This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Is The Human Race Doomed? Deutsche Bank On "One The Most Important (Future) Turning Points In History"
Discussing population dynamics in elite (or is that elitist, let's just call it Wall Street) circles has always had an aura of taboo about it, due to the inevitable degeneration of any conversation into Malthusian rhetoric, especially if one of the speakers had had a little too much to drink. And for better or worse, name-dropping Malthus does not garner brownie points, nor will it lead to another horrendous straight to HBO faux morality tale about this or that. That stigma, however (and luckily) has not prevented Deutsche Bank's Sanjeev Sanyal (yes, there are people at DB who do think originally and whose day is not taken up by trips to and fro Englewood Cliffs) from penning a must read macro analysis titled "The End of Population Growth" which we will discuss more in depth shortly, but wanted to bring readers' attention to one particular chart: namely that comparing world fertility rates in 1950-1955 and 2010-2015. The surprising implication of the below chart leads Sanyal to declare that the period set to begin in just 10 years "will be one of the most important turning points in history" simply because: "the human race will no longer be replacing itself by the early 2020s. Population growth will continue for a few more decades because of momentum from the age structure and people living longer but, reproductively speaking, our species will no longer be growing." And since global reproduction will not be net additive, it will be net subtractive... and on a long-enough timeline the world's population will drop to zero...
From Deutsche Bank:
Some fascinating clarification:
A theme that is common to the latest census data for almost all countries is that population growth is slowing for almost all countries. The population growth rate of the United States during the decade of 2000-2010 was 0.9% per annum, down from 1.2% during the nineties. In comparison, Japan and Germany saw almost zero population growth during the last decade. Nonetheless, it is the emerging economies that have seen the most dramatic deceleration in population growth. China saw its population growth rate fall to 0.56% per annum over the last decade compared to a rate of around 1% in the nineties and over 2% in the sixties and early seventies. Similarly, India’s population growth rate fell to 1.6% from a peak of 2.3% in the seventies. The growth rate for the last decade in Brazil was 1.1% and for Russia minus 0.4%. Note that these are averages for the last decade and the current pace is significantly lower in almost all cases.
At its simplest, demographic dynamics is about the relative relationship between birth rates and death rates. Typically, death rates fall first as people live longer due to improvements in nutrition, public health, medicine and so on. Birth rates fall more slowly when social attitudes gradually change, especially for women. The chronological gap between the two rates causes a population boom. Over time, however, the birth rate catches up and, in most developed countries, keeps falling past the level required to stabilize population. As being witnessed now in Japan, the population then ages rapidly and shrinks in size.
Let us look at how this cycle played itself out over the last two hundred years. For most of history, the years of life expected at birth were around 24-28years. This began to change in Europe from the late eighteenth century. By 1820, life expectation in the United States and many Western European countries has drifted up to 37-40 years range. It then drifted up to the 47-50 years range by 1900 and further to 65-70 years range by 1950. In contrast, the life expectancy in India and China barely budged from the pre-industrial equilibrium till well into the twentieth century. In 1950, China had a life expectation of 41 years and it may have been as low as 38 years in India. They now stand at around 74 and 65 years respectively. Both have some more scope for improvement as life expectancy is now in the late seventies or early eighties in most developed countries.
The decline in birth rates also began in Western Europe at the time of the Industrial Revolution. Many interrelated changes affected this – urbanization, attitudes, aspirations, literacy, female work participation and so on. France was the first place where this change took place. The number of births per 100 population dropped from 3.2 in 1820 to 2.2 in 1900. Other Western Europeans followed soon. Today, the birth rate per 100 stands at around 1 for most Western European countries. The United States had a much higher starting point and, despite sharp declines, still has a level higher than for most developed countries. In contrast, Japan had a relatively high birth rate of 3.24 in 1900 but now is at a mere 0.75 – one of the lowest in the world.
One useful way to think about trends in birth rates is to look at what is called the Total Fertility Rate (TFR). This is the average number of live births per woman over her lifetime. It is usually estimated by sampling women of child bearing age (usually defined as 15-44 years). In the long run, a population is said to be stable if the TFR is at the “replacement rate”. This is usually said to be 2.1 births per woman but in reality only developed countries can hope to keep their population stable with such a level. For developing countries, the required replacement rate is much higher because factors such as infant mortality and maternal deaths at childbirth. Thus, the replacement level of TFR is a little above 2.3 for the world as a whole.
The TFR for most developed countries now stands well below replacement levels. The OECD average is at around 1.74 but there are countries like Germany and Japan that produce less than 1.4 children per woman 5. According to the OECD’s latest estimates, South Korea has a TFR of barely 1.15 – a level that foretells rapid aging and a sharp decline in population from the 2020s. However, the biggest TFR declines in recent years have been in emerging economies. According to the UN’s population division, the TFR in China and India were 6.1 and 5.9 respectively in 1950. The ratio has now fallen to 1.8 in China due to the aggressive one-child policy and to 2.6 in India due to a steady change in social attitudes. Similarly, Brazil’s TFR has fallen to 1.7 from 6.2 in 1950. These are large declines but there is reason to believe that the underlying dynamics are driving actual birth rates down even faster than suggested by the headline TFR.
China and, to lesser extent, India have skewed gender ratios. The Chinese census suggests that there are 118.6 boys being born for every 100 girls, worsening from 116.9 in 2000. Similarly, India has a gender ratio at birth of around 110 boys for every 100 girls with large regional variations. Compare this with the “natural” ratio of 105 boys per 100 girls (notice that even the natural ratio is not exactly 1:1). A cultural preference for boys is usually held responsible for the deviation. Since it is women who give birth and not men, the future scarcity of women implies that the effective reproductive capacity for both countries is below what is suggested by the unadjusted TFR reading. After making the adjustment for the gender imbalance, China’s Effective Fertility Rate (EFR) is around 1.5 while that for India is around 2.45 – both below what is widely discussed. In other words, the Chinese are already far from replacing themselves while the Indians are only slightly above the replacement rate.
If we make the same adjustment for the world’s fertility rate, we now have an EFR of around 2.4 which is almost at the replacement rate. In our view, the human race will no longer be replacing itself by the early 2020s. Population growth will continue for a few more decades because of momentum from the age structure and people living longer but, reproductively speaking, our species will no longer be growing. This will be one of the most important turning points in history.
Much more shortly
»
- 43965 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Genome, bitchez!
Looks like the great culling missed a spot
Fire up them cloning vats!
Ah-nold is contributing to increase the fertility rate in Cali.
Not sure if the human race is doomed, but Obama may be. Black social activist and university professor Cornel West calls out Obama as being a part of the oligarchy and challenges Americans to rise up like people in Europe and the Middle East are doing. Maybe this will save the human race?? Read here:
http://redpillfactory.blogspot.com/2011/05/cornel-west-calls-out-obama.html
"Deutche Bank" us a front for the Warburgs (Rothschild lackeys). They bought Bankers Trust (TGE Banksters Trust). Involved in 911 and every other genocidal scam.
Tyler:
Good article. No where have I read the truth, that is, that there are ALWAYS more males born in every species than females. Everyone seems to think it's 50/50.
Just one point to add: If you look at death rates among aged 55+, you will see that more women die than men. The reason is that the male in most species is supposed to "fight" and defend the family, causing them to behave in much more aggressive nature. Men also are the majority in wars. Also, boys aged 15-24 egage in riskier activities. So although more males are born than females, there are more females living at older ages due to differential mortality. Men act in ways that put them more at risk to dying young, which is why most species have evolved to have a male slanted birth rate.
Gotta love nature.
really sounds like someone is trying to get the eco-nazis excited...
Tyler was joking with that comment.
Peak energy, commodities and debt will all work together to drastically raise the cost of living. So I think over the coming decades the trend will point even more steeply downward. The long term sustainable population may be under 2 billion, which is the number of people currently earning over $10 per day now. Everyone else will be priced out of life's necessities.
Who's going to pay for my Social Security? The Ponzi needs new people to pay for the older ones, so all you under 40 couples out there, "start reproducing".
ummm, my response was joking too.
thanks for being wise enough to point out the obvious to the resident idiot here...
