LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
It's impressive by storm trooper standards.
Joe Rogan's Podcast
- Thread starter Archie Moses
- Start date
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
See that's the difference between you and me. I couldn't care less if you are discredited or not. My self-esteem is not tied to being right in internet message boards. That sounds like you are trying really hard to put yourself on the pedestal of arbiter of all truth. You need to find worth elsewhere my friend. Internet fame is fleeting.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
This. The wisdom of @fishbrow on full display. This is exactly the scenario that executive orders are meant for. Handling a singular event that constitutes a threat to the republic and requires decisive action. Congress can pass legislation that negates an executive order if they feel it is overreach, or they can simply refuse to fund it. Balances remain secure. The biggest threat to this is in single party rule.
Our bet is whether OSHA will come up with a method of enforcement that is Constitutional according to SCOTUS. No slippery slope, no tyranny involved.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I honestly have no idea why someone would feel they’re worth paying attention to—in a political conversation of any type—when they clearly lack any acknowledgement of colonial history AND climate science. Well... I can come with some ideas, but they all begin by assigning these people some kind of delusion/denialism. Is there another way?
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
I think you misunderstand. I fully acknowledge climate science. The planet has warmed and human activities are mostly to blame for that warming. There is no denial but I do look at the other side of the balance and see in the last 70 years of Pax Americana, the average life expectancy of all people on Earth has gone from 45 to 73.5.
The majority of people on Earth are now middle class or rich for the first time in human history.
Even the Earth is greener and teeming with life
I don't deny the globe has become warmer, I just think it is a price well worth not being like we were 70 years ago when the German Nationalist Socialists were committing genocide while starting a World War, and the Soviet Marxists were committing genocide in their glorious revolution, and the Chinese Communists where committing genocide in their Great Leap Forward. I think freedom and the economic prosperity that accompanies it is a great thing and am not apologetic for that belief.
Last edited:
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Remember, most life expectancy numbers are skewed due to infant and childhood mortality. We have greatly improved in that area, whereas the actual years expected of people who survive childhood have changed far less dramatically. In fact, adjusted for infant mortality, life expectancy has been in the 60-year range for 2 centuries or more and in the 70-year range for most of the 20th century. But it has definitely improved the most after the industrial revolution.I think you misunderstand. I fully acknowledge climate science. The planet has warmed and human activities are mostly to blame for that warming. There is no denial but I do look at the other side of the balance and see in the last 70 years of Pax Americana, the average life expectancy of all people on Earth has gone from 45 to 73.5.
The majority of people on Earth are now middle class or rich for the first time in human history.
Even the Earth is greener and teeming with life
I don't deny the globe has become warmer, I just think it is a price well worth not being like we were 70 years ago when the German Nationalist Socialists were committing genocide while starting a World War, and the Soviet Marxists were committing genocide in their glorious revolution, and the Chinese Communists where committing genocide in their Great Leap Forward. I think freedom is a great thing and am not apologetic for that belief.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but your attempt here at acknowledging the transformations of the climate (and the range of possible consequences) is laughably inadequate in several ways.I think you misunderstand. I fully acknowledge climate science. The planet has warmed and human activities are mostly to blame for that warming. There is no denial but I do look at the other side of the balance and see in the last 70 years of Pax Americana, the average life expectancy of all people on Earth has gone from 45 to 73.5.
The majority of people on Earth are now middle class or rich for the first time in human history.
Even the Earth is greener and teeming with life
I don't deny the globe has become warmer, I just think it is a price well worth not being like we were 70 years ago when the German Nationalist Socialists were committing genocide while starting a World War, and the Soviet Marxists were committing genocide in their glorious revolution, and the Chinese Communists where committing genocide in their Great Leap Forward. I think freedom and the economic prosperity that accompanies it is a great thing and am not apologetic for that belief.
Also, A+ for just skipping over the history of colonialism again. That’s perfectly on-brand.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
You mean the history of literally every people on Earth? I don't see it as a moral failing for anyone not to take personal responsibility due to the Clovis people being wiped out by a genetically different people 9,000 years ago, or for any other colonization events perpetrated by someone else, doubly so if that someone else is long dead.
I find that whole concept of assigning that sort of guilt to be incredibly racist. I see it as an impressive piece of mental gymnastics done in attempt to turn a thing that I weigh as morally repugnant (grouping or judging people by skin color or ethnicity) into a faux virtue (assigning culpability for an event to all members of a collective regardless of if the supposedly guilty were even alive when the event happened). I think we would be better off if everyone would see all people as individual people. I'm saddened that this is now a controversial view.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Lol.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
You're no fun. Maybe Loggrad will be the only spokesperson for the forced penetration crowd.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Why are you taking the bait?
