The founder of the Grauniad, John Edward Taylor, described a business tycoon, appears to have set the tone for that organ's sanctimonious contempt for the lower-orders in his comments following the Peterloo Massacre:
"They [the leaders] have appealed not to the reason but to the passions and the suffering of their abused and credulous fellow-countrymen, from whose ill-requited industry they extort for themselves the means of a plentiful and comfortable existence." (from Wiki)
Interestingly the body that organised the meeting was called the Manchester Patriotic Union. How vulgar.
Politics are not an instrument for effecting social change; they are the art of making the inevitable appear to be a matter of wise human choice. ~ Quentin Crisp
When people say, 'Populations that fall way below replacement level rarely recover' or some such I never understand it. Since we recovered from a genetic bottleneck of between 4,000 - 10,000 humans 75,000 years ago then why shouldn't, say, the Japanese population bounce back after going down to 100,000,000 people?
Some talk as though the course were set and very little can change it but why? If low birth rates were caused by overcrowding in urban areas then surely as these areas became less crowded then people would naturally have more children.
If they are able to deal with the economics (hard, I know) I think that would be a good thing. After all, what's wrong with a Japan with 'only' 80 million inhabitants?
Maybe you can answer a question that has always puzzled me and is related to this. If Japan could persuade it's oldies to work until they were say, 75, assuming they were willing and able, would this solve the pension crisis/worker shortage or would it simply take jobs away from young job seekers? I think the answer might be, 'It depends how dynamic the job market is' but I want to check.
I've never heard anyone say that populations that fall below replacement level rarely recover, but maybe I just haven't been paying attention. I suppose it may have been true historically. But why? Because they were surrounded by other populations that were producing plenty of babies, right? If everyone is producing few babies, then the equation changes, doesn't it?
That may have been a slight exaggeration on my part and you are probably right, it may all depend on other factors like whether the surrounding tribes have high fertility rates.
And now you come to mention it that claim must be nonsense since we had below replacement fertility prior to the post-WWII baby boom. So what the hell am I talking about? Beats me.
There’s an interesting correlation between solar activity and volcanism - that as solar activity decreases (ie we enter a solar minimum) volcanic activity increases. Which is a bummer, since just when you need more heat, cos the sun has cooled a tad, you get volcanoes popping off to further reduce the temperature. We are about to enter a solar minimum, in 2025 or thereabouts, which will last until around 2050. So I forecast a few not insignificant volcanic eruptions in the next few years.
On the upside, the climate change / AGW hysterics will go into a complete tizzy, as global winter kicks in. Unfortunately, having screwed up the fossil fuel industry, many of us will die, of cold or hunger.
The reason for the correlation between solar activity and volcanoes is not really understood. It may be because of the change in the electro-magnetic fields around the sun, earth and moon. Since the earth is basically a large iron ball, its sensitivity to electromagnetic forces is understandable.
The prehistoric volcano that 'occurred' 75,000 years ago is but one example of 'scientific findings.' Since the mid-twentieth century, nuclear devices and radiation leakage from nuclear power plants have so tainted our environment as to render radioactive decay dating questionable. If scientists were honest, they would admit that such dating is unreliable exceeding 5,000 years ago.
That is the least important, though in support of, observations I would like to make regarding this article. Most importantly, volcanic eruptions and other natural occurrences have a far more drastic effect on global climate than that caused by man. In addition, that climate 'science' has 'proven' that industrial pollution is taking us to the brink of extinction has been fabricated for political reasons should be obvious to any reasonable person.
As the dating of prehistorical material has been grossly exaggerated in support of Darwinism, the harping of climate extremists has been in support of the sociopathic, Malthusian rush toward population reduction; in both cases, and many others, 'science' is being misused for political purposes. Most of this article provides information in support of my observations.
The amount of electricity storage needed to square renewable fantasies is unfeasibly gargantuan. However, most estimates only look at weather patterns going back a few decades, not accounting for rarer black swan events.
When the mania of our current politicians for weather dependent, intermittent generation runs headlong into a 'year without summer', all the traditional privations of such an event will be magnified as the lights go out.
Very interesting. Of course I’ve known about the sunless periods endured post volcanic activity but never really thought about the extent to which human history has been so influenced by this mighty hand of nature. It certainly gives some context to the obsession of modern man (well, some, count me out) with trying to fine tune the earth’s temperature to 1.5 degrees above an arbitrary historic point when the earth can so dramatically have the last laugh.
Of the 20 largest volcanic eruptions of the last 2,500 years, ‘none fall between the death of Julius Caesar and the year AD 169’, although the most famous, the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79, did.
With Ed's correction, that makes Mr. Harper's sentence an odd one, on a par with, 'What have the Romans ever done for us?'
The Tunga Tunga recent eruption increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere by 10% and will play into the global warming narrative for several years to come.
“Around 75,000 years ago”. As much as I love history and ancient history, and enjoyed this piece, whenever I read about something from more than about 2000 BC, I just don’t believe it at all.
Without volcanoes we'd still have the Eastern Roman Empire and wouldn't have The Guardian? We really need to find a solution to this menace.
haha
The founder of the Grauniad, John Edward Taylor, described a business tycoon, appears to have set the tone for that organ's sanctimonious contempt for the lower-orders in his comments following the Peterloo Massacre:
"They [the leaders] have appealed not to the reason but to the passions and the suffering of their abused and credulous fellow-countrymen, from whose ill-requited industry they extort for themselves the means of a plentiful and comfortable existence." (from Wiki)
Interestingly the body that organised the meeting was called the Manchester Patriotic Union. How vulgar.
