Peterkin

You have proof that hydrocephaly and haemophelia are environmental? Exactly so. I have not seen your citations. Have you read mine? Here's another one.

The traditional social strictures have been explained by a number of theories. Each, and very likely a combination of several, is plausible. I would add that the taboo against incest goes back to a time period when many small groups of people lived in relative isolation, so that looking for mates outside the group required an effort, while marrying one's cousin was convenient - and there was little choice in either case. And we have seen how harmful protracted inbreeding in a limited population can be. We have also seen in the royal families of Europe the effects of consanguinity on later generations. In modern, large and diverse societies, the danger is much diminished, simply because young people are exposed to a far wider choice of potential partners, all of whom are more intriguing than the sister or cousin with whom one fought and vied, or played and colluded through childhood. Incest in these societies is by far more likely to be non-consensual. This is the main reason for the general disapproval. However, consensual incest over 18 (though I question the freedom to choose of one participant in some of those relationships) is not universally against the law, and consanguinous marriages are still accepted in many places.

Not the economies; the social welfare. Those are not at all synonymous, or even invariably compatible, concepts. In the US, poor people, have substantially higher birth-rate than other classes. (part of the reason, BTW, is religion - a factor in reproductive practice everywhere) Though the poor are not quite as fertile as they were before the Affordable Care Act) conservative governments and judges are doing everything in their power to reverse that trend. The middle and higher income groups (who can afford medical intervention) are relatively unchanged over the past 15 years. It's not a question of national wealth, but of family health. If those developing nations are given humanitarian aid (not weapons and bribes for dictators) or subsidies for fossil fuel industries - which, do indeed bolster national economies, while adding to CO2 emissions. Because it's largely unimplemented. Because it hasn't been achieved. Or even tried, in some of the biggest polluters. President trump hearted coal, and he's not alone! The best reducer of CO2 emissions has been Covidhttps://phys.org/news/2021-07-scientists-pandemic-affected-air-quality.html, but we can't count on it going on long enough to make a difference.

To what end? Why would anyone undertake a century long breeding project of large, unwieldy and unco-operative herbivores with vast space and feed requirements, to replace an animal that's obsolete for draft work and already perfected for pets, sport and fashionable accessory to the rich?

PS Have you really made a project of this one issue, so personal as to identify with it? It's not because of this, is it?

Even in areas where humans have used it to improve animal stock. Exactly the same holds true for cattle, fowl and humans.

Mysterious, maybe. Unique, no. Two armies ordered to kill and maim each other come up with different methods of doing it - but that doesn't render any of these activities sane.

Oh, that's a relief. It's from the same clear-thinking, rational war that brought us phosgene gas. And, you can buy some, cheap, from army surplus stores.

That's quite true, and I know some African nations are making efforts (Egypt, South Africa, Kenya, Namibia and Ghana) toward renewable energy sources, but it's unclear how many have the financial capability, coupled with the political stability to carry out a comprehensive long-range plan. They are also struggling with outmoded infrastructure and transportation - and soon be faced with skyrocketing temperatures and the life-and-death importance of refrigeration and air conditioning. They may not be able to wait for the cost and feasibility of green energy installations on the scale required to be within reach. Lots of challenges!

It should be ample, if the present trend continues. Those numbers do not account for the future development of developing nations, where the current birth rate is higher than the mortality rate and the population is still growing and young enough to keep growing for some time, in contrast to the much older American population. Those faster-growing nations will have not only increasing demand for energy, resources and consumer goods, as well as food and water, with a commensurate increase in the per capita carbon footprint. Meanwhile, Europen and North American demographics are changing rapidly through immigration, which, in turn, will alter the fertility pattern as well as the ethnicity, age and dispersion of populations. (and cause a whole lot of xenophobic hostility) However, that only seems to last one generation; the birth rate of immigrants declines as their economic and educational attainment rise. This is far down the document (all of which is interesting), under the heading Family and Living Arrangements. There is a very strong link between economic well-being and lower fertility. It's been cited enough times: if you want people to have fewer babies, give the babies they already have a better prospect of life. The IPCC can collect the information and tell governments what they "should" do to improve their situation, but has no power to make them follow its advice.

