Ken Fabian

Peterson will use his keen perception for which hypocrisies of liberals presses conservatives' buttons - showing almost as much contempt by that for those unthinking conservatives as the "hypocritical" progressives -  to relentlessly criticise appointments by US Democrats for being politically motivated but, being a politically partisan voice, will refrain from and deflect criticism of brazenly political appointments by US Republicans; despite not being a US citizen he has chosen his side.

Of course I'm disappointed that any US President or political party feels it is necessary to stack their highest court with partisans or choose candidates for the sake of public perceptions, but that is the way many of them "play the game". I suspect the new Supreme Court judge - not being white and male and watched hawkishly by conservatives - is more likely to be scrupulous than some of the ones there already, such as Trump appointed.

They stop being atheists with that belief. Taking up religion because other people appear more contented or happy with it could be a rational choice, especially if atheists face persecution, even to wanting to believe and at times feel like they do. And at other times, not. Is that an in between state or a switching between theist and atheist? People are complicated and even the rational are not always rational.

Those that live by the truism will die by the truism.

I daresay Alexander made good tyrannical use of fear, both to motivate his nation(s) and armies and to weaken the responses of his enemies. .

On 2/28/2022 at 10:45 AM, iNow said:

Turns out “patriot” as a term is being rapidly co-opted to mean white supremacist… the way neonazis and KKK members refer to themselves

The political players who thought branding their legitimate political opponents as traitors was a good idea probably saw it simply as a small but effective way to build a reluctance to change sides in their voter base. The larger consequences of that probably didn't concern them - winning at all costs was the point. But political discourse and democratic elections are the principle ways to avoid deciding things by violence - ie to avoid winning at all costs turning everyone into losers.

23 hours ago, CarlDarwin said:

Can science be used to engineer evolution so that humans evolve into superhumans?

I expect some attempts at doing so - parents wanting children who are better than they are in places where that kind of choice is allowed and available, or authoritarian regimes wanting workers and soldiers more capable than their rivals (but probably wanting them to be more obedient and content with their place too). But I think the former depends on developing the means using comprehensive and reliable modeling of the results rather than experimenting on humans - parents will want confidence the changes won't cause unexpected harms but likely won't support trying it out on human subjects as the means to find out. The powerful people who want better soldiers, servants and slaves won't care about the human costs. They will likely want control too much to allow too much super free thinking.

Practicing eugenics to enhance or inhibit various traits is possible but I'm not convinced that the end can justify the means. I also suspect a society that is ordered enough to support long term eugenics within it's population may be intrinsically unhealthy.

23 hours ago, beecee said:

Stephen Hawking virtually said yes, and used our space explorations and research as a reason. 

Sorry Beecee, I'm not going to watch an hour and a quarter to get to the "virtually said yes" bits. Hawking was an amazing man with an amazing mind who had big ideas and shared your enthusiastic optimism about humanity expanding into space but his expertise was theoretical physics, not predicting the future.

Whilst bio-engineering humans for exotic environments appears a way to make successful colonisations of such environments more likely it takes a whole lot of unlikely hypotheticals on top of hypotheticals to get there. Most proposals for people in space start with making artificial environments close to what humans evolved with, with technologies ordinary humans are capable of mastering. Whilst isolated small populations will end up sharing traits, enough to be recognisably different to other populations I don't see how that would lead to becoming superhuman. Survival in space is unlikely to be easy so being well ordered is probably essential but that degree of order may ultimately be an impediment - any adventurous or rebellious urges may need to be channeled or suppressed to prevent them being counterproductive.

Not sure what is meant by "the energy crisis". I thought first you meant the climate change challenge of replacing dirty energy with clean but suspect it may be the short term shocks from Russia's Ukraine invasion you are referring to.

