Congress UFO hearing

[PeteD01]

I never quite understood the Fermi paradox as it seems to rest on a false premise and that is the assumption that there is something that puts intelligent beings inevitably on a  track towards sending beings into space.

I think that is a wrong assumption based on anthropomorphizing in a pretty narrow sense.

Intelligent beings capable of developing the means of interstellar space travel might be too smart to get into the rocket.

Even here on earth a small change in attitude makes the endeavor questionable.

Let's just look at the concept of human space flight as envisioned today: it requires to see a human being as an individual entity that is separable from its environment with all relations described as interactions with said environment that then can be recreated in ersatz form using technical solutions.

Funny thing is that there is no good evidence that this is a view approaching reality.

Another view would be to see biologic entities as physical manifestations of an underlying roiling interconnected biologic/chemical/physical stream of chains of events, with the individual entity simply being a physical instantiation participating in the setting of conditions for the next round.

Looked at this way, space travel would represent an excision of a transient quality from a much larger process. (Or think of it as trying to cut a wave out of the Atlantic ocean and send it to Mars.)

Understanding biological entities in this way makes it philosophically rather difficult to even conceive of a way to send humans on long distance space trips - disconnected from everything that caused it to exist, now existing in a simulacrum of environment, that what arrives at the destination might not be human anymore in the way we experience it. (Or just imagine Elon Musk under a rock on Mars - that's an alien alright.)

There is another seemingly plausible explanation for the Fermi paradox: emerging intelligent societies will inevitably discover nuclear fission/fusion and will inevitably blow themselves up before being able to launch.
That is the filter hypothesis.
But it's just another case of anthropomorphizing by people during the cold war who were involved in the atomic bomb development.

For me personally there is no Fermi paradox, and the absence of observable aliens comes down to "too smart to launch".
Smarts good enough to theoretically being able to conduct interstellar travel are probably more likely to lead to the understanding that one is already in space and taking care of the vessel takes priority.

And I didn´t dive further into this alien thing after getting to this point many years ago. I cannot see it as a productive train of inquiry.
 

I am also skeptical about the amount of anthropomorphism in popular ET theories. Both the "Fermi Paradox" and "Drake Equation" don't describe the odds of finding extraterrestrials, they describe the odds of describing humans. Specifically Drake and Fermi's conception of humans. There's no reason to even think that ET would or could even conceive of the same concept.

That said, not sure if I am fully on board with with humans being inseparable from their environment. Did anyone who ever went above 17,000 feet (the highest permanent human habitation) become non or less human?

I just wrote a paper on this and inseparable doesn't so much mean that humans can't be physically separated from their environment, it means that we aren't as discrete from their environment as we imagine ourselves to be. We are more biologically contiguous with the world around us than we tend to think.

What it means is you can't separate the concept of the human from their ecosystem. Where exactly does the human end and the environment begin??

You can remove a single human from the organismal whole and it will survive for some amount of time depending on the conditions, the same way you can remove human cells and keep them alive, it all depends on the conditions of the artificial environment.

Just because you can carve part of an organism away and keep it alive doesn't mean it's a totally separate organism. Humans aren't even well defined as organisms, because of our microbiomes, we're reasonably well defined as diverse, complex environments ourselves.

We're just one of the layers of the larger ecosystem of life.

Yes, the reductionist biological view has its merits where appropriate, but that view should not be taken as representative of reality.

Interestingly, the ecological view is in all likelihood far more common and has been the pre-eminent view humans always had prior to scientific reductionism.

Let's just imagine asking someone from the premodern world who and what they are. Such an individual would not describe themselves in biologic terms but via its environmental relations such as family, ancestors, place where they live and die, politics, the work they do, the languages they speak, and the food they eat, and so forth.

There would likely be mention of the spirit or spirits and animals that inhabit the world and their relationships to the people.

This is clearly an ecological view in which human (and non-human) individuality emerges from the uncountable variety of relations an organism has in the world.

Try to explain to a premodern person that idea of plucking an organism out of this intricate web of relations and placing it in a tin can with life support equipment in order to explore the stars - the sheer madness of it all.

At this point, I suppose, the person would likely recommend a good shaman who can help with that.

The good news is that modern ecological views are entirely compatible with these traditional views

Lol, yeah. I recently wrote a paper about how the reductionist concept of the self is the essentially an iatrogenic element of psychology. Ontological conceptualizations are just common fucking sense, really.

