That is not what "originalism" in regards to Constitutional interpretation means. An originalist will attempt to determine how a modern thing like the Internet would fit in to the original purpose of relevant parts of the Constitution. Something as broad as the "the Internet" falls into multiple areas. In regards to this story of the relevant area in the Constitution are the 1st and 4th amendments.
When the Bill of Rights was passed the purpose of those amendments was to restrict government action that may limit a person's ability to share ideas. I think that clearly makes anything that makes privacy online harder unconstitutional.
But, we also don't need the Supreme Court to weigh in on constitutionality. It is the responsibility of citizens to assert their Constitutional rights. That often looks like law suits against the State trying to infringe on our rights.
Primitive survival in places with winter requires storing rations for the winter months. Dried meat, fruit, seeds, and rendered fat are what it takes to survive winter.
Maybe it is best to think of many plants as photochemical food factory extensions for mycorrhizal fungi. Some plants can do without but many will suffer without a specific mycorrhizae.
I am more and more convinced that the separation into different living beings is somewhat artificial. If there are multicellular organisms, then an ecosystem as a whole can also be considered a life form.
This isn't really a new thought. It's exactly what's meant by terms such as "circle of life" or "ecosystem". The separation of individual beings is entirely artificial, or if your being more charitable and technical, analytical and descriptive.
Science is not reality. We abstract reality to make nice and useful models. Reality violates our models constantly.
Circle of life isn't going far enough, though (and is usually used as a mystical device anyway).
If you want to go to the furthest defensible extreme[0], then all of life is just one long, violent, ever-expanding chemical chain reaction, that started some 4+ billion years ago, and shows no sign of stopping[1]. What we call life - cells and plants and fungi, bacteria and cows and people - are just stable-ish substructures you could identify within the fractal complexity of that chemical fire, that completely enveloped the surface of this planet, cracked it and reached deep underneath, and recently even started spitting bits of itself to the Moon, Mars, and even beyond the Solar System.
This framing isn't particularly useful to us most of the time, but I find that occasionally invoking it helps really understand that there is no such thing as "an individual" or "a specific object" in the physical universe, no true boundary separating this fox from that squirrel, or this person from another. It's how we perceive the world because the approximation holds up at our time scales, but on occasion (such as when discussing nano-scale things, or evolutionary biology), it's worth remembering it's not true. Nature doesn't have boundaries.
--
[0] - Going further makes things too generalized to be useful. Like, yes, we're all made from star stuff.
[1] - Think of it like of the "Game of Life" or such simulations, where most states quickly decay to nothing or some static form, but every now and then you'll find a configuration that just explodes and keeps going, expanding its borders and perhaps leaving behind some further explosions on a fuse, recursively. Life is like that.
Didn’t claim it was. It’s just something difficult to really accept, at least to me, inhabiting a body that definitely feels very distinct from my environment.
I was afraid that would happen. My comment was really more aimed at being a comment to yours, than a reply. The fact that you're starting to "feel" this as being more true is not negated or impacted by it being an existing thought. Thoughts like this take time to settle into experienced truth, and i appreciate that. Had we been conversing that would have been a non-sequitur, and i would not have made it.
One of the problems with comment systems though is that we are at once conversing and broadcasting. The comment was more intended on being a broadcast than a direct reply to you, as a breadcrumb for anyone interested in the path you were taking to maybe seek it out in existing literature.
I don’t understand all this thinking when some minor editing would have made confusion much less likely.
> > This isn't really a new thought.
Dropping this still leaves the whole intended meaning of the comment intact. That it isn’t a “new thought” is clearly inferred by “meant to terms like”.
Or even just dropping “really”, which in this case looks like a discourse marker.
Maybe a key distinction is collaboration vs. competition. The more collaboration between individual "units" (e.g. cells in a multicellular organism or organisms in an ecosystem) the more they behave like a single thing. Ant colonies are also a strong example.
To an extent, yes. I'd say the difference is government systems. A single organism, or something like the human body, has more evolved, more sophisticated government mechanisms. The body is mostly a cooperative civilisation of cells. Of course, there's still natural competition among them, in many shapes and forms. The cells are held together in a coherent, agile, resilient organism by governance systems strong enough to keep internal Darwinism from becoming civil war.
Hah! What do you call the cap and trade group? The whole trillion dollar "carbon credit market" is a farce built to profit from climate change catastrophism.
