Pinned toot

You don't want to know this - but you'd be better off understanding it.

To paraphrase "Reality can be so inconvenient - let's ignore it and maybe it will go away".

On reading a level textbook about - what concerned me (though didn't surprise me) was what research was actually missing.

The phrase "air pollution" wasn't mentioned once in the whole textbook.

doi.org/10.1016/j.neuint.2019. "Age appears to play a relevant role in air pollution-induced , with growing evidence suggesting that air pollution may contribute to and " - That means air pollution seriously harms 's . Who knew? that inhaling the emitted after burning something could be so dammed harmful? (sarcasm - as I've been writing this #### for decades)

So, what is the psychology that means (too many) psychologists have a habit of not talking about air pollution?

Could it be something quite simple? such as - people don't "like" the idea that their car's exhaust emissions, etc, are hurting their own children's health.

Developmental impact of air pollution on brain function doi.org/10.1016/j.neuint.2019.

Effects of air pollution on the nervous system and its possible role in neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2

Pinned toot

Plastic pollution is a worldwide problem. In this episode, the NAP Satire news asks, why can't wildlife save us?

Welcome to the NAP News - News About People - News about what people say, and don’t say - and what people do & don’t do. And News about what people say - when they don’t really mean what they say and don’t really do what they said they’d do. anchor.fm/napnews/episodes/The

Pinned toot

In theory, governments could take many forms. In practice, governments such as the UK's conservative party, generally consist of business people. People that, for example, became rich by investing their money in the dominant industries. The "business as usual" industries - business models that degrade (pollute, etc) ecosystems.

Governments can take many forms. Only a government that consists of people that comprehend (science) & care about sustaining ecology will prevent an ecological catastrophe.

If, for example, decades ago we had governments that consisted of people that comprehend (science) & care about sustaining ecology - climate change would have been prevented.

Generally, this infers that a major shift in how people perceive reality is needed. For example, knowledge about the science of chemistry changes how people comprehend reality (including themselves as biology is biochemistry). Whilst some people may not perceive (not think about) air pollution (e.g., smoke or traffic pollution), and others may accept that air pollution is harmful, only those that have a comprehension of chemistry can understand that air pollution is harmful - because air pollution is chemistry.

Whilst, in theory, a government that doesn't understand the science of ecology could listen to the scientific advisers, that's improbable due to the monetary bias of capitalism. For example, air pollution, & ecological degradation in general, is related to many ways that people make money. That bias causes an agenda (attitudes, behaviors, activities) that are the opposite of trying to mitigate human-caused climate change.

To make the point more salient. Just think how things would be very different if many people were passionate about ecology. About sustaining the woodlands, rather than bulldozing over them and building more urban sprawl. People that were passionate about the woodland (ecology or nature), would aim to integrate our civilizations into ecology. Not 'trample' over it.

The "free market" ideas of capitalism are the problem. The solutions are a form of ecologically informed socialism - where sustaining ecology is the prudent idea. Ecological sustainability isn't an afterthought, it's the core principle that any sustainable business model must incorporate.

Only ecologically informed people and governance (society), that's aims are to sustain ecology, can prevent ecological catastrophe. Therefore, is the only governance that can sustain civilization.

In a democracy, forming such a government will require an ecologically informed, & ecologically caring electorate (quite a social shift from the norm).

And yet, many of the electorate (the public, the people, the "customers", the consumers) are disinformed by the socioeconomic & sociopolitical system that we must replace. For example, greenwash adverts (sales spin), and corrupt politicians that are "in it" for their own monetary agendas.

In general, 'profit before people & the planet', relates to the agenda of individuals. Capitalism nurtures people to have a selfish agenda. The "rich" are the successful selfish people (that vote to maintain their wealth), and the "poor" are the unsuccessful selfish people (that want to be rich, or at least, nobody wants to be poor in a cruel capitalist system)

Sustainable socialism (e.g., publicly owned cooperatives) must advocate a common good way of perceiving. United in a common agenda to protect ecology & humane rights.

Reality isn't "only business". And yet, "business" is the dominant activity. Whether that's the business of, for example, selling package holidays or sunscreen in plastic bottles, or the business of being customers or consumers of those activities.

