Peterkin

He's not exceptionally bright - probably average, and probably didn't apply himself in school, having too busy a social life. What he mostly seems is vain and overly fond of the limelight. This is the era of populist leaders - anti-intellectual, anti-elite, anti-establishment. So he's acting what he believes the Great British Public admires. (And maybe channeling DJT) BTW - What is "bad genetics" when it's not being offensive?

There is nothing incredible about it. There have been warnings since the early 20th century. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sinclair-lewis-on-fascism/ but that's not exactly a unique vision, either - Does not all despotism dress in the symbols most revered by its target population? Many recent observers observers have commented on the danger https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/312505 , https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2020/06/22/american-fascism-it-has-happened-here/ , https://monthlyreview.org/product/the-coming-of-the-american-behemoth/ . Whatever you think of the authors of those books, they didn't get the material out of thin air; it's maybe worth examining the basis of their theories. Democracy was never strongly established in America (I realize that's a contentious statement, but consider the four constitutional amendments it took over a hundred years, and the amount of strife and struggle that led to those amendments, before it had universal suffrage - and how many disgruntled losers those struggles left behind) and it has had some formidable opposition, as well as mighty champions. In the last several decades - the balance of power seems to me to have been steadily shifting to the opposition; the champions are scattered and without armies to back them. Most worrying is the unconcern of what appears - admittedly, from a distance - the main body of the polity. I think what's forming, though it has many of the earmarks, is not fascism in the traditional European sense, but something new, something uniquely American. Whether that makes it more or less dangerous to the rest of the world, I don't know. It will be - it already is and has been for some time - very bad for a large segment of Americans.

Just a mental association. When I saw sealing wax, I thought of those rings and seals with intricate designs that would require a very fine material for a good imprint. I'm still going with the modelling clay as best option. You can easily cut it into sections, if need be.

Or, if the mold material is acrylic, cooking spray. Of course, now I have to wonder, given the fancy crest 'n' all, what it is you need an imprint of. I had an acquaintance one who carved European family crests into gem stones for seal rings.

Childrens' modeling clay would do it, and probably cheaper than sealing wax. Candle wax, or paraffin for sealing preserves might be just as good.

I like Borgen. It comes with subtitles.

I have done - to little avail, merely proving the point I had missed.

You speak with the tongue of oracle. I am unworthy to gainsay an oracle.

So, you mean that the coming dark age will produce something wonderful that will thereafter be corrupted? You may well be right.

Not good or bad, simply the direction of time. There have been what I consider to be better and worse periods in the history of every civilization. My personal standard of better and worse is based on several factors, including individual happiness, collective tolerance, legal fairness and intellectual enlightenment. In the modern European civilization - counted roughly from the dissolution of the Roman Empire to the present - there have been some very dark times. I count the Middle Ages (c900-1400AD) as the least happy, least tolerant, least just and least enlightened period of European history. Forward from there was the Renaissance, overlapping the period of rapacious imperialism, followed by the romantic/industrial age and the modern era with its world wars and world economics. Progress (according to my value system) has been uneven during those periods, with many regressions and digressions and regional anomalies - but there has been much progress. What is the pendulum producing? I know I'm missing the point, as usual: you make it so easy! What is the lesson about?

Thank, you, no. It's all been said, reiterated and rephrased, then said again.

It was relevant to the population question, and germane to the even more central question of the political will take any decisive action regarding climate change. I don't see how these matters can be isolated one from another. I was merely responding; didn't mean to imply it hadn't been said before, and better.

I don't want to discuss "that". It's not about atheism. It's about the rise of a global far right movement, which includes hawks, authoritarians, extreme nationalists, science deniers, anti-vaxxers and white supremacists. Every one of those groups tries to block legislation that would mitigate climate change, reduce harmful emissions, help developing nations and expand reproductive freedom. The only point about religions, particularly Christianity and Islam, that's relevant to this subject is that they have been very strong proponents of population growth. My question to you above was not about religion, either. It was about political direction. I understand forward and backward - I explained what I meant by that. You haven't explained what you mean by different. Do you think there is a survival plan that does not entail reducing emissions, switching to alternate energy sources, changing our diet and extending birth and death rights? Maybe the next pandemic will take care of the overpopulation part of the problem, just as it did in the middle ages - but most of us don't like its methods.

