Peterkin

This is true, but not germane to the topic, since Genady's presence or absence from any particular time period is irrelevant. Unless he's the emperor of a great and powerful global empire, his(?) statistical significance is 0.000,000,007.

Which big issues do you wish to discuss? The time estimate of 256 years [to the end of all civilization - or just Eurocentric western civilization, or what?] is rather loose; it allows for any number of scenarios. The most likely snuffers-out of our civilization (either way) are super-storm, super-bug or super-bomb. That is: climate change, pandemic or nuclear war. That's the optimistic version: with a bang. The pessimistic: with a whimper, looks more like economic collapse, accompanied by continued unchecked population growth, in the presence of climate change, plague and threat of nuclear war, petering out in a protracted series of migrations, wars, floods, fires and famines.

I mean I assume that if we didn't want to eat them we would stop breeding them. Even if the livestock that exists today were to be set free, they wouldn't have anywhere near the environmental impact that the meat producing, processing, packaging, refrigeration and transport industries have. As for the uncaught fish - what stress are they causing? We don't need to: we've already eradicated many of them; many more will soon follow. The hangers-on, plus their feral ex-domestic cousins, would feast for a generation or two on the abandoned livestock and presumably restore the ecological balance that existed before 'we' messed it up.

Vegans are so few and powerless that they have no discernible effect on "our" future - if by 'us' you mean humanity at large. If the majority of people on Earth stopped eating flesh, the stress we put on the environment would be reduced, and possibly our level of aggression toward one another, as well, but I wouldn't count on that. Besides, we have other methods of destroying the planet as well as ourselves, and those decision are made in board- and conference rooms, not in the kitchen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9VI4tNMyJk

Who are these, exactly? Do you have a list? Which "good ideas" are attempting to "take over" which old ideas? What does "take over" mean in this context? Colonize? Appropriate? Develop further? Oddly enough, I am reluctant to do so. Are those those two opposing ideas? Physicists both prod Nature to give up its secrets and take advantage of opportune moments of exposure. All scientists do: they are spies, sleuths, provocateurs and voyeurs. It seems to me, those scientists* who promote technology for gain or patriotism or public honours change all kinds of things. Sometimes - though not usually - for the better, as it affects the polity in general. What, in this sphere, do you mean by "better"? Better than what for whom? To what end? In what system of values.

So, what else is new? The established elite in any field became the established elite in their field by having notable ideas and making notable progress. The next stage in the development of that discipline will come from the brightest and most ambitious of their students, who will then become the established elite of their generation. Part of the role of elders is to keep the exuberance of the young in check; to require new work to pass close scrutiny and meet a standard that had been set by their predecessors. When/if their ideas become obsolete or are proven to be flawed, new ideas will be established as the new norm in that field. Last i heard, evolution didn't have a predetermined "direction" and there is no way physicists could control human evolution. Biologists, maybe....

Too few for a fan club... But maybe they will come.

May I offer two book recommendations? https://www.goodreads.com/book/photo/55981.Consilience https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1185545.The_Earth_Dwellers?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=6ZbHZFkmoq&rank=2 A fascinating and engaging look into the world of ants and the scientists who study them.

ISBN's have only been in use since the 1970's - and not uniformly until the '80's - so the comparisons from then to now could be made across publishers and internationally from about 1980 to today. Before that, they had different kinds of identification in each country, and sometimes each publishing house. Even if you restricted the search to the post ISBN period, you'd still have no way to discover which numbers belong to textbooks. Not very useful. Even if you do have the ISBN, btw, there is no guarantee that any venue will supply all of the information. Amazon is pretty good on shipping dimensions - as are many independent vendors - but hardly anyone gives weights. They'll generally tell you the number of pages, but not the paper stock used, which may be anything from 22 to 84 lb/ream. They'll tell you hard or soft cover, but not the thickness of the boards. I'm not going to attempt the empirical method in my own stacks, since I have only a few recent medical (either humungous or pocket-sized), Science and Environment studies and a handful of high-school math and language texts. Nowhere near a sample size going out to the cold for.

even so ... But you have to admit, the other would have been impressive.

Why would the number of pages be significant?

It exists, but is so scattered and hard to find, it wouldn't be worth anyone's while to pursue. Unless you were doing a thesis on the subject as a revenge on boring professors... One way to proceed would be to follow the history of a single publisher. Which, of course, they're not. Pearson, for example, has had two dozen incarnations, mergers and acquisitions since the mid 19th century, and has published text and reference books under as many concurrent imprints. It would be a Cinderellian task to sort through them all. Wiley might be easier, though it, too, has a number of imprints, including a couple in Europe, where the formatting standards may be different. Soooo - anecdotal we are and anecdotal we remain, yes? (*sigh* How i miss book sales!)

