Genocide Induced Climate Change

[sfs]

By seeing whether administering chloroquine to kids with malaria still works?

That would work, but would probably also result in a bunch of dead kids. Genetic markers for chloroquine resistance have been tracked in enough countries to know that resistance only declines slowly after chloroquine is withdrawn as the primary treatment for malaria. The genetic markers are easy enough to test. It seems supremely dumb to reject scientific findings based on them simply because somebody on the internet decided that science is only valid when it can be reproduced by anybody without a lab.

The issue here is really one of record-keeping within the Ghanaian medical system. To the best of my knowledge, they do a fairly good job.

That's not the issue. The clinics that are keeping records will all be using some kind of artemisinin-based combination therapy now, which has been policy in Ghana for something like 15 years, not chloroquine (although chloroquine may still be used unofficially).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What does that even mean?

I suspect it means it can work by purely subjective measures; i.e. that what works can be what you think works, what allows you to continue believing it works, and so-on. Homeopathy works because it can make you feel better, astrology and magic work because they allow your cognitive biases free rein to make you feel they're working...

But maybe I'm just an old cynic

 

[sfs]

One's idea of what "works" is highly limited and bounded by social and psychological potential and pressure.

In the malaria case, count the number of dead children and the number of living children. Are those numbers really bounded by social and psychological potential and pressure?

 

[Kaon]

In the malaria case, count the number of dead children and the number of living children. Are those numbers really bounded by social and psychological potential and pressure?

Hi, I am actually NOT talking about malaria alone; my injection into this thread had no relation to any ongoing conversation about malaria or the mortality rate in a specific nation - ever.

I am talking about a normal human's painfully limited ability to know what is possible. Humans have a marginalized ability to discern truth because we form the principles of the world around us through abstractions of the ego, a false inflation of superego, and a constant suppression of the id. Confusion. Deception. Disdain. Ridicule. Ignorance.

The context, of course, suggests that many of us wouldn't know the Truth if it died for us, resurrected and then offered a way to live forever (for example). Therefore, when one can say one system works with confidence, it shows the boundary of the matrix that would produce such an understanding. No one human system works, because humans are too ignorant to realize we are too ignorant, and we trade truth for favorability.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Not exactly.

It's not the reduction in population that resulted in lower CO2 levels.
It's the reforestation of large amounts of land that did that.

In essence, the same could be accomplished, without any population reduction.

Thanks! But do you mind elaborating further about how this is so? Is it because reforestation increases the amount of O2 which causes some sort of imbalance of the atmospheric gases?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thanks! But do you mind elaborating further about how this is so? Is it because reforestation increases the amount of O2 which causes some sort of imbalance of the atmospheric gases?

Ever heared of photosynthesis?

Plants pretty much "breath" carbon dioxide.

If you massively increase forestation, this results in more uptake of carbon dioxide by plant life. As a result, more co2 from the atmosphere is "consumed" by plants. Which in turn results in less co2 in the atmosphere. And since co2 is a greenhouse gas.......

What do you think would be the logical, even inevitable, result of reducing the amount of a greenhouse gas in an atmosphere by a mentionworthy amount?

 

[Radagast]

Not exactly.

It's not the reduction in population that resulted in lower CO2 levels.
It's the reforestation of large amounts of land that did that.

Mind you, it's very much debatable whether that "reforestation of large amounts of land" actually happened.

 

[Radagast]

That would work, but would probably also result in a bunch of dead kids. Genetic markers for chloroquine resistance have been tracked in enough countries to know that resistance only declines slowly after chloroquine is withdrawn as the primary treatment for malaria. The genetic markers are easy enough to test.

What I'm saying is that there are two ways of spotting resistance to chloroquine, or indeed any other drug: (a) send a blood sample to the lab for a DNA test or other test, and (b) note that the patient is not responding to the drug. I suspect that in rural areas of most developing countries, (b) gives a result faster than (a). Indeed, in rural areas of many developing countries, the infrastructure required for (a) simply does not exist.

That's not the issue. The clinics that are keeping records will all be using some kind of artemisinin-based combination therapy now, which has been policy in Ghana for something like 15 years, not chloroquine (although chloroquine may still be used unofficially).

Granted.

 

[RDKirk]

In reality, life expectancy in the age of antiquity was about 25-30. 35-40 if you were extremely lucky. Over 40 if you were filthy rich and lucky, and could permit yourself to stay out of much harm's way - eventhough you can't hide from virusses etc. But you can sure stay indoors in your big mansion or castle, far away from dangerous predators, enemy soldiers, robbers, etc.

I'd say not, considering that even within their own writings, they cite life expectancy into the 60s.

 

[JackRT]

At the time of first contact of the Europeans with the native peoples of the Americas, historians and demographers estimate the life expectancy of the Indians was about 25 years. That was not to say that it was impossible to live much older. In 1605 explorer Samuel de Champlain met an ancient Indian chieftain in what is now Nova Scotia. The Indian remembered the visit of Jaques Cartier. Champlain estimated him to be about 100 years old.

