Good post.

but if we agree the less powerful could easily unite and topple the elites at any moment ... then collectively the less powerful have more responsibility. — boethius

I don't agree that the less powerful could "easily unite" or easily "topple the elite". True, it has happened in the past, but not often. To a small extent, a move in that direction just happened in Sri Lanka (but only a couple of heads rolled -- the power elite is still intact there). It doesn't happen often because it is in fact very difficult for any large group to unite in solidarity around radical change and a plan's execution. It also doesn't happen often because the elite is well defended--not just by guns, but by propaganda machines.

the blame game is irrelevant — boethius

You are quite right. It is irrelevant because the elites and the commoners, being the same species, are similarly endowed. We do not seem to be able to act on risks that are not immediate. We are not even good at recognizing and measuring risk. The momentum of the industrial revolution has driven the use of fossil fuel, and elites and commoners all welcomed the labor saving which coal, steam, oil, and gas (turned into on-line energy) made possible.

Life has been hard for us for most of our history, requiring enormous amounts of labor, much of it miserable and life-shortening. Science and technology have made life easier for many (not all, though).

If the James Webb cameras were to spot a large human-life-ending meteor heading in our direction, with arrival time about 30 years into the future and a 75% likelihood of a catastrophic impact, the world would not unite in laboring to build the device which would deflect the meteor. There would be bickering and dithering over plans, denial, contention, possibly major destabilization--possibly up until the rock arrived or barely missed us. Various people would definitely get blamed, no matter what. Why?

Why? Because we are not perfectly evolved primates. Yes, we do have lots of hard capabilities, but we also have lots of hard limitations. Maybe we can all agree that the James Webb Telescope is a marvel, but we have not all agreed that we should get vaccinated against Covid 19 (and other diseases); that we should wear masks in public; that we should stay home if we feel sick, and so on. Those are easy behavior changes.

Alot of the corrupt politicians are there because we are duped into voting for them and against our own interests. — Mr Bee

Whether the politicians are corrupt or not, whether we voted them in or they just muscled their way
in, may not matter that much. The State has interests that are pursued using the procedures and personnel available to it. (On the one hand, the State is an abstraction; on the other hand, the State has authorizing legislation, a permanent government, courts, and interested parties to make sure things run "the right way".)

Our country was set up to be the kind of country it was / is. The rights of property were / are paramount. "Nature" and the original inhabitants of the American land were of little interest to the State. "Individualism" might have been important, but most run-of-the-mill "individuals" (lacking wealth) were of little importance.

We can easily topple over the oligarchs if we actually unite together, but instead we're more interested in fighting amongst ourselves. — Mr Bee

The individuals who did matter, and who in various ways animated the State to begin with, were the oligarchs. The oligarchs and the States have a close relationship, and overturning one will require overturning both. That is a tall order, even for 7 billion people. Not impossible, but very difficult. Why? for the simple reason that most people are decent folk who are not made of the abrasive, corroding stuff that oligarchs and crooked senators are made of.

Plus, the state knows how to use violence in its self-defense, and the state have a lot of violence at their disposal. Gunning down the rioting masses (or gassing them) won't bother the oligarchs. To quote one oligarch "If the masses want to die, then they should get on with it."

All of this is to say, again, the 7 billion are not to blame.

Of course we can debate human nature, but I think we would agree that we are now experiencing the consequences of our actions. — boethius

We are certainly experiencing the consequences of some people's actions. Yes it does seem futile; yes it is hard to be optimistic; yes some people have lost faith in humanity.

But look: there are 7+ billion pretty much powerless consumers in the world. We tend to blame ourselves for the climate disaster. Maybe we are all complicit, but none of us are guilty of being prime movers in energy production, manufacturing or consumption. We are small cogs in a great wheel, but we do not turn the wheel. We do not grind; we are ground up.

