This won´t happen. Trump´s peace plan for the Gaza strip is more likely to succeed. Wanna bet? The date for the alien apocalypse (or October surprise) is October 29 this time. Not sure if it´s Mideast time or Midwest time, LOL.
A propos the previous blog post about the recent bizarre turn of the climate crisis.
Good question — “termination shock” has two quite different uses, depending on context:
In astrophysics, the termination shock is the boundary in the solar system where the solar wind (charged particles streaming out from the Sun) slows down abruptly as it meets the interstellar medium.
It’s literally a “shock front” — like a cosmic speed bump.
NASA’s Voyager spacecraft crossed the termination shock in the 2000s.
So the phrase has a long-standing scientific meaning outside of climate discussions.
More recently, climate scientists and policy thinkers adopted the term to describe a dangerous scenario:
If humanity were to artificially cool the Earth using solar geoengineering (e.g., by spraying reflective particles in the stratosphere) and then suddenly stop those interventions, global temperatures would rebound very rapidly.
This sudden and extreme warming is called “termination shock.”
The idea is that gradual warming gives ecosystems and societies some time (though painful) to adapt — but a sudden temperature spike would be catastrophic.
The phrase has also been used in science fiction.
Most recently, Neal Stephenson’s 2021 novel Termination Shock is explicitly about geoengineering and climate collapse.
But this is after the climate-science usage had already become common, so it’s not purely an SF invention.
✅ Answer in short:
No, it didn’t originate in science fiction.
It’s originally an astronomy term, then borrowed by climate science to describe a specific geoengineering risk, and only later popularized in sci-fi novels like Stephenson’s.
Would you like me to explain in detail how the climate version of termination shock might actually play out (e.g., over years or decades) if solar geoengineering were started and then stopped?
Alright — let’s unpack how termination shock would unfold in a climate/geoengineering context.
Idea: Cool Earth artificially by reflecting some sunlight back into space.
Leading proposal: Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) → spraying reflective particles (like sulfate aerosols) into the upper atmosphere.
This would reduce global temperatures quickly — mimicking volcanic eruptions like Mount Pinatubo (1991), which cooled the planet by ~0.5 °C for a year or two.
If geoengineering is started and then suddenly stopped (due to war, economic collapse, political ban, accident, etc.), the Earth would:
Immediately be exposed again to the full greenhouse effect of accumulated CO₂.
Temperatures would rebound very quickly (decades of warming compressed into just a few years).
Rate of warming is the killer:
Without geoengineering → warming happens gradually (still fast in geological terms, but decades-long).
With geoengineering → warming is masked. If stopped, warming could happen at 10× the normal rate (e.g., ~1 °C per decade instead of ~0.1 °C).
Ecosystem shock: Plants, animals, and oceans can adapt somewhat to slow change, but not to sudden jumps. Many species would collapse.
Human systems: Agriculture, water supplies, and cities would face unprecedented climate stress in a very short time.
Political instability: Sudden global crisis could trigger mass migration, famine, and conflict.
Let’s imagine:
2050: Earth has warmed by +2.0 °C.
Humanity deploys stratospheric aerosols, reducing net warming to +1.5 °C.
Geoengineering continues for 50 years. Meanwhile, CO₂ keeps accumulating. By 2100, “masked” warming is actually +4.0 °C, but the world only feels +1.5 °C because of the aerosols.
If geoengineering stops in 2100 → Earth “catches up” rapidly. Temperatures surge +2.5 °C within a decade or two.
That’s termination shock: a massive temperature jump compressed into one or two human generations.
Termination shock makes long-term reliance on geoengineering very risky.
If it becomes the “crutch” that masks warming, future generations could be locked into maintaining it forever — with no safe way to stop.
That’s why most experts argue geoengineering should (if ever used) only be a temporary supplement, not a substitute for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
✅ Summary:
Termination shock is the nightmare scenario of solar geoengineering: a sudden halt in artificial cooling causes rapid, catastrophic warming. The “shock” isn’t just higher temperatures — it’s the speed of change, far beyond what ecosystems and human societies could adapt to.
