TheVat

Also worth considering, if most power were nuclear by 2000, how many Fukushimas, Chernobyls, 3 Mile Islands would there have been along the way, and how might that have affected the amount of habitable land, arable land, etc. Ten percent of the world's electrical power comes from nuclear. So, if it had been 90% instead, that would be a s--t-ton of reactors. And spent fuel we'd be struggling to safely dispose of and keep sequestered for many thousands of years.

It's good to get the passion directed at public officials. Of course that means getting their attention during that five minute window in each day when they're not preparing their reelection campaign or sucking up to the donor base. Sure, we can all do grassroots stuff and lower our personal carbon footprint and reject plastic packaging and try to send out green signals to friends, but it really takes massive public policy change to nudge whole nations in any direction. Environmental laws aren't for we angry passionate ones, they're for the large cohorts that are apathetic and don't think much beyond fashions and status and personal wealth. Money sent to an environmental group with lobbying and litigating powers may do as much as putting it into composting toilets (erm, investing in one, that is!) and PV panels. It's great if one can do both, of course. As Phi's analogy suggests, it's great to make the propeller turn.

My impression is that it's nearly impossible for any modern human not to engage in some level of hypocrisy where animals are concerned. Though primarily vegetarian, I go off the wagon and eat sardines twice a week. Two reasons - one, my arthritis flares when I don't eat the little fish; two, sardines seem to exist at a developmental level where I feel sentience (and awareness of their demise) is minimal, ergo less suffering. Yes, people have asked "why don't you just use fish oil capsules?" Then I remind them that fish oil capsules come from squishing fish and so are not really an ethically superior option. Ethically, there are many places that even a vegan diet will mean cropping land that was originally a rich habitat for animals, and so your vegan meal was won by clearing land which resulted in animal deaths and even species extinctions within a certain area. I think we'd need to cull the human herd back to a few hundred million (as the Deep Ecology movement would have us do) in order to avoid this kind of indirect harm to all creatures great and small.

If you have a frame of steel, then you need that frame to be girded with something fire-resistant, due to the possibility of steel members deforming or even buckling under great heat. For mid-rise or high-rise buildings, I would think you'd want to avoid flammable materials, except as interior design accents. However, given the LEED pluses of bamboo and its low carbon footprint, it's certainly worth looking into possible ways to use it wherever feasible.

Noob question: I've seen these used at other forums, where they use either Like or Upvote, and they mean approval/agreement to that posting. Here, both seem to be options, so I'm just getting clear on what the distinction is. Does upvote mean more that we approve the posting's opinion, while "like" is more that we like the style or approach even if we disagree?

One afterthought. If the area of sport has a large number of outliers among its cis players, e.g. plenty of tall people to stock a basketball team, plenty of high aerobic capacity people for running, etc., then you can have leagues where teams can be reasonably well matched against each other. There would really be little difference between a cis girl who happens to be tall and aerobically stellar (just the type who would seek out a basketball team), and a trans teammate of similar attributes. IOW, where there are plenty of players, it's quite likely trans players wouldn't really stand out or crush competition. (IIRC, Scientific American did a feature on this topic, which reached that conclusion) It would be rather in the "small pool," situation, where there's a small population to draw players from and the probabilities of finding outliers are smaller, that a single outlier (either cis or trans) would loom larger. Which sounds like the storyline of dozens of small town sports movies. The plucky local team goes up against the Bumfark Bruisers, who have Big Harrie, and all the Bruiser teammates have to do is pass to Big Harrie who stuffs the ball in 95% of the time. The plucky locals must drawn upon their heart and character and cleverness to undermine Big Harry and beat the Bruisers. (DISCLAIMER: this example is offered in a purely jocular vein, and has no redeeming discursive features)