There are guilty parties--the several million rich, powerful people who have steered the economy of waste in both energy and materiel; who have worked over the last century to put us all in private cars; who have always chosen the long term environmental loss over short term profitgain; who have always opted to keep most workers' heads just above water.

You - bricklayer; you - librarian; you - farmer; you - janitor; you - mechanic; you - teacher; you - factory worker; you - accountant; you - grocery store clerk; you - nurse; you - teacher... None of you were ever in a position to steer steer the economy, for better or worse. You are not to take the blame: you are the victim.

Erm ↪T Clark... where are you? — Changeling

Clark must be on vacation or something - he hasn't posted on the shout box lately. But then, hardly anybody else has, either. Everybody on vacation? In bed with Covid? Joined the Ukrainian army? In D.C. to advise JB? Exploring the sewers of Paris?

Sorry for stealing your lunch. I did't notice it was your post -- thought it was Jackson's. Talk about awareness!

Did you spot the clown moving from the left to the right in the video.

I am not very observant, but this is a classic experiment. The subjects are asked to count the number of passes made by the white-shirt team. One is unlikely to notice the non-player dressed as a clown in the group.

Alertness for one particular thing can disrupt our perception of unrelated things. So drivers (and bicyclists, for that matter) may not notice bicyclists or pedestrians because they are focussed on cars--or something else.

"In the long run, money invested in stocks will do better than money invested in savings" -- or some such formulation. Perhaps, but as John Maynard Keynes said, "In the long run, we're all dead."

No investment return (real estate, gold, platinum, pork belly futures, mutual funds, stocks and bonds, etc.) can claim to be guaranteed. If someone claims their fund is guaranteed to turn a profit, they are running some sort of scam.

it makes sense to save money, to buy (and pay for) a reasonably priced appropriately sized house; to put money into conservative investments which are unlikely to yield either unreliable big gains or very big losses. It makes sense to invest in yourself -- education (skills acquisition), a reasonable level of fitness (you'll be less likely to fall apart too early), and relationships (marry, find a long-term partner, get a nice dog, and the like.

What can go wrong if you follow my advice above? Pretty much everything. You could end up flat broke after decades of sensible thrift and prudent investment and totally wretched. It just that you are less likely to end up flat broke and miserable if you save, invest conservatively, limit debt as much as possible, and live within your means. Friendship is always good to have on hand.

Machines are good enough at writing copy for publication -- not editorials, not art/drama/book/film reviews, not investigative stories--not humor, not horror, not philosophical speculation--but they are, apparently, good enough to write mundane copy for newspapers, on topics like market reports, weather forecasts, sports, etc. Run of the mill (pulp) can probably be turned out by machines because a lot of the stuff is extremely formulaic (which doesn't mean people won't buy it).

Some specific types of human services can be 'mechanized'. Machines can 'perform' in nursing homes, for instance, leading group exercise sessions. Machines can perform a kind of counseling service of listening and providing some level of listening and response.

Anyone who has been repeatedly frustrated by automated telephone systems where one speaks one's responses, has experienced the limitations of some current software abilities. (However, sometimes they work just fine.)

That said, I am not arguing that machines SHOULD be doing any of this, just that -- if standards are not very high -- they can. They are not being used because people prefer to interact with robots; they are used because corporations are usually trying to save money.

I am not a detail person, and in some work places, I would gladly have given my job over to a robot to perform paper processing. A good share of clerical work probably could be replaced by automated information processing.

The consequence of eliminating jobs is not trivial, however. There are detail-oriented people who can process paper all day without becoming remotely homicidal.

The evil of the always lesser choice.

Which war was / is that?

Bojo was aware that Chrisp Incher had groped two men while "incredibly drunk" and didn't do anything about it. Seems sort of reasonable. Can anyone be so drunk that their inebriation is not creditable? As for groping--rude, maybe. Depends on the gropee. Did they file criminal charges? When women are 'incredibly drunk' and end up in compromising situations, we generally excuse the woman. Why not Pincher?

