Quite the burn

Nuclear, again

Ah, Jason:  another day, another re-tweet of a wrong, Right wing take:

I agree with this response, and think Gray's response is so weak:

I have to run and do something - I will come back later to update this.

Update:   Connolly claims this -

I want him to quantify "many".   I mean, there's him and Jason Soon - and who else?

Another Tweeter makes the point about the current subsidies nuclear is needing (go and read the thread):

I suppose that attack is a little unfair, if you read Connolly's endorsement of a carbon tax for nuclear as an admission that nuclear does need subsidies.   But then, it does make his "I hate renewables because it needs subsidies" argument sound distinctly dubious. 

John Quiggin has been pushing this line recently - OK, conservatives, let's not rule out nuclear as long as you will agree to a carbon tax to make it work economically.   And you are getting some people like Connolly saying "OK".

But - are they going to live with the consequence that, with a carbon tax working as a "subsidy" for any form of clean energy (I mean, wasn't this is how a carbon tax was meant to work, free market conservatives?), no one thinks that energy investment is going to head into nuclear anyway?

As many on the Left correctly perceive, resistance to renewables is not as objective and reasonable as conservatives like Connolly like to pretend.

And when he can start pointing to even a substantial minority of Coalition politicians who are  endorsing an "economy crushing" (as they have argued for more than a decade) carbon tax, I might take him more seriously.


   

Tide turning, at last

It's about time, but it appears America is starting to finally move  back from the nutty airline pet free-for-all that is "emotional support animals" on planes.   Service animals are still allowed though, including for psychiatric issues, but at least they are proposing it be limited to dogs.   (Even though dogs have caused some of the biggest issues.)

If the comments to the article are anything to go by, Americans are well and truly sick of the ridiculous situations passengers there have had to deal with.  For example:

After Christmas I was waiting to board a flight after the people had deplaned.  While they were coming into the terminal, two dogs from two different owners got into a fight.  The owners got control of them, but not before the entire terminal was suddenly filled with the sound of various barking dogs.  The man next to me said:  "This is insanity."

Then, as we were boarding a young, strong man boarded first with a huge black German shepherd.  Neither the man nor the dog looked as though they needed emotional support, but the dog was pretty intimidating....

 I sat by a woman with Bernese Mountain dog support animal on a flight. He was almost as big as a small pony but very well behaved thankfully ....

I flew last year from DC to Chicago and ended up next to a woman with an "emotional support" dog. She let it out of the carrier and it was sitting next to her feet when I reached into my bag which was under the seat in front of me.  The dog yelped, snapped at me, and tried to bite me in the face. The woman corralled it, but it was terrifying. I asked the flight attendant for another seat and she said they could only accommodate me on a later flight. I asked about putting the dog back in the carrier and the woman yelled at me and the dog started growling. I needed to get to Chicago, so I squeezed up to the window and tried not to move for the two hour flight. It upsets me just to think about it now.

So whose "emotions" are we supporting here, anyway? ...

Yes it's totally free, that's the point. To take a pet on the plane is usually $125, but, if you have a letter that claims that it is "an emotional support animal," fees are waived. I have seen many people bragging on social media that it costs less to buy a bogus "emotional support animal" letter than the fee for one flight....

Most of these animals are "certified" by coughing up $50 on some therapists website who emails you a signed ESA letter. It is 100% a scam that makes it harder for people with real disabilities. Should fine these people, and if you show up with an animal certified by a blacklisted "therapist" your ESA iguana/pig/rabbit/parrot/whatever doesn't get to fly in the cabin....

In my neck of the woods, it only costs $25.  You're being overcharged for a phony certificate.  $25 should do it.

Another complete embarassment

Mark Latham follows Pauline Hanson into the depths of clueless Right wing alternative reality:

Andrew Bolt misses the White Australia policy, apparently

Of course I don't subscribe to any Murdoch rag that Andrew Bolt appears in, so I just get to see the start of a post on his "blog", which I will not link to:

I've said immigration is now more like colonisation. From last week: "More people from Nepal settled in Australia last year than from the United Kingdom...  Tara Gaire ... said he felt very at home in Melbourne’s multicultural environment. 'We catch up with community members, we go to the temple, it doesn’t feel like we’re overseas.'"  