 

[RDKirk]

At the time of first contact of the Europeans with the native peoples of the Americas, historians and demographers estimate the life expectancy of the Indians was about 25 years. That was not to say that it was impossible to live much older. In 1605 explorer Samuel de Champlain met an ancient Indian chieftain in what is now Nova Scotia. The Indian remembered the visit of Jaques Cartier. Champlain estimated him to be about 100 years old.

"At the time of first contact."

"Life expectancy" is a squishy term. In the US, for instance, calculations for life expectancy include infant mortality rates.

But the real question is, "How long does the average adult continue to live?" What is the modal lifespan?

I have a deep suspicion that a culture such as displayed by the Aztecs, Mayans, et cetera, could not possibly have developed if modal adult lifespan was only 25 years.

Think about it: No grandparents. Grandparents are actually essential to society, particularly if written communication is not ubiquitous.

I suspect that in all cases everywhere we see such structures as multi-story pyramids and calendars maintaining accuracy decades into the future, the average adult is living at least into his fifties.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Life expectancy" is a squishy term. In the US, for instance, calculations for life expectancy include infant mortality rates.

It just means: the sum of all ages at the time of death, divided by the amount of people

An average of 25 can mean that they all die the day they turn 25 and not a single one a day sooner or later, or it can mean that many live to see 35 or older but that a great amount if infant mortality drags the average down because they don't live to see their first birthday.

It's an average.

I have a deep suspicion that a culture such as displayed by the Aztecs, Mayans, et cetera, could not possibly have developed if modal adult lifespan was only 25 years.

Think about it: No grandparents.

In those days, people also didn't wait till they turned 21 before they had sex and kids.
Basically, you could be a grandparent before turning 30.

And again, with a life expectancy of 25, just about every village will have some of its individuals seeing 40 or more as well. They might have been great-grand-parents by then.

I suspect that in all cases everywhere we see such structures as multi-story pyramids and calendars maintaining accuracy decades into the future, the average adult is living at least into his fifties.

I think you greatly underestimate the extreme hardship your average Joe would have been faced with in those days. And I'm not even talking about desease or alike yet. Just everyday life, working conditions, etc.

 

[JackRT]

I have a deep suspicion that a culture such as displayed by the Aztecs, Mayans, et cetera, could not possibly have developed if modal adult lifespan was only 25 years.

I suspect that you are correct for the more developed cultures ---Aztec, Mayan, Inca. The lower estimate may have been for those tribes that were basically hunter/gatherer cultures.

 

[RDKirk]

It just means: the sum of all ages at the time of death, divided by the amount of people

An average of 25 can mean that they all die the day they turn 25 and not a single one a day sooner or later, or it can mean that many live to see 35 or older but that a great amount if infant mortality drags the average down because they don't live to see their first birthday.

It's an average.

And the average state of the US has 20,000 square miles of Arctic tundra and also exports 2,000 tons of pineapple.

That kind of average is nearly useless for most purposes that people must consider. What people usually want to know is the modal.

In those days, people also didn't wait till they turned 21 before they had sex and kids.
Basically, you could be a grandparent before turning 30.

Biologically, yes, but practically, no. Girls might become mothers pretty soon after puberty, but boys are usually delayed from fatherhood until nearly the same ages as today in anything more advanced than a hunter-gatherer society.

Interestingly, there is a passage in Genesis that normalizes initial fatherhood to the early thirties.

If there is not universal literacy, the accumulation of knowledge depends on having a generation that has life memorized. I'm not talking about griots per se, although griots will inevitably be part of that generation.

That generation must be there, or the society will never progress from the hunter-gatherer stage.

And again, with a life expectancy of 25, just about every village will have some of its individuals seeing 40 or more as well. They might have been great-grand-parents by then.

By your own concept, you're talking about outliers. No society hinges on its outliers.

I think you greatly underestimate the extreme hardship your average Joe would have been faced with in those days. And I'm not even talking about desease or alike yet. Just everyday life, working conditions, etc.

No, I think you underestimate the intelligence of ancient humans. Really dangerous stuff: Make it kapu. Or figure out a way to do it with less attrition.

Small populations were highly isolated, which decreases disease risk. Distances between population centers were long, which means most people carrying disease died before getting to the next town.

 

[Radagast]

Is there documentation that high levels of O2 cause massive fires and explosions on the planet?

It's because everything burns much more easily in a high-oxygen atmosphere, and things catch fire at a lower temperatures. At high enough oxygen levels, they catch fire spontaneously. These are observable facts, and the reason why pure oxygen is always treated very carefully.

I think that industrialization has decreased the amount of O2 in the atmosphere and our bodies have adjusted to the decreased levels.

Carbon dioxide is up from around 0.02% to 0.04%. That means that oxygen is probably down from 20.97% to 20.95%, which is such a tiny change that you'd never notice.

And like I said, high levels of oxygen are toxic.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.
Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
MOD HAT OFF​