Stud services, Bitchez!!!!!
Dup.
Trip.
Quadruplicate! Jeez the fuckin'servers are slow tonight, aren't you guys supposed to be watching Dancin' with the Idles or something.
Well, at least someone is reproducing ;-)
Informative post. Thank you. Milestones
Ok I'll accept that "it will show a different trend than before." But human history doomed? Thats the most sensational assumption ever. Perhaps it would be better to say "The largest number of humans living on the globe ever, will be reduced, with no guarantees of a constant decline thereafter." Population size is directly related to the amount of resources available to be consumed. As with any organism. I deny there is some sort of "actual limit" considering "better use of resources" and or innovations could completely negate statements about population limits, particularly by 2020. Sure perhaps with our current "technology" and path of a maximum limit could be reached.
Doomed? Please.
I agree. I should also add that I think humans have trouble breeding in captivity. You could correlate the losing of freedoms, with the lowering of the birth rate very well. It might not be causation, but most animals do not breed well in captivity, why not humans too?
I agree. I should also add that I think humans have trouble breeding in captivity.
You must be a public school graduate. Ever heard of slavery? They breed quite well. Populations decrease in good times due to love of self.
The worst thing that can happen to a population is it finds itself rich and self-absorbed.
"Population size is directly related to the amount of resources available to be consumed."
I hate to differ with you. Last time I checked, dogs, geese, wales and other organisms aren't having to spend ridiculous amounts of money on health "insurance". Do you know how much it costs to bring a baby into this world?
bringing it into this world is easy and mostly costless, however bringing it up roughly cost you 800K for the first child in CH, the second comes at a discount of 600K and these are 2005 figures. still want kids?
It's up to you to figure out how to turn your rugrats into a positive sum game.
never goin to happen, but I guess young rugrats are not about money.
I'm curious about these numbers. Do you have a reference? $800K/18 years= $44,444/year, and the median household income is just shy of 50k/year. I'd believe something closer to $20k/year/child, but I don't think most folks could possibly spend 89% of their net income on their kids, whether they wanted to or not.
http://www.beobachter.ch/familie/artikel/familienplanung_was-kostet-ein-kind/
see grey box at the end, or check out Bundesamt für Statistik (BFS).
BTW: Figures are for 20 years, do not include state subsidies but do include opportunity costs. Parents simply lower their living standards when rugrats are swarming the house.
Looking at upper middle class, where most of the women work as opposed to the fifties, just them nannies cost 2'500 per month reducing the opportunity costs by increasing their total cost basis.
I know its not a sexy topic to talk about - simply facts as ZH is all about.
A Switzerland site? I don't see the numbers applicable to the US, but I do appreciate the reference, even if I can't understand all of it.
Thanks.
that's why I wrote in CH, which stands for confoederatio helvetica or Switzerland.
Try google translation. I guess the figures for the US are less but not by far, the principle stays the same in all western countries. Woman have to unfortunately work in order to afford a child.
Norman Borlaug bought the world time, but we spent it screwing and exploding the population.
Humans are not rational.
Is that really your argument? You dont' have to get health insurance. (except forcibly by the government) Nor even to "bring a baby into the world." There are still people who have kids the old fashion way, or with home water births. I'd say it is a luxury to have a child in a hospital, that we've taken for granted for decades.
As quality of life and life conditions get better, fertility rates fall. That's why you have poor countries and poor people have more children.
At this rate there should be a population explosion in the USA as we get poorer
Doomed?
Relative to what?
I'm willing to bet a packet of Fun Dip that Elenin's 9.7 Earthquake
on or around September 26th, 2011 reduces the population quite a bit,
and that's just the beginning.
pff that guy took his damn time..
I spoke with him in a professional sense a decade or so ago. Typical american believer in the "system". Nothing wrong with that, but if a policy ("war on drugs") is devastating minority communities, you'd expect a slightly less meek attitude.
As for the "great culling". There's a number of issues that will lower the birthrate dramatically. All of these are linked to the destruction of our natural habitat. At some point we'll see a real division. Those that are "in" and can afford genetical changes, to counter greater amounts of toxins, and a sort of collective with AIs. And on the other side the ones that are "out", left to their own devices, and what the little nature that's left offers them. We'll see more agressive diseases emerge once the GMO food (toxins), industrial pollution (toxins) and raised level of base radiation (alpha particles everywhere) will weaken the human immune system. That is, IF we don't do anything. There's always a fighting chance. Give up, and inmediately you've lost the battle. So I'm getting a bit grumpy of all these "rapture" (wasn't that supposed to happen last weekend) or "2012" predictions of people that can't tell me anything but hazy generalisations and bleak images of grim reapers and zombie armies. bleh boooringgg
A square several hundred kilometers in the Sahara desert can provide power to most of the present energy need. There's too much food right now, on a planetary scale we actually have to scale it down, the only BIG problem now is.... who's in? And who decides that with what criteria? I'm genuinely curious. I guess "money" will play a big role, but healthy genes even more..
(yeah I can back all of that up, but you find it yourself ;-)
This report is not about population it is about money. Namly inflation.
The deflation that is caused by population will slow.
Governments will still print money for themselves so you will get added inflation to the money supply as population slows.
Basicly it adds to what we all ready know in the next decade. Vary high inflation comes this way.
PS: male/female ratio is biological not cultural.
Y chroms are lighter then X chroms so they move faster. Better chance of being a boy over a girl but only slightly.
"We'll see more agressive diseases emerge once the GMO food (toxins), industrial pollution (toxins) and raised level of base radiation (alpha particles everywhere) will weaken the human immune system."
For starters. There's no such thing as an immune system. Yet another big lie, "the system" promotes. Show me the immune system. Take a picture of it. Draw it. Describe it. It can't be done. Because it doesn't exist.
Secondly, year after year we hear about these so called "new diseases" that are right around the corner, ready to mug you. Where are the diseases, where? They're not coming. The only diseases man has to worry about are the same diseases that have plagued us for centuries. These diseases are caused by two things: malnutrition and/or psychological trauma.
There isn't a shred of evidence that GMO foods will harm you. And as for toxins, the amounts are so small that it's pointless to even discuss. Nevertheless, if you ate something that was toxic and it didn't kill you the first time, then it will never kill you in the future. The idea that toxins build up in our bodies and weaken our immune systems, which then make us more susceptible to disease is beyond ridiculous. You may as well believe in Santa Clause.
Mophead, The book to read is Plagues and Peoples. In the long run of things, humanity has enjoyed a brief respite of infectious disease between roughly 1770 and the present. Euro-Asian diseases spred to all corners of the world and much of the world's population passed genetic immunity on to their children. However, this fortunate respite, upon which many of the "advances" of modernity rest, this ecological golden age for humanity, will inevitably come to an end. Any time human population centers grow dense, with domesticated animals living among peoples, new diseases have decimated populations. There have been respites in the past when population grew rapidly, but each time a new plague arose to harvest human hosts. This has occurred many times to humanity and for thousands of years. Another disease will come, and population will drop rapidly. Nature's law, not mine.
Thanks for the recommendation. But I don't like to read propaganda unless it's for reference. Speaking of "infectious disease". If some diseases are truly infectious, then please explain to me how a doctor can be around hundreds, if not thousands of infectiously diseased patients, yet never contract the disease him/herself? The reason so many people died in those plagues are: a) malnutrition and/or b) psychological trauma. That's it.
Here's a question: why is it that some people (a very tiny minority of the population) die after getting stung by a bee? There is no medical explanation, is there?
Dude, how can you argue with a 100 million dollar industry?
Did you know corn flakes got their start as a miracle cure food?
Heh. Every scam gets recycled every other generation. People are morons.
Not every corporation/industry is trying to poisen you so they can increase their profits. The scam that you're not seeing is that the tables are being turned on us once again like with global warming/climate change: at first it was the big bad corporations that were polluting the environment and something had to be done, so they gave us carbon credits and made everyone a polluter, forcing new regulations upon the world, basically, driving up the cost of doing business and ultimately, the cost of living. NOW what's unfolding is that the big bad food producing boogeymen are selling us GMO/Toxic food. So what's the solution? Regulation. Which does what? Drive up the cost of food thanks to the artificial scarcity that will be created by banning the pesticides and eventually the GMO foods. We will also have more starvation. Would you rather starve or eat a cucumber with wax on it? OMG OMG -- that cucumber has wax on it -- it'll...it'll give you cancer !!!
