CharonY

Just contact the editor and let them know that you cannot review it.

I have read something similar, but to be frank, I usually find these types of arguments unconvincing. It sounds like a just-so story to me with little actual evidence with retrospective reasoning. Papers that have discussed these shifts mostly focus on market forces, such as a time of increased regional demand (especially from China), huge investments in local leaders in the semiconductor business. In addition there were specific business developments, such as fabless manufacturing, where many companies design chips but outsource production to foundries. Originally, semiconductor business where dominated by firms that do in-house production and design, such as Intel). However, eventually the fabless model increased its market share and the existing foundries happened to be in East Asia, who happened to have their market share increased. As a strong interconnection with this foundries, fabless industries and the electronics manufacturer is extremely beneficial (e.g. in terms of response time), there was a strong incentive to also create local R&D centers, further strengthening the move to the East. So there are many factors that could explain chip manufacturing which I find more convincing than a somewhat handwavy cultural explanation.

You can always decline, but the issue is that if you agree first and then realize that you won't be able to provide helpful feedback, then the manuscript just sits there and the editor has to find a new reviewer which can take time. So it could be unfair for the authors, to some degree. Generally, one should have a good sense after reading the abstract whether ones background is sufficient to review it (though I had one or two bait-and-switch manuscripts). Yes normally reviewers are folks who successfully publish articles. But the fact that you have been submitting might why editors have your contact info. It is still unusual and probably points to the changing publishing landscape (and some quality issues in science in general- though not sure how much is real and how much is just part of getting old).

Generally speaking, if you have not been successfully through the peer-review process, it is not ideal to agree to write a review. It is time-consuming especially if you are not familiar with the literature in the field. If you mean to say what benefits you will have: none. Peer-review is a free service provided by scholars. I also do not want to be mean, but your writing is sometimes difficult to understand. A review written with similar issues would unfortunately not be helpful.

Due to shifts in life expectancy are indeed getting older and it is inevitable that the median age will go up from the current ca. 30 yrs. A declining birth rate will further the trend. However, the median age increase will also decline, as with slowing birth rates previous (older) generations will not outnumber the next generation at some point. Assuming that there is a steady state, there will be an equilibrium of age distributions, too. I think projections put the median age around 40ish by 2100, so perhaps somewhere between 40 and 50 might be realistic?

Actually I am not quite certain what you mean. The issues of extrapolation? Or the issues of aging populations with lower birth rates?

One should also add that given the glut of journals out there, peer-reviewers are hard to come by. In the olden days, reviewers were picked by editors who are generally also researchers. Now, many editors are, well, not researchers, and seemingly use some automated system to blast folks with review requests (especially the newer journals, but it seems like an industry-wide trend). But assuming this is a scientific journal, it still would be unusual to have the system pick someone up with no formal academic affiliation. At worst, the system usually picks up students who had authorship in a paper that seemed similar (and there at least the university address would be present). The only other reason I could think of is mixing up of names.

You can apply the same argument to multiple level. E.g. within a given population, you could identify those who use a disproportionate amount of resources (e.g. private jets). But you could also look worldwide and look at populations that have a higher per capita consumption. I.e. the main point is that consumption is not equally distributed and folks who worry about overpopulation usually conveniently focus on measures that excludes themselves form being part of the problem, if that makes sense. One thing to note (also based on some of the things that gapminder has been showing): most people now live in places below replacement fertility rates. This is why the population will peak. As second thing to consider is that most projections only look until around 2100. But assuming that fertility does not somehow increase, the decline in in world population likely rivals its rapid ascent. Simple extrapolation suggests therefore that assuming 10 billion will be present around 2085, around 50-60 this will drop back to 8 billion (ca. 2022 levels). And about a hundred years later it may level out around 2 billion. Again, these are just simple projections, but at this point appear to be at least reasonable scenarios. I.e. 10 billion would not be a steady-state, but rather a transitional phase.

! Moderator Note OP seems more about outrage about a CEO's pitch rather than engineering. As it does not seem to foster any interesting discussions either, it is locked.

I think his presentation always comes up o this topic as it strongly challenges many false and simplified notions. Also relevant are his other talks related to gapminder, dismantling many global misconceptions. It is not a coincidence that folk lamenting about overpopulation rarely make the case to first reduce the population that is overconsuming resources.

Just an add on to earlier comments regarding pharna investments https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/big-pharma-spends-billions-more-on-executives-and-stockholders-than-on-rd/

the argument seems a bit backwards as without NASA SpaceX would likely have failed https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/without-nasa-there-would-be-no-spacex-and-its-brilliant-boat-landing/ Moreover, much of the funding is still government contracts. I.e. whatever limitation of government money you see, it also applies to SpaceX.