By far the better option is vat production of meat, as it would liberate vast areas of land for oxygen-producing plants. Some of those could be grain for human consumption - rather than for feedlots and biodiesel. Of course, for long-term and large scale sustainability, the meat culture industry has to become more efficient and make use of clean energy sources. This is a very thorough analysis: The scale of cattle production required for the very high levels of beef consumption modeled here would result in significant global warming, but it is not yet clear whether cultured meat production would provide a more climatically sustainable alternative. Urban food production has to be improved and increased, to reduce transport, improve the air and supply fresh vegetables and fruit to the population. Not a bad community building strategy, either. But that doesn't mean we don't also need to stop growth in both numbers of people and their demand for more energy, more manufactured goods, more more mobility; most importantly, we have to reduce waste. Less economic disparity might help, too.

That second, self-contained monetary reward already manifests in at least two generations: a higher standard of living, more parental supervision and care (fewer accidents and shorter illness periods - less medical expense and work-time lost) and much fewer childbearing years, (so that women can return to the work-force at a young age, when they still have advancement prospects.) But that's only a viable issue in societies where birth control is readily available and women have the freedom to choose... which is currntly limited to 'modern industrial' countries - and some of them are clawing back both freedom of choice and access. However, the pandemic has been a boon to population control. I don't just mean the number of people who have died and will die, but the birth-rate itself. Uncertainty and anxiety have motivated couples to think harder about the future and refrain from or put off having more babies. Of course, the put off segment may cause a huge baby boom if/when they feel secure again - unless they've discovered, in the meantime, the benefits of not having babies. However, it's been devastating to the planet in waste-production. While air quality generally improved when industries and city centers were locked down, the manufacturing sector is set to resume in the same old way, only with more robots, that require more energy, but fewer employees.

Solid fencing, stalwart policing and absolutely no razor wire. What insane maniac invented that stuff? I don't see where you'd put a checkpoint and I imagine most of these people won't wear masks anyway. Just put up a few cameras.

Very true. But would you ask them for romantic advice, a loan or to stay over for Christmas? I think it just produced yet another level of friendship. We used to have best friends, close friends, family friends, school friends, work friends and mutual friends (another couple, one of whom is a close friend of a spouse, or the old friend of someone to whom we recently grew close) and even pen friends. Now we also have a low level of relationship brought about by 'friending' someone - a stranger with whom we have a superficial sympathy - and friend a foe lists - people with whom often agree or disagree. The word is worn out, but the relationships haven't changed very much - only diluted in intensity.

Because those "some" people restrict their movements to their near vicinity. They may be old and/or frail, so that mobility is physically difficult for them, or recent immigrants, uncertain of the language and mores of their new country, or children, who can only go outside the range of home-school-babysitter-friends' houses with adult accompaniment, or home-workers, farm wives, stay-at-home mothers who have no independent transport, or lives so busy that they have no time go anywhere. The "others" may have jobs, social activities, clubs, sports, classes or hobbies far from their homes and meet people there who live farther away. It's more a question of access and exposure than personality.

Might be easier to peel them off the fence if/when they try to climb over than to conceal thousands of police on the capitol grounds. Further problems such a move might entail: unnecessary casualties on both sides; escalation of hostilities; police defections with a resultants lack of cohesion in their ranks. The whole situation is so fraught right now, any incident can potentially set off a major confrontation.

Sorry, I phrased that wrong. I meant that completes my contribution to this topic.

You're welcome. I have handed in my homework.

No, I was wrong https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/households-debt-to-gdp https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/households-debt-to-gd It's big in numbers, only fifth or so in standing. It must be somebody else's turn to look something up - no?

Which carries an enormous - without looking it up, I'll venture to guess, the biggest in the world - debt-load, both in personal and public finances. Which, in turn, does limit the range of opportunities available both to individuals and government.