Do you want me to also explain how likely scientists think this is (e.g., are we realistically on track for such a scenario, or is it mostly theoretical)?
Great — let’s look at how likely termination shock is, based on current science and policy discussions.
Right now (2025), no country is deploying full-scale solar geoengineering.
Only small-scale research exists (e.g., Harvard’s SCoPEx project — testing aerosol behavior).
Many scientists and policymakers are cautious, because of the risks (including termination shock).
Termination shock only happens if:
Solar geoengineering is deployed long-term (decades, even centuries).
Greenhouse gases keep accumulating during that time.
The intervention suddenly stops.
So, if humanity:
Cuts CO₂ emissions seriously → termination shock is much less of a risk (because there’s less “masked” warming).
Uses geoengineering as a crutch while continuing business as usual → the risk is very high.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2021 report)
Notes that termination shock is a major risk of stratospheric aerosol injection.
Warns that sudden cessation could cause warming rates 10× faster than current trends.
National Academies (US, 2021)
Strongly advise against large-scale deployment until emissions are under control.
Suggest research into governance and risk management, precisely because termination shock is considered plausible if geoengineering is misused.
Termination shock isn’t just a technical risk — it’s political:
If only one country or coalition runs the geoengineering program, others might sabotage it or force it to stop.
If global crises (war, collapse, economic depression) make it impossible to maintain, it could end abruptly.
That makes termination shock more likely than if there were stable, long-term global cooperation (which history suggests is hard to guarantee).
In the near term (next 20–30 years): Unlikely. No country is seriously planning deployment yet.
In the long term (late 21st century):
If emissions stay high and warming gets severe, desperation could make geoengineering tempting.
If that happens without emission cuts, termination shock risk becomes very real.
Many scientists see it as a plausible 22nd-century scenario, not science fiction.
✅ Summary:
Termination shock is not an immediate threat — it requires long-term geoengineering, which hasn’t started yet. But if humanity leans on solar geoengineering as a substitute for reducing emissions, then yes: the risk is very real, and scientists take it seriously as a possible late-century or next-century crisis.
Would you like me to also cover the possible ways to reduce the risk of termination shock (e.g., gradual phase-out strategies, hybrid approaches with carbon removal)?
The rise in global temperatures became *worse* after several nations and international organizations took strong measures against air pollution. Clean air no longer offsets the temperature rise due to carbon emissions. The irony is strong with this one! The media recently dubbed this "termination shock" after some scy fy novel.
In this video, Sabine Hossenfelder takes a pessimistic perspective, essentially arguing that geo-engineering is inevitable at this point. But probably not as a centralized global effort. Rather, each nation will go it alone in an uncoordinated manner. The end results? Nobody knows.
At the end, Sabine even jokes that maybe the chemtrail conspiracy theorists will be "proven right" sooner than we think...
Edward Dutton has stopped donning a false beard lately, but his speculations are still as "far out" as usual. Here, he claims that Woke women have a parasitical disease known as toxoplasmosis, the vector of which is...cats. Apparently, half of all domestic cats world-wide are infected with this disease.
He also speculates that the witches of yore may have been infected by the same parasite, which is why the cat has always been the symbol of evil. It also explains the stereotype of the "cat lady".
A lot of push back in the commentary section from right-wing cat owners...
Ahem, is it really true that *Tony Blair* is going to have a Protektorat over Gaza according to the Trump peace plan?!
Maybe Netanyahu (or even Hamas) really should vote this down...
Here we go again. I have a faint memory that we covered this once before? Anecdotal evidence seems to point in the same direction.
Are autistic people more likely to be atheists?
Yes — there is evidence that autistic people are more likely to identify as atheists or non-religious, though, like with IQ and religiosity, it’s nuanced and not absolute. Here’s a breakdown:
Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) suggests that religion is partly rooted in what’s called a “hyperactive agency detection device” (HADD) — the intuitive tendency to perceive minds, intentions, or agents behind events.
Autistic people, on average, show reduced sensitivity to social agency (less intuitive attribution of human-like minds to events).
