Genady

If the material of the planet is fluid, yes.

For sport. Science is the best sport I know. It's a team sport. Humans vs. Nature. Learning science is like watching your favorite game, and doing science is like taking part in it. Of course, it does. It keeps discovering new 'tricks' of the Nature and keeps coming up with its own 'tricks.' It gets more and more interesting. Nonstop and not slowing down. If it is not your favorite sport, look for another. This is not true.

Like Seth, I also had 1 of each. By the age of 3 they were just two very different persons. So different in so many respects, that there is no way, I think, to ascribe any specific differences to their genders.

No, it is not, but it also is a space of system states. Just playing on your "psychic space" term. I meant a couple of psychology related courses. I've seen his movies.

I disagree with this. For example, when it comes to memory, which is part of cognition. Or ability to learn foreign languages. I know that you were referring to beliefs, but they are only a small part of a cognitive level, I think. Also, ability to change beliefs varies.

Perhaps there are, like 2% success is more than 1%. I don't think so, based on what I've learned. I never heard this term in the "psychic" classes I took. Also I'm not sure what it means. Something akin phase space of a mechanical system? I used to like that theory a lot in my teens. Loved his experiments. However, later I learned that his methodology was quite weak - small samples, poor reproducibility. I don't think the theory is in use today (but I may be wrong, of course.)

I like this shift of a viewpoint, +1. The range of times into the future seems large, but the range of actions available today is limited. Perhaps, that is what @iNow and @dimreepr have alluded to in their responses earlier.

This statement triggered a picture in my mind that I didn't think about before: the Schwarzschild radius of a BH is much smaller than the "falling" object. IOW, a small BH is falling onto a large object. Or even the BH is inside the large object. How does the process look in these cases? Is the latter possible?

It does in particle accelerators. I guess it is of a practical consequence.

Thank you. It only says that such effect exists, which is expected. Since nothing else is said by LIGO or by Wikipedia, I assume it is not different from the effect on EM wave (that was my question.)

I've never heard of a Doppler effect on gravitational waves. Is it the same old relativistic Doppler effect, or some modifications appear?

This is OT, but I am very glad to hear this, because I've had many discussions about (im)possible mechanisms of this kind of selection years ago.

Although it is not a selective advantage of being a homosexual, it could explain presence of homosexuals in a population. However, I wonder if there might be a selective advantage of being homophobic. I don't see any, but see rather a disadvantage, which I've mentioned.

AFAIK, Native Americans extended it to the seventh generation. I don't know, why seven. Maybe because nobody lives long enough to see these great-great-great-...-children. Is it too long? Too short? x-posted with the same point by @mistermack

Can anybody suggest a selective advantage provided by a homophobic trait? I can see a disadvantage in spending energy on competing with non-rivals.

@Peterkin, this ^ would be a correct attribution. Or this:

To do this:

Of three causes of the current low birth rate mentioned by the OP - urbanization, intelligence, and depression - the first and the third will supposedly be eliminated in the happy, 2-3 billion people world. Maybe intelligence will suffice. (?)

Yes, it might happen. After the crises is over, people will live happily, for some time. This happy life will encourage them to have more children, ... We know how it goes, don't we?

I understand that 1000 years is a long-term in this description. How about 100? Is there a reason to care about the next 100 years?

OK. That care I'm interested in. You do care beyond your lifetime. How far beyond?

Decades long crises have happened before. Perhaps, will happen again. However, what are the causes of the insufficient birth rates that seem to be in the root of this crisis?

I guess it means, every 'today' of your life. IOW, your horizon is your life time. Then why do you care about the climate change?

I think that almost everyone cares about what happens to humanity in the next several months. OTOH, almost nobody cares what happens to humanity in several million years. Many people care about several decades. What is a reasonable time horizon that we do or should care about? And why?

What are the causes of this? In what sense are they irreversible?