! Moderator Note Off-topic discussion split to new topic.

In Alberta, Canada, there is legislation in play that aim to legislate care for children. A big issue is that it sets hard limits rather than providing the breathing space youths, parents and medical professionals need to make proper individual assessments. While on its face it might seem that quite a bit is inconsequential (e.g. genital surgery is already age limited) it raises the question regarding the legality of other types of surgeries (e.g. breast surgery related to cancer or pain). Attempting to legislate health care is always an issue, especially when guidelines become very specific and are done without a strong consensus from the medical community (and even then there are issues) as human health and biology does not conform to simple rules that could be addressed by checklists adequately. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/danielle-smith-unveils-sweeping-changes-to-alberta-s-student-gender-identity-sports-and-surgery-policies-1.7101053

That is very true. The gap is the steepest for the poor, as there is no means to create or amplify wealth. The only resource available is labour and most money will be used to survive, leaving no space to invest. Entrepreneurship is difficult if you have no assets to leverage or if taking risks means to be be living on the streets. In contrast, even middle class folks can invest some modest amount after taking care of the essentials. And perversely, the ultra rich do not require income, they can just leverage their wealth.

That is one of the reasons why I am extremely suspicious of the "tech will save us" narrative, especially if they are in the hands of select few individuals. They have all the answers, without even understanding the question. That is why the definition has shifted from specific diagnoses to a broader range of descriptive syndromes, from what I understand. So basically instead of having the categories associated with pervasive developmental disorder, as the conditions are called, like autistic disorder, Aseperger's disorder and childhood disintegrative disorder (and maybe more) it is now organized in a spectrum. This new categorization has decreased diagnoses, IIRC. But reading ability or body coordination are I believe not part of it- the focus is in persistent deficits in social communication and limited but repetitive patterns of behaviour, for example.

Oh yes, I am sure they do. I am not entirely sure on which level, though and whether there is ongoing trend or just the pendulum swing (due to undoing of some existing Gerrymandering). But yes, as a whole there is no (AFAIK) fundamental aversion against it among Dems (or at least I think there isn't).

Several issues with the argument. The first, not all traits are under selection. In fact, most are likely not. Second, many traits, including autism, are not fully genetic, and even if under negative selection are not expected to be vanish entirely. Third, whatever advantages autism confers, is highly situation dependent and especially on the more extreme end, the negatives vastly outlast the positives. Conversely, psychopaths are becoming CEOs https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccullough/2019/12/09/the-psychopathic-ceo/?sh=7dfff38d791e

I think it is part of the issue but not the cause. I vaguely recall also that both sides are not quite the same, on the state level some papers have argued that the GOP is doing significantly more, and in congress a swing to the Democrats was apparently due to court decisions striking down GOP Gerrymandering. But I do not really recall much detail.

It really only depends on how the swing states decide. Popular vote still remains close for the most part. But honestly, I suspect your first mistake is to assume that folks are making informed decisions. Hasn't the pandemic taught you anything?

! Moderator Note There is no invitation to discuss anything here. Locked.

I mean, they will still vote for him and say that he is the only to fix it. You can draw your own conclusions from there.

In part, certainly. But especially when it comes to sexuality and associated identity, things are bit more different than other identity traits. Both appear to be formed early on and generally do not change through life, in contrast to other forms of identity. What might change is how you express a given identity (e.g. what society considers to be masculine or feminine at any given point). And you might be correct that folks have become less prescriptive (or at least specific) in that regard. But on the other hand things have been changing forever, (e.g. whether heels are for men or women switched entirely more than once).

I mostly did not know what the point of that argument was. It seemed to try to suggest that the ability (or inability) to address a condition would have some sort of inherent meaning. But obviously there are a lot of procedures developed that are done because folks are willing to pay for it (e.g. plastic surgery). I don't think anyone is looking for a cure in autism, despite in some cases the conditions can make life very difficult. Rather, folks want to understand the condition itself (as it is not very well defined), potential causes and behavioral management options. There are some folks using animal models to look into molecular mechanisms of autism and some think that this could lead to a cure, but I think that is mostly sales (like having a cancer treatment every week). This research has also shifted the perception on autism, especially in what was previously considered "Asperger's syndrome" which is now more considered to be within a more normative range (if at the extremes) for example. If your question is whether there are genetics based treatment, AFAIK there is only few, in part also because many genetic challenges are not caused by a single locus. Besides certain uses in cancer I am only aware of a gene therapy to treat a retinal disease. Larger chromosomal changes are not feasible targets.

Exactly, we are all mutants.