This may make them less inclined toward religious belief, which often involves unseen intentional agents (gods, spirits).
Study: Cognitive and Religious Beliefs in Autism (Norenzayan et al., 2012)
Found that higher autism-spectrum traits correlated with lower belief in God.
Autistic adults were more likely to self-identify as atheists compared to neurotypical controls.
UK-based studies (2017–2019)
Surveys of autistic adults found higher rates of atheism and agnosticism than in the general population.
Also found more skepticism toward organized religion, though some still described themselves as “spiritual but not religious.”
Large-scale 2021 study (Stewart et al., Religion, Brain & Behavior)
Confirmed that autistic traits predict lower likelihood of religious belief.
Suggested the effect is partly explained by differences in mentalizing ability (theory of mind).
Reduced Theory of Mind: Autistic individuals often find it harder to infer hidden thoughts or intentions; belief in invisible, intentional gods may be less intuitive.
Preference for systemizing over empathizing: Autistic cognition often favors logical, structured explanations over intuitive or social ones, which makes secular or scientific worldviews more appealing.
Social context: Religion is often community-based; since autistic people sometimes feel excluded from group rituals/social bonding, religion may be less compelling.
Not all autistic people are atheists: Some are very religious, sometimes attracted to highly structured traditions (e.g., ritual-heavy forms of Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism).
Variation by culture: In highly religious societies, autistic people may still identify with religion (though sometimes in less conventional ways).
Autistic spirituality: Some autistic people develop strong, highly individualistic forms of spirituality, even if they reject mainstream religion.
Yes: Autistic people are, on average, more likely to be atheists or agnostics than neurotypical people.
Why: Likely due to differences in theory of mind, reduced intuitive agency detection, and preference for systematic explanations.
But: There’s a lot of diversity — many autistic individuals still find meaning in religion or spirituality, often in unique or non-mainstream ways.
Would you like me to also contrast this with how ADHD or other neurodiverse conditions correlate with religiosity? (Since some conditions show very different patterns than autism.)
Great — let’s compare autism with ADHD (and touch briefly on a couple of other neurodiverse conditions) in terms of religiosity and atheism.
More likely to be atheists or agnostics than the general population.
Tied to reduced intuitive theory of mind and less automatic belief in unseen intentional agents.
Preference for systematic, logical explanations makes secular/scientific outlooks attractive.
But: some autistic individuals are very religious, often drawn to highly structured ritual traditions (e.g., Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Hasidic Judaism, ritualistic Hinduism).
The picture looks very different from autism.
ADHD is often correlated with higher religiosity rather than lower.
A 2015 study (Journal of Attention Disorders) found that people with ADHD reported more frequent religious experiences and stronger belief in God than controls.
Other research suggests ADHD traits predict stronger involvement in charismatic or Pentecostal forms of Christianity, where spontaneity, intensity, and emotionality are valued.
Explanations:
Impulsivity & novelty-seeking → attraction to emotionally intense worship.
Community & structure → religious groups can provide support for those struggling with ADHD-related challenges.
That said, ADHD individuals may also switch religions more often, since stability and long-term ritual discipline can be harder to sustain.
Dyslexia: Very little research connecting dyslexia with religiosity; differences seem more about learning style than belief.
Bipolar disorder: Not “neurodiverse” in the strict sense, but studies show higher frequency of religious or mystical experiences, especially during manic or hypomanic states.
Schizophrenia-spectrum conditions: Often associated with heightened religiosity or mystical interpretations, sometimes leading to intense personal spiritual experiences — but these can also be destabilizing.
Autism → More likely atheistic / nonreligious; drawn to logic, systemizing, or ritual-heavy traditions if religious.
ADHD → More likely religious; drawn to expressive, emotional, or charismatic forms of worship.
Other conditions → Effects vary: some increase mystical or spiritual experiences (bipolar, schizophrenia), others show little systematic effect (dyslexia).
Would you like me to map this onto future religious trends (e.g., if rising autism/ADHD diagnoses might shift the balance of religious vs secular outlooks in society)?
