Home « Forum « Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

For Post-Apocalyptic Authors: What's the minimum population required to repopulate the earth?

Crumbly Writer

Found this today on Quora, and thought other authors might appreciate the detail:

This was figured out about 20 years ago as a consideration for space travel.

The minimum population of humans needed to maintain genetic diversity and survive a multi-generational space flight, with the goal of setting up a colony at the other end, is about 160 people. Now, you have to make sure you carefully select those people so that they come from a diverse genetic background - and you have to be really picky about screening for diseases and genetic risk factors.

Theoretically, with some very restrictive social engineering and strong rules governing who can and cannot have children together, then you could start off with as little as 80 humans — 60 females and 20 males.

Now, let the arguing over the basic fasts begin.

Crumbly Writer

From the follow-up on that initial post:

with some very restrictive social engineering and strong rules governing who can and cannot have children together\

I assume for max diversity the children would all be half siblings. Each woman would have first pregnancy from one of the 20 then next pregnancy from another, etc etc



Yes.

Basically, each woman has an average of four children with four different fathers. You would keep detailed records of lineage to prevent interbreeding, and you utilize selective abortion to keep the male to female ratio at 3–1.

After about 100 years The "Generation -Zero" of 80 people, will have fostered about 6,500 Great-Great-Grandchildren, and the total population will be around 9,000 individuals. You could now start to relax some of the social engineering rules and allow nature to take its course.

And of course the obvious alternative:

and if we can send people to the stars we may have the technology in vitro, in which case you can send most of them as frozen embryos…

or more likely, a freezer full of frozen sperm and eggs of a virtually unlimited number of individuals. Though that's not quite as romantic.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Not_a_ID
sunkuwan

@Crumbly Writer

Depends on the cause of the post-apocalypse and if there are still active threats to human survival.

i.e. the Walking Dead Universe is set to wipe out all humans because there will always be zombies after someone dies.

The 160 people number only works with high-tech and a stable environment. You would also have to soften human rights, age of consent, and woman suffrage.
Polygamy would be a must and hormone treatments or other biological or genetic tinkering to get a higher female to male ratio.

Dominions Son
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


and if we can send people to the stars we may have the technology in vitro, in which case you can send most of them as frozen embryos…


And if we can send people to the stars, it's not going too far to assume that most genetic defects could be corrected in utero, so even in-breeding is not necessarily that big of a problem.

Of course, if you are dealing with a post-apocalyptic situation, you are probably back at least several generations in terms of technology, so that doesn't help unless we have outside (alien) help with the recovery.

There are bigger concerns in terms of how many individuals you need to start the recovery with than genetic diversity.

1. What level of technology you are the survivors dealing with?

Child birth is very stressful on the mother and without advanced medical technology being available, it is very risky to space pregnancies too close together.

Having children at too young an age or too old an age even if still fertile also increases the risk of adverse outcomes for both mother and child.

What percentage of children will survive to adulthood. Parents losing children to early death was common before the era of modern medicine.

2. What's the end goal in terms of recovery for a successful re-population?

3. How quickly do you need to get to the population level defined in answer to #2?

4. I'm not considering starting gender ratio, because unless genetic tampering happens, even if the initial surviving population is extremely skewed to one gender or the other, it will self correct to normal in just a couple of generations.

To put some numbers to this, assume 50/50 gender split with 200 individuals to start, so 100 couples.

I'll lay out two scenarios, in both, each woman will have one child at an age between 18 and 21 and a second between 22 and 25. In the second scenario, each woman will have a third child at 26-30.

Assuming 100% of the children survive to have children of their own, and unrealistic assumption for a post apocalyptic scenario, in scenario 1, the population will double every ~25 years, in the second, it will increase by 2.5 every 30 years.

In either secenario, it will take more than 300 years to reach 1 million population and between 570 and 630 years to get back to the current world population around 7 Billion.

Again, this is assuming a childhood death rate of zero.

AmigaClone

@Dominions Son

Again, this is assuming a childhood death rate of zero.

Your numbers seem to assume a TOTAL death rate of zero, and that every woman would have 2 children every 25 years in the first scenario or an average of 2.5 every 30 years in the second.

Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

Again, this is assuming a childhood death rate of zero.

Yet, historically, with much higher death rates, the rate of childbirth were MUCH higher than once every five years, with the assumption that many of the children won't make it, while the other children can help with the child rearing, allowing the adults to spread their efforts.

Assuming that survivors would adopt 21st, mostly peaceful behaviors, is a bit ... unrealistic.

If a few have genetic issues, they generally wouldn't last long without advanced resources to keep them alive indefinitely.

sejintenej

@Dominions Son

2. What's the end goal in terms of recovery for a successful re-population?

3. How quickly do you need to get to the population level defined in answer to #2?

The original quote above referred to a multigenerational space flight. This brings in two unknowns and 2 assumptions

a) how many generations?
b) capacity of the spaceship.

c) that the survivors would build a new society and would try to avoid the risk of close inbreeding.
d) the target would be the nearest star system - Proxima Centauri has to be many light years away so it has to be a very very long journey

Multigenerational should assume ** the death (through natural causes) of at least some of the original crew and perhaps their offspring. This way the capacity of the spaceship would be less than if there were to be no deaths.

I am assuming that cryo is not used - if the original travellers were put into some type of cryo stabilisation for the duration of the entire journey then all guesses go out of the window except for c) above

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@sejintenej

the target would be the nearest star system - Proxima Centauri has to be many light years away so it has to be a very very long journey

At least a 40-year journey, each way, so it's assumed there will be NO return trip, and NO resupply ships either. In fact, we don't even have the technology to send messages back and forth, as radio or light waves would disburse long before arriving intact. Thus the initial 'colony' would have to be capable of existing on their own.

On the positive front, now that they're considering dwarf star planets, it turns out there are more nearby planets than they ever considered before. Unfortunately, since we can't discern much from those stars, or their nearby planets, we have little clue as to whether they'll support live or not.

Ten generation permanently housed in whatever plastic shielding they carry with them is not a life that anyone wants to consider, and they could only support a consistent population little more than the original crew size.

AmigaClone

The speed needed to reach Proxima Centauri in 40 years would be over 10% the speed of light on average.

By comparison, Voyager 1 - the furthest and fastest man made object heading out of the solar system would likely take 40,000 years to reach that distance.

Not_a_ID

@Crumbly Writer

and if we can send people to the stars we may have the technology in vitro, in which case you can send most of them as frozen embryos…



or more likely, a freezer full of frozen sperm and eggs of a virtually unlimited number of individuals. Though that's not quite as romantic.


I think this is the more likely outcome at this point, given that in the past couple years we've now managed to artificially gestate a lamb from 12 weeks until "full term" was achieved. They're working on refining it until it can go to human trials(fetal development is very closely comparable to humans at the same stage). As the purpose of the research was to improve outcomes for extremely premature delivery of humans.

Given the processes involved, if it's viable at 12 weeks, it probably won't "take much more" to work it all the way back to implantation. Of course, the big challenge at present is that method requires an umbilical cord. Something that doesn't exist at the earliest stages.

So we're already nearing the stage where a woman's Uterus isn't needed for human reproduction to occur. Although the Ovaries themselves still remain relevant for now.

Of course, that only addresses giving birth to the next generation. You still need to feed them, nurture them, and all of the other fun and messy stuff as well. Although with a sufficiently advanced AI, that could be largely covered as well.

Which potentially greatly reduces the number of human "Crew" that would be needed on board the ship. As they can artificially gestate the rest of the human (and animal) population upon arrival. And do so on a slowly sloping exponential curve as well, as each "batch" of children becomes old enough to help care for the one behind them until the population is mostly self-sufficient and genetically diverse enough to not have an inbreeding concern outright. At which point you can tap into "the colony sperm/ova bank" from Earth on an as needed/desired basis from the colonists.

Although there are plenty of way for such scenarios to go horrifically wrong(or right, depending on POV), as "it wouldn't take much" for someone to create their own harem or slave society from scratch, just have kill off or otherwise subvert the other crew members first. Ditto in the case of an evil AI overlord.

But those are space colonization scenarios with a support system designed specific for that purpose.

Post-Apocalypse on the other hand denotes "ad-hoc" and done largely on the fly. There may have been considerable planning done on the part of some, but given the number of unknowns involved with "Apocalypse" contingency plans, there will always be holes.

Numbers I've always seen/heard was more on the order of 50,000 people being needed for a healthy gene pool if you were dealing with a mostly random population sample across the planet. Of course, that also requires getting those 50,000 people into a situation where they could, and would want to, interact with one another.

Sure it can be done with much less, but you're going to start running risks regarding any number of things at that point. Particularly if no screening was done in advance.

Replies:   Dominions Son
StarFleet Carl

@Crumbly Writer

Now, you have to make sure you carefully select those people so that they come from a diverse genetic background - and you have to be really picky about screening for diseases and genetic risk factors.


Which is basically NOT going to happen on a post-apocalypse Earth.

Technically, you only need one, presuming it's female capable of birthing children, having a viable sperm source. Realistically, to maintain even some semblance of a primitive civilization, even with modern tools available, you'll need at least 120. Start out as a small settlement, then expand as population grows, because after 50 years and a lot of friendly fun, you can have a population of around 10,000.

I recall there was a science fiction novel that was based upon the idea of sending out sperm and egg samples only, with the first generations raised by robots.

(Did some digging - Voyage from Yesteryear, by James P. Hogan, from 1982)

Replies:   AmigaClone
Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

Yet, historically, with much higher death rates, the rate of childbirth were MUCH higher than once every five years, with the assumption that many of the children won't make it, while the other children can help with the child rearing, allowing the adults to spread their efforts.


You also had many babies and many women who died in childbirth. In fact childbirth was one of the leading causes of death for women in pre-industrial times.

That's one of the major reasons why the population grew so slowly in ancient history.

Global population had barely broken 1 billion before the industrial revolution, and depending on how long humans have been around, that took anywhere from several thousand to hundreds of thousands of years. Then as modern medicine and sanitation came into the picture, along with several other factors, we jumped from just over 1 billion to 7 billion in just 2 centuries.

That's my point, the minimum necessary for genetic diversity is way too low for viable post apocalyptic survival. With only a few hundred localized survivors, it would be centuries before the population would increase by enough that what was left of humanity wouldn't be wiped out by the next local natural disaster.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
AmigaClone
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl


I recall there was a science fiction novel that was based upon the idea of sending out sperm and egg samples only, with the first generations raised by robots.



