Peterkin

Commenting on your own feeling is not "a claim" that requires you to explain it rationally; it's just conversation. But I can certainly understand why someone would not talk about such feelings outside their intimate circle - or maybe even to anyone at all. People so often react negatively: think you're lying, or hallucinating, or deluded. And there are also the credulous who would pester you to make predictions for them, and charlatans who make false claims to clairvoyance. It seems best to keep one's genuine spooky experience private - so I wouldn't be surprised if the documentation were unreliable.

The same day or night, in every case. Before. Several weeks before, since mail from Europe took some time to arrive. We didn't have internet back then. No, she never "claimed" anything. She just said: "I think George is dead." or something like. Oh sure, but they were inconsequential events. Could have been just observation and projection or the standard fallback: coincidence. Deaf as a post to the paranormal, me.

Feeling that somebody you care for is about to die isn't funny. I've had lots of funny feelings, but as I've already admitted, not that one. Exactly. So, statistics, even supposed ones, shed very little light on this subject.

I don't think that would go unnoticed. Unreported, probably. I've never had it, and I can imagine someone deliberately ignoring or denying it because it's so unpleasant. My mother had it, only in regard to her siblings: I know of four occasions when she had a premonition of their or their spouse's death - that's just the times I was around to hear about it. So I'm not prepared to dismiss it out of hand. You can say it's been reported and recorded so many times; not how many times it's actually happened. There are no statistics about thing people feel but don't say. I don't think about is. It's appealing and frightening: Jung just requires too much of the fall-back-somebody-will-catch-you commitment to our common humanity.

Canadians in different regions might also use different terms. The words "ranch" and "bungalow" have both been used for the same style - single story house laid out along a central hallway; it was a change here from the standard two-storey plus attic, square brick construction that had been the most common before the 1950's. The post war subdivisions of inexpensive, uniform 2-bedroom homes were often referred to as ticky-tacky. In more affluent neighbourhoods, Craftsman, Cape Cod and Spanish colonial were popular.

Oh, I think the private sector still does its share. However thrifty and ecology-conscious individual citizens may be, business always has higher priorities: they'll spend a lot more on advertising their greenness than actually cutting down on their toxic byproducts and waste.

We wouldn't need to reduce consumption so much, if we just stopped the waste. https://blog.constellation.com/2021/01/22/energy-wasting-habits-at-home/ I almost neglected my noirest of betes! https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/environmental-challenge-military-munitions-and-federal-facilities

Why? More interestingly: How?

The more numerous and diverse "we" are, the less we reach consensus on anything. We were unable to ban them when two countries owned them. Now nine countries officially own them and several more have accidental possession through the breakdown of USSR and others are aspiring to own them and the waste products are scattered all over the world. Most of these countries can't agree on the shape of the table they'll sit at to discuss mutual annihilation. I'm no statistician, but I don't care for the odds.

No. But they are still possible candidates. True. I don't know who will actually do, but I do believe that the more people can, the more likely it becomes that one of them will. I'm not convinced the two scenarios are technically in the same realm of probability. Or diplomatic negotiability. The slightly larger previous question was whether the proliferation of nuclear weapons guarantees safety. I say "No", but I can't prove it. With that wholly inadequate contribution, I will now go back to watching "Madame Secretary".

Those are two possible candidates. Pakistan, Iran, China... or any number of unknown terrorist and criminal forces that get hold of illicit nuclear material for purposes you can't begin to guess, and set dirty bombs off in unpredicted locations. The existence of those things guarantees that everyone's at risk, the more players, large and small, national and transnational, known and unknown, will try to get in on the action.

It's insane. You can't regulate or negotiate insanity.

Yes, I think that's part of it. There are periods in every life of something like hiatus or fallowness, when not a lot happens, when we're not particularly creative or productive. Like writer's block or burnout; sometimes grief, or recovery from physical or mental trauma, depression... a lot of bad shit rains into people's lives, and they need time to regroup, rebuild before they get on with the next thing. Most of what happens in that interval is not noted or recorded. Usually, these periods last weeks or months, and then we're back at the desk, on deck, on the route, on the assembly line, our good reliable old selves. (not really; never the same) Those times-out are blank in the memory; time resumes, as if no time had passed. But life has gone by without us, and we can never catch up.

There is another factor. We calculate the segments of past time in relation to the whole. When you're two years old, a year is half of your life. Odds are, you can recall only the last week or so as a continuous segment, in which a large part of what happened was unique, unfamiliar. You may not recall any suppertimes except the one when you threw a tantrum over the carrots, but that's still an event. That week was 1/104th of all the time and events you've experienced, and you're already allocating memory-space according to significance. As your mental faculties expand, so does you memory - at the same time that novelty of experience and memorability of individual events diminish. What happened in the past week becomes a smaller and smaller portion of all that has happened in your lifetime. When a year is 1/50th of your life, the past week contains only 1/2600th of your experience, and most of what happened in that period is insignificant. (I also think Covid and lockdown tended to flatten all of our experiences, as fewer venues and opportunities for social encounters were available and much of our daily activity became constrained routine.)

No. At least, not by conventional means. Too few. However, if DNA is taken from all the individuals that are still alive - plus as many remnants of the dead ones as possible - it could be saved for a renaissance in some post-apocalyptic future.