That said, may all tories rot in hell--gay, straight. groped, or grappled.

Thinking about reality requires that the emotions be observed because our minds are embodied. Maintaining philosophical enquiry long enough to achieve coherence (thinking through to a conclusion) generally requires emotional sustenance. We have to experience a reward of pleasure in the process. If not, we will eventually stop.

Emotion and cognition aren't separated, opposed systems.

:100:

It doesn't take a grand conspiracy. It takes narrow interests pursued relentlessly. The "right to life" anti-abortion drive is another good example: They have been consistent and persistent for 50 years. (Longer, really.). Conservatives are better at monomania than progressives. Reactionaries are not fastidious when it comes to respecting their political opposites.

Wealthy elites are also consistent and persistent, which is how the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

What? That's ridiculous. — Benkei

Of course. But... Who said everything had to make sense?

I don't follow Reddit much.

What I have observed, and it seems to be something of a consensus, is that people might be fired for cause or for some discriminatory reason, but the actual reason will not be officially stated. It seems like a lot of agencies are also not giving references--not because they have no former employees who deserve a good reference, but because litigation has resulted often enough from references the next employer thought were too positive or the former employee thought was too negative.

My experience was mostly in the non-profit sector. Perhaps practices in corporate establishments are harsher.

Most jobs are bad jobs, which is why workers have to be paid to get anything done. Most bosses are bad bosses because they pretty much have to treat workers as means to ends which they may or not believe in. There are of course a few good jobs and several good bosses.

Once hired you're not allowed to fire them because of it. — Benkei

Not a problem, because many to most Americans are hired, quit, or are fired "at will". "At will" requires no justification, You can hire me (bearded, balding, in a mini dress and heels) if you so wish. I can quit because I would just rather not work for you, and you can fire me because... heels and mini skirt didn't match. If one is hired with a contract this doesn't apply, and voluntarily quitting generally disqualifies one for unemployment.

Then too, a plaintiff will probably need to show a pattern of discrimination. Being the one gay, female, black, or Dutch male to get fired doesn't in itself mean much. Were Hanover's firm to fire all of its Dutch male employees, you might have a case.

relies on custom and management of the media — unenlightened

Domhoff suggests we stop blaming the media:

Like everyone else, progressives have a strong tendency to blame the media for their failures. As horrible as the media can be, they are not the problem. Blaming the media becomes an excuse for not considering the possibility that much of the leftist program is unappealing to most people — Domhoff

I am saying that states that claim to be democratic are nearly always dynastic to a great extent (count the Bushes and Kennedys, for example). — unenlightened

The Bushes and Kennedys among others. G. William Domhoff's WHO RULES AMERICA is a very readable report on how, exactly, the ruling elite arranges its affairs to hold, and keep holding, power. In a nutshell, the answer is "The Corporate rich, white nationalist Republicans, and inclusionary Democrats..."

Happily, Domhoff has made a lot of his findings available on his University of California - Santa Cruz webpage HERE

I fully accept, for example, that gays have had a tough path historically in the US, but I don't think part of that struggle was in exclusion from universities, real estate markets, or employment. So why am I being asked to be on the lookout for them to be sure they get hired? — Hanover

As you say, [some] gays were not excluded from universities, real estate markets, or employment, they are ideal diversity candidates. Gays have the proper cultural credentials, in addition to their "disadvantaged" status. Gays that were excluded from universities and real estate markets (in terms of purchase, rather than rent) belong to the very large class of not-very-prosperous working class people who stay not-very-prosperous working class.

It was probably not intended as a means to divide and keep the working classes conquered, but affirmative action has been quite divisive. Hiring and admission ought to be based on the merit of meeting the stated expectations of the organization. In my case, I would have failed to meet the requirements of very good, never mind elite colleges. The same goes for high paying jobs -- I was generally not an attractive candidate.