The Songs of Distant Earth
by Arthur C Clarke (1986), describes sending interstellar colonization spacecraft to many stellar systems.

The first Mother Ships took frozen embryos and technology needed to gestate them and to provide civilization, later on there were ships that had copies of the DNA of many species and the equipment needed to go from DNA to independent life forms.

The last colony ship designed used a different method of propulsion and was designed to carry a million people in cryogenic chambers.

REP
Updated:

a·poc·a·lypse

(ə-pŏk′ə-lĭps′)

n.

2.

a. The end of the world, especially as described in one of these texts.

b. A great catastrophe that results in widespread destruction or the collapse of civilization

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/apocalypse

I would take a different view of CW's question - "What's the minimum population required to repopulate the earth?"

CW's post was about the minimum to repopulate the Earth during a post-apocalyptic period. The article he cited said 160 was the minimum. But that minimum is based on cherry picking candidates under ideal conditions for ideal genetic characteristics and the people selected live in ideal conditions. The article fails to take into account the conditions and hazards that the group would encounter when their spaceship arrives at their destination. Murphy would undoubtedly kill off a portion of the group and the group would then be below the minimum number needed for genetic diversity.

By definition, an apocalypse event would be the end of our civilization as we know it today. There would be relatively few people left in the world; I used 5% in the story I'm currently writing. The event may also have destroyed the world's infrastructure, which would have a significant affect on the minimum number. Chaos and human nature would most likely prevent the existence of a calm situation with cooperative and organized people working together to create a new civilization. Such an environment would be necessary to select an ideal genetic group of people; that assumes the technology to do the selection is available and there is an adequate group size to select from.

The hazards of a post-apocalyptic period suggest that if 160 genetically ideal people would be the minimum group size under ideal conditions, then since I wouldn't be able to cherry pick my candidates, I would increase that number by at least a factor of 10 (i.e. 1,600 people) to ensure genetic diversity; a factor of 100 might be more appropriate. Since the post-apocalyptic conditions (e.g., violence, starvation, disease, accidents, medical conditions, etc.) would kill off many of the 1,600 people, I would bump the number up to about 16,000 people. Other conditions might warrant a further increase.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer  Jim S
Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

You also had many babies and many women who died in childbirth. In fact childbirth was one of the leading causes of death for women in pre-industrial times.

That's one of the major reasons why the population grew so slowly in ancient history.


Not just child birth, little kids are living, breathing petri dishes, and the mother is the one who normally dealt with that while the father worked outside of the home.

End result is the mother often caught whatever made junior sick. Usually their adult immune system could cope, but not always. Which isn't to mention all their time spent working in close proximity to fire as well, which meant plenty of opportunities to get burned, or worse.

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

Yet, historically, with much higher death rates, the rate of childbirth were MUCH higher than once every five years, with the assumption that many of the children won't make it,


One additional comment on that, historically, many men had 4-6 children, knowing they wouldn't all survive to adulthood, but that typically took going trough 2 or 3 wives because of the inherent dangers of childbirth.

Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

Numbers I've always seen/heard was more on the order of 50,000 people being needed for a healthy gene pool if you were dealing with a mostly random population sample across the planet.


Even that's probably low. You don't want to gather all of what's left of humanity in one place where it can be easily wiped out by the next local disaster.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Dominions Son


Even that's probably low. You don't want to gather all of what's left of humanity in one place where it can be easily wiped out by the next local disaster.


Which also ignores the question of "what level of technology are they trying to maintain?" Unless they have access to automation tech that hasn't seen any kind of wide-spread use as of yet(human labor is cheaper). The real number is probably upwards of a quarter million people at the minimum.

Between specialized skill sets and the need for sufficiently scaled economies to keep those skills relevant, and the geographic dispersal needed for both access to certain natural resources and to transport them between various points.

I can actually see it getting into the half-million people range really quick if you're trying to maintain current status-quo. Thing is, this is a number nobody knows for certain at present, and is a vexing problem for Space Colonization planning efforts in particular.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
helmut_meukel
Updated:

Having read the posts so far, the all numbers mentioned are set to ensure very low probability for extinction and the population will have sufficient genetic diversity afterwards.

IIRC the actual population of the european bison (the Wisent) is from only 14 individuals. If the Wisent will finally survive is still unsure but possible.

With so small a gene pool culling the weak and handicapped would be a necessity. Genetic diversity would be extremely low but rise slowly again due to mutations.

Humanity would be back to stone age but could survive nontheless.

HM.

Crumbly Writer

@REP

To be fair, I though the figure was interesting, and only brought up the PA scenario to help get the conversation going, so there's no need to focus exclusively on PA scenarios. The brief article didn't have any suggestions for non-cherry picked candidates, and the variables would be wide I'm not even sure that anyone could give you a definitive answer.

The problem is, for most PA stories, there's little discussion of either repopulation or the minimun figure to keep the gene pool active (though I often bring it up in my stories).

Replies:   REP  Dominions Son
Crumbly Writer

@Not_a_ID

I can actually see it getting into the half-million people range really quick if you're trying to maintain current status-quo. Thing is, this is a number nobody knows for certain at present, and is a vexing problem for Space Colonization planning efforts in particular.

No one is ever going to suggest loading a half a million individuals on a single space ship and blasting them off to travel to the nearest star. We can hardly finance sending a couple to the space station without help from other nations intent on gaining the necessary technology for their missile programs. Even then, the rush to 'accomplish something' often leads to disaster (aka. the Chinese satellite which spun out of control and recently plunged back to the Earth).

Even if we only sealed 160, or even as few as 80, after 60 or 80 years in space, an extremely large number would either commit suicide, kill each other in fits of passion, or screw something up where everyone died. You'd need to factor in expected death rates to have a truly meaningful number, otherwise it's guaranteed to fail.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Not_a_ID
REP

@Crumbly Writer

The problem is, for most PA stories, there's little discussion of either repopulation or the minimun figure to keep the gene pool active


That is probably due to having no choice. Once the PA event occurs you only have those people around you who happened to survive.

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

The problem is, for most PA stories, there's little discussion of either repopulation or the minimun figure to keep the gene pool active (though I often bring it up in my stories).


For interstellar colonization, this will be heavily dependent on the posited level of medical technology for the story, and the population goal / schedule.

If you assume that any genetic defects that crop up from inbreeding (or already exist in the seed population) can be detected and corrected in-utero, the minimum starting gene pool drops to two, 1 male, 1 female.

Even for colonization, your minimum starting population is going to be more a function of what population you need to achieve before the colony becomes self-sufficient, how long the colony can be sustained on the supplies they can take with them and the availability of resupply.

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

We can hardly finance sending a couple to the space station without help from other nations intent on gaining the necessary technology for their missile programs.


You'd need to factor in expected death rates to have a truly meaningful number, otherwise it's guaranteed to fail.


If you assume only existing real world technology, the effort will fail no matter what you do, even for something as close as Mars.

Replies:   REP  Crumbly Writer
REP

@Dominions Son

Agreed.

The idea of populating a world starting from 160 people is okay in theory assuming a controlled environment, but in practice it would fail when it encounters the real world.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

If you assume only existing real world technology, the effort will fail no matter what you do, even for something as close as Mars.

The plan to establish a colony on Mars has always been a one-way mission, with no hope of those sent ever returning, and an extremely high level of doubt as to future resupply runs. Yet, people continue signing up, though whether that's to explore the unknown or escape their lives here is anyone's guess.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
Crumbly Writer

@REP

The idea of populating a world starting from 160 people is okay in theory assuming a controlled environment, but in practice it would fail when it encounters the real world.

The brief summary didn't mention how much of a 'fudge factor' NASA included in their estimates. They must have assumed a certain failure rate due to accidents. Knowing how large it is would help establish just how realistic their estimates were.

Replies:   REP
REP

@Crumbly Writer

They must have assumed a certain failure rate due to accidents.


That is an assumption.

I suspect that when they say the minimum, they mean minimum without a fudge factor.

StarFleet Carl

@Crumbly Writer

Yet, people continue signing up, though whether that's to explore the unknown or escape their lives here is anyone's guess.


I'd go. The chance to see something that no one else has ever seen, even with a certainty of dying somewhere far from home. Easy trade.

I recall reading in the Pournelle and Niven book 'Lucifer's Hammer', which amusingly enough was a post-apocalypse novel once the earth was hit with that comet, that some people were actually looking forward to the end of civilization. Why? People who crave a challenge, or were just sick of the ordinary day to day, or figured that a planetary reset button was the only way to get them out of the mess they were in.

At the same time, if certain technology can be maintained and kept - an operating nuclear reactor and the related shop equipment, for example - then doing a reset back to a planetary population of 250,000, or even a full 1,000,000 people, might not actually be a bad idea.

I think another point of discussion in this scenario is how many of US might at least consider this as a good thing. Or another way of phrasing this is ... did Valentine have a good idea in Kingsman, since it was man made? Would it have been acceptable if it had been a smaller comet causing the deaths?

Not_a_ID

@Crumbly Writer

No one is ever going to suggest loading a half a million individuals on a single space ship and blasting them off to travel to the nearest star. We can hardly finance sending a couple to the space station without help from other nations intent on gaining the necessary technology for their missile programs.


Musk is targeting a Million people living on Mars within 100 years, IIRC. Of course, first he has to get a dozen people there.

Ernest Bywater

@Not_a_ID

first he has to get a dozen people there.


After the next stupid tax hike in California he may have 2 million volunteers.

Replies:   REP
Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

first he has to get a dozen people there.


First, he, or anyone really, has to get one person there.

Let's be clear, there's no way with existing technology that he could put a large enough seed population on Mars in one go that would have any chance of reaching 1 million in just one century.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

Let's be clear, there's no way with existing technology that he could put a large enough seed population on Mars in one go that would have any chance of reaching 1 million in just one century.


In the U.S. Navy, there is the expression "don't nuke it out." Which is a reference to their Nuclear Propulsion program and the tendency of its graduates to make things "needlessly complex."

I think the correct term you're looking for is "engineering applications" not technology. I think the technical capability has existed since at least the 1970's and the Skylab missions.

The needed tools for survival on Mars, or even deep space, already exist.