Some forms of business models can be ecologically sustainable. Whilst others business models can't. So, business models that don't detail a clear plan to achieve an eco-sustainable business model can not be trusted with our future.

The idealogy that "money and jobs" are enough to warrant a business - are simplistic and or corrupt ways of thinking. Public health and ecological sustainability (the two are positively correlated) are more than enough to warrant "money and jobs".

Pinned toot

Welcome to the NAP News podcast - News About People & Parrots, though not really about parrots - News about what people talk, and what people squawk - and what people do & don’t do. And News about what people squawk - when they don’t really mean what they squawk and don’t really do what they squawked, they would do.

In episode 2, the NAP Satire News asks the question - why are so many adults full of it? (e.g., greenwash & blah blah blah)

anchor.fm/napnews/episodes/The

Pinned toot

NAP Satire News Podcast! Suitable for Adults & mature Teenagers.

Welcome to the NAP Satire News Podcast!

News About People - News about what people say, and don’t say - and what people do & don’t do. And News about what people say - when they don’t really mean what they say and don’t really do what they say they do.

In this Episode - In breaking Climate News

anchor.fm/bongo8/episodes/NAP-

So, the con-trick about the "big lie" - is that those that construct the actual lie - accuse others of lying as the cover up story.

Fundamentally, Trump has been found out for what he truly is. A fraud . Lying to cover up a wrong, is the oldest trick in the corrupt person's book.

Lying for money is as common as greenwash. You don't have to be a liar to be rich - but it helps (in corrupt crony capitalist land)

"The meeting showcases another juxtaposition of what Republican officials knew about the election results and what Trump and his closest allies were saying publicly as they pushed the lie of a stolen election. Trump was told by his own attorney general there was no sign of widespread fraud" theguardian.com/us-news/2023/f

Gary boosted

Yes, not to let the gun industry off the hook, but there are many factors here, to include social norms (Societal level of the SEM).

The NGO I work with engages young people about these issues.

Recently we published the game 'Culture Overlord' which explores media's impact on social norms. Last year it was a Games for Change Awards Finalist for Best Learning Game.

It is free / no ads/ has an educational mode:

Gary boosted

Zero confidence in the "top" decision makers

@empiricism Yeah I'd say that tracks.

I'm going to try and math something here.

The top 10 Corps generate 40% of all emissions.

So of the remaining 60% emissions, the top 1% generate 1/2 of those.

40% - top corporations

30% - a few people in the 1%

30% - almost the worlds population.

Really kind of sickening when you think about it.

People get a lot of marketing leaflets posted through their home letter boxes (buy this or that - advertising that often includes disinformation \ "happy" narrative greenwash)

As a thought experiment - what would be the sociopolitical impact if people received an evidenced based leaflet through their letter boxes? For example:

1. "Big Oil" knew that it's fuels would cause catastrophic ecological effects - but lied to try & cover up the science (Ref: The climate deception dossiers)

2. Those effects are now causing death & destruction (& projections are - it will get worse)

3. "Big Oil" is making record profit's.

Who said crime doesn't pay?

Environmental organisations can collaborate, design such a leaflet, & use the postal system to inform those - that may only read or watch 'mainstream' social media. "Big oil's" criminal record is the crime of the "century"

People need to know.

- - - - -

The Climate Alarm Clock: A bonanza for big oil: Record rainfall and record profits

Episode webpage: the-climate-alarm-clock.captiv

Gary boosted

"Exxon said it incurred a $1.3 billion hit from an EU windfall tax. The company is suing the EU, arguing that the levy exceeds its legal authority." "Excluding charges, profit for the full year was$59.1 billion."

Gary boosted

Most recent @AmyWestervelt Drilled was about how #ExxonKnew and they knew very well - their #Climate models were spot on 50 years ago. In Volts @DavidRoberts talks about hydrogen electrolyzers and what it looks like for gray, blue and green hydrogen.

Gary boosted

Season 4, episode 1 is here!

This week, we look at some of the devastating weather that is now explicitly linked to climate.

And in completely unrelated* news we welcome* the record profits announced by big oil.

(*not really).

