MigL

I have no love for Facebook or twitter. And don't get me started on E Musk ...

I'd have dinner with you John. But none of that tasteless British stuff you guys call food. Couple of fingers of neat Scotch, on the other hand, would be great afterwards.

Indeed. The difference is TikTok's link to China. And rather than drum beating, China has actively used the internet for nefarious purposes, such as influencing, or trying to influence, democratic elections in the US.

Advanced technology, such as genetic scanning, and a certain measure of control ( a la Handmaid's Tale ) would eliminate that issue.

If by stochastic effects you mean random mutations, CharonY, a sufficiently advanced technology would be able to scan and fix errant genetic material; that would also take care of any 'disturbances' to the H-W equilibrium ( had to look that one up 🙂 ).

Environmental forcings govern evolution. And by environmental I mean everything from societal, geographical, predators and prey, climate and air quality, to basically everything that has an effect on our lives. If our technology is advanced enough such that we can 'insulate' ourselves from these environmental forcings, and 'cure' any mutations that might arise, evolution would come to a stop for us.

I don't consider SFn a social media site, because I don't do social media. ( and you'd better not say I'm a cynical, narrow-minded old white guy 😀 ) More like an on-line learning site ,where we all learn, and we all teach. I certainly consider quite a few members 'friends', although I've never met any of them ( even ones long gone ); I would immediately feel confortable with them if I did meet them because I feel I know how they think. And they certainly don't post any of the inane crap like people do on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Truth Social ( 🤣 ) etc.

And I'm still not convinced that poor individuals prioritize climate change over their, and their families', well being. Their Governments certainly might, because foreign aid will be tied to mitigation efforts, but for some poor people, survival is a day to day effort. Just my opinion; I guess we'll see how it turns out, but judging by the last 30 years, where most affluent nations promised the sky, but delivered a hole in the ground, I don't have favorable expectations.

And the fact that you can find people who agree with you does not change the fact that poor people are not only disproportionately affected by climate change, but also bu efforts to mitigate climate change. I have never said climate change is not real and efforts to combat it shouldn't have started years ago; I am making an observation as to who will suffer most due to these efforts. And maybe other efforts should be in place to help these people which we are throwing 'under the bus' in order to save our beachfront vacation homes. A John Cuthber pointed out yesterday, Canada took in over 1 Million immigrants last year. What are the US and other developed countries doing for poor, displaced ( due to war, drought, lack of fishing resources ... ) peoples ?

The whole state of Florida belongs in the JOKES section.. ( unfortunately sad, not funny )

Usually I'm against banning any source of information. It should be up to the user to educate themselves as o the validity of that information. That being said, it is used by a majority of young people ( or those like Phi who wish they still were ), and the Chinese have been known to be untrustworthy with regard to information gathering and spreading disinformation. Why not use it as leverage ? TikTok won't be banned if China allows one of our Western news platforms, say the BBC to keep it neutral, through their firewall.

Entanglement does not create new information. The universe was as 'real' as it is now even before there were any observers. The universe is not subjective, or perception based, as every observer will make the same observations; that is a principle of science. We have a Physicist/Philosopher member who has set the bar fairly high. And this just doesn't make the cut.

WTF are you talking about ? This isn't Physics and it isn't Philosophy.

But that isn't what I said. I specifically said that the poor have more pressing, immediate priorities than climate change. And, If I'm wrong, I'm not the only one "Therefore, other problems and, specifically, lowered economic development are greater threats to humanity than global warming." From Is climate change the number one threat to humanity? - Goklany - 2012 - WIREs Climate Change - Wiley Online Library "This opinion piece argues that even if the ‘full incremental costs’ of abatement in developing countries would be covered by industrialized countries, the former's development prospects could be hampered by climate change mitigation due to the following reasons ... Third, higher energy prices could have negative effects on poverty and inequality." From How climate change mitigation could harm development in poor countries - Jakob - 2014 - WIREs Climate Change - Wiley Online Library "Individuals who feel insecure about their economic future are significantly more likely to reject the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Furthermore, climate change denial and uncertainty are more common in more rural and less prosperous regions and in countries more economically dependent on fossil fuels." From Socioeconomic Roots of Climate Change Denial and Uncertainty among the European Population | European Sociological Review | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Who mentioned 'extreme left wing activists' ? And that question would be a whole 'nother thread ...

