It is extraordinary that the very small percentage of our DNA that deals with our skin pigmentation matter so much to some people.
Why that, and not - say - the DNA that deals with whether your ear lobes are hanging or not?
Don't get him on that. We will all be relocated to different countries based upon our ear lope shapes and then have a discussion on which ear lobed people have the higher or low IQ.
Along with AI, this is the biggest story in the world, yet almost no one talks about it
Nah, the biggest story in the world is and remains climate change. I know it's not fashionable or sexy to talk about it any more, but the gradual rendering uninhabitable of large areas of the Earth surface has got to be humanity's biggest crisis. However, because of its slow pace (on human timescales) and the difficulty in implementing solutions, many of the world's politicians just pay lip service to the issue or simply pretend it's not happening.
I’m pretty sure they are linked. The world has far too many people and they are polluting a planet that cannot sustain them
When species proliferate too fast for their ecosystem their populations tend to crash - one way or another. Cf lemmings
However humanity needs to manage this difficult, necessary and traumatic decline. It won’t be easy
Climate change is basically fixed. With the advent of likely policy change plus foreseeable technology, we’re heading for about 2.5 degrees of warming. Not great if you live in certain places, but not existential for the human race. And we should gain decent red wine.
For the umpteenth time, it's not. The more carbon there is in the atmosphere, the worse it will be, and there are indications that the damage incurred will increase exponentially with temperature change. Even if we blast past 2 degrees, 3 would be much better than 4.
"Survival of the human race" is not the outcome on which we should assess our efforts, IMO. I'm a little more ambitious.
It depends what you mean by "worse". That is pretty much a human construct.
The species alive during the Eocene optimum would hate this ice age climate, so it isn't that 4 degrees would kill all life on earth.
It might flood London, but cities come and go.
Loss of natural habitat seems to me to be the most immediate problem. Species can't move if they are constrained, so instead they will be lost.
Species exist because of their natural habit.
Should the natural habit change, evolution does its thing, and species change.
That's true, but not if they are wiped out first! Existing species moving north (or up) is the first step but if there are 1000 miles of farmed prairie in between that might not be easy.
This is a troubling case. Some sad deviant guy uses tech to make pedo images. Also “encourages” others to do depraved things
Definitely needs a custodial sentence (also therapy and probably severe medication). But 18 years in prison??? Really?
AFAICS there is no proof any living individual was physically harmed by his actions. Yet he gets 18 years. At the same time Starmer is releasing actual violent pedophile rapists after they’ve served far far less than that
One could almost argue he was doing a service, and we should offer this to paedophiles who want to engage and avoid offending, on the NHS, but for the fact he based them on real kids.
Yes the use of real images of children is what justifies a custodial sentence. But 18 years??!
This is an area of law which will only get thornier. If we can create perfectly plausible fake porn which satisfies pedos and stops them offending, should we?
If no one is hurt, why not? It will actually PREVENT real crimes and real hurt
Of course we should - adult porn is proven to reduce rape, so it's pretty much guaranteed that AI paedophile porn also would reduce child abuse. Plus even more importantly it's not hurting anyone anyway - AI content of any kind whatsoever should be legal imo.
But it's a complete political non starter about a very niche issue, so I wouldn't expend any more effort considering it. You might as well expect them to reform stamp duty!
I completely agree. It’s the obvious cure for horrible pedophilia. I’d also create sexbots for them
Let these sickos enact their fantasies on harmless silicon robots - problem solved
Yet I suspect some weird Puritanism will prevent us doing this - so real kids will still be really hurt
I met Natasha at the weekend. Natasha is a startlingly real looking human dummy on which doctors and forensic scientists can practice operations, autopsies and the like. She has some internal organs and is due to be fitted with more. Its called simulation and it is increasingly used since we got a bit squeamish about people practising on the dead in mortuaries and the like.
She has a variety of vivid injuries and she also has some Russian tattoos (hence her name). She has the weight and bone structure of a human so, for example, if you lift her arm she her hand falls down at the waist. It was a bit weird but probably the most entertaining lecture of our work weekend away. Forensic pathologists seem to be a bit odd but very amusing (on a limited sample).
Its not hard to imagine such complex models serving certain purposes and it is probably getting easier all the time through 3D printing and the like.
