Plastic Recycling Experts, More Recycling, Rebrands As Stina Inc – PR Web

SONOMA, Calif. (PRWEB) March 10, 2021

More Recycling, a research and technology firm, which has delivered the Annual Plastic Recycling Study for the U.S. and Canada for over 10 years, rebrands as Stina Inc, its legal entity name, in a move that expands its mission to help organizations and individuals transition to a society that prioritizes the sustainable use of resources.

At the forefront of the plastic waste problem is an imbalance of systems from economic to environmental. Recycling is an essential part of shifting from the current linear to a circular economy, but more is needed to achieve the systemic changes necessary to reduce waste. The potential for innovation through inspiration from nature is as great as the risk we face by ignoring natures signals. We want to help unlock that innovation, said Butler, Principal and CEO of Stina Inc.

According to the U.S. EPA, over 91% of plastic is not currently recycled leaving tonnes of waste in the environment that nature cannot manage, and analysts forecast increases in virgin plastic production globally over the next 30 years. Plastics today both positively and negatively impact human health and climate change. Their properties reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to alternative materials yet contribute to global pollution.

With a thorough understanding of the plastic recycling landscape from production, collection, sortation, reclamation, end-use markets, and alternative disposal options Stina Inc positions itself to help accelerate the transition to a society that uses the worlds finite resources sustainably. Butler and Luddy believe tomorrows solutions call for stronger collaboration and deriving inspiration from natures own circular systems.

The company name originated from a combination of the founders first names. The Stina name quickly became a recognition of the essential need for differences honored through trust, respect, and collaboration, said Butler. Those values are the essential ingredients which allow for true progress in the pursuit of a more balanced, harmonious world. The Stina logo showcases the North Star in its center. Inspired by the geometrical symbol the Seed of Life, the logo is the outward, visual representation of the company founders' honed vision: to harmonize human behavior with the natural world.

Now is the time to truly place value on our resources and innovate to optimize the entire recovery ecosystem, said Luddy, Principal and COO of Stina Inc, As society moves further toward circularity, our services, decision support tools, and CORE projects [Creating an Optimized Recovery Ecosystem] will help clients navigate the trade-offs of plastics today, accelerating their own transition to the emerging circular economy.

ABOUT STINA

Stina Inc is a mission-based company striving to harmonize human behavior with the natural world. Often serving as liaison between industry, government and NGOs, the company helps organizations address and work through barriers to more sustainable management of resources. The companys information management system, relationships, and understanding of the plastics recycling landscape have made it the trusted organization to deliver the annual plastic recycling reports for the U.S. and Canada for more than 10 years. The team is committed to providing unbiased guidance in navigating the role plastics play in the movement towards circular supply chains, valuing carbon, and reducing GHG emissions.

The Stina team gathers and assesses critical data, facilitates engagement and collaboration, and raises awareness of key issues for better decision-making. They have developed resources for businesses and consumers to take actionable steps to transition to circularity such as PlasticsMarkets.org, Buy Recycled Plastics Directory, The Information Exchange, and CircularityInAction.com, as well as undertaken CORE Projects (Creating an Optimized Recovery Ecosystem) the latest resulted in a Roadmap to Plastic Recyclability. Learn more at StinaInc.com.

Share article on social media or email:

Follow this link:
Plastic Recycling Experts, More Recycling, Rebrands As Stina Inc - PR Web

What happened to boundaries? | News, Sports, Jobs – Marietta Times

Every sport has its boundaries. Rules for playing the game may occasionally change, but the boundaries remain. In baseball, a ball hit outside the foul line is out of play. In football, a catch made outside the sidelines is ruled incomplete. All games must be played within boundaries. No one would think of erasing them. If they did, how could they ever expect an orderly contest?

Boundaries are rapidly being erased in American culture. It seems everything has been sacrificed to opinion polls, campaign contributions from certain advocacy groups and editorial support from major newspapers.

House passage of a bill disingenuously dubbed the Equality Act, which, according to the Human Rights Campaign, would provide consistent and explicit anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people across key areas of life, including employment, housing, credit, education, public spaces and services, federally funded programs, and jury service, targets what few boundaries remain about human behavior. Passage in the Senate is less certain as 60 votes are required, but the fact the bill is a favorite among most Democrats should tell us something about that party and the cultural direction of the country.

Conservatives eschew liberalism in all its forms. Most, citing a deep-rooted connection to their Christian faith. Some of these conservatives believe that granting special rights for what they regard as chosen behavior means there will be no stopping claims from other groups demanding similar federal protections.

Polygamist groups, for example, demand their rights. Why not? Who is to say no and based on what? Just as liberal judges often make new laws from the bench, we are watering down, or eliminating, cultural laws and mores at warp speed.

What are the consequences to a society that embraces an anything goes mentality? Who among us wants to publicly oppose anything for fear of being labeled a bigot? The standard for what is acceptable and what is not is now subjectively determined.

Polygamists groups began campaigning for the legalization of their relationships soon after the Supreme Court narrowly approved same-sex marriage in 2015 (the vote was 5-4). Who will say, no, this is too far? On what would such an assertion be based? The Constitution? The Bible? Not likely when both sources of law and faith-based teaching have been diluted to the point of being unrecognizable in much of modern and increasingly secular America. Both are now simply ignored or considered open to individual interpretation.

In his classic book, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis, writes about moral claims people make on one another. He notes they often say you should or should not do such and such, or you ought to say, or not say certain things. In this, he says, they are appealing to a standard outside of themselves.

Here is how Lewis puts it: Now what interests me about all of these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other mans behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about

Todays other man may know about such standards, but he is likely afraid to speak of them lest he be ostracized from what used to be called polite society.

So, please, tell me if you can: do any standards exist and if they do, based on what? If you believe they dont, on what is this belief based?

Denying a standard is in itself a standard, is it not?