I have no doubt that European nations are quantifying near term available energy resources and requirements in mathematical terms - something nations tend to do anyway, just with more urgency at the moment. But whilst finding the optimum based on those factors may be possible there is politics and balancing various interests to complicate things. EG - clearly it is given that German Greens will oppose extending the lives of nuclear plants - but Germans apart from Greens have misgivings too or the agreement to close them would not have happened. Some of those are more about the poor cost effectiveness of keeping them going given they are expensive and they need a lot of work. Other Germans don't care about climate or nuclear and want returns on their brown coal and gas investments. A study showing other options would be better than nuclear will not be welcomed and would face opposition, just as studies showing doing upgrades to existing nuclear plants would help will face opposition. Given we've had more than 3 decades of consistent science based studies showing we need to get out of fossil fuels the growth of their use was (and is) widely supported by the same governments that commissioned and funded those studies - it is clear that doing studies isn't the biggest problem.

These "scientists" probably had a lot of fun speculating - but it was speculation plus imagination, not a science based prediction. Even basing future changes on trends within our species looks problematic, as would proposing there is some ideal form and seeking to define it. The linked articles were not very impressive - and that goes for the source material that got quoted in them. Like -

Quote

One of the big changes will be a larger forehead, Kwan predicts - a feature that has already expanding since the 14th and 16th centuries.

Perhaps that is true based on an average across the whole population, but that can be from a: people everywhere are all getting larger foreheads or b: the proportion of people with the genes for larger foreheads has grown in proportion to people who's foreheads are smaller or c; this is a consequence of change to living conditions, not genetics.

a: (if it even could happen) would be evolution across the species but b: would be existing variation within the species. Until and unless some selection process eliminates the ones with smaller forehead our species is one that encompasses larger and smaller foreheads. The conditions that have caused the numbers of people with large foreheads to grow may be shortlived - and that period is so short in evolutionary terms and the changes of the conditions people live in so great that it needs to be established that the difference is genetic change.

Quote

Kwan says that 60,000 years from now, our ability to control the human genome will also make the effect of evolution on our facial features moot.

I expect that, so long as our advanced industrial civilisation doesn't implode, we will have that capability within the current century. If not genetic then surgical and other modification can deliver desired appearances - but without passing them on. No guarantee that everyone would take either option up. 60,000 seems like a number pulled out of the air (or perhaps some orifice). The supposed idealised beautiful human face isn't a universal thing.

Quote

Eyes will meanwhile get larger, as attempts to colonize Earth's solar system and beyond see people living in the dimmer environments of colonies further away from the Sun than Earth. Similarly, skin will become more pigmented to lesson the damage from harmful UV radiation outside of the Earth's protective ozone.

This is pure nonsense IMO. Contradictory as well - low light but high UV? IF humans colonise space they will make their own environment, including lighting. i don't expect terraforming to be able to make outdoors possible for space colonies. Light intensity may well be reduced compared to direct tropical sunlight or what is used in grow tunnels but will be close to how we do indoor lighting - because that's how we like indoor lighting. Eye size seems more likely to be changed on purpose, because people think they look better.

On 2/27/2022 at 9:05 PM, nec209 said:

I just find it strange scientist will sit back and allow humans to look different than what they look like today. 

Since no-one knows how different or can know that people of the future will be deeply unhappy about their appearance and there is nothing to do about it if we did know - there is no incentive to intervene.

On 3/13/2022 at 7:19 AM, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

the refrigerator doesn't just produce light, but also heat, from the fact that relocating heat from the interior of the refrigerator to the exterior thereof converts electrical energy to heat energy in the process.

But it will be inefficient and likely will impact how quickly food goes bad. Food in the door and at the front is likely to be more affected. The fridge will work harder re-cooling itself, with greater use of electricity than a light - with no real difference by changing the thermostat setting, except to make it go colder than before, once the door is closed.

Even a low power night light left on might be a better alternative.

On 3/3/2022 at 7:16 AM, Jalopy said:

In the theme of cause and effect, good and evil don't matter. 

Cause and effect; that nothing matters. The law of the jungle prevails and the winner is the fittest, the smartest. 

Why would good and evil not be subject to cause and effect? Isn't the point about doing good or doing evil all about consequences, ie the effects?