As with the victory of VHS over Betamax and Blu-ray over HDDVD, porn/sex work will lead the way. I also assume this to be true of VR headsets. Once someone works out how to use them for porn, they’ll fly off the shelves.
Along with AI, this is the biggest story in the world, yet almost no one talks about it
The other questions about which, as you say, no one wants to talk are first will there be an "Africanisation" (horrible word, can't think of anything else?) of Europe and other parts of the world and what will that mean for the indigenous populations (diminishing as they may be) and second, what measures (if any) could or should the rest of the world take to raise fertility rates?
To me the key is:
1. Make the early years of having a child more affordable. The period before school, which if you have two children 2 years apart can span 7 years, is the most costly at a time people are still not at peak salaries, struggling with the housing ladder etc. We should subside childcare more and also build houses to reduce housing costs.
2. Integration of migrants. I would say most historical UK migrants are well integrated into society, particularly by second or third generation. Other countries, and certain pockets of the UK, less so.
3. Controlled pace of migration: think of it like interest rates set by the central bank. Too high and you will fail on point 1 and negative impacts on society will be felt as there are constraints on jobs, housing, infrastructure etc. Too low and you can end up in a society of pensioners.
Get all these right and you can achieve a fertility rate just below replacement levels, with migration plugging the gap at sustainable levels.
No. We should aim for zero migration and more white British babies
I do not want to live in a Britain where white people are a minority. Just as Nigerians do not want to live in a Nigeria where they are a racial minority, nor Japanese likewise in Japan: and fair enough
We’ve had enough migration. Good fences make good neighbours
You live in London (when you are here). A huge melting pot of races, creeds, colours and whatnot. Even flint knappers. You don't seem to have a problem with it so why are you so concerned about what happens in "Britain", you hypocritical arse.
Along with AI, this is the biggest story in the world, yet almost no one talks about it
Nah, the biggest story in the world is and remains climate change. I know it's not fashionable or sexy to talk about it any more, but the gradual rendering uninhabitable of large areas of the Earth surface has got to be humanity's biggest crisis. However, because of its slow pace (on human timescales) and the difficulty in implementing solutions, many of the world's politicians just pay lip service to the issue or simply pretend it's not happening.
I’m pretty sure they are linked. The world has far too many people and they are polluting a planet that cannot sustain them
When species proliferate too fast for their ecosystem their populations tend to crash - one way or another. Cf lemmings
However humanity needs to manage this difficult, necessary and traumatic decline. It won’t be easy
Climate change is basically fixed. With the advent of likely policy change plus foreseeable technology, we’re heading for about 2.5 degrees of warming. Not great if you live in certain places, but not existential for the human race. And we should gain decent red wine.
For the umpteenth time, it's not. The more carbon there is in the atmosphere, the worse it will be, and there are indications that the damage incurred will increase exponentially with temperature change. Even if we blast past 2 degrees, 3 would be much better than 4.
"Survival of the human race" is not the outcome on which we should assess our efforts, IMO. I'm a little more ambitious.
Nah. Doing any better than I suggest implies societal change nobody will accept. We need to accept 2.5 degrees as a win and help those who suffer most. Unless they are Russian.
You stated that climate change is fixed. It's not - it could be an awful lot worse than 2.5 degrees. I think it could still be a bit better with the astonishing technological progress we are experiencing.
After the various styles of denialism, we've now got to the stage where opponents to climate mitigation simply absolve themselves of any responsibility - "it's too late - should've don't something before". It's pathetic, self-imposed impotence. It's always just a bit too difficult.
Emerson had Harris at +3 in the state a few days back so this is not exactly that much of an outlier
It's entirely possible, if Trump is outperforming polls as in 2020, that New Hampshire is in reach. It wasn't that long ago that it regularly voted Republican.
It also has a popular (retiring) Republican Governor, Chris Sununu, albeit one who is very much at the Never Trump end of the party.
That said: polling currently shows the Dems doing relatively worse with Black and Hispanic voters, while doing slightly better with white ones. If this is correct, then it would be very surprising if Trump were to pickup New Hampshire.
It's also worth remembering that in the primaries, this was a State which did not exactly flock to support Donald Trump this time around.
So, I'm going with a relatively comfortable hold Dem hold.