I wanted to track this down, because I had gotten it second hand and in a form lacking details. In fact, I will demote my example, pending more verification, to "rumor from a small prairie town. " Digging further, it looks like the governor (a conservative Republican) was alarmed by a case in Connecticut: between 2017 and 2019, transgender sprinters Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood combined to win 15 championship races, which prompted a lawsuit. It looks to me (and my apologies for not sifting through all this earlier) like the administration here did not actually find a well-documented case IN the state and so, in its zeal to pander to RW evangelicals and the RW generally, battened on to the Connecticut case and began pestering the legislature. It's all pretty thin, given the major anomaly is two sprinters in one state who did win an unprecedented number of races. So it's me who should be making apologies, to you and Zapatos. If my bruising giant on the girl's field turns out to be urban legend (wait, that's rural legend!), then I will ask directions to the nearest wet market that stocks crow meat.

Thanks, Zapatos. I offered my example honestly, as it represented an actual controversy in my state over a trans player on a high school team. I agree completely that fear mongering is counterproductive, and offered the scenario as an example of how ordinary people develop concerns over the issue. If hormone treatments could safely reduce human joints, bones, and body mass, then there would be little need for people to have such worries about high-contact sports, eh?

If you could change "something which lacks parity, " to "something which could potentially lack parity in particular sports domains, " then I think you would be honoring science more and the idea that one may TEST a hypothesis without embracing it. I deny your wording for the simple reason that I think the hypothesis of disparity has to be tested before I would assert it in that way.

Again, see my reply above, I am trying to explain the psychology of sports fans, and where these questions of parity come from. Made-up scenarios are pretty much how most people mull over proposed changes in their society. There are so few trans females in sports, that people naturally tend to try gedankexperment to hypothesize over the what-ifs. They can be wrong (just as they usually are about the spectre of CRT), but their concerns don't vanish until science can cast light on the athletic parity issues.

INow, Your out of context quotes seem not to address my actual points or examples. I could suggest reading my post again, bearing in mind that I'm trying to describe how actual sports fans approach issues of fair competition, but I can't tell if you're really open to that. As regards "I reject your premise that allowing transgendered females to compete in sports as female is unfair. " this was not my premise. Indeed, prior posts of mine pointed out that some sports are finesse-based to where body mass, fast-twitch muscle and aerobic capacity don't much matter. Some sports are about endurance, where size may even be a slight detriment. But one can't simply duck the issues in sports where those physiological factors do matter, and paste smiley-faced stickers of acceptance without looking at evidence. I am probably somewhere to the left of Bernie Sanders on some issues, and it may turn out trans females can play fairly in almost all sports, but that doesn't mean I can join in any cancellation of real questions and concerns people have about the physical disparity issues. My offered scenario may prove to be a bogeyman, but it's the right of anyone, especially people with daughters in sports, to voice their concerns without being belittled or vilified. Asking questions is where good science comes from, and I always have to put science before politics. Always.