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Excerpt from:
What happened to boundaries? | News, Sports, Jobs - Marietta Times

Rewilding public lands in Patagonia and beyond: Q&A with Kris Tompkins – Mongabay.com

In the early 1990s, using the money they earned from their leadership roles at Patagonia Inc., The North Face, and Esprit, Kris and Doug Tompkins began buying up vast amounts of land in Chile and Argentina and setting it aside for conservation. Their acquisition of large blocks of forest, wetlands, and steppe along with their plan to do nothing with it in terms of logging, mining, or agriculture raised suspicions that they had nefarious intentions. In Chile, their phones were tapped, their movements monitored, and their property subject to military flyovers.

After an intense few years, the public and government came to understand the Tompkins aim of protecting and restoring wilderness so it could be enjoyed by everyone. Since the early 2000s, their non-profit Tompkins Conservation has donated over 800,000 hectares (2 million acres) of wilderness in Chile and Argentina, which spurred the permanent protection of nearly 6 million hectares (15 million acres) and the establishment of 13 new national parks.

The Tompkins had performed a kind of capitalist jujitsu move as Kris Tompkins put it in her 2020 TED talk.

From where we sat, we saw the dark side of industrial growth. And when industrial world views are applied to natural systems that support all life, we begin to treat the Earth as a factory that produces all the things that we think we need, she said. As were all painfully aware, the consequences of that worldview are destructive to human welfare, our climate systems and to wildlife. Doug called it the price of progress. Thats how we saw things, and we wanted to be a part of the resistance, pushing up against all of those trends.

We deployed private wealth from our business lives and deployed it to protect nature from being devoured by the hand of the global economy.

After Doug Tompkinss death in a kayak accident in 2015, Tompkins Conservation accelerated this work, establishing new marine national parks covering about 10 million hectares (25 million acres) in the southern Atlantic Ocean and redoubling efforts to rewild protected areas, including restoring big predators like jaguar and puma that had been eliminated from these lands.

Fifteen years ago, we asked ourselves, Beyond protecting landscape, what do we really have to do to create fully functioning ecosystems? And we began to ask ourselves, wherever we were working, whos missing, what species had disappeared or whose numbers were low and fragile. We also had to ask, How do we eliminate the very reason that these species went extinct in the first place?' Tompkins explained in her TED talk. What seems so obvious now was a complete thunderbolt for us. And it changed the nature of everything we do, completely. Unless all the members of the community are present and flourishing, its impossible for us to leave behind fully functioning ecosystems.

Kris Tompkins says that rewilding efforts have faced less opposition than her and Dougs land acquisition in the early 1990s. She says even the jaguar the largest terrestrial predator in the Americas has been welcomed back by some communities.

Of all the top predator species, [the jaguar] was the easiest socially and culturally to bring back because the ranchers of Corrientes province [in Argentina] have always seen the jaguar, which has been missing since the 1930s, as their kind of mascot or spirit. Their boldness and strength is represented through the jaguar, which none of them have seen for 90 years, she told Mongabay. That was a real shock. We were really prepared for years and years of preparing ourselves and the province and the country for the return of these jaguars.

We had much more trouble with large-scale land acquisition in the beginning than we have with rewilding extirpated species.

Kris Tompkins spoke about her organizations conservation work, rewilding, and the costs of our current industrial model during a February 2021 conversation with Mongabay founder Rhett A. Butler.

This interview text has been edited for clarity.

What sparked your interest in nature and conservation?

I think those answers always have mice with long tails. Its hard to know where it really begins, but we all grew up on our great-grandfathers ranch here, exactly where I am now [Editors note: the ranch is outside Ojai, California]. And so, the out-of-doors was, for us, like indoors. There wasnt much distinction. We were outside most of the time. At the time, I didnt understand what beauty was and the nature of nature though.

My first husband was an expedition climber, and I grew up in the climbing tribe. And so, we were ski racers and I began to fall in love with the beauty and power of nature. Not just of it, which is how I grew up, but actually in it and participating in it.

And then in the early 80s, I began to see largely through (Patagonia founder) Yvon Chouinard that these places we took for granted were in fact being taken for granted. That in fact, we had to learn how to read what was actually happening in these places we loved so much. And that was kind of a new dawn for me and certainly influenced the last third of my life.

From that upbringing, you joined Patagonia and eventually took the helm of it. You turned the company into a model of corporate responsibility, which continues to this day and is very impressive. So, what inspired you to take that approach to Patagonia?

That was completely 100% Yvon. I met Yvon when I was 15 years old and during my college years, our mother complained to me that I looked at her as a bank. And that contrary to my assumptions, I had to get summer jobs. So, I started working for Yvon in the summertime. And when I graduated from college, I had no idea what I was going to do. And so, I started working for him full-time and it was still just rock and ice climbing equipment in those days.

And then a year or two later, he wanted to make clothes for all of us, and thats how we started Patagonia. And there were only six of us. And then in a few years, I became the general manager. And I dont know when we started calling me the CEO, but I was that for a very long time. And then when I was 43, I retired and went to South Chile with Doug.

What did you take from that corporate experience at Patagonia into your conservation work as well as your philanthropy?

I think theres a lot that you take with you. I think the two most important things: One, you have a sense of order and finance and budgets and a kind of discipline that I think comes out of growing a business, a successful business and the discipline that that requires. And most especially, which is a lot of personality-driven too: Doug and I were very results-driven. We focus on something and were going to be the dog with the bone until we get it done.

Theres a sense of being extremely results-driven and relentless because conservation has so many pitfalls along the way that you have to learn to just drive past those and keep going and going. And I think our personality is probably like that, but also business trains you to do things you might not imagine you could do.

So, on that pitfalls front, there was a lot of contentiousness in Chile when you started your conservation work.

Well, isnt that an understatement?

So how are your efforts perceived by the public today?

It lasted four or five years and was ruthless. There were military planes flying over our house and our phones were tapped for five years and all sorts of things. It was bad and occasionally dangerous.

That was during the Frei administration. Then once Ricardo Lagos assumed the presidency, a lot of that, at least on the political-military side, shifted around. But it was tough because we are two foreigners arriving in a country, buying up large tracts of land, a lot of it forest, and not cutting it. That was highly suspicious.