You are mistaking the beneficiaries here. Carbon credit scheme is indeed a greenwashing scam and it is pushed by the oil and gas (plus adjacent) industries. It is plainly obvious that shuffling emissions between jurisdictions does jack shit against reducing the actual real amount of emissions to the atmosphere. Basically the main proponents of the carbon credit fraud are the same people financially motivated to reject long term climate change consequences (aka anti-"catastrophists" in your lingo).
If cap-and-trade held the same levels forever you would be correct. But all of the cap-and-trade systems I am aware of have a built-in lowering of the cap over time. So they start out doing nothing/very little, then ramp up to meaningful reductions over time.
The idea being both to make it easy to get people to agree today (the reductions are tomorrow's problem), and to allow time (and foresight) for industry to adapt to where things are going.
Small change compared to global fossil fuels. Energy (which is still mostly fossil fuels) is 10% of the world GDP.
Climate-change denial is just like tobacco-cancer denial. It's the same banal "I win, you all lose" mechanism. Enormous resources are available (along with the useful idiots) to propagate falsehoods.
It is my hope that humans can ditch their love affair with pesticides. This is just one example of the unintended impact of pesticides.
I have also found dying birds in my yard a few days after the neighbor sprayed their house perimeter for ants. No toxicology report but there was no sign of any physical damage.
Pesticides form the backbone of crop protection. Without them, we're looking at at least a 40% reduction in global yield, and much greater uncertainty in food supply chains (the oil shocks show how bad that can be). Pesticides per se are not the problem; synthetic broad-spectrum pesticides with many unintended effects are. They're often toxic to people and ecosystems, and resistance among pests and pathogens is increasing anyway, so their days are numbered to a degree. Biopesticides, which are generally safer and much more sustainable, offer a real solution to at least the safety issue.
I work on RNAi-based biopesticides (sprayed dsRNA) - non-GM, doesn't impact beneficial species, doesn't hang around in the environment, etc. Already ubiquitous in nature (and part of our diet). Peptide-based biopesticides are another approach that is going well. Both approaches are now commercialised by smaller players (e.g. for varroa mite control in bee hives by GreenLight), and not by the Bayer, Syngenta types.
Pesticides form the backbone of crop protection. Without them, we're looking at at least a 40% reduction in global yield
Such numbers might be ballpark correct, but I think the "without them" here literally means "if we take current industrial agriculture and simply drop pesticides" i.e. without any other change. Pretty obvious that yes, doing so will easily get you to numbers of that magnitude.
So it's a bit strange not considering the various root causes of what requires those pesticieds in the first place: monocultures on dead soil and nothing which even begins to resemble a normal ecosystem in sight. Those causes happen to be exactly among the causes of the massive insect/more general biodiversity decline we're witnessing. Along with pesticides, sure, but habitat loss is likely an even bigger factor.
So while those biopesticides are probably a net win over what is used now, it's rather unclear if they'll have a meaningful impact on that decline. Which is why reports on solutions for the decline also always include adressing at least part of the root causes, like partial shifts back to landscapes which are a mix of nature and agriculture. Where there's at least a bush/tree line between fields, for instance. Which also helps keeping certain pests in control.
We throw away half of our food and waste it. If humans had less agricultural yield due to decrease in use of pesticides, we'd start to be more efficient with what we grow, and choose agricultural crops that are more efficient for generating calories and micronutrients per acre and per precipitation/sunlight/whatever.
We send rockets to the moon and every person is getting phones. We would survive without pesticides.
Without them we would simply farm differently. Polyculture has now been thoroughly scientifically validated for its capabilities of dramatically reducing reliance on pesticides. It's not a fringe theory any more and we need to transition yesterday
That's the problem. It appears companies are allowed to use consumers as guinea pigs for substances with unknown or possibly bad outcomes. All this "stuff" should be on warning labels.
If these substances slowly cause cancer (making it harder to trace) or other health problems, like birth defects or fertility problems, it can take a generation to figure out. The money has long been took and the getaway car long gone. Just lots of damaged and sick people wondering what happened, who will likely not even get a "sorry".
i had a salesman say he noticed i had a lot of spiders around outside. he asked who i currently use for pest control. i said, "the spiders." he excused himself and left.
maybe they don't make great decorations, but the spiders generally stay in their webs and don't bother me. i once watched one defeat a wasp twice its size. i might feel differently if we had any dangerous spiders around here (just black widows, and they stay in dark hidey holes), but i'm happy to trade a little space for their services.