Do we have a list of Republican politicians who have endorsed Harris?
Along with AI, this is the biggest story in the world, yet almost no one talks about it
Nah, the biggest story in the world is and remains climate change. I know it's not fashionable or sexy to talk about it any more, but the gradual rendering uninhabitable of large areas of the Earth surface has got to be humanity's biggest crisis. However, because of its slow pace (on human timescales) and the difficulty in implementing solutions, many of the world's politicians just pay lip service to the issue or simply pretend it's not happening.
I’m pretty sure they are linked. The world has far too many people and they are polluting a planet that cannot sustain them
When species proliferate too fast for their ecosystem their populations tend to crash - one way or another. Cf lemmings
However humanity needs to manage this difficult, necessary and traumatic decline. It won’t be easy
Climate change is basically fixed. With the advent of likely policy change plus foreseeable technology, we’re heading for about 2.5 degrees of warming. Not great if you live in certain places, but not existential for the human race. And we should gain decent red wine.
For the umpteenth time, it's not. The more carbon there is in the atmosphere, the worse it will be, and there are indications that the damage incurred will increase exponentially with temperature change. Even if we blast past 2 degrees, 3 would be much better than 4.
"Survival of the human race" is not the outcome on which we should assess our efforts, IMO. I'm a little more ambitious.
It depends what you mean by "worse". That is pretty much a human construct.
The species alive during the Eocene optimum would hate this ice age climate, so it isn't that 4 degrees would kill all life on earth.
It might flood London, but cities come and go.
Loss of natural habitat seems to me to be the most immediate problem. Species can't move if they are constrained, so instead they will be lost.
Species exist because of their natural habit.
Should the natural habit change, evolution does its thing, and species change.
Or go extinct.
And they're more likely to go extinct if they are already adversely affected by people and their habitat is constrained.
18 months jail for Tommy Robinson for contempt of court. Good riddance.
But how long before elements of the Right start describing him as a political prisoner, rounded up and incarcerated by Sir Keir's police state?
3.2 seconds?
1) the claims were not false @itvnews Tommy is a political prisoner 2) your sketch artist needs to stick to his f*cking day job. They don’t call him Cataracts-Carl for nothing. #lügenpresse. #TommyRobinson https://x.com/KTHopkins/status/1850899352161501687
I'm interested to see how quickly, and how far, this story crosses in Reform and Conservative Right elements. Since it is Tommy Robinson I think it probably will not go very far.
I wonder if that’s enough for Jamal Hijazi to launch another libel claim?
He pleaded guilty to contempt of court. I’ll never get this ‘political prisoner’ claims.
Along with AI, this is the biggest story in the world, yet almost no one talks about it
Nah, the biggest story in the world is and remains climate change. I know it's not fashionable or sexy to talk about it any more, but the gradual rendering uninhabitable of large areas of the Earth surface has got to be humanity's biggest crisis. However, because of its slow pace (on human timescales) and the difficulty in implementing solutions, many of the world's politicians just pay lip service to the issue or simply pretend it's not happening.
I’m pretty sure they are linked. The world has far too many people and they are polluting a planet that cannot sustain them
When species proliferate too fast for their ecosystem their populations tend to crash - one way or another. Cf lemmings
However humanity needs to manage this difficult, necessary and traumatic decline. It won’t be easy
Climate change is basically fixed. With the advent of likely policy change plus foreseeable technology, we’re heading for about 2.5 degrees of warming. Not great if you live in certain places, but not existential for the human race. And we should gain decent red wine.
For the umpteenth time, it's not. The more carbon there is in the atmosphere, the worse it will be, and there are indications that the damage incurred will increase exponentially with temperature change. Even if we blast past 2 degrees, 3 would be much better than 4.
"Survival of the human race" is not the outcome on which we should assess our efforts, IMO. I'm a little more ambitious.
While I fully agree with this post, I feel obliged to say:
Carbon dioxide. Not carbon. We don't have lumps of coal floating around in the sky.
It is one of my pet hates and I know it isn't rational to worry about it because it is a good shorthand but I get bugged by references to Sodium, Potassium, etc in stuff. Some foods would be a jolly lot more exciting if there was even a small lump of Sodium in them.
18 months jail for Tommy Robinson for contempt of court. Good riddance.