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Some really awful ideas are dressed up in save-the-planet and anti-racism costumes. It is a bait-and-switch set-up that can be seen from space. If you deride the stupid idea being presented, the idea is quickly swapped out for the costume and you get labeled as a ‘climate denier’ or ‘racist’.
I take the bait because I don’t care about labels. I get labeled as all sorts of things and usually they are comically off the mark. Meh. I’m not saying it is the case here but quite often those holding themselves up to be defenders of the planet or racial equity are like Harvey Weinstein presenting himself as a male feminist.
Red
Well-Known Member
Just a brief, unrelated to the thread aside(well, I guess not so brief, lol)as I am confused by this statement. It’s true that Clovis technology only persisted for 500 years, producing the distinctive fluted projectile points we call Clovis points. The most popular theory describing why Clovis technology and culture ceased is the Clovis comet impact hypothesis:
Younger Dryas impact hypothesis - Wikipedia
But that does not mean the people themselves disappeared, or that they were replaced by a genetically different people. That they were not replaced was demonstrated by the DNA study of the Anzick Clovis child burial in Montana:
Ancient Genome Suggests Native Americans Really Did Descend from the First Americans
The new analysis of "Clovis boy" DNA also stirs an ethics debate about the handling of tribal remains
Peopling of the Americas as inferred from ancient genomics - Nature
A review of the ancient human genomic record sheds light on the peopling processes of the Americas.
www.nature.com
“Notably, all ancient individuals in the Americas, save for later-arriving Arctic peoples, are more closely related to contemporary Indigenous American individuals than to any other population elsewhere, which challenges the claim—which is based on anatomical evidence—that there was an early, non-Native American population in the Americas.” (Note: the fossil human footprints described below may seriously challenge this conclusion, but at present we have no remains of these very early, >26,000 year old arrivals)
Leave aside for a moment the now established fact that the Clovis people were not the first Americans. Clovis technology was developed in North America, but the people were not the first here. See my last link below.
Then it occurred to me your figure of 9000 years might refer to the ~9000 year old remains of Kennewick Man. Originally, the fact that Kennewick Man’s physical characteristics did not much resemble modern Native Americans, in fact some said he must be related to the Ainu of Japan, led many to conclude he could not be related to Native Americans. But DNA analysis of the remains demonstrated that his closest living relatives were in fact the tribes living closest to where his remains were found:
The ancestry and affiliations of Kennewick Man - Nature
Kennewick Man, a 8,500-year-old male human skeleton discovered in Washington state, USA, has been the subject of scientific and legal controversy; here a DNA analysis shows that Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other extant population worldwide.
www.nature.com
It’s official: Kennewick Man is Native American
Five tribes claiming Kennewick Man as a relative will work to rebury him after the Army Corps of Engineers said it’s validated the skeleton is Native American.
www.seattletimes.com
The still enduring mystery is who were the people here before Clovis people? For years, American archaeology insisted on the Clovis First hypothesis, that Clovis people were the first arrivals, and arrived by an overland route, down an ice free corridor from Beringia(the now sunken land connecting Siberia to Alaska). But, increasingly, sites were found, in both North and South America that predated Clovis. As old as 30,000 years, in the case of a Mexican cave, and it’s archaeological remains, discovered just last year. (It took decades for the pre-Clovis site of Monte Verde, Chile, to be generally accepted, the first generally accepted pre-Clovis dated site in the Americas).
Still, there has always been Clovis First holdouts. But, a discovery announced within the last two weeks changes everything. Proof that man arrived prior to the so-called Last Glacial Maximum(LGM) or greater than 26,000 years ago, when the LGM commenced:
Fossil footprints show humans in North America more than 21,000 years ago
The footprints, the earliest firm evidence for humans in the Americas, show that people must have arrived here before the last Ice Age.
www.nbcnews.com
The footprints date 21,000-23,000 years, but to be in New Mexico by that time means they must have arrived before the LGM began 26,000 years ago. And most likely arrived by boat, not overland.
So, the genetic evidence does not suggest the Clovis people were wiped out by a genetically different people 9000 years ago. For one thing, Clovis ended long before 9000 years ago. For another, Anzick child demonstrates the Clovis era child is ancestral to present day Native Americans. In addition, Kennewick Man does not represent a replacement population, either. Kennewick Man was ancestral to Native Americans. What Kennewick does demonstrate is that some degree of actual physical evolution did take place in the Americas….
Sorry for the lengthy aside. Just did not understand why you would believe Clovis people were wiped out by a genetically different population. Whoever the very first Americans actually were, where they came from, and how they arrived is still an open question, but the one Clovis burial we have demonstrates a genetic link to Native Americans.
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
The date was taken from a more recent in-depth DNA study undertaken by a genetics and evolutionary biology team out of Harvard about 3 years after the Kennewick Man studies.
