Kali yuga

 

I won´t link, but I just learned about "kush" and "tranq". This really is kali yuga and we´re stuck on some psycho planet in the suburbs of hell... 

Meanwhile, libertarians want to legalize all drugs, yeah, whatever. 

Kosovo Polje

Baserad serbisk jordbruksbrigad? 

De "baserade" serberna ("the most Game-conscious people in Europe"), som är allierade med Moder Ryssland, agerar ju på ett intressant sätt här...

Serbiens plan: Massinvandring från tredje världen

Gold Coast

 

How is this even possible today? The whole thing feels so 1970 or perhaps 1995. Is this woman a member of a cult of some kind?  

Cooling down

 

Cold Holocene spell!

John Michael Greer´s "centrist" position on climate change.  He *does* make some good points, but overall, I find his critique unpersuasive. Just for fun, I asked ChatGPT to comment some statements in his article. Note, btw, that the essay is part one of two in a series, and that the second part won´t be due for another month or so. But I just couldn´t help myself...

Climate change: the crisis management model

ChatGPT says: 

The assertion that climate change produces both winners and losers is supported by evidence, though the specific examples regarding Russian agriculture and the Sahara Desert require nuanced examination.

---

🌾 Russia's Wheat Production and Climate Change

Russia has experienced record-breaking wheat harvests in recent years, attributed in part to favorable weather conditions and expanded cultivation areas. However, attributing these successes solely to climate change overlooks the complexity of agricultural systems.

• Recent Trends: In the 2016/17 season, Russia's wheat production reached a record 72.5 million metric tons, surpassing previous records. ipad.fas.usda.gov

• Climate Factors: While warmer temperatures have extended the growing season in some northern regions, leading to increased agricultural productivity, these benefits are counterbalanced by challenges such as droughts and extreme weather events. For instance, in 2024, hot and dry conditions led to reduced yields of winter cereals and grain maize in Russia. EU Vetenskapsnav

• Geopolitical Implications: Increased wheat exports from Russia can influence global markets, potentially providing affordable grain to countries facing food insecurity. However, the revenues from these exports may also support geopolitical strategies, such as military expenditures.

---

🌿 Sahara Desert and Potential "Greening"

The idea that the Sahara could become more hospitable due to climate change is based on historical climate patterns and recent observations.

• Historical Context: Approximately 4,000 to 6,000 years ago, during the African Humid Period, the Sahara experienced significantly more rainfall, supporting grasslands and human settlements. Wikipedia

• Recent Observations: Some studies suggest that parts of the Sahara and Sahel regions have seen increased vegetation due to higher rainfall in recent decades. ScienceDirect

• Future Projections: Climate models indicate that continued global warming could alter monsoon patterns, potentially leading to increased rainfall in the Sahara. However, these projections are uncertain and depend on various factors, including greenhouse gas emissions and land-use changes.Live Science

• Challenges: Even if rainfall increases, transforming arid regions into productive agricultural land would require significant investment in infrastructure, soil management, and sustainable practices.

---

⚖️ Conclusion

While climate change may offer certain regions temporary advantages, such as extended growing seasons or increased rainfall, these benefits are often accompanied by significant risks and uncertainties. The overall impact of climate change remains predominantly negative, with challenges including extreme weather events, water scarcity, and threats to biodiversity.

Therefore, while acknowledging that some areas might experience short-term gains, it's crucial to address the broader and more pressing adverse effects of climate change globally.

xxxxx

The claims you've encountered contain elements of truth but also oversimplify complex scientific concepts. Let's examine them in detail:

---

🌍 Earth's Historical Climate: Was It Warmer Than Today?

It's accurate that Earth has experienced periods significantly warmer than the present. For instance, during the Early Eocene Climatic Optimum (~56–48 million years ago), global temperatures were substantially higher, and tropical conditions extended to higher latitudes. Similarly, the Mid-Piacenzian Warm Period (~3.3–3 million years ago) saw global temperatures about 2–3°C warmer than today, with sea levels approximately 25 meters higher. WikipediaWikipedia+1Wikipedia+1

However, stating that Earth was colder than at any point in the last 200 million years until recent decades is misleading. The current Quaternary Period, spanning the last 2.6 million years, has been characterized by repeated glacial and interglacial cycles, with significant temperature fluctuations. While we're presently in an interglacial phase (the Holocene), global temperatures have risen rapidly in recent decades due to human activities, reaching levels comparable to or exceeding some past warm periods.

---

🌿 The "Green Sahara": Could It Return?

The Sahara Desert has indeed undergone periods of increased rainfall and vegetation, known as African Humid Periods. These occurred approximately every 21,000 years, driven by changes in Earth's orbital precession, which affected the strength of the African monsoon. The most recent humid period ended around 5,000 years ago. ScienceDirectWikipedia+3Phys.org+3bristol.ac.uk+3Wikipedia

While these historical shifts were natural and gradual, the current climate change is rapid and primarily driven by human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. Predicting a return to a "green Sahara" due to modern climate change is speculative, as the mechanisms differ significantly from past natural cycles.

---

⚠️ Climate Change: Winners and Losers?

It's true that climate change can have varied regional impacts. Some areas, like parts of Russia, have experienced increased agricultural yields due to longer growing seasons. However, these benefits are often offset by negative consequences elsewhere, such as extreme weather events, sea-level rise, and loss of biodiversity. Moreover, the long-term sustainability of such gains is uncertain, as climate change can also lead to soil degradation, water scarcity, and other challenges.

Therefore, while there may be short-term or localized benefits, the overarching scientific consensus is that the risks and adverse effects of climate change far outweigh the potential advantages.

---

📚 Conclusion

Understanding Earth's climatic history provides valuable context, but it's crucial to recognize the unprecedented rate and scale of current climate change. While past warm periods occurred over millennia, today's changes are happening over decades, posing significant challenges for ecosystems and human societies.

xxxxx 

You're absolutely right—and you've identified one of the most crucial points often overlooked in arguments that romanticize Earth's hotter past.

🌍 Yes, Earth Was Hotter—But That’s Not the Point

While it’s true that for much of Earth's 4.5-billion-year history the climate was hotter, wetter, and more tropical—with little to no polar ice—human civilization evolved and depends on the relatively cool and stable conditions of the Holocene, the period covering the last ~11,700 years.

---

🧠 Why That Stability Matters

The Holocene provided:

• Stable temperatures and predictable seasons
  → Crucial for the development of agriculture and permanent settlements.

• Moderate sea levels
  → Allowed coastal cities, ports, and trade networks to flourish without constant threat of flooding.

• Reliable rainfall patterns
  → Enabled irrigation and long-term planning for food production.

• Ecosystem balance
  → Biodiversity adapted to these conditions over millennia, forming the basis for everything from food chains to pollination.

In contrast:

During hotter past epochs like the Eocene, the Earth had no ice caps, sea levels were dozens of meters higher, and the planet was largely inhospitable to large mammals, let alone complex civilizations.

---

⚠️ The Core Issue: Rate of Change

Another vital factor is not just how hot it gets, but how fast.

• Paleoclimatic shifts took place over thousands to millions of years.

• The current warming, largely driven by human activities, is occurring over mere decades.

• Natural systems (and human infrastructure) simply can't adapt quickly enough to keep up.

---

🤔 A False Equivalence

So when critics say things like “Earth used to be a jungle planet, life thrived, so warming isn’t a problem”, they’re committing a false equivalence:

• Yes, life in general survived hotter climates.

• But human life and civilization are tightly tied to the relatively narrow climatic band of the Holocene.

If climate zones shift too rapidly, food systems, water supplies, and human habitability break down—not in 10,000 years, but within our own lifetimes.

---

✅ In Summary

You're correct:

The issue is not just whether Earth has been warmer before—it's that human civilization depends on today’s cooler, more stable climate.

Ignoring this is like saying “fish thrived during the Cambrian period, so we shouldn’t worry if oxygen levels drop today.” Evolution doesn’t move at the pace of fossil fuel emissions.

Let me know if you’d like a breakdown of Holocene climate data or examples of how ancient civilizations collapsed due to climate shifts.

xxxxx

The statement you've quoted raises a provocative critique of climate advocacy—specifically the perceived hypocrisy of high-profile individuals who warn of climate catastrophe while maintaining lavish, high-emission lifestyles. Let’s unpack it carefully, separating the emotional charge from the actual logic and evidence.

---

✅ What’s True in This Critique?

1. Hypocrisy Exists
   Yes, many celebrities, politicians, and business leaders do live in ways that seem to contradict the urgency of their climate messaging. Private jets, luxury cars, sprawling homes, and frequent international travel all leave massive carbon footprints.

2. Public Perception Is Affected
   This inconsistency undermines trust in the message. People reasonably wonder: If it’s really that dire, why don’t you live accordingly?

3. Messaging vs. Action Gap
   There’s often a disconnect between rhetoric and personal sacrifice, not just in celebrities but even in climate policies. Advocating system-level change while avoiding personal change can come off as disingenuous.

---

🚫 What’s False or Misleading?

1. Assuming Hypocrisy Proves Disbelief
   The logic in the quote essentially says:

   “If they really believed climate change was a threat, they wouldn’t live high-emission lifestyles. Since they do, they must not actually believe it.”

   This is a non sequitur. People frequently act against their own stated beliefs due to comfort, habit, inertia, or perceived exceptionalism—not necessarily because they don’t believe what they say. For example:

   • Many people believe in healthy eating and still consume junk food.

   • Smokers often believe cigarettes are harmful and still smoke.

   • People can believe in climate change and still behave unsustainably—especially when the system itself supports and rewards that behavior.

2. The “Planet’s Survival” Is a Misframe
   Most serious climate scientists and advocates aren’t saying Earth will die, but that human civilization will face increasing disruption—mass displacement, agricultural failure, water crises, economic instability, etc. The Earth will go on; the question is how livable it will be for us.

3. Personal vs. Systemic Change
   Many climate experts argue that system-level policy changes (like taxing emissions, decarbonizing power grids, and redesigning infrastructure) matter more than individual lifestyle changes. This doesn't excuse hypocrisy—but it explains why the focus is often on policy, not just personal virtue.

---

🧠 A Better Framing

A more balanced way to think about this might be:

“Yes, the disconnect between high-emission lifestyles and climate advocacy is problematic and undermines credibility. But that doesn't automatically mean the threats of climate change aren't real—it means human behavior is often inconsistent, and public discourse often fails to link belief with personal sacrifice.”

---

🏁 Conclusion

The behavior of some climate advocates is hypocritical, and criticism of that hypocrisy is valid. But it doesn’t logically follow that their message is false—only that they may not be the best messengers. Climate science should be judged on its data and predictions, not the inconsistency of its celebrity spokespeople.

Let me know if you’d like a look at the actual emission data from high-profile individuals, or how different lifestyle choices compare in carbon terms.

Romantic biology

 

Some scientific hypotheses which were discarded make me more nostalgic than others. Just discovered the one below. From Wikipedia this time.   

>>>Haeckel claimed the origin of humanity was to be found in Asia: he believed that Hindustan (Indian subcontinent) was the actual location where the first humans had evolved. Haeckel argued that humans were closely related to the primates of Southeast Asia and rejected Darwin's hypothesis of Africa.

>>>Haeckel later claimed that the missing link was to be found on the lost continent of Lemuria located in the Indian Ocean. He believed that Lemuria was the home of the first humans and that Asia was the home of many of the earliest primates; he thus supported that Asia was the cradle of hominid evolution. Haeckel also claimed that Lemuria connected Asia and Africa, which allowed the migration of humans to the rest of the world.

>>>In Haeckel's book The History of Creation (1884) he included migration routes which he thought the first humans had used outside of Lemuria.

The braided stream

 

- Hmmm, I wonder how far back
 this "braided stream" really goes?

My conversation with ChatGPT om human evolution continues...

How far back does the braided stream concept of evolution go? Homo heidelbergensis, Homo erectus...?

Awesome follow-up—and yes, the “braided stream” model can be extended well before Homo sapiens. In fact, many paleoanthropologists now believe that this reticulated, network-like evolution goes at least as far back as Homo erectus, and probably even earlier.

Let’s take a look at how far back this evolutionary “braiding” might go—and what that means for our ancestors.

---

🧬 What Is the Braided Stream Model?

Instead of imagining human evolution as a simple tree (with clean branches separating species), the braided stream model suggests:

• Lineages diverge, but later interbreed or reconnect (like braided rivers),

• There’s ongoing gene flow between populations,

• Evolution is not strictly linear—it’s messy, regional, and dynamic,

• “Species” and “subspecies” boundaries are blurred.

---

🏞️ How Far Back Does It Go?

🔹 Homo sapiens (300k–present):

• Undeniably braided—multiple African populations, Neanderthal/Denisovan admixture, even “ghost” populations.

🔸 Homo heidelbergensis (roughly 600k–300k years ago):

• Probably already a highly structured species.

• Some populations gave rise to Neanderthals, others to modern humans, others to the Denisovans.

• Fossils across Africa and Europe show both regional traits and shared features.

❗ Many now view Homo heidelbergensis as a "catch-all" category for diverse Middle Pleistocene humans who probably formed a braided, interconnected set of populations.

🔹 Homo erectus (~1.9 million to 100,000 years ago):

• Spread across Africa, Asia, and Southeast Asia.

• Clear regional variation: compare Java Man (Indonesia) with Dmanisi fossils (Georgia) or African forms.

• Likely had interbreeding populations stretching from Africa to East Asia.

• No clear boundary between early Homo erectus and later transitional forms.

🔄 There's evidence of long-distance migration and possibly gene flow across continents over long timescales. That’s braiding on a global scale!

🔸 Even earlier? Homo habilis / Homo rudolfensis / early Homo (~2.4–1.6 mya):

• Highly diverse group of early humans in East and South Africa.

• Likely coexisted and exchanged genes, possibly representing a cluster of closely related populations rather than distinct, neatly separated species.

---

📚 What This Means

The further back we go:

• The less clear-cut the “species boundaries” become.

• Evolution looks less like a ladder or even a tree, and more like a tangled bush, or—yes—a braided stream.

• Our hominin ancestors were probably constantly migrating, mixing, adapting, and shaping each other’s evolution.

---

🧠 Analogy:

Instead of thinking of human evolution like a series of baton-passing runners in a relay race 🏃‍♂️➡️🏃‍♀️, Think of it like multiple rivers flowing, splitting, rejoining, and blending across a vast landscape 🌊🌍.

---

✅ Summary:

Time Period	Main Hominins	Braided Evolution?	Notes
0–300 kya	Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans	✅ Yes	Gene flow across Africa and Eurasia
300–600 kya	Homo heidelbergensis	✅ Yes	Source population for multiple later humans
600–1.9 mya	Homo erectus	✅ Yes	Spread across continents, high variation
2.0–2.5 mya	Early Homo (habilis, rudolfensis)	✅ Likely	Coexisting diverse forms in Africa

---

Would you like a visual “braided timeline” showing how these populations connect and diverge over time? It makes this even easier to see.

Can you tell me something about the "ghost populations" within the genus Homo?

Absolutely—“ghost populations” are one of the coolest (and slightly eerie 😄) concepts in modern human evolutionary genetics. Let’s break it down:

---

👻 What Is a "Ghost Population"?

A ghost population refers to:

A group of ancient humans (or hominins) that interbred with other populations, leaving genetic traces in our DNA,
but whose fossils have never been found, or whose identity is still unknown.

So we know they existed—but we've never directly seen them in the fossil record.

---

🧬 How Do We Know They Were There?

Geneticists detect ghost populations when they find:

• DNA segments in ancient or modern genomes that don’t match any known hominin (like Neanderthals or Denisovans),

• But are too divergent to come from known populations,

• Meaning: they must come from an unknown branch of the Homo family tree.

It's like finding a puzzle piece that fits, but doesn't match the picture on the box.

---

🧠 Major Examples of Ghost Populations:

1. "Ghost Archaic" in Sub-Saharan Africa

• Modern African populations carry deeply divergent DNA from a previously unknown hominin.

• Estimated to have split from other humans ~1–2 million years ago.

• Possibly a relative of Homo erectus or another early African lineage.

• No fossils matched to this lineage… yet.

2. Unknown Archaic Admixture in Denisovans

• The Denisovans themselves show signs of admixture with an even older hominin.

• Possibly Homo erectus or a close relative in Asia.

• So Denisovans are a ghost-hybrid in part!

3. "Ghost" Population in Melanesians

• Modern Melanesians and Papuans carry Denisovan-like DNA, but some of it doesn’t match the known Denisovan genome (from Denisova Cave).

• Suggests there were multiple Denisovan groups, one of which we’ve never sampled.

---

🕵️ Why Are These Populations Still Ghosts?

• Some lived in regions with poor fossil preservation (tropics, rainforests, etc.).

• Some fossils may exist but are misidentified or too fragmentary.

• Some may never fossilize at all—we’re talking hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago.

---

🌐 Big Picture

These ghost populations:

• Show that human evolution was way messier than we once thought.

• Suggest that many hominin species were coexisting and interbreeding over the last 2 million years.

• Remind us that we’re only seeing a fragment of our true evolutionary past.

---

🤯 Bonus Thought:

The more ancient DNA we sequence, the more ghosts we seem to find. It’s very possible that many more unknown hominin lineages existed—and some of them live on in us, hidden in our genomes.

---

Let me know if you’d like a map of ghost populations and where they likely lived, or a chart showing how they fit into the Homo family tree. It's a fascinating web of ancestors!

Where did *humans* come from?

 

OK, now it gets really interesting! Listen to these ChatGPT bullet points about human evolution as a "braided stream"...

You say that Homo sapiens evolved gradually across Africa, not from a single "Eden". Does this mean that there wasn´t a clear speciation event which gave rise to Homo sapiens?

Exactly—that’s the heart of a major shift in how scientists understand human evolution today.

You're picking up on a really profound point: there probably was not a single, clean “speciation event” that suddenly produced Homo sapiens. Instead, the evolution of our species was gradual, complex, and continent-wide—a mosaic process rather than a moment.

Let’s break it down:

---

🧬 1. The Old View: A Single-Origin "Eden"

Traditionally, scientists proposed that:

• Homo sapiens evolved in one place (usually East Africa),

• From a single ancestral species (like Homo heidelbergensis),

• Through a fairly rapid speciation event, sometime around 200,000 years ago,

• And then spread out to replace all other hominins (Neanderthals, Denisovans, etc.).

This was sometimes called the "Garden of Eden" model or "Out of Africa 1.0".

---

🌍 2. The New View: Pan-African Evolution

Recent fossil, genetic, and archaeological evidence paints a very different picture:

✅ Homo sapiens likely did not emerge from a single population in one location.

Instead:

• Our species evolved gradually from earlier African hominins,

• In multiple, semi-connected populations across different regions of Africa (East, North, South, and possibly West),

• Over hundreds of thousands of years.

This is known as the “Pan-African model” of human evolution.

---

📍 Evidence for the Pan-African Model:

• Fossils with transitional Homo sapiens traits found all over Africa:

  • Jebel Irhoud (Morocco) – ~300k years ago

  • Florisbad (South Africa) – ~260k years ago

  • Herto & Omo Kibish (Ethiopia) – 160–195k years ago

• Genetic studies show:

  • High ancient diversity within Africa,

  • Evidence of gene flow between populations, not a single founder group.

• Tools and symbolic artifacts also appear across wide regions, not from a single “core” area.

➡️ So: Multiple populations were evolving in parallel, sometimes isolated, sometimes exchanging genes and ideas.

---

🤝 3. Speciation as a Process, Not a Moment

Unlike textbook diagrams showing clean branches, real speciation—especially in humans—is:

• Messy

• Extended over time

• Geographically distributed

• Includes admixture (interbreeding) between diverging lineages

In this view, Homo sapiens didn’t just “appear”—we coalesced.

Modern humans are the result of:

• A long, gradual accumulation of traits,

• A network of ancestral populations blending into each other,

• Adaptive evolution in different African environments.

---

🧠 Analogy: The "Braided Stream"

Imagine evolution not as a tree with a clean split, but a braided river:

• Different channels (populations) flow separately for a while,

• Then come back together, mixing and diverging again. That’s what human origins looked like.

---

✅ Summary:

Old Model	New Model
One origin	Multiple, connected populations
Rapid speciation	Gradual evolution
Clean split	Blended lineages
Tree model	Braided stream model

---

So you're absolutely right: there wasn't a single, sharp speciation event that "created" Homo sapiens. Instead, we emerged over time, across a vast and varied African landscape.

Let me know if you’d like a visual of the “braided stream” idea—it’s a really cool way to reimagine our origins!

What is the difference between this model and the old Multi-Regional Hypothesis of origins? Is the current model actually a synthesis between "Out of Africa" and the Multi-Regional Hypothesis?

Brilliant question—and you're absolutely on point. What we now call the “Pan-African Model” or the “Network Model” of human origins is, in many ways, a synthesis of earlier competing ideas. Let’s walk through it step by step:

---

🧭 1. The Old Debate: Two Classic Models

🔵 Out of Africa (Replacement Model)

• Homo sapiens evolved in Africa only, around 200,000 years ago.

• Then left Africa ~60–70,000 years ago, replacing all other archaic humans (like Neanderthals and Denisovans) with little to no interbreeding.

• Supported by early mitochondrial DNA studies (1980s–1990s).

• Most widely accepted in the late 20th century.

🔴 Multi-Regional Hypothesis

• Homo sapiens evolved simultaneously in multiple regions (Africa, Europe, Asia),

• From local archaic humans (like Homo erectus),

• Maintained species unity through gene flow between regions.

• Emphasized long-term regional continuity of traits (e.g., facial structure in East Asia or Europe).

🧠 This model was often associated with paleoanthropologists like Milford Wolpoff, and was controversial because it minimized the role of Africa.

---

🟣 2. What the Modern Evidence Shows: A Synthesis

✅ The Current Model—sometimes called:

• "Out of Africa 2.0"

• "Pan-African Evolution"

• "Network Model"

• or even "Modified Multiregionalism" (with a focus on Africa)

Is really a hybrid of the two classic views:

Feature	Out of Africa	Multi-Regional	Modern Model
Homo sapiens origin	Africa only	Many regions	Africa only
Interbreeding with archaics	No	Yes	Yes (Neanderthals, Denisovans)
Structure within early humans	Not emphasized	Regional continuity	Structured populations across Africa
Evolution style	Rapid speciation	Gradual evolution	Gradual, mosaic, and networked
Global gene flow	After Out-of-Africa	Constant	Both—especially within Africa

---

🌍 So What's the Difference?

Multi-Regionalism suggested that modern humans arose from archaic humans all over the world, e.g., Chinese Homo erectus directly evolved into Chinese Homo sapiens.

The modern model says:

• Modern humans evolved only in Africa, but within Africa, there were multiple, semi-isolated populations,

• These populations exchanged genes and innovations over hundreds of thousands of years,

• Then some Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, and interbred with local archaic humans (Neanderthals, Denisovans),

• So non-Africans today have a small percentage (~1–4%) of archaic DNA from those interbreeding events.

---

🔄 It's Like This:

• The Out of Africa model was too clean.

• The Multi-Regional model was too global (and downplayed Africa’s centrality).

• The new model accepts:

  • Multiple populations within Africa (like Multi-Regional, but within a single continent),

  • Interbreeding with local archaic humans outside Africa (partial replacement, not total),

  • A dynamic, connected, braided evolutionary stream rather than a single origin point or a tree of separate branches.

---

✅ Summary:

The current model is not just Out of Africa, and not classic Multi-Regionalism either. It’s a sophisticated synthesis:
🧬 Homo sapiens evolved in a network of populations across Africa, gradually accumulating modern traits, and
🌐 migrated out, mixing with archaic humans in Eurasia, forming the diverse humans we are today.

---

Would you like a visual diagram comparing all three models? Or a breakdown of what traits emerged where in Africa? It's a fascinating map.