What doesn't exist is the specific methodologies for "optimal solutions" and economical (self-sufficient) applications of said items. And those specific methodologies won't exist until we start building the stuff and learning through trial and error, but even then, 99.99% of the time, the solution is going to be applications of technical knowledge that already exists.

That said. Obviously, the technology that has been developed in the past 40 years since Skylab will be insanely helpful, and will likely improve safety margins by an order of magnitude, if not more. (More/better sensors, more/better capability to monitor said sensors, improved materials and techniques, automation technologies reducing the number of humans needing to be directly involved(which in turn simplifies mission requirements as fewer people require support), etc)

That isn't to say it would be, or would have been, "easy" to pursue then or now. I expect the first few "generations" of space habitats are likely to be abandoned/recycled/turned into historic structures rather than used for their intended purpose within a couple decades of being built. Because of the incremental differences in construction and techniques as applied knowledge progresses. That won't change if you had started in 1976, or 2456.

Although I will admit the 2466 group should have obvious advantages in Computer Modeling before getting to the "Build It" stage.

StarFleet Carl

@Not_a_ID

In the U.S. Navy, there is the expression "don't nuke it out." Which is a reference to their Nuclear Propulsion program and the tendency of its graduates to make things "needlessly complex."

I think the correct term you're looking for is "engineering applications" not technology. I think the technical capability has existed since at least the 1970's and the Skylab missions.

The needed tools for survival on Mars, or even deep space, already exist.


I think you're also referring to 'acceptable risk'. If we move into space - which is an unforgiving bitch - what level of risk are those people who live there willing to accept as just part and parcel of the normal life?

There's a certain risk inherent simply in getting out of bed. The ballpark figure I've seen is that about 50 million people drive at least at some point each and every day in the US. So that puts us at about 18 BILLION times behind the wheel each and every year, and with 5 million traffic accidents per year, you have about a 2.7% chance of being in a car wreck each year. With 35,000 fatalities, your chance of dying in a car crash, that's less than a 0.02% chance of dying.

Apparently we consider this acceptable, because we do it all the time.

In space, we need to decide if this is an acceptable risk level, and just move on, use the technology we have, and start going. Accept that people WILL die, just like they did in early aviation (and continue to do even today with plane crashes) and quit trying to reduce the risk to 0.

Crumbly Writer

@Not_a_ID

That said. Obviously, the technology that has been developed in the past 40 years since Skylab will be insanely helpful, and will likely improve safety margins by an order of magnitude, if not more.

Really? The typical smart phone, the epitome or current design expertise, are typically only used for 2 years. Those older than three are more likely to be so degraded (by software design) that no one CAN use them beyond 3. And you're telling me that we're going to use THAT technical expertise to build space stations that will last the next hundred years, even with normal repair and replace schedules.

As long as the operation is 'for profit', as it would be under Musk's control, the immediate aim are short term profits. Thus, if everyone on the Mar's mission dies the year after Musk dies, he's not going to give a bloody fuck. We only achieved what we did on the Apollo mission and with the shuttle/skylab missions is because we had the government funding necessary to build the quality equipment which stands the test of time. Even then, we've lost the vast majority of technological information from the various Apollo missions, simply because the old records couldn't withstand normal aging.

Contrast that with the advances we all accepted as 'a natural progression' in the Movie 2001, where we already had an established year-round base on the moon by then. People are betting at planning that which never becomes real, than they are at implementing things that actually get constructed.

sunkuwan

Governments won't bring us to the stars anymore.

Profit-oriented megacompanies will.
That's terrifying, but I take anything for the survival of the human race.

The first permanent outer orbit installations will be mining colonies on asteroids. There is a fuckton of precious metals and rare earths in those.
Dwarfing the highest estimates on earth by a factor of a billion.

The initial setup will be costly but we don't have that much rare earth metals in easy accessible locations, or at all.
The first company who successfully sets up a mining operation and survives, will kickstart a new industrial revolution, but in space. hundreds of companies will follow.

And every new player and every successful mining colony will speed up the technological advance and lower the costs.

Just look at the original industrial revolution, machine tools and steam engines didn't magically appear. if you would have told sdomeone in the early 19th century that you need thousands and thousands of them, he would have declared you insane. "Do you know how much those cost? And how long they take to build?"
But those immensely costly and long to make engines and tools were used to make the following engines and tools cheaper and faster until it kickstarted a whole Planet.

It will be the same with solar mining, the initial colonies will be costly but the more we make and the more players in the field there are, the cheaper it will get. And it will kick off Spaceship engine technology.

Although, it will probably end in militarised companies in space.

Michael Loucks

@sunkuwan

Profit-oriented megacompanies will.
That's terrifying, but I take anything for the survival of the human race.


Which brings to mind Outland A forgettable (well, not quite) Sean Connery movie.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Michael Loucks

A forgettable


Heresy! I really enjoyed 'Outland'.

AJ

Capt. Zapp

@Crumbly Writer

Really? The typical smart phone, the epitome or current design expertise, are typically only used for 2 years. Those older than three are more likely to be so degraded (by software design) that no one CAN use them beyond 3.


I hate to disagree with you, but technology that still functions will continue to be used until such time as it ceases to function. I have laptops over 10 years old. I used my original computer, a TRS-80 I bought in 1980, until 1998. Sure it was slow and didn't have all the fancy screens, but it still worked and ran programs I was familiar with. As for your smartphone example, I have been using mine for almost 5 years. Sure it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the newer models (which I can't afford) or run newer apps, but it still works and I will continue to use it.

My point is that people will use what is available, even if there is something newer. The old technology may not be the best, but it has a proven track record and, in many cases, does not require specialized training or equipment to maintain and repair.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
REP

@Ernest Bywater

After the next stupid tax hike in California


Don't forget the Republican tax bill that is supposed to be so good for the American tax payer.

I asked my tax preparer how it will affect my taxes next year. He said if the provisions were applied to this years filing, I would have had to pay an additional $850.

Jim S

@REP

Since the post-apocalyptic conditions (e.g., violence, starvation, disease, accidents, medical conditions, etc.) would kill off many of the 1,600 people, I would bump the number up to about 16,000 people. Other conditions might warrant a further increase.


I saw an estimate of Earth's population set ranging from a low of 40, to 1000 breeding pairs, to a high of 10,000 total, this after the Mt. Toba super volcano erupted about 74,000 years ago. And these were scattered across Africa, i.e. not all situated in the same group. So what is the absolute low population that can recover from an apocalyptic event? Hard to say but the 1600 to 16000 estimate seems to have support.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Jim S

Last I heard on Tobe was human population crashed to about 90,000 humans. That is a wee bit more than 10,000 "breeding pairs" and giving dispersal of human population even then. I could easily see scenarios where roughly 10,000 pairs of them seem to turn up in everybody's family tree 80 thousand plus years later, even if the other 30,000 pairs do not.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Not_a_ID

There are about as many estimates as there were investigators. :) Long and the short of it? No one knows and can only guess.

BlacKnight

@Crumbly Writer

Really? The typical smart phone, the epitome or current design expertise, are typically only used for 2 years. Those older than three are more likely to be so degraded (by software design) that no one CAN use them beyond 3. And you're telling me that we're going to use THAT technical expertise to build space stations that will last the next hundred years, even with normal repair and replace schedules.

B-52s designed in the 1950s and built prior to 1963 are still in active service, and are scheduled to continue in active service through the 2050s.

Are you seriously claiming that the latest overpriced toy from Apple (Gotta buy the newest one! It's... newer!) was subject to a more rigorous design process than strategic bombers designed to carry nuclear payloads through Soviet defenses at the height of the Cold War?

What we lack is not the technical capability to go to Mars; it's the will to do so. Or, rather, the combination of the will and the resources.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  StarFleet Carl
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@BlacKnight


What we lack is not the technical capability to go to Mars; it's the will to do so. Or, rather, the combination of the will and the resources.


More lack of will than resources. Yes it is expensive, but the resources exist to do so. We just chose to use those resources on other things instead. So it comes down to lack of will to make the needed (budget) allocations knowing that the "pay off" would be years or even decades down the road.

Dominions Son
Updated:

@Not_a_ID


Skylab will be insanely helpful, and will likely improve safety margins by an order of magnitude, if not more.


The problem is that for a successfully self-sufficient colony on Mars, safety margins would have to increase by an additional 5 or 6 orders of magnitude.

red61544
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

Following an apocalyptic nuclear war, the only thing left on earth was a tree with two monkeys sitting it it. The one monkey looks at the other and said: "Are you really sure you want to start the whole damned thing over again?"

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

We only achieved what we did on the Apollo mission and with the shuttle/skylab missions is because we had the government funding necessary to build the quality equipment which stands the test of time.


A lot of that equipment wasn't half as high in quality as most people think and very little of it has stood the test of time.

richardshagrin

It seems pretty clear "minimum" means something different to most of the respondents to this question than to me. The first pass to an answer would be one fertile man and one fertile woman.

Another possible answer is a fertile woman pregnant with a son, assuming she is young enough to give birth to more children when her son is old enough to be fertile. Or a fertile female with a supply of sperm that will make her pregnant. The earth got populated by homo sapiens because one female gave birth to at least one female who gave birth to more.

The chicken and the egg question is was the mother of the first homo sapiens also a homo sapiens? Nevertheless the "Minimum" needed is at least one mother.

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

We only achieved what we did on the Apollo mission and with the shuttle/skylab missions is because we had the government funding necessary to build the quality equipment which stands the test of time.


One more comment on this: The Apollo 1 crew was lost, in a training exercise for the launch. The Apollo 13 crew was very nearly lost in space. Two space shuttles with their complete crews were lost, one during launch and the other on re-entry. NASA has had more than a dozen fatalities in their ground crews over the years.

The government won't give a shit about astronaut/colonist safety if they are driving to get there first for political reasons.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer
Updated:

@Capt. Zapp

I hate to disagree with you, but technology that still functions will continue to be used until such time as it ceases to function. I have laptops over 10 years old.

"Will use", yes. 'Designed to last'? Unlikely. Although Apple products, for one, tend to last much longer than PCs, they have a nasty habit of shutting down and crippling their smart phones when you don't upgrade at least every couple of years.

And it makes sense, from a financial point of view, so that approach will probably reign supreme, until the first utter disaster, resulting in the televised death of hundreds. That's the point that the government will step in and finally set up a few safety standards. If they encounter a couple of such disasters, it'll be their financiers, and not the government who'll shut them down.

