Typical BC crankiness. — Ennui Elucidator

It's my specialty.

Veganism has NOTHING to do with flavor profiles or ingredient choice outside of not deliberately contributing to animal suffering by the methods/products used in making the food item. — Ennui Elucidator

Yes, true. However...

Deviant food choices have been a vehicle for personal expression, personal exceptionalism, and personal validation for centuries, but I've only been annoyed by it since the 1970s. 50 years ago there were 'whole foods' (not the Amazon-owned stores). Think dense, heavy bread); think the early food coops, which being amateur operations at the time, had the sorriest looking produce in town. And bins of beans, unmilled wheat, none of it very sanitary. I shopped at them when I was out slumming and as a way of virtue signaling (which wasn't a thing yet).

There are a lot of food fetishes around. Vegetarianism/veganism has a sound pedigree, even if it is fetishistic.

Cruelty to animals. Yes: industrial agriculture results in domestic food animal cruelty. I get that. Our global, industrial, technological, mass culture also results in extensive animal cruelty, visited upon food animals and the much larger population of wild creatures, great and small. Plants too. I don't like it, but there is no real "opt out" other than one's personal demise,

A lot of the food fetishes are inadvertently on the right track: eat less meat and less fat; eat more unprocessed or minimally processed fruits, vegetables, and grains--for whatever reason. Got it.

The problem is this: One doesn't achieve virtue by following a particular menu. An affluent vegan's footprint will be larger than a poor carnivore's. Pillsbury's frosting may be vegan but it is still industrial in every sense of the word.

I don't have a solution to the problem of global, industrial, technological, mass culture. Nobody else does either, as far as I know.

The JW will not orbit the earth; it will orbit the sun in the comfort and luxury provided by La Grange Point 2. Read all about it here. For an animation of the La Grange points, here.

Joseph-Louis Lagrange, baptized Giuseppe Lodovico Lagrangia, was either an Italian or a French mathematician, depending on the source. "In 1772, Lagrange published an "Essay on the three-body problem". In the first chapter he considered the general three-body problem. From that, in the second chapter, he demonstrated two special constant-pattern solutions, the collinear and the equilateral, for any three masses, with circular orbits." -- WIKIPEDIA.

La Grange rated a statue, which none of us have, so far.

Yes.

Webb can't look at the big bang — AgentTangarine

There wasn't much to 'see' in the Big Bang, because for the first 240,000 - 300,000 years, there was no light. Don't know about other radiation in the spectrum. Anyone?

Does God care whether the JW works or not?

The essay does not deserve credit for not having syntactic mistakes; logical fallacies; plagiarism. I would expect any fairly good essay to be clear and well-written and on topic. So far, a B. Philosophically interesting and insightful content is what would raise it up to an A (provided the insight and interest characterized the whole paper, and not just 1 small point).

I was referring to spatial dimensions. Well, actually you're right. It's only 45 billion ly... — AgentTangarine

I apparently do not know what I am talking about. "They" say the universe is 13 billion years old, give or take 15 minutes. check. "They" also say the universe is 93.016 billion light years across, one edge to the other. I misunderstood the 'light year' concept. A light year is equivalent to 5.88 trillion miles (9.46 trillion kilometers). a light year is a measure of distance, not time, which is where I got confused. So, for sure the universe is many gazillion miles across--or thick, long, diagonal--however you slice it.

I shall now blush and bow out of this discussion.

The should point it at the dark side of the Moon. — AgentTangarine

Allow me to alert you to the fact that there is no dark side of the moon. The side we do not see faces the sun as much as the side we do see. Also, the 'far side' of the moon has been surveyed to some extent, and there are interesting differences, The far side has denser rock than the near side.

Also, the Big Bang was around 13 billion light years in the past, not 90 billion.

the image I see when holding a mirror — AgentTangarine

Just shove your head up your ass and get an even better view.

All my fingers and all of my toes are crossed (cramping has already set in) on behalf of the James Webb. What could go wrong? Alas, it is one more unwelcome cause of anxious anticipation, like the upcoming midterms, 2024 presidential election, future of the plague, the economy, present and future wars, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, heatwaves, droughts, burrowing worms, chewing grubs, and flying weevils, etc.