A propos a previous blog post/discussion with ChatGPT. It´s kind of funny that the AI implicitly proposes the cultural strategy of Ashkenazi Jews and Hindu Brahmins as the thing that might save civilization...and perhaps humanity itself?!
Is it true that the Vietnamese winner of the Russian "Intervision" is LGBT? LOL.
Excerpts from a somewhat eclectic conversation with ChatGPT about the demographic crisis. I noticed that the AI tends towards "official optimism" on this topic, but it still has something useful to say here, I think...
Can a small population consistently maintain a high IQ?
That’s a very good (and complex) question — it touches on genetics, culture, environment, and demography. Let me break it down carefully.
In very small populations, genetic drift (random changes in allele frequency) is strong. Over many generations, this can lead to loss of genetic diversity and sometimes inbreeding depression, which may negatively affect health and cognitive traits.
However, if the group is not isolated and has some gene flow (occasional marriage/mixing with outsiders), it can maintain both genetic health and potentially high average IQ.
IQ is not fixed by genetics alone. Nutrition, education, cultural values, and health conditions matter enormously.
A small population that prioritizes education, literacy, and intellectual culture can maintain or even raise average IQ across generations, even if its gene pool is small.
Historical examples:
Ashkenazi Jews (a relatively small population historically) have been argued to maintain high intellectual achievement through cultural and selection factors.
Parsis/Zoroastrians in India, a small endogamous group, have maintained high literacy and professional success.
Inbreeding risk: without enough out-marriage, recessive disorders can accumulate, potentially lowering cognitive performance.
Population bottlenecks: sudden reductions (wars, disease) can cut genetic diversity.
Environmental vulnerability: a small group is more sensitive to social, political, or ecological disruptions that could affect education and health.
A key idea is that IQ is partly heritable but also amplified by culture.
If a small group creates a strong “cognitive niche” — schools, literacy, traditions of learning — the environment itself lifts average IQ. This can compensate for genetic limitations.
Conversely, if that culture erodes, IQ levels may drop within a few generations.
✅ Summary:
Yes, a small population can consistently maintain a high IQ, but usually not through genetics alone. It requires:
Some genetic diversity (avoiding severe inbreeding).
Strong cultural emphasis on education and intellectual values.
Good health, nutrition, and social stability.
Would you like me to give you a historical case study (say, Ashkenazi Jews or Brahmins in India) where a relatively small population maintained high intellectual performance over centuries?
Alright, let’s take two classic case studies where relatively small populations maintained high intellectual performance across centuries:
Population size: Historically small, especially during medieval and early modern Europe (often <1% of surrounding populations).
Genetic factors: Some researchers (e.g., Cochran & Harpending’s The 10,000 Year Explosion) have argued that centuries of occupational restrictions (e.g., Jews barred from farming, pushed into finance, trade, medicine, scholarship) may have created selection pressure for verbal, mathematical, and memory-related abilities.
Cultural factors:
Universal literacy (boys were expected to read Hebrew texts).
Strong intellectual traditions (Talmudic study, debate, reasoning).
Tight-knit communities that valued scholarship over physical power.
Result: Disproportionate representation in science, philosophy, finance, and the arts, especially from the 19th century onward.
Population size: A relatively small caste minority (in many regions, 3–5% of the population).
Genetic structure: Endogamous groups with some regional mixing, so each sub-group is small but the broader Brahmin community retains diversity.
Cultural factors:
Exclusive custodians of the Vedas and Sanskrit learning.
Generational transmission of memorization skills (oral recitation of massive texts).
Social status tied to intellectual/spiritual achievement, not material wealth.
Result: Across history, Brahmins have been highly represented in philosophy, administration, mathematics, and modern professions like law and science.
Endogamy but with enough diversity to avoid collapse.
Strong intellectual and religious/ethical traditions reinforcing the value of knowledge.
High literacy and structured training systems.
Selective pressures (social, cultural, sometimes genetic) that rewarded intellectual achievement.
✅ Takeaway:
Both Ashkenazi Jews and Brahmins show that a small population can maintain high intellectual performance if cultural institutions are strong enough. The culture becomes a multiplier that sustains and enhances cognitive ability over centuries.