Politics are not an instrument for effecting social change; they are the art of making the inevitable appear to be a matter of wise human choice. ~ Quentin Crisp
The volcano which caused the Russian time of troubles was
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huaynaputina
You can see it from Arequipa which is Prru's second city. Arequipa is also on a volcano - Misti.
The Inca used to expose their children to the mountains.
I
When people say, 'Populations that fall way below replacement level rarely recover' or some such I never understand it. Since we recovered from a genetic bottleneck of between 4,000 - 10,000 humans 75,000 years ago then why shouldn't, say, the Japanese population bounce back after going down to 100,000,000 people?
Some talk as though the course were set and very little can change it but why? If low birth rates were caused by overcrowding in urban areas then surely as these areas became less crowded then people would naturally have more children.
it will go down to a lot less than 100m tbf. could see a 3/4 drop by end of the century I think
If they are able to deal with the economics (hard, I know) I think that would be a good thing. After all, what's wrong with a Japan with 'only' 80 million inhabitants?
Maybe you can answer a question that has always puzzled me and is related to this. If Japan could persuade it's oldies to work until they were say, 75, assuming they were willing and able, would this solve the pension crisis/worker shortage or would it simply take jobs away from young job seekers? I think the answer might be, 'It depends how dynamic the job market is' but I want to check.
All a question of a nation's will to survive or not.
I've never heard anyone say that populations that fall below replacement level rarely recover, but maybe I just haven't been paying attention. I suppose it may have been true historically. But why? Because they were surrounded by other populations that were producing plenty of babies, right? If everyone is producing few babies, then the equation changes, doesn't it?
That may have been a slight exaggeration on my part and you are probably right, it may all depend on other factors like whether the surrounding tribes have high fertility rates.
And now you come to mention it that claim must be nonsense since we had below replacement fertility prior to the post-WWII baby boom. So what the hell am I talking about? Beats me.
There’s an interesting correlation between solar activity and volcanism - that as solar activity decreases (ie we enter a solar minimum) volcanic activity increases. Which is a bummer, since just when you need more heat, cos the sun has cooled a tad, you get volcanoes popping off to further reduce the temperature. We are about to enter a solar minimum, in 2025 or thereabouts, which will last until around 2050. So I forecast a few not insignificant volcanic eruptions in the next few years.
On the upside, the climate change / AGW hysterics will go into a complete tizzy, as global winter kicks in. Unfortunately, having screwed up the fossil fuel industry, many of us will die, of cold or hunger.
The reason for the correlation between solar activity and volcanoes is not really understood. It may be because of the change in the electro-magnetic fields around the sun, earth and moon. Since the earth is basically a large iron ball, its sensitivity to electromagnetic forces is understandable.
https://youtu.be/15joCwPYYk8?si=h2RJIfd-ZT514CZo
lol
Fascinating stuff
thanks!
The prehistoric volcano that 'occurred' 75,000 years ago is but one example of 'scientific findings.' Since the mid-twentieth century, nuclear devices and radiation leakage from nuclear power plants have so tainted our environment as to render radioactive decay dating questionable. If scientists were honest, they would admit that such dating is unreliable exceeding 5,000 years ago.
That is the least important, though in support of, observations I would like to make regarding this article. Most importantly, volcanic eruptions and other natural occurrences have a far more drastic effect on global climate than that caused by man. In addition, that climate 'science' has 'proven' that industrial pollution is taking us to the brink of extinction has been fabricated for political reasons should be obvious to any reasonable person.
As the dating of prehistorical material has been grossly exaggerated in support of Darwinism, the harping of climate extremists has been in support of the sociopathic, Malthusian rush toward population reduction; in both cases, and many others, 'science' is being misused for political purposes. Most of this article provides information in support of my observations.
Fascinating.
The amount of electricity storage needed to square renewable fantasies is unfeasibly gargantuan. However, most estimates only look at weather patterns going back a few decades, not accounting for rarer black swan events.
When the mania of our current politicians for weather dependent, intermittent generation runs headlong into a 'year without summer', all the traditional privations of such an event will be magnified as the lights go out.
Very interesting. Of course I’ve known about the sunless periods endured post volcanic activity but never really thought about the extent to which human history has been so influenced by this mighty hand of nature. It certainly gives some context to the obsession of modern man (well, some, count me out) with trying to fine tune the earth’s temperature to 1.5 degrees above an arbitrary historic point when the earth can so dramatically have the last laugh.
Absolutely splendid! Puts things into a meta perspective.
thank you!
Of the 20 largest volcanic eruptions of the last 2,500 years, ‘none fall between the death of Julius Caesar and the year AD 169’, although the most famous, the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79, did.
With Ed's correction, that makes Mr. Harper's sentence an odd one, on a par with, 'What have the Romans ever done for us?'
well it wasn't a globally significant eruption.
Admittedly it would have felt pretty significant if you lived in Pompeii :(
'What do you mean, "not significant"?' as magma falls all around you.
Ah, I see. I assumed Kyle Harper was making a point about the stability of Roman civilisation as opposed to the world.
I know I often plug Robert Harris but if you ever find the time to read a novel then I can recommend Pompeii by him.
I loved his recent civil war novel on holiday.
The Tunga Tunga recent eruption increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere by 10% and will play into the global warming narrative for several years to come.
I think we may be approaching another “bottleneck”
“Around 75,000 years ago”. As much as I love history and ancient history, and enjoyed this piece, whenever I read about something from more than about 2000 BC, I just don’t believe it at all.