Environmental Instability Leads To Political And Economic Instability, Which Leads To Social Instability, Which Leads To More Environmental Instability

Not necessarily in that order of course, but you get the idea. And we have to be clear here that by environmental we are being very inclusive as to the multi layered matrix of natural systems, and human made systems.

And the human toll only climbs as those who have the means to effect these different systems continue to pretend that, no matter how our ability to do things changes, we can carry on with the economic operating model that is responsible for so much of the over all systems damage in the first place, environment wide, over the last several hundred years of its existence. The very, several hundred year model, that is now so mutated and monstrous. Quite destructively monstrous. We cannot continue to rely on it precisely because to do so will kill very large numbers of us at the very least, before some kind of new equilibrium is found; or will more likely kill our species out entirely as the unchecked, mean temperature rise, makes human life, at least, quite impossible.

15,200 children arrive in Europe on own as migrant crisis deepens

See Also:

FROM BAD TO WORSE

Lake Chad: The World's Most Complex Humanitarian Disaster

6 diggs The New Yorker World

Boko Haram, climate change, predatory armies, and extreme hunger are converging on a marginalized population in Central Africa.

Another Aspect Of The Complexity Of Dirt, And All That Lies Beneath It

What an amazing thing it is to consider all of the activity. All of the processes to aggregate, transfer, and become even more complex, that go on all around us; every second; at every scale of consideration you might want to imagine. Just in whatever room you might be in and the amazing biota that inhabits your floor; your rug, your furniture, and you. And that's just for starters.

This complexity with dirt is no small thing as well when it comes to thinking about self sufficient habitats off world. Previous experiments with closed systems have gotten it wrong and so there's probably going to need to be considerable work done to better understand those kinds of systems. The kind of research depicted here is a very good step in that direction.

Life goes deeper

"Matter Without Matter" Strongly Suggests Just How Much Working From Faith Has Entered Physics

I highly recommend reading the linked article below from Nautilus. It is a wonderful recap of where physics now stands as to the true manifestation of matter.

It turns out that a fixed translation, via a specific object, to thus aggregate a stable thing that has mass, is not so easy to track across so many scales of consideration. Made especially more difficult when you keep determining that the objects close to your nominal scale of actual perceptive existence keep demonstrating the annoying tendency to simply be a never ending series of more encapsulated systems of other objects simply whirling about, expressing energy in one form or another within consistent, generalized boundaries (which are of course another can of worms to try and open).

Fortunately this is faith well placed because there have been lots of useful observations that have made making indirect inferences quite reasonable. So it is, therefore, quite reasonable to assume that the whirling processes, for whatever encapsulated system, must produce at least the effect of mass. This must be so because no matter what, inertia will have to be dealt with in the larger frame of reference that the selected "object" has to exist in.

So we must conclude that "assumed mass" is real. This really shouldn't be a big deal, though, from my perspective. After all, isn't that what relativistic mass is when you accelerate said object? The inertia thus created would certainly equate to a given mass, quite beyond the nominal mass of the object itself, especially if were to come to a sudden interaction with another "fixed" object, releasing more energy than the first objectified whirling system, of other, lower scale objects, would possess of themselves.

This conclusion then makes me wonder why physics as a whole isn't investigating relativistic mass a great deal more. It seems to me that this would be a much more useful area of inquiry than, say, continued blasting away at some of these same objects with accelerated protons (or whatever else they might use as a bullet).

I have posted on this before certainly. And I still think that this is a completely wrong headed way to go about observational science. Especially now that really tremendous energies are starting to be applied. The fact of the matter here, as this article makes plain, is that there is just so much in the intervening levels of scale that are being blasted down into, that we cannot know of, and so must take on faith, that there ought to be a great deal more self examination about what kinds of observational prejudice might be introduced when you make interactions for which you have so little true understanding of.

The simple fact of the matter is that they still don't know for sure whether very high energy impacts made by scientists have the very same effect as those made by natural causes. And in fact, how could you ever know that for sure? As I have also stated many times not everything will lend itself to truly objective measurement, or testing, so at some point faith has to come into the picture. And I, for one, don't have much faith in an approach that relies on destruction to this extent.