But how long before elements of the Right start describing him as a political prisoner, rounded up and incarcerated by Sir Keir's police state?
3.2 seconds?
1) the claims were not false @itvnews Tommy is a political prisoner 2) your sketch artist needs to stick to his f*cking day job. They don’t call him Cataracts-Carl for nothing. #lügenpresse. #TommyRobinson https://x.com/KTHopkins/status/1850899352161501687
I'm interested to see how quickly, and how far, this story crosses in Reform and Conservative Right elements. Since it is Tommy Robinson I think it probably will not go very far.
I wonder if that’s enough for Jamal Hijazi to launch another libel claim?
It will be quite funny if Katie has done it again !
Along with AI, this is the biggest story in the world, yet almost no one talks about it
The other questions about which, as you say, no one wants to talk are first will there be an "Africanisation" (horrible word, can't think of anything else?) of Europe and other parts of the world and what will that mean for the indigenous populations (diminishing as they may be) and second, what measures (if any) could or should the rest of the world take to raise fertility rates?
To me the key is:
1. Make the early years of having a child more affordable. The period before school, which if you have two children 2 years apart can span 7 years, is the most costly at a time people are still not at peak salaries, struggling with the housing ladder etc. We should subside childcare more and also build houses to reduce housing costs.
2. Integration of migrants. I would say most historical UK migrants are well integrated into society, particularly by second or third generation. Other countries, and certain pockets of the UK, less so.
3. Controlled pace of migration: think of it like interest rates set by the central bank. Too high and you will fail on point 1 and negative impacts on society will be felt as there are constraints on jobs, housing, infrastructure etc. Too low and you can end up in a society of pensioners.
Get all these right and you can achieve a fertility rate just below replacement levels, with migration plugging the gap at sustainable levels.
No. We should aim for zero migration and more white British babies
I do not want to live in a Britain where white people are a minority.
I mean that around the clearest, most straightforward racism as I've seen on this site.
I'd much rather Britain filled with non-white Brits than old racists like you.
Sorry. Are you saying it’s wrong for me to
1. Want my own race to survive and
2. Want my own country - which has been majority white for its entire existence - to stay that way?
You would not object if Gambians said they wanted Gambia to stay majority black Gambian, rather than become suddenly majority white due to mass migration of whites to Gambia, so why is it “racist” of me to want the same for my own country?
To me, basing your fertility and migration based on "whiteness", i.e. race, is racist.
To take your points in turn:
1. Your race will survive. That's not a real concern, at least not with a timeframe less than 1,000 years.
2. I fundamentally don't care about the race of Britain. I care about Britain and would much rather live here than anywhere else. But it is not the whiteness of Britain that makes is a great place. Non-white Brits, or mixed-race Brits, are just as integrated into British culture as white Brits. There are exceptions, of course, but in general we are pretty good at it (and can aim to be better still).
Your Gambia analogy fails for the reason of pt 3 of my original point: controlled pace of migration being necessary. There is a limit to the pace of migration that any country can support as a proportion of the current population. If Gambia had migration at a sustainable pace, consisting entirely of white people who generally integrated into Gambian culture, and Gambians objected on the basis of race, then yes I would say is racist for them to object to that.
So no country is allowed to exist, in the future, on the basis of its ethnicity. No black, Asian, Latino, Inuit, or white country can say “our ethnicity is a fundamental part of what we are as a country and we want our ethnicity to dominate within that country, this is our ethnic homeland”
That’s your position? If so, I respect it. You are intellectually coherent and honest
I also think it is globalist drivelling nonsense which has caused evil already and will lead to far right governments everywhere, because it contradicts human nature
Countries can exist on the basis of the above (“our ethnicity is a fundamental part of what we are as a country and we want our ethnicity to dominate within that country, this is our ethnic homeland”), but to have that as your guiding policy is, in my view, fundamentally racist. And also probably a bad idea: see the inevitable decline of Korea, Japan etc.
I disagree that siding with your race is the part of human nature, as you claim. I think sticking with your own tribe is, however viewed. You have chosen to view White Britain as your tribe (or White Anglosphere?), whereas I view Britain as mine. The rise in the far-right occurs when the scale of migration it viewed as too high, particularly of migrants are failing to integrate with the local society. It does not rise as a result of whether white Brits choose white or non-white partners, as per your original wish to see more "white babies".