Last week, there were 15 tornadoes in Minnesota -- until then, Minnesota had never had so much as a chance of a tornado in December. Very little damage, but still... Omnia mutantur.

The happiest of holidays to you.

EDIT: on the other hand, NASA was able to send a rocket to Mars, pause the lander in its descent long enough to lower! the large vehicle to the surface--and then disconnect the cable and not have the lander crash on top of it's cargo. Inordinately complicated and it worked.

I quite simply think that the subject of equality has become such a taboo topic nowadays, that it distorts the public and scientific discourse on the subject. — Qmeri

The matter of equality / inequality seems more like an obsession among millions of people, rather than a taboo. What is taboo is the claim that genetics is a cause of inequality--that this or that group is superior or inferior because of their genetic inheritance. There is too much water under the bridge for that to be otherwise.

Individuals are like pebbles on a beach: you can average out the features of a million pebbles and you may find that none of them are precisely average. I think that the pebbles are all more alike than they are different; others think they are all more different than alike. The circumstances of individuals vary greatly. Individuals are immersed in circumstances of culture, physical environment, genetic endowment, physical health, mental health, education, good to bad parenting, and so on and so forth. Individual results will vary greatly depending on circumstance.

Social Justice Warriors (SJW) focus on inequalities of circumstance. My impression is that most SJWs have no idea of just how difficult it will be to achieve equality of circumstance. (We can not wind time back to the last ice age and start over.). Their opposites, Social Injustice Ogres (SIO), are aware of the difficulties, and have no intention of doing anything about it.

Actually most people are not willing to go to far outside their own interests to change the world on behalf of the disadvantaged. It isn't that most people are secretly SIOs. It's just that billions of people are too close to the edge themselves.

As Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you." There will always be inequality (not because Jesus said so, but because that is just the way the world works). The pebbles on the beach are never all going to weigh 2.333 oz, never have the same mineral content, never have the same shape, color, gloss, or position in the pile.

If "the only war is the class war" then we already have a civil war in progress, It is of long duration but quiet. The very wealthy and the very powerful (all in the same club) have accumulated their power through stealth, legislation, practice, and acquiescence. The working class is their victim here, even if working class citizens are foolish enough to serve as foot soldiers in an up-rising, insurrection, coup, or civil war.

There is a good sized pool of fools in America: the anti-science; anti-vax, anti-media, anti-government, anti-intellectual, patriotic, free-enterprise, bible-wielding, conspiracy theory consumers, etc. Many of these people have already talked themselves into a corner where an admission that their world-view is a deeply flawed is not going to be at all easy.

Someone will come along who can generate a standing wave of hysteria, and it will e hell on wheels for a while.

I think of vegans as people who really don't like food very much. They gain significant nourishment from their membership in a club of people who prefer to eat dreary feed. Then there is self-righteousness--the vegan frosting on the cake (which is gluten free, fat free, egg free, and sugar-free).

People have the right to privately make decisions about their own bodies. One of the evils of "pro-life" militants is to load both abortion and miscarriage with guilt (the gift that keeps on giving) and the expectation of grief. Abortion is murder, they say. Miscarriage -- which is entirely involuntary -- is equivalent to losing an infant.

Having an abortion is a serious enough decision for the woman's well-being, no doubt. But what is aborted is not yet a person -- in most cases, abortions occur in the fourth or fifth month of pregnancy. Pro-life sentiment calls for burial of a miscarriage. It is just manipulative sentimentality.

The doctrine that 'personhood' begins at conception is noxious. It makes the woman the slave of the fertilized egg, for which she is supposed to feel fulfilled, no matter the real-world circumstances of conception or consequences for her life. "Pro-life" is "anti-choice" in more ways than one. It's a life-sentence, so to speak.

It isn't just about women, either. Partnered men and women want to have successful families. Too many children is a problem the world-over, in terms of successful families where children reach adulthood and the parents are not destroyed in the process. Unlimited fecundity is a burden that poor people can not support. So, yes -- birth control, abortion, sterilization -- all are helpful remedies, and they all stand against conservative religious doctrine.