I was arguing that Carl Rogers was an ontological ecopsychologist all along and everyone who has studied him since just missed the fucking point. Lol. It was a fun paper to write.

OK I think I understand better now. It's not that you lose a part of your soul by entering space,

Souls and something essentially human that makes us so are metaphysical/religious ideas that require faith, that is belief independent of evidence for or against it, and that's not something one can reason with because anything goes.
A related concept is the idea of a stable self over time, but that seems to be an illusion as the sense of self changes over time and that change would certainly be affected by long term space travel.
So with souls and human essence non-existent one can only take the illusion of a stable self on the trip, but that illusion is not going to provide stability because it is subject to change.


it's that humans would not be able to sustain themselves or propagate over any meaningful number of generations away from Earth, and even that would likely have lower quality of life and be less healthy. Humans will not, or cannot, overcome this through technology. In fact, even thinking that a technological "solution" is possible is missing the point.

Travel over significant interstellar distances would certainly be multi-generational and is typically envisioned as successive attempts at colonization of suitable planets (major ethical issues here as suitable planets are probably populated with some life forms and the planet might need to be sterilized before terraforming).
We are talking tens to hundreds of thousands of years spent in environments very different from earth and evolution does not stop. In addition, every colony that is left behind becomes an isolated population and thus an evolutionary fork,
In fact, looking at species over time frames approaching geological time, the idea of discrete species becomes fuzzy and homo sapiens is not exempt from this.


I think I was thrown by this part "what arrives at the destination might not be human anymore in the way we experience it" because... why would something arriving not be human if it looks, smells, walks, talks, and shares the genetics of a human?

The notion that an organism is fully described by the genome is faulty. We know that ontogeny proceeds in an interactive fashion with the environment which influences gene expression, partial genomic rearrangement, epigenetic effects etc and is an ongoing process throughout life.
As mentioned above, the microbiome should also be considered part of the human organism and that would be affected by being away from earth. There is also a massive amount of viral DNA incorporated into the human genome and mitochondria represent a mutualistic relationship, so any inclusion or exclusion of a mutualistic/symbiotic relationship would be arbitrary; but this is precisely the question that needs to be answered in order to decide where the organism truly ends and what needs to go on the trip.
It might help to think of what passes as a human being right now as a snapshot of an ongoing historical process of coevolution that would be interrupted for the space travelers by severing themselves from the web of relations existing on earth.
The dispersal and colonization of space would be characterized by ever more diverging and multiplying evolutionary trajectories.
I think, based on current understanding, that the case for the space colonizers being human in the earthling sense is not a strong one, to say the least.
And that is just the biology side of things (and we have barely scratched the surface here).


And was a human when it left? Otherwise I'd have agreed. I'm not 100% on board, but I'd agree that this is the accepted reality unless proven otherwise, and I think it is unlikely that any development in my life will prove it or even come close.

Well, human space colonization really falls on its face just on biologic grounds alone, but it completely falls apart with the idea that what constitutes a human being is necessarily a social construct and the fact that constructs taken out of context do not work well at all.
To bring it to a point: The idea that one can send humans into space in order to flourish on other planets is critically dependent on seeing humans as a sort of biologic machines that can be neatly separated from their environment.
That view is false, considering the available evidence.   

[scottish]

I never quite understood the Fermi paradox as it seems to rest on a false premise and that is the assumption that there is something that puts intelligent beings inevitably on a  track towards sending beings into space.

I think that is a wrong assumption based on anthropomorphizing in a pretty narrow sense.

Intelligent beings capable of developing the means of interstellar space travel might be too smart to get into the rocket.

Even here on earth a small change in attitude makes the endeavor questionable.

Let's just look at the concept of human space flight as envisioned today: it requires to see a human being as an individual entity that is separable from its environment with all relations described as interactions with said environment that then can be recreated in ersatz form using technical solutions.

Funny thing is that there is no good evidence that this is a view approaching reality.

Another view would be to see biologic entities as physical manifestations of an underlying roiling interconnected biologic/chemical/physical stream of chains of events, with the individual entity simply being a physical instantiation participating in the setting of conditions for the next round.

Looked at this way, space travel would represent an excision of a transient quality from a much larger process. (Or think of it as trying to cut a wave out of the Atlantic ocean and send it to Mars.)