Along with AI, this is the biggest story in the world, yet almost no one talks about it
Nah, the biggest story in the world is and remains climate change. I know it's not fashionable or sexy to talk about it any more, but the gradual rendering uninhabitable of large areas of the Earth surface has got to be humanity's biggest crisis. However, because of its slow pace (on human timescales) and the difficulty in implementing solutions, many of the world's politicians just pay lip service to the issue or simply pretend it's not happening.
I’m pretty sure they are linked. The world has far too many people and they are polluting a planet that cannot sustain them
When species proliferate too fast for their ecosystem their populations tend to crash - one way or another. Cf lemmings
However humanity needs to manage this difficult, necessary and traumatic decline. It won’t be easy
Climate change is basically fixed. With the advent of likely policy change plus foreseeable technology, we’re heading for about 2.5 degrees of warming. Not great if you live in certain places, but not existential for the human race. And we should gain decent red wine.
For the umpteenth time, it's not. The more carbon there is in the atmosphere, the worse it will be, and there are indications that the damage incurred will increase exponentially with temperature change. Even if we blast past 2 degrees, 3 would be much better than 4.
"Survival of the human race" is not the outcome on which we should assess our efforts, IMO. I'm a little more ambitious.
Nah. Doing any better than I suggest implies societal change nobody will accept. We need to accept 2.5 degrees as a win and help those who suffer most. Unless they are Russian.
You stated that climate change is fixed. It's not - it could be an awful lot worse than 2.5 degrees. I think it could still be a bit better with the astonishing technological progress we are experiencing.
After the various styles of denialism, we've now got to the stage where opponents to climate mitigation simply absolve themselves of any responsibility - "it's too late - should've don't something before". It's pathetic, self-imposed impotence. It's always just a bit too difficult.
If this wasn’t an anonymous forum, you’d see how hilarious it is to call me an “opponent”. I suspect I have done vastly more of practical use in this space than you have. But since it is, I will leave it there and just note that you’ve gone ad hominem, which means it’s time to move on.
It is extraordinary that the very small percentage of our DNA that deals with our skin pigmentation matter so much to some people.
Why that, and not - say - the DNA that deals with whether your ear lobes are hanging or not?
Don't get him on that. We will all be relocated to different countries based upon our ear lope shapes and then have a discussion on which ear lobed people have the higher or low IQ.
Those with attached earlobes are descended from the cycling-race races who bred preferentially for aerodynamics and no delamination of air flowing from ear lobe to neck when assuming the head-down racing position. Clearly.
Detached earlobes only developed among the car driving classes or, possibly, the upright-posture hybrid/mountain bike riders.
if Leon has been at the makgeolli, it might explain his slightly incoherent posting. Seems an innocuous drink, but it does creep up on you. And PBers can take comfort in its being notorious for giving you crashing hangovers.
That, and a few bowls of seolleongtang, should give him an interesting night.
Along with AI, this is the biggest story in the world, yet almost no one talks about it
Nah, the biggest story in the world is and remains climate change. I know it's not fashionable or sexy to talk about it any more, but the gradual rendering uninhabitable of large areas of the Earth surface has got to be humanity's biggest crisis. However, because of its slow pace (on human timescales) and the difficulty in implementing solutions, many of the world's politicians just pay lip service to the issue or simply pretend it's not happening.
I’m pretty sure they are linked. The world has far too many people and they are polluting a planet that cannot sustain them
When species proliferate too fast for their ecosystem their populations tend to crash - one way or another. Cf lemmings
However humanity needs to manage this difficult, necessary and traumatic decline. It won’t be easy
Climate change is basically fixed. With the advent of likely policy change plus foreseeable technology, we’re heading for about 2.5 degrees of warming. Not great if you live in certain places, but not existential for the human race. And we should gain decent red wine.
For the umpteenth time, it's not. The more carbon there is in the atmosphere, the worse it will be, and there are indications that the damage incurred will increase exponentially with temperature change. Even if we blast past 2 degrees, 3 would be much better than 4.
"Survival of the human race" is not the outcome on which we should assess our efforts, IMO. I'm a little more ambitious.