There are some variables that could reduce the ill effects. If you are naturally nocturnal and don't have to make a huge change in your life habits, that would make the shift easier. The worst part of shift work is usually the shifting itself; having to reset your internal rhythms every few days. So, continuous night work is less harmful: once you've made the adjustment, you develop new habits. Another factor is: How much time do you have off work? Sleeping when everyone else is active puts a serious dent in your social life and relationships. Being deprived of sunlight is a further consideration: If you have two or three full days to be outdoors, and find pleasurably activities, that would be great help. And you would probably need a SAD light in winter. As a career, night work is not for everyone. As a short term arrangement, you could take steps to minimize the adverse effects..

And we're paying to prop them up And they don't usually clean up after themselves.

Oh, they're noticed all right! We don't need to clear forests anymore - though of course we still do it - they're also burning down by themselves. This is largely due to changed and changing climate. We're not talking about something that may or may not happen in the future: It already has. I do appreciate your concern about extinctions - it is an alarming situation. But it's not simply or solely caused by the number of people. It is caused far more by industrial farming and resource extraction, and by the pollution, energy-gluttony and waste of the global economy. Ultimately, the only thing poor people can do to alter their circumstances - in living conditions, decision making, economic arrangements or reproductive freedom - is rise up against their masters. And that means an awful of poor people get killed. It's not an action to be undertaken lightly.

I'm not seeing how that relates to one sex or another benefits from lack of action. If not enough input from women, ask the fathers here present: How many believe they would better off if they had more children than they have?

i don't see a direction or a depth. My failure: all I see is unfortunate outcomes from ill-considered decisions. Bad for everyone.

If one considered the nations with the highest birth-rates, one could assume that men, who dominate the culture of those nations, drive the birth-rate upward, and one might further assume that's because they have something to gain. But it certainly isn't a longer life. More soldiers to carry on internal and border disputes? Hardly a benefit to the soldiers. An excuse to keep women out of the workplaces and schools? Again, it's hard to see a benefit to men or women - or anyone - except despots and despotic oligarchies.

divided equally between its ^human^ inhabitants ? It might be a start, but we have already killed off a great many other species and are rapidly extinguishing the rest. We are already in the process of discovering how difficult subsistence is for humans in an environment stripped of its ecological complement. With average temperatures, spike temperatures, rain and wind patterns, rivers and glaciers, the very land itself shifting continuously, what is a subsistence farmer - anywhere on earth - supposed to rely on? The only way a human population of this size or larger can sustain itself is by moving into self-sufficient cities, a substantial part of which are underground, with their own energy generating capability, water supply, mass transit and pedestrian walkways, and produce its food locally in intensive hydroponic farms and meat factories. And even so, population growth would be restricted by available space and water, but presumably, the inhabitants could see directly, for themselves, the limits and limitations of their environment. Thus far, humans have always assumed that there was more of everything, someplace else or in the future, available through conquest or trade or technology. Only recently is becoming clear that a sphere is finite.

Neither of us actually recommended that. I never even claimed that population reduction was a prerequisite to climate change mitigation; I said on many occasions that population growth would automatically stop if infant mortality were under control, standard of living was reasonable and women had reproductive choice. My main contention is and has always been that the necessary conditions for an effective global response to our common existential threat are: sincere consensus, resource redistribution and a dramatic reduction in wasteful consumption.

No. It's for less population growth altogether. But especially in places and among people who have less ability (due to religion, political conservatism, lack of access to birth control and infant health care, lack of education and opportunities, suppression of women's freedom of choice) to regulate their rate of reproduction, and who also have fewer resources to give their children a healthy, competitive start in life. Family planning is not a punishment for overconsumption; it's a prerogative long enjoyed by high volume consumers, which privilege also increases the purchasing and consuming power of the people who have it. They ought to share the privileges, just as they ought to share the surplus of goods they enjoy. Meanwhile, these same high volume consumers ought to reduce their waste and pollution, most notably and urgently at the corporate level, their energy use, their hold on power and distribution. Many individuals and businesses are doing this voluntarily and in innovative ways. Far more are not, and look for excuses to do nothing, or less than they should, or later. A few are actively seeking better recourses and solutions for the poor people - sometimes at considerable personal cost and risk. Some do not want to hear about altering their own lifestyle in any way. A few oppose it energetically, at considerable financial outlay, which, due to their wealth and power, costs them nothing at all. There are not just two homogeneous baskets of people to consider.

It was your word; your suggestion. I merely asked for an explanation of what that means or entails. I believe this to be case. Thus: probably, but not necessarily. The cows need to stop being tortured. Out of touch with reality, delusional, disoriented, irrational, out of conscious control. Thinking, communicating and behaving in ways that are inimical to own and others' wellness and security; disruptive to social order; ultimately threatening survival. E.g. bulldozing the forests that produce oxygen essential to life; electing violent megalomaniacs and compulsive liars to the highest public offices, shooting schoolchildren and drug addicts, bombing orchards, poisoning rivers, attacking health care workers.... +/-260,000,000 years vs 10,500 years and counting down fast, I would definitely peg the wild ones as more sustainable. Pretty much. Universe 25 and Twitter.