Sunday, June 11, 2023

ANS -- Requiem for Our Species

Here is what some people would consider an extreme article.  I'm not so sure.  What do you think?  (It's about climate change and our almost non-response to it.  )
Find it here: Requiem for Our Species 



--Kim


Requiem for Our Species

The effects of the climate crisis intrude with increasing regularity into our lives and yet we do not act. We are as paralyzed as past civilizations were when facing catastrophic destruction.

JUN 11, 2023
261
134
19
Share

Lonesome Farewell - by Mr. Fish

Princeton, N.J. — As I write this, the sun is a hazy reddish orange orb. The sky is an inky yellowish gray. The air has an acrid stench and leaves a faint metallic taste in my mouth. After 20 minutes outside, my head starts to ache, my nose burns, my eyes itch and my breathing becomes more labored. Streets are deserted. The ubiquitous lawn service companies with their machine mowers and whining gas-powered leaf blowers have disappeared, along with pedestrians, cyclists and joggers. Those who walk their dog go out briefly and then scamper back inside. N95 masks, as in the early days of the pandemic, are sold out, along with air purifiers. The international airports at Newark and Philadelphia have delayed or canceled flights.

I feel as if I am in a ghost town. Windows shut. Air conditioners on full blast. The Air Quality Index (AQI) is checked and rechecked. We are hovering around 300. The most polluted cities in the world have half that rate. Dubai (168). Delhi (164). Anything above 300 is classified as hazardous.

When will the hundreds of forest fires burning north of us in Canada — fires that have already consumed 10.9 million acres and driven 120,000 people from their homes — be extinguished? What does this portend? The wildfire season is only beginning. When will the air clear? A few days? A few weeks? 

What do you tell a terminal patient seeking relief? Yes, this period of distress may pass, but it's not over. It will get worse. There will be more highs and lows and then mostly lows, and then death. But no one wants to look that far ahead. We live moment to moment, illusion to illusion. And when the skies clear we pretend that normality will return. Except it won't. Climate science is unequivocal. It has been for decades. The projections and graphs, the warming of the oceans and the atmosphere, the melting of polar ice sheets and glaciers, rising sea levels, droughts and wildfires and monster hurricanes are already bearing down with a terrible and mounting fury on our species, and most other species, because of the hubris and folly of the human race. 

The worse it gets the more we retreat into fantasy. The law will solve it. The market will solve it. Technology will solve it. We will adapt. Or, for those who find solace in denial of a reality-based belief system, the climate crisis does not exist. The earth has always been like this. And besides, Jesus will save us. Those who warn of the looming mass extinction are dismissed as hysterics, Cassandras, pessimists. It can't be that catastrophic.

At the inception of every war I covered, most people were unable to cope with the nightmare that was about to engulf them. Signs of disintegration surrounded them. Shootings. Kidnappings. The bifurcation of polarized extremes into antagonistic armed groups or militias. Hate speech. Political paralysis. Apocalyptic rhetoric. The breakdown of social services. Food shortages. Circumscribed daily existence. But the fragility of society is too emotionally fraught for most of us to accept. We endow the institutions and structures around us with an eternal permanence.

"Things whose existence is not morally comprehensible cannot exist," Primo Levi, who survived the Auschwitz concentration camp, observed. 

I would return at night to Pristina in Kosovo after having been stopped by Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) rebels a few miles outside the capital. But when I described my experiences to my Kosovar Albanian friends — highly educated and multilingual — they dismissed them. "Those are Serbs dressed up like rebels to justify Serb repression," they answered. They did not grasp they were at war until Serb paramilitary forces rounded them up at gunpoint, herded them into boxcars and shipped them off to Macedonia.

Complex civilizations eventually destroy themselves. Joseph Tainter in "The Collapse of Complex Societies," Charles L. Redman in "Human Impact on Ancient Environments," Jared Diamond in "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" and Ronald Wright in "A Short History of Progress," detail the familiar patterns that lead to catastrophic collapse. We are no different, although this time we will all go down together. The entire planet. Those in the Global South who are least responsible for the climate emergency, will suffer first. They are already fighting existential battles to survive. Our turn will come. We in the Global North may hold out for a bit longer, but only a bit. The billionaire class is preparing its escape. The worse it gets, the stronger will be our temptation to deny the reality facing us, to lash out at climate refugees, which is already happening in Europe and along our border with Mexico, as if they are the problem. 

Wright, who calls industrial society "a suicide machine," writes

Civilization is an experiment, a very recent way of life in the human career, and it has a habit of walking into what I am calling progress traps. A small village on good land beside a river is a good idea; but when the village grows into a city and paves over the good land, it becomes a bad idea. While prevention might have been easy, a cure may be impossible: a city isn't easily moved. This human inability to foresee — or to watch out for — long-range consequences may be inherent to our kind, shaped by the millions of years when we lived from hand to mouth by hunting and gathering. It may also be little more than a mix of inertia, greed, and foolishness encouraged by the shape of the social pyramid. The concentration of power at the top of large-scale societies gives the elite a vested interest in the status quo; they continue to prosper in darkening times long after the environment and general populace begin to suffer.

We will frantically construct climate fortresses, like the great walled cities at the end of the Bronze Age before its societal collapse, a collapse so severe that not only did these cities fall into ruin, but writing itself in many places disappeared. Maybe a few of our species will linger on for a while. Or maybe rats will take over the planet and evolve into some new life form. One thing is certain. The planet will survive. It has experienced mass extinctions before. This one is unique only because our species engineered it. Intelligent life is not so intelligent. Maybe this is why, with all those billions of planets, we have not discovered an evolved species. Maybe evolution has built within it its own death sentence.

I accept this intellectually. I don't accept it emotionally any more than I accept my own death. Yes, I know our species is almost certainly doomed — but notice, I say almost. Yes, I know I am mortal. Most of my life has already been lived. But death is hard to digest until the final moments of existence, and even then, many cannot face it. We are composed of the rational and the irrational. In moments of extreme distress we embrace magical thinking. We become the easy prey of con-artists, cult leaders, charlatans and demagogues who tell us what we want to hear. 

Disintegrating societies are susceptible to crisis cults that promise a return to a golden age. The Christian Right has many of the characteristics of a crisis cult. Native Americans, ravaged by genocide, the slaughter of the buffalo herds, the theft of their land and incarcerated in prisoner-of-war camps, clung desperately to the Ghost Dance. The Ghost Dance promised to drive away the white invaders and resurrect the warriors and buffalo herds. Instead, followers were mowed down by the U.S. Army with Hotchkiss MI875 mountain guns.

We must do everything in our power to halt carbon emissions. We must face the truth that the ruling corporate elites in the industrialized world will never extract us from fossil fuels. Only if these corporatists are overthrown — as proposed by groups such as Extinction Rebellion — and radical and immediate measures are taken to end the consumption of fossil fuel, as well as curtail the animal agriculture industry, will we be able to mitigate some of the worst effects of ecocide. But I don't see this as likely, especially given the sophisticated forms of control and surveillance the global oligarchs have at their disposal.

The awful truth is that even if we halt all carbon emissions today there is so much warming locked into the oceans deep muddy floor and the atmosphere, that feedback loops will ensure climate catastrophe. Summer Arctic sea ice, which reflects 90 percent of solar radiation that comes into contact with it, will disappear. The Earth's surface will absorb more radiation. The greenhouse effect will be amplified. Global warming will accelerate, melting the Siberian permafrost and disintegrating the Greenland ice sheet. 

Melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica "has increased fivefold since the 1990s, and now accounts for a quarter of sea-level rise," according to a recent report funded by NASA and the European Space Agency. Continued sea level rise, the rate of which has doubled over three decades according to the World Meteorological Organization, is inevitable. Tropical rainforests will burn. Boreal forests will move northward. These and other feedback loops are already built into the ecosystem. We cannot stop them. Climate chaos, including elevated temperatures, will last for centuries. 




The hardest existential crisis we face is to at once accept this bleak reality and resist. Resistance cannot be carried out because it will succeed, but because it is a moral imperative, especially for those of us who have children. We may fail, but if we do not fight against the forces that are orchestrating our mass extinction, we become part of the apparatus of death.

The Chris Hedges Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid


Friday, June 09, 2023

Fwd: Bit Tidbit!



---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Joyce Segal <joyceck10@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 3:02 AM
Subject: Bit Tidbit!
To: Kim Cooper <kimc0240@gmail.com>, Joyce Segal <joyceck10@gmail.com>


In a widely shared comment piece for the Guardian, comedian Rowan Atkinson said he felt "duped" by the green claims about electric vehicles (EVs).

In support of his contention, however, Atkinson repeats a series of repeatedly debunked talking points, often used by those seeking to delay action on the climate crisis.

Moreover, he suggests alternatives to EVs that are not yet widely available, would be less beneficial to the climate and are guaranteed to be more costly.

Atkinson's biggest mistake is his failure to recognise that electric vehicles already offer significant global environmental benefits, compared with combustion-engine cars.

While EVs won't solve all of the problems associated with car use – from traffic congestion through to our increasingly sedentary lifestyles – they are an essential part of tackling the climate emergency.

In its latest report, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said, with "high confidence", that EVs have lower greenhouse gas emissions than conventional cars. The IPCC said that electric vehicles not only "offer the greatest low-carbon potential for land-based transport", but their use would save money. (Despite elevated electricity prices, EVs are still much cheaper to run than petrol cars in the UK.)

Indeed, without a widespread shift to EVs, there is no plausible route to meeting the UK's legally binding target of net zero greenhouse emissions by 2050  and the same is true globally.

Contrary to Atkinson's article, EVs cut emissions in the "bigger picture" taking into account vehicles' full life cycles, from the extraction of oil or mining of lithium for batteries through to actually driving the cars.

As Carbon Brief noted some years ago, EVs already cut planet-warming emissions by two-thirds on a life cycle basis relative to combustion engine cars in the UK – and the benefits are growing.

Atkinson cites Volvo figures showing emissions from producing EVs to be 70% higher. This is misdirection. While many details of the Volvo study have been thoroughly debunked, the more important issue is that the emissions from producing batteries, while significant, are quickly outweighed by the CO2 emissions from fuelling petrol and diesel cars.

Atkinson is also wrong to say that the UK government's plan to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030, seems to be based on conclusions drawn from only one part of a car's operating life: what comes out of the exhaust pipe.

For starters, the government's cost-benefit analysis of its policy plans for cars talks in detail about life cycle emissions. Specifically, it mentions government-commissioned research that proves EVs offer a large and growing emissions benefit on a life cycle basis.

Echoing Carbon Brief's findings, the analysis says: "BEVs [battery electric vehicles] are expected to reduce GHG emissions by 65% compared to a petrol car today, and this rises to 76% by 2030."

That same analysis gives one answer to Atkinson's touting of hydrogen as an "interesting alternative fuel" to replace petrol and diesel. The research shows that hydrogen vehicles would only cut emissions by 39% today, relative to petrol engines, potentially rising to 56% by 2030.

Another answer is that there are still only 72,000 hydrogen-fuelled fuel-cell vehicles on the planet, accounting for a tiny fraction of the roughly 1.5bn cars on the road globally. In comparison, about 14m EVs are due to be sold this year alone, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Even Toyota, the carmarker most closely associated with pushing hydrogen vehicles and cited in Atkinson's article, has recently started to follow the rest of the market in shifting towards EVs.

Atkinson goes on to suggest hydrogen for trucks, inaccurately claiming electrification is a "non-starter" due to the weight of batteries. Yet manufacturers sold 60,000 electric trucks last year and now have 220 heavy-duty vehicle models on the market, according to the IEA. European electric truck sales grew fourfold in the first quarter of this year alone, according to Volvo.