Listen, subscribe and share wherever you get your podcasts

Thanks!

player.captivate.fm/episode/27

Zero confidence in the "top" decision makers

Towards the ecological abyss

"A new report suggests that the global “top 1%” generates more emissions than the bottom half of the world’s population". earth.org/emissions-gap/

It's beyond a reasonable doubt, we have a serious rich people problem. Whilst it's evident that people with more money to "burn" - have more polluting lifestyles, they also tend to resist political solutions that would mitigate their polluting lifestyle's.

In general, the "top 1%" have the most extreme form's of lifestyle bias - which is why they don't support, for example, a carbon tax. A carbon tax would cost the "1%" a lot of money, due to how their work & recreational activities are highly polluting.

They'd let, are letting, the planet "burn" ( e.g., wildfire's) before advocating regulations that mitigated their eco-degrading lifestyle's.

They didn't get rich by caring for the environment (quite the opposite).

How bad is climate change going to get - before it's taken seriously enough?

I think it will need to be catastrophic - then what?

Gary boosted

A #gulfstream G650ER (Reg: N271DV) reportedly owned by #jeffbezos has been detected in flight since Thu Feb 02 2023 20:38:35 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time). Since then it has emitted an estimated 9734 kg of #CO2. If owner had flown commercial, the predicted average #emissions would have been 504 kg. #CO2emissions

Cronies may find this information annoying.

Very often - hypocrites or crookedness falsely accuse those with moral integrity of hypocrisy.

We've all heard the blah blah blah of fake 'plastic' people accusing, for example, climate activists of hypocrisy - because they don't live "perfectly" sustainable lifestyles (e.g., using fossil fuels vehicles to travel).

I've just had one of these "debates" though in the context of plastic pollution. The typical narrative usually goes something like this.

1. The sincere person, for example, the activist, speaks out against some environmental problem. For example, plastic pollution.

2. The crony tries to accuse the activists due to some "imperfection". For example, the activist uses a plastic product.

However, the crony in this context, that I was "debating" with - started to get angry because I was "winning" the debate. I was right and the crony is the problem. The crony used the fact that my mobile phone has a (add-on) protective plastic case cover, as justification that I was being hypocritical.

So, I explained to the crony a few home truths.

1st - It's a FairPhone which is the most sustainably manufactured mobile phone on the market.

2nd - I don't own the Fairphone business.

3rd - If I did, I'd of manufactured the case cover out of a mixture of strengthened cardboard covered in a plant-based water-resistant layer (i.e., biodegradable materials).

4th - The crony doesn't generally "bother" to even try and shop for the best eco-sustainable products.

The crony was simply annoyed - because cronies tend to get annoyed when other people remind them that other people are not cronies. Cronies prefer to cluster together among their own types. For example, crony fossil fuel industry lobbyists tend to have more in common with your average crony than climate activists.

Basically, I was making the point to the crony that I'm not part of the friggin problem. I know what needs to be done to mitigate pollution, climate change, wildlife extinction, etc,

I could have said "You're the problem crony! For not being on my side - the right side (of history - the future) is informed and wants to do far more to mitigate climate change, etc.

However, as I said, the other person was a crony and didn't acknowledge my righteous ass. So, that's another crony who will simply be part of the blah blah groupthink problem.

The irony is that the crony will perceive that I'm the arrogant one. However, I did manage to refrain from being condescending. Even though it was like debating with an ignorant child that didn't want to be found out about something they know is wrong.

Hey ho!

Gary boosted

It has been written that a day will come where evil (corruption) shall be judged.

Just saying. That has been written.

Check out this track "Desert of Lost Souls (Progressive Mix Edit)" by Madis

tidal.com/track/96244961

Speech is communication

Music is communication

"Kasamansa (Extended Mix)" by Trilucid

tidal.com/track/259456834

There was a president called Trump

Who was greedy & corrupt

But his followers didn't know any better

So they believed his rants to the letter

His speeches started a capital riot

But his spin doctor lawyers tried to keep the truth quite

Trump says he wants to make the USA great again

But his ignorant party will make it more fake again

That's what happens when folk are manipulated by rich capitalists

"Jobs and money" is sold to the needy

By those that have far more than they need cos their greedy

And the price we are paying is our future stability

Cos their decisions are an ecological liability

Gary boosted

It is also important to note that this study of whale circovirus ☝️ only looked at beached whales.

