Redfox8

Are there any birds that could actually get in it? The hole looks too small for, anything! (At least in the UK, hummingbird, maybe in warmer climes) Maybe a shrew or mouse would squeeze in, which would be appropriate!

On heat retention, that's only going to be a problem re overheating in direct sun I'd have thought.

But then who are the criminals and 'bad' people if not those that have rejected the contract? Life is never all or nothing, so there will be times when someone will abide by the contract, for whatever reason, and times when they wont. This discussion centres on the times that they don't and assumes that is the option taken the majority of the time.

True, a society does demand sacrifice of free will, however it can be argued that there can never be 100% free will even if you're a hermit in a cave 100s of miles from another human. E.g. "I want to stay in my cave all day today, but I can't because I've run out of food." Hunger removes the free will for that period of time.

No, I don't believe so. Some might, but I think many do it purely for the selfish reason of avoiding guilt etc. Just because you and I and many others see it as being good for everyone, I don't beleive that most people think the same! They may be able to describe the act of doing something for the benefit of all, just as we are discussing, and understand it, but otherwise only want whatever they want regardless of the impact on others. Humans are selfish, all of us are, it's an evolutionary tool for survival used by all life and helps ensure the survival of the species. Some of us regularly think beyond that though, but I reckon you'd be surprised how few do with any regulatory, it can become quite tiring to constantly assess situations afresh, so instinct kicks in and so people just do what they want in that moment that takes the least effort.

Ah but is that not peer pressure? You and others don't want your cars damaged etc and therefore critisise people who leave carts around selfishly. This then creates a scenario where people may feel guilty or wish to avoid said critisism and put the cart away as a result.

I agree that social contracts exist, but only between those who accept them and are willing to make an effort for everyone and anyone. Those that do not return the cart are in effect rejecting that contract.

I'd argue that doing something because of peer pressure is different to being taught or learning to be considerate, so what looks like considerate behaviour from the outside, may just be e.g. avoidance of guilt/judgement. It doesn't necessarily equate to being civilized.

But the 'test' is peer pressure, no? Which exists permanently in real life so there will always be a portion of people only returning the cart because of that.

Thanks for clarifying. My point was not to ilicit sympathy, any such violence is ahorant and the perpetrator must take responsibility, ultimately, but rather to illicit empathy. To understand how and why people end up in such a place then creates the starting point to find solutions, or at least, minimise how frequently they may occur within a population in the future.

As such, I'm inclined to think that in at least some of the cases where the individual commits suicide once the police turn up, they have reached a total breaking point, so to speak, and the last option they can see has gone so suicide is sll that's left.

This to me doesn't suggest a 'bad' person, more so someone who has found themselves in a terrible place, particularly in cases where that's no fault of their own, and are wndingvup doing something bad. Being 'bad' to me is closer to gansta/mobster mentality - e.g. killing people is fine, so long as its not us, and i cant imagine any mass shooter being someone like that. There are a myriad of variables of course, and this may only apply to some of the people painted as 'bad' in this infografic.

Unless thay weren't actually 'bad' people, rather they found themselves having to use a gun as the only option left to them. One notable bit of info missing is why these people had a gun and why were they using it?

I understand clearly that you think domestic cats are a natural part of the ecosystem, which they are not. Just because they were introduced a long time ago that doesn't make them natural predators, and just becsuse their impact on native wildlife started a long time ago, that only makes it all the more damaging.

Yes we have wildcats, but like any animal, they have a natural niche. Domestic cats are simply everywhere and their populations are sustained by humans far far above any possible natural population numbers.

Therefore it is completely relevant to keep domestic cats indoors. I don't know about the US approach you're referring to, but I expect that domestic cats can have a similar impact there as anywhere.

There is simply nothing natural about domestic cats in natural ecosystems. I presented four peices of evidence and you still don't see it!

The say the UK lacks predators, you clearly seem to have read one thing about it (I'm guessing about wolves, and therefore large predators, which have a completely different ecological niche to small cats, wild or domestic) and extrapolate that to equate this idea of yours!

You've simply got it wrong.

Absolute BS!

Domestic cats are well known predators of rodents, birds and bats!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cats-kill-a-staggering-number-of-species-across-the-world/

https://www.felineresearch.org/post/issue-brief-wildlife-impacts-of-outdoor-cats

https://www.birdspot.co.uk/garden-birds-and-cats/cats-and-the-decline-of-garden-birds

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/14/cats-kill-birds-wildlife-keep-indoors

Phwarrr, that's a sexy pose ;)