What an appalling hypocrite:  

Bolt was born in Adelaide, his parents being newly-arrived Dutch migrants. 

His parents were the right colour though, hey?

I mean, he doesn't even have fear of Muslim terrorism from Nepal as a basis for his snide insult:

According to the 2011 census, 81.3% of the Nepalese population is Hindu, 9.0% are Buddhist, 4.4% are Muslim, 3.0% are Kiratist (indigenous ethnic religion), 1.4% are Christian, 0.1% are Sikhs, 0.1% are Jains and 0.7% follow other religions 

And, he's an agnostic himself, so he can hardly be concerned that Christianity is being displaced - what does it matter to him if it is?

It comes down to a creepy Pauline Hanson line - "they're different and I don't it."

He has become appalling stupid and a deep embarrassment to the Right side of politics.

I'll believe it when I see successful, commercial products

NPR reports on a "cell-based meat" start up that is building a pilot production facility.

It notes the big issue:

But Memphis Meats and its competitors face quite a few hurdles in bringing cell-based meats to market. For starters, the cost of production needs to come down. Back in 2018, Wired reported that a pound of Memphis Meats takes $2,400 to produce, in part because of the expensive growth mediums — or feed — needed to culture cells.

"Our costs have continued to come down significantly over the last three years," Valeti told us in an email Wednesday. "We have a clear path to bringing a cost competitive product to market as we scale our production and that's part of what our latest funding round will help us to unlock," Valeti said. He said the company will continue to work on developing low-cost feed for the cells, which is one significant piece of the puzzle.

And also notes the second issue - the one of texture:

I got the chance to sample Memphis Meats' chicken, which was pan-sautéed with some oil and served with greens. It tasted pretty close to chicken breast produced the traditional way — but without as much textural variation among bits of muscle, fat and connective tissue.

I think we can all agree that vegetable protein imitation chicken (or beef) also has the soft texture issue;  but in terms of copying flavour, they are also getting pretty close.   (I have taken to eating Rebel Whoppers from Hungry Jacks as my default fast food burger.  I had one last night in fact.  I am quite satisfied with it.)  But the difference is, of course, it's massively cheaper and quicker to make than growing cells in an expensive medium. 

So if both ways of making imitation meat leads to a soft-ish product that has similar flavour of real meat, why use the incredibly expensive and complicated way of making such a product??

The fact that billionaires are encouraging this product just indicates to me that billionaires can make wrong calls on things outside of their expertise, just like any of us can.

The future in fake meat is going to be in better vegetable protein imitation meats, and (eventually, I suspect) in microbial sourced protein as the base for imitation meats.

Disinformation warning

Just read this good opinion piece by a former US Ambassador to Russia that was in the Washington Post last week:

Be prepared to fight a dangerous new wave of disinformation during the Senate trial

I liked his summary of Russian disinformation tactics:

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his proxies deploy several methods of disinformation to strengthen their power and influence. The first is to deny facts. For instance, Putin initially denied that Russian soldiers had seized control of Crimea in February 2014, denies Russian involvement in the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in July 2014, and denies any Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

A second tactic is to deflect attention from the facts, also known as “whataboutism.” When criticized about Crimean annexing Crimea, Putin’s media shoot back, what about Kosovo? Or New Mexico? When criticized about civilian casualties from Russian military intervention in Syria, Kremlin defenders retort, what about Iraq, Vietnam or Hiroshima? When confronted with evidence of Russian meddling in U.S. elections, the Russian standard refrain is, you do it all the time.

A third practice is the dissemination of lies. Russian state media once asserted that President Barack Obama and former Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi embraced the same ideology. I may be more sensitive than most about this tactic, because when I was serving as U.S. ambassador to Russia, Kremlin media outlets accused me of fomenting revolution against Putin’s regime; perhaps most disgustingly of all, a video was circulated suggesting I was a pedophile. When Putin met with President Trump in July 2018 in Helsinki, the Russian president again lied about me, claiming I had broken Russian law while working in the White House.