Also, is "the law of the jungle?" actually a thing? It isn't a term used much by biologists. Lots of animals are social and engage in co-operative behaviors. Cooperation and Competition both have their place. Even the fiercest warriors can be thankful that they can go home to a community that will care for them when injured or in their old age.

1 hour ago, Dropship said:

Wait, members here have already said humans are to blame for much GW,

Members here are basing that on decades of scientific studies, that have been built in turn on a foundation of ever improving understanding of fundamental physics and chemistry and of understanding of climate processes. That agreement is not simply a case of our opinions being a majority here but of the majority here being familiar with what those studies have been saying.

A lot of the health issues around radioactive materials are actually chemical in nature, by being chemically toxic and biochemically carcinogenic. Eg, Strontium 90 when ingested will be used in place of calcium in cells and tissues, but then the Strontium undergoes radioactive decay, breaking apart the molecules they were part of (which may become toxic in turn) and becoming Yttrium 90 and then Zirconium 90 whilst releasing alpha, beta and gamma radiation, which induces further unwanted and potentially harmful biochemical reactions in surrounding tissue. 

Re the Thermal History of Earth there is still a lot of uncertainty but the fundamental processes appear understood. Like heat from compression being ultimately attributable to the formation of the Earth - the energy came with the materials that coalesced to make Earth. And whilst we may not perceive rock as being a good insulator it is in fact a very good one when it is hundreds of kilometres thick, so much of that heat has still not managed to get out.

On 3/7/2022 at 8:44 AM, Peterkin said:

the most ruthless members of the tribe as facilitators and the most credulous at the bottom.

I don't think it is so simple or so dark. The shaman/priests weren't usually the chiefs and whilst both might have status and power and interests in common each would be a check on the other. Lore and law often bound even the behavior of priests and chiefs.

Our prehistoric ancestors were not simple brutes even if - as now - they were capable of brutality. I expect there were sincere and sometimes desperate efforts to call on spirits and gods for the good of the tribe as well as chiefs and dynasties that sought to lead well, with the support of their community. It wasn't always winner take all. And their communities were not powerless; bad things could happen to chiefs and priests that let everyone down.

The flooding in Lismore exceeded the previous highest flood level by so much that many people who believed themselves safe and prepared found they were not. Downtown Lismore (behind levees) expected the ground floors to be inundated but the next level up to be safe - so they shifted valuable goods as well as themselves up to there. And got badly caught out. Being up on stilts was not enough - and gave many people a false sense of security.

Between raised sea surface temperatures and raised air temperatures the severity of rainfall events is raised... when conditions suit rainfall. When ENSO is in la Nina phase Eastern Australia gets more air flow from the Pacific Ocean over land - in combination with that warming it isn't difficult to see why this would increase rainfall intensity. During El Nino phase the prevailing air flow is more often from Central Australia towards the coast - and whilst warmer air can take up more moisture, it also takes more water vapor content to reach the saturation needed to induce rain; it isn't difficult to see how that would lead to reduced rainfall.

Like sea level rise for The Netherlands with the existing propensity for inundation, being "a land of droughts and flooding rains" doesn't make greater extremes of droughts and floods for Australia less concerning. Quite the opposite. Like with "but the climate is always changing" the susceptibility of the global climate system to natural change makes it more susceptible to change and to reach new extremes from raised GHG's; it would take climate that doesn't change for it to not matter.

There isn't much doubt the current Australian government has protecting the fossil fuel industry from emissions reductions ambitions as higher priority than reducing emissions. The Minister for Energy and Emissions Reductions has been tireless on that front.

For non-Australians the Australian Prime Minister is bottom right, with the lump of coal he once brought to parliament to attempt to ridicule those who have been calling for Australia phasing down coal exploitation - "don't be afraid" -

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Generally, yes. I don't think it is so for all people, all blanks.

You are right. Some blanks are not going to be as significant as others. Some people will be less fearful of the unknown or not need explanations for the inexplicable. But it can be socially disruptive to have competing beliefs or for dangerous beliefs to spread unchecked.