I agree our doom is that now the government is part of the scam.
I don't see a way out.
When EPA requires a hazmat response to a milk spill, the inmates are running the asylum.
And the proles cheer. Crazy, crazy times.
Never used wax on cukes--a cap full of vegetable oil in a couple of gallons of water when ya wash them before going to market. Milestones
The immune system is a part of the body focussed on mopping up any invasive organisms. It's several glands supported (not seperate) from the rest of the body. Lymphatic nodes is one part of it. Your answer seems very strange to me. Are you discussing semantics or throwing mud?
Everything changes in nature. Flu viri evolve to take one example. Technically that's a new organism.
As for the evidence that GMO food will harm you, I just posted two links to credible research that says just that. What have you got? Hot troll air? Seems so. Post real (not sponsored) independent research that proves it's safe, or take a hike please. I'm not joking around.
FYI: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/human-race-doomed-deutsche-bank-one-mos...
--
Here's another interesting snippet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4441564.stm
"The immune system is a part of the body focussed on mopping up any invasive organisms."
Ridiculous. For that matter, the entire human body is an "immune system". Even if it existed, then explain exactly how it is weakened or strengthened, in a purely scientific way. No bullshit hypothesis.
"Everything changes in nature. Flu viri evolve to take one example. Technically that's a new organism."
Did I say everything stays the same? Or are you now trying to baffle me with bullshit?
"As for the evidence that GMO food will harm you, I just posted two links to credible research that says just that. What have you got? Hot troll air? Seems so. Post real (not sponsored) independent research that proves it's safe, or take a hike please. I'm not joking around."
Your research blows as much as you do. First of all, let's define "harm", because if it makes your balls itch for 2 minutes, I hardly consider that harm. On the other hand, if you're trying to say it causes cancer or some other serious disease, then it needs to be 100% scientifically provable. Otherwise, it's horse shit.
Well, there's what I found, do with it what you like. Scientific research conclusions published in an open letter and scientific publication. Names and references.
I don't know if you're a persona or if you genuinely don't know about these things. If you don't, try a google, there's whole tribes that have written books about it. (and websites)
Best of luck though.. really. I don't want to insult anyone needlessly, but if you're this clueless about medical science and modern food production, you'll need it.
"Well, there's what I found, do with it what you like. Scientific research conclusions published in an open letter and scientific publication. Names and references."
The problem is that this stuff is rarely if ever scientific. The research is based on statistics. The situation is so bad that they resort to bullshit terms like, "Scientific Hypothesis". Basically, an oxymoron. A hypothesis is an educated guess, which is a polished turd. The guess is the turd, and the education is the polish. A guess is anything, ANYTHING but scientific, in fact, one could argue that it is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF SCIENCE. So a "Scientific Hypothesis" literally translates to "Unscientific Science".
"I don't know if you're a persona or if you genuinely don't know about these things. If you don't, try a google, there's whole tribes that have written books about it. (and websites)"
That's the whole problem in a nutshell. There are thousands upon thousands of research papers explaining how everything works, yet to this day, after spending TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS on medical research, modern medicine has yet to to cure a single disease. I repeat AFTER SPENDING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN RESEARCH, DECADE AFTER DECADE, THERE IS NOT A CURE FOR ONE FUCKING SINGLE DISEASE. What does that tell you?
The reason they can't cure a single disease is because they're looking in all the wrong places. If your glucose is this, or your vitamin B is that, is it not logical to consider that perhaps your MIND made it that way? Why must "the cause" ALWAYS be external/separate from the psyche? Put it this way, if you turn on your car and your gas pedal gets stuck, all the way floored, and then your car starts shaking violently, does it make sense to have the chassis reinforced to prevent the shaking, or is it just better to get the gas pedal fixed? Doh.
"Best of luck though.. really. I don't want to insult anyone needlessly, but if you're this clueless about medical science and modern food production, you'll need it."
"Medical Science"? Ya gotta be kidding me. FYI, modern medicine incorporates I believe over 3000 hypothesis. A "Scientific Hypothesis" is by virtue an "Unscientific Science". If you believe in that, then I don't need to insult you, you've insulted yourself.
I repeat AFTER SPENDING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN RESEARCH, DECADE AFTER DECADE, THERE IS NOT A CURE FOR ONE FUCKING SINGLE DISEASE. What does that tell you?
It tells you that it is more profitable to treat the symptoms of disease rather than to identify the actual causes and address them. And BTW, polio has been largely eradicated. Same with Smallpox. Same with Cholera except when water sources are polluted. Try googling John Snow.
"And BTW, polio has been largely eradicated. Same with Smallpox."
There is no cure for polio, neither is there one for smallpox. Being largely eradicated does not qualify as a cure, not even close.
Eradicating a disease is better than curing one. It prevents morbidity instead of treating it. Would you rather get sick and cured rather than never get sick at all?
First of all, none of these diseases have been eradicated. And if they have, they can still "return" according to modern medicine. So a cure is far, far better. Nevertheless, it appears no one can step up to the plate and answer one simple question: why is there no cure for even ONE SINGLE DISEASE after centuries of modern medical research and TRILLIONS of dollars spent? The answer is simple: diseases are caused by psychological trauma.
Lifespan histories strongly suggest you are mistaken. Modern sanitation greatly increased lifespans, and this has nothing to do with psychological trauma. And in more recent times, the discovery and administration of penicillin and other antibiotics have also increased lifespans These treatments have nothing to do with psychological trauma, so I am perplexed as to the source of your convictions. Do you have any actual evidence to support your view?
Peace Corp training manuals talk at length about disease in remote areas, and one of the low-hanging fruits for reducing disease is creating village latrines. Not much psychological trauma involved there, but low and behold, the incidence of disease miraculously decreases when these simple sanitation steps are taken.
I'm not sure what axe you're grinding, or who you're representing, but your arguments lack soundness and are wholly unpersuasive. If psychological trauma was solely responsible for disease, then lifespans should have been decreasing all throughout the 20th century, but when you look at the actual empirical evidence, lifespans have never been so long.
To amplify my argument, throughout most of human history, the average lifespan was around 30 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
But in the lasty fifty or so years, lifespan has increased to 67.2 years on a global average, and it is higher in the US. It it difficult to argue that the levels of psychological trauma are less now then they were at any time prior to the last hundred years, certainly in the US, so it seems that these data contradict, and in fact, invalidate your entire argument.
Can you provide any actual evidence to support your view, or is this entire rant just your opinion?
"Lifespan histories strongly suggest you are mistaken. Modern sanitation greatly increased lifespans, and this has nothing to do with psychological trauma."
But it is you that is mistaken. Do you know the common things you will find along with unsanitary living conditions? Poverty, malnutrition, and human suffering. All three greatly increase the odds of experiencing a psychological trauma.
"And in more recent times, the discovery and administration of penicillin and other antibiotics have also increased lifespans"
Utter nonsense. Lifespans have increased because human progress has led to abundance. Abundance in food, pleasure, thought, etc. While penicillin maybe good for a leg operation were you have a gapping wound. It is stupid to use on a disease, and even a bacterial infection that might result from the disease. Because it is the bacteria that actually assists the human brain in fixing the problem.
"These treatments have nothing to do with psychological trauma, so I am perplexed as to the source of your convictions. Do you have any actual evidence to support your view?"
Of course I have evidence. Scientifically provable 100% of the time.
"Peace Corp training manuals talk at length about disease in remote areas, and one of the low-hanging fruits for reducing disease is creating village latrines. Not much psychological trauma involved there, but low and behold, the incidence of disease miraculously decreases when these simple sanitation steps are taken."
And what other things tend to go with latrines? Help, food, assistance. More human contact and interaction, which makes a person "feel" better. Is that not psychological?