Corporations only turn a profit when they're making money. But it's hard to make money when no one will support your product.

As far as mining asteroids, I'll believe it when I see it. It sounds good in theory, but so far, the one asteroid we attempted to examine close up, provided to be largely impenetrable (they couldn't even fire and iron spike into the surface to moor the satellite). That implies that many of those many satellites are composed largely of metals, and unless they have onboard blast furnaces, they'll have an incredibly hard (and expensive) time mining them.

Once again, Corporations are only interested in easy profits. When the costs go up, their interests drops substantially.

Replies:   Capt. Zapp
Crumbly Writer

@red61544

Following an apocalyptic nuclear war, the only thing left on earth was a tree with two monkeys sitting it it. The one monkey looks at the other and said:

Not monkeys. The only things left would be the tiny rodents deep underground. However, once they survive—essentially started the evolutionary process all over again—the rate of mutations would skyrocket, thus the rate of recovery (as each species adapts to their current environment) improves.

Monkeys only came about when they needed to swing from trees, not when the world needed intelligence. And in terms of that, for every dog (intelligent social animals), you also have cats.

Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

The government won't give a shit about astronaut/colonist safety if they are driving to get there first for political reasons.

Not exactly. If a for-profit company faces severe public feedback, they pull back. But faced with widespread scandal, public anger usually forces government to act. Each of those disasters forced a slowdown, but they ultimately led to better safety programs. How many safety programs would Samsung invest in if everyone sues them for damages?

Capt. Zapp

@Crumbly Writer

"Will use", yes. 'Designed to last'? Unlikely.


I never said anything about them being 'designed to last', I was refuting this statement. (My bolding for emphasis)

Those older than three are more likely to be so degraded (by software design) that no one CAN use them beyond 3.


I said that technology that still works, no matter how old, can still be used even if something newer is available.

Although Apple products ... have a nasty habit of shutting down and crippling their smart phones when you don't upgrade...


Which is another reason why I don't own an iPhone. :)

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

Each of those disasters forced a slowdown, but they ultimately led to better safety programs.


Better safety system that still failed miserably and/or were ignored when NASA was under political pressure over spending levels.

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

But faced with widespread scandal, public anger usually forces government to act.


No, faced with wide spread scandal, public anger will force government to work to look like it's doing something.

Whether it does something that actually fixes the original problem is a 50/50 proposition under the best of conditions.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Jim S

@sunkuwan

The first permanent outer orbit installations will be mining colonies on asteroids. There is a fuckton of precious metals and rare earths in those.
Dwarfing the highest estimates on earth by a factor of a billion.


Isn't that an overestimate? Currently total volume of the asteroids is estimated at roughly 5% of Earth's volume. And it would be reasonable to expect about the same ratio of precious metals and rare earth metals as ended up on Earth as essentially all those rocks up there and those that went to make up Earth came from the same source. Still, it will still be worth a bunch of dinero and well worth commercial exploitation when we get around to it. Just not by a factor of a billion.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

Whether it does something that actually fixes the original problem is a 50/50 proposition under the best of conditions.

That may be so, but virtually every single semi-successful public safety measure was the result of scandal, not careful planning by legislatures. If things don't fall apart, Congress will do nothing, and if scandal befalls a Corporation, they either ignore it, pay off the Congressional investigation, or simply close up shop, take all their profits, and skip town.

The point wasn't that government intervention is all rainbows and puppy-dog tails, rather that forced reforms often lead to more substantial changes than corporations will ever undertake on their own.

I don't trust government actions, but I also don't trust corporate greed as a power for good.

Crumbly Writer

@Jim S

Isn't that an overestimate? Currently total volume of the asteroids is estimated at roughly 5% of Earth's volume. And it would be reasonable to expect about the same ratio of precious metals and rare earth metals as ended up on Earth as essentially all those rocks up there and those that went to make up Earth came from the same source. Still, it will still be worth a bunch of dinero and well worth commercial exploitation when we get around to it. Just not by a factor of a billion.

Case in point, Gold doesn't just 'appear', it's consolidated into solid physical form when techtonic forces (i.e. earthquakes) evaporates large amounts of water, leaving nothing but the rare hard-elements. That's why gold is almost always discovered in old stream beds or underground rivers.

Trying to find gold on an asteroid is a pointless exercise, because we can't currently provide enough physical force to extract enough to make the operation worthwhile.

It's the same with oil. You can't just go out and kill a couple more dinosaurs and get more oil. Instead it takes millions of years and tremendous natural forces before man can actually 'discover' anything. And everything he takes for his own profit, is something that future generations will never have access to.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

That's why gold is almost always discovered in old stream beds or underground rivers.


99% of the gold in old (and current) stream beds is the result of water erosion of solid gold deposits at higher elevations near by.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
StarFleet Carl

@Crumbly Writer

Those older than three are more likely to be so degraded (by software design) that no one CAN use them beyond 3.


Wonder what my iPhone 5 thinks about that? I've had it almost 6 years. And I've had customers come in with 4's.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
StarFleet Carl

@BlacKnight

B-52s designed in the 1950s and built prior to 1963 are still in active service, and are scheduled to continue in active service through the 2050s.


They're damned impressive watching them take off and do touch and go's, too. They're doing engine rebuilds on them here, so at any given time there's a BUFF or two on the ground being re-done or getting an electronics update. And since the north-south runway ends right at I-40, it's almost a scary thing to be driving along and all of a sudden see one about 200 feet off the ground coming in for a landing right over your head. Noisy as hell, too.

Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, in case you were wondering. (And what's also fun is that my house is right in line with the OTHER runway. So an AWACS coming over at 300 feet is something I see and get to feel about every other day.)

richardshagrin

@StarFleet Carl

Noisy as hell, too.

Either you wear sophisticated ear-plugs or you are getting deaf.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
Capt. Zapp

@StarFleet Carl

Noisy as hell, too.


Man I miss that sound. I was stationed with the BUFFs in ND back in 83. Been around the Herc, Blackbird, F4, F111, and A10s as well, but none of them compared. What a sight to see.

Replies:   sejintenej
Ross at Play
Updated:

@sunkuwan

There is a fuckton of precious metals and rare earths in those.

That's an oxymoron. As soon as "a fuckton" of anything "precious" becomes available for sale it will no longer be precious.

Replies:   sunkuwan
sunkuwan

@Ross at Play

but we still need those for manufacturing. Our rare earth metals are not found in great quantities at easily exploitable locations.
Even if the initial cost of setting up is higher, it is better than destroying whole swathes of land to get at the location on earth.

Replies:   awnlee jawking  REP
awnlee jawking

@sunkuwan

And, hopefully, better than employing five-year-olds in Sudan to mine Cobalt so millennial snowflakes can delude themselves that their electric cars are saving the planet :(

AJ

Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

99% of the gold in old (and current) stream beds is the result of water erosion of solid gold deposits at higher elevations near by.

Yes, but the gold was formed (into a solid state) deep underground in mountain streams which boiled away during earthquakes. You're relying on the common knowledge from the 20th Century, rather than the newer discoveries uncovered much more recently.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Crumbly Writer

@StarFleet Carl

Wonder what my iPhone 5 thinks about that? I've had it almost 6 years. And I've had customers come in with 4's.

Maybe so, but when the iPhone X came out, my iPhone 6+ started degrading, not even starting each time I put it down, and it got progressively worse over time. Now it serves as a paperweight in my desk drawer. The timing of that is certainly suspect, especially since the battery is fine, and wasn't subject to the recent 'slowdown' on that front.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl

@Crumbly Writer

Maybe so, but when the iPhone X came out, my iPhone 6+ started degrading, not even starting each time I put it down, and it got progressively worse over time. Now it serves as a paperweight in my desk drawer.


That may be related to this, even if our batteries are fine:
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/12/technology/apple-iphone-slow-battery-lawsuit/index.html

StarFleet Carl

@richardshagrin

Either you wear sophisticated ear-plugs or you are getting deaf.


What'd you say? I couldn't hear you.

If you meant, I'm GOING to get deaf, then, sure. But standard earmuffs for doing lawn work or my shooters muffs when I'm on the range (noise canceling) work fine for normal time.

I pity the guys in the test cells. They'll power up one of the engines doing a test and I can hear the roar and rumble in my house ... and I'm four miles straight line distance from where those are located.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
REP

@sunkuwan

Our rare earth metals are not found in great quantities at easily exploitable locations.


If you research rare earths you will find they are not rare. Most are readily available and the refining costs are what makes them expensive. They are called rare earths because they were believed to be rare when they were first discovered.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Crumbly Writer

@StarFleet Carl

But standard earmuffs for doing lawn work or my shooters muffs when I'm on the range (noise canceling) work fine for normal time.

That's hardly the case. While they work much of the time, I've known a LOT of vets, sports shooters and hunters who have all suffered hearing loss while wearing the standard noise cancelling equipment. I also know the military has fairly extensive claims of hearing loss from soldiers in the field, even though the VA is notoriously lax in providing coverage for such claims.

The protection works most of the time, but the few times it doesn't produce permanent damage, so I wouldn't count on 'modern technology' to protect you in all cases.

But, having spent much of my childhood by the Oceana Naval base in Virginia, I can attest to both the volume of repeated jet flybys, as well as the familiarity and affection many of us living in their crash zones hold for them. Just like the smell of skunks in the Northeast, must of us have fond memories of what others can hardly stand.

richardshagrin

@Crumbly Writer

a LOT of vets, sports shooters and hunters who have all suffered hearing loss

Another source of hearing loss, for veterans of the Signal Corps. is the loud diesel generator noise for radio operators and others around them.

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

You're relying on the common knowledge from the 20th Century, rather than the newer discoveries uncovered much more recently.


Citation required.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
sejintenej

@Capt. Zapp

Man I miss that sound. I was stationed with the BUFFs in ND back in 83. Been around the Herc, Blackbird, F4, F111, and A10s as well, but none of them compared. What a sight to see.

All the early tests of the A380 were very low over our house. When I first saw it (day after it had its first flight) I was amazed how quiet it was. Once I was 20 yards from Concorde taxing with afterburners spitting out flame (at night). Hell of a sight and even worse noise than a Le Mans car on full song

Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

Citation required.

