Much of what people take for "wilderness" was made intentionally by humans in the past. What does this imply for our choices today?

The author of that article seems to reject any objective meaning for "preserving nature". If we can't aim to keep nature "untouched", he argues, we may as well reshape it however we like. His subjective judgment is that the sparse trees favored by the aboriginals was more "beautiful" than today's farms and woods. Surely some Australians think farms and woods are more beautiful.

"Untouched" is not the only sensible objective interpretation of "preserving nature". We can interpret it as preserving species from extinction. That gives an objective criterion.

US citizens: phone your representative to ask per to support the Democracy For All amendment.

This would explicitly give Congress the power to regulate political campaign fund-raising and spending for elections.

This is a narrow plan to override the Corporations United decision. Another proposed amendment would reject the idea that corporations are in general entitled to all human rights. I support either or both.

The Capitol Switchboard numbers are 202-224-3121, 888-818-6641 and 888-355-3588.

Bezos hid while the stockholders of Amazon voted on a resolution to act to curb global heating.

I expect that many of the stockholders voting considered themselves bound by a commitment to put the profits of some other group above everything else in the world, and as a result they felt obligated to keep hurrying towards disaster. We need to legal abolish the idea that a corporation must place its profits over all else, which was established only in the 1980s.

Relating zero-rating, in which ISPs allow gratis access only to certain platforms, and the election of Brazil's murderous Bolsonaro.

An interview with Lenore Skenazy about the causes of obsessive overprotectiveness and its effects.