Understanding biological entities in this way makes it philosophically rather difficult to even conceive of a way to send humans on long distance space trips - disconnected from everything that caused it to exist, now existing in a simulacrum of environment, that what arrives at the destination might not be human anymore in the way we experience it. (Or just imagine Elon Musk under a rock on Mars - that's an alien alright.)

There is another seemingly plausible explanation for the Fermi paradox: emerging intelligent societies will inevitably discover nuclear fission/fusion and will inevitably blow themselves up before being able to launch.
That is the filter hypothesis.
But it's just another case of anthropomorphizing by people during the cold war who were involved in the atomic bomb development.

For me personally there is no Fermi paradox, and the absence of observable aliens comes down to "too smart to launch".
Smarts good enough to theoretically being able to conduct interstellar travel are probably more likely to lead to the understanding that one is already in space and taking care of the vessel takes priority.

And I didn´t dive further into this alien thing after getting to this point many years ago. I cannot see it as a productive train of inquiry.
 

I am also skeptical about the amount of anthropomorphism in popular ET theories. Both the "Fermi Paradox" and "Drake Equation" don't describe the odds of finding extraterrestrials, they describe the odds of describing humans. Specifically Drake and Fermi's conception of humans. There's no reason to even think that ET would or could even conceive of the same concept.

That said, not sure if I am fully on board with with humans being inseparable from their environment. Did anyone who ever went above 17,000 feet (the highest permanent human habitation) become non or less human?

I just wrote a paper on this and inseparable doesn't so much mean that humans can't be physically separated from their environment, it means that we aren't as discrete from their environment as we imagine ourselves to be. We are more biologically contiguous with the world around us than we tend to think.

What it means is you can't separate the concept of the human from their ecosystem. Where exactly does the human end and the environment begin??

You can remove a single human from the organismal whole and it will survive for some amount of time depending on the conditions, the same way you can remove human cells and keep them alive, it all depends on the conditions of the artificial environment.

Just because you can carve part of an organism away and keep it alive doesn't mean it's a totally separate organism. Humans aren't even well defined as organisms, because of our microbiomes, we're reasonably well defined as diverse, complex environments ourselves.

We're just one of the layers of the larger ecosystem of life.

Yes, the reductionist biological view has its merits where appropriate, but that view should not be taken as representative of reality.

Interestingly, the ecological view is in all likelihood far more common and has been the pre-eminent view humans always had prior to scientific reductionism.

Let's just imagine asking someone from the premodern world who and what they are. Such an individual would not describe themselves in biologic terms but via its environmental relations such as family, ancestors, place where they live and die, politics, the work they do, the languages they speak, and the food they eat, and so forth.

There would likely be mention of the spirit or spirits and animals that inhabit the world and their relationships to the people.

This is clearly an ecological view in which human (and non-human) individuality emerges from the uncountable variety of relations an organism has in the world.

Try to explain to a premodern person that idea of plucking an organism out of this intricate web of relations and placing it in a tin can with life support equipment in order to explore the stars - the sheer madness of it all.

At this point, I suppose, the person would likely recommend a good shaman who can help with that.

The good news is that modern ecological views are entirely compatible with these traditional views

Lol, yeah. I recently wrote a paper about how the reductionist concept of the self is the essentially an iatrogenic element of psychology. Ontological conceptualizations are just common fucking sense, really.

I was arguing that Carl Rogers was an ontological ecopsychologist all along and everyone who has studied him since just missed the fucking point. Lol. It was a fun paper to write.

I'd love to know how you demonstrate that shit experimentally...

[Metalcat]

I'd love to know how you demonstrate that shit experimentally...

Well, thankfully I didn't have to, it was a lit review paper. But it's not hard to find papers that demonstrate that organisms are biologically interconnected and interdependent and to posit that a non-ontological perspective could be psychologically and ecologically toxic as evidenced by social compulsion to destroy our own habitat. It was a very fun paper to write because it was for a clinical instructor I didn't like who absolutely did not have the scientific background to assess the validity of my arguments, so it didn't really matter what I said.

[PeteD01]

I never quite understood the Fermi paradox as it seems to rest on a false premise and that is the assumption that there is something that puts intelligent beings inevitably on a  track towards sending beings into space.

