Mill writes that when Kant "begins to deduce from this precept (the Categorical Imperative) any of the actual duties of morality, he fails, almost grotesquely, to
show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical)
impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously
immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal
adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur” (183).
What does Mill mean by this? How should we understand the distinction between
logical/physical impossibility and consequences "no one would choose to incur”?

Arunner is jogging at a steady 3.6 km/hr. when the runner is 2.9 km from the finish line, a bird begins flying from the runner to the finish line at 14.4 km/hr (4 times as fast as the runner). when the bird reaches the finish line, it turns around and flies back to the runner. even though the bird is a dodo, we will assume that it occupies only one point in space, i.e., a zero-length bird. how far does the bird travel? (b) after this first encounter, the bird then turns around and flies from the runner back to the finish line, turns around again and flies back to the runner. the bird repeats the back and forth trips until the runner reaches the finish line. how far does the bird travel from the beginning? (i.e. include the distance traveled to the first encounter)