It'll take time to dig up, but I KNOW I read it in the New York Times Science section in the past few years. Unfortunately, unless you have specific keywords to search with (i.e. the correctly indexed keywords), it's often difficult finding the right article.

Update: Damn it. I know that the Times used to have a search box, but I can't for the life of me find one on the current page. Each time they add a new 'feature' to their site, they take away several more.

Ah, here they are, but not from the Times. The reports are dated from 2013:

Nature: Earthquakes make gold veins in an instant (a slight oversimplification, as it only accumulates over millions of years)
Live Science: Earthquakes Turn Water Into Gold
Smithsonian: Earthquakes are Basically Gold Factories
YouTube: Earthquakes Can Generate Gold From Water
ABC Science: Earthquakes Turn Water Into Gold
MINING:
io9:
New Scientist:

Is that enough? It's only based on a single search expression and generated a pile of Google pages full of links.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

Is that enough?


Enough to know that your original comment on the issue was way overblown.

All the links are articles about a single study from two professors in Australia. The study is based on mathematical / computer models, not empirical research.

From all of the links, the most direct actual quote from the study authors is from the YouTube video that the process described may be the major source of near surface solid gold deposits.

The research in interesting, but it's a very long ways away from being definitive proof that all major surface gold deposits are the result of the described process.

In fact, the point of the research is not about finding gold, but about using gold deposits in fault lines as a proxy measurement of past seismic activity.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
StarFleet Carl

@Crumbly Writer

Just like the smell of skunks in the Northeast, must of us have fond memories of what others can hardly stand.


I just ran over a skunk last week on my way home from work. That did not bring back any fond memories. But ...

I can still recall being able to pull the pin on a CS grenade, drop it at my own feet, and just stand there while the grunts we were training were puking and crying from the smell. Even now just the faintest whiff of riot control gas DOES bring back fond memories.

Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

All the links are articles about a single study from two professors in Australia. The study is based on mathematical / computer models, not empirical research.

Empirical research? Like, digging up an entire mountain, to a depth of possible one or two miles underground, examining the underground streams and determining their mineral compositions, replacing the entire mountain the way it was previous before triggering a series of massive earthquakes spread over a million years and then digging up the same underground streams to examine the gold deposits?

The kind of research we're talking about can only be done on a purely theoretical basis, but that kind of research allows us to understand what we currently see and observe (i.e. direct empirical evidence) around us.

We've long observed that silver and gold reserves are often found in long, twisting, mostly horizontal form, but we never knew why? We also knew it was formed deep under ground, and only rise to the surface due to massive erosion over thousands of years.

This research helps explain the processes involved, explaining that the 'long gold and silver reserves' were once underground streams, and that repeated earthquakes converted the mostly pure water into solid form over eons, instead of naturally occurring in those positions during the formation of the Earth.

What part of the scientific process do you not get?

Is this definitive proof that this is the only process involved? Of course not. Does the evidence support the conclusions? Obviously, especially since no other proposal explains what we've long observed. But demanding 'empirical proof' is akin to demanding proof that, inside the core of the Earth dances little green leprechauns. There's just no way to prove that, short of dismantling the entire Earth, atom by atom. It's simply NEVER going to be possible!

It's the same with demanding proof every time someone makes an assertion on these forums. How is my providing a series of links any different than you doing a simple Google search? You aren't asking for the information simply because you're curious, or because I just happen to have the reference sitting around, waiting to hand it to you. No, you simply ask for "PROOF" as a way of shutting down a discussion you don't personally like.

It took me all of five minutes to find those links, yet once I did, did you seriously consider the implications? No, instead you look for the first objection you could spout to shut me the fuck up!

You keep spouting the need for evidence, but your history on the site argues that you have no interest at all in any kind of documentation, you only use those claims to shut up certain individuals you feel have no right speaking on the Forum. It's a form of harrassment, pure and simple, and doesn't lead to a free exchange of ideas.

And you don't just do this for scientific claims you choose not to believe. You've done it every single time anyone makes a claim about writing, and which techniques work better than others (which, by definition, are virtually ALL anecdotal), but you essentially shut down ALL CONVERSATION just so no one will dare suggest that you don't know shit about how to compose stories, and have no desire to consider ANY new ideas.

SO once again, I politely ask: if you're NOT interested in honest communications, kindly SHUT THE HELL UP and stop abusing the participants, so those with an honest desire to learn can!

Replies:   Jim S  REP
Jim S

@Crumbly Writer

C'mon, CW. What do you really think?

Not_a_ID

@REP


If you research rare earths you will find they are not rare. Most are readily available and the refining costs are what makes them expensive. They are called rare earths because they were believed to be rare when they were first discovered.


Yeah, lithium is a good example, I know Southern Idaho and much of Nevada is (now) known to have a LOT of it. Just most of it exists in a form which currently makes retrieval/extraction not economically viable in most cases. And that is even before the environmentalists get involved in it, which they would.

REP

@Crumbly Writer

You keep spouting the need for evidence, but your history on the site argues that you have no interest at all in any kind of documentation, you only use those claims to shut up certain individuals you feel have no right speaking on the Forum.


CW, that is what it feels like to you, but it is not true. You have a history of making unsubstantiated comments in this Forum. When we ask you for the documentation on which you based your comment, you take offense and go off on a rant, like the one above, about others having "no interest at all in any kind of documentation". Our requests are not attempts to "shut up certain individuals you feel have no right speaking on the Forum" (i.e. it's not an attempt to shut CW up).

We are interested in honest communication. You make an unsubstantiated comment and we ask for substantiation of your comments. That is part of the communication process. Instead of providing the substantiation, you destroy the communication process by going off on a rant because we are not willing to just accept what you say.

SO once again, I politely ask: if you're NOT interested in honest communications, kindly SHUT THE HELL UP and stop abusing the participants, so those with an honest desire to learn can!


Now that is a Trump-like attempt to shut someone up.

All of us in this Forum have the right to express a differing opinion. We are interested in learning and chatting about different topics. It is just that we aren't going to just accept what you and others say without something to backup what is said. We are not that gullible.

It's the same with demanding proof every time someone makes an assertion on these forums.


Assertions made without adequate substantiation are assumptions. If you provided what you base your assertion on, we would not have to ask for substantiation. What you call "us demanding proof" is us asking for substantiation of your apparent assumption.

Yes you are right that we can go out and try to find articles on a subject. Some of what we find will contradict your assertions. We just want to know which of many possible articles you are basing your assertion on. We aren't mind readers and like you we have better things to do with our time than read a dozen or more articles to find one that substantiates what you say.


I read the Live Science article but not the others, so my following comments are based on that one article.


An example of why we don't want to just accept what you say is, you said -

Yes, but the gold was formed (into a solid state) deep underground in mountain streams which boiled away during earthquakes.


What the article said is the gold deposits were formed in faults, not streams. Streams is your interpretation of what the article said.

What part of the scientific process do you not get?


The kind of research we're talking about can only be done on a purely theoretical basis


The Scientific Process starts with a factual baseline. Then through observation and experimentation, facts are added to the baseline. Eventually, a new theory or factual understanding of the subject is formed.

Theory is not fact. It is an assumption that has some basis in fact, but it is not a proven fact. When you start out with an unsubstantiated theory (i.e. the article stated "scientists suspect") and make assumptions regarding that theory, the resulting so-called theory is actually an assumption.

allows us to understand what we currently see and observe (i.e. direct empirical evidence) around us.


Definition of EMPIRICAL
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
• empirical data
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
• an empirical basis for the theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
• empirical laws
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

Sorry CW. Nothing has been seen or observed in this instance by us or the scientists. The article is about a bunch of guesses that the scientists are making.

Empirical research? Like, digging up an entire mountain, to a depth of possible one or two miles underground . . .


Yes, if that is what it takes to gather evidence for an empirical theory. Otherwise the theory is just an assumptions.

This research helps explain the processes involved,


The Oxford dictionaries say that research is the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.

When you start with an assumption that there are gold deposits in what you believe are faults caused by earthquakes and then assume the gold deposits are there because the water boiled off, your resulting "theory" is not valid because you did not do the research on which you can base a new theory. If you read the article carefully, you will find that other scientists have alternative theories.

What I got out of the Live Science article is Weatherley explained how earthquakes create faults and carbon dioxide, water, silica, and gold can be found in these faults. Then due to extremely high temperatures, the water instantly vaporizes leaving behind what nature turns into gold bearing quartz. However, the article also said one of Weatherley's peers (see quote below) said scientists have suspicions regarding the link between gold deposits and faults, and Weatherley's theory takes the idea to the extreme.

The main thing about this article that creates a problem for me is - it contains words like suspected, could, and may:

While scientists have long suspected that sudden pressure drops could account for the link between giant gold deposits and ancient faults, the study takes this idea to the extreme, said Jamie Wilkinson, a geochemist at Imperial College London in the United Kingdom, who was not involved in the study.


this process may be the primary driver for the formation of economic gold deposits


explaining that the 'long gold and silver reserves' were once underground streams, and that repeated earthquakes converted the mostly pure water into solid form over eons


That is not what the article said. The article explains the theory, but it does not prove the theory is factual. You need to stop confusing an explanation and fact.

Does the evidence support the conclusions? Obviously, especially since no other proposal explains what we've long observed.


The article does not provide evidence of there being gold in a buried streambed (or fault). Assuming there is gold there, the article does not adequately explain how the gold came to be in the streambed (or fault). Just because you are not aware of a competing theory, doesn't mean there isn't one. In fact, the article indicates that other scientists have competing theories.

But demanding 'empirical proof' is akin . . . It's simply NEVER going to be possible!


And that is the heart of the problem. If it is impossible to gain proof of a theory, then that theory is an unfounded assumption.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@REP

Now that is a Trump-like attempt to shut someone up.


REP, your prejudice is showing. While Trump isn't really high on my list of favorite people, I can't help but note that the ones that I see stifling debate or attempting to shut up anyone are his leftist opponents in the so-called main stream media, the leftist leaning owners of the large internet conglomerates/monopolies, the leftist leaning SJWs on college campuses (and elsewhere).

In fact, the only ones that I see attempting to impose censorship right now are leftists. So accusing Trump of doing so, or trying to do so, is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. And, in this case, incorrectly so.

Replies:   PotomacBob  REP  Not_a_ID
PotomacBob

@Jim S

the leftist leaning SJWs


What means SJWs?