I think that is a wrong assumption based on anthropomorphizing in a pretty narrow sense.

Intelligent beings capable of developing the means of interstellar space travel might be too smart to get into the rocket.

Even here on earth a small change in attitude makes the endeavor questionable.

Let's just look at the concept of human space flight as envisioned today: it requires to see a human being as an individual entity that is separable from its environment with all relations described as interactions with said environment that then can be recreated in ersatz form using technical solutions.

Funny thing is that there is no good evidence that this is a view approaching reality.

Another view would be to see biologic entities as physical manifestations of an underlying roiling interconnected biologic/chemical/physical stream of chains of events, with the individual entity simply being a physical instantiation participating in the setting of conditions for the next round.

Looked at this way, space travel would represent an excision of a transient quality from a much larger process. (Or think of it as trying to cut a wave out of the Atlantic ocean and send it to Mars.)

Understanding biological entities in this way makes it philosophically rather difficult to even conceive of a way to send humans on long distance space trips - disconnected from everything that caused it to exist, now existing in a simulacrum of environment, that what arrives at the destination might not be human anymore in the way we experience it. (Or just imagine Elon Musk under a rock on Mars - that's an alien alright.)

There is another seemingly plausible explanation for the Fermi paradox: emerging intelligent societies will inevitably discover nuclear fission/fusion and will inevitably blow themselves up before being able to launch.
That is the filter hypothesis.
But it's just another case of anthropomorphizing by people during the cold war who were involved in the atomic bomb development.

For me personally there is no Fermi paradox, and the absence of observable aliens comes down to "too smart to launch".
Smarts good enough to theoretically being able to conduct interstellar travel are probably more likely to lead to the understanding that one is already in space and taking care of the vessel takes priority.

And I didn´t dive further into this alien thing after getting to this point many years ago. I cannot see it as a productive train of inquiry.
 

I am also skeptical about the amount of anthropomorphism in popular ET theories. Both the "Fermi Paradox" and "Drake Equation" don't describe the odds of finding extraterrestrials, they describe the odds of describing humans. Specifically Drake and Fermi's conception of humans. There's no reason to even think that ET would or could even conceive of the same concept.

That said, not sure if I am fully on board with with humans being inseparable from their environment. Did anyone who ever went above 17,000 feet (the highest permanent human habitation) become non or less human?

I just wrote a paper on this and inseparable doesn't so much mean that humans can't be physically separated from their environment, it means that we aren't as discrete from their environment as we imagine ourselves to be. We are more biologically contiguous with the world around us than we tend to think.

What it means is you can't separate the concept of the human from their ecosystem. Where exactly does the human end and the environment begin??

You can remove a single human from the organismal whole and it will survive for some amount of time depending on the conditions, the same way you can remove human cells and keep them alive, it all depends on the conditions of the artificial environment.

Just because you can carve part of an organism away and keep it alive doesn't mean it's a totally separate organism. Humans aren't even well defined as organisms, because of our microbiomes, we're reasonably well defined as diverse, complex environments ourselves.

We're just one of the layers of the larger ecosystem of life.

Yes, the reductionist biological view has its merits where appropriate, but that view should not be taken as representative of reality.

Interestingly, the ecological view is in all likelihood far more common and has been the pre-eminent view humans always had prior to scientific reductionism.

Let's just imagine asking someone from the premodern world who and what they are. Such an individual would not describe themselves in biologic terms but via its environmental relations such as family, ancestors, place where they live and die, politics, the work they do, the languages they speak, and the food they eat, and so forth.

There would likely be mention of the spirit or spirits and animals that inhabit the world and their relationships to the people.

This is clearly an ecological view in which human (and non-human) individuality emerges from the uncountable variety of relations an organism has in the world.

Try to explain to a premodern person that idea of plucking an organism out of this intricate web of relations and placing it in a tin can with life support equipment in order to explore the stars - the sheer madness of it all.

At this point, I suppose, the person would likely recommend a good shaman who can help with that.

The good news is that modern ecological views are entirely compatible with these traditional views

Lol, yeah. I recently wrote a paper about how the reductionist concept of the self is the essentially an iatrogenic element of psychology. Ontological conceptualizations are just common fucking sense, really.

I was arguing that Carl Rogers was an ontological ecopsychologist all along and everyone who has studied him since just missed the fucking point. Lol. It was a fun paper to write.

