Noah Millman amalgamates the discussions TPI and I have had over carbon: tax carbon and divert some of the tax revenue into breakthrough methods to capture and sequester carbon.
TAE likes compromise.
9 minutes ago
The economists calculate that, for every dollar invested in preschool for at-risk children, society at large reaps somewhere between eight and nine dollars in return.
I think this is fairly accurate. And having seen Babies myself, I can attest that the Namibian women do seem very calm, happy, and pleased with their kids. But the footage of the Namibian women did not include instances of the baby screaming in pain, sick, angry, tired, or any of the emotions that all children experience. Instead we saw the little Namibian boy exploring, playing, and cuddling with his mama and her peers.
Before urbanization, children were viewed as economic assets to their parents. If you had a farm, they toiled alongside you to maintain its upkeep; if you had a family business, the kids helped mind the store. But all of this dramatically changed with the moral and technological revolutions of modernity. As we gained in prosperity, childhood came increasingly to be viewed as a protected, privileged time, and once college degrees became essential to getting ahead, children became not only a great expense but subjects to be sculpted, stimulated, instructed, groomed. (The Princeton sociologist Viviana Zelizer describes this transformation of a child’s value in five ruthless words: “Economically worthless but emotionally priceless.”) Kids, in short, went from being our staffs to being our bosses.
"Did you see Babies?” asks Lois Nachamie, a couples counselor who for years has run parenting workshops and support groups on the Upper West Side. She’s referring to the recent documentary that compares the lives of four newborns—one in Japan, one in Namibia, one in Mongolia, and one in the United States (San Francisco). “I don’t mean to idealize the lives of the Namibian women,” she says. “But it was hard not to notice how calm they were. They were beading their children’s ankles and decorating them with sienna, clearly enjoying just sitting and playing with them, and we’re here often thinking of all of this stuff as labor.”
While there were no doubt occasional outbreaks of infectious disease in prehistory, it's unlikely they spread far, even with high levels of sexual promiscuity. It would have been nearly impossible for pathogens to take hold in widely dispersed groups of foragers with infrequent contact between groups. The conditions necessary for devastating epidemics or pandemics didn't exist until the agricultural revolution.
Working like natural selection, the [genetic algorithm] takes a population of random waveforms, mutates the "fittest" of them – in this case, those with lowest energy use – and then "interbreeds" the mutated forms to make new "offspring" waveforms. The process is then repeated through several "generations" until the optimal waveform is found.
"I'm curious to know your current argument for monogamy. I can plainly see the pre-civilization argument for it, but why should it exist in this day and age?"First off, I am pleased that someone finds my arguments for pre-civilization human monogamy compelling. If you just apply the cold logic of evolution, you find the checks and balances rules here and while a male human could easily sneak in on many females, he would increase the risk that none of his children would live, and the females would choose the option of having a sole provider that she could trust for assistance raising her young than the option of letting whomever wished to come impregnate her and then hope that some male would provide her and her offspring nourishment.
"It comes with a double antenna design. The kind that allows you to hold the phone any way you like and use it just about anywhere to make crystal clear calls."