Damnation on conservative religious doctrine!!!

you taste like chicken — James Riley

Some cannibals call us "long pig" so we must taste more like pork. We're probably tasty, provided we're well fed and properly cooked.

Gloria Steinem said "If men could get pregnant, abortion on demand would be a sacrament."

One thing a tape worm can do for you that a fetus can't is suppress allergy symptoms by reducing the sensitivity of the immune system. Personally, I prefer Benadryl to parasites.

Just caught that edit of yours. "Totally" might be too much. Cheap enough carbon recapture — javra

True, 'totally screwed' might be overly pessimistic. How about 'largely screwed'?

One form of carbon recapture that is on the shelf, proven, and ready to go: trees. if we all planted as many trees as we could (within the restraints of land needed for agriculture), we could soak up a lot of carbon. another approach: Agricultural methods are available which increase the carbon content of soils. A third important approach is conservation. IF (very big IF) we reduced private transportation (1 car, 1 passenger) and reduced production of many goods (fewer clothes, fewer sofas, far fewer disposable products) we could reduce CO2 output.

A side effect of obsessive tree planting is that in 60 years (about) could begin harvesting huge new reserves of carbon sequestered building material. A wooden house or wooden office building holds on to its stored carbon until it is burned up. With maintenance, a wood building can last hundreds of years. Keep it dry and don't let it catch fire.

Pumping CO2 into the ground requires a lot of energy.

Or "Hegemony would occur when a law adopts prevailing majority social values instead of a minority dissenting views"?

According to this poll, the abortion debate is driven by the absolutists minority on both sides.

Three-quarters of Americans say they want to keep in place the landmark Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade, that made abortion legal in the United States, but a strong majority would like to see restrictions on abortion rights, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll.

What the survey found is a great deal of complexity — and sometimes contradiction among Americans — that goes well beyond the talking points of the loudest voices in the debate.

This poll shows that hegemony goes to the pro-abortion position--nationally, maybe not locally.

But, alas, I’ve never been that cool to start new slang. — javra

Cool people don't start slang, they are the first ones to get noticed for using it. I've never been cool.

Maybe 'apoplectic" or some such. Apoplectic apocalypse. Apocalyptic apoplexy. I was going to suggest "calyptic" but it's already in the urban dictionary.

unless the global warming thing actually is someone's hoax — javra

Not a hoax. We're totally screwed.

We're talking about law here; rules for everyone, not just Christians. Your argument assumes a Christian hegemony, it assume the primacy of a Christian perspective. It lacks respect for the views of non-christians. In that regard it is immoral. — Banno

The US Constitution guarantees freedom from government-involvement in religious affairs--clear separation of Church and State. The Texas law certainly involves the state in what is primarily a religious issue (not just when life begins but when personhood begins, adult autonomy (reproductive decision making), the right to privacy, and more. The Texan government has decided in favor of extremely intrusive involvement in (what many consider) private, individual, reproductive decision-making.

However, it doesn't seem reasonable to ignore the religious makeup of Texas. "According to the Pew Research Center in 2014, Christianity was the largest religion (77%).[62][63] The following largest were the irreligious (18%), nothing in particular (13%), Judaism (1%), Islam (1%), Buddhism (1%) and Hinduism and other religions at less than 1 percent each."

The 77% of Texas Christians tilt strongly toward the conservative end of the spectrum. What percentage of belief, political views, or practice does it take to achieve hegemony? It seems like believers have it there. My congressional district in Minnesota votes about 80% Democratic-Farm-Labor. Do we have hegemony?

Just to clarify, I strongly disapprove of the Texas law on abortion, am absolutely pro-choice. I don't pray, don't believe in heaven or hell, and a divinely managed creation. Pretty much an atheist. Minnesota is somewhat less religious, and more liberal at that, than Texas, but the Lutherans and Catholics (et al) run things.

Mars has to colonised. — I like sushi

Why? Has it failed in some way that an invasion from earth could fix it?

ditto, per @James Riley.

Put it on the back side of the moon so we won't have to look at the mess they will surely make. I do not want to look up at the moon and see a big AMAZON or HILTON advertising blinking off ad on. The back side also has the advantage of being shielded from earth's radio noise, so it would be a good place for radio astronomy.