When I look at it now, this is a full generation ago, I understand why there was tremendous suspicion and discord over what we were doing, but I didnt understand it then. I wish I knew then what I know now and I would have probably passed through that period a lot more calmly than I did. But we were accused of everything, creating a new Jewish state, even though we were raised Anglicans, a nuclear waste dump for the United States. That we would take all the cattle out of South Chile and replace it with American bison and military territory for Argentina to come in and finish Chile off once and for all. But that was a long time ago and that has utterly changed.

Weve donated many national parks in Chile and built infrastructure so that all are welcome and very participative in local and regional communities. So that era has long been over with, although of course, we know that there are people who run counter to conservation in general. Regardless of where it is, youre going up against the model of industrial production, and when you do that, of course, it doesnt matter where you are and youre going to get in the crosshairs of somebody. Thats always the case.

Has the gift of these areas as public lands to the people of Chile had any ripple effects on the broader idea of philanthropy in the region?

I think its slowly starting to take place with philanthropy specifically, but what has really changed are the number of families or individuals who are creating their own parks. They may not want to gift them to the government and to all Chileans or Argentinians as we have, but thats astounding. Thats how far things have evolved since we started. Its amazing the number of private parks that there are. People are really looking at their land and the acquisition of land through another lens. And thats not true in all cases, but its very significant.

So, in terms of what we Americans understand as the philosophy of philanthropy, thats slower going. The raw act of donating and supporting issues that fall outside of education or the arts or health, which are all necessary as well. But its an evolution, as in all things.

Since you started this endeavor, youve made rewilding a major component of your work. Rewilding is also contentious for some. Are people starting to come around on the idea of rewilding like they did with the creation of what are now public lands?

Well, you really have to go by species. The one species whom weve been working with for 10 years: jaguars in northeastern Argentina. Of all the top predator species, it was the easiest socially and culturally to bring back because the ranchers of Corrientes province have always seen the jaguar, which has been missing since the 1930s, as their kind of mascot or spirit. Their boldness and strength is represented through the jaguar, which none of them have seen for 90 years.

That was a real shock. We were really prepared for years and years of preparing ourselves and the province and the country for the return of these Jaguars. And we were happily surprised by that. By and large, rewilding doesnt cause much trouble. We have had a lot of discussion about pumas in Southern Chile because theyve really been decimated along with foxes over the last 80 years, as long as there have been livestock down there. The systematic killing of predators of course is prevalent.

There have been individuals and some mayors who are very unhappy with the idea that these top predators are coming back, but generally, rewilding is seen as a positive thing. We had much more trouble with large-scale land acquisition in the beginning than we have with rewilding extirpated species.

How is the rewilding as were going so far?

Well, its a good time to ask because its going smashingly well, considering we have jaguars freely roaming the national park today. The first ones are out there living free for the first time in 70 to 90 years. And we have more who are on deck, some cubs and their mother. The cubs need to be a couple months older, and then they too will go. We have two cubs in another national park in northern Argentina that will start the population in that national park, where there are no jaguars.

Im very proud of the teams who run all those. Well, Im proud of everyone, but rewilding is quite hands-on. It could be midnight. It can be 10:00 in the morning. Rewilding is a 24-7 job for different teams and its tough work.

A lot of the things weve done, we were the first people to do it. For example, we were the first people to have to set the regulations between Brazil and Argentina and between provinces to move animals back and forth. So, there was a lot of regulatory work that had to be designed and actually implemented so the next projects wouldnt have to go through that over and over again.

The team members who work on the ground with these species go out for months and years. They are very committed on the ground in these special areas with these special species. Theyre the reason that weve had a lot of success.

We know protected areas are a proven intervention for conservation, but by definition, these will always be limited in extent. So, what do you see as ways to drive the systemic change needed to address the broader drivers of environmental degradation and destruction, on a society or economy wide level?

Thats a very big question because when you look at whats driving climate change and species extinction, and all the things we talk about, the globalized industrial economy is the muscle for this. And of course, heads of sovereign states have a lot of power, relative power, but basically, everything is driven by economics and the global economic system.

So that makes dealing with it a lot tougher. Right now, Biden is very attentive toward climate change and rolling back some of the policies of Trump like the [national] monuments here in the States. So, its a cascading effect of consumerism driven by consumers. Consumers have to understand that what we do affects all these things we think we care about. And its very hard to get people to voluntarily change their habits.

Now this year with the pandemic, Ive been encouraged by the fact that globally people can change on a dime when theyre forced to. The problem is we are forced to, and the suffering that has accompanied this event is so high. But it did show me that we can change our behavior radically and very quickly.

I spend a lot of time thinking about the collapse of civilizations. Because I keep thinking, Why do we keep doing this over and over again? And there is a lot of overlap in terms of what the conditions are when civilizations collapse, whether its Rome, the Mayans, Easter Island, and the Khmer.

So, the question, at least as I understood it, is really complex and I generally feel that human behavior changes in a climate of adversity, and were very slow or simply bad at changing our mode of life voluntarily. So, I think it takes a pandemic, people freezing to death in Texas, and all these other things that really began to change peoples behavior and change the kind of leadership that they need. Thats my personal thought on that.

So, on that front, speaking specifically to Patagonia, what has been the impact of COVID on your work in that region?

Very little. We have actually, I would say, been working more fluidly as a team since we were all stuck in one place. Because for years, weve always been in the field or moving around. Its very hard to come together and do deep planning and things like that.

We have found that for our work in Chile and Argentina and here in the States, its actually been helpful that were all stuck in one place because the communication is daily and fast. And its just one of those things where were lucky in that it turned out to be positive for us, forcing us to get a lot of the work done face to face. Theres Zoom to Zoom that we kind of struggled with before because everybody moves around so much.

Do you see long-term opportunities for conservation arising from the post-pandemic recovery?

I always see opportunities. Were moving on a lot of stuff that we started. We have had a sort of second generational master plan. I started before we finalized all the donations to Chile and to Argentina. I wanted to know where we are going even though we had another 18 months to really finalize everything.

And last June, we pulled the trigger on a lot of stuff. I think that theres opportunity politically: this is a moment here in the States, for example. If I was working up here, I see four or five things on a large scale I would go after first because you dont have these kinds of moments that often. And when you see one, you should throw everything at it.