I was not an attractive candidate for the Ivy League or the Fortune 500, because I wasn't interested in producing the kind of high achievement that would have made me an attractive candidate. Now, there are many people who had fewer opportunities to excel than I did. That's unfortunate, but if they aren't prepared to compete for very good and elite positions, then they are, like me, S.O.L.

Diversity is much sought after (in some circles) because it is thought to improve performance for everyone through some mysterious influence. I haven't witnessed such an effect in the work place, but I can imagine that diversity could make a contribution to collegiate life.

Many Americans suppose that some jiggering of the system can overcome disadvantages that are built into 'the system' from the foundation upwards. Jiggering won't work. A community whose systematic disadvantages are based on 5 or 10 generations of being on the bottom, won't be changed by affirmative action, It has to be rebuilt from new-borns on up.

All that said, when exceptional candidates whose cohort has been very underrepresented, present themselves, they ought to be admitted/hired because they have great merit, not because they are black or female. It is nonsense and frank discrimination to limit qualified Asian candidates, just as it was nonsense and frank discrimination to limit qualified Jewish candidates.

I am confused as to why Biden allows Trump to subvert our democracy. — Jackson

.

A) Trump was busy subverting democracy before Biden was elected.

B) Trump is not an isolated player; he has a substantial following with considerable political clout.

C) Some countries have traditions of liquidating inconvenient and overly annoying persons. We tend to put up with and ignore such types, unless they break laws that can be conveniently prosecuted.

Will time bring a rebound? Perhaps. — Banno

Probably, rather than perhaps, but it matters how long it takes. A lot of damage can be done while we wait for balance to return.

It has mattered, still does matter, what happens on the state level. Some states have a slovenly political culture than tends toward corruption. Others have a much firmer political culture which avoids corruption to a large degree. Unfortunately what has happened at the federal level can happen at the state level.

I am not altogether sanguine about this country's future--and not just because of some idiot bastard sons and daughter on the Supreme Court. Congress has been a captive of the plutocracy for a long time -- nothing new there. The plutocrats don't seemed to care what happens to the world, above and beyond their immediate self-interest. Time has run out, or will soon, for environmental common sense to take effect (here, there, everywhere).

We could, of course, revolt. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish A NEW Constitution for the United States, and hereby consign to the dustbin of history the pre-existent government and its parasitic class of rich people. May it rot in the depths of hell."

A revolution in the US is about as likely as the Second Coming, but it could come like a thief in the night and surprise us all. (Don't hold your breath,)

something is missing. Some form of illumination. — Banno

Like, a light unto the gentiles, so to speak?

How we got to where we have been for a long time is available in some (not all) history books. What one needs to do is follow the money, literally and figuratively. Any country's history is a mixed bag of progress and regress--not necessarily in balanced sequence. Look for historical accounts that do not gloss over the grave regressions.

You may well ask, "How will I know whether they are glossing over regressions?"

Look for deviant historical accounts. Some titles (These and similar books may not be your cup of tea at all -- I don't like some of them -- but they do cover American History from an angle quite different than the typical narrative):

White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America, Nancy Isenberg youtube talk by the author

A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn (what Zinn thought about the other side of history from the more traditional "fundamental nationalist glorification of country)

A True History of the United States: Indigenous Genocide, Racialized Slavery, Hyper-Capitalism, Militarist Imperialism and Other Overlooked Aspects of American Exceptionalism by Daniel A. Sjursen

Lies My Teacher Told Me, James W. Loewen

From the Folks Who Brought You the Weekend: An Illustrated History of Labor in the United States, Priscilla Murolo

Noam Chomsky has all sorts of things to say about American history, most of it unflattering,

And now the Supreme Court seems - without being asked - to be deciding on legally relevant but political issues. How is this fair to voters? — Tim3003

The Supreme Court was asked. How? In some court room, a few years ago, a judge made a decision and it was appealed to at the next higher court. Either the plaintiffs or the defense asked the court to reconsider. This process was repeated until the Supreme Court was asked to decide. It doesn't have to say yes -- it can say, "No -- there is no reason for us to review the case." Then the last higher court decision stands. It can also decide to settle the issue more broadly -- like it did a few years ago when it announced that gay marriage was a right in all states.