As Auke Hoekstra at the Eindhoven University of Technology has argued, electric trucks will not have a major weight disadvantage over diesels. More importantly, says Hoekstra, they will be much cheaper to own and run.

The main problem with hydrogen vehicles is the same as for the "synthetic fuel" that Atkinson is also keen to promote. Specifically, both of these alternatives are incredibly inefficient, requiring many times more energy to drive the same distance.

Figures from NGO Transport and Environment show EVs can be driven two to five times further on the same energy as would be needed if using hydrogen or synthetic fuels. This thermodynamic disadvantage inevitably makes these alternatives much more costly to run than EVs.

A few of Atkinson's other claims are worth mentioning.

He says EV batteries only last about 10 years.

Yet most modern lithium-ion units are likely to last the lifetime of the car, according to Autocar.

Tesla's batteries are designed to outlast the vehicle.

He complains that new cars are only kept for three years before being sold. Yet he does not reference the secondhand market, and the fact that British people are keeping their cars for longer than ever.

He claims that it is better to keep running old petrol cars than to replace them with EVs. Yet a new EV would start benefiting the climate in less than four years, relative to an old combustion engine.

He claims that lithium-ion batteries contain rare earth elements. They do not.

In concluding, Atkinson says people should "hold fire" on EVs. This is linked to the false premise that EVs will be of real, global environmental benefit one day, but that day has yet to dawn.

The alternatives he promotes are not yet widely available, are less beneficial for the environment, and are thermodynamically guaranteed to be much more costly.

In contrast, and contrary to Atkinson's central claim, EVs already offer significant emissions savings, and their widespread use is central to meeting UK and global climate goals.


--
Joyce Cooper
CEO SunSmartPower
650-430-6243
SunSmartPower.com

Thursday, June 08, 2023

ANS -- The evolutionary paradox of homosexuality

This article was posted to FB by one of our readers.  It's about the evolutionary role of male homosexuals.  It also explains why homosexuals are more likely to appear in larger families.  



--Kim


The evolutionary paradox of homosexuality © Getty Images

The evolutionary paradox of homosexuality

Published: 09th May, 2018 at 00:00
Try 3 issues of BBC Science Focus Magazine for £5!

Being gay no longer holds the stigma it once did, but in evolution, why does a non-reproductive trait persist?

In 1913 George Levick, an explorer, travelled to Antarctica. There, he found something so terrible that he requested his findings not be published. In case the correspondence was leaked or intercepted, he took the further precaution of writing key sections in ancient Greek: these were not letters to be read by the lower orders.

Levick had been studying penguins: birds whose monogamous lifestyle had so impressed the Victorians that they had been held up as models of probity and integrity.

But he had seen something on his trip to the bottom of the world that had caused him to question that assessment. "There seems," he wrote with palpable shock, "to be no crime too low for these penguins." Levick's penguins, you see, were gay.

And if penguins can be homosexual, what was to say that that behaviour, far from being the perversion society presumed it was, was natural in humans too?

These days homosexuals, avian or otherwise, generally have an easier time of it. While we may have accepted that same sex attraction is natural, though, there is a far harder question: why is it natural?

We know that homosexuality is, at least in part, genetic. Studies show, for instance, that identical twins are more likely to be both homosexual than non-identical twins. So it is passed on by evolution. This is a problem, particularly so with men – who for obvious reasons find it harder to fake an interest in sex.

Imagine you had never heard of evolution, and someone described it to you. One of the most basic predictions you would surely make is that a trait that made people less likely to reproduce should die out. Male homosexuality, a trait that, at least among exclusive homosexuals, means people have no interest at all in the act of reproduction, should never have existed in the first place. And yet it does. How?




To answer that question, researchers have gone to a place where homosexuality itself does not exist, at least in the form we know it: Samoa. Here, in the South Pacific, there is a third gender called the Fa'afafine – a group born male who behave as women.