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@PotomacBob

SJW = Social Justice Warrior

REP
Updated:

@Jim S

I haven't made it a secret in the Forum that Trump is at the bottom of my list of favorite people.

I believe it is highly inappropriate of Trump to use demeaning nicknames in his twitter posts in an attempt to undermine the credibility of those who disagree with his actions and statement.

The way I see it is, when Trump uses his presidency as a bully pit to discredit those who disagree with him, then he cannot or does not want to address the issue for he knows what others are saying about him is the truth or at least their comments contain a great deal of truth.


And, in this case, incorrectly so.


In which case? Are you referencing CW posting:


SO once again, I politely ask: if you're NOT interested in honest communications, kindly SHUT THE HELL UP and stop abusing the participants, so those with an honest desire to learn can!


Keep in mind that in this and prior posts, CW appears to define that anyone disagreeing with him is not engaged in honest communication. [(ETA) He is also saying that posters who disagree with him are abusing other posters and that because we don't agree with him, we don't have a desire to learn. Frankly, I don't agree with a lot of what CW says, but I usually just let it go.]

or are you referring to:


And you don't just do this for scientific claims you choose not to believe. You've done it every single time anyone makes a claim about writing, and which techniques work better than others (which, by definition, are virtually ALL anecdotal), but you essentially shut down ALL CONVERSATION just so no one will dare suggest that you don't know shit about how to compose stories, and have no desire to consider ANY new ideas.


That is one of his commonly made statements about people who have opinions that differ from his. What he is actually saying is he has the right to defend his opinion to the death, but it is improper for people who have different opinions to defend what they believe. He is also saying that when we consider his new ideas and find them lacking, we don't have the right to disagree with him for our disagreeing will shutdown communication.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@REP

In which case? Are you referencing CW posting:


No. I was referencing my own post where the sentence you quoted appeared as the final sentence.

Replies:   REP
REP

@Jim S

In fact, the only ones that I see attempting to impose censorship right now are leftists. So accusing Trump of doing so, or trying to do so, is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. And, in this case, incorrectly so.


Your post isn't clear. It sounds like you are referencing the above. If so, it is difficult for me to comprehend why you would say something and then say it's not true.

I would disagree with the part about leftists imposing censorship. The last time I checked disagreeing with someone wasn't censorship. It was free speech.

I personally question everything politicians and media outlets (left and right) say. They all misrepresent the truth to the degree that none of us can be sure what is actually true.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Not_a_ID  Jim S
Dominions Son

@REP

I would disagree with the part about leftists imposing censorship. The last time I checked disagreeing with someone wasn't censorship. It was free speech.


Trying to shout down invited speakers at events organized by other people, so that those who invited the speakers don't get to hear what the speaker has to say is in my opinion more censorship than free speech.

You need to look into what is happening on Public University campuses these days.

Replies:   REP  StarFleet Carl
REP

@Dominions Son

I agree. That action is also considered rude.

To bad they don't teach classes in manners and consideration of other people's rights in Public Schools and Universities. Following good manners and considering other people's rights would prevent a large portion of the problems present in our society.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Jim S

In fact, the only ones that I see attempting to impose censorship right now are leftists. So accusing Trump of doing so, or trying to do so, is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. And, in this case, incorrectly so.

Uh, except Trump would love nothing more than to censor his critics. He does seem to have enough of a clue to not try doing so, however. So he rants at them instead, often via twitter.

He isn't the President we need, but he sure as hell is the one we deserved. And Hillary was neither what the country needed, or deserved.

Replies:   Capt. Zapp
Not_a_ID

@REP

I would disagree with the part about leftists imposing censorship. The last time I checked disagreeing with someone wasn't censorship. It was free speech.


Well, up until disagreement with them automatically means you're engaged in "hate speech" and should be prosecuted and/or removed from the public discourse for doing so.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@REP


To bad they don't teach classes in manners and consideration of other people's rights in Public Schools and Universities. Following good manners and considering other people's rights would prevent a large portion of the problems present in our society.


Amen. Shouting people down only makes things worse, and achieves nothing. It also ignores the matter that in order for communication to happen, it must be a two way street. "You" have to be willing to listen if you expect the same in return.

Which is the biggest problem with the SJW's. They've already passed judgement and have run off to war(hence why they're "warriors" as that is what warriors are for) and have no interest in communication. The only outcome acceptable to them is total surrender on the part of their chosen(and judged) enemies.

That they do this under a banner of tolerance, acceptance, and understanding of others is the more mind boggling aspect of things. As so many people seem to be allowing themselves to be willfully ignorant of what they're actually doing.

Replies:   REP  PotomacBob
StarFleet Carl

@Dominions Son

You need to look into what is happening on Public University campuses these days.


Randa Jarrar does have the freedom of speech to state her opinion about Barbara Bush. She does NOT have the freedom of speech to give out a crisis center hotline as if it were her own phone number and should be fired for that.

And if you're wondering about who Randa Jarrar is ...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/18/fresno-state-says-barbara-bush-bashing-professor-can-be-fired-despite-tenure.html

Replies:   Dominions Son
Capt. Zapp

@Not_a_ID

Uh, except Trump would love nothing more than to censor his critics.


I think there are a lot of people who would like to censor their critics, including some writers.

He does seem to have enough of a clue to not try doing so, however.


So he doesn't censor them.

So he rants at them instead, often via twitter.


This is called freedom of speech.

REP

@Not_a_ID

As so many people seem to be allowing themselves to be willfully ignorant of what they're actually doing.


Their attitude is the end justifies the means. The Nazis used that approach and when they lost, they had to pay the price. The same thing is likely to happen with your SJWs.

Dominions Son

@StarFleet Carl

And if you're wondering about who Randa Jarrar is ...


I'm familiar with the story.

Jim S

@REP

Your post isn't clear. It sounds like you are referencing the above. If so, it is difficult for me to comprehend why you would say something and then say it's not true.


I don't know what to tell you other than the paragraph stands on its own. Read it again. Carefully. My intended meaning couldn't be any clearer.

Replies:   REP
PotomacBob

@Not_a_ID

Which is the biggest problem with the SJW's.


When you use "SJW's," I don't have a clue who you're talking about. I gather the label is meant to distinguish people you disagree with. I've seen individuals (on many sides of many issues) who seem to display the characteristics you mention, i.e., "the only outcome acceptable to them is total surrender ..." and who seem "willfully ignorant of what they're actually doing."

Replies:   Friar Dave  Not_a_ID
Friar Dave

@PotomacBob

When you use "SJW's," I don't have a clue who you're talking about


SJWs are the authoritarian, identity driven, racist leftists proliferating in western societies now, being produced by the extreme leftist academia. Third wave feminists are among them, Antifa too.

They are hardcore leftists, practically communist. They are basically working hard to end Western civilization as we know it. They are anti-capitalist, anti-white, anti-men and anti fairness. They work for equity in society (equality of outcome), they abhor meritocracy and divide/group people by their skin colour and their sex/gender. They proclaim to be anti-racist and yet they emphasize skin colour.

Replies:   Jim S  StarFleet Carl
Crumbly Writer

I'm not going to bother defending myself here any more, and the discussion has gotten a bit out of hand, but after thinking about it, let me just clarify the following point.

Dominion Son, while I don't agree with it, I perfectly understand you position. As an engineer (of sorts), you're trained to deal with specific 'documented' results. (ex: "Will this bridge collapse at some point?" "No, it can exceed xxx pounds per square inch for extended periods with no structural integrity problems." or "Will this seal hold under intense cold?")

Engineers are conditioned to think in terms of "proof". But although it's a 'scientific field', engineers are NOT scientists, as they don't seek answers to the great unasked questions. That's why one of the longest running punchlines on the Big Bang Theory are the conflicts between the one Engineer in the group and the various theoretical physicists. They need to work together, but they can virtually never agree on basic principals or objectives.

Science is involved in answering the unanswerable. Mathematicians provide 'proofs', but scientists suggest alternative explanations, each of which have definable tests to determine whether they're they're 'true' or not, even though it may take decades to evaluate their claims. They key, though, is that their 'explanations' must advance everyone's understanding of the underlying principals. Thus, the 'proof' of earthquakes producing gold in old underground streams isn't the observation of it occurring in real-time, it's whether that explanation holds up under observational evidence (i.e. is consistent with the facts on the ground), and that it provides a more detailed understanding of the processes than the previous understanding did.

There is no way to determine what occurs inside of a black hole, thus any research into it is not 'provable', just as the accumulated anecdotal evidence of thousands of editors hold that certain things are 'true' about publishing. Neither is 'provable' as an absolute fact the way you can with tensile strength or capacitor's leakages.

However, while I understand your perspective, you insistence that everyone cater to your definition of 'facts' is essentially your bullying insistence that "No one besides engineers are allowed to have literary opinions on this forum", which is simply beyond the pale.

Now go ahead and argue about how unreasonable and childish I'm being, as I'm beyond caring about the subject. I don't plan on visiting this pointless discussion any further (including reading his angry diatribes against me), as I simply no longer care.

Jim S

@Friar Dave

Concisely stated. However, you missed their absolute intolerance to any other views than their own. While somewhat implied under authoritarian, I don't believe that characterization properly captures their rabid opposition, often violent, to opposing views.

Replies:   Friar Dave
Friar Dave

@Jim S

you missed their absolute intolerance to any other views than their own


Yes, I missed mentioning that point.

They are the most intolerant people that I've ever had the unpleasure of meeting in the west. They remind me of the < sarcasm>religion of peace< /sarcasm> where I came from.

It's telling that they have Antifa, which behaves exactly like the brownshirts.

Replies:   PotomacBob
REP

@Jim S

I've read your post multiple times. Reading it again isn't going to help.

That is the problem with writing. The meaning of what someone writes is perfectly clear to the writer. However, the meaning can be ambiguous to the reader. That is the case for me regarding the following portion of your post.

In fact, the only ones that I see attempting to impose censorship right now are leftists. So accusing Trump of doing so, or trying to do so, is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. And, in this case, incorrectly so.


The phrase "in this case" is totally ambiguous to me as a reader for I can't determine what case you are referring to:

1) Are you referring to the two sentences preceding "And, in this case, incorrectly so"?

2) Are you referring to the preceding paragraph in the same post?

3) Are you referring to something in one of my prior posts?