Would you like me to also give a counterexample — cases where a small, once-advanced group lost its intellectual edge due to collapse of culture or environment? That contrast might make the picture clearer.
Perfect — let’s put the enduring cases (Ashkenazi Jews, Brahmins) side-by-side with the decline cases (Greeks, Mayans, Parsis) to see the contrasts clearly.
Ashkenazi Jews & Brahmins:
Had structured, continuous institutions: yeshivas (Jewish academies), Vedic gurukulas (teacher-student lineages).
Education was embedded in daily religious practice (Torah study, Vedic recitation).
Even under persecution or political collapse, these institutions survived because they were portable and family-based.
Greeks & Mayans:
Depended on state or elite patronage (libraries, courts, temples).
When cities fell or patrons disappeared, the knowledge systems collapsed.
The Mayan writing system was nearly lost after conquest.
Ashkenazi Jews & Brahmins:
Literacy or memorization was expected of every boy/man in the community.
This distributed intellectual tradition widely, not just among a tiny elite.
Families themselves were educational units.
Greeks, Mayans, Parsis:
Intellectual activity was concentrated in an elite class or small circle.
When that elite was disrupted (by war, famine, assimilation), knowledge transmission broke.
Parsis today struggle because cultural reproduction depends on a shrinking base.
Ashkenazi Jews & Brahmins:
Adapted to radically different environments while preserving their core.
Jews: from medieval ghettos to modern Europe and America → retained study traditions.
Brahmins: shifted from ancient ritual roles to modern professions → leveraged their educational base.
Greeks & Mayans:
Systems tied to specific political/ecological conditions.
Couldn’t adapt well to large disruptions.
Once the context collapsed, the tradition couldn’t migrate or reinvent itself.
Ashkenazi Jews & Brahmins:
Practiced endogamy, but not total isolation.
Small but steady genetic inflows (converts, intermarriage at the margins) prevented complete stagnation.
Parsis:
Very strict endogamy and extremely low birthrates → demographic crisis.
Without renewal, their cultural prominence is fading despite high individual achievement.
Enduring groups combined:
Portable, family-based education (not tied to state).
Community-wide participation, not just an elite.
Flexibility and adaptability across centuries.
Sufficient demographic resilience (not too small, not too closed).
Declining groups often had:
Reliance on fragile institutions.
Over-concentration of knowledge in elites.
Inflexibility when environments shifted.
Demographic shrinkage without renewal.
✅ Big Picture:
The difference wasn’t just “IQ level” — it was cultural strategy. Groups that democratized learning, embedded it in religion, and kept institutions portable (like Ashkenazim and Brahmins) could maintain high intellectual performance across millennia. Groups that relied on elite patronage or fragile states (like Greeks and Mayans) saw brilliance flame out when those supports vanished.
Would you like me to also connect this to your original question about small populations maintaining high IQ — i.e., what lessons a modern small group could take from these historical cases?
Excellent — let’s pull this all together and answer your original question about whether a small population can consistently maintain a high IQ.
Genetic potential for intelligence means little unless cultural institutions (schools, literacy, rituals of study) reinforce it.
Ashkenazi Jews and Brahmins show how making learning part of daily religious life ensures transmission even in small numbers.
If only a priestly or courtly elite holds knowledge (Mayans, Greeks), collapse of that elite means collapse of the intellectual tradition.
If every family participates in education (as in yeshivas or Vedic chanting), knowledge is resilient and portable.
A small population must flex with history.
Jews adapted to ghettos, then modern universities.
Brahmins shifted from ritual priests to modern professionals.
Groups that tied knowledge to one rigid social or ecological system (Mayans, Hellenistic Greeks) couldn’t survive disruptions.
Small populations need a balance:
Some endogamy → preserves group identity and selective traits.
Some exogamy/gene flow → prevents inbreeding and stagnation.
Extreme isolation or ultra-low birth rates (e.g., Parsis today) threaten long-term continuity, no matter how bright the group is.
Groups that made learning sacred (Torah as divine law, Vedas as eternal sound) could not abandon it without abandoning their entire identity.
