a gradation, not a dichotomy, between common interest and a formal conspiracy
I completely agree with this, which is why I was talking about the oddity around "conspiracy" being one of language. The point I was trying to make, in hindsight somewhat clumsily, is that the people who run the world generally discuss this stuff out in the open, in as much as they don't need to bother to conceal it, and the more they do so the more "normal" it seems to them, and the more they can convince others. It's generally in their interest to be as open as possible, even if the openness is a vector for misinformation. To me this means that concepts like the Overton window, activism designed to shift it back our way, advocacy and direct engagement against normalisation are all the more important. IMHO anyway.
I may have unconsciously been aligning to a somewhat misguided train of thought that says the time we spend thinking and talking about the genuinely illicit, secretive conspiratorial planning against our values, the less time we spend in direct debate and engagement and allow their version to be normal by default. Of course this is a false choice and we can do both.
There was another point I wanted to make in this context, though. People acting in ways that align to their shared interests without any direct collusion, decisions that appear to be made by opaque, informal cliques, outcomes that are driven by unspoken expectations - almost all organisations work that way and trend toward working that way even when there are formal structures specifically intended to counter it. I'm not saying this is necessarily good or bad, it's just a dynamic of groups based on observation.
]]>So, from my above reference This study has identified a hitherto unknown sensitivity of univoltine species to extreme precipitation during their pupal life stage. Was there extreme precipitation this year during the pupal life stage of the Gatekeepers and Orange Tips?
If it's weather extremes, this is not a good thing because it's a lot harder to remediate increased weather extremes/numbers of weather extremes than to reduce pesticide usage, but it's random, with good years and bad.
]]>And you are STILL missing the point. FAR more is done by collusion or instruction that falls short of a formal conspiracy, and both traditional ethics and the law regard that as very different from the ordinary dynamic of groups with a common interest. Your apparent attitude that, if does not pass the normal conspiracy test, there is nothing improper about it, is precisely WHY things are getting worse.
]]>But that isn't what I think at all. I apologise if I gave the impression I'm neutral about "business as usual" or that I'm making some sort of equivalence argument. What I mean is that it's unnecessary and arbitrary to draw a moral line at the concept of conspiracy. Ordinary group dynamics around a common interest can be working toward an objective that is BAD, and fully acknowledged to be so even by those participating. Not being a "conspiracy" doesn't make something okay.
We need to clarify "conspiracy" though, because relying on it seems to be a problem (witness the Malheur example). And that's what I mean by "a language thing": the specific term and concept gets in the way. And that takes us back to your own exploration of a terminology that covers this. I was objecting (not very seriously) to the choice of words, not to the concept. So I apologise again: I most likely expressed that in a muddled and opaque way.
I'm not sure exactly how to draw a moral distinction between acute improper behaviour and acting within a culture of evil, but I think that's been a topic of debate for a long time.
]]>Cool story, though.
]]>The Chicago Tribune estimates 50 million early votes or 40% of the total, up from 35% in 2012. I don't know what percentage of the electorate have the opportunity to vote early.
]]>As an example Oregon went to vote-by-mail as the default some years back and it's pretty popular. It's still possible to go to an election office and vote there but there's not the insane rush all at once that many states experience.
]]>I wonder if this will give the Brexit process some pause – a small shred of hope amongst the tatters?
]]>I wasn't expecting anything better than the Chicago Tribune figures (unless someone had actually gone to the trouble of collecting all relevant figures from everywhere), but it does confirm my thought that the "last 2 weeks of campaigning" are becoming increasingly irrelevant (here too, since you can now apply for a "permanent postal vote" because "you want one").
]]>So, take a society that has just colonized a new world. They will probably be used to being very careful with their resources after a period in space. The high level of hygiene has two consequences: aggressive parasites and autoimmune diseases. Then it becomes a question of which problem dominates. If the autoimmune diseases are the main problem, I would expect the emergence of "pro-nature" groups that believe in relaxing the hygiene rules. This may put the population in contact with highly pathogenic organism, and cause an epidemic where the conservative groups will be the less affected, shifting the balance of the culture. This will of course last until the excessive hygiene causes enough autoimmune diseases. This cycle may be altered by the random evolution of a contagious parasite, which will automatically shift the cycle towards the conservative stage. I would expect this process to dominate in rich ecosystems where there is a constant contact with animals. An other way to alter the cycle would be the coevolution of low virulence pathogens and habits that favor their transmission between persons. I wonder if this is how public baths and the microbiome evolved.
]]>