"I'm not sure what axe you're grinding, or who you're representing, but your arguments lack soundness and are wholly unpersuasive. If psychological trauma was solely responsible for disease, then lifespans should have been decreasing all throughout the 20th century, but when you look at the actual empirical evidence, lifespans have never been so long."
It only seems this way to you because you misunderstand the word trauma. Let me put it this way, it's unexpected, 100% indefensible psychological trauma that causes disease. Another word for it is, "SHOCK".
Not a very impressive argument, I'm afraid. Syphilis is a good example of a disease caused by a micro-organism that has been around a long time, and it is hard to argue that symptoms of the disease are either due to trauma or some other psychological problem. It's just an organism that our immune system has a hard time with. There are many others.
While I often appreciate debate, I don't think microbiology and infectious diseases are all that controversial, so I'm personally not willing to spend a lot of time to debate a radical point of view without any evidence presented. You are of course entitled to your opinions, but next time you get an infection that could lead to your death, you can actually test your theory on yourself instead of speculating here. Me, I'll opt for the antibiotics.
"To amplify my argument, throughout most of human history, the average lifespan was around 30 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy"
Those numbers are averages, so you really can't say what the real lifespan was. 200 years ago it was common for either the mother or child, or both to die during labor. What did that do to the lifespan? Reduce it. Lies, damn lies, statistics.
"But in the lasty fifty or so years, lifespan has increased to 67.2 years on a global average, and it is higher in the US."
See my last comment. There are many other reasons why we have a higher life expectancy. It's not medicine. One reason why it's higher in the US is our jobs are less dangerous than in other countries.
"It it difficult to argue that the levels of psychological trauma are less now then they were at any time prior to the last hundred years, certainly in the US, so it seems that these data contradict, and in fact, invalidate your entire argument."
The levels of psychological trauma are less today. Have you read about the Dark Ages? The Inquisitions? Nazi Germany? WWI WWII?
"Can you provide any actual evidence to support your view, or is this entire rant just your opinion?"
I sure can, but I won't. The paragraphs are too sort to continue debating, especially in the event someone tears into it (out of jealousy, fear, threat to livelihood, way of thinking).
Sadly, zerohedge doesn't have an internal mail system so you can't contact members directly. Only thing you can do is post your email address or a temporary email so I can send you the info. If you agree to this, then you must promise not to post the link at the very least in this article/thread.
"Not a very impressive argument, I'm afraid. Syphilis is a good example of a disease caused by a micro-organism that has been around a long time, and it is hard to argue that symptoms of the disease are either due to trauma or some other psychological problem. It's just an organism that our immune system has a hard time with. There are many others.
While I often appreciate debate, I don't think microbiology and infectious diseases are all that controversial, so I'm personally not willing to spend a lot of time to debate a radical point of view without any evidence presented. You are of course entitled to your opinions, but next time you get an infection that could lead to your death, you can actually test your theory on yourself instead of speculating here. Me, I'll opt for the antibiotics."
What's not impressive is when people defend a status quo with out proof whatsoever of their argument. Regarding syphilis you fail to understand that it is a symptom of a greater problem that begins at the psyche. You obviously didn't read or understand my car analogies. Diseases don't seem controversial to you because most people blindly accept modern medicine's theories and hypothesis. I already offered you proof that it is the mind that causes disease, 100% scientific which is irrefutable, but you passed up the opportunity. Sad. But it's not a surprise. Most people want to play sick at one point or another. It serves them well because they get special treatment by others. Also, it lets them off the hook when they've screwed up: instead of dealing with a bad situation that they've created, they get to blame something or someone else and take no responsibility for their actions.
1. you didn't really read or listen to the links in that post, which would be required to have a conversation about it (remember, you responded to my post - it's time to follow up the hollow words with some substance or STFU)
2. because you don't understand what's going on in your own body, you just throw everything in the wind (of course the medical profession in the USA, and the world over, has been tainted by corporate industry, but that does not mean you can say it's all nonsense.)
I can't be insulted by something that doesn't hit or hurt me.
Good luck..
"1. you didn't really read or listen to the links in that post, which would be required to have a conversation about it (remember, you responded to my post - it's time to follow up the hollow words with some substance or STFU)"
I read the second link:
"In a recent animal experiment, adult rats were made to behave differently by injecting them with a specific amino acid called L-methionine."
Really? Wow. What a breakthrough. So what happened to the humans that ate the GMO/Toxic food? Were there any humans...any GMO food? So much for "the link". Scientific, with references and all. Not.
"2. because you don't understand what's going on in your own body, you just throw everything in the wind (of course the medical profession in the USA, and the world over, has been tainted by corporate industry, but that does not mean you can say it's all nonsense.)"
But I do understand what's going on with my body. The correlation is obvious if you actually pay attention. If your mind is sick, your body will become sick. If you disagree, then once again I will ask, please tell me one disease that has ever been cured by modern medicine, just one?
Isn't your mind part of your body? How are you defining cured? People are cured of disease all the time.
"Isn't your mind part of your body? How are you defining cured? People are cured of disease all the time."
Unfortunately, "being cured" is loose terminology in modern medicine (as you'd expect from an Unscientific Science). For example, if you have cancer and it happens to go away while being treated (no cancer has ever been cured by modern medicine) for several years (they have hard cutoffs), then modern medicine will say that you are cured. Yet if the cancer returns, even in the exact same spot, it will be considered a new cancer. Modern medicine is perhaps the biggest scam of them all. If you actually read the research papers, study the procedures, and find out simple facts like chemotherapy extending life by an average of only a few weeks (and in some cases days), then you'll see that it is complete and utter bull fucking shit.
People are cured of diseases all the time, every day in fact. But not because of modern medical practices. Because there are no cures for diseases, what is offered instead is treatment. Everyday people are treated for diseases of all sorts. Some are cured, some are not. Just because some of them are cured WHILE being treated does not mean that the treatment cured the patient. In fact, NOT A SINGLE TREATMENT HAS EVER BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE CURED ONE SINGLE DISEASE IN THE HISTORY OF MODERN MEDICINE. NOT ONE.
Now with that in mind, would you consider alternative treatments if you had a disease? I sure fucking would.
Btw, I define a cure as: you go in, get a shot or an operation performed, and the disease is gone 100% of the time. But it will never work because diseases are caused by psychological trauma. There is nothing wrong with treating the effects of a disease as long as you know it starts in the mind. Yes, the mind/brain is part of your body...but your psyche? Where's that at ??????????????????
I understand where you are coming from with cancer but cancer is an extremely difficult disease to cure as the problem looks almost exactly like the patient. It isn't hard to kill a tumor, just put a bunsen burner to it and char the fucker. But it is hard to kill a tumor without killing the patient. Bacteria are sufficiently different that it is easier to kill the problem without killing the patient. Do you think penicillin cured any diseases or sicknesses at least or was that psychological too? I mean if an antibiotic eliminates an abcess of staph that is normally just regular flora, the idea that you need to completely eliminate the staph to be "cured" seems off to me. I'm not saying that there isn't a definite link between the mind and health. I dig that man like the shot of the tits. I just think you might be overstating your case and thus hurting it's legitimacy. And I agree that medicine and biology are messy sciences as they have so many unknowns and so many variables. They are never going to be as clean as chemistry and physics (some physicists might laugh at that).
Cancer is easy to cure if the sufferer can understand why the psychological trauma occurred and that is directly linked to the type of cancer he/she has, and if the sufferer can overcome the traumatic situation. You don't need to radiate, poison, or cut cancer to make it go away. That will never work. See my car analogy.
"Do you think penicillin cured any diseases or sicknesses at least or was that psychological too?"
You're talking two totally different things. Penicillin is an antibiotic that kills bacteria. Bacteria inside the body is not a disease. Neither is an abscess.
"I just think you might be overstating your case and thus hurting it's legitimacy."
Your thoughts are misleading you because of the indoctrination you've received. You believe problems within your body are outside of your control. Why would that be? Perhaps it's so you can run to "the system" for help. Perhaps they like the fact that you're being fooled so they can ineffectively treat the disease and cause suffering and premature death. Or, maybe it's just "good business". All diseases are caused by psychological trauma. This is scientifically provable 100% of the time.