How you feel about the court depends on whose ox was just gored. The court upheld the constitutionality of Obama Care and the conservatives twisted in pain. The court decided that abortion was unconstitutional, and pro-choice people howled (and will for some time).

I'm at least a progressive and I loathe the conservative majority on the court, but I can remember when the progressives held a strong majority (like the Warren Court under CJ Earl Warren) was loathed by the right wing. There were billboards demanding that Earl Warren be impeached.

The Founding Organizers of the US government and political system kept their thumb on the scale in favor of an elite -- even an elected elite. Some of the FOs were frankly suspicious of "the people".

The first use of a filibuster (whatever they called it) was observed on September 22, 1789, when Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the “design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.”

Don't worry about how. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Lots of people are justifiably upset over recent events — _db

I am upset over recent events, BUT, in the context of our history, all this can not be a complete surprise.

We have had several episodes of militant reaction against efforts designed to extend aspects of democracy.

a) Eleven states succeeded from the Union in response to efforts to limit the spread of slaveholding. A civil war followed.

b) Reconstruction (such as it was) resulted in terrorism against blacks via the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and suppression of voting rights (which enabled the 'solid south' to maintain a long-term hold on Congress.

c. Anti-labor violence began in the 1880s--referencing the Hay Market event in Chicago.

d. A 'Red Scare' set off concerted violence against blacks and labor leaders in 1919.

e. Women won suffrage, but only after a long struggle. Suffrage aided the institution of Prohibition, a 13 year disaster.

f. Extreme conservatives have been unhappy about New Deal programs ever since the 1930s.

g. Homosexuals and Communists (odd bedfellows in several respects) were persecuted during WWII and after. Reference Joe McCarthy's (Republican from Wisconsin) drive to dig out communists from government, Hollywood, and the Ladies Aid society.

h. Richard Nixon's subversion of government in the Watergate scandal.

i. Ronald Reagan ignored the AIDS epidemic.

j. The plutocracy kept wages steady during 40 years (some with high inflation) further impoverishing the working class while enriching themselves even more.

And so on.

The arc of the future may bend towards greater justice and greater freedom, but it regularly snaps back to fostering less justice and less freedom.

It means you put him out of our misery. And maybe his.

OK; so it was an act of mercy (no sarcasm intended).

Banned Streetlight for flaming, bigotry, general disruption, and ignoring warnings to stop. — Baden

et al

I had not noticed Streetlight's banning, because I generally avoided his posts. Yes, he was a very knowledgeable fellow and his posts were well written. He wasn't always corrosive. Still...

He seemed to be driven by an ill-willed animus toward the western establishment--which is understandable--but it had no bounds. Unbounded hostility has distorted my thinking at times, so I have some understanding of how it works. Unbounded hostility comes from neurosis or leads that way (probably both, in a tail-chasing circle). For one's own mental health, one does well to derail it.

He asked to be banned? Odd, but maybe that was a self-intervention he needed.

2. Since school funding is often problematic, which if any other school functions or classes should be subservient to classes in logical thinking, in terms of funding? — Elric

Maybe the football program could be subservient to classes in logical thinking.

When schools are operating with motivated students, competent teachers, and a sound program, they get good results. Could they get better results? Sure.

Lacking motivated students or competent teachers or a sound program, schools do not get good results. Would a course in logical thinking taught by mediocre teachers to unmotivated students help? No.

Some students are getting a good education, and many are not. The reasons are legion, and standing high among them is the fact that it isn't clear what the best function for schools can and should be.

So, @Elric, back to you: what do you think the schools should be doing for students and for society.