"Any honest observer" is an argument fallacy similar to No True Scotsman. If I disagree that a focus on fairness is disingenuous, or a cudgel, then my disagreement has no merit because you've already ruled me as dishonest. Surely you can see this is not the way to move me or anyone towards your position. (FTR, I accept all LGBT people for who they are, to the point of speaking out publicly and joining street demonstrations, at various points in my life. ) Fairness is central to sports, as anyone who has ever attended or watched a sporting event knows. If you are rooting for a team or person, you want to know the playing field is level and that whoever won did so "fair and square. " This lies at the very heart of sports, and all games. I see no supporting evidence from you that, because anti-trans bigotry does exist in society, the passion for fairness is all a cloak for that bigotry. Nor do I see athletic fairness as "nebulous and arbitrary, " -- indeed, when I used to watch a fair amount of ML baseball, it struck me how precision-based and carefully defined the issues of fair play were. Fans watch the umpires and league regulatory activities like ferocious and keen-eyed watchdogs. To use a concrete example, based on events in my state: imagine you live in a small town, which avidly follows the HS girls soccer team, and your daughter plays. She does well, her team advances to the state finals. She and her teammates, and her competitors, have all been cis-females. They've worked hard developing skill and teamwork. Then a team from the town of, we'll call it Podunk, suddenly rises from obscurity, and starts winning every game (previously, its seasons were painfully reminiscent of the 1962 NY Mets, every year), blasting its way towards the championship. Your daughter and her team are annihilated by Podunk, as one spectacular player on the opposing team, large, fast, with unusual musculature and explosive strength, scores again and again. Several players, including your daughter, are injured in collisions with this girl's soccer superstar who, at 6/3 and 210 pounds, packs quite the inertia against players who average 5/6 and 125 pounds. Fans start asking questions. They're not anti-trans, they're not making any assumptions about doping, or shady out-of-state recruiting of ringers, or steroids. They just sense something is not quite fair and they want to know why all games with Podunk are so glaringly lopsided. My point is: concern with fairness doesn't start with some sort of animus against trans people or lack of acceptance. It starts with that basic human social animal hardwired instinct to ask if a competition is fair, with well-matched competitors. And that, I hope, also addresses your question earlier as to why people care so much about this topic.

Just a quick thank you to the mod who moved my political cartoon, which I had posted in the general Jokes thread before my site explorations had discovered a political humor thread. Kindness and assistance to this newbie much appreciated. (this post can be deleted, once read by the relevant party, if it minimizes clutter) Cheers.

Inow and MacS... I wonder if the fulcrum of your disagreement may lie at the degree to which traditional female sports are impacted. INow said "Due to the risk that like 6 total female athletes MIGHT not win a cheap trophy or medal if we do so." This suggests a Spockian "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" ethos, which is often sensible, but here lacks foundation in establishing that a mere handful of cis women would be impacted. If more people are making the choice to transition for whatever reason, and so there are more trans-females who, with their XY legacy of aerobic capacity, muscle mass, fast-twitch fibers, bone density, etc. are looking for paths in which they can achieve distinction and success, it's worth considering that many could see competitive league sports as an attractive choice. Asking questions about such a possible future trend now seems like a good idea, especially in those sports that are NOT diving, ultramarathons, or volleyball. I don't think one has to enter into a culture war or wave an ideological flag to take a humane interest in the welfare of those who compete.

This study found some relation between ejaculatory frequency and lowered rate of prostate cancer. Given that it uses self-reported data (often the wobbly leg on the chair of medical research), take with a grain of salt... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0302283816003778 LoL for the "clear cache" quip, MacSwell. Your forum moniker seems rather apt for this thread.

A larger solution to ending plutocracy (as well as kakistocracy) in the US is campaign finance reform. All candidates, at all levels, are given equal airtime, preferably in a debate format, with bad faith arguments and lies challenged by moderators. Attack ads are banned. People run on the merits of their policy ideas, not on their knack for slandering opponents and fear-mongering. Otherwise we are headed for minority rule, bankrolled by Koch Industries, and their ilk.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/93ynm5/scientists-studying-temperature-at-which-humans-spontaneously-die-with-increasing-urgency In the recent heat wave afflicting the Pacific Northwest (US and Canada), the rise in weather with "wet bulb" conditions has been brought into the media spotlight again. As I see it, one of the unfortunate feedback aspects happens when you have people using more fossil fuels to power their AC systems in extreme heat, which in turns puts more GHGs into the atmosphere. Longterm, we should look at not only alternative energy sources but also architecture which allows homes to handle hot weather events better with passive modifications. There may be, for example, parts of the globe where it will make more sense to have berm houses and other underground living spaces that are naturally cooler, and not just air condition massively.