Two Seemingly Separated Stories, But Both Sharing The Common Thread Of Growing Instability, As Well As How Everything Affects Everything Else; eventually.

This is why it is so important to understand why we must keep faith with the idea of "enlightened self interest." Because in that do we see how we must always strive to address instability with the best balance of thoughtful practicality, and heartfelt empathy. We must do this even if others do not because it necessary, right, and a moral imperative.

With the analysis, and subsequent proposals laid out in my two blogs, we could address the root causes of poverty and start to truly address them in a very straight forward way (getting rig of Capitalism of itself would be a good start). With the technologies, and the proposals I've outlined for applying them, we could start building new living habitat for people here, and abroad. And we could do this in a way that would give us the working means to start building bridges of cooperation with those whom we now have growing tensions with. And there are certainly a great number of other technologies we could also apply, with very creative new ways to do the applications, if we were no longer burdened with the old economics of structurally institutionalized scarcity.

We must also do this, however, precisely because this vast new array of new instrumentality, and the many new ways to use it all, has created an entirely new kind of operating environment. One never experienced before. To think we can continue with business as usual in the light of this is absurdity taken to heights exactly appropriate to the crazy we now see becoming the new norm in life here, and in the rest of the world.

I've said it before, and I will say it again: We must change now or die.

The haves and have-nots: four cities in crisis

The End of German Stability

The collapse of coalition talks bodes badly for Angela Merkel, and for democratic governments everywhere.

Who Knows What Might Emerge If We All (holding our noses) Found A Way To Cooperate With The "Stupid" People

Perspective is everything as they say. The bottom line for me now is that who the "stupid" people are, in any supposed, ultimate objective sense, is irrelevant; at least as far as it compares to simply preserving our species and, oh, I don't know... Maybe even saving some biodiversity on this planet?

I am also thinking we better damn well hope that stupid things are smarter together. It may well be the only hope we have left (after keeping faith with love in the first place of course).

UNDERSTANDING EMERGENCE

Why Stupid Things Are Smarter Together

14 diggs Science

How can something be more than the sum of its parts?

Maybe We Should Consider Replacing The Insane System That Puts The Emphasis On Ever More Mass Production And Consumption...

...Rather than thinking we need AI to replace us. Or that the situation is simply just hopeless altogether.

From my perspective the problem is both a product of insane competition (and the need of everybody to find that one new development that will give them the next cutting edge), as well as the commercialized, commoditization, of Science. Whereupon you then have not only overproduction, but of course really shabby production as well. And naturally the consumption becomes incredibly shabby as well.

Make no mistake, though. We are capable of handling a great deal more than we have demonstrated so far, in the context of complexity, and vastly interconnected systems. The thing is, though, we've never been given the chance to develop in the way that a properly organized, and philosophically balanced, society could produce; especially if that balance was worked around the idea of thoughtful, loving structure. As opposed, of course, to the old, primitive, thinking of the economics of scarcity.

What is really critical now is not only ability to recognize the need for change, but our resiliency in adopting the will it will take to make the needed change happen. If we can tap into these then we can survive, and prosper, as a species, and perhaps even save this planet in the bargain.

It all boils down to personal choice. Your personal choice dear reader. What will you choose?

CRISIS ALERT

Science Has Outgrown The Human Mind

12 diggs Quartz Science

In the age of big data, the human mind simply does not have the capacity to keep up.

See Also:
[Post Note: From my perspective, it is always a case that, with Capitalism, if something can be corrupted, it will be. J.V.]

Aeon -- Against citizen science

Indoor Farming May Be Able To Make A Big Difference For A Bunch Of Reasons

From my perspective, of course, the one nice thing about looking at various approaches to indoor farming, is that it gives communities, who want to be as self sufficient as they can be, have confidence that, no matter the regional environmental specifics, truly amazing things might be possible for these same communities to feed themselves almost exclusively.

That is, however, if we can make the investments in effort to bring these things into existence (and for the greater good, as opposed to singular profit) without regard to abstractions like money. If it is for us, maintained by us, in a way that blends practicality with fairness, it will make all the sense it needs to make.

Could indoor farming help address food shortages?