"In God we trust", all others pay cash, first appeared on a coin in 1864; on currency in 1957. It is the official motto of the US, replacing E Pluribus Unum. -- Wikipedia --

"In God we trust" strikes me as more of a deistic motto, though I doubt if deism was the prevailing religious mode of the congress and President Eisenhower when the motto was changed. "Jesus saves" would probably have passed, had somebody proposed it.

It's a nicer motto than "God hates fags and commies", don't you think? π=3.141592 could have been used; it still could be. I don't think any country has used it. It would help people remember π when they have to calculate areas and volumes of round things.

you are old enough to remember the "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards. (youth: Earl Warren was a liberal Chief Justice long long ago.)

Maybe the coach was cursing God because they lost.

There a very good reason from a religious POV to maintain a very clear church/state separation.

Religious people do not want the state to interfere with their theology, organization, practice, rituals, and membership.

The religious and secular do not want religious people influencing the state, either. The threat of the state to the religious is clear enough. Example: Non-religious people, mainline Protestants, and liberal Catholics do not like the Roe vs. Wade decision that is much more about about the politics of religion than it is about the law.

There is a lot of history showing what happens when the state decides to get involved in religious affairs, and visa versa.

Conservatives may be happy about Roe Vs. Wade today, but suppose a future court (and/or legislature) decrees that evolution WILL BE TAUGHT and so called Intelligent Design WILL NOT BE TAUGHT?

As one expects, it depends on whose ox is getting gored by whom.

By "ancient" I mean Paleolithic -- of the Stone Age, hunter-gatherers; very small scattered groupings of people. In conventional terms, the "ancient world" begins with Sumer or Egypt, very early writing, early use of metal (copper). By that time, " those in charge of organizing and coordinating religious activities were in a position where they can easily manipulate people for personal gain" as you say.

There is no evidence of organized religion, or organized civil society, before around 8,000 years ago when the first cities were built, after early agriculture developed. There are cave paintings of unknown meanings, and a few carvings of what we suppose are fertility figures from around 20,000 years ago. Before that, the most we have is almost nothing.

You might like the book AGAINST THE GRAIN, A deep history of the earliest states 2017 by James C. Scott. He argues that people were coaxed into agricultural labor and early village life by a nascent elite that saw opportunity in settled society to cultivate their own power and wealth. Religion would certainly have played a role in this scheme (if it is true).

The urge or need to create sacred activities might be a feature of our evolution and are still seen in individual non-communal private acts.

I'm just proposing an explanation in the spirit of Ockham' Razor. — enqramot

Occam liked nice efficient explanations, but he also liked explanations that accounted for reality.

The world's religions have very deep roots, going back to very ancient times. Any contemporary religious operation may seem (and actually be) corrupt, but I think it is safe to say that religions didn't begin as a scam.

Humans need some kind of explanation for the world they live in. They need some way to give meaning to their existence, replete with joys and sorrows. If rationality is plentiful, we use rationality, If poetry, myth making, story telling, and ritual are plentiful, that's what we use.

The roots of religion began in pre-rational very ancient milieus. Rationality would come, but not yet. Tree gods, river gods, animal spirits, mountain spirits, and so on likely came first. Sky gods, earth gods, storm gods, fertility gods, and so on came later, but didn't replace the earlier worship.

We are very familiar with sky gods: Zeus, for instance, and his various relatives. Christianity descended from the monotheism of the Jewish sky god.

The sky gods tended to be strongly associated with the power elite of the society in which they were worshipped--more so than animal spirits and tree gods. Think of the Roman state and its official pantheon. Eventually, the humble Jesus was adapted to the needs of the Empire, and the Church and Empire became fellow travelers. Bad business.

So, may I suggest you really look at the roots of religion, rather than this year's crops of wormy produce.

Absolutely -- waiting-for-death is not a suitable approach for people who are not old yet -- whatever one thinks of as "old" for themselves. My approach isn't "resignation from the game" altogether, because I, of course, don't know how long I may live yet. I still "engage".