A cumulative effect of all these tactics is nihilistic debasement of the very concept of truth. Putin is not trying to win the argument; instead, his propaganda machine aims to convince that there is no truth, no right and wrong, or no data or evidence, only relativism, point of view and biased opinion.

His summary of what Joe Biden did in Ukraine is also a good, succinct summary, one which my reality challenged reader from Catallaxy, JC, has never got through his thick head:

Former vice president Joe Biden was not freelancing on behalf of his son when implementing U.S. government policy — supported by the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, Republican senators, and the Ukrainian anti-corruption nongovernmental-organization community — to seek the ouster of corrupt Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

Indeed, because Shokin was not prosecuting corruption in Ukraine, his removal produced greater scrutiny, not less, of the now-infamous Burisma Holdings energy company on which Hunter Biden used to serve as a board member. As Shokin’s deputy, Vitaliy Kasko, reported, “There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky [Burisma’s owner]. … It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.” Trump’s own political appointee, former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, confirmed, “The allegations against Vice President Biden are self-serving and non-credible.”

And you thought the Royal Commission into Aged Care disclosed bad treatment of old folk...

A story at the BBC (basically about the economics of looking after old people) starts with some extreme examples:

"I customarily killed old women. They all died, there by the big river. I didn't used to wait until they were completely dead to bury them. The women were afraid of me."

No wonder. That's the account of a man from the Aché, an indigenous tribe in eastern Paraguay, as told to anthropologists Kim Hill and Magdalena Hurtado.

He explained grandmothers helped with chores and babysitting but when they got too old to be useful, you couldn't be sentimental.

Brutally, the usual method was an axe to the head. For the old men, Aché custom dictated a different fate. They were sent away - and told never to return.  ....

As another anthropologist, Jared Diamond, points out, the Aché are hardly outliers. Among the Kualong, in Papua New Guinea, when a woman's husband died, it was her son's solemn duty to strangle her.

Update:  I see via Wikipedia that the practice is called "senicide", and it seems an entry that could have a lot more examples added to it, if the above story is anything to go by.  Most of their examples are from pretty ancient history, such as this one, notable again for its gruesomeness: 

The Heruli were a Germanic tribe during the Migration Period (about 400 to 800 CE). Procopius states in his work The Wars, that the Heruli placed the sick and elderly on a tall stack of wood and stabbed them to death before setting the pyre alight.^[7]

 Oh look, allegedly (there is no citation!) in Sardinia, the women got to be the "terminators":

An alleged custom was to throw incapable or ill elders off certain cliffs, a confirmed practice was the performing of euthanasia on ill, senile or suffering elders carried out by selected women named accabbadoras (lit. 'terminator' or 'ender') that after a blessing of the soon to be deceased would proceed to kill them through suffocation or blunt force to the back of the head by wooden mallet. 

Simon on nuclear in Australia

I thought Simon's tweet thread response to the column (which I am sure Jason Soon would be endorsing) by Parnell McGuiness was very reasonable:

Still terrible

Over at The Guardian:

Netflix said in a letter to shareholders its new show The Witcher is “tracking to be our biggest season one TV series ever”.

Seriously?  I reluctantly tried, at the prompting of my son, to watch the second episode a few days ago, and (although I have to confess to moving in and out of light sleep for much of it) thought it was terribly dull and worse than the first episode.  Told my son he can watch it by himself from now on.   I agree with this summary:

In the interest of professional obligation, Darren, I did sit through the second episode, which was notable for a few reasons. (Spoiler: None of those reasons include, “Because it was good.”) Henry Cavill gets far less screen time in the second hour — and he has to share his few scenes with a very, very annoying traveling bard (I would name the actor who plays him, but I’m fairly certain the writers didn’t even bother to name the character?). Anyhow, this very annoying traveling singer makes up tunes about abortion and says things like, “There I go again, just delivering exposition.”

Most of the second episode is devoted to the travails of a deformed young woman named Yennefer (Anya Chalotra), whose jerk of a father sells her off to a haughty witch named Tissaia de Vries (MyAnna Buring). It turns out Yennefer has some untapped magical abilities, and she finds herself enrolled in Tissaia’s School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, or whatever she calls it. So now this show is The Magicians featuring special guest star Henry Cavill, I guess?