I see a lot of new rewilding efforts going on around the world, even rewilding Britain. Its hard to imagine being able to rewild Britain, but theyre doing it. So, Im very optimistic and geared up for a lot of conservation and rewildingon both land and at sea. We dont look just at land anymore.

Do you actively engage with other initiatives in other countries, sharing lessons from what youve done?

We do it informally. If somebody wants to know how we do it, we are happy to share. Especially in rewilding, where there is a lot to the technical side (like) if somebody wants to know about jaguar breeding or how to put together large landscapes.

We are a completely open book in that sense because for us, the only thing that matters is the net increase of territory preserved and species returned to their rightful places. It could be us. It can be someone else. We dont really care. The net effect is what is the net effect.

I wanted to return back to the broader transformational question I asked earlier. Last week I spoke with Jennifer Morgan, whos the head of Greenpeace International. She said the following: Politics and leaders certainly can influence culture and norms. We believe culture has much more influence on politics and leaders. So, our culture goes, politicians either follow or lose elections, and companies can either change or go bankrupt. So, that kind of gets to what you spoke to in terms of consumer behavior. Whats your take on that?

I wouldnt tend to agree with her. I wish I could. I do, but culture is driven by economics today. Its not the other way around. And so, I would see rather the converse of that statement.

Culture originally came about when humans started to gather, it was a way to protect one another. It could have been five people. It could have been 100 people. Culture is built to protect the home fires, lets say, and that is not whats happening today. And cultures around the world are hammered by this overlay of production, harvest, and consumerism. So no, I would disagree with her.

What would you say to young people who are distressed about the current trajectory of the planet?

I get asked this a lot, and usually it comes in the form of what people can do. Ive been thinking a lot about this and the number one thing they should ask themselves is Why are you asking me what I think they can do? Because the number one thing you can do is figure out what are the root causes of our circumstances and what has to be done. And I dont care if its two meters out your front door, its in your town, its in your state, its in your country.

People have to at least have the curiosity and drive to figure out whats going on around them. Take the Greta Effect, for example. Is anybody marching in your town on Fridays? You have to decide for yourself whats meaningful to you. And then you have to just open up your eyes and your ears and decide. It doesnt have to be radical. It doesnt have to be the Extinction Rebellion. It can be just acting. The act of acting is activism. And no one can tell me what I should be could be doing. I dont know where you are. I dont know how old you are. I dont know what you love. But I do know that we are far past the moment in our human history to be sitting on the sidelines.

Its up to each person to fight for the things that they love or the things they know to be true, or those things they know are not right. You have to have that two inches of motivation to do something and declare yourself to be part of a movement that is not going away.

These social movements and ecological movements are growing, theyre not going away.

I get asked a lot, Overall, are you hopeful? I have really come to dislike the word hope because I think in many cases it implies a sort of abdication. I have hope because you are out there and youre having conversations about things that are difficult or on the edges of things.

I think hope has to be earned. I dont think you get to have hope unless youre part of it: an active part of creating hope. Otherwise, youre just waiting for someone else. Your hope is not dependent on your own actions. And this I think is really dangerous and takes the life out of our hearts. I really do.

What people can do is decide and remember that what you do with your life defines who you are. So, if youre wringing your hands and worried about whats happening on your street or in your town, and you just wring your hands, then you deserve the outcome that youre going to get. You get out in your street, in your town and you work towards something better for everybody and all life. And you might still lose the battle but you will have participated in something that will be one of the highlights of your life, and it will define the rest of your life. Thats what I think.

I think in my heart of hearts, I just hold out that this distance between someone whos a conservationist, someone whos a leader, someone who is worried about the quality of the water coming in through their faucets, that the gap between those who are thinking about that stuff, and those who are kind of looking over the wall and kind of seeing that its going on, but they dont know what to do.

If I went to a seven-year-old right now and said, Have you ever heard about the climate changing and dah, dah, dah? Does this person know anything about it? That the specs and the disaster? Maybe not. If I said, Lets go do something about it. Whatever that is, they go immediately. People want to be asked. People want to be told that they can stand up and go become little activists, young activists, 80-year-old activists. It is the participative role in society that weve lost. And thats what happens to civilizations that collapse.

There is a centralization of power or the assumption that you will take care of everything, so Im just going to sit and wait until you do. And it really doesnt work that way. So you have to move against your cultural norms and become a fighter. Thats what I think anyway.

Learn more at Tompkins Conservation.

The title of this post was edited shortly after publication to reflect that Tompkins Conservation also works outside Patagonia.

The rest is here:
Rewilding public lands in Patagonia and beyond: Q&A with Kris Tompkins - Mongabay.com

Cal Thomas: What happened to boundaries? | Lewiston Sun Journal – Lewiston Sun Journal

Every sport has its boundaries. Rules for playing the game may occasionally change, but the boundaries remain. In baseball, a ball hit outside the foul line is out of play. In football, a catch made outside the sidelines is ruled incomplete. All games must be played within boundaries. No one would think of erasing them. If they did, how could they ever expect an orderly contest?

Boundaries are rapidly being erased in American culture. It seems everything has been sacrificed to opinion polls, campaign contributions from certain advocacy groups and editorial support from major newspapers.

House passage of a bill disingenuously dubbed the Equality Act, which, according to the Human Rights Campaign, would provide consistent and explicit anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people across key areas of life, including employment, housing, credit, education, public spaces and services, federally funded programs, and jury service, targets what few boundaries remain about human behavior. Passage in the Senate is less certain as 60 votes are required, but the fact the bill is a favorite among most Democrats should tell us something about that party and the cultural direction of the country.

Conservatives eschew liberalism in all its forms. Most, citing a deep-rooted connection to their Christian faith. Some of these conservatives believe that granting special rights for what they regard as chosen behavior means there will be no stopping claims from other groups demanding similar federal protections.

Polygamist groups, for example, demand their rights. Why not? Who is to say no and based on what? Just as liberal judges often make new laws from the bench, we are watering down, or eliminating, cultural laws and mores at warp speed.

What are the consequences to a society that embraces an anything goes mentality? Who among us wants to publicly oppose anything for fear of being labeled a bigot? The standard for what is acceptable and what is not is now subjectively determined.