Whenever I see a spider indoors I try to remind myself that for every spider I see I am probably seeing 10 less of other bugs. And if the spider is unsuccessful in catching other bugs it will leave on its own
Indeed I live somewhere that has both black widow and brown recluse and they are about the only two spiders I will actually exterminate. Even the fast scary hunter and wolf spiders get a pass
This was my about reaction when I was renting a house and a guy was going door to door to get people to sign up for yard bug spraying. Wait the bugs are already outside and you want to kill them? That’s where they live.
Asbestos... Lead, CFCs, mercury, cadmium, radium, petroleum, DDT, BPA, microplastics, PFAS, organophosphates, pyrethrins... The more wonder materials turn out to be devastating for human health or environmental stability, the more I think maybe the "no (synthetic) chemicals" crowd have a point.
Or rather, that maybe we're learning the wrong lesson each time. Maybe instead of "asbestos is bad" or "DDT is bad", the real lesson should have been "biological and ecological systems are incredibly fragile outside of the exact combination of environmental conditions and chemical inputs they've specifically evolved to handle".
Too much complexity, too many delicate mechanisms and feedback loops. Can't afford to keep playing whack-a-mole, every generation we replace the old poisons and add some new ones. If we keep introducing new molecules and quantities of substances that evolution hasn't had a chance to adapt to, then we shouldn't be surprised that we keep breaking things.
But let's not pretend we don't use pesticides for a reason. People gotta eat, and pyrethrins are already an improvement AFAIU, less toxic to mammals, similar to molecules that exist in nature. But still, a cudgel. Maybe we need to take ecological engineering seriously, control pest species by simultaneously cultivating stable ecosystems of insectivores/predators and hyperparasites, poison spray not required...
This stopped working in the mid-Atlantic when invasive tiger mosquitoes arrived. They need like a bottle cap sized amount of water so even things like a flower can hold enough water for them to reproduce.
We’re using scented lures which have the right salt + lipid combo to attract mosquitoes. It helps but I still wish Nathan Myrvold had seriously developed that “photonic fence” product.
I think the next best thing is an automatic turret that fires salt bullets or something, maybe AI. Hopefully it doesn't take an eye out, but if it took out like 1million mosquitoes for 1 eye, worth it?
The only things that work around here are the thermacell repellents (they have a little butane fire that evaporates stuff off a mesh pad). Their effect seems pretty localized in time and space, but I wonder what's in them, and how problematic it is.
A few countries in the EU have been encouraging people to fix their gardens. Remove some tiles, use native/local seeds for weeds and wild flowers and let nature do its things. That seems to work. Local insect counts are going up where that happens. Even simple things like mowing strips of grass next to the roads less often seems to help. And it's actually cheaper to not mow that so often. So, win win. They'll clear it maybe a few times per year as needed.
There have been some anecdotal reports of people having to clean their car windscreens a bit more often. That's a good thing. It means more bugs are flying around. Insect counts go up, counts of anything that eats those goes up as well.
Reducing the use of pesticides is a good idea as well. If only because modern farming still depends on pesticides and pollinator populations collapsing seems to be correlated with the use of pesticides. No pollinators, no fruit/vegetables. It's in their own interest to do something about populations collapsing. Allocating some of their land for pollinator friendly vegetation would also be smart.
A lot of over the counter toxins should be banned and in EU the use and sale of those is already restricted. Even rat poison is banned in some places now. Unfortunately, farmers seem to have successfully lobbied for being able to continue to use some pesticides. But it seems that awareness of the issue is growing; including of the health effects of living close to a farm that uses pesticides. It's likely that more restrictions will come eventually.
I suppose we do not even know exact reasons of decline of wildlife population. Quite definitely it is due massive intervention of human activity, but which aspects exactly? Light pollution might play big role in insect population decline.
Admittedly I have only read of Canadian Healthcare, but, that is not what I have read. Terminal patients and the elderly are offered death as a treatment. Cancer patients are the most common. About 5% of deaths in Canada are from the MAID program.
One of the authors, Beatriz Villarroel, has been interviewed on this topic several times. She has never said "its aliens". She just says its interesting and warrants investigation. She is also a little stunned that nobody has investigated pre-sputnik transients before.
When the Bill of Rights was passed the purpose of those amendments was to restrict government action that may limit a person's ability to share ideas. I think that clearly makes anything that makes privacy online harder unconstitutional.
But, we also don't need the Supreme Court to weigh in on constitutionality. It is the responsibility of citizens to assert their Constitutional rights. That often looks like law suits against the State trying to infringe on our rights.
reply