The back side of the moon has geology which is dissimilar to the front side (or so I have heard). We should study that.

Just the fact that we can get to the moon in at least 3 days, and not at least 6 months, counts for a lot.

No problem on earth can better be solved on the moon.

Im thinking that with all the technology we only have higher consumption. — schopenhauer1

This seems to be true. First, there is the purchase of the technology itself. One bought the desk computer and put the typewriter in the basement. One bought a desk-top printer, then refills of ink or toner. One bought the nice little cell phone, then a case to put it in; then there are the monthly service fees. (Of course there are monthly services for land lines too.). One wants some apps that provide special features, games, music and so on. Lots of stuff works this way.

How is it in 80 years, 40 hour norm isn’t commensurate with the efficiency in technology and reduced accordingly. — schopenhauer1

That's a good question. Maybe...

IF one is paid by the hour, the longer one is on the clock, the more one gets paid. Maybe one could do one's job in 6 hours, but that means 2 fewer hours of pay. If one gets paid a salary, and one can't just get up and leave for the day when one has nothing more to do, there is no incentive to be more efficient. Large numbers of workers get a 40 hour a week block; they get paid the same whether they are efficient or not.

Parkinson's law: Work expands to fill the available time, just as paper expands to fill the available space. Have we not all had to experience of stretching a 1 hour task out to 3 hours, because the other things waiting to do were not very appealing?

If the workday was cut from 8 hours per shift to 6 hours (no change in day) my guess is people would get their jobs done in 6 hours. (Of course, if one's job requires being on duty for 8 hours, like a nurse, waiter, cop, etc., this wouldn't apply.). Employing workers for 4 six hour shift a day, rather than 3 eight hour shifts probably isn't going to happen, but it could.

Sorry, I didn't explain it well. 70% of GDP is private consumption. 30% is public consumption -- everything that the city, county, state, and federal governments spend, everything from submarines to city owned hospitals. The US does have a solid production base, though some of it is located in places like China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh.

It's a perfectly normal looking pyramid, just like the one Cheops built. The bottom 70% is consumer spending, the top 30% is government spending.

Besides that, I don't at all think of Americans as lazy, though we do tend to be over-weight on to obese, but that is increasingly a world-wide problem. In an economy, the people both produce and consume, their share and government's share too.

I think it is a very safe assumption that a significant share of work that we do is organized in an inefficient manner. Many Americans spend too much time at work. I'm retired now, but that was true for my work in social services -- too much time spent inefficiently. For instance, a requirement to account for one's time spent delivering services in 15 minute increments is a drag on delivery. So are pointless meetings.

Consumption drives 70% of American GDP. It's Americans as fat, lazy consumers that produces our colossal economy, not slim, hard-working, industrious workers. Plus, having 325,000,000 people helps; plus, a huge defense establishment spending mega bucks; plus a big country with plenty of good land, oil, coal, iron, copper, water, et al.

It might all come crashing down. Frank Zappa asks:

What will you do if we let you go home
And the plastic's all melted
And so is the chrome?

What will you do when the label comes off
And the plastic's all melted
And the chrome is too soft?

What will you do if the people you knew
Were the plastic that melted
And the chromium too?

Would you think that if workers got more benefits and holidays, the more existential situation surrounding work is resolved? — schopenhauer1

American workers work more hours and receive far shorter holidays than European workers, along with fewer benefits. So, the "existential situation" variable as it is for individuals, would not be "resolved" but it would be a real improvement for most workers.

my answer is simply to not HAVE more workers in the first place, as the problem is intractable. A "worker's paradise" seems like a contradiction in terms. It's like "prison paradise" or something. — schopenhauer1

From an anti-natalist position, the problem is utterly intractable. From the pro-natalist POV, 'The Problem' isn't exactly a piece of cake to solve, either. The (presumed) leisure of the ancient hunter-gatherer hasn't been available for roughly 12,000 years. Extracting from the earth the requirements of a reasonably satisfactory settled civilization involves a lot of laborious tasks.