Whales are intelligent creatures and probably don't "accidentally" beach themselves on land.

If they beach themselves on land, there may be a logical evolutionary explanation.

...Such as fulfilling the need to separate infected individuals from the rest of the group?

You don't want to know this - but you'd be better off understanding it.

To paraphrase "Reality can be so inconvenient - let's ignore it and maybe it will go away".

On reading a level textbook about - what concerned me (though didn't surprise me) was what research was actually missing.

The phrase "air pollution" wasn't mentioned once in the whole textbook.

doi.org/10.1016/j.neuint.2019. "Age appears to play a relevant role in air pollution-induced , with growing evidence suggesting that air pollution may contribute to and " - That means air pollution seriously harms 's . Who knew? that inhaling the emitted after burning something could be so dammed harmful? (sarcasm - as I've been writing this #### for decades)

So, what is the psychology that means (too many) psychologists have a habit of not talking about air pollution?

Could it be something quite simple? such as - people don't "like" the idea that their car's exhaust emissions, etc, are hurting their own children's health.

Developmental impact of air pollution on brain function doi.org/10.1016/j.neuint.2019.

Effects of air pollution on the nervous system and its possible role in neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2

Gary boosted

In , and generally, raw is never ever in a usable form.

This is one of the many things persistently gets wrong: the / / omni-computer-geek opens up the file, stares at a bunch of or , and says, “Ah hah! If I the to reverse the on the , I can the sequence to the of the ! Oh, and make if you want, but that’s extra.”

Bonus points if the screen projects on said scientist’s face and reflects from the inevitable chunky-framed glasses. Scribbling equations backward on a transparent whiteboard may also be involved.

, as I have said many times before and no doubt will need to say many times again, are people. We’re pretty good with numbers, yes, as a rule. But what we’re good at doing with those numbers is not reading and understanding them. It’s using them as the raw materials for product which makes sense to the human brain. Words, pictures, and a MUCH SMALLER number of numbers is our goal. Also continued , which is about the kind of numbers everyone understands.

Before we process the numbers, we need to “” them. There are several intermediate steps between the really raw data and the cover story for next week’s issue of Nature. Preprocessing is where we turn the glowing symbols projected onto our faces into something that kinda-sorta makes sense. It’s still not really readable, but people looking at it, who know what they’re looking at, can tell what it represents.

Usually this is in the form of one or more : for a familiar example, think of an workbook with several large . (In reality, storing data in Excel is a terrible idea, but I’ll stick with that metaphor.) Nobody’s going to read and digest everything in the workbook. You can look at the headers and a few of the values and at least have an idea where to start. Preprocessing gets you to that point.

For most types of data, preprocessing is fairly standardized. You don’t have to write your own code: someone else has already done that work for you. Just pick a , run the raw data through it, glance at the output to make sure nothing went horribly wrong. Now you’re ready to write the code only you can write, to discover the Secrets of Life Itself. Now is the time for SCIENCE.

Or Nature. Or The Journal Of Obscure Subfield Ten People In The World Know Exists. Or a tech report. You know, whatever.

Careful readers will have noticed the word “fairly” above. In fact there are multiple to choose from, and multiple packages implementing those algorithms, and written at 3:00 AM by an exhausted who really just wanted to check the cultures one last time and grab the remaining half a chicken salad sandwich from the break room fridge and go home and crawl into bed for a few hours’ sleep before dragging ass back in tomorrow. Shower optional.

Other exhausted postdocs and their harassed , who get somewhat more sleep and a somewhat finer grade of chicken salad but are much more worried about upcoming funding application deadlines, may or may not bother to write down which package they use to preprocess their data. Or what specific parameters they tuned. Or if they even know how they’re supposed to use the damned thing: there’s a really good chance they just ran the data through on the default settings, got something that looked reasonable, and called it a day.

Amazingly, most of the time this doesn’t really matter. Data has a life of its own. The bigger the data set gets, and these days nearly all data are “big data,” the more likely it is that any reasonable method will produce similar results. Good thing too, otherwise science (and Science) would grind to a screeching, shuddering, smoking halt.

