CharonY

Well, if there was a systematic survey showing that buildings in the time period were poorly built in general it might be indicative of some decline in architectural achievements, but I posit that a small selection of buildings is not indicative of that. There are famous buildings still standing from the time of the Justinian period all the way to Charlemagne (and later, of course). I may be wrong, but I doubt that all of them had structural issues, yet survived (in one form or another) to this day. Again, there were areas that clearly fell into disarray due to societal upheaval, conquest etc. But using a broad brush for most of Western Europe for the whole time period is a bit inaccurate.

Yes, the remaining part of the Roman empire did not suddenly lose the information. In the Western part, however, there was slow governmental collapse into smaller entities. These shocks did change trajectories and considering that most of the Roman population was illiterate, and that trade routes started to break down, it likely led to localized loss of crafts and skills. So if we really look at a very localized level, there are for certain periods where knowledge could get lost. And if a society gets eradicated (which does not apply to the Romans as such) their societal development could be lost entirely. So at least in that regard it is obvious that the idea of a constant and inevitable advancement is incorrect. I will also add that in some cases, the ability to create something is lost, because folks did not understand it in the first place. Rather, they followed specific instructions, using materials form specific places and once those ran out (or access was disrupted), things stopped working. This again speaks against a narrative of continuous advancement. Only when knowledge became more consistently analyzed and stored did we enter a phase where continuous advances became more likely. That being said, the Dark Ages idea is often associated with Petrarch in the 14th century, who wanted to use the light vs dark analogy to highlight the classical antiquity. This is unfortunately imaginary that has survived to this day. A part of the issue is that folks likely did not really understand the society in the 11th century and before, and for a long time the narratives of enlightenment and Renaissance has dominated or at least strongly influenced historic scholarship. However, in the 20th century more evidence-based history has come to the forefront and I am fairly certain that most modern historians would not use that term any more (at least not in that context). Can you provide context regarding the 300 years of collapsing churches? I am not familiar with that.

You could spin it around, it is more that the in democratic countries you are legally protected as part of some variant of freedom of religion and/or expression. I.e. compulsion has to be executed wither hidden or at least not in violation of such laws. There obviously are religious areas where one would be a social outcast if one does not go to a particular church, but there would be legal protection if they forced you to attend (whether that helps, is another matter). And actually I am not so sure whether one would need a lot of imagination to see what a modern Christian theocracy would look like. The ultraconservative theocratic movements in USA demonstrates what they like to have enshrined by law, for example.

On the PhD level only few (<20 % decades ago) got an academic appointment. While there are private sector R&D, and similar public positions, they are also rather rare. More typical jobs are project managers, sales,product managers, tech support, etc.

Generally speaking, researcher positions are fairly limited, especially purely research ones (i.e. without teaching, for example). Also typically that requires a PhD in most disciplines. In experimental sciences, a Master's would be required for a research technician position. A BSc basically just indicates that you might be qualified to get more specialized (graduate) training.

I would be careful to exclude folks who do not support Trump from that. Folks easily fall into populism traps once they feel threatened somehow (regardless of actual situation). The Far Right wannabe Nazi party in Germany is on track to become the second strongest party, despite until recently none of the established parties were willing to work with them. Not so long ago, that would have been unthinkable. Now at least the some leaders of the established conservative parties have been making noises that they might be open to collaboration (though partially retracted). Some historians have been alarmed by the parallels to the Weimar republic (especially letting the NSDAP to linger around after the failed coup attempt) and generally being dismayed that the memory of WWII and the holocaust seems to be fading from German consciousness.

! Moderator Note This is not a personal blog. Topics should encourage some form of discussion and not just be random declarations of opinions. Otherwise, this is considered soap-boxing.

Common sense?

That was a while back and I thought it was a bit of a mismatch in skills. Ultimately the question is more one of developmental biology and there are still huge gaps in our understanding regarding regulation that goes on there. I am moderately certain that since then folks have managed to get some regulatory elements identified that may be involved in differential morphologial developments, though most results will be some malformation. Typically these developments are rather complex with precise interplay of many signals and effectors and studies typically are rather blunt (e.g. knockdowns) which gives us hints regarding function, but does not allow us to precisely control developmental programs.

Indeed. One should add in addition to human nature, the system plays a major role. And while bad times tends to make simple populism more palatable, it is more important that folks feel threatened (regardless whether it is true or not). The migrant crisis has caused political turmoil in Europe, despite the apparently relatively modest effect (economic or otherwise) on broader society. I.e. the perceived impact was higher than the actual one. Also historically one of the great lessons of German education was that kids learned that Nazis were not just a bunch of bloodthirsty madmen. They were, by all accounts, regular people who operated in a system which normalized industrialized murder of people. As such, it is often easy to imagine that one would be one of the good guys, but the reality is likely going to be very different.