We certainly can reduce our energy and material requirements, and we jolly well had better do so, if we expect to have a future--which is a key plank in the pro-natal platform. A rational use of resources (e.g., public transit instead of 1 billion automobiles, gas powered or electric; apartments instead of single-person houses, less clothing, furnishings, and so forth) would reduce the collective work load, and is entirely doable, even without eliminating capitalism.

No matter how optimistic one is, paradise on earth is not an option; we might be able to avoid hell.

I can't quite tell whether you are caricaturing the ruling class, or giving them your obeisance on bended knees. If you are on your knees, get the fuck up this instant!

Their great conceit is that they, and they alone, have actually "invented it, paid off the engineers and programmers and scientists and doctors to make our initial ideas grow". They think these myths justify their existence. But you know better! You know that the contributions of the rich (who as a group are not particularly inventive, creative, or innovative -- with a few excepted) are slight compared to the genius and work of all the technical workers (inventors, engineers, programmers, scientists, doctors, professors, administrators, ET AL) who actually bring ideas to fruition (regardless of where they come from).

The economy of a successful country requires the efforts of almost everyone. The queen of a beehive, ant hill, or termite mound is but one role of many essential workers. Does the hive die if the queen dies? No. The workers have the ability to create new queens.

In the same way, the rich "kings and queens" of a country can drop dead without the economy screeching to a halt, because the economy has so many essential operators. 128 million workers -- including everyone keep the train on the track and it's wheels turning.

It has ever been thus.

they would just say that this... — schopenhauer1

The inventor entrepreneur will just say... — schopenhauer1

they will thank the little people... — schopenhauer1

But the Lords will say that... — schopenhauer1

The bourgeoisie have all sorts of justifications to cover their operations. They will keep repeating their self-justifications until the world is an unlivable hothouse and we are all dead. If we expect to leave a world fit to live in (say in 80 years or so) we had best reject their lies, deceits, misrepresentations, and self-serving fictions.

Don't be clouded by the apocalyptic visions of Christianity, That is but one vision, which lacks the unrestrained positivity inherent in other traditions. — Hanover

I wasn't thinking of Christianity; I suppose "our light of the world" might have suggested it to you. I was ironically references us as "our light of the world" not Jesus--THE light of the world.

What will probably happen is that we won't know the world is about to end. A few might see mushroom-shaped clouds in the distance (which would give some a period of time to contemplate their proximate demise. They'll have time to say, "I guess it's going to be fire and not ice." Or, in the event of runaway warming, the day before the last day might allow some to guess that the curtains are being rung down as they mop their brows and crawl deeper into the cave. On the other hand, the big meteor will not give us time to think about it. If it's disease, people will get sick and die, thinking that they are having a private deathbed experience, and not sharing death with billions of others. Of course, if they are gasping for air in the street with 20,000 other air-gasping, running sore, vomiting people are right next to them, that might be seem as a clue.

I recommend dying pleasantly before fate takes up any of these options.

A well done apocalypse (as opposed to a half-assed piece of rubbish) raises this unpleasant question: If our light of the world could be so easily extinguished, what earthly good were we in the first place? A lot less than we like to think.

A Kant Quote comes to mind: "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made." Kind of hard to top that for succinct summation.

BTW, there's nothing wrong with liking half-assed rubbish; nothing could be more human, really. We may seek the sublime, but we can be quite satisfied with low-brow dreck.

"The End of the World" will, as a fact not as a fiction, be the end of all our long striving. There will be no one left to add so much as a sigh. The heaped up detritus of culture will mean nothing ever more (or something, never more). There will be both an end to human striving, though that may not coincide with The End of the world. The planet, and it's less sentient beings may spin on for a long time--but we won't be part of that.

Our demise might occur simultaneously with the end of the world. A large meteorite striking the earth would suffice. So might a primate-destroying plague. Runaway global warming could work -- assuming the the running away went on long enough. A week of end-stage runaway global warming might be unpleasant, but a week is too quick to develop a good story. We will have plenty of time for misery once the globe becomes our rotisserie.

I enjoy a piece of well written apocalyptic fiction -- one without too many clichés, please. No zombies, please. If there is to be cannibalism, then it should wait until the bitter end, not as soon as the Internet goes down or gasoline becomes hard to get. I also appreciate the absence of grotesquely sadistic gangs romping across the countryside.

