Leaderboard

IMO the biggest problem in dealing with most global problems, especially climate change, is idolization of greed on a planet with 8,000,000,000+ (and growing) humans on it. No matter how much one has, individuals are expected to want more and more and more. This would be all well and good if there were unlimited resources but there seems to not be enough for all the world's citizens to live the lifestyle of an even relatively poor person in most "first world" countries, one of the reasons we are constantly at war (not just with the military) over resources. What happens when you double the numbers of humans in the next century, as some projections predict? Are we somehow going to magically have even more resources at that time? What is the lifestyle eight billion of us can reasonably expect to live if resources are distributed more evenly?

In fact, Florida, Iowa, Arizona, Texas, and a handful of other GOP led states are operating in lockstep and passing remarkably similar bills on the exact same topics all within 24-72 hours of each other as if being driven by a centralized source of funding and instructions.

Regarding your first citation, Goklany is an engineer and has been an advisor under the Trump administration and is known to misrepresent climate research and is known to work with think tanks known to promote climate change denial. The paper is also an opinion paper and does not discuss actual attitudes among the population. The second paper basically argues that higher income countries should shoulder more of the burden and allow low-income countries establish a better standard, something that is in discussion and there is little disagreement that limiting climate change has to be equitable. Especially as the high-income countries already reaped the benefits. Third paper discusses the divergence of opinion within countries. But as I noted even among low-income countries the majority of the population considers the climate change a threat. How much depends obviously on immediate impact and other concerns. I.e. folks on islands with risk of flooding see it as a critical essential threat, whereas folks in Poland have some of the lowest concerns (despite higher overall standard of living). In other words, data suggests that almost everywhere climate change is considered to be a significant concern. The fact that you can find folks who disagree does not change that.

The whole state of Florida belongs in the JOKES section.. ( unfortunately sad, not funny )

And it should be added that all these talks an urgency are not useless- they do influence policy. Despite China's continued heavy reliance on coal, they were at least motivated to also heavily invest in green energy (around 25% of their energy, I believe), India is at 40% Sweden at 60% while USA and Canada are somewhere between 12-18%, I believe. An issue is that transitioning can be costly and painful and folks want to avoid these costs, as you mentioned. The problem only is that it is only externalizing the costs, as droughts, floods, heat-associated health care costs, biodiversity issues, food safety issues, etc. are also costly and someone is going to have should them. The strength of capitalism is the short feedback loops that keep the economy going. The weakness is the in-built shortsightedness due to these feedback loops.

Yup MigL has said it simply Nothing wakes up one morning and decide I am gong to 'evolve'. There is a whole formal theory of rock structure evolution. I don't agree. The Romans had piped fresh water and centrally heated buildings. 2,000 years later do we have better?

Regarding the galaxies and the universe, most of the exploration is done by telescopes, which are much more advanced and capable today than in the past. A completely new kind of exploration, based on gravitational waves, has been added recently. Regarding the medicine as well, diagnostics and treatments are much more advanced and capable today than in the past. Also, more affordable and accessible to wider population.

Tiktok won't be banned. UKMOD has said it's an important outreach tool for them, so I imagine it is also for other international MODs. I'm happy to see more social media participation moving away from and diluting FB.

No. If you mean traveling to other galaxies, I would say, absolutely not. I'm sure more cures for diseases will be found. Since there is no end point to evolution there is no peak. To expound on this just a bit, if in the future humans have half the brains size that we currently have, that wouldn't mean anything other than a human with smaller brains would be more adapted to that environment. There have been many civilization collapses in the past which did not mean the end of mankind. Not sure exactly what you mean since we are more advanced technologically speaking than 10 years ago. As far as civilization in general that would all depend how you measured the level of 'civilization'.

Environmental forcings govern evolution. And by environmental I mean everything from societal, geographical, predators and prey, climate and air quality, to basically everything that has an effect on our lives. If our technology is advanced enough such that we can 'insulate' ourselves from these environmental forcings, and 'cure' any mutations that might arise, evolution would come to a stop for us.

When I started reading this, there was a second or two where I wondered if The Onion had figured out how to alter their URL. Did none of the "adults" involved in this 17th century Puritan group projectile vomit ever go to an art museum at that age? I don't think even the current US Supreme Court would define Renaissance art as pornographic. Mods: this can be taken to a split off thread, if need be.

We always get reminders that the cutting edge technology that wealthy countries use to produce food, shelter, energy, transit, etc. is seen by the developing world as a model they want to follow. (e.g. when China started building up their industrial base, they went hogwild on coal burning, just as earlier the UK, US, did) So, whatever we do, that has a ripple effect through many other nations as they seek our material comfort and standard of living. The ethos of capitalism (or lack of one) is a central problem. When you ask capitalism, what's more important, shareholder profits or a healthy and sustainable human lifestyle for everyone? you know the answer you will get. So we need to stop asking capitalism for its wisdom on these matters, and focus on humane systems of government that will promote that latter choice.

That's true.. The problem, is you.. Your stupid, primitive method of responding like xyzt's responses in his last days.. If you don't want to spread knowledge, simply don't write posts.. You keep belittling the responses of other members of this forum who wanted to answer the OP's question in the thread (any thread!) instead of answering the OP's questions.. If you want to solve this equation for the real what is the real ancestor, let's go back a few billion years ago to the time of primitive microbes.. and your primitive "It's still wrong even when you add the reference" means you are wrong.. It is impossible to say where single cells originated and then when they became multicellular.. It is impossible to say where inorganic matter became "alive".. Do you feel like an idiot after what I just wrote? Change nickname to nitpick. No surprise nobody ask you for a dinner. Nobody likes assholes. Greater Easter is coming, change attitude, maybe somebody really desperate will ask you for your attendance.. Which is very dubious looking how you overall behave.. AFAICS, the OP asked for genetic links between Americans, British and Australians, you should ask ask "for how long?" / "percentage of population" or similar questions.. Instead of them, you started rub against a members of this forum who tried to answer.. Who cares what you write such stuff? OP certainly is not interested in your private wars with every other person on this forum.. he is interested in the answer - you have not gave it.. I can give a definitive answer - everyone in this world is brother and sister.. Satisfied? ps. Until some third-party alien lands and mixes with you.. ps2. Stop being an asshole, John Cuthbert. Can't you? Only for Great Easter. Try it at least once. Possible or not possible achievement?

For anything to exist in the observable universe, it must be real and not real. Why is this true but not (true and false)? The observable universe is real and not real because of quantum entanglement and the waveform. The universe is not applying values to it's particles unless an observer is perceiving that part of the universe. The observer makes the universe real from their perception of the universe. Quantum entanglement is the universe's way of creating new information. When particles are entangled in waveform, this allows for the function of creating new information when the waveform collapses. What is a subjective truth? A subjective truth is real to an observer who perceives that it is real, but another observer with a different perception may perceive it as false. Both of these perceptions cannot be proven to either observer. Why is this true? This is true because the observable universe is real and not real. Why does Gravity and Space-Time not collapse into a particle? Why aren't these made up of atoms and particles? Why can't we see them directly? Gravity and Space-Time are unique in the universe. Their effects are observable anywhere in perceivable space of our universe so they can't be false. Their effects become real and not real in observable space. Gravity and Space-Time still occur when their are no observers to perceive the effects of Gravity and Space-Time so they can't be a subjective truth. Light is still moving across the universe when no observers are looking at that part of the universe. Therefore Gravity and Space-Time exist in truth but are not (real and not real).