It was about debt and whether debt decreases opportunity. That's pretty vague. In general, debt is people borrowing money and people lending money, at interest. How that affects the economy of a nation varies according to how much is borrowed, who borrows it, how it's used and whom it benefits. I have attempted to cover some aspects of national debt and consumer debt and how each might affect the economy. If my efforts are inadequate, at least they're sincere. Wait, what? Will you please clarify what you’re trying to say here? I'm saying that there are some government services that are funded by contributions such as paycheck deductions benefit the same people who contributed to them. Welfare programs, Medicaid, and other social services benefit people who live in the country where they pay income tax and sales tax and property tax. When they get that money, they spend it on food and rent and interest payments on their cars and gasoline and hydro and cable bills and their children's shoes. They support the businesses and sevrices in their community. Whatever tax revenues that spending generates also go to the same government. A trans- or multinational corporation can invest its profits in any country in which operates, and not pay tax on those profits in the country where the profits were made. And the individual share-holders are even more free to take profits out of the economy. Capital is mobile; government and workers are border-bound.

I've supported my claims. I'm asking you to support yours.

The 'opinion pieces' (only a fraction of the actual cost of the armaments industry) are backed up by some pretty solid numbers and research. If you see the balance tipping in favour of the American taxpayer, I'd like to see the figures. Thing 1 about government spending : how much is borrowed to cover it and who collects the interest? Thing 2 about government spending: How much does it benefit the nation as a whole? Thing 3 about government spending: What is the ratio of contribution to benefit? Certainly, the revenue for the export of military ordnance is big $ figures, but the profit goes to the shareholders of those corporations, who can use or reinvest it however they want. It might stay in the same economy that generated the profits or go wherever they take it. But the government contracts have to come from the taxpayers and the incidental costs have to be borne by the taxpayers. The other government expenditures, whether financed from contributions or with loans or a combination, the recipients of those moneys stay inside the country, spend it inside the country and create some wealth that doesn't jeopardize people or have to be neutralized later at the expense of the same people who paid for making it and paid again for moving it around and paid again for cleaning up after it and paid again for the damage it did to their environment. Maybe not, but it seems to to jump for every war. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/the-long-story-of-us-debt-from-1790-to-2011-in-1-little-chart/265185/ Not one bullet or bomb or shattered jeep is ever coming back into the US economy, but the interest payments still have to be kept up after they're gone.

I just lost an entry with three quotes, but I'll try to retrieve them. That's just making them. Then, there are the waste products And when you don't want them anymore, destroying them. That doesn't even get into transportation, storage and guarding, and it doesn't even approach the waste form the factories themselves, the cost of cleaning those up, or the health hazards they cause the surrounding communities.

Some of the money spent goes into the economy. Munitions manufacturers employ workers who pay taxes and live in the US. Does that offset the debt servicing and environmental cost the government undertakes? Half of what they manufacture is shipped - at great cost to the taxpayer - overseas to be blown up (none of that raw material or human labour is coming back into the economy). The other half (47%) is exported to foreign countries - including those unfriendly to US interests, and which sales encourage future wars and diplomatic embroilments that will cost the US more down the line. The shareholders pay as little tax as possible and take the profits wherever they want to. They also import many expensive components, shipping more tax-money abroad. And they add nothing tangible to welfare of the population ... no, that's not quite true: municipalities can buy outmoded tanks and bazookas for their police at quite reasonable prices. Their hospitals get lots of casualties. On the whole, I strongly suspect th arms industry, in spite of $multi-billion role in the economy is a net drain, if we tallied all the peripheral costs that rarely appear on ledgers. Hypothetically Hence the word "can". It has happened on several occasions, in several countries. If it happens in a major economic power, it can topple others. No, it's a problem all the time, for all parties, at all levels of government, and for a great many, if not the majority of families. The polarization of politics merely exacerbates the accumulation of debt at all levels, as does lack of regulation.