[dohboi]

G wrote: "...(revised) ecosystem..."



Wow, euphemism of all time!

[Ibon]

. Unlike the dinosaurs, mammals are very adaptable to changes in climate.

There are over 9000 species of birds that refute your statement regarding the adsptability of dinosaurs.

[Tanada]

You do realize that mammals originated some 200 million years ago? Mammals have live through extinction level events, ice ages, global warming, and everything the planet could throw at them. I like our chances. Unlike the dinosaurs, mammals are very adaptable to changes in climate.

Mammals suck !!!!!!!!!!

Gas

That is why they come equipped with mammary glands, is it not

[KaiserJeep]

-snip-

That is why they come equipped with mammary glands, is it not

I am a long time fan of human mammary glands. Since puberty, in fact.

(This comment is general in nature and not intended to cause discomfort to any member. Oh yeah, I also like large bottoms. But I have always been accused of non-mainstream tastes.)

[onlooker]

Interesting salacious talk haha, but anyway this short article from "The National Center for Biotechnology Information ", points to deleterious effects if heat stress to Mammalian reproduction.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781849/

[KaiserJeep]

In the spirit of PeakOil scientific enquiry, note the following:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/14/breast-size-evolution

https://www.livescience.com/23500-why-men-love-breasts.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3004770/Why-men-REALLY-prefer-big-bottoms-Scientists-say-preference-evolution-reveal-perfect-rear-45-5-degree-curve.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/why-men-like-butts-science_n_6800172.html

Note also (in the spirit of the OP topic) that Billionaires often marry women with large breasts and booties and long hair. Trump for example is on his third one.

[AdTheNad]

And a solid work ethic would be good.

7.5 billion people with a solid work ethic just means climate change goes even quicker. If only more hard working people had left more resources in the ground instead of trying to prove their worth through pointless make work. If you are wondering if your job was worthwhile consider if anyone will remember it in 100 years time while the carbon you created still lingers in the atmosphere.

And you were outcompeting people when the bar was very very low. At a time when a drop out could earn enough on one salary to raise a family. Try to do that today and you will be so poor you might well splurge on avocado toast to distract yourself from the climate change and peak oil knightmares fast approaching.

[dohboi]

Good points, ATN.

This is how much we were originally evolved to work per day: "The !Kung worked only about twenty hours per week, or three hours per day, for their subsistence."

And of course, a lot of that 'work' is the kind of things industrialized people now do on vacation or to relax: hunting, fishing, picking nuts and berries...

http://www.greenuniversity.com/Green_Ec ... wealth.htm

[Outcast_Searcher]

And you were outcompeting people when the bar was very very low. At a time when a drop out could earn enough on one salary to raise a family. Try to do that today and you will be so poor you might well splurge on avocado toast to distract yourself from the climate change and peak oil knightmares fast approaching.

Ah, the fact free nonsense flows so freely from this one.

The median family income in the US was over $60,000 in 2017.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/12/median- ... 61372.html

There are roughly $1 trillion in federal transfer payments annually, mostly to help "the poor". Add to that huge amounts of state and local programs, all the private/charitable programs. Consider the strong push to raise the minimum wage to $15 (which is causing a LOT of recent minimum wage raises in cities and in companies) -- whether the local cost of living justifies it or not.

You're not talking true poverty in the vast majority of cases -- you're playing the "relative poverty is unfair" game. Everyone in the first world not having all the toys, McMansions, new cars, etc. they "want" is NOT poverty.

Some on this site used to like to claim that lots of children were starving to death in the US. Aside from the occasional drug-addled mother who refuses to feed her kids (which will be fixed as soon as the government is made aware of the situation) -- I don't think so.

[dohboi]

No one that I have seen has claimed we have Yemen-level famine throughout the US (though we have played an important hand in creating that crisis). But things are not as they should be in the richest country in the world (are we still even that) with such incredibly rich agricultural bounty.

"In 2017, an estimated 1 in 8 Americans were food insecure, equating to 40 million Americans including more than 12 million children"

https://hungerandhealth.feedingamerica. ... nsecurity/

And of course there are many kinds of hunger and malnourishment:

"Malnutrition is far more diverse and complex than originally believed; the challenges faced by each country demonstrate this complexity," the report states. "For example, many African and South Asian countries continue to suffer from multiple forms of malnutrition, including undernutrition, significant micronutrient deficiencies and rising levels of obesity."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countr ... lnutrition

Meanwhile: "The richest 1 percent in the United States now own more additional income than the bottom 90 percent" and "...eight rich people, six of them Americans, own as much combined wealth as half the human race"

(probably an underestimate, especially after Trump's tax cut for the rich) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in ... ted_States

[Subjectivist]

What a silly statement, you could employ everyone in low carbon work without detrimental impact on the environment. Quite the contrary in fact, you could employ thousands to collect trash laying around outside, hand decnstruction of abandond buildings and restoring the lots to green field status, even things like visiting the elderly in nursing homes and reading to kids in the park. Work doesn't have to mean operating a big polluting piece of machinery or practicing law to protect polluters.

