{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0205761316872428, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.300518134715026, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
New Analysis of ESR Spectra of Fossil Tooth Enamel

of Luhmann's view which affects our position on socionatural co-evolution is that in his eyes a society cannot communicate with its environment, it can only communicate about its environment ivithin itself. By implication, no one is to know whether environmental problems exist or not until they are cognized and communicated. Such problems can only be addressed in ways which the society has established without reference to the particular problem at hand. This may well be an important aspect of 'unintended consequences'. Lastly, a society's environment includes everything other than itself, so that the environment's complexity is always much greater than the society's. In Luhmann's view, societies deal with this by distinguishing themselves self-referentially from the environment, notably by reducing the complexity of the environment through intervention, and increasing social and conceptual complexity by developing sets of ever better circumscribed and detailed meanings. This brings their own complexity and that of the environment into a relation of correspondence. Is that part of the dynamic behind all kinds of degradation? We will look into it.