Then there is the cryptic "incorrectly so". Depending on what you are referring to, you didn't state why whatever you are referencing is incorrect.

I'm dropping the matter. The only reason for this post is to make you aware that one of the things we strive for in this Forum is clarity in what we write. The fact that I said your statement wasn't clear to me and your response of it being clear to you without clarifying your meaning shows me that you fail to accept that your communication was not clear to all of your readers. That may not be important to you, but it is to an author.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@REP

I'm dropping the matter.

Thank you.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@PotomacBob


When you use "SJW's," I don't have a clue who you're talking about. I gather the label is meant to distinguish people you disagree with.


In this case, they were the ones who (initially) identified by that label. So it was a self-identification as "a Social Justice Warrior" who would "take the battle to the enemy" for "the cause of Social Justice."

Keep in mind, that for purveyors of "Social Justice" the emphasis is on the collective good rather than protecting individual interests. (IE "Justice")

So they often espouse and promote ideas that are anathema to Justice itself when applied on an individual basis. Which is why it needed that "Social" modifier at the front of it.

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@Friar Dave

It's telling that they have Antifa, which behaves exactly like the brownshirts.


Antifa? Brownshirts? What are those?

Replies:   Friar Dave
PotomacBob

@Not_a_ID

So how do I know when I'm talking to an SJW? (who I've never even heard mentioned before this thread). Is it only the the ideas they promote? Do they resort to violence? Do they promote overthrowing the U.S. Government?

Friar Dave

@PotomacBob

Antifa? Brownshirts? What are those?


Antifa (or Anti Fascists) are an unofficial political group in the U.S. You see them around when there are protests against free speech and against conservatives on college campuses across the US. They dress up in black and they cover their faces. I'm not sure if they're going for irony with their name as they behave very much like fascists. They engage in violence and rioting when they can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

The Browshirts or 'The Sturmabteilung' were the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@Friar Dave

Thanks. I shudda known the brown shirts.

StarFleet Carl

@Friar Dave

They are hardcore leftists, practically communist. They are basically working hard to end Western civilization as we know it. They are anti-capitalist, anti-white, anti-men and anti fairness. They work for equity in society (equality of outcome), they abhor meritocracy and divide/group people by their skin colour and their sex/gender. They proclaim to be anti-racist and yet they emphasize skin colour.


You forgot that they claim to support LGBTQLBFB ideals while at the same time wanting to see the country allow Muslims to take over things ... which would put an end to absolutely EVERYTHING they claim to support.

Phrasing it another way - freedom of speech and the freedom to refuse service is perfectly okay if you're on their side of things, but if you happen to be a white, Christian, male or business owner, why then to them, you have no rights.

That may also be why we don't see too many of them here in Oklahoma.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@StarFleet Carl

... but if you happen to be a white, Christian, male or business owner, why then to them, you have no rights.

That may also be why we don't see too many of them here in Oklahoma.

Are there no white, Christian, male business owner in Oklahoma? Or did you not mention them because those do have rights?

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@robberhands

Here's a definition I found at the Urban Dictionary:

"social justice warrior -
A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.

The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online."

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S
Updated:

@PotomacBob

This definition is incomplete, making SJWs look like nothing more sinister than online trolls. The reality is far more dangerous. Friar Dave captures it almost completely with his post yesterday (4/20). This will link to it:

http://storiesonline.net/d/s2/t3833/for-post-apocalyptic#po73169

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@Jim S

I guess what I'm missing are some specifics. I can read all the characterizations and condemnations, but I don't know who said (or did) something to arouse such controversy.
What I'm looking for is something along the lines of - "Joe Smith told a meeting of the Do-Gooder Society that they should go out and lynch white people or people who disagree." I'm sure that's probably an exaggeration, but I'd like to see something on the record by a specific someone, including the context. I'm not asking anyone to do research for me. I can do my own research, but, presumably those who are making these points know some specifics that would lead me to make judgments of my own. I need some basic information to begin with. Who? What? When? Where? etc.

Jim S

@PotomacBob

I need some basic information to begin with. Who? What? When? Where? etc.

See Friar Dave's definition for the What. For the Who, When, Where, check the internet for any story where conservative speakers invited to speak at universities were either shouted down and/or interrupted or not even permitted to go on stage. Two coming readily to mind are Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley and Charles Murray at Middlebury College. Both are well documented. While Milo is a tad provocative (to say the least, but so what?), Charles Murray is a recognized scholar with multiple books and papers published. His only "crime" is not accepting the racial philosophy of the SJWs

SJWs aren't a formal organization; it's a political philosophy. They may exist but I wouldn't know where you can find any formal SJW organization.

They aren't only found in academia. They also show up in the so called Main Stream Media, entertainment and, now, in social media embedded in both the hierarchy and ranks. You can sometimes identify them from their use of the epithets racist, sexist, homophobe, white privilege, male privilege, old white men and others that seek the vilify rather than inform. That is, when they're trying to censor/shut up any discussion or attempts to communicate what they consider improper information. They're becoming more violent, especially since Trump was elected.

Hope this helps.

Dominions Son

@PotomacBob

I need some basic information to begin with. Who? What? When? Where? etc.


https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/04/middlebury/hAfpA1Hquh7DIS1doiKbhJ/story.html

Charles Murry was brought in to debate a liberal professor Allison Stanger at Middlebury College.

Protestors prevented Murry from speaking by shouting him down. The college administration moved him and the professor to a media room where they attempted to do the event by live streaming. Protestors pulled fire alarms and attempted to cut power to the media room.

When Murray finished his speech, he left the building with Allison Stanger, professor of international politics and economics, and other college officials, but was met by a group of protesters who wore bandanas to cover their faces.

College spokesman Bill Burger said he believed they were "outside agitators" who had been barred from the event, rather than Middlebury students. Flanked by security officers, Murray, Stanger and Burger moved toward Burger's car.

By that point, more than 20 demonstrators had gathered. One threw a stop sign with a heavy concrete base in front of the car Murray was in, and several others rocked, pounded, and jumped on the vehicle. One protester pulled Stanger's hair and injured her neck. She was taken to a hospital, where she was treated and released.

Dominions Son

@PotomacBob

Who? What? When? Where? etc.


Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/?utm_term=.6a5a08a8f855

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Crumbly Writer

Really? The typical smart phone, the epitome or current design expertise, are typically only used for 2 years. Those older than three are more likely to be so degraded (by software design) that no one CAN use them beyond 3. And you're telling me that we're going to use THAT technical expertise to build space stations that will last the next hundred years, even with normal repair and replace schedules.


Most of the "high technology" parts are only going to comprise a small fraction of the overall volume and weight of whatever is deployed. And the nature of technology is such that further innovations are likely to result in the next generation being smaller and more efficient than the one that came before.

That said, we have plenty of facilities operating in this country which have been in near-continuous operation for decades, if not nearly a century or longer.

You don't replace an entire Refinery just because you decided to add an additional sensor node at a particular location, or because you wanted to electronically control a valve instead of continuing to operate it manually.

Nobody claimed those stations or facilities would still be operating the same electronics and associated control systems 50 years after being set up as they did when it was first built. The air ducts and ventilation systems should remain perfectly operational so long as they've been properly maintained. That isn't to say the control systems, or even the fans wouldn't have been replaced in the interim.

Or that the particular configuration that was used is considered outmoded and inefficient by the standards that exist at that point after an additional 50 years of experience building and living in zero/low-g environments.

Not_a_ID

@Jim S

You can sometimes identify them from their use of the epithets racist, sexist, homophobe, white privilege, male privilege, old white men and others that seek the vilify rather than inform. That is, when they're trying to censor/shut up any discussion or attempts to communicate what they consider improper information.


Don't forget, they love to compare those that disagree with them to Nazis and Fascists as well.

Which in turn takes us back to AntiFa.

PotomacBob

@Jim S

His only "crime" is not accepting the racial philosophy of the SJWs


What IS the "racial philosophy of the SJWs"

Replies:   Jim S  Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

It should be noted that 2017 seems to have been the Apex for AntiFa so far. They're operating at a lower level this year. Probably in part because people are coming to terms with President Trump and world not having ended yet.

It might also be at least in small part due to their having pissed off Anonymous by claiming to be acting at their behest as well at one point very early in 2017. Which led to (parts of) Anonymous declaring open season on AntiFa.

Anonymous is somewhat of an Anarchist group as well, but their alignment and methodologies are a bit different than those being used by AntiFa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2rMUUaNX1Y

The video also includes a fair bit of footage of AntiFA in action.

Jim S

@PotomacBob

What IS the "racial philosophy of the SJWs"


I'm not entirely sure, so you'll have to ask them. The only thing for certain is that it is anti-Caucasian. Beyond that? Your guess is as good as mine.

StarFleet Carl

@Jim S

formal SJW organization


I thought that was called the Democratic National Committee.

I think another example of the whole SJW thing is that in 2015, a police officer (in uniform) went into a Starbucks and asked to use the restroom. Since he hadn't purchased anything, the barista told him no, and yelled it out to the entire dining room that the bathroom was for paying customers only. Minor social kerfuffle, Starbucks issues an apology but does say it's their policy, and the issue is done. Two black guys come in, ask to use the restroom, they're simply asked to leave as per policy, they refuse to do so, police are called and suddenly Starbucks has to close for a day to train for sensitivity to how they treat black people ... but not police officers.

I'd say that they have a double standard, except it appears they only have one standard, which is to support liberal causes. Note that BOTH incidents happened in Philadelphia - the 'City of Brotherly Love'.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150916_Starbucks_apologizes_to_cop_over_restroom_incident.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-chief-officers-did-nothing-wrong-arrest-black-men-starbucks-n866061

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@StarFleet Carl

So in two different incidents in Starbucks in Philadelphia, if I understand your post correctly, a white policeman and two black guys were treated differently for similar incidents, and somehow that demonstrates that the Democratic National Committee is SJW. And being SJW (according to some posts in this forum) is defined as being anti-caucasian. I don't understand the connection.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@PotomacBob


What IS the "racial philosophy of the SJWs"


If you're white, "straight," and male, you need to shut up and sit down. You are utterly incapable of understanding what life is like for an ethnic minority. You are utterly incapable of understanding what life is like for women. You also cannot understand what life is like for people with non-standard sexual preferences. As such, anything you have to say on those issues doesn't matter, it is utterly irrelevant to the discourse. (As such, shouting you down is perfectly rational and acceptable. Also, "looking white" and being male is sufficient to qualify for this treatment.)