A World Made by Hand (4 volumes) by James Howard Kunstler is very good. Kunstler illustrates how difficult it will be to carry on in a world whose environment is intact, but whose technology is dead. Earth abides by George R. Stewart is a seminal work. Written in 1949, Stewarts imagines a fast plague wiping out 99.99% of the population, so only a tiny remnant remain. The story is tentatively upbeat at the end. On the Beach (1957) by Nevill Shute and A Canticle for Liebowitz (1959) by Walter Miller, Jr. are both fine nuclear apocalypse novels. The End in On The Beach is final; for A Canticle For Leibowitz, the world recovers in 2,000 years and then does the whole nuclear thing over again.

There are more such novels, of course. Somebody is scribbling out the last lines of another one, right now.

Do you see a differentiation with a plutocrat that that invented a new product... — schopenhauer1

The short answer to a very good question is: No.

Take Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak deserve credit for bringing together several already-existing components (the mouse, the graphical interface, the electronic bits and pieces, the all-in-one-box) as a new product. My first computer was a Macintosh, which I loved and adored. Bill Gates is another example of a gigantic fortune from invention. I always preferred Microsoft Word and Excel to all others.

They deserve great credit, but they do not deserve unlimited financial reward. Why not?

First, creativity, invention, and innovation depend on the creative, intellectual, and physical labor of many predecessors without which there would be nothing new. The Macintosh Computer rested on a century's worth of technological development. Science and industry are inherently social activities which gradually accumulate potential for new technology.

Second, if there is to be a fortune made from new technology (like personal computers) the inventor depends on the socially accumulated wealth of bankers and investors who are willing to gamble on making a product a reality, and perhaps a success, in exchange for a payoff. Without financial investors, there would be no iPhones, no music streaming, no Teslas, no airplanes, no televisions, no LED lights, no railroads, no nothing.

Everything that is made today depends on social accumulation of knowledge and wealth. Specific individuals (like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk) capitalize on what others have built previously--and 99% of the accumulation was produced by working people.

...and ones that just found themselves as heads of industry by luck? The ones that invented something, will say they are getting their just reward and providing jobs for the little people to [sell, train, support, install, account for the money of, transport, warehouse, market, website maintain, develop further product development], of the product they started. — schopenhauer1

They would say that. They might also say (but will not) that their fortune depends on all the jobs "the little people" did -- "sell, train, support, install, account for the money of, transport, warehouse, market, website maintain, develop further product development]". Without all the workers' efforts, there would be no fortune, no reward.

Look, this isn't personal. I am not bitter (despite my avatar). I don't dislike Steve Jobs or Elon Musk or any other multi-billionaire. I don't know them, don't have to deal with them. I willingly contributed to the fortunes of Steve Jobs and the stockholders of Apple™. We have all made contributions to the great fortunes of the very few. We live within a capitalist society. Accumulation of wealth is THE NAME OF THE GAME. I neither tried nor succeeded at that game. I don't admire the winners of this game.

But if you ask, "Is this a good system?" I am emotionally and rationally compelled to answer, "Absolutely not!" and argue for a system which distributes reward for both fizzy creativity and mud-slogging work fairly. A fair and equitable distribution of rewards for work is possible, and it doesn't look like our capitalist system.

:100:

is the Internet allowing democracy to destroy itself? — Tim3003

It might be helpful to make a distinction between "democracy" (broadly understood) as a system of government, and "democracy" as ordinary, daily interaction of citizens.

In our republic, representatives are elected by the citizenry. Political parties have been part of the American system since the beginning (and that was an issue, early on). Our system of election, representation, and government was never pure, never perfect. On-line social media is a new thing, but corrupting the system is not.

The ordinary daily interaction of citizens has mostly been helped by the internet. Consider the difficulty of organizing events 50 years ago: One had to put up posters, buy advertisements in daily newspapers or neighborhood papers--if there was one. One had to use social networks like bars, clubs, bowling teams, etc. Not bad, but inefficient. Now there is MeetUp, Facebook, NextDoor, and much more. It's all faster, cheaper, better.