Polygamist groups began campaigning for the legalization of their relationships soon after the Supreme Court narrowly approved same-sex marriage in 2015 (the vote was 5-4). Who will say, no, this is too far? On what would such an assertion be based? The Constitution? The Bible? Not likely when both sources of law and faith-based teaching have been diluted to the point of being unrecognizable in much of modern and increasingly secular America. Both are now simply ignored or considered open to individual interpretation.

In his classic book, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes about moral claims people make on one another. He notes they often say you should or should not do such and such, or you ought to say, or not say certain things. In this, he says, they are appealing to a standard outside of themselves.

Here is how Lewis puts it: Now what interests me about all of these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other mans behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about

Todays other man may know about such standards, but he is likely afraid to speak of them lest he be ostracized from what used to be called polite society.

So, please, tell me if you can: do any standards exist and if they do, based on what? If you believe they dont, on what is this belief based?

Denying a standard is in itself a standard, is it not?

Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist and author. Readers may email him at: [emailprotected]

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Latest Articles

Varsity Maine

Crime

River Valley

Oxford Hills

The Franklin Journal

See the original post here:
Cal Thomas: What happened to boundaries? | Lewiston Sun Journal - Lewiston Sun Journal

National projections: Iowa COVID deaths will continue to slow, reach nearly 6000 by June – Quad City Times

The Institute for Health Metrics & Evaluation, based at the University of Washington, predicts Iowa COVID-19 infections and deaths will continue to taper through June 1.

By May 1, COVID-19 will have killed 5,911 Iowans and 2.4 Iowans will be dying each day, the institute estimates. The total death toll will increase to 5,960 by June 1, but the pace slows to less than one death per day. The institute estimates use of intensive care beds at Iowa hospitals will fall to 7.1 beds needed May 1 and 2.89 beds June 1.

The institute estimates total infections per day including people not tested at 846 for today (March 8), but down to 172 on May 1 and 65 on June 1.

The major caveat for these predictions is human behavior.

The institute projects worst-case scenario numbers that reflect the spread of COVID-19 variants, increased mobility of the population and declining mask use. Under these projections, infection rates are more than double the standard prediction and more Iowans die from the disease.

The institute also has projections for 95% public mask use in the state, which show fewer infections, hospitalizations and deaths. However, Iowas unlikely to experience that level of mask use, especially as more Iowans are vaccinated and people grow weary of the restrictions.

View original post here:
National projections: Iowa COVID deaths will continue to slow, reach nearly 6000 by June - Quad City Times

Eye Tracking Market Expected to Grow at CAGR 24.5% and Forecast to 2027 KSU | The Sentinel Newspaper – KSU | The Sentinel Newspaper

Global Eye Tracking Market is valued approximately USD 295.6 million in 2019 and is anticipated to grow with a healthy growth rate of more than 24.5% over the forecast period 2020-2027.

Eye Tracker is the device used to analyze and evaluate the position and the moment of the eye concerning using either a remote or an eye tracker that is mounted to the head and connected to the computer. It comprises of the monitoring the activities such as ignoring, blinking, looking, and the noticeable reaction of the pupil to different stimuli. The global Eye Tracking market is facing challenges due to the coronavirus pandemic as various retail stores, advertisement companies, and research labs are currently non-operational in multiple countries, which has negatively impacted the demand for eye-tracking technology-based products and services. The growing demand for eye-tracking-based assistive communication, rising adoption of eye-tracking technology in advertisement and consumer research and increasing penetration of eye-tracking technology in automotive & transportation industry are the few factors responsible for growth of the market over the forecast period. Furthermore, the rising advancements and other strategic alliance by market key players will create a lucrative demand for this market. For instance: in June 2020, Tobbi Pro launched Tobii Pro Glasses 3, next-generation of wearable eye tracker, integrated cameras and illuminators inside the glass itself, enabling a combination of eye tracking performance in dynamic environments with an unobtrusive design. However, growth in gesture recognition market is the major factor restraining the growth of global Eye Tracking market during the forecast period.

Get Sample of This [emailprotected] https://brandessenceresearch.biz/Request/Sample?ResearchPostId=194283&RequestType=Sample

The regional analysis of global Eye Tracking market is considered for the key regions such as Asia Pacific, North America, Europe, Latin America and Rest of the World. North America is the leading/significant region across the world owing to the increasing use of advanced technology in the healthcare sector and growing research activities to understand the human behavior. Whereas, Asia-Pacific is also anticipated to exhibit highest growth rate / CAGR over the forecast period 2020-2027.

Major market player included in this report are:

Tobii AB

Seeing Machines Ltd.

SR Research

Eyetech Digital Systems

Smart Eye

Eyetracking, Inc.

Prs In Vivo

Eyegaze

Ergoneers GmBH

Iscan

The objective of the study is to define market sizes of different segments & countries in recent years and to forecast the values to the coming eight years. The report is designed to incorporate both qualitative and quantitative aspects of the industry within each of the regions and countries involved in the study. Furthermore, the report also caters the detailed information about the crucial aspects such as driving factors & challenges which will define the future growth of the market. Additionally, the report shall also incorporate available opportunities in micro markets for stakeholders to invest along with the detailed analysis of competitive landscape and product offerings of key players. The detailed segments and sub-segment of the market are explained below:

by Offering:

Hardware

Software

Research & Consulting Services

By Tracking Type:

Remote Tracking

Mobile Tracking

By Application:

Assistive Communication

Human Behavior & Market Research

Others

By Vertical:

Retail & Advertisement

Consumer Electronics

Healthcare & Research Labs

Government, Defense, and Aerospace

Automotive & Transportation

Others

By Region:

North America

U.S.