While I fully agree with this post, I feel obliged to say:
Carbon dioxide. Not carbon. We don't have lumps of coal floating around in the sky.
It is one of my pet hates and I know it isn't rational to worry about it because it is a good shorthand but I get bugged by references to Sodium, Potassium, etc in stuff. Some foods would be a jolly lot more exciting if there was even a small lump of Sodium in them.
Mmm, would liven up rice krispies when you add the milk, Snap crackle and...
Along with AI, this is the biggest story in the world, yet almost no one talks about it
Nah, the biggest story in the world is and remains climate change. I know it's not fashionable or sexy to talk about it any more, but the gradual rendering uninhabitable of large areas of the Earth surface has got to be humanity's biggest crisis. However, because of its slow pace (on human timescales) and the difficulty in implementing solutions, many of the world's politicians just pay lip service to the issue or simply pretend it's not happening.
I’m pretty sure they are linked. The world has far too many people and they are polluting a planet that cannot sustain them
When species proliferate too fast for their ecosystem their populations tend to crash - one way or another. Cf lemmings
However humanity needs to manage this difficult, necessary and traumatic decline. It won’t be easy
Climate change is basically fixed. With the advent of likely policy change plus foreseeable technology, we’re heading for about 2.5 degrees of warming. Not great if you live in certain places, but not existential for the human race. And we should gain decent red wine.
For the umpteenth time, it's not. The more carbon there is in the atmosphere, the worse it will be, and there are indications that the damage incurred will increase exponentially with temperature change. Even if we blast past 2 degrees, 3 would be much better than 4.
"Survival of the human race" is not the outcome on which we should assess our efforts, IMO. I'm a little more ambitious.
Nah. Doing any better than I suggest implies societal change nobody will accept. We need to accept 2.5 degrees as a win and help those who suffer most. Unless they are Russian.
You stated that climate change is fixed. It's not - it could be an awful lot worse than 2.5 degrees. I think it could still be a bit better with the astonishing technological progress we are experiencing.
After the various styles of denialism, we've now got to the stage where opponents to climate mitigation simply absolve themselves of any responsibility - "it's too late - should've don't something before". It's pathetic, self-imposed impotence. It's always just a bit too difficult.
Along with AI, this is the biggest story in the world, yet almost no one talks about it
Nah, the biggest story in the world is and remains climate change. I know it's not fashionable or sexy to talk about it any more, but the gradual rendering uninhabitable of large areas of the Earth surface has got to be humanity's biggest crisis. However, because of its slow pace (on human timescales) and the difficulty in implementing solutions, many of the world's politicians just pay lip service to the issue or simply pretend it's not happening.
I’m pretty sure they are linked. The world has far too many people and they are polluting a planet that cannot sustain them
When species proliferate too fast for their ecosystem their populations tend to crash - one way or another. Cf lemmings
However humanity needs to manage this difficult, necessary and traumatic decline. It won’t be easy
Climate change is basically fixed. With the advent of likely policy change plus foreseeable technology, we’re heading for about 2.5 degrees of warming. Not great if you live in certain places, but not existential for the human race. And we should gain decent red wine.
For the umpteenth time, it's not. The more carbon there is in the atmosphere, the worse it will be, and there are indications that the damage incurred will increase exponentially with temperature change. Even if we blast past 2 degrees, 3 would be much better than 4.
"Survival of the human race" is not the outcome on which we should assess our efforts, IMO. I'm a little more ambitious.
Nah. Doing any better than I suggest implies societal change nobody will accept. We need to accept 2.5 degrees as a win and help those who suffer most. Unless they are Russian.
You stated that climate change is fixed. It's not - it could be an awful lot worse than 2.5 degrees. I think it could still be a bit better with the astonishing technological progress we are experiencing.
After the various styles of denialism, we've now got to the stage where opponents to climate mitigation simply absolve themselves of any responsibility - "it's too late - should've don't something before". It's pathetic, self-imposed impotence. It's always just a bit too difficult.