This is a bewildering mass of unwarranted assumptions on the nature of a deity. Why would a deity have to observe everything? Thomas Jefferson and his Deist buddies believed God sets the universe going and then sits back, rather uninvolved in its operations. Pantheists believe the divine is basically in everything but not necessarily in control in any way we'd call omnipotence. Perhaps God lets all the quantum state vectors evolve and it's we who do the observing and wavefunction collapsing. Maybe God sees all the superpositions. You can't define God away simply by saying "you're only a real god, if X. " This is akin to the fallacy of No True Scotsman.

I agree. I would have done better to write that scientists should proceed as if they do not have beliefs, not that we don't have them. I was suggesting an epistemological attitude, not some impossible purity position. IOW, approach with "it is very probable" rather than certainty. As the philosopher of science Willard Quine talked about, every scientific fact is predicated on a "web of belief" we have about all sorts of matters related to that fact. Nor was I suggesting that. Indeed, you make the point I thought was implicit, that science and religion/spirituality can exist as separate domains without getting in each others way. Hence my paragraph beginning "I have no problem with... " My point was the epistemic stance of faith in entities unevidenced, which may have use in religious practice, is a hindrance in a lot of science. Indeed, areas of physics like string theory, where there is no observational evidence, are often subject to critique for relying on a quasi-religious faith in the theory's elegance and beauty. (following section intended as separate post) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/#FirLooDuhQuiProUnd Not for the faint of heart, but this entry gets into some of key problems with belief. And, again, this shouldn't deter anyone from having a spiritual life and stepping outside of ordinary empirical channels to posit an intelligent cosmos or some pervasive consciousness. I admit David Chalmers brand of panpsychism has some appeal for me. I don't believe it, but am open to it. (following section intended as separate post, arghhhhh) Godammit! That last bit was meant as a separate post! Mod, is there a way to separate out a post? That last about the SEP excerpt was intended as distinct from my replies to the others. Sorry for the newbie confusion.

Dragging a BB from one's arse sounds rather painful. In terms of Karl Popper's criterion of falsifiability, religion has no "black swan, " and cannot be in the domain of scientific inquiry. Why do message boards devoted to science almost universally contain religion threads that seem to never end and let Popper have the last word? I think it's the seductive hope that somehow superstitions can be given a sheen of respectability by somehow making untestable conjectures testable. If I had a nickel for every time someone posted on the Web "perhaps some future technology will find a way to detect souls or God bits or angels..." I would have enough money to join Jeff Bezos in outer space. I have no problem with meditation, contemplation, prayer, or other inward means of comforting the spirit, calming one's thoughts, developing compassion, and gaining introspective insight, but when people start insisting on their metaphysical fantasies and harming others who disagree, it's hard not to see organized religion as a memetic poison. I would go further than saying scientists can't believe in a religion: I would say scientists really should avoid beliefs generally. I think expectations, based on probabilities, are as much as we can get away with in our limited epistemic domains. I'm not an atheist, which implies belief, but am agnostic in the common sense of seeing god(s) as unknowable and incapable of verification. Or falsification. As Descartes pointed out, we are easy to deceive.

One of those topics which it's almost impossible not to greet with double entendres and such. I'm unsure if any serious studies have been done of male physiology post-ejaculation, so what most of us have mouldering in our mental attics are various old wives tales, or mystical allusions to chi, vital essence, all that kind of blather. And all the subjective anecdotal stuff about feelings of lethargy and fatigue. Of course, one man's fatigue is another man's blissful relaxation. If I come across (ha!) any research, will post here later. Duty calls, atm.

Women do seem to have an endurance advantage - thanks, Charon, for the ultra running link. Curious as to where the advantage might come from, I came across this.... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49284389 I may be too easily amused, but I smiled at the phrase "shorter distances like a marathon...."

You will only see 16 minutes ago if there's a largish mirror on the moon and it catches the reflection of you (hopping around, crying ouch ouch it's so hot) as you were when those photons began their journey out from the sun.

Since my children are in their thirties, I consider myself to be gloriously child-free. Neither have gone into science, though my son is now toying with the idea of going back for a degree in atmospheric science.