Canada

Europe

UK

Germany

France

Spain

Italy

ROE

Asia Pacific

China

India

Japan

Australia

South Korea

RoAPAC

Latin America

Brazil

Mexico

Rest of the World

Furthermore, years considered for the study are as follows:

Historical year a?? 2017, 2018

Base year a?? 2019

Forecast period a?? 2020 to 2027

Target Audience of the Global Eye Tracking Market in Market Study:

Key Consulting Companies & Advisors

Large, medium-sized, and small enterprises

Venture capitalists

Value-Added Resellers (VARs)

Third-party knowledge providers

Investment bankers

Investors

Table of Content

Chapter 1. Executive Summary

1.1. Market Snapshot

1.2. Global & Segmental Market Estimates & Forecasts, 2018-2027 (USD Million)

1.2.1. Eye Tracking Market, by Region, 2018-2027 (USD Million)

1.2.2. Eye Tracking Market, by Offering, 2018-2027 (USD Million)

1.2.3. Eye Tracking Market, by Tracking Type, 2018-2027 (USD Million)

1.2.4. Eye Tracking Market, by Application, 2018-2027 (USD Million)

1.2.5. Eye Tracking Market, by Vertical, 2018-2027 (USD Million)

1.3. Key Trends

1.4. Estimation Methodology

1.5. Research Assumption

Chapter 2. Global Eye Tracking Market Definition and Scope

2.1. Objective of the Study

2.2. Market Definition & Scope

2.2.1. Scope of the Study

2.2.2. Industry Evolution

2.3. Years Considered for the Study

2.4. Currency Conversion Rates

Chapter 3. Global Eye Tracking Market Dynamics

3.1. Eye Tracking Market Impact Analysis (2018-2027)

3.1.1. Market Drivers

3.1.2. Market Challenges

3.1.3. Market Opportunities

Chapter 4. Global Eye Tracking Market Industry Analysis

4.1. Portera??s 5 Force Model

Continue reading here:
Eye Tracking Market Expected to Grow at CAGR 24.5% and Forecast to 2027 KSU | The Sentinel Newspaper - KSU | The Sentinel Newspaper

New Evolutionary Theory: The Human Brain Grew as a Result of the Extinction of Large Animals – SciTechDaily

Elephant hunting illustrations. Credit: Dana Ackerfeld

A new paper by Dr. Miki Ben-Dor and Prof. Ran Barkai from the Jacob M. Alkow Department of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University proposes an original unifying explanation for the physiological, behavioral and cultural evolution of the human species, from its first appearance about two million years ago, to the agricultural revolution (around 10,000 BCE). According to the paper, humans developed as hunters of large animals, causing their ultimate extinction. As they adapted to hunting small, swift prey animals, humans developed higher cognitive abilities, evidenced by the most obvious evolutionary change the growth of brain volume from 650cc to 1,500cc. To date, no unifying explanation has been proposed for the major phenomena in human prehistory. The novel theory was published in Quaternary Journal.

In recent years more and more evidence has been accumulated to the effect that humans were a major factor in the extinction of large animals, and consequently had to adapt to hunting smaller game, first in Africa and later in all other parts of the world. In Africa, 2.6 million years ago, when humans first emerged, the average size of land mammals was close to 500kg. Just before the advent of agriculture this figure had decreased by over 90% down to several tens of kg.

Prof. Ran Barkai. Credit: Tel Aviv University

According to the researchers, the decrease in the size of game and the need to hunt small, swift animals forced humans to display cunning and boldness an evolutionary process that demanded increased volume of the human brain and later led to the development of language enabling the exchange of information about where prey could be found. The theory claims that all means served one end: body energy conservation.

The researchers show that, throughout most of their evolution, early humans were apex (top) predators, specializing in hunting large game. Representing most of the biomass available for hunting, these animals provided humans with high fat levels, an essential source of energy, and enabled a higher energy return than small game. In the past, six different species of elephants lived in Africa, comprising more than half of the biomass of all herbivores hunted by humans. Initial evidence from East Africa indicates that homo sapiens only emerged in that area after a significant decline in the number of elephant species in certain regions. Comparing the size of animals found in archaeological cultures, representing different species of humans in east Africa, southern Europe and Israel, the researchers found that in all cases there was a significant decline in the prevalence of animals weighing over 200kg, coupled with an increase in the volume of the human brain.

We correlate the increase in human brain volume with the need to become smarter hunters, explains Dr. Ben-Dor. For example, the need to hunt dozens of gazelles instead of one elephant generated prolonged evolutionary pressure on the brain functions of humans, who were now using up much more energy in both movement and thought processes. Hunting small animals, that are constantly threatened by predators and therefore very quick to take flight, requires a physiology adapted to the chase as well as more sophisticated hunting tools. Cognitive activity also rises as fast tracking requires fast decision-making, based on phenomenal acquaintance with the animals behavior information that needs to be stored in a larger memory.

The evolutionary adaptation of humans was very successful, says Dr. Ben-Dor. As the size of animals continued to decrease, the invention of the bow and arrow and domestication of dogs enabled more efficient hunting of medium-sized and small animals until these populations also dwindled. Toward the end of the Stone Age, as animals became even smaller, humans had to put more energy into hunting than they were able to get back. Indeed, this is when the Agricultural Revolution occurred, involving the domestication of both animals and plants. As humans moved into permanent settlements and became farmers, their brain size decreased to its current volume of 1300-1400cc. This happened because, with domesticated plants and animals that dont take flight, there was no more need for the allocation of outstanding cognitive abilities to the task of hunting.

Prof. Barkai: While the chimpanzees brain, for example, has remained stable for 7 million years, the human brain grew threefold, reaching its greatest size about 300,000 years ago. In addition to brain volume, evolutionary pressure caused humans to use language, fire and sophisticated tools such as bow and arrow, adapt their arms and shoulders to the tasks of throwing and hurling and their bodies to the prolonged chase, improve their stone tools, domesticate dogs and ultimately also domesticate the game itself and turn to agriculture.

Prof. Barkai adds: It must be understood that our perspective is not deterministic. Humans brought this trouble upon themselves. By focusing on hunting the largest animals, they caused extinctions. Wherever humans appeared whether homo erectus or homo sapiens, we see, sooner or later, mass extinction of large animals. Dependence on large animals had its price. Humans undercut their own livelihood. But while other species, like our cousins the Neanderthals, became extinct when their large prey disappeared, homo sapiens decided to start over again, this time relying on agriculture.