The Witcher is also packed with confusing conflicts and long-held rivalries that require a lot of explanation but still manage to make no sense.  he premiere sets up a princess-wizard showdown that is related to a curse (I think), while episode 2 introduces a budding war between Elves and humans. Apparently the Elves taught the humans how to turn something called “chaos” into magic, and then the humans unleashed a genocide on them. “I was once Filavandrel of the Silver Towers,” notes a majestic Elf (Tom Canton). “Now I’m Filavandrel of the edge of the world.” So yeah, this is some high-school level Dungeons & Dragons role play with a multi-million-dollar budget. Netflix canceled the far cheaper, far more entertaining The Good Cop for this?

3 degrees noted in WSJ

The WSJ has an article that starts:

Assessing the likely impact of climate change has grown as a concern for big companies making strategic decisions about future capital allocation and strategy. But the challenge of forecasting temperatures far out has made such assessments tough.

In recent months, estimates among climate scientists of how temperatures are likely to rise over the course of the century have narrowed somewhat. The most catastrophic predicted warming looks less likely, but milder impacts also are looking less probable. The current broad consensus is that the world could warm by roughly three degrees Celsius by 2100.

Zeke (whose recent paper is discussed in the report) notes:

 How much outright denialism does the WSJ run these days?  I don't subscribe...

Nigella's eggs

I am watching the annoying "my life is perfect, everyone loves me, it never rains in London and I can eat 5,000 cal a day and not put on weight" Nigella Lawson's latest cooking show, and am finding myself continously bothered not just by her too cheerful persona but also by the intense orange colour of the egg yolks.  It looks unnatural.  Are all British eggs like that?

At least she's not suggestively licking her fingers now, like she used to.  It was very obvious.

Update:  am I being too harsh on Nigella?  It'll probably turn out that she spends half her life running some decent charity, or something.  I have always thought her salacious style, which always seemed aimed towards titillating older men, was amusingly transparent.   But now that she's toned that down,  I just find myself more annoyed by the too intense cheerfulness, and the attempts at "I'm just like you, really" stuff (like looking into her messy cupboard) coming across as a bit fake.   It's not that I like really cranky cooks - I can't watch Gordon Ramsay, for example - but this British cooking show thing where it always ends with friends over eating the food and not getting into arguments over anything I find bothersome.

The case of the missing stars

I think I forgot to blog in December about this unusual story:

An international research group led by Beatriz Villarroel from the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics in Sweden and the Institute for Astrophysics on the Canary Islands reports something strange in the current issue of The Astronomical Journal. They compared star maps from the 1950s with recent surveys, and discovered that 100 previously catalogued stars cannot be found anymore.

Sign of Dyson spheres or other advanced technological societies doing something to their stars?  Probably not, but you never know:

Perhaps the missing objects are signs of an advanced civilization. But they’re probably not Dyson spheres. First, it would be hard to explain why and how such a giant construction project, completely shading out the light of the host star, could be done within the short period of less than a century. But more importantly, Brooks Harrop and I showed nearly 10 years ago that “traditional” Dyson spheres are not gravitationally stable. Even if one could be built near a star like our Sun, it would require more total mass than is available in all our Solar System’s planets, moons, and asteroids.

But there are other interesting possibilities:

So what are the missing stars? A few might be explained as flaring stars whose brightness dropped below the detection limit, or stars that collapsed directly into a black hole. A large portion, however, might represent new stages in the life cycle of certain stars or new stellar phenomena that have not yet been seen. That by itself would be an exciting topic to investigate.

Another intriguing question: Where are the missing stars? Are they at the same location, just not emitting light anymore? Or perhaps they’ve moved to some other location. If the latter, could some of these represent huge starships, the size of moons or planets, that moved outside the field of view? This, of course, is a highly speculative suggestion. But it would address the hotly discussed Fermi Paradox, and would, in principle, be testable. If these “missing” light sources represent giant starships, some should appear in new star surveys in some other part of the sky. In an ideal case, we might even be able to track their trajectories through time. It would be challenging, no doubt, to pick out such motions against other background movements in space, like those of stars spinning around the center of their galaxy. Nevertheless, my suggestion to the authors is to focus their future work on light sources that suddenly appear in new star surveys, and see whether they can be correlated to the stars that vanished.