Sometimes it matters a lot. Careful scientists check, just in case. I try to be one of those, and when I’m not, my coworkers pick up the slack. Luckily for me, for most of my career I’ve found myself in the company of those who live up to that standard, and I can mostly convince myself I do the same. Another item on Hollywood’s long list of sins: science is not a solo enterprise. In fact it’s deeply social, which is one of several reason why the stereotype of scientists as loners is a load of crap. But I digress.

In case you’re wondering if this has a point, yes it does, and here it is: all the above is why my boss recently sent me a message saying, “Woah yeah ok so maybe you do need to process from raw after all. B/c idk wtf that is.”

Without any irony at all: I love my job.

In many cultures, the successful business people, the money they have, their social status, means they tend to be confident about their ideologies.

What is the objective effect of their ego's? What is price of their type of money making?

Costing the Earth?

Biodiversity Is More at Risk Than Ever Before. Here’s How We Change Course. earth.org/biodiversity-at-risk

What are you? This should not be 'sensitive' information.

Why do some people, some humans, some homo sapiens, not know what they are?

Could the reason be - they're exposed to information that doesn't help them understand what they are?

It's as obvious as reality what people are. Therefore, there must be some extremely influential social \ cultural variables at 'play' that causes self ignorance.

The following is one method that can cause humans to develop - so as to not understand what they are.

1. From an early age, children are exposed to the misinformation in their culture. From carers, teachers, friends, social media, & their peer's in general. . They're taught to believe in some narrative that does not explain what they are.

They are exposed to forms of religiosity. The cultural narratives, the passed on stories of religiously styled dogma. Children's minds tend to be moulded by the cultures they live in (nurture).

So, whilst all children, all humans, consist of cells, tissue, bones, hair, etc. And whilst all humans behave as - any biologist would expect animals to behave, by the time these children have been indoctrinated into their cultural social norms & values, by the time the children have biologically developed ("grown up") to be adults, they have minds & behaviours (behavioural psychology) that means they are psychologically predisposed to reject the science that explains what they are.

To be clear, in of it's self, this doesn't mean people that don't know what they are - are "bad" or "good". This is . Not a moral lesson. But, not knowing what they are - does relate to making poor choices.

So, not comprehending chemistry, biology, etc, is part of the reason why many people don't consider biochemistry. They don't perceive what they are. Though do believe in narratives that, whilst they don't explain anything, do provide some form of social placebo.

As a common social everyday norm. Adult's that don't understand what they are, may, for instance, wake up in the morning. Eat breakfast (food. I.e., biochemistry). Go to work in a, for example, office. Come home and watch, for example, a TV show about cooking. They may then watch the news or read a newspaper. They may read about politics or read a book about crime, of another persons life experience, etc. In some cultures, they may pray or go to church on a Sunday. In general, they may spend all their time taking part in activities, reading, watching, etc, information that doesn't mention anything about what they are. They may stop asking " what am I", because, from an early age they were told, they're indoctrinated into ways that don't explain physics. Misinformation that does the opposite of explain. Indoctrination promotes, & in some social contexts enforces, belief. (conformity)

So, if your not sure what you are, there is a solution. Generally, the solution is learning the 'physical sciences'. For example, chemistry, human biology, etc. However, a good "ground zero" method to start the "what am I" journey is to perform a straightforward experiment on your own body.

A comparably budget microscope can reveal what you consist of. What all humans consist of - animal cells. Learning requires trusting the source of information. Trusting our own senses align with the experimental methods of the biological sciences.

What am l? Makes sense!.

That's why believing in, being indoctrinated into, cultural narratives that are not based on empirical evidence, don't make sense. For example, narratives that infer that humans are not animals, & yet, humans do ("only") what animals do. The main difference between human animals & non-human animals is directly related to our culture. Humans are 'ultra' social organisms (& 'ultra' tool user's).

We have many skills. We have a cognitive psychology that is unrivaled in developing & using tools (technology). We have 'brains' that can comprehend "what am I?". "How do l work?" "how do l and what do l think?"

"Luttig went on to paint a stark picture of America “at war against herself” and warned that a year and a half after the deadly , and his supporters still posed “a clear and present danger to American democracy”. theguardian.com/us-news/2023/j