Reference: Prey Size Decline as a Unifying Ecological Selecting Agent in Pleistocene Human Evolution by by Miki Ben-Dor and Ran Barkai, 19 February 2021, Quarternary Research.DOI: 10.3390/quat4010007

Excerpt from:
New Evolutionary Theory: The Human Brain Grew as a Result of the Extinction of Large Animals - SciTechDaily

BreakPoint: The infinite human capacity to deceive ourselves and then rationalize it – Chattanooga Times Free Press

Two days before Christmas, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries confirmed that its founder had engaged in sexual misconduct over the course of many years and promised further information when the investigation into the matter was complete. On Feb. 11, RZIM released the full report as they had received it, along with an extended, contrite statement of apology.

Ravi was a significant personal influence and a great friend of the Colson Center. When Ravi died in May of last year, we honored him. At the time, both Ravi and RZIM leadership claimed that allegations of an inappropriate relationship had been dismissed and disproven after a thorough investigation. We trusted the information provided to us. We were wrong. I both believed and shared excuses that explained Ravi's behavior. By doing that, I was wrong and misled others. To be clear, no one at the Colson Center had any sense just how much would be revealed in this final report. But I wish I had not been so quick to trust what I wanted to be true.

There is no sugarcoating, excusing or explaining away Ravi's behavior. It was sinful. It was wicked. And, as this report made crystal clear, it was duplicitous. Reading through it, I couldn't shake the words I heard time and time again from Chuck Colson: "There is no limit to the human capacity for self-rationalization."

That's why Proverbs uses the word "folly" to describe sin. As a mentor of mine used to say, sin makes us dumb. Buried in sin, we become fools, actually convincing ourselves that, for the first time in human history, we will be the ones to get away with it.

As sin takes us deeper than we ever imagined possible, others are dragged along into our self-deception. Sin always leaves other victims, human beings made in the image of God and for whom Christ died. The number of women Ravi abused, and the degree to which he deceived them, is breathtaking. RZIM has committed to make restitution and care for these women. I hope and pray they will. And there are other victims to remember: family members, friends and the many disillusioned others around the world.

Recently, a BreakPoint listener emailed us asking how we should respond to cases like this, when a Christian leader or teacher is caught in sexual misconduct. Is it possible to separate the good that they've done and the truth they've taught, the person and their sin? What about in cases such as this, when the perpetrator is gone and has no further opportunity to acknowledge his sins, repent and seek forgiveness?

We need not deny that Ravi's teaching helped many Christians make sense of the faith, deal with their doubts and engage other people with the Gospel, in order to acknowledge the depth of his depraved behavior. As my colleague Shane Morris pointed out a few weeks ago, no one is "made of finer clay" than anyone else. As St. Paul wrote, "There is none righteous, no not one."

It's also important to remember, to borrow a phrase popularized by Christian educator Arthur Holmes, "all truth is God's truth." In other words, if Ravi Zacharias ever said anything true in his life, and of course he did, he was not its source but only its medium. Any truth all truth comes ultimately from God, outside of time or place or context. Even if delivered by the most sinful voices, truth is as eternal and unchanging as God himself.

A postmodern worldview, in contrast, relativizes truth to cultural settings or individuals. In other words, truth is not absolute. But if truth is dependent on the shifting sands of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions of a culture or an individual, anything we build on it must collapse when any of those things do.

Of course, knowing that doesn't make what's happened any less painful, disorienting or consequential, especially for all those women involved. Having talent, even amazing talent, to communicate does not give one a divine right or inherent privilege (and it is an incredible privilege) to have or to keep a public platform. Scripture is clear: Teachers are stewards of the truth and therefore held to a higher standard.

This is not the same thing as cancel culture, which is so popular in our time. Cancel culture cancels people because of their different beliefs. This is about behavior; this is about reprehensible behavior that deeply harmed other people.

Finally, let this be a reminder to not trust ourselves, but only God and his Spirit. Pray for your pastor, church leaders, spouse and whomever else God has put in your life. We need his protection from the real and ever-present temptations, as well as from our own capacity to deceive ourselves and then rationalize our behavior.

From BreakPoint, Feb. 15, 2021; reprinted by permission of the Colson Center, http://www.breakpoint.org.

See the article here:
BreakPoint: The infinite human capacity to deceive ourselves and then rationalize it - Chattanooga Times Free Press

Whats Up at the Movies: We Review Nomadland – What’sUpNewp

If youre someone who follows the world of cinema, youve heard of Nomadland this staple of best-of-2020 lists from Chlo Zhao became the first film to ever win the top prizes at both Venice and Toronto and has smashed the awards circuit so far. Yesterday, it finally became available for public viewing, releasing simultaneously in theaters and on Hulu. It was, at least for me, worth the wait. It is beautiful, engrossing, and deeply moving. If I see Nomadland written on the marquee when my local movie theaters reopen, I will not hesitate to walk in and buy myself a ticket. That I couldnt see it on the big screen the first time around is a matter of small heartbreak.

Based on Jessica Bruders 2017 nonfiction book Nomadland: Surviving America in the Twenty-First Century, Zhaos film explores the post-recession phenomenon of older Americans choosing to live out of vans, trailers, and RVs and work seasonal jobs across the country. Though the films narrative focuses on the fictional Fern (Frances McDormand), who becomes a Nomad after a factory closure dissolves her Nevada town, the cast is mostly non-actors playing versions of themselves. The film is genuinely interested in understanding these people and their way of life; the pain that drives up their roots, the breadth of experience that keeps them roaming, and the natural beauty that lines their unending road.

Through the delicate study of Fern as she finds her place in this new world, Zhao shares this understanding with us, and McDormands performance here (surprise, surprise) is nothing short of remarkable. Not only is she tasked with realizing her own character (the depth and nuance of Ferns feelings are at every moment clear and affecting), but she must manage the gap between her and the real-life nomads, who have genuine experience to draw on but lack her toolkit for presenting that experience to the camera. They succeed in appearing natural in part because she tailors her performance to them, until professional and non-professional are virtually indistinguishable, leaving only human behavior behind. Zhao deserves substantial credit for shepherding her cast into this comfort-zone, but as with Willem Dafoe in 2017s The Florida Project, Nomadland exemplifies how placing the right veteran among the people who live the films reality can elevate the entire experience.