Odd food chains

I just noticed in Coles that I can buy a Coles branded foil pouch of cooked brown rice (150g worth)  that you re-heat in the microwave, for $1.50.  It was made in India from Spanish rice, and ended up in Brisbane.

That pathway to get here seems kinda wasteful, if you ask me.   And don't get me on the topic of fish processing in Thailand...

Sounds...optimistic

Sounds ambitious:

Subaru Corp set a target on Monday for all the vehicles it sells worldwide to be electric by the first half of the 2030s, in a move toward its long-term goal of a carbon-free society.

The news comes as Subaru has strengthened capital ties with Toyota Motor Corp, in a trend of global automakers joining forces to slash development and manufacturing costs of new technology.

"Subaru's strong commitment and dedication toward car-manufacturing that we have cultivated throughout our history remain unchanged," President Tomomi Nakamura said in a statement.

By 2030, the Japanese automaker added, at least 40% of all of its cars sold worldwide would comprise all-battery electric vehicles or hybrid vehicles.

When will climate change deniers realise they have been lied to?

Noted on Twitter today, from Matt Ridley's shonky outfit:

With the correction following:

Also notices on Twitter recently:

Depressive realism and climate change

In a somewhat interesting essay at AEON which talks about depression as perceived by philosophy and psychotherapy, I read this (my bold):

Despite its turn toward positivity, psychological theory includes one branch with a focus on the pessimistic philosophical tradition embraced by Freud himself. Called ‘depressive realism’, it was initially suggested by the US psychologists Lauren Alloy and Lyn Yvonne Abramson in a paper subtitled ‘Sadder but Wiser?’ (1979). The authors held that reality is always more transparent through a depressed person’s lens.

Alloy, of Temple University in Pennsylvania, and Abramson, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, tested the hypothesis by measuring the illusion of control. After interviews with a set of undergraduates, they divided the students into depressed and nondepressed groups. Each student had a choice of either pressing or not pressing a button, and received one of two outcomes: a green light or no green light. Experimental settings presented the students with various degrees of control over the button, from 0 to 100 per cent. Upon completing the tests, they were asked to analyse the degree of control their responses exerted over outcome – that is, how many times the green light came on as a result of their actions. It turned out that, the sadder but wiser students were more accurate in judging the degree of control they exerted. Alloy and Abramson concluded that depressed students were less prone to illusions of control, and therefore showed greater realism. The nondepressed students, on the other hand, overestimated the degree of their control, and therefore were engaged in self-deception in favour of enhancing self-esteem.

The ‘depressive realism’ hypothesis remains controversial because it calls into question the tenets of CBT, which assert that the depressed individual has more thought biases and hence has to be healed in order to become more realistic. But subsequent studies have bolstered the idea. For instance, the Australian social psychologist Joseph Forgas and colleagues showed that sadness reinforces critical thinking: it helps people reduce judgmental bias, improve attention, increase perseverance, and generally promotes a more skeptical, detailed and attentive thinking style. On the other hand, positive moods can lead to a less effortful and systematic thinking style. Happy people are more prone to stereotypical thinking and rely on simple cliché. They are more likely to ‘go with the flow’ and are prone to making more social misjudgments on account of their biases.

This tied in with something that I've meaning to say for a while now:   while I don't think it is fair to say that those who accept climate change is a serious problem are all depressed characters (even though it has become increasingly popular for young people to claim things like the situation is so bad they will not have children), it does seem a particularly annoying feature of climate change deniers that they hold their attitude with glee - they are like silly "good time Charlies" who positively laugh in the face of the scientific evidence staring them in the face.

Think of characters like Tim Blair, James Morrow, Rowan Dean, smugmaster Andrew Bolt, and James Delingpole in the UK - a very large part of their shtick is that they are make fun of the most serious human created environmental issue the planet has ever seen, and deride those who believe the scientific warnings (and the Left generally) of having no sense of humour.   You find a very similar attitude amongst most of the denying dopes at Catallaxy.  