"And I agree that medicine and biology are messy sciences as they have so many unknowns and so many variables. They are never going to be as clean as chemistry and physics (some physicists might laugh at that)."
It's messy because they exclude one important, significant factor: the psyche. Although some doctors do believe there is a link between mind and disease, they see it mostly as random and inconsequential. For the most part, we're just machines to them. A body is just like a car with a driver in it. If the car constantly pulls to the right, the mechanic will recommend an alignment. If the car continues pulling to the right, the mechanic will become confused and try to re-diagnose the problem, and perform new procedures. But if the mechanic actually sat in the car with the driver, he'd realize the driver was purposely steering the car to the right. How do you fix that? Tell the driver not to do that.
I have to admit these ideas are pretty far out man. I'm not agreeing with you but it is cool that you have an answer for everything.
"You're talking two totally different things. Penicillin is an antibiotic that kills bacteria. Bacteria inside the body is not a disease. Neither is an abscess."
What would you call an abscess if not a disease?
" Although some doctors do believe there is a link between mind and disease, they see it mostly as random and inconsequential. For the most part, we're just machines to them. "
I'm not sure about this. The placebo effect is fairly widely known and discussed and head scratched at. They might not include this variable because it further complicates things and is too hard to quantify and order.
"I have to admit these ideas are pretty far out man. I'm not agreeing with you but it is cool that you have an answer for everything."
Truth is stranger that fiction.
"What would you call an abscess if not a disease?"
A giant puss ball. That's all.
"I'm not sure about this. The placebo effect is fairly widely known and discussed and head scratched at. They might not include this variable because it further complicates things and is too hard to quantify and order."
They only use placebos to weed out the people who "think" they're diseased. To them, if the placebo cured the disease (or illness), they never had it to begin with. That's not to say some doctors (in fact, many) know that something else is going on, but they generally don't pursue things in this way. Unless they want to lose their license and starve.
"A giant puss ball. That's all."
So is cancer a disease or just a giant tumor ball?
"To them, if the placebo cured the disease (or illness), they never had it to begin with."
I'm pretty sure that's not how they think about it.
"That's not to say some doctors (in fact, many) know that something else is going on, but they generally don't pursue things in this way. Unless they want to lose their license and starve."
There's an "out there" center at NIH that might be willing to pursue studies on this if they show some process for producing data worth something. I just think it may make things way too complicated for a reductionist type of study.
"So is cancer a disease or just a giant tumor ball?"
According to conventional medicine, cancer is a disease, but not an abscess. People don't get an abscess for no apparent reason, but you can't say the same for cancer. That seems to be what is regarded as a disease: something bad that happens for no apparent reason. Notice that there is no scientific cause for cancer (smoking, eating). But there are substantial scientifically provable causes for getting an abscess.
"I'm pretty sure that's not how they think about it."
You'd have to post research papers that state a placebo-effect can cure a disease and that conventional medicine accepts and incorporates it into their treatment. Nevertheless, they are looking for cures (or weeding out those who "think" they're sick, as I believe). What about the cause? They don't accept that the mind can create the disease. So we're really looking at two things: what created the disease and what will cure the disease? In both cases, the mind.
"There's an "out there" center at NIH that might be willing to pursue studies on this if they show some process for producing data worth something. I just think it may make things way too complicated for a reductionist type of study."
It seems more alternative research is being done. But it's mostly still ignored.
Show me the money...
for some reason, the ALL IMPORTANT link dropped out of my post (human error possibly)
therefore... WATCH THIS!
http://www.vimeo.com/22997532
and THIS
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
and THIS
http://newresearchfindingstwo.blogspot.com/2010/06/monsanto-claims-paten...
"There's a number of issues that will lower the birthrate dramatically. All of these are linked to the destruction of our natural habitat."
The main "habitat" changes affecting western birthrates are: (1) The pill; (2) Attitudes of women about having children and at what age to have children; and (3) Having a lot of kids is no longer a good strategy to provide for yourself in old age. I do not believe either has anything to do with "toxins," "radiation," or "habitat destruction." They are technological (the pill) and cultural (attitudes).
Ah-nold's new catch phrase: "I vant you on your back"...
Honestly I don't want the human race to survive any longer, If I where a representative of an alien race I would sterilize this planet and start over
I started this life extreemely underprivileged from the lowest circles of society, but now that I have earned my way into the middle class(and going strong) I find humanity has nothing to offer regardless of how rich or poor you are
I very much share the view of 'Agent Smith' from the Matrix regarding humanity, just a virus run amok
I feel sorry for you. You do realize that Agent Smith was an evil robot conceived program, right? I'm sure the oligarchs would love to employ you in one of their many human being number reduction programs. Hey, maybe one day you'll try to reduce my numbers.
"You do realize that Agent Smith was an evil robot conceived program, right?" - Absolutely not, he was a sentient being (probably with way higher IQ than any human ever alive) with an educated opinion about humans, remember humans where the very cause for his existence, it's all that his existence revolved around
I find my self in a similar situation, as a 'human' I am forced to endure humanity regardless of how much I hate it
He was never 'evil'(an irrational human emotion) he was driven mad by humanity not being able to free him self from it, to the
point where he rather destroy the whole world including him self as long as he would get all man, however I don't think my life is worth even the whole human race, I would not commit suicide even if I could pull every1 else with me
Agree
Disagree, he was a character in a movie
you need to get laid
Clearly.
If I read these population predictions correctly, we all need to get laid.
Good evening miss, I noticed you from across the room and I felt compelled to share with you this most interesting report from the Deutsche Bank.
I'm sure that would go over real well with a girl who enjoys information from thieves and criminals.
I have read that those afflicted with Asperger syndrome have difficulty properly interpreting humor and irony.
Is that what you have? Is there something you're trying to communicate with me? Considering my post was humor/ironic laden?
A ladle full of humor and irony I would have noticed. Please pardon my missing your comedy thimble.
Thimble eh? One of those quantity over quality type of guys am I right?
Golf clap for the dryness quotient.
I was going to equate a ladle of comedy with the large pools of dripping comedic genius of Dane Cook but decided to go for a play on words route.
I have Asperger's. We interpret it just fine. We just don't think it's funny most of the time. Humor usually has the butt of the joke getting put down in some way. This doesn't sit well with most of us. A joke with a winner and a loser is so capitalistic. Tell me a real joke.
So a guy in a red dress and cowboy boots walks into a bar with a parrot on his shoulder, a cure 81 ham under one arm and a copy of Malthus' "An essay on the principle of population" under the other.
the bartender looks up and says......
"What is this some kind of fucking joke???"
ah, hugh g reaction, you miss the point. just because you like ANY piece of ass, most likely some fat, low esteemed, troubled soul to put your insignificant dick into, doesn't mean AZANNOTH should recquire the same masochistic relief. YOUR IMPLIED STATEMENT actually makes me think you are agent smith lolololol
While you did reply in depth to my assertion about a fictional character in a dumb hollywood scifi film full of high school philosophy and pseudo intellectualism, you failed to reply to, "I'm sure the oligarchs would love to employ you in one of their many human being number reduction programs. Hey, maybe one day you'll try to reduce my numbers."
That is telling.
the guy is a nutbag
no man... it was a documentary. Real. Prophetic.
Just like Escape from New York and Red Dawn.
WOLVERINES!!!!!!
The Colonel: All that hate's gonna burn you up, kid.
Robert: It keeps me warm.
what i don't get about the matrix, is why the robots didn't just go colonize mars and call it a day? they obviously had the capacity to do so, just fly up over the atmosphere and operate on solar..
never thought of that. stupid robots~!!
Weren't the robots a product of humanity in that movie?
what i don't get about the matrix, is why the robots didn't just go colonize mars and call it a day?
Or just plug in cows. But it was way uncool to express such sentiments at the time the movie came out. I thought it was a great first draft for a movie script.
Ummm... 'cause the movie would be 5 minutes long, and really boring?
"Bye bye, machines! Give us a call when you're settled!"
"Bye bye, humans. We'll come back for a visit at the holidays!"
The End
You need to spend some of that hard earned on yourself before there's nothing left to spend it on and stop reading ZH for a while.
1. I've changed my mind, I now am pretty sure we're not alone at all. (though it's not all green men in saucers, but much more "higher biological lifeforms" than that. It's of course possible that Philip Corso was right, partially, and there's something of an interaction going on. Most of that is speculation, and that don't make money. ;-P However.... Anyone that still is thinking the whole subject is hogwash, is really not paying attention.
2. I REALLY REALLY love this planet. It's great, compare it to Venus and you know what I mean. Destroying it, because of some dubious masterplan, incompetence, and sheer stupidity, is not a great idea. If we want to keep it like this, clusterfucks like Fukushima must be made impossible. It's as simple as that. The crucial moment is in the next 5 years. Not after the next 10 years, that's just when everything plays out.
3. Human beings are great too. Well most of them. The other half... not so much. :-)
4. The main strenght of the human race is coöperation and at the same time, competition. That's why a "global" government will never work. Not now, and not "after the culling". It's an idea based on monocultural elements, a sort of simple base, that is extrapolated on top of the whole. We're evolving, constantly, and a static prediction as above, is flawed, even if they're looking in the right corner (of genetic coding and strenght to reproduce). It's bullshit to only look at social economic developments. I think that's why it's so static a model.
5. Deutsche Bank is introducing a new concept here. A cumulation of past and present events. They're telling those that want to listen, what they're planning. Our "overlords" do that, I've noticed. They need peers, or at least, smart subordinates.
Here's another example along the same lines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
Sounds like you enjoyed writing that, yes?
I'm glad you are doomed to suffer the rest of your life with us. lol!
I am in the same boat as you Azannoth.
I also agree 100% with you, humanity is a virus to this planet...
The virus comprises idiots who spout platitudes and drop the signal-to-noise ratio at this forum.
Pot meet keetle
to temporis:
then why don't you and azzo hold hands and drink some cyanide kool aide?
Humanity is the greatest thing ever to happen to this planet and life. Terrarian life has no chance to spread beyond Earth without the cultural system of humanity. It has opened up an incredible opportunity of possibilities as much as the genome bearing cell did. It also is not going anywhere as it is way more powerful than a couple mortal oligarchs.
If only we could agree on how to live sustainably...
"Humanity is the greatest thing ever to happen to this planet and life."
That statement would mean a whole lot more if it wasn't coming out of some human's pie hole.
"Terrarian life has no chance to spread beyond Earth without the cultural system of humanity."
You might want to look up exogenesis and panspermia.
And WTF is "Terrarian"? Fictional life on a fictional Terraria?: http://www.terrariaonline.com/
Exogenesis and panspermia are BS theories expressly made up to kick the question of rapid evolution of life on Earth down the road. Terranian, which I mispelled, life is of course a reference to StarCraft.
You reveal yourself to be full of BS. evolution != abiogenesis. Exogenesis and panspermia have nothing to do with explaining the rapid evolution of life on Earth. They could be said to offer an alternative to abiogenesis happening on Earth, with the obvious caveat that it must have happened somewhere (or perhaps at many 'somewhere's).
And it's "Terran" you dumbshit. And no, it's not "of course a reference to StarCraft", as the word Terran is widely used in works of science fiction with that meaning and has been since before the people who created StarCraft were probably even born. FYI, "Terra" is the Latin name for the Earth, making the root of "Terran" thousands of years old. A human from Terra is a Terran. Calling them a Terranian is like calling someone from America an Americanian -- retarded. Apparently your education is confined to playing video games and posting BS on ZH. For crying out loud, you can't even spell "misspelled" correctly.
Exogenesis and panspermia was to say, hey, it doesn't seem like there was enough time on Earth to evolve current life from nothing, the molecular clock doesn't jive, so how about life was on Mars and it magically got transported to Earth. It is just nonsense. And it is about kicking the can of when life started down the road.
I can not believe how much you want to "get me" on terrarian. It wasn't meant as an attempt at trolling but it looks that way. I did not mean for it to be an attempt at trollling. I feel guilty about you busting a nut over it.
How much I want to get you on "terraRian"? All I did is ask WTF it meant as you appeared to be speaking gibberish and I had no way of knowing what you meant by it. Once you "corrected" yourself as meaning "terraNian" (still speaking gibberish) and referenced StarCraft it became clear that you meant "terran" and were simply too much of a dumbshit to get it right. I'm not sure how you get from being explicitly called a dumbshit to thinking I thought you were a troll. You think I would be afraid to call you a troll if that was my suspicion? Well, do you dumbshit?
Anyways, you have now provided enough data that it is possible to identify you with high probability as an "intelligent design" dumbshit. Congratulations. Enjoy the life that the natural universe gave you. Keep closing your eyes to every other possibility because we know that no matter what, you need to defend your indoctrinated pre-conclusion that "god did it", thereby preserving your egotistical "humans are the most important beings in the universe" world view.
Yes, terrarian was gibberish and the reference to StarCraft was funny but you just drank a gallon of double expresso so I understand your reaction.
Intelligent design? Hur? Where did you get that from? Actually, I was about to ask you about how you reconcile Carl Woese's ideas on pre-Darwinian life and the lack of a common ancestor with panspermia. Perhaps you'd like a serious discussion on abiogenesis and can forget 'terrarian' for 5 seconds?
"Intelligent design? Hur? Where did you get that from?"
From you dumbshit. The specific ways you are misrepresenting reality and the specific BS arguments you have brought up are straight from the "Intelligent Design for Dumbshits" playbook. Your latest post only provides more such evidence.
"Perhaps you'd like a serious discussion on abiogenesis"
If I did I would certainly not attempt to do so with a dumbshit such as yourself. A regular dumbshit I might try to educate, but ID dumbshits tend to be beyond help, so I'll take my leave. But don't let that stop you from pretending to have such a discussion with yourself.
"From you dumbshit. The specific ways you are misrepresenting reality and the specific BS arguments you have brought up are straight from the "Intelligent Design for Dumbshits" playbook. Your latest post only provides more such evidence."
Carl Woese is an "intelligent design" guy? I never read anything by him that mentioned or even alluded to it.
"If I did I would certainly not attempt to do so with a dumbshit such as yourself. A regular dumbshit I might try to educate, but ID dumbshits tend to be beyond help, so I'll take my leave. But don't let that stop you from pretending to have such a discussion with yourself."
Oh, I see. You can't use google to figure out what I'm talking about suddenly and are now going to run with a parting shot. Oh yeah, you fooled me and all those watching at home. I'm a little disappointed. I thought maybe the delay meant you were doing some research and this would get interesting. I guess you came up a little short.
"all those watching at home"
Dude, I doubt any one else is following this conversation except you and me (assuming you're even still there). If I believed otherwise, I might be tempted to show exactly how all of your ideas as presented are so messed up that they are "not even wrong", so that innocent bystanders aren't misled by your nonsense, and to stand behind my own positions. But since it's just you and me, the only motivation I could have for continuing is if I thought I could get something out of it, or at least help you get something out of it. My assessment however, whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, hell -- whether it's right or not (though I believe it is), is that not only are you spewing nonsense, but you have no real interest in exploring truth, and instead are only feigning interest in exploring truth as a rhetorical device, and that your real goal is to discredit by any under-handed means necessary all natural explanations for human life, thus leaving only ID as the "logical" solution -- even if you never bring up ID and instead just "leave it to the audience". (You provide a nonsense argument against abiogensis+evolution on this planet, and then discount exogensis out of hand, which only leaves super-natural mumbo-jumbo alternatives. Combine that with your specific uses of "molecular clocks" and "lack of a common ancestor" which shows no connection to the practical scientific uses of those phrases but a very strong similarity to how ID proponents abuse them, and it's really hard for me to reach any other conclusion about your intent.) Given that assessment, it's easy to see why I would not wish to continue. If you wish to try to change my assessment feel free, but excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for your success.
However, all of that said, if you want to quickly and easily get rid of the ID part of my assessment, all you have to do is proclaim your belief that human life is the result of natural processes and that you do not believe it is the result of an act of god or other supernatural being. (If you post but do not include such a proclamation, it will only add support to my ID assessment.)
Furthermore, if you really wish to demonstrate an act of good faith in this discussion, then I would suggest you start with your last bit of nonsense and directly address its failings (without introducing yet more nonsense):
"I was about to ask you about how you reconcile Carl Woese's ideas on pre-Darwinian life and the lack of a common ancestor"
and in front of the entire audience of 0 here, acknowledge that:
1) Whether by malace or ignorance, you have competely misrepresented Mr. Woese.
2) His claim has nothing to do with whether or not life on this planet started as a single entity, and rather his claim is restricted to the discussion of "direct descent" (as in inheriting DNA solely via reproduction, whether asexual or sexual -- aka "vertical inheritance").
3) A layman like yourself gets confused when they use google and find terminology such as "last universal [common] ancestor" and doesn't realize that it isn't talking about ancestors in the most generic "genetic donor" sense (which would include mechanisms such as horizontal gene transfer where a single organism can have a multitude of direct "ancestors" -- and where such ancestry isn't a tree or even necessarily a DAG (directed acyclic graph) as some of those ancestors may also be descendents), but in the more restricted sense described in #2 above.
In Woese's own words:
"Organismal lineages, and so organisms as we know them, did not exist at these early stages. The universal phylogenetic tree, therefore, is not an organismal tree at its base but gradually becomes one as its peripheral branchings emerge. The universal ancestor is not a discrete entity. It is, rather, a diverse community of cells that survives and evolves as a biological unit. This communal ancestor has a physical history but not a genealogical one."
Or in layman terms: Life was really fucked up back then. Organisms didn't have a neat ancestry tree based on passing DNA only to babies -- instead they were swapping DNA like teenagers swap spit, except they were also completely "bi" and even sluttier than a modern teen girl. So the "tree of life" we like to use to organize the history of evolution doesn't terminate at one species/individual -- it terminates at this big fucking mess of life. (And really there is no clear termination point -- it's more of a gradual reduction in the prevalence of horizontal gene transfer, which never went to zero -- it still happens today in microscopic organisms.)
In Woese's model that termination does not mark the beginning of evolution -- evolution also happened before that point. It only marks the point before which the tree model (and the idea of species) is neither applicable nor useful.
Is Mr. Woese's idea a reasonable one? Perhaps, at least in certain scenarios. Is it true? Well, maybe not the part about a community of organisms: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html
Another related article in that same issue of Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/465168a.html
A (very poorly written) article covering the above two can be found here: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/origins-of-life-on-earth/
Now I'm not a big fan of computer simulations as proofs unless the correctness of the simulation itself is proven. (GIGO is an all-too-common problem with sims.) But neither am I going to dismiss papers in a respected peer-reviewed journal without some good reason to believe there is a problem with them.
Note that this work does not dispute the idea of the big mess of life before the tree started and the possibility of a prevalence of horizontal gene transfer back then. It just claims that it's very likely that life on this planet today has a single common ancestor. Also note that it does not claim that that common ancestor was the original bit of life on the planet -- only that the graph(s) of life bottlenecked through that one individual (with its descendents being so successful that all other life on the planet was wiped out).
Even if Woese's ideas were true, that would not in any way rule out exogensis so long as the life that arrived favored horizontal gene transfer upon its arrival at Earth. Another way to look at this is: To the extent life arriving from elsewhere resembles life created locally by abiogenesis, Woese's model will work just the same regardless of whether the life originated here or elsewhere. Subsequently, there is no way to say that Woese's model eliminates the possibility of exogenesis without also saying that Woese's model eliminates the possiblity of local abiogensis, and Woese himself would certainly disagree very strongly with the latter (if not the former as well).
Furthermore, Woese's model is based on a whole chain of assumptions: His conclusion that there was a high prevalence of horizontal gene transfer in early life is due to his assumption that early evolution would favor the extremely rapid change propagation it can provide. That assumption is in turn based on the assumption that the original life on Earth was not actually a very good fit for the job of being alive. And that assumption is itself based on the assumption that the original life on Earth was an "accidental" creation of abiogenesis (i.e., a jumble of random parts that just by chance happened to kind of work sometimes, not a sleek machine either evolved or carefully designed to function efficiently and reliably). As soon as you talk about exogenesis instead of local abiogenesis, Woese's entire chain of assumptions collapses.
Once you understand the above, and admit that you misunderstood/misrepresented Woese, and that you spouted "not even wrong" nonsense as a result (asking me to resolve something where there was never any conflict to begin with AND where the part of the model with which you sought resolution has no real evidence supporting it and seems to have already been discredited AND where the model itself is based on assumptions which do not account for the possibility of exogensis), then maybe I'll engage further and show how other stuff you said was nonsense (or maybe you could just use google and engage in a bit of critical reading/thinking yourself). On the other hand, if you do not take this issue head on and instead resort to side-stepping with more nonsense and/or empty rhetoric, then don't expect me to expend any more time on you, and it will be clear to all 0 people in our audience that you are pretty much as per my current assessment.
LOL, it only took you a couple days to do this research. Someone that was already versed in the subject wouldn't write a high school paper on it like above. Keep hitting those books junior. If you expect me to keep reading in detail after that first long self-congratulatory paragraph, you're nuts.
By the way, you quote this, "I was about to ask you about how you reconcile Carl Woese's ideas on pre-Darwinian life and the lack of a common ancestor" as if the full quote that has "with panspermia" isn't there.
"So the "tree of life" we like to use to organize the history of evolution doesn't terminate at one species/individual -- it terminates at this big fucking mess of life."
I thought you were some kind of genius that knew this topic inside and out already? This is not true. Carl's study of the different highly conserved genes suggests Darwinian life budded from the HGT dominant community most likely at different distinct times. It has been a long time since I've read his papers but I believe two of archaea, bacteria and eukarya budded close to each other while the other was earlier. Not sure about that. Anyway, my original point of the lack of a common ancestor under Carl's model remains and does not fit with panspermia in my opinion. You might need a couple more days of reading to figure this out. Maybe you can explain how panspermia would fit into this? Are you saying the pre-Darwinian life could survive the ridiculous stresses of space travel? Are you saying cells of all three domains survived the shipment from Mars?
Okay, here are some more quotes from you:
"His conclusion that there was a high prevalence of horizontal gene transfer in early life is due to his assumption that early evolution would favor the extremely rapid change propagation it can provide."
No, actually, that is from how the tree breaks down for different highly conserved genes in different ways which suggests that highly conserved genes were being shared horizontally. The only way they could share rRNAs would be if things were a lot less rigid compared to Darwinian life. Hence, you have a recipe for HGT and rapid evolution. You kinda put the cart before the horse so to speak. But hey, it's a new topic for you.
"That assumption is in turn based on the assumption that the original life on Earth was not actually a very good fit for the job of being alive."
No, you're original "assumption" isn't right and this doesn't follow. Though this assumption is really common sense. You must like to type. If by chance you think that life's early struggles on Earth suggest it was from Mars, let me know so I can laugh. Actually, forget that. I've already preemptively laughed just in case.
"And that assumption is itself based on the assumption that the original life on Earth was an "accidental" creation of abiogenesis (i.e., a jumble of random parts that just by chance happened to kind of work sometimes, not a sleek machine either evolved or carefully designed to function efficiently and reliably)."
I'm not so sure about this. I believe Carl mentions Lamarck a lot in the HGT discussions and you might want to think that one over. Not to say that it was divine intervention at abiogenesis but something more than just chance could be involved. To be honest, I do not understand ID. Is it that God created some common ancestor or the original life? In which case, why do they talk about eyeballs which evolved so much further down the line? Is it that God created life 10,000 years ago? Taking Genesis literally to me is stupid since there are obvious literal impossibilities within the text (eg how can days - defined by the rotation of the Earth - pass before Earth was created?). I will say this, I think ID is dumb. I'm not going to say what you want me to say as I'm not for repeating lines at someone's request. I have issues with authority I guess.
"LOL, it only took you a couple days to do this research."
No, you're just a dumbshit who apparently doesn't realize that other people have lives and don't spend them like this: http://xkcd.com/386/
"Not to say that it was divine intervention at abiogenesis but something more than just chance could be involved."
Yeah, that's not like a reference to super-natural mumbo-jumbo at all. And your use of uppercase 'G' in god is not a dead give-away or anything. You're like someone who's gay and everyone knows it but you either haven't figured it out yourself yet or just can't admit it. (And no, that's not anything against gays.)
"I'm not going to say what you want me to say as I'm not for repeating lines at someone's request. I have issues with authority I guess."
There was no "authority" in play here. I handed to you on a silver platter the magic words that you could use to manipulate *my* beliefs. You chose not to use them. Either you have religious beliefs which prevent you from saying those words, or you are truly a dumbshit of epic proportions that doesn't know a "gimme" when he sees it.
Previously I stated: "On the other hand, if you do not take this issue head on and instead resort to side-stepping with more nonsense and/or empty rhetoric, then don't expect me to expend any more time on you"
Unfortunately you have done exactly that. For example, you did not even address that Woese's claim with respect to a last universal ancestor has been formally discredited, despite the fact that I provided links to two peer-reviewed papers in Nature that say exactly that. And instead (and rather incredibly) you blithely continue spouting that exact same discredited crap with "my original point of the lack of a common ancestor under Carl's model remains", and continue using that as a basis for a bunch of other nonsense. So I am done. I gave you a second chance and you blew it. I don't give third chances. And I won't be back to see what you spew next. (I may not be religious, but I do know about avoiding temptation.)
"who apparently doesn't realize that other people have lives"
You're claiming you have a life? LOL.
"Yeah, that's not like a reference to super-natural mumbo-jumbo at all."
I guess you couldn't find Lamarck in wired.com? Just try a regular google search. Oh, well, this was a quick post so I'm guessing no research went into this one. LOL.
"And your use of uppercase 'G' in god is not a dead give-away or anything. You're like someone who's gay and everyone knows it but you either haven't figured it out yourself yet or just can't admit it. (And no, that's not anything against gays.)"
This is the type of deep thinking analysis that really impresses me.
"...despite the fact that I provided links to two peer-reviewed papers in Nature that say exactly that."
You can keep telling yourself that since you can reference Nature articles that you found on Wired.com that you're a genius that has it all figured out. Tell your friends too.
"resort to side-stepping with more nonsense"
Do you remember how this started with you bringing up panspermia? You don't really seem interested in it anymore. Was that something you heard about on wired or NPR or the nightly news? Why not try answering my questions in my last post? You probably didn't have enough time! LOL. Hey, why not find a bunch of panspermia references from Nature? Here are a couple searches for you:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=panspermia
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=panspermia%20nature
LOL! LOL! LOL! Man, you are right on the cutting edge, aren't you? Why do you think Nature lost interest in the topic? I don't get it. LOL!
"So I am done. I gave you a second chance and you blew it. I don't give third chances. "
Oh, I'm crushed. How will I ever go on? Haven't you heard of three strikes? Geez, who am I going to laugh at now? No seriously, this has been a lot of fun for me dude. Thanks!
Another search for exogenesis. People are getting angry at me for laughing and making too much noise. Keep 'er real brah.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=exogenesis%20nature
LOL!
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-7...
What's that book that you guys love to read? Ishmael or something. Wow, that is very deep.
You're missing the 'a propos' point of Deutsch bank's analysis on population escalation:
DB represents the Oligarchy that has shat on its own power base by getting too greedy. The house of cards is now looking very dicy all round. In such a situation, they need a 'red herring' which is not a red herring in reality in the long term which makes it immediately credible, but which is one in the current 'clutch play' environment for these TBTF banks; now feeling the icy shadow of 'the nut cracker's vice', if the Pigs default as the USD could do any day.
We're in the scenario of WB's parody : 'stop thief' ! As they try to raise a false flag which creates angst elsewhere, on other issues, which are very real further down the road.
Next step : prepare the 'developed world' for poor world 'herd thinning' by appropriate 'Oligarchic' methods....As the commodity crunch drives its screws into the flanks of the most fragile elements of the human family. I think you get the picture...
LOL! agent Smith realized the only path to true liberty is a path free of human interference and ultimately, human contact. LOL!
He's a staunch libertarian.
I can only hope that you are kidding.
Azzanon You need pussy and more female companionship.
Lack of it is affecting your mood.
Ashley madison
Any ethnic friendfinder.com
Cougar sites if you are young enough.
And for a real challenge alt.com
Jack London said it first in "The Sea Wolf". We are like foaming yeast, each trying to gain enough food to reproduce.
Not a virus - they are nearly invisible. More like metastatic cancer with programmed apoptosis.
Not a virus - they are nearly invisible. More like metastatic cancer with programmed apoptosis.
"I started this life extreemely underprivileged from the lowest circles of society, but now that I have earned my way into the middle class(and going strong) I find humanity has nothing to offer regardless of how rich or poor you are"
Perhaps you should go back to poverty. Only then will you learn how to value human life again. If you don't want the human race to survive, why don't you do us favor and set an example so the rest of us can follow: jump in a lake.
Humans are nothing more than an evolutionary experiment, not the perfect cration of some god
The best book ever written (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/evolutionist-richard-dawkins.htm)
Chapter 7 - Family Planning "..The trouble is, so is the welfare state. I think that most of us believe the welfare state is highly desirable. But you cannot have an unnatural welfare state, unless you also have unnatural birthcontrol, otherwise the end result will be misery even greater than that which obtains in nature."
I think you need to spend a little time away from this site. I also find it kind of depressing but each day I meet and interact with some really great humans. The best of humanity is humble and never makes the headlines or is featured on this site. The world is full of truly good people doing selfless acts. Go and find some of these people and work with them. They are out there. We may be in for some rough times and the world may go through a big change but there will always be some good people. In the end the population may sputter out or the sun may explode but today is a beautiful day (especially for me because I bought silver @ $6.40).
The Matrix is Buddhist symbolism. The story is simple. Wake up. Life is beautiful.
"Life Is".
+1 Agreed
The problem is the 5% of the population that are certifiable socio-paths, 40% of those (or 2%) are psychopaths....
re psychopaths:
"Their emotionlessness reflects a detached, fearless, and possibly dissociated state, revealing a low-state autonomic nervous system and lack of anxiety. It's difficult to say what motivates them - control and dominance possibly -"
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath_2.htm
I know where you can find 535 of them in one spot.
I sent Bill Gates a thank you note for all the vaccinations which increases your life expectancy. He's doing God's work! No correlation between thier increased use and the falling fertility rates around the world and across all cultures. :)
And those 2% are running banks, central banks and governments. They make it to the top bbecause of their psychopathic ruthless streak that lacks compassion and empathy for their fellow human beings.
That is an understatement.
Life is neither beautiful, or ugly, it just is. It is the mind that labels things as this or that. The only way out of this matrix is to still your mind.
Yeah I like that. Nicely worded.
wait..
WHAT? 6.40? where?
Several years ago I traded sold my car and bought physical silver. Traded overproced German steel for under priced American silver. Price $6.40.
Well said about life being not good or bad. Life just is. Make what you want with it. If Darth Vadar and the evil overlord are running the banks then we just need to stay out of dept and out of site.
Azzannoth-You sound like a right barrel of laughs.
I wouldn't invest all your hopes in Dawkins, he doesn't actually know what consciousness is.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/17051
Azzannoth doesn't know either. The unfortunate thing is he thinks he does and that he is a deep thinker when he says stuff in a dreamy voice like "like maybe we haven't been born yet, man..."
The age of spiritual machines...
I think machines can achieve the purest and highest form of intelligence, because they will not have to deal with random chemicals interfering with their logical circuits, I think the highest 'evolved' beings in the Universe are intelligent machines.
Star Trek Borg or the Overmind(if such thing is possible) from 'Childhoods End' would be as close to optimal as you can get
Spirituality is just high level abstract thinking, no need to make it into something supernatural
Star Trek Borg, you say? Ever read La Bourgeoisie Homme?
I'll take the junk as a, "No, I haven't read that. I'm like living it, man."
asdfasdf - About 1,140,000 results (0.12 seconds)
"La Bourgeoisie Homme" - About 68 results (0.57 seconds)