There are many toxins that decrease a species fertility rates. Commonly a species that experience that and does parenting will spend additional time with each offspring to insure greater chances of survival. That is seen over and over though out the animal kingdom. This has also commonly been seen in people who have wealth through out history.
Both men and women of wealth have demonstrated a lower fertility thoften accompanied by a much lower interest in having children. While it doesn’t happen to all that have wealth it does effect the overwhelming majority. In times past this has even led to having a whipping boy to take the punishment that the child of wealthy parents would have so as to not damage him. In other places it has led to wealthy men having more than one wife. The decreased fertility has been seen all over the world in every culture that such concentration of wealth can take place. So does that make wealth a toxin and what does that mean for the future?
Some of those effects can already be seen. Already the birthrates in the wealthier countries has fallen below what the death rates are. Without immigration from countries that this has not happened yet there would be a chronic shortages of people able to maintain that society. Those countries also have some of the strictest laws concerning the mistreatment of children . They also have the highest per capita spending on training and carring for those children. These places also prolong the parents raising of children and taking care of their needs (and protecting them from their mistakes)well into young adulthood.
These places also have a significant amount of the population that is well past maturity. As there are a far fewer percentage of the population in the work force they are staying part of it longer. Nor with so fewer children can they expect them to look after them in their older years and are much more likely to have to either put away for them or depend on either government or private charity increasing the burden on those in the work force. Those are some of the effects of reduced fertility just so far.
Over the next couple centuries some of those will intensify. As the other countries also become wealthier the source of outside labor will disappear. This will likely push the age of retirement up to those that have passed the average age of death once again. It can also result in an actual drop in population as no or only a few countries can maintain their population. This will result in great difficulty in maintaining those societies.
Even tougher child safety laws will likely come about. An even higher per capita spending on training and carring for the children will most likely occur word wide. Quite possibly the artificial womb will replace abortion as the legal way to end a pregnancy in many places.
But that is the next century or two longer term? Not everyone is effected by drastically reduced fertility because of wealth. Those that are resistant to the toxins of wealth will pass on those genes far more often than the rest of the population. As the genes for resistance to the toxin of wealth become more and more common the population growth rate will recover and once again sufficient number to maintain the society will be more readily available. Retirement age will again fall and other changes will happen.
It is something to think about.
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press have long been misunderstood and miss represented by the different groups depending on their agenda. Both are statements that the government is not allowed to prevent you from saying or writing what you want. It is not a guarantee of information and it is certainly not a protection from the consequences of what is said or written as some people seem to believe.
If you make a false claim you are entirely liable for the damages such a claim entails. For that reason many publications are very clear when stating opinions verses reporting facts though this is becoming less common now with the news magazine format. Advertisement is often sued for miss representing facts as are different publishers. Free speech doesn’t protect you from the consequences of lying about things.
Nor does it protect against slender and verbal assult. Yet there seems to be a very common misconception that it does. People often used the idea that they have free speech to verbal harass and abuse others. Verbal abuse is still abuse verbal assult is still assult and at their core forms of violence. Yet many people are surprised when they initiate that form of violence to be met with more or even greater violence and scream for the police to do something about it. You don’t have the right to harass others. Depending on location and political climate the person that started the verbal assult is often the only one charged. They usually come away from such an encounter feeling that it was their right to free speech that was violated never even considering that they didn’t have the right to harass others in the first place.
In some cases the local government have taken the extra step of declaring certain types of speech “hate speech ” and punishing only those or increasing the penalty against those forms. The result of only choosing to penalize the harassing speech against specific groups or people and not others is exactly what free speech is suppose to prevent. These special laws violate the principal of equal justice for everyone. They also in many cases increase the hate toward specific groups by favoring one group over another in the eyes of justice.
80 years ago in most of the country, a black man said something hateful against whites he could be looking at jail time while white people doing the same would be ignored. Non Christian saying anything against followers of Christ would be punished but almost never was it the other way around. But now there are places that the exact opposite occur. The answer is not to change who is and is not protected but to apply the rules uniformity.
If it is illegal for people to harass and verbally abuse one type of people all people should be entitled to that same level of protection.
at least that is what I think.
Another mass shooting another round of blame and accusations. Is the easy way that guns are available the cause? Or is it that the people are left defenseless that is the cause. The truth is neither positions is correct. A person intent on harming others will not be stopped from trying to by either action. Both believe that the levels of success of those that wish to carry out such actions might be curtailed if their own advice is followed and are at least partially correct in that. Gun control advocates are correct that if it more difficult to get a gun then there is a higer chance of them reconsider that actions before carring it out. The other side is also correct that a much higher percentage of people carring guns increases the likelihood of there being someone there able and willing to stop the person. Neither solution is completely workable. Neither solution even pretends to actually address the cause of such events.
What is the cause? Some will say it is a society that doesn’t care. Some will blame the lack of mental health care. Some say it is because we are a godless people run by degenerates. Yet more people will sight dehumanizing media. There are dozens of other things sighted. But they by enlarge miss the primary cause. When you bully and/or attack someone you can count on some of them reacting with violence. A certain percentage of those that react to being bullied with violence will commit mass shootings.
Bullying in today society is rampant still though many types and aspects of it have shown a marked decrease. While bullying because of race, sex, sexual orientation and religious belief are declining they still exist and we have added many many more reason to bully people. The vice laws, laws against drinking, drug use, gambling and sex for hire account for a large amount of the bullying going on. Yet even that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Nearly all zoneing, and community standard laws are an attempt to bully the undesirable out of the area. All trade/occupational license are bullying of those involved into approved practices. Even our medical system has become full of bullying only those practices that are approved any those people that we have approved may practice medicine and you are forbidden to buy the stuff to treat yourself without their approval.