I don't think it's a matter of multiple approaches. That should go without saying by now. It's not as if we were not aware of the other factors. But we're also aware, and have been for some time, that the single most pervasive problem is CO2 emissions, closely followed by methane and nitrous oxide, and that those must be addressed most urgently and drastically, if we are to have a chance of survival. People have also been aware of the population issue, and come against the very same obstacles. More graphs don't help. More statistics don't help. More niggles over local details don't help. It's not annoyance; it's frustration.

I didn't suggest right or wrong; I asked what is that other direction is that you referred to? I see the middle ages as authoritarian, politically repressive, sexually oppressive, superstitious, bigoted, and generally averse to individual freedom and dignity for the masses. I see the alt right trend in both Christian and Muslim nations reverting that same kind of thinking and social organization. I call it terrifying. What will you call it?

It all depends .... There are too many factors for a simple answer. I don't think the number of people working on it is one of the more important factors: a single insightful and methodical researcher might be more effective than a hundred or thousand random people. Of course, among ten thousands, the odds are better of finding several good researchers. OTH, I don't know that dandelions don't have a specific limit to flower size, or stem length or leaf colour variation built into their DNA, so that you would have to introduce a different species to affect that characteristic. So, if all the original stock is the same, the number makes no difference to the outcome. @swansont🙂

For a century or so, western law was becoming more inclusive, more permissive, more empowering to previously marginalized and disenfranchised segments of society, as well as more generous in extending the social safety net, citizens' rights and access to services. The hard right is making strides to enact discriminatory, restrictive and punitive laws and to claw back privileges from groups of which they disapprove. That, of course, includes women, journalists, teachers, and health care providers. Which "different direction" did you have in mind?

That's not how it works. In ancient times, there were only a few people, scattered around the world, out of communication with one another, discarding the seeds of their food plants around their habitations, then planting the seeds deliberately, then choosing the seeds from the better plants and discarding the less desirable ones, then systematically saving seed from domestic food crops . C. 30,000 years, give or take a few millennia. In modern times, nobody starts from a wild plant, and food crops are more likely to be gene-spliced than bred for desired characteristics. In between, from +/-6000BC to the late 20th century AD, deliberate selective breeding might take anything from two generations to produce a reliable round-seeded hybrid (in most cases, this will not breed true, or not breed at all) to 10 generations to breed out susceptibility to a particular disease. It all depends on the characteristic you're trying to fix and what other genes are associated with that characteristic.

We are super-aware of turning things off and saving electricity, because we rely mainly on the solar array. The up-side is, we still have light when there is a Hydro outage; the down-side is that in rainy periods and winter, we have very little power in reserve. Still have to use Hydro for backup. It's not actually that hard to stop eating meat. After a few years, it becomes repulsive, even to look at. What makes you think they are? Especially after you've read the history? People in advanced/privileged nations have been wrestling with the procreation problem at least since Malthus. The insurmountable obstacles to birth control have been nationalism and religion - both of which tend to misogyny. Liberate the women of the world and population control solves itself. But it can't be done in the time constraint - and perhaps can't be done at all, as we see the conservative pendulum swing back toward the middle ages.

That's a priceless picture! The woman is yelling something angry; she doesn't seem to notice her child is crying, even as she clutches the stupid sign she can't read yet. Is that the father behind her, saying "Can't you see the kid wants to get sick?"

Then we all die. Population growth is not a new problem and control of it is not a new idea. So far, the only two things that's worked have been a rise in the standard of living and education (which are intertwined) and drastic authoritarian government intervention (which is generally disapproved by the world). And corresponding increase over others, which explains floods in Sudan and China. Climate change is a global phenomenon. It has already disrupted the pattern of winds, evaporation rates, cloud formation and movement. The thawing of the Arctic will continue to contribute methane and water vapour to the disruption of weather systems. Making more clouds would be okay, if they obediently stayed where rain is needed, and didn't go flying off to where there is already too much rain.

Alberta, as soon as they can secede.

The Brits, etc., still won't adopt this system. I think they quite like their (and our) Parliamentary one. I actually only mentioned the EC for its absurdity. I've been far off base throughout this thread. Please disregard.

This time, I honestly don't know what you're talking about. The most recent post of mine to which you took exception had no political or philosophical content. I merely said that science does not exist as an entity which can be held responsible; it's all up to the people who practice science. How is that opposed to science education in schools, or field trips or museums?

I have made several of those, both discussions and arguments, with explanations, farther up this thread, as in another. I'm not certain I've exhausted all possible approaches, but I don't see any new paths opening before me in either subject.