Not that I doubt your numbers, CharonY, as you always post accurate and valid data, but you do have to examine the cross-section of the population that was surveyed, the questions asked, and the time frame considered. And I'm not arguing the fact that climate change doesn't disproportionately affect poor farmers who grow their own food on small parcels of land, or fishermen who catch their daily meals; while the poor who live by the seashore out of survival necessity are greatly affected by climate change, those of us who live in condos by the beach in vacation houses are 'insulated' from most of the effects of climate change. Here is the gist of my argument ... If YOU are a sub-Saharan father of two children who haven't eaten in two days, and you are given the choice of a 40% CO2 emission reduction or two bowls of rice for your children, YOU will pick the bowls of rice in a heartbeat. All the numbers you posted don't make this fact any less credible. Or as Dimreepr likes to say, you can't eat CO2 emission reductions.

You can get POd about it and concentrate on the other garbage he says, while totally ignoring the main point concerning climate change. To almost half the world's population it isn't even in the top 10 concerns. They have more important things to worry about, like survival. We have the luxury of being able to consider what will happen in 50 or 100 years, because we have all we need for our daily survival. A lot of people in 3rd world countries do not, and until the situation is rectified, I don't see much progress towards meeting targets.

I would think more Mexican than Spanish. ( I'd consider Mexican a mix of indigenous and Spanish peoples ) But, you're right, certainly not German.

Since most have chosen to ignore the video I posted, I will try to explain the important point made in the video. Given the choice between feeding their family, keeping them in good health, and raising them out of poverty, over 1 Billion Chinese people ( interesting story about Xi Jinping ) and another 1 Billion Indian people, will do whatever they need to do, even if it means spewing CO2 into the atmosphere 24/7. Climate change is the least of their concerns; number 1 would be "where is the next meal coming from?" Until that problem is addressed, the 1.6% reduction and 2% reduction coming from the elimination of fossil fuel energies from Canada and the UK are meaningless. But I guess poor people trying to feed their families and survive are 'sharks' to Peterkin.

Could he be D Trump's long lost brother |

Then you missed the important part which comes after the 'woke' put downs. Open your mind. If you don't understand other people's motivation, you will never get along with them, or convince them to your way of thinking. And this problem won't be solved by only the 'woke' people doing their part; it needs the efforts of everyone.

This is the reason why emission targets will continue to be missed by most countries along with some put downs of 'woke' culture. All I ask is that you actually watch it before you neg rep me, as I would be very interested in your opinion, and ways to work around the problems of trying to reach emission targets.

I drink red wine with fish. Oh, the horror !

First time I got drunk and threw up, I was 5 years old; on cherries preserved in alcohol. Wine and beer ( and occasionally liquors ) was always available to me, if I so chose, and sometimes, as a child, breakfast consisted of sucking a raw egg out of its shell, followed by a 'shot' of Marsala ( a fortified wine ). I felt no need to abuse drink, as it was available f I wanted it, and didn't go out and get 'stupid' when I reached drinking age. I appreciate wines that I like ( not 'good' as that is subjective ), refreshing lagers brewed in the German tradition ( no matter where thy're from ), not warm beers that you have to chew, and I like brandies/cognacs, but will partake of smooth sctches ( not peaty ), bourbons and good sipping tequilas, if the occasion arises. Add that to your anecdotal evidence Dim.

No, biology cannot. But the gun the American is carrying can. They would have known you weren't Canadian as soon as you answered, unless your answer was "Yes. I'm sorry."