This sacred anchor kept intellectual traditions alive across persecution, migration, and even near-genocide.
A small population can consistently maintain a high IQ across centuries, but only if it:
Embeds education in religion, culture, or identity.
Distributes learning widely, not just to elites.
Remains adaptable to changing circumstances.
Maintains demographic health (not too small, not too inbred).
Views knowledge as sacred or central to survival, not optional.
Without these conditions, even a brilliant small group risks fading, as seen with the Mayans, Greeks, and possibly Parsis.
Are there any national populations today that are on the road to extinction. For instance Japan or South Korea?
Yes — some modern national populations, particularly Japan, South Korea, and a few others, are often considered “on the road to extinction” in a demographic sense, though “extinction” here doesn’t mean literal disappearance in the next century. Let’s break it down:
| Country | Total Fertility Rate (TFR) | Replacement Level | Population Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Japan | ~1.2 | 2.1 | Declining |
| South Korea | ~0.78 | 2.1 | Rapidly declining |
| Taiwan | ~1.0 | 2.1 | Declining |
| Italy | ~1.3 | 2.1 | Slowly declining |
Replacement level: Around 2.1 children per woman. Below this, a population will eventually shrink without immigration.
Japan: Population peaked ~2010 (~128 million) and is now ~124 million, projected to fall to ~88 million by 2100.
South Korea: Declining even faster; projected to drop from ~51 million to under 35 million by 2100.
Very low fertility: Women are having far fewer children than needed to replace the population.
Aging populations: Large elderly cohorts → high death rate in coming decades.
Limited immigration: Unlike countries like the U.S., these nations have strict immigration, so population decline isn’t offset.
Social and economic factors: Work culture, urbanization, cost of raising children, and gender roles reduce birth rates.
Even if extinction in the strict sense is centuries away, the trajectory shows:
Shrinking labor force → economic strain
Increased dependency ratio → more elderly per working adult
Potential loss of cultural or regional diversity if smaller communities vanish
Japan and South Korea may stabilize at a smaller population if fertility improves or immigration increases, but without those changes, they are indeed on a centuries-long path toward “functional demographic extinction” — meaning their populations cannot sustain themselves without outside intervention.
Yes — without immigration, many countries in Europe and the U.S. would also be on a long-term path of population decline, though the timelines differ and the severity varies by country. Let’s break it down carefully.
| Region / Country | Current TFR | Replacement Level | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Europe (average) | ~1.5 | 2.1 | Below replacement, especially Southern and Eastern Europe. Northern/Eastern Europe is slightly higher in some countries (~1.7). |
| United States | ~1.6 | 2.1 | Above some European countries, but still below replacement. Immigration keeps population growing. |
Replacement level: ~2.1 children per woman.
Europe: Many countries (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Greece) are well below replacement. Without immigration, their populations would shrink over the next century.
U.S.: Fertility is slightly higher than Europe, but still below replacement; immigration accounts for most of population growth.
Southern and Eastern Europe: Populations could shrink by 20–50% by 2100.
Northern/Western Europe: Slower decline; countries like France and Sweden might stabilize at a smaller population.
United States: Population would plateau and then slowly decline within a century, as natural increase becomes negative without immigration.
Even without population collapse:
Aging populations → higher dependency ratio
Labor shortages → economic strain
Potential decline in cultural, linguistic, or rural community diversity
Europe and the U.S. have more buffer than Japan or South Korea because their fertility is slightly higher and populations are larger, but the trajectory would still be “on the road to demographic decline” without immigration.
Japan and South Korea: Very low fertility (~1.2 or lower) → decline is rapid, almost inevitable.
Europe / U.S.: Fertility slightly higher (~1.5–1.6) → decline is slower; could be partially offset by policies encouraging families, though immigration has historically been the main stabilizer.
If you want, I can make a side-by-side comparison of population trajectories for Japan, South Korea, Europe, and the U.S. over 200 years, showing the effect of immigration versus no immigration. That gives a very clear visual picture of how “on the road to extinction” differs by region.
Do you want me to do that?