This is especially true when the director is as willing as Zhao to forsake flash in favor of giving her subjects careful attention. Her style feels like one intended to remove any obstacle between character and audience while dictating as little about how we should engage with them as possible, and the result is a film rich with meaning. Theres room to read Nomadland as a political indictment of a society that makes wanderers out of its retirement-age workers, or as a generic reworking of the Western. You can let yourself be wrapped up in its human drama or focus on taking in the stunning natural imagery. However we choose to approach this new world, she only asks that we do it with empathy, so that come away marked by the experience. This is no difficult task Nomadland is so emotionally involving that not empathizing is virtually unimaginable. I may not have seen it in time to put it on my Best of 2020 list, but expect to see it again when it comes time to rank the Best of 2021.

Read the rest here:
Whats Up at the Movies: We Review Nomadland - What'sUpNewp

Earth’s magnetic field flipped 42,000 years ago, creating a climate ‘disaster’ – Livescience.com

A reversal in Earth's magnetic field thousands of years ago plunged the planet into an environmental crisis that may have resembled "a disaster movie," scientists recently discovered.

Our planet's magnetic field is dynamic and, numerous times, it has flipped when the magnetic North and South Poles swap places. In our electronics-dependent world, such a reversal could seriously disrupt communication networks.

But the impact could be even more serious than that, according to the new study. For the first time, scientists have found evidence that a polar flip could have serious ecological repercussions. Their investigation connects a magnetic field reversal about 42,000 years ago to climate upheaval on a global scale, which caused extinctions and reshaped human behavior.

Related: What if Earth's magnetic field disappeared?

Incredible Earth: $22.99 at Magazines Direct

The planet we live on is a remarkable place. But have you ever wondered how or why these things occur? How the Earth was made? How we predict the weather? How fossils form? What causes earthquakes or which animals glow in the dark? "Incredible Earth" reveals answers to these questions and more on a thrilling journey through everything you need to know about our world and with gorgeous photography and insightful diagrams along the way!View Deal

Earth's magnetosphere the magnetic barrier surrounding the planet originates from the churning of hot, molten metal around its iron core. This perpetually sloshing liquid flow generates electricity that in turn produces magnetic field lines, which curve around the planet from pole to pole, according to NASA.

Like a protective bubble, the magnetic field shields Earth from solar radiation. On the planet's sun-facing side, constant bombardment from solar winds squishes the magnetic field, so that the field extends to a distance no more than 10 times Earth's radius. However, on the side of the planet facing away from the sun, the field extends much farther into space, forming an enormous "magnetotail" that reaches beyond our moon, NASA says.

Marking the two spots on Earth where arcing magnetic field lines converge are the magnetic North Pole and South Pole. But while these positions are relatively stable, the poles and the magnetic field itself aren't fixed in place. About once every 200,000 to 300,000 years, the field weakens enough to reverse polarity completely. The process can take hundreds or even thousands of years, according to NASA.

Magnetic molecules preserved in volcanic deposits and other sediments tell scientists when past reversals happened; those molecules align with the magnetic field at the time that they were deposited, so they indicate the location of the magnetic North Pole, said lead study author Alan Cooper, an emeritus professor in the Department of Geology at the University of Otago in New Zealand.

Recently, researchers questioned whether a relatively recent and brief polarity reversal called the Laschamps Excursion, which took place between 41,000 and 42,000 years ago, could be linked to other dramatic changes on Earth from that time, which had not previously been attributed to activity in the magnetosphere. They suspected that during a time when our protective magnetic field was reversing and thereby weaker than normal solar and cosmic radiation exposure could affect the atmosphere enough to impact climate, the study authors reported.

Prior studies of Greenland ice cores dating to Laschamps didn't reveal evidence of climate change, according to the study. But this time, the researchers turned their attention to another potential source of climate data: bog-preserved kauri trees (Agathis australis) from northern New Zealand.

They cut cross-sections, or "biscuits," from the preserved trunks, and looked at changes in levels of carbon 14, a radioactive form of the element, over a period that included the Laschamps reversal. Their analysis revealed elevated levels of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere during Laschamps, when the magnetic field was weakening.

"Once we worked out the exact timing from the kauri record, we could see that it coincided perfectly with records of climatic and biological change all over the world," Cooper told Live Science in an email. For example, around this time, megafauna in Australia began to go extinct and Neanderthals in Europe were dying out; their decline may have been accelerated by climate-related changes to their ecosystems, Cooper said.

The authors then used computer climate models to test what may have caused widespread climate upheaval and related extinctions. They found that a weak magnetic field operating at about 6% of its normal strength could lead to major climate impacts "via the ionizing radiation strongly damaging the ozone layer, letting in UV [ultraviolet rays] and altering the ways in which the sun's energy was absorbed by the atmosphere," Cooper explained.

A heavily ionized atmosphere could also have generated brilliant auroras around the world and produced frequent lightning storms, making skies look like "something similar to a disaster movie," Cooper said.

Another significant shift around that time was in Homo sapiens, with cave art beginning to appear in locations around the world. This included the first examples of red ochre hand stencils, "which we suspect is actually a sign of the application of sunscreen," a practice still seen in modern Indigenous groups in Namibia, Cooper said. Higher UV levels from a weak magnetic field could have driven humans to seek shelter in caves, or forced them to protect their skin with sunblocking minerals, he said.

Scientists can't predict precisely when the next reversal of our magnetic field might happen. However, some signs such as the North Pole's current migration across the Bering Sea area and the magnetic field itself weakening nearly 10% over the past 170 years suggest that a flip may be closer than we think, making it more urgent that researchers fully understand how big shifts in our magnetic field could shape environmental changes on a global scale, according to the study.

"Overall, these findings raise important questions about the evolutionary impacts of geomagnetic reversals and excursions throughout the deeper geological record," the scientists wrote.

The findings were published online Feb. 18 in the journal Science.

Originally published on Live Science.

Read more here:
Earth's magnetic field flipped 42,000 years ago, creating a climate 'disaster' - Livescience.com