Agree - and Mrs Yoko Kopacă would agree as well, I suppose:

‘We defended our right to the land’: Brazil’s Indigenous people hail supreme court victory
Schirlei Alves in Ibirama-Laklănő
Mon 25 Sep 2023 05.35 EDT

“We are not defenders of nature; we are nature defending itself.” These words from Yoko Kopacă, the 72-year-old leader of the Indigenous communities settling the Ibirama-Laklănő region in Santa Catarina, in southern Brazil, sum up the longstanding hope for justice in their struggle for land. For more than 100 years, the Xokleng people have waited for the Brazilian state to recognise their rights.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/sep/25/we-defended-our-right-to-the-land-brazils-indigenous-people-hail-supreme-court-victory



And for a deeper look:

The Ouroboros (Part 1): Towards an ontology of connectedness in ecopsychology research
Margaret Kerr & David Key
European Journal of Ecopsychology 2: 48-60  (2011)

... many of the deepest and most subtle experiences of psyche and nature make more  sense  if a  wider interconnected  self –  rather  than the   everyday skin-bound sense of “me” – is used as the datum (Kerr & Key, 2012). This has been referred to  by Nćss (1986) as the “ecological self”: a shifting, complex self that is integrated with the rest of  nature,  both physically and metaphysically;  both psychologically  and ecologically. To study the ecological self, perhaps we need to return to James’s  radical   empiricism   and   allow  that   physical   and  mental   phenomena   and  their interconnections are worthy of research. But we would contend that we need to go further still, beyond the dualism that sees objects of study as discrete entities, and  instead see ecopsychological phenomena as inseparable parts of a gestalt.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446495_The_Ouroboros_Part_1_Towards_an_ontology_of_connectedness_in_ecopsychology_research

The Ouroboros (Part 2): Towards an intersubjective-heuristic method for ecopsychology research
David Key & Margaret Kerr
European Journal of Ecopsychology 2: 61-75 (2011)

https://www.ecoself.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Key-Kerr-2011-The-Ouroboros-Part-II-Towards-an-intersubjective-heuristic-method-for-ecopsychology-research.pdf

[Fru-Gal]

I just love this stuff, thanks for the reading materials!

[Metalcat]

Lol, yeah. I recently wrote a paper about how the reductionist concept of the self is the essentially an iatrogenic element of psychology. Ontological conceptualizations are just common fucking sense, really.

I was arguing that Carl Rogers was an ontological ecopsychologist all along and everyone who has studied him since just missed the fucking point. Lol. It was a fun paper to write.

Agree - and Mrs Yoko Kopacă would agree as well, I suppose:

Yeah, I'm a big fan of works from Indigenous writers on ontological concepts.

It's like "uh...folks...we've been here all along saying this, about fucking time someone actually listened."

[PeteD01]

I just love this stuff, thanks for the reading materials!

If you like this stuff, you might also be interested in learning about the bigger picture.

A good starting point would be this lecture series from The Great Courses Company (currently on sale for $9.95, there are sales all the time so if you missed it, just check back again):

Emerson, Thoreau, and the Transcendentalist Movement
Ashton Nichols, Ph.D. Professor, Dickinson College
Course No. 2598

Finally, and perhaps most important of all, what is the source of our distinctly American way of experiencing ourselves—confident in our value as individuals, certain of our ability to discover personal truths in the natural world, self-reliant in the face of uncertainty and change?

Answers to questions like these are found in and around Boston and the town of Concord, Massachusetts, which became, little more than five decades after the American Revolution, the epicenter of a profoundly influential movement that would reshape many beliefs and make possible the America we know today.

That movement is Transcendentalism. Drawing on an array of influences from Europe and the non-Western world, it also offered uniquely American perspectives of thought: an emphasis on the divine in nature, on the value of the individual and intuition, and on belief in a spirituality that might "transcend" one's own sensory experience to provide a more useful guide for daily living than is possible from empirical and logical reasoning.

https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/emerson-thoreau-and-the-transcendentalist-movement


And here is another classic by William James, a close look at religious experience from a non-religious point of view (free ebook):