This AEON article provides a possible explanation - maybe they are not just trolling the scientists and those who accept the consensus;  it might be that they suffer from too much positivity in their moods such that they can't see the danger in front of them.

But this is a pretty generous theory;  it is also possible they are just offensively trolling twits too stupid to do what's right for their children and all of our descendants.

Lomborg - disingenuous poser

It's been hard to take Bjorn Lomborg seriously ever since this effort:

but for a guy who presumably wants to be taken seriously, he's still busy confirming that one of his largest priorities is getting his misleading takes noticed and endorsed by fake sceptics and lukewarmers.

I mean, with his Tweet today, about the Australian fires, he starts with this graph and a complaint that this fire season extent is being "exploited", as it is not extreme:

But the tweet links to a his Facebook post in which he immediately makes a major concession:

The fires were definitely different in that they have mostly happened in the states of New South Wales (home of Sydney) and Victoria (Melbourne). Here, the fires this year are much larger than they have been in the previous few decades.

Indeed, New South Wales may be a record at 4.9 million hectares burnt, although it has seen almost similar sized fires in 1951-52 (more than 4 million hectares) and 1974-75 (4.5 million hectares).

Victoria at 1.2 million hectares is also a record for the last decades, but it is vastly smaller than the 1851 Black Thursday fire, which in one day burnt a quarter of Victoria or 5 million hectares.

So, one could say,  on Facebook he explicitly acknowledges the importance of where the fires have occurred, but is happy to still happy to run with the argument that this fire season wasn't anything special.

One of the comparisons he makes should make anyone suspicious - how confident could anyone be about area estimates of fire damage in Victoria in 1851, given that the place was still being colonised?  Oh look, here's the answer, given at the Moyhu blog in 2017 - you can't have any confidence in that figure at all.

In fact, on 10 January, the Moyhu blog had already given some key information relevant to Lomborg's entire Facebook argument - he warned of the trap of putting areas of savanna burnt in Australia into "total area burned" statistics:

I looked up more references on savanna regions. This paper gives some general averages:

State	Annual average area burnt M ha savanna
NT	18.1
WA	10.6
Qld	8.56

And there is the dilemma. These numbers would dwarf most years of temperate forest burning. But that is what we want to know about, so they must be separated. This is not being done systematically. In particular, there is the random inclusion of savanna data for 1974/5 in the Wiki list.

So Lomborg acknowledges - when you read beyond his tweeted graph - that the current fire season is remarkable for the area of temperate forest burned, but his graph nonetheless only does a half hearted attempt at indicating what that area is (by removing NT area burnt.)  Moyhu's post indicates that the same area again of savanna is burnt in Qld and WA. 
  
In any event, Australia is huge and but a moment's thought should make anyone realise that talking about Australia wide figures for anything tells us nothing useful about the effect of regional changes under climate change.    To take an obvious example:  in the case of rainfall - if the top of Australia gets more rain on average under climate change, and that leads to less savanna burning, that hardly compensates if at the same time the southern and much more heavily populated and utilised regions are drying out and start burning more regularly.    Going by memory, that type of change in rainfall patterns is actually what the CSIRO thinks may happen under climate change.   But by ignoring the regional changes, and looking at rainfall continent wide, you can pretend that it isn't a problem.

You see shallow propagandists like Andrew Bolt doing this all the time - throw up a graph of national rainfall figures and saying "see, it's not getting dryer overall". 

So Lomborg is, again, engaging in cheap and misleading analysis, designed to maintain his status as a "contrarian", but it's clear that he is more interested in endorsements by denialists and lukewarmers than making a genuine contribution to seeing serious political action on climate change.    Very much like Judith Curry, I would say.  There is no other explanation.

Interesting medical news

*  OK, so I am a bit late to this one, but it's still interesting - humans have apparently been getting cooler:

the researchers dug through the medical records of nearly 24,000 Union Army veterans following the US Civil War to work out just how hot we ran around a century ago.