This is not the only place with third genders. There are the "Two-Spirit" people of Native America. There are the Khatoey ladyboys of Thailand. There are the Hijras of Pakistan. In 2004 a Hijra, Asha Devi, was elected mayor of Gorakhpur under the slogan "You've tried the men and tried the women. Now try something different".

Hijra offer prayers on the occasion of Urs festival in Hooghly near Kolkata © Saikat Paul/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images
Hijra offer prayers on the occasion of Urs festival in Hooghly near Kolkata © Saikat Paul/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images

Paul Vasey, from the University of Lethbridge in Canada, believes that homosexuality as it manifests itself in most of today's world is unusual. In more ancient cultures, he thinks you can see homosexuality as it was practised by our ancestors in deep time – as a "third gender".

And in looking at these third genders – in particular the Fa'afafine – he believes we can find clues as to why this evolutionary paradox of male homosexuality persists.

What is interesting for Professor Vasey is that, firstly, there is no recognised gay identity in Samoa and that, secondly, the Fa'afafine occur at the same proportion as male homosexuals in the west. He believes there is a simple explanation for this.

"I'm gay," says Professor Vasey. "But if I'd grown up in Samoa I wouldn't look like this. I'd probably look like a really ugly Fa'afafine."

Fa'afafine translates literally as "in the manner of a woman". Boys who appear more feminised in their behaviour will often be classified as a Fa'afafine, and brought up as something between a woman and a man. There is also an analogue for masculinised girls – Fa'afatama.

The fact they also go on to sleep with men is not the only similarity between Fa'afafine and western gay men. "There's all kinds of traits the two share in common. Both exhibit elevated childhood gender atypical behaviour, both exhibit elevated childhood cross sex wishes, both exhibit elevated childhood separation anxiety, both prefer female-typical occupations in adulthood."

For Professor Vasey, it seems obvious that being Fa'afafine and being gay is the "same trait, expressed differently depending on the culture." He even argues that the oddity is the West – that the way homosexuality manifests in Europe and North America may even be an expression of our repression rather than our freedom.

"The part of the brain that controls sexual partner preference, it's the same for all of us," he says. "It's just that if you take that biological potential, put it in Samoa where society doesn't flip out about male femininity, then feminine little boys grow up to be Fa'afafine. If you take that potential, put it in Canada, feminine boys learn pretty quickly they had better masculinise to survive." This, he believes, is precisely what he ended up doing.

Whether the "third gender" really is the ancestral form of homosexuality, with the way it is practised in the West today an aberration, is a separate issue. That it can take such widely different forms, shows the impact society can have on sexuality. That its prevalence remains largely the same also shows the limits of such socialisation – that there is something else going on. But what?

Professor Vasey is one of the very few scientists in the world looking at this question, and he does so thanks to the Fa'afafine. There are two specific theories used to explain male homosexuality that he is interested in. The first could be termed the "benevolent uncle hypothesis".

Alatina Ioelu does not remember not being a Fa'afafine. Yet he does remember not wanting to be one. "You don't really come out," he said. "You're just that. In a way it's good, in a way it's not good. When you're growing up as a kid you're innocent of your actions, how you move or sound. You're not aware you are doing something that doesn't conform to the norms of how society considers boys."

But he clearly didn't, because his classmates began to call him a Fa'afafine. "And so you grow up being known as that. I wanted to distance myself from it, I didn't want to be that." He couldn't, though, because he realised it was true. "In the end you're like, 'sh*t, that's what I am.'"

It would be wrong to claim that the Fa'afafine are completely accepted in Samoa. There is a place for them, however, and always has been. "They walk around and nobody says, 'Oh, that's a Fa'afafine'. In my family we have a long line going back. I have a great uncle that's a Fa'afafine, I have four second cousins, a first cousin…"

He realised that this itself was a paradox - all these Fa'afafine going back generations. "How the hell do we have Fa'afafine, and they don't reproduce? How is it we are still around, when we don't have children?"