Varieties of Religious Experience, a Study in Human Nature
by William James

There can be no doubt that as a matter of fact a religious life, exclusively pursued, does tend to make the person exceptional and eccentric. I speak not now of your ordinary religious believer, who follows the conventional observances of his country, whether it be Buddhist, Christian, or Mohammedan. His religion has been made for him by others, communicated to him by tradition, determined to fixed forms by imitation, and retained by habit. It would profit us little to study this second-hand religious life. We must make search rather for the original experiences which were the pattern-setters to all this mass of suggested feeling and imitated conduct. These experiences we can only find in individuals for whom religion exists not as a dull habit, but as an acute fever rather.

https://www.amazon.com/Varieties-Religious-Experience-Study-Nature-ebook/dp/B0082Z598S/ref=sr_1_5?crid=33Q7ZHSQC5M23&keywords=varieties+of+religious+experience+william+james&qid=1696010666&sprefix=%2Caps%2C211&sr=8-5

[PeteD01]

Interesting takes on current crises from the Pope, definitely worth to take notice of how he acknowledges "reality":

The pope’s new letter isn’t just an ‘exhortation’ on the environment – for Francis, everything is connected, which is a source of wonder
Published: October 6, 2023

I am an environmental ethicist, and my work explores both science and religion. And while these fields often look at the natural world through very different lenses, they also share a common value: wonder. Francis’ social critique, I believe, stems from his vision of life – one filled with awe for the depth of meaning and mystery to be found in an interconnected world.

Conversely, the list of social and environmental ills Francis addresses in his environmental documents all involve a tendency to fracture and obscure the bigger picture – to ignore the larger context of each particular issue. He criticizes “excessive anthropocentrism,” for example: overlooking humans’ bonds with the rest of creation. Within society, excessive individualism similarly prioritizes “parts” at the expense of the whole community.



https://theconversation.com/the-popes-new-letter-isnt-just-an-exhortation-on-the-environment-for-francis-everything-is-connected-which-is-a-source-of-wonder-213135

[PeteD01]

Lol, yeah. I recently wrote a paper about how the reductionist concept of the self is the essentially an iatrogenic element of psychology. Ontological conceptualizations are just common fucking sense, really.

I was arguing that Carl Rogers was an ontological ecopsychologist all along and everyone who has studied him since just missed the fucking point. Lol. It was a fun paper to write.

Agree - and Mrs Yoko Kopacă would agree as well, I suppose:

Yeah, I'm a big fan of works from Indigenous writers on ontological concepts.

It's like "uh...folks...we've been here all along saying this, about fucking time someone actually listened."

Here is an interesting article about the convergence of scientific environmentalism and indigenous Irish paganism:

Paganism is a potent force in Ireland’s conservation movement
Long-held beliefs in an ‘Otherworld’ inhabited by wrathful fairies are now driving a resurgence in Irish eco-activism

Juju Laneis a writer who recently graduated in religion and environmental studies at Princeton University in New Jersey.

Today, as ‘busy modernity’ poses acute ecological threats to Earth, a resurgent reverence for the fairies of the Otherworld is being repurposed to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century. Unlike in other parts of Europe, where the certainties of scientific evidence tend to drive environmental activism, much of Ireland’s environmentalism is distinctly spiritual. When Irish Pagans protest ecological destruction, it is not only to avert calculable losses caused by land-use changes. It is also to avoid invoking the wrath of fairies.

To most, however, the mention of fairies calls to mind children’s fantasies and flitting figures from Disney movies rather than the powerful, dangerous beings of Irish lore. And so, as I did when I first learned about fairy wrath and eco-activism in Ireland, perhaps you’re also wondering: how serious can this really be?

For Ireland’s indigenous Pagans, it’s deadly serious.

...

The worldview of Irish Paganism insists upon the mysterious sanctity of nature, not only the functions, ecological relationships or calculable values described by science. Aligned with Indigenous traditions around the globe, Irish Pagans acknowledge and respect spirits in the nonhuman world, even when they can’t measure or confirm the existence of beings such as wrathful fairies. Finding an Otherworld beneath a veneer of ‘busy modernity’ is not an act of the imagination. For some, it’s the foundation of a new relationship with Earth, built on a respect for Them, and a belief that the living world around us sometimes exacts its own forms of justice.

https://psyche.co/ideas/paganism-is-a-potent-force-in-irelands-conservation-movement

[LennStar]

Island has a fairy official who needs to be consultet for certain projects, if the fairies are ok with them *shrug*