Good point. The drop in crime that began in the late 1980s was (at least in part) a result of R vs. W. The unwanted children who were not born did not become problem youth.

Excellent! Do it immediately. This would, of course, require all the necessary actors having enough balls to do it. 2 & 3 will require a few more progressives in the Senate. Memo to progressive voters: You'd better vote. It would help to have a batch of the paleoconservative troglodytes subject to post-natal abortions.

The Universe doesn't hand out meaningfulness. It just is, and we are part of it. Though considerable effort over time I have come to the conclusion that life is meaningless, but that isn't a terrible thing, It means that we can provide a measure of meaning in our own lives--by doing meaningful, as Banno said.

We are here for a short time; some as little as 15 minutes, others as many as 115 years. As we age and get smarter, there is less time left to exist. Time is shorter. At 75, I figure the end of my life is maybe just around this or the next corner.

I'm happier now than I have ever been. I'm busy, I'm reading a lot of history. I listen to great music on the radio and internet. There's the small house and weedy lawn to look after.

Death, like an over-flowing stream
Sweeps us away; our life is but a dream,
an empty tale, a morning flower
cut down and withered in an hour.

Do older people have a harder time dealing with heat? Just wondering. — Tate

In general, yes. We don't respond as quickly to sudden changes in temperature as younger people. Medicines and medical conditions may make it more difficult for agéd bodies to lose heat. Cognitive decline can interfere with an individual's taking care of themselves, so that they may not be able to execute a cooling strategy.

A fan in a hot apartment won't cool a person very much. If humidity and temperature are high enough, (90º - 95º F, with very high humidity) sweating no longer works as a cooling mechanism and heat stroke and death may follow. (This is true for everyone, not just old people)

Yes, people have gotten along without air conditioning in very hot conditions. This is especially true where temperatures are high while humidity is low. Sweating in hot - arid environments works quite well. Urban environments present extra problems. Apartment buildings without AC can turn into solar ovens, and the surrounding paved environment aggravates the problem.

Minnesota had a severe hot drought in the summer of 1988. During some nights the temperature remained in the upper 90s. Because of the drought, the hot air was very dry and thus the heat was much more tolerable. I was doing street outreach in Minneapolis at that time, and spent a lot of time on bicycle, without suffering. The nights, on the other hand, were wonderful -- warm, dry, bug free, clear skies. It was hell for agriculture but great for some of us.

During the 2003 heatwave in Europe, nearly 70,000 people died from heat, many of them elderly Many of the elderly's families were away on vacation, and no one was doing wellness checks on the old folks. Most of the dead lived in apartments without AC. American cities have also seen spikes in heat related deaths.

The solution isn't to put AC in every apartment. Most heat-waves are of relatively short duration. Rather, the solution is to make sure vulnerable people have a way of getting to cooling centers so their core temperatures don't reach fatal levels.

I'm probably not as ancient as your old woman, but when I was growing up (memories from the early 1950s) we did not have air conditioning or even window fans. We were not wretched from heat. Maybe it wasn't as hot back then. There were lots of shade trees in the small town.

We went swimming in a meandering stream which was shared by cattle. Not very clean. We didn't get sick.

Humans don't have to eat everyday — Tate

They don't have to eat every day, but I bet we have preferred to eat every day for a very long time.

No doubt about it, though, most people in the industrialized world are eating too much of the wrong kind of food. A supermarket is a smorgasbord of not very healthy food. Why? Because food manufacturers are not public health agencies. Besides, a lot of people like the crap that is on offer. The crap also comes in interesting novel forms which people also like. There are one or two items of crap that I like to eat--crunchy, chewy, salty, spicy, greasy, sweet creations from the laboratories of Conagra and Multifoods. Carrots and cabbage are healthier than Doritos and Hagen Daz, but one can stand only so much whole grain, NGO, organic, high-fructose-free minimally processed whole earth clunky goodness. .