These numbers were then compared to around 15,000 records from an early 1970s national health survey and 150,000 records from a Stanford clinical data platform representing the early 2000s. In total, the team had details on more than half a million individual temperature measurements.

Sure enough, there was a clear, significant difference over time. Temperatures among those living at the end of the 19th century were slightly warmer. Men born in the 2000s, for example, were 0.59 degrees Celsius cooler than those born in the early 1800s, representing a steady decline of 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.
The drop was similar for women, with a drop of 0.32 degrees Celsius since the 1890s.

 The likely explanation:

  Improvements in health and nutrition could be a fruitful place to search for an explanation. Our increasing body masses would push metabolisms into warmer categories, but inflammation is linked closely with variations in body temperature, and a decline in chronic infections just might explain why we're a little less feverish.

*  Beware of blood infections:

One in five deaths around the world is caused by sepsis, also known as blood poisoning, shows the most comprehensive analysis of the condition.

The report estimates 11 million people a year are dying from sepsis - more than are killed by cancer.

 *  I wonder if this will turn out be dubious research - some studies are pointing the finger at soybean oil as being rather bad for mice, and possibly humans.   

Specifically, the scientists found pronounced effects of the oil on the hypothalamus, where a number of critical processes take place.

"The hypothalamus regulates body weight via your metabolism, maintains body temperature, is critical for reproduction and physical growth as well as your response to stress," said Margarita Curras-Collazo, a UCR associate professor of neuroscience and lead author on the study.
The team determined a number of genes in mice fed soybean oil were not functioning correctly. One such gene produces the "love" hormone, oxytocin. In soybean oil-fed mice, levels of oxytocin in the hypothalamus went down.

The research team discovered roughly 100 other genes also affected by the soybean oil diet. They believe this discovery could have ramifications not just for energy metabolism, but also for proper brain function and diseases such as autism or Parkinson's disease. However, it is important to note there is no proof the oil causes these diseases.

  The article also says that soybean oil is (by far) the most widely consumed edible oil in America:

I would never have guessed that.   My hunch would be that Australians consume heaps more canola oil - and it seems my hunch is right:

How come peanut oil doesn't make the list?  I thought it would be in there too.

Anyway, it's surprising how little olive oil still gets consumed, as a proportion of all oils.

Some musings on the intrinsic worth of humans

M Tobis found somehow a twitter thread by someone musing about "humanism", and I also find myself agreeing with part of it.  I won't try to copy all of it, but it starts:

And the bit I am most interested in:

I tend to find comparative religion interesting for the way in which they can construct a motivation for choosing the "pre-rational" belief of human life having intrinsic value.

In many, of course, the idea of an after-life reward is an obvious motivation. 

But going back to this week's topic of Buddhism, I always have had a problem with understanding how it reconciles its teaching about the illusory "non-Self" nature of self and its ethical teaching about that you should treat other "non-Selves" well.   Some pro-Buddhist advocates sell its view of the self as entirely consistent with modern, scientific materialist's views;  but if so, it seems to mean that Buddhism loses the benefit that I see in other religions of providing a "pre-rational" motivation for treating all humans as having value. 

If recall correctly, in Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality,  he argued that games theory provides a basis for ethical behaviour being entirely rational (and therefore having no conflict with science) but his views are pretty eccentric, and I am not sure that there is any widely accepted view games theory means the "pre-rational" belief of intrinsic human value is in fact rational (or, perhaps, a necessary conclusion of rationality.)

I have been thinking about this for a long time.   The distinction between "pre-rational" and rational arguments was basically behind a university essay (or was it during an exam?) on Rawls and his A Theory of Justice.  I thought it a very fine effort at providing a rational argument towards what you might call a universal theory of ethics;  but I remained unconvinced that it showed why alternative uses of rationality with harsher conclusions towards fellow humans were not just as valid.   I was still feeling that it didn't really work to show why the "pre-rational" judgement of the value of humans was something that must be adopted.  

I suppose you can take two attitudes towards this - argue that rationality can never resolve the matter, or (like Tipler, or Kant) argue that rationality can lead you to the "right" conclusion about human value.   I am inclined to be on the side of the latter.