He also realised that Professor Vasey may have the answer. Fa'afafine do not have biological children of their own. Conventionally, from the point Alatina realised who he was, he was taking himself out of the reproductive game. Or was he? Perhaps not entirely.

The benevolent uncle explanation is based on the idea that there is more than one way to pass on your genes. The best way to reproduce, in terms of percentage of genes passed on, is to clone yourself through asexual reproduction. Stick insects can do this. Humans, alas, can't.

The most efficient method we have to perpetuate our genes is sexual reproduction – passing on half our DNA each time. It is not the only option, though. Your siblings, for instance, share half your genes, which means your nieces and nephews share a quarter. To an uncle each of those nieces and nephews is therefore, from a genetic point of view, worth half a child.

Tafi Toleafoa, a fa'afafine living in Alaska, USA, tends to her niece during a family gathering after church © Erik Hill/Anchorage Daily News/MCT via Getty Images
Tafi Toleafoa, a fa'afafine living in Alaska, USA, tends to her niece during a family gathering after church © Erik Hill/Anchorage Daily News/MCT via Getty Images

What if simply having an extra man around, a benevolent uncle to provide for the extended family's children, was enough to ensure more of those children survive to reproduce themselves? This could be where the Fa'afafine come in. Alatina says that there are clear and defined roles for them.

"They become almost like the caretakers of families. They are responsible for taking care of the elderly, parents, grandparents, even their siblings' children. Because they are feminine they take up this motherly role in families."

Having an extra hardworking adult without dependants is no minor advantage. Everyone has extra fish, extra firewood – and fuller bellies. It is not implausible that, particularly in difficult times, a childless Fa'afafine could ensure more nieces and nephews reach reproductive age. That is the idea behind the benevolent uncles hypothesis, that good uncling becomes a form of reproduction in itself.

To test the theory, Professor Vasey looks to see if the Fa'afafine are more avuncular – literally, uncle-like. He has found that, compared to single straight men or aunts, they are indeed more likely to want to look after their nieces and nephews. They take more interest in them, babysit more than straight men, buy more toys, tutor more and contribute more money to their education.

Of course, in order for a gay uncle to be useful you need to ensure he actually has nieces and nephews (and preferably a lot of them) to be useful for. There's no point in being a good uncle with no one to look after. So it would be good for this theory if gay uncles were more likely to pop up in big families. Incredibly, they do.

One of the best-established and more intriguing results in homosexuality research is that the more elder brothers a man has, the greater his chances of being gay. The mechanism, only discovered this year, seems to involve each pregnancy leading the mother to develop antibodies against a protein involved in male foetal brain development.

The result is, as families get more likely to benefit from the services of a gay uncle, the chances of one appearing increases.

Problem solved? Not quite. In order for this to completely explain homosexuality, a lot of extra nieces and nephews would have to be born and survive – probably too many for the genetic mathematics to add up.

But Professor Vasey does not think the benevolent uncle theory needs to be a complete explanation. It can be one of many, and the other leading contender is the "sexually antagonistic gene hypothesis", more snappily known as the "sexy sisters hypothesis".

What if the genes for homosexuality persist because despite making non-reproductive (if avuncular) men, when they appear in women they produce excellent breeders? Again the Fa'afafine, and Samoa, have been his laboratory. Professor Vasey took 86 Fa'afafine, and 86 heterosexual Samoan men. He then looked at their grandmothers – who are easier to study than sisters, because all their breeding is already finished.

He found that the grandmothers of the Fa'afafine were indeed better breeders. The theory is simple. By passing on their genes these grandmothers might end up with the occasional grandson who wears dresses and doesn't reproduce (though always remembers his nieces' and nephews' birthdays). But they themselves, thanks to the very same genes, were also better at reproducing – so made enough other grandchildren to make up for it. There is a problem, though, given the way the theory was originally framed. Somehow, the "sexy grandmothers' hypothesis" just doesn't have the same ring to it.