BUT: There is a downside. (There's always a downside opposite every upside.). Ideas can spread faster than the speed of reflective thought. An example might be "defund the police" idea. This was picked up by a lot of people on line --"woke whites" it seems like, before the idea was given reflective attention.

In Minneapolis, "defund the police' caught fire after the 2020 summer rioting season. A year later, the voters of Minneapolis defeated a charter measure which would have led to a sharply reduced police force. There was pushback on police defunding on line, as well as in more typical media, but a year's time gave people a chance to think over the idea of what a defunded police force would mean. A solid majority didn't like the smell of it.

The Internet is a many splendored thing. If Facebook and 4Chan or 8Chan are not good for it, other parts are. It isn't the Internet, per se, that is a threat to democracy. Powerful groups who dislike democracy are a muckiest bigger threat.

As for bad information, there is nothing new under the sun, Public discourse and the press have operated at abysmally low levels for long stretches of time. There was no 'golden age' when everyone read only balanced, carefully thought out opinion pieces and altogether factual 'news'.

People who believe--the corona virus is a hoax, or that the moon landing was faked, or that Donald Trump actually won the 2020 election, or any number of other stupid lies--are impervious to fact and balanced argument. It doesn't matter whether they flock to web sites that present garbage, or not. In 1969 there was no internet, yet the "the moon landing was faked!" individuals managed to find each other, anyway, and they have persisted in this nonsense for decades.

As an aside, there are many sites on the internet, television stations and programs, publications, and individuals or groups who are just not good for one's cognition or mental health. One does well to avoid them.

Are there trees that old? — Cartuna

There are trees that old (probably not in Europe where trees tended to get cut down for lumber and were replaced by new trees). Actually you don't need the tree in the ground. There is a "Dendrochronological Database" that has been put together over the years which covers about 11,000 years into the past. You can take a core from a beam in a building and look it up in the database, to see what the climate was like from year to year -- wet, dry, warm, cold. During warm wet years the trees grew more, so the rings are wider. Cold dry seasons produce narrow rings.

I don't actually know anything about this, I just come across it in books about... medieval or ancient history.

BTW, there is a specific tree, a great basin bristlecone pine, that is over 5,000 years old. No, you can't go see the tree; it's location is secret. If the assholes of the world knew where the tree was, it wouldn't be there anymore.

There are beautiful winter scenes painted. Very romantic. — Cartuna

Hendrick Avercamp 1585–1634 painted this. It is charming and romantic, but it was pretty cold and the growing season was shortened, which wasn't quite so romantic.

Tree rings tell the tale, as do lake sediment cores (looking at pollen grain). I don't know how many records from back then commented on the weather. Besides, they were in the middle of it and may not have realized they were in an epoch of nice weather. Unless events happen fast enough, we don't necessarily see the pattern. The people who shifted from hunting and gathering to agriculture almost certainly didn't know that's what they were doing. It was too slow a process.

Seems like you know a lot! An American (?) savant! — Cartuna

Yes, I'm a certified idiot-savant. American.

Why can't that hold nowadays? — Cartuna

Given a culture / economic collapse from global warming, it might. But there were some factors: The withdrawal of the Empire meant that its organized military and administration disappeared. There was plenty of action during these 800 years -- trading, migrations, agricultural developments, conflicts, and in general cultural and social development. But there was not enough net surplus of production to fuel year-over-year growth. About the time that a surplus was possible, the Black Plague arrived and set things back a ways. Between 950 and c.  1100 Europe experienced a streak of very nice warm weather--good. That was followed by the Little Ice Age - not so good.

By the end of the 1400s, Europe had moved into higher gear and economic growth resumed, albeit not like a house-a-fire.

Since we did interbreed and produce fertile offspring (which is why Europeans, for instance, are about 1%-3% Neanderthal. Same for Asians and Denisovans. The great apes, chimps, bonobos, or gorillas are closely related to us, but not quite close enough to produce fertile off-spring, MAYBE a great ape / human fertilization could take place (it hasn't, as far as we know) but if it did, who knows whaat the result would be like. Donald Trump, possibly, but with bigger muscles and a huge gut to digest rough feed.