability to concentrate is limited, yet they don't seem to have dementia. Dementia, of course, would degrade one's attention, concentration, memory, and other cognitive processes.

I wonder if adult attention deficits are often the result of poor mental hygiene -- that is, they have not recently disciplined themselves to pay attention, concentrate, remember important facts, and so on.

I also wonder if attention deficits are often the result of depression.

Quite a few people think the problem with young boys is that they are in schools where there are far too few opportunities to engage in uninhibited movement. Apparently many schools do not have recess periods where children are let loose to play outside or in a gym.

Then there is variability of behavior: is hyperactivity designed to account for children who don't fit into th desired mold?

Next.

Let's speculate about how victimized women were in the past, so we can project more original sin on men in the present. The lord of strife cares not whence the resentment flows, as long as it does. — Tzeentch

That does seem to be the case.

Even if people--males and females both--don't live in accordance with the rules of a Quaker Sunday school, people do behave reasonably well towards each other in most places most of the time, now and in the past. Civilization, let alone survival, requires too much cooperation for anything else to be the norm.

Then there is the fact that we are animals and part of nature, which offends some peoples' sensitivities.

If by "the distant past" you're willing to go all the way back to when everyone was of a hunter and gatherer tribe, all indications seem to suggest otherwise. As far as I know regarding what is known at large, not barring exceptions to the rule, these tribes tended to be (and tend to be) very democratic in their leadership by our modern standards. — javra

Based on what information? Were you there or something? — Outlander

Old as I am, I wasn't there either. However, I have objections to some of the claims about hunter gatherers:

a) Sometimes the remaining hunter-gatherer groups are taken as examples of what existed 100,000 years ago. It seems unlikely that over 100,000 years, there would be no change in the way hunter gatherer people conducted their affairs.

b) I very much doubt if there is a shred of archeological evidence demonstrating that a people who lived 90,000 years ago, or 40,000 or 25,000 were democratically organized. If stones were in a circle, would that be proof?

c) there is some tendency to project current ideals upon the long-gone people of the past--100,000 years ago or 100 years ago--just as long as they are all dead.

d) there is some evidence that ancient people (hunter gatherers, 100,000 years ago) were capable of, and performed violence. A survey of a substantial number of museum skulls found that quite a few of them had been bashed in.

e) vulnerable women: How vulnerable were hunter gatherer women for whom survival likely depended on a fairly robust level of strength?

Homo sapiens hunter gatherers weren't just like us -- because much of what we are depends on when, where, how, and by whom we are bred and raised. That idea should be at least somewhat acceptable to essentialists and constructionists alike.

It's difficult to talk about how often women were raped in the distant past when at this present time, it is possible to be convicted of raping ones wife, which presumably is not the same thing as a young man engaging in an urgent fuck with a young woman digging up roots and picking berries on the savannas.

I take it by this that you weren't there yourself. OK. Neither was I or any other living person. But then the same applies to all history a century old or longer. — javra

A century ago or longer? Hell, it could be an hour ago, and witnesses might not be at all sure, or in agreement, about what happened.