I like to think I am rational but I still have the emotive responses to the strange and unexpected. Superstitions I learned as a child can still be triggered, even though I dismiss them as irrational. We are susceptible - our powers of imagination can be a vulnerability as well as a powerful tool to provide understanding and predictability.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Even more basically, we are a pattern-seeking species. We need to make sense of everything around us; organize information into coherent narrative - even if we lack vital data, we fill in the blanks. We are also intensely self-reflective: we need to impose our sensibility, our mode of thought, our volition, onto the world around us. We need to establish purpose and causation on every event: the human imagination requires that, if we didn't make something happen, an entity like ourselves, only more powerful, must have. Plus, we are constantly aware of death and have a strong aversion to experiencing it, even as we inflict it on others.

Yes, people will fill in the blanks with something, right or wrong.

A community that shares language and beliefs and rules of behavior has advantages. I think the human imagination and propensity to dream and fear the unknown combine to make having shared beliefs, even wrong ones, better than having none. The need for sharing beliefs came long before it was clear what was rational and what was not.

The power to evoke strong emotions does make humans vulnerable to manipulation - but makes it possible for leaders to unite and inspire them to a great task or a Cause. The power of unified belief to aim people in the same direction have made societies strong. 

Having unified beliefs that are all evidence based and rational ought to make societies stronger but I don't think anyone's ever actually tried it. I'm not sure humans are even capable of agreeing on what is evidence based or what is rational. If you come to that question with beliefs already in place they probably seem evidence based and rational.

21 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Is there any way to make the barbs made of something see-through that the mosquitoes may mistake for standing water? As in, that they think they're flying into standing water but they're actually flying into sharp objects blocking the standing water?

 

Presuming it's put out of reach of human beings who'd make the same mistake. Or at least with warning signs posted nearby...

Insecticide impregnated mosquito nets work well where humans are the attractant. Impaling is not an effective way to kill mosquitos. A lot of thinking and a lot of work has already gone into mosquito control; better to review what has already been done before attempting new and unusual methods.

Mesh works quite well to keep mosquitos out of water tanks but it requires good design, construction and ongoing maintenance (cleaning mostly) as well. We usually have a mosquito proof strainer set into the top of water tanks, but there can be gaps if not screwed down. But leaving them not screwed down makes lifting them out and emptying accumulating leaf and other debri easier, so they often aren't. Also the overflow outlets have mosquito mesh - but can get clogged, so the water level can sometimes rise above the level of the (sunken) strainer. Mosquito eggs laid in that water can be small enough to pass through - which isn't a problem so long as there is no way for an emerging adult to get out.

22 hours ago, CharonY said:

The common ancestor of all humans were black, as that is the population were humanity came from different skin colours developed later after dispersal from Africa. Nationality are a modern construct, so it really does not figure into the biology here. 

Well, that is a surmise, but one that seems sound. People like Nina Jablonski who have made skin evolution their area of of study think dark hair over light skin came before (misnamed) hairlessness - that being the usual pattern within related apes. She does thinks dark skin probably developed as a response to raised UV exposure in prior furless hominids, before homo sapiens, ie the earliest homo sapiens were dark skinned. In reality no-one knows.

But yes, the variations of skin colour we see in modern humans came after the earliest homo sapiens, as did variations of adult hairiness. The absence of variation of juvenile hairiness across our species was probably present in the precursor species and (I think) probably preceded us, but the variations in adults is a secondary sexual trait that came after.

23 hours ago, MycroftWilliams said:

Did the original human beings have the genes of every single nationality? Adam and Eve must have had genes common to French, African, Indian, Australian, Chinese people etc to have spawned the human race.

On a side note, that must have made them look rather strange. 

Were they multicoloured, for instance? Can you imagine a human being who is equally Caucasian, African, Asian and European all in one?

Adam probably had a pink nose and a yellow face. He probably had brown hands and a black chest.

Does this rather curious theory make sense? 

or in other words...

No it doesn't make sense. The genes and traits every member of a species share go back to common ancestors. The genes and traits we don't all share - the variations that make different groups different - will have developed later.

The earliest homo sapiens didn't have (all) the genes of every "nationality", mutation will have introduced new ones, the ones that make them different to their ancestors.