I did know there was controversy over the Clovis people being first but this is light years from any field I have knowledge in. It is interesting though.
This may not be my field, but I do know that natural human evolution does not work that fast without interbreeding between different populations. The geneticists out of Harvard say they have DNA evidence from 49 individuals all dating to at least ~9,000 years ago proving different populations and published their findings in a prestigious peer reviewed scientific journal. I don't know for certain they are correct but I do find your claim of there being no genetic evidence to be dubious.
But like I said, this isn't my field and I do find it interesting. If you've got more recent evidence than the 2015/2016 Kennewick man stuff showing there was one and only one ancestral population that all pre-colonial Americans evolved from I'm happy to read it.
Red
Well-Known Member
Well, the most recent I have is one of the links I posted. When I looked at this this morning, it was accessible, but I had already read it a few months ago. It goes into everything, including the mysterious Australasian genetic link discovered in South American tribes. Unfortunately, despite being visible earlier, it looks like only the abstract is visible now. Maybe SciHub can unlock it, dunno, but worth the read. Co-author Meltzer can be described as the most conservative of American archaeologists, who held on to Clovis First as long as he felt he could…..
Peopling of the Americas as inferred from ancient genomics - Nature
A review of the ancient human genomic record sheds light on the peopling processes of the Americas.
www.nature.com
There is no question the genetics is arriving at interesting conclusions. Note the Australasian ancestry now understood to occur among certain Amazon groups, as well as some South American Pacific coast groups. I also note with interest a comment by a genetic researcher regarding the paradigm changing fossil footprint discovery:
Footprints in New Mexico are oldest evidence of humans in the Americas
Scientists have found evidence that humans reached the Americas earlier than previously thought.
www.bbc.com
Gary Haynes, an emeritus professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, said: "I cannot find fault with the work that was done or with the interpretations - the paper is important and provocative.
"The trackways are so far south of the Bering land connection that we now have to wonder (1) if the people or their ancestors (or other people) had made the crossing from Asia to the Americas much earlier, (2) if people moved quickly through the continents after each crossing, and (3) if they left any descendants."
Dr Andrea Manica, a geneticist from the University of Cambridge, said the finding had important implications for the population history of the Americas.
"I can't comment on how reliable the dating is (it is outside my expertise), but firm evidence of humans in North America 23,000 years ago is at odds with the genetics, which clearly shows a split of Native Americans from Asians approximately 15-16,000 years ago," he told BBC News.
"This would suggest that the initial colonists of the Americas were replaced when the ice corridor formed and another wave of colonists came in. We have no idea how that happened."
—————————————————————
This is why I suggested the identity of the fossil footprints makers opens up the mystery of “the peopling of the Americas” like no discovery to date. And yes, I am aware there was an apparent split that separates North and South American native groups. However, the fact that we can demonstrate a genetic relation between the Anzick Clovis child and Mexican and South American groups I believe points to the fact that the people who employed Clovis technology could not have been “wiped out” by a genetically different people, (which, understand, I took to mean Clovis people went genetically extinct, and could not have contributed to the genetics of present day Native Americans). One distinct disadvantage North American, specifically United States, researchers have is the great reluctance of tribes in the United States to submit to genetic testing, of themselves, and of Paleolithic era remains found on their ancestral lands. That is a real handicap, and, from the point of view of prehistoric studies in America, we were lucky to get any genetic testing of either Anzick Clovis boy, or Kennewick Man.
Last edited:
NAOS
Well-Known Member
If you’re referring to your interaction with me, then you’re the first to elevate the concept of race. Colonialism is about far more than that. And the bottom line is that you can’t have an honest conversation about the economic history of capitalism without talking about colonialism.
Anyone with even the most basic grasp of history knows that the last 500 years of colonialism can’t be reduced to the “conquer and conquest” mythologies that you seem to be ever-ready to invoke. It is truly laughable.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Lol. I never would’ve guess that the alt-right would’ve nabbed you.
Red
Well-Known Member
OK, briefly, because I have to run, but this is one of the places I got that suggestion from years ago….
A paper published Thursday online in the journal Science argues that the discrepancy in appearance between the Paleoamericans and later Native Americans is most likely the result of recent, and relatively rapid, human evolution — and not the result of subsequent migrations of people into the Americas.
In the event of a Washington Post paywall:
DNA From 12,000-Year-Old Skeleton Helps Answer the Question: Who Were the First Americans?
In 2007, cave divers discovered remains that form the oldest, most complete and genetically intact human skeleton in the New World
www.smithsonianmag.com
“As for why Naia’s skull is so different from modern Native Americans, co- author Deborah Bolnick, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin has an explanation: “The physical differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans today are more likely due to changes that occurred in Beringia and the Americas over the last 9,000 years.” Bolnick’s lab was one of the three to confirm the mtDNA findings”.
Last edited: