The blog to end all blogs. Reviews and comments about all and everything. This blog is NOT affiliated with YouTube, Wikipedia, Microsoft Bing, Gemini, ChatGPT or any commercial vendor! Links don´t imply endorsement. Many posts and comments are ironic. The blogger is not responsible for comments made by others. The languages used are English and Swedish. Content warning: Essentially everything.
Showing posts with label Central America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Central America. Show all posts
Ground sloths are scarier than Sasquatch! OK, maybe not, but apparently people all over the Americas keep seeing strange large & largely hairy beasts they assume are "ground sloths" (which have been extinct since circa 9000 BC). Or perhaps overhunted by our noble savage forebears?
Speaking of bears...yes, people are either making shit up, or they are simply seeing ursids. The YouTube content-creator (who is really a skeptic) points out that there are trail cameras all over the United States "wilderness", yet no ground sloth has ever been caught on one.
Verdict: killed for food by the Natives over 10,000 years ago. "They are part of our stories". Well, how did they taste? I aint judgin´.
Denying the Moon landing must be the most "Boomer" thing ever. I mean, dude, come on. What year is it? 1971? When the Hare Krishna were still edgy??? What´s up next? The face on Mars? Däniken´s musings on Mayan astronauts? Even flat earthism feels old and almost establishment these days, and that stuff didn´t really take off until about ten years ago.
But perhaps I shouldn´t say anything, since I think/hope there might be *something* (anything) to the UFO phenomenon. That started before the Boomers were even born...
Billy Graham seems to have been...I don´t know...an unofficial American diplomatic envoy? His contacts with genocidal maniac Efraím Ríos Montt in Guatemala are well-known (and scrubbed from Wiki´s Billy Graham entry!), but I never heard of his North Korean exploits until now. For whatever reason, *they* are briefly mentioned on Wiki. Hmmm...
Here is Wikipedia:
>>>In a 1999 speech, Graham discussed his relationship with the late North Korean leader Kim Il Sung, praising him as a "different kind of communist" and "one of the great fighters for freedom in his country against the Japanese". Graham went on to note that although he had never met Kim's son and then-current North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, he had "exchanged gifts with him". [The link to the source doesn´t work on my computer]
And here is Gemini:
Can you tell me more about Graham´s relation with North Korea?
Billy Graham’s relationship with North Korea was one of the most surprising and debated chapters of his career. Despite being a staunch anti-communist who once called Communism "the greatest challenge the church has ever had to face," he became a rare bridge between the West and the "Hermit Kingdom."
His connection was deeply personal: his wife, Ruth Bell Graham, had attended a missionary school in Pyongyang in the 1930s (before the Korean War), which gave the family a unique emotional tie to the region.
1. The 1992 and 1994 Visits
Graham visited North Korea twice, in 1992 and 1994, meeting directly with the nation's founder, Kim Il-sung.
Preaching in Pyongyang: Graham was the first foreign religious leader allowed to preach in North Korea since the war. He spoke at the Bongsu Church (one of the few state-sanctioned churches) and lectured at Kim Il-sung University.
The "Messenger" Role: During his 1992 trip, Graham carried a verbal message from President George H.W. Bush to Kim Il-sung.In 1994, he did the same for President Bill Clinton during a period of high nuclear tension. This effectively made him an unofficial diplomatic envoy.
A "Cordial" Relationship: Kim Il-sung reportedly welcomed Graham warmly. Graham presented the dictator with a copy of his book, Peace with God.
2. The "Kim Il-sung as God" Controversy
Following his 1992 visit, North Korean state media (Rodong Sinmun)claimed that Graham had praised Kim Il-sung as "the saint of all saints" and even suggested he was "God who rules the human world."
The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) immediately and forcefully denied these reports, stating that the quotes were state propaganda and did not "even remotely resemble" Graham’s theology. Graham maintained that while he was respectful of the leader, his focus was strictly on the Gospel.
3. Diplomatic and Humanitarian Impact
Graham's visits opened a small window for humanitarian work that continues today:
Samaritan’s Purse: His son, Franklin Graham, took over the mantle, visiting the country multiple times. Through his organization, Samaritan’s Purse, the Grahams have provided millions of dollars in medical equipment, food, and disaster relief to North Korea.
Back-Channel Diplomacy: Many historians believe Graham’s 1994 visit helped pave the way for former President Jimmy Carter’s landmark trip later that year, which temporarily defused a nuclear crisis.
Why did he go?
Graham was often criticized for "legitimizing" a regime known for extreme religious persecution. His defense was consistent: he believed that to reach the people, he had to speak to the leaders. He once said:
"I didn't go as a politician; I went as a minister of the Gospel... I think there's going to be some changes."
While the "changes" Graham hoped for (in terms of religious freedom) never fully materialized, his visits remain a unique example of "faith-based diplomacy" during the Cold War era.
Did he praise Kim Il-sung as a "different kind of Communist" and a national liberation hero?
Whether Billy Graham actually praised Kim Il-sung in those specific terms is a matter of significant historical debate, largely because of the "he-said, she-said" nature of North Korean state propaganda versus the official records of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA).
Here is the breakdown of those specific claims:
1. The "Different Kind of Communist" Quote
It is widely documented that Graham spoke of Kim Il-sung with a level of personal warmth that shocked his Western critics. He did occasionally suggest that Kim was a leader who deeply cared for his people’s well-being, which some interpreted as labeling him a "different" or more humanitarian type of leader.
However, it is important to distinguish between Graham’s diplomatic politeness and ideological endorsement. Graham was desperate to maintain access to the country to continue his ministry, so he often avoided criticizing the regime's brutality in public, choosing instead to focus on Kim's "personality" and "hospitality."