If you have ever applied for social services you will find bullying there too as the people decide weather or not you are deserving of help by looking into your background. Furthermore the social services are bullying people into helping who others feel need than help instead of who you feel you should help. This list goes on and on.
Next time there is a mass shootings and you want to look for the person to blame start by looking in the mirror and the bullying you voted to do.
There have been many post about the evils of medical care for profit. Yet it is the very principal of medical care for profit that has generated a medical industry that now accomplishes so very much more than even a century ago. The vast majority of people that have gone into a medical field have done so because it is a more profitable way of making a living. Nearly all medical advances are the result of people investing money to make a profit in medical technology. The results you can see for yourself. The number of things that can now be treated is far higher than ever before and the number of people will to work in a medical field is at an all-time high. All the result of practicing medicine for profit.
But there are many significant problems with the system. One of those is that those involved in such don’t want to be held liable for their actions while others are trying to hold them liable for things that they have no control over. This has resulted in a massive amount of cost added in the form of liability insurance. A second is to protect their own profits the person investing and providing those people have gotten laws inacted to severely restrict who is allowed to provide what. While this does have the effect of removing most of the least competent is also keeps competent some competent people out and significantly increases the levels of cost.
Yet a third problem comes from having to pay these professionals for permission to used these medical advances. Especially the drugs. Without a doctor signing off you may not purchase most of them and you may only purchase them from those that they have approved. Then there is still another problem with health care for profit system as it stands today. The newest and best system take a lot of capital investment to develop so the newest and best is the most expensive. Yet everyone demand that they receive the best and still worse will hold the medical practitioner responsible should they not use such. Yet if the profit incentive is removed the capital for investment in them disappear. But those newest and best are only available because there is profit in offering a better treatment. Stop the profit and stop medical advances.
Still further complicating the problem with the present system is the way new technology is regulated, approved or disapproved. This has likely slowed down medical advances by 25 years over the past century. The deaths and being forced to pay for less effective methods is yet another problem.
For profit medical treatment is not the real problem. For profit medical treatment is at the heart of why so many previously untreatable conditions can now be treated and is core to the further advancements of the medical field.
In 2017 some late term lambs fetuses were transferred to an artificial womb. They developed successful and were born. Many people that have trouble carry full term greeted this news happily. Yet there is still much work to be done before this is a viable option and already there are those attempting to control who is and who is not allowed to use this method and who is and who is not to be entrusted with carrying out such a procedure.
One thing that is certain is when such is first available it will be expensive. The infighting over who is and who is will make it even more so. In the beginning there are certain to be mistake and people will suffer because of them. Yet people are already suffering because of the lack of this technology. Those Thisto control this and other technology are prolonging how long they will take to be developed and how many will continue to suffer the lack.
This isn’t the only medical technology that is being delayed in development. Indeed regulations have probability delayed enough technical development that we are now 10 to 20 years behind where we could be and it is costing us 4 times what it should not inclusive of the additional non needed suffering and even death that those technologies would prevent.
The artificial womb technology is still in the very early stages and is as yet only for late term possible use. Instead of throwing more obstacle in the way isn’t it time to start cleaning out the obstacles and inflated cost to develop this and other technology.
Nearly all higher efficiency sustainable technology requires a much higher capital investment than less efficient methods. Be it solar, wind or hydro power or high efficiency farming practices the initial capital out lay is often quite staggering. In a high tax environment only a few people can and will accumulate the funds need to use such method and borrowing the money to do so is even less appealing. Tax breaks and subsidies for specific technology can offset some but the reality is that the taxes required to pay the subsidies will actually reduce the number of people that will invest in such method in a greater number that those that do it because of the subsidies. There are quite a lot of people that would like to switch to the more sustainable method that the up front capital investment is preventing. The more people that decide to make the switch the cheaper it becomes for each as the suppliers of said technology increase. To increase the number of people using sustainable technology reduce the levels of taxes so that more people can accumulate the capital needed to invest in such.
The fact that more mass stores more energy is one that is often ignored or even outright denied by many climate scientists. However the mass of the atmosphere of earth has been highly variable in it’s very long history. It tends to be at its lowest points during ice ages and has climbed to levels much higher than today during the hottest times in the history of the planet. The key factor in temperature has always been just how much atmosphere is there .
There is roughly 7800 kg of nitrogen and 2200 kg of oxygen and trace gases over a square meter of earth. ( just roughly) the nitrogen appears to be moderately stable at that but the oxygen has been lower and it has been quite a bit higher. Even higher than twice that amount. The fossil and geological records are quite clear on that point. But any increase in mass means an increase in the amount of energy stored for every degree of temperature. It takes longer for the atmosphere to radiate enough energy to to cool resulting in a rise in temperature. Yet many climate scientists have denied this to be the case.
Another result of increasing the levels of oxygen to nitrogen is a rise in both forest fires and an increased biological decay of organics. This factor leads to a higer percentage of the oxygen being in the form of CO2. It is this CO2 which is the result of the higher mass of the atmosphere than they try to point to as the cause of higher temperature instead of the effect.
This error is inditectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people world wide. It has kept millions from being able to improve their own lives. While only a small percentage In Europe and North America actually lose their lives do to the restrictions this is not the case in third world countries. The policies of restrictions on co2 producing technology has led to it inability to afford clean drinking water, enough nutritious food and shortages of medicine that are completely un necessary and cost lives every damn day in these places.