Yes there are genes they had that everyone has. Those are for the traits we share in common.

19 hours ago, SuperSlim said:

Are you saying the surface waves that appear in a brandy bowl, are not an example of elastic waves?

I think we are arguing over terminology. The first post claimed it is an example of an Elastic Fluid, but I'm not convinced that it is what the phenomena described is. That may have led me astray.

"Elastic fluid" seems to refer to compressability -

Elastic waves -

Quote

 When elastic waves propagate, the energy associated with elastic deformation gets transferred in the absence of a flow of matter,

Surface waves that appear in a brandy bowl may indeed be examples of "elastic waves" in a fluid; something I wasn't aware of - I stand corrected.

I had been thinking there was flow of matter involved - but I may have been misunderstanding "flows", ie where a container wall moves back and forth and displaces water without compressing it. It will involve wave propagation by compression and release (elastic fluid) but most of what we see in that bowl will be water physically moving rather than being compressed and uncompressed.

Introducing the topic with reference to elastic waves rather than elastic fluids may have avoided confusion.

@SuperSlim -As long as you use the term "elastic" so broadly and wrongly you will mistake phenomena that have nothing to do with elasticity for phenomena that do.

The combination of container and gravity makes the shape of that water in it's hypothetical undisturbed resting state. Other forces make waves and motions, like vibrating the container to create standing waves. Friction damps those motions. It isn't elasticity - that is a misleading misnaming of why, when external forces cease it reverts back over time to it's resting state.

In Singapore it is illegal, because of mosquitos and malaria. Here in Australia rainwater is commonly collected and used for both household and garden use and usually tanks have mesh to discourage mosquitos (but unless well maintained, not always preventing their larvae getting in). Most of our own personal household water supply is water collected from our roofs, but we are rural, outside any municipal water supplies. Some places there can be reasons to avoid them - eg having big overhanging trees with bird and fruit bat populations can make the water unsafe to drink.

There were widespread restrictions on household tanks in urban areas in the past, in part to support the viability of municipal water supply systems. Roof and other rainwater runoff is usually directed to "stormwater" drains that (usually) feed directly into creeks and rivers. Increasingly with some "pits" to catch rubbish. Oil, rubber and other contaminants etc off roads isn't separated. Of course when there are floods waste of all kinds ends up in floodwater.

Rivers are most often the source of irrigation water for farms, without any specific water collection or diversion; specific collection tends to be on-farm (earth dams) or part of larger irrigation schemes, based around existing rivers and catchments and dams.

Economics is probably the biggest impediment. Water isn't often diverted large distances unless part of larger schemes, like the Snowy River hydroelectric diversion of coastal flowing water inland, in combination with the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Scheme built around those flows. Even now it is unclear whether such schemes (minus the electricity) were ever cost effective but psychologically they were and are reassuring to have in a nation with climate that swings from extremely dry to wet and back again; political careers have been bolstered by vocal support of grand schemes that have been repeatedly shown to be unrealistic and economically wasteful.

Agriculture is usually where it is because it has the soils, the climate, the rainfall, the rivers so additional water resources like urban rainwater runoff, that need a lot of investment and infrastructure to be useful are rarely that significant.

Unrealistic and economically wasteful is why catching and diverting urban stormwater to rural irrigation isn't done.

36 minutes ago, studiot said:

The disturbing force has nothing to do with gravity.

Neither the disturbing force nor the dampening requires or is a result of gravity, but I would expect the experiment to play out very differently without it.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

the distrubing force is not of the same type as the restoring force in the original effect.

Gravity holds it in the container but wouldn't make motions within the water stop. I would expect friction within the water will be what dampens any motions. Plus some dampening from internal friction within the container itself, which would have to flex to pass vibrations to the water and would be flexed in turn by water motions.

This field that affects high velocity electrons appears to be entirely natural and doesn't prevent spacecraft or people from leaving Earth.

I have formed my own opinion that this discovery by a team at University of Colorado Boulder is not evidence of aliens having turned Earth into a prison. That claim is nonsense.