2. The "National Liberation Hero" Claim
The claim that Graham called Kim Il-sung a "hero of national liberation" or a "great revolutionary" originated primarily from North Korean state media (KCNA).
The Propaganda Angle: The North Korean government was notorious for "ghostwriting" quotes for visiting dignitaries. They regularly published reports claiming that Graham—one of the world's most famous Christians—had recognized the Juche ideology or praised Kim Il-sung as a god-like figure.
The BGEA Denial: Graham’s team consistently refuted these reports. They argued that the North Korean government twisted Graham’s standard diplomatic pleasantries (e.g., acknowledging Kim’s role in Korean history) into full-blown ideological endorsements.
3. The Evidence of Praise
While he denied the most extreme "God-like" quotes, Graham did make several public statements that were highly controversial:
Social Order: Upon returning from Pyongyang, Graham noted he was impressed by the "health" and "discipline" of the North Korean people, famously remarking that he saw no crime or drugs in the streets—a comment that critics said ignored the reality of a totalitarian police state.
Religious Freedom: He was criticized for suggesting that there was a degree of religious freedom in North Korea based on his visits to the Bongsu and Chilgol churches, which many experts considered "show churches" designed to deceive foreigners.
Summary of the Relationship
Aspect
Graham's Public Stance
Critics' Perspective
Goal
Evangelism and "building bridges."
Legitimizing a dictator.
Tone
Diplomatic, focusing on "mutual respect."
Naive or complicit in propaganda.
Theology
Remained strictly Christian.
Accused of staying silent on human rights for access.
Ultimately, Graham walked a razor-thin line. He never renounced his Christianity or his belief that Communism was fundamentally flawed, but he was willing to use flattery and diplomatic "softness" to ensure he was the one Westerner Kim Il-sung would actually listen to. Whether that was "wise diplomacy" or "compromise" remains a point of contention among historians today.
Does this clarify the distinction between what he actually said and what the North Korean media claimed?
The dodo, the passanger pigeon and the great auk are three almost iconic extinct birds. Inevitably, some people claim to have seen them after they officially traversed to the proverbial hunting grounds.
Also as usual, some of the reports are more difficult to believe than others. For instance, a report of a living dodo in Zambia?! Hint: the dodo was a flightless bird living on the island of Mauritius. Zambia is a landlocked country in South-Central Africa. But even that pales when compared to an alleged video of a dodo in...Costa Rica. Yeaaah.
My "favorite" is the Canadian whiskey distiller who tricked the media to a marketing event on the Orkney Islands, claiming to finance an expedition looking for surviving great auks. The runner up is the bizarre story of penguins on the run in Norway being mistaken for said auks. Is that even true, or an April Fool´s joke?
Interestingly, Teddy Roosevelt believed that he spotted passanger pigeons seven years after the species supposedly disappeared. So TR *did* have some kind of cryptid connection. The usually trigger happy rough rider decided not to shoot them. Later sightings are probably misidentified mourning doves or bizarre specimens of domestic pigeons on the run.
Persistent rumors the last couple of days that a US attack on Venezuela is imminent. Or at least very close. Meanwhile, the Trump admin is trying *again* to extricate itself from the Ukrainian theatre by secret (!) negotiations with Russia. Which makes sense if we´re dealing with a crypto-isolationist administration only interested in dominating Latin America and the Caribbean (and, I suppose, Canada and Greenland).
How this squares with the constant threats against China is an interesting question. Watch the news for signs of a thaw or modus vivendi with the PRC, demands that Japan and South Korea pay for their defenses, et cetera.
The only anomaly in all this is Israel. Which of course raises eyebrows. Has the US-Israeli alliance gone from being strategic to becoming merely transactional? If so, the Jews seem to be very good at making those transactions. So far, at least.
2026 will probably be the year when the world realizes that Trump is weak outside his own chosen turf, and then we´ll see an insane stampede into an entirely new geopolitical situation. One that´s probably much worse for the Western alliance. Certainly for EU and the European wing of NATO.
Maybe this is the beginning of the end of the "American Century" and the American Empire.
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.
1. IQ and Small Populations
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.
2. Genetics vs. Environment
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.
3. Challenges for Small Populations
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.
4. The Cultural Multiplier
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?
Yes, please.
Alright, let’s take two classic case studies where relatively small populations maintained high intellectual performance across centuries:
1. Ashkenazi Jews (Europe, ~1,000 years ago to present)
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).
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.
2. Brahmins (India, >2,000 years)
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.
Common Features
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.
Yes, please.
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.
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.
2. Transmission Across Generations
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.
3. Adaptability
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.
4. Endogamy vs. Renewal
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.
🔑 Why Some Endured, Others Faded
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?
Yes.
Excellent — let’s pull this all together and answer your original question about whether a small population can consistently maintain a high IQ.
🔑 Lessons from History
1. IQ Is Not Enough — Culture Multiplies It
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.
2. Knowledge Must Be Distributed, Not Elitist
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.
3. Adaptability Prevents Decline
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.
4. Demographics Matter
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.
5. The Real Secret: Embedding Education in Identity
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.
✅ Direct Answer
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:
1. Demographic Situation
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.
2. Why These Countries Are “On the Road”
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.
3. Implications
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.
Would Europe and the United States be in the same situation without immigration?
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.
1. Fertility Rates Without Immigration
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.
2. Projected Trends Without Immigration
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.
3. Aging and Social Implications
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.
4. Key Difference from Japan / South Korea
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.