Yes, I should have waited for someone with actual knowledge (i.e. you) to comment on that. While I am aware of Darwinistic influences, it was a long time ago when I read Nietzsche. While his anti-religious stance left a lasting impression (must be around high school/Abitur) I was a bit worried that my memory might conflate bits that should be attributed to his sister (and an overall social-darwinistic view). And I agree, the idea of some sort of salvation or transcendence is very palpable in his writing (again, based on my limited understanding). But here you will need to define what you think an "idea of a Jesus" is. In the Christian religious sense, no. But if you mean Jesus as as stand-in for an enlightened (whatever that may be) person, then perhaps but specifically for Nietzsche the wording might be awkward. One big difference (again, in my mind) beside the organized religion part is that Jesus gathered followers whereas Nietzsche was also preaching to some degree, but focused on individualism. While I agree, that in the parable Nietzsche establishes that without the "sun (i.e. religion)" as a guiding post, there is a need to find an alternative (or else being lost in nihilism). But as such, I semi-disagree that the Uebermensch fills the role of the god. The reasons is that phrasing could imply another sole source of hierarchical morality. Rather, the idea alludes to an human ideal that folks should strive towards. The gap would not be filled by a being, but by humanity. A new village has to be constructed in which the villagers remove themselves from using outdated (and objective) morals but rather define it anew.

Nietzsche strongly rejected the idea or belief of Christian god as a source for morals (he was one of several philosophers using the pointed phrase "god is dead"). Nietzsche's Uebermensch is grounded in the concept of an idealized or humanity, but in contrast to Christianity, which is considered part of an other-wordly concept, this ideal is linked to the physical world (or "earth"). Nietzsche did keep it rather vague and for the most part it is not so much what the Uebermensch is, but quite a bit what it isn't. It is someone, who is not bogged down by what Nietzsche considered, outdated religions and associated moralities. It is about fulfilling potential and being what they are and forging their own ways, which suggests some form of individualism, without spelling out what the potential is, and what paths there should be. From what I remember, it is basically freeing oneself from the bindings of old historic/religious rule, without succumbing to nihilsm. I.e. replace religion (or similar crutches) with a sense of self-affirmation. As such, I would have a hard time associate any of that with Jesus, as he would likely have little patience for Jesus (as he did with religious folks.)

It is a tragedy of the commons issue, though. Few folks will vote for measures that could limit their own unfettered use of resources. We do see it in how climate change is playing out. The rhetoric minimizes their impact and if that stops working focus shifts to blaming folks, so that ultimately nothing gets done.

There is also globalization, which on the one hand puts great food on our tables, but often on the backs of those who produce them. It is a hugely complicated mess, but this is often the space where folks seek simple answers. I think a big driver is also that the industries are building for obsolescence and low cost (e.g. clothing) in order to maximize profit. It is often cheaper to buy rather than to repair (not to mention more convenient). And considering that it is also often cheaper to ship things to different countries to assemble and/or process things, the cost savings add up to a lot of environmental cost that we offload to future generations. And I know that a lot of hypocrisy is involved here as I am sitting in a AC-cooled environment in front of a computer and surrounded by affordable electronics (not to mention coffee).

I will just state that in the 80s with a far lower population smog warnings and weekend driving bans or restrictions were more common than nowadays. And this is with fewer people and cars on the road. Ultimately, this was achieved by implementing air quality standards and forcing folks to implement technology to mitigate these issues. Again, it is not to say that population does not exert pressure, but I do think that folks overfocus on this part (for a wide range of reasons, some justified, some rather dubious). And this is mostly because it seems to be the low-hanging fruit to blame things on. The real issue in my mind is the underlying structure or system. High housing prices is not just caused by population pressure. Some countries are better at dealing with it by having a more established renting vs home ownership market with different economic incentives. However, changing that system is more disruptive so often we only look for simple solution where we do not have to sacrifice anything. Unfortunately, we have likely moved past that point, because we have been overconsuming for many generations. But we'd rather have others pay the price, of course. Unless the goal is to kill of people (and again, based on that logic, we should first get rid of folks in NA, Western Europe and the ME), the first thing we need to do is to figure out what the balance of standard of living and consumption is with existing technologies and practices. From there we could figure out what the population limit should or can be. If our standard of living depends on massive habitat destruction, well, then even a much smaller population would be destructive.