[onlooker]

What a silly statement, you could employ everyone in low carbon work without detrimental impact on the environment. Quite the contrary in fact, you could employ thousands to collect trash laying around outside, hand decnstruction of abandond buildings and restoring the lots to green field status, even things like visiting the elderly in nursing homes and reading to kids in the park. Work doesn't have to mean operating a big polluting piece of machinery or practicing law to protect polluters.

Yes, but if the Industries that are the main polluting industries like, Transportation, Military, Agriculture and Electricity generation continue their polluting ways you are NOT making much of a dent on CO2 emissions.

[AdTheNad]

And you were outcompeting people when the bar was very very low. At a time when a drop out could earn enough on one salary to raise a family. Try to do that today and you will be so poor you might well splurge on avocado toast to distract yourself from the climate change and peak oil knightmares fast approaching.

Ah, the fact free nonsense flows so freely from this one.

The median family income in the US was over $60,000 in 2017.

There are roughly $1 trillion in federal transfer payments annually, mostly to help "the poor". Add to that huge amounts of state and local programs, all the private/charitable programs. Consider the strong push to raise the minimum wage to $15 (which is causing a LOT of recent minimum wage raises in cities and in companies) -- whether the local cost of living justifies it or not.

You're not talking true poverty in the vast majority of cases -- you're playing the "relative poverty is unfair" game. Everyone in the first world not having all the toys, McMansions, new cars, etc. they "want" is NOT poverty.

Some on this site used to like to claim that lots of children were starving to death in the US. Aside from the occasional drug-addled mother who refuses to feed her kids (which will be fixed as soon as the government is made aware of the situation) -- I don't think so.

Median family income - so that would include all incomes in the house then. Like if both people in a couple work so they can afford the mortgage. And also includes the incomes of any children still living at home unable to afford their own place after decades of house prices and rent rising faster than minimum wage. How does that refute anything I said? And do you really, honestly believe it is as easy now for a drop out to earn as much as could be done back in your day?

But really incomes on their own tell us nothing which surely you know? What matters is income remaining after essential expenditure which can only be dropped so far.

In terms of transfer payments you only refer to it as a benefit for poor people when all transactions have 2 sides, and it is also a subsidy to various companies or landlords. If Walmart staff need government hand outs to survive that is a subsidy to Walmart who don’t pay a living wage. If the government is paying people’s rent that is also a subsidy to the landlord. The landlord can even put up the rent, making the headline number of benefits to the poor even larger when you can clearly see the increase there has only benefitted the landlord in that example.

I don’t want everyone to have all the toys and McMansions they want. I want people to be able to afford a reasonable life, while working part time - since the planet can not afford 7.5 billion people working full time. The greed and waste based neo liberal system has utterly failed in that regard.

And you round off with some straw men as usual.

[Cog]

So you want government to take over running corporations? Hmm I'm trying to remember the name of the type of system that is.

[Ibon]

So you want government to take over running corporations? Hmm I'm trying to remember the name of the type of system that is.

As each of us struggles with check mate regarding solutions to human overshoot (of which peakoil and climate change are symptoms), one looks at the macro institutions as candidates to somehow regulate the bottleneck. I come up with the following:

1) religions
2) private enterprise and corporations
3) government

Remember that all of the above failing to the task means we accept the default arbiter who is mother nature herself.

I think most folks really dont want their current religions to have that power. Most understand
that corporations focused on profit offer no real solutions.

In conclusion it is either government, the state, or mother nature.

Take your pick.

[KaiserJeep]

I have a somewhat different view. I consider the approaching crisis to be a Darwinian opportunity. If your genes are more suited to survive human overshoot, then they will, while those less prepared to cope will perish.

Ibon, note that there has never been anyone in charge of the planet, and I doubt there ever will be. The UN is an example of an organization that exists but ultimately lacks authority, capability, and even the capacity for judgement.

I will take up arms before I let either the Feds or the State rule my life. I believe that the human race as always will live or die as individuals making individual decisions. That is all there is or ever will be.

[Ibon]

I have a somewhat different view. I consider the approaching crisis to be a Darwinian opportunity. If your genes are more suited to survive human overshoot, then they will, while those less prepared to cope will perish.

I will take up arms before I let either the Feds or the State rule my life. I believe that the human race as always will live or die as individuals making individual decisions. That is all there is or ever will be.

I am not taking a position just pointing out the options.

Humans do die as individuals but they live as social animals since that is how they evolved, including you KJ.

Your position is actually anarchy which is chaos and does not organize well. You have to consider that other group arrangements around you may prove more adaptive.

For example, imagine a well socialized society submitting to government regulation succeeded in colonizing space. There you would be KJ, all alone on earth with your Don Quixote individualism intact as you saw the lift off of some better organized society stealing your dream..... No regrets?