Maybe you don't need art; most of us do. Which message is ever clear?

Wow! Those are some heavy books! I've never come across anything like them. Bang goes one anecdotal observation.

I know something about books. I don't know anything about potato chips or dirt bikes. If the topic has changed, I'm no longer qualified to comment.

I'm not making a distinction at all: the distinction already exists. If all textbooks were worthy of becoming reference books, 'best' wouldn't mean anything. A very few students of today will keep a very few of their textbooks for future reference. Most will sell, or try to sell, most or all of their textbooks. Many, including those who were unsuccessful at selling the unwanted textbooks, will try to donate them to thrift shops and library sales, who will almost unanimously refuse them. The resale value of university textbooks doesn't begin to justify the time, effort and shipping cost, so no second-hand booksellers buy them anymore. And the damn things all have plastic-coated paper, so they're toxic to burn and not everywhere eligible for recycling. But they're all big, even the mediocre and crappy ones.

No, I was answering a post. The OP question was about textbooks, and so that's what I've been basing all my answers on. There is a difference: I have not been a student for a very long time, so I have no use for textbooks, but I keep small library of reference books. Many people do. We generally don't carry them around. Students, on the other hand, are obliged to ferry their textbooks between home and school on a regular schedule.

Textbooks, not reference books. And students at all levels would have to.

You can get the Gottschalk, 2nd edition (?2012?) for $14 in used hardcover (not tiny, at 359 pages and over half a kilo, but a reasonable size. The cheapest one is probably highlighted in green and orange marker; I'd get a $25 or $35 copy.) Pretty good, compared to a new paperback at $135. Oddly, the kindle edition isn't much cheaper. So it's not the luxury furbishings that determine this price! The Campbell hardcover (2013 - which is pushing the sell-by date), a whopping 1488 pages and 3.3k, sells for not very much more used $50 +/-), but the 11th edition (2016) is $200, without the workbook and lab notes. I'm guessing it includes a lot more than bacterial metabolism. If the class is specialized, students would certainly be better off with the Gottschalk, even if they have to take extra class notes or do supplementary research to fill in the time interval. The strain on their vertebral discs alone would be worth it! That's my main concern with the size of textbooks: it cannot be good for young people with not-quite-finished skeletal structure, to carry that much weight around, day after day, for three to five years. The huge debt they incur to get an education is a secondary concern.

I see nothing unethical about it. I also don't see any limits on the uses of any idea in the public domain. GODS know, the concept of deity, sanctity and the individual identities of each specific deity have been put in the service of less savoury projects!

I didn't realize that. I thought the size, weight, richness, etc. of the textbooks was part of an educational experience. I didn't mention instruction external to the textbook until after you suggested that the comprehensive content of these new, giant textbooks renders live instruction superfluous. Only in that context would the cost ratio of book to instruction be relevant: i.e. If this is indeed the case, it justifies the large format, thick, lavishly illustrated, entertaining and very attractive textbooks. Otherwise, their extravagant production values seem to me quite wasteful. Business college was just one example: it's the same in humanities and science courses. If I recall correctly, the most expensive of all were Physics books. The major difference, tmm, is that the science ones contain more factual, usable information. None of my comments were intended as more than personal observations and opinion.

That seemed to me at least an oblique comment on value: if they buy the expensive (which I had cited earlier) textbook, they should not need the even more expensive instruction. I do apologize, however, for quoting the Harvard tuition before; apparently far more affordable business programs are available: If it is indeed the case that an MBA degree can be had for the cost of the textbooks alone, the price - and immense size - of those books is fully justified. However, if the student is required to attend 4 years of classes so that all those intricate matters of global marketing and trade regulation can be explained to them by an instructor, all the textbooks really need to contain would be the shipping rates and conversion tables; the instructor could supply the margin notes and fun facts. Just one more comment on the glossy paper. It isn't just vastly more pricey, it's also hard on the eyes and even harder on the landfills. Go E-book, I say: cheaper, cleaner, safer, more convenient.

AH! So then, they only need to spend the $1,000 or so per year for books, and can save the $75,000 or so for tuition! That makes sense.

Is it vitally important? If so, insert "in", "in the" "in early" or "come" between 'quickly' and 'spring'. Otherwise, interpret as you see fit. In Doctor Who, it can. Series 2, Episode 1, New Earth. But, as you are more literally oriented: NO