While both are correlated to some degree, consumption is a multiplier. Obviously, a population that only consumes a tenth in terms of resources (especially habitat use, if we are talking about extinctions) can sustain a higher population. Moreover, it should also be noted that a lot of destruction in developing countries, especially of habitats, is driven by consumption by richer countries (key products here include coffee, rubber, cocoa, palm oil). Key culprits here are Western Europe, North America and the Middle East which create the largest impact on biodiversity outside of their own country. The footprint then also varies by the cultivation technology and often, due to economic pressures, it is not worthwhile or even feasible for poorer countries to implement sustainable practices. There are discussions underway to think about a fair-share use of available land use. That is not to say that population increases exacerbate issues, but too frequently the population argument is weaponized against population-rich countries, while we are sipping coffee and discuss how the other folks are ruining everything for us. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106981 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01138-7

The issue is often that folks do not clearly define what overpopulation is. Some refer to the concept of carrying capacity, but folks disagree what the measures of it are or should be. And a big part of it is of course not the number of folks, but what folks consume. And rather obviously, folks in highly industrialized countries with high standard of living consume way more than those in developing countries. I.e. just looking at population numbers is only a part of the story. That being said, we keep repeating the same arguments, and without really adding more information/knowledge (because that obviously requires some time and reading).

Just to be clear, mitochondrial DNA is found within, well, mitochondria, as they have their own, separate DNA (look up endosymbiont hypothesis if interested in more details). Almost all our mitochondria are from the mother (present in eggs, though there are actually cases were some sperm mitochondria survive, so it is not 100% black and white). Also with the XY chromosome, most of the translation happens from the X chromosome, the Y chromosomes has roughly 1/10th of protein coding genes compared to the X chromsome, if memory serves. In isolation, the Y chromosome is a bit of an odd beast, with a lot of repetitive regions, but as they carry less essential information, their loss is not necessarily lethal (but you cannot lose the X).

I do wish that administration would include more folks who have a background in the services they provide (i.e. healthcare, education, research etc.). The few I met ran an incredibly tight ship, whereas the career managers don't seem to be certain what they supposed to do (except to get another VP on board to figure that one out).

This is often due to a mismatch of skills. What I have heard from health professionals is that health administrators typically have no medical skills, and increasingly try to force health workers to work like office workers (e.g. just use SOP, check lists instead of medical judgment to limit spending, etc.). I.e. folks who are managers and admins, tend to think that they can run all orgs the same (or at least similarly) regardless of what the mission is.

I don't want to pull it too much off topic, but we can open up a new thread to explore it further. But in short, the dark ages has fallen into disfavour among historians since around the 19th century. I could probably rattle off a couple of points off the top of my head (the historian I know is specialized in European medieval history). The origin of the term is often attributed to Petrarch in the 14th century who basically equated the decline of the Roman empire with overall cultural decline, but does not refer to technological decline as such (though again, something we could explore in a separate thread). One of the most basic criticism is the timeline. The time referred to as Dark Ages has changed but most commonly applies to the early medieval times (500-1000 AD). It covered a larger time period but especially the accomplishments in the 10th century have pushed it back by folks maybe around the 18th century or something like that. The issue is that some markers of decline (e.g. trade, surviving literary works, and son) happened either already hundreds years before (around 200 AD) and the second part is that it kind of ignores the continuation of the Roman culture in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) empire. Besides formal issues, there is a whole host of other issues- I was looking for a source besides books and this one seems to be somewhat reasonable (but not very in-depth) Just How Dark Were the Dark Ages? | Discover Magazine But functionally, historians have largely abandoned the term as it is rather imprecise and has connotations that do not align with what is understood now for the time period.

I know it is off-topic, but a historian friend of mine is going to be cross with me if I do not mention that the Dark Ages are a serious misnomer, based on misunderstandings.

Also, polls just before the invasion: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html Given the committed atrocities against Ukrainian civilians it is of little surprise that the support for NATO has only grown.

I am not sure how it is in this case, but often long-haul truckers also have to pay for maintenance and fuel. Also they are often only paid for the time driving (similar to flight crews). I.e. delays the loading docks eats severely into their salary. And while there is connection between inflation and salary, the connection is complicated and there is a different discussion to be had on that matter. But blaming things on a particular group is usually not the answer to any question. Against a background of rising cost and lower salaries it becomes simply unsustainable. This is where a Marxist view can make sense. I.e. a situation where all you have is your labour and the relative value of labour decreases, alienation is inevitable. Don't get me wrong, I am quite familiar with brute forcing ones way out of poverty (which includes sacrificing health by forgoing sleep), but increasingly, this is not possible anymore.

Also, that is not even what is commonly used. AFAIK karyotyping is really only done when indicated (such as in cases of IVF). Ultrasound is usually the first point of assigning sex (i.e. genital development).