Failure to agree with that premise is to be taken as proof of your inability to comprehend that you're incapable of understanding just how privileged your life has been as a white male.

Also "scorched earth" on just a HINT of "wrong-doing" is totally acceptable. So if you somehow make it onto the radar of a SJW(or someone who looks like you, or shares your name), expect your life to be turned into a living hell and for tremendous pressure to brought upon your employer to fire you, lest the SJW's start targeting their business as well.

Replies:   robberhands  PotomacBob
robberhands

@Not_a_ID

Great, now you've defined a derogatory term. Will we next have a look at who uses the term to disparage divergent opinions?

PotomacBob

@Not_a_ID

I'll have to observe that, to the best of my knowledge, I've never met even one person who ascribes to those beliefs, not in public, not in private, nor have I read of any groups who themselves say that is their reason for organizing.

Replies:   Jim S  John Demille  Not_a_ID
Jim S

@PotomacBob

I'll have to observe that, to the best of my knowledge, I've never met even one person who ascribes to those beliefs, not in public, not in private, nor have I read of any groups who themselves say that is their reason for organizing.

You ought to get out more.

John Demille

@PotomacBob

Do you have frequent and prolonged contact including conversations with college-aged/college-attending youth?

If not, then you won't.

Not_a_ID

@PotomacBob

I'll have to observe that, to the best of my knowledge, I've never met even one person who ascribes to those beliefs, not in public, not in private, nor have I read of any groups who themselves say that is their reason for organizing.


Good for you. There are plenty of people who have been on the receiving end of those groups. Sometimes with "good reason" (They found the right person), sometimes not(wrong person found). One such example would be the efforts that happened following the Charlottesville events last year. (Which even Anonymous was party to) Where they went about "outing" the Protesters on the white supremacy side.. Only some of the people "outed" weren't even there. (Looked a lot alike, or same name usually)

Other examples are accusations of (sexual) misconduct, where the moment the allegation becomes widely known, "they" go about turning the accused persons life into a living hell. Because false allegations never happen, and the people deluded enough to think they do are simply "victim blaming" instead. 😵

JohnBobMead

In re SJWs, they are currently making life a living hell for most of the writers of Military SF in the Science Fiction community. A number of others, as well, but the most blatantly singled out are those who write Military SF.

Basically, any who write stories that they deem to be supporting or encouraging ideologies they disapprove of, even if all that is actually occuring is a reasoned extrapolation based upon "These conditions exist, what comes next?"

Which is rather disturbing to those of us who have been reading SF and involved in Fandom for over forty years.

It's not a pleasant thing to discover that so many of those who have come into our community in recent years have so shallow a comprehension of just what the origins of the field were, namely, an exploration of "these conditions exist, what logically happens as a result?"

Especially, of course, if the writer is able to make a reasoned argument for a result that doesn't agree with their agendas.

The most recent bad example is a convention that extended an invitation to John Ringo to be a guest, and then, as a result of the violent threats made towards him, determined that it just wouldn't be safe for him to attend, and thus they withdrew the invitation. Because, the mere fact of his being there was so offensive to the SJWs that they couldn't just avoid any panels that he was on, that wasn't sufficient to them, they had to plan confrontations.

Friar Dave

@JohnBobMead

Because, the mere fact of his being there was so offensive to the SJWs that they couldn't just avoid any panels that he was on, that wasn't sufficient to them, they had to plan confrontations.


SJWs are all about spreading their ideology. They even believe or at least pretend to believe that words are actual violence. So they can't allow words they disapprove of spread. So at most risks are authors because authors spread ideas and if those ideas happen to be against the SJW marxist narrative, then they can't be allowed nor tolerated and must be stifled at all cost.

It's the main reason that SJWs are so opposed to freedom of speech. They don't want you to speak, they will never debate you and never have any type of discourse. They shut you down whenever they can.

Replies:   Jim S
StarFleet Carl

@JohnBobMead

The most recent bad example is a convention that extended an invitation to John Ringo to be a guest, and then, as a result of the violent threats made towards him, determined that it just wouldn't be safe for him to attend, and thus they withdrew the invitation.


I'm surprised Ringo didn't show up anyway, with Michael Z. Williamson providing security. Ringo would have been safe. The SJW's would have pissed their pants and left. (Have you seen some of Mike blades? I was fortunate enough, when I lived in Indiana, to visit with him once. DAMN!)

Jim S
Updated:

@Friar Dave


SJWs are all about spreading their ideology. They even believe or at least pretend to believe that words are actual violence. So they can't allow words they disapprove of spread.


SJWs remind me of every regime that ever tried to suppress speech in order to control the thoughts of the population. From the Roman Catholic Inquistion to The Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution to Nazi Germany to Soviet Russia to Communist China. And there is no doubt that if they ever achieve political power, a similar reign of terror will be imposed.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl

@Jim S

And there is no doubt that if they ever achieve political power, a similar reign of terror will be imposed.


I thought their political power was the Democrat Party?

As for a reign of terror ... yeah, it's possible, I suppose, but that would mean they'd have to have some means of backing that up. And since to back that up, they'd also need at least some willingness to actually stand up and fight for what they believe in ... that's something that seems to be lacking in them.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen them cause plenty of violence in their protests. It's just that violence was against objects or defenseless people - burning police cars or beating up old men. Any time that it's been anything close to nearly decent odds - 20 SJW's against 4 grown men, for example - the SJW's get their asses kicked.

Replies:   JohnBobMead
JohnBobMead
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl


I thought their political power was the Democrat Party?


While there is no question that the DNC and DCC are both doing their best to gain the support of the SJWs, I think this is a case where they're just trying to play them.

However, they may not realize that history indicates that attempting to gain the support of ultra-radicals can often end up being a very bad thing to have done, because they have a tendency to move in and drive out the moderate voices.

Except, they are the very one's making that claim concerning the Republican Party, that it sought the support of those at the far right, and got hi-jacked. Which makes one wonder just how smart they really are, to see the danger in what happened to others, yet think it can't happen to them...

In my perspective, anyone who sets out to gain the approval of those who are ultra-polarized in their ideology/beliefs/worldview has lost sight of something necessary for the longevity of any culture, the ability to form consensus, to compromise such that things are at least bearable for the majority of those inside that culture.

For one group to win outright, everyone else has to lose. Do that often enough to the benefit of the same sub-segment of the whole, and someone outside that sub-segment will force a change to the rules of the game. When that happens, things tend to get... unpleasant. The higher the stakes involved, the greater the degree of unpleasantness that can be expected to result.

The Radical Left sees the Right doing this in regard to taxation and it's impact on social services; they fail to recognize that they have been doing the exact same thing themselves, with their imposition of social engineering by legislation.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl  Not_a_ID
StarFleet Carl

@JohnBobMead

The Radical Left sees the Right doing this in regard to taxation and it's impact on social services; they fail to recognize that they have been doing the exact same thing themselves, with their imposition of social engineering by legislation.


I suspect that this is due to the history of the Democrat Party itself, and how long ago it actually went that way. Otherwise Reagan wouldn't have made that comment back in 1962 that he didn't leave the Democrat Party, it left him. And that's also why so many Southern states, which were tremendous Democrat strongholds in the past, have become Republican states. The ideals of the voters haven't really changed, but the party itself has become radicalized.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@JohnBobMead

However, they may not realize that history indicates that attempting to gain the support of ultra-radicals can often end up being a very bad thing to have done, because they have a tendency to move in and drive out the moderate voices.

Except, they are the very one's making that claim concerning the Republican Party, that it sought the support of those at the far right, and got hi-jacked. Which makes one wonder just how smart they really are, to see the danger in what happened to others, yet think it can't happen to them...

In my perspective, anyone who sets out to gain the approval of those who are ultra-polarized in their ideology/beliefs/worldview has lost sight of something necessary for the longevity of any culture, the ability to form consensus, to compromise such that things are at least bearable for the majority of those inside that culture.


A couple decades ago now, Rush Limbaugh had an explanation of the Democratic Party's "Big Tent" that addresses this well. I am sure he has reiterated it numerous times over the intervening years.

The Primary Unifying Objective of the Democratic Party since at least the time of the Clinton Administration has been the absolute and total defeat of the Republican Party.

The various "wings" and appendages of the DNC do often work at cross purposes to one another, and many even have end goals diametrically opposed to one another on certain specific issues. But the one thing they all have in common is that the Republicans are in their way. As such they're in an alliance of convenience with each other until such time that "the Republicans aren't a problem anymore." At that point, they will then commence squabbling over who gets to hold control over things.

...Of course, I think Obama fundamentally transformed the DNC in some significant but subtle ways, and they disenfranchised some of those groups in the process. Some were more moderate and switched to the Republicans, while others lurched further to the Left while others are simply disengaged from the process right now.

The Republicans have factions and groups as well, but they're generally not anywhere near as tightly organized as what is aligned behind the DNC. The Republicans nominally being the "status quo"(Conservative) party, they generally don't need elaborately organized political machinery to back them. Which isn't to say they won't use such things, just that it is typically less important for them to do so.

Not_a_ID

@StarFleet Carl

And that's also why so many Southern states, which were tremendous Democrat strongholds in the past, have become Republican states. The ideals of the voters haven't really changed, but the party itself has become radicalized.


The "Southern Shift" also tended to coincide with Air Conditioning becoming more common and significant population growth, not from reproduction, but from people leaving other areas(Primarily New England) and moving to the South.

But as with any such migration like that in recent decades, while the initial cadre of people leaving certain Liberal Utopias were predominately conservative. Once a given area was "sufficiently built up"(urbanized), Liberal voters would soon start to follow behind them.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Not_a_ID

The Primary Unifying Objective of the Democratic Party since at least the time of the Clinton Administration has been the absolute and total defeat of the Republican Party.

This doesn't go far enough. The Primary Unifying Objective of the Democratic Party is the annihilation of the Republican Party. Their actions prove it, e.g. the court challenge in the 2000 election (thereafter making GWB's election "illegitimate") to the absolute froth-at-the-mouth frenzy over Trump. No Republican holding the Presidency will ever be cast as anything else from here on out. Not even (shudder) McCain or Romney should either have ever come to pass.

Back to Top