The stages of climate scepticism are not dissimilar in outline to the established approach of industries facing product safety and public health scrutiny. Broadly speaking:
1. There is no warming 2. There is warming but it is explained by something else / natural causes 3. There is warming caused by greenhouse gases but it is less dramatic than predicted 4. There is warming caused by greenhouse gases but it's too late to do anything about it 5. There is warming caused by greenhouse gases, it can be mitigated but the alternative technologies are too unaffordable 6. There is warming caused by greenhouse gases, the alternative technologies work and are affordable, so we don't need any new policies just let things run
There are still a few who are at 1 or 2 but most of the debate has moved on to 4, 5 and 6. For me it's a relief. I remember the height of climate partisanship coming out of the US around 2008-14 and it was like whack-a-mole with basic science. Now it's a political and economic argument about speed and means, which is much more productive.
EDIT: I note biggles' reply to the original post - I agree I don't think it was intended to be a statement that there's nothing worth doing on mitigation.
Along with AI, this is the biggest story in the world, yet almost no one talks about it
The other questions about which, as you say, no one wants to talk are first will there be an "Africanisation" (horrible word, can't think of anything else?) of Europe and other parts of the world and what will that mean for the indigenous populations (diminishing as they may be) and second, what measures (if any) could or should the rest of the world take to raise fertility rates?
To me the key is:
1. Make the early years of having a child more affordable. The period before school, which if you have two children 2 years apart can span 7 years, is the most costly at a time people are still not at peak salaries, struggling with the housing ladder etc. We should subside childcare more and also build houses to reduce housing costs.
2. Integration of migrants. I would say most historical UK migrants are well integrated into society, particularly by second or third generation. Other countries, and certain pockets of the UK, less so.
3. Controlled pace of migration: think of it like interest rates set by the central bank. Too high and you will fail on point 1 and negative impacts on society will be felt as there are constraints on jobs, housing, infrastructure etc. Too low and you can end up in a society of pensioners.
Get all these right and you can achieve a fertility rate just below replacement levels, with migration plugging the gap at sustainable levels.
No. We should aim for zero migration and more white British babies
I do not want to live in a Britain where white people are a minority.
I mean that around the clearest, most straightforward racism as I've seen on this site.
I'd much rather Britain filled with non-white Brits than old racists like you.
Sorry. Are you saying it’s wrong for me to
1. Want my own race to survive and
2. Want my own country - which has been majority white for its entire existence - to stay that way?
You would not object if Gambians said they wanted Gambia to stay majority black Gambian, rather than become suddenly majority white due to mass migration of whites to Gambia, so why is it “racist” of me to want the same for my own country?
To me, basing your fertility and migration based on "whiteness", i.e. race, is racist.
To take your points in turn:
1. Your race will survive. That's not a real concern, at least not with a timeframe less than 1,000 years.
2. I fundamentally don't care about the race of Britain. I care about Britain and would much rather live here than anywhere else. But it is not the whiteness of Britain that makes is a great place. Non-white Brits, or mixed-race Brits, are just as integrated into British culture as white Brits. There are exceptions, of course, but in general we are pretty good at it (and can aim to be better still).
Your Gambia analogy fails for the reason of pt 3 of my original point: controlled pace of migration being necessary. There is a limit to the pace of migration that any country can support as a proportion of the current population. If Gambia had migration at a sustainable pace, consisting entirely of white people who generally integrated into Gambian culture, and Gambians objected on the basis of race, then yes I would say is racist for them to object to that.
So no country is allowed to exist, in the future, on the basis of its ethnicity. No black, Asian, Latino, Inuit, or white country can say “our ethnicity is a fundamental part of what we are as a country and we want our ethnicity to dominate within that country, this is our ethnic homeland”
That’s your position? If so, I respect it. You are intellectually coherent and honest
I also think it is globalist drivelling nonsense which has caused evil already and will lead to far right governments everywhere, because it contradicts human nature
Countries can exist on the basis of the above (“our ethnicity is a fundamental part of what we are as a country and we want our ethnicity to dominate within that country, this is our ethnic homeland”), but to have that as your guiding policy is, in my view, fundamentally racist. And also probably a bad idea: see the inevitable decline of Korea, Japan etc.
I disagree that siding with your race is the part of human nature, as you claim. I think sticking with your own tribe is, however viewed. You have chosen to view White Britain as your tribe (or White Anglosphere?), whereas I view Britain as mine. The rise in the far-right occurs when the scale of migration it viewed as too high, particularly of migrants are failing to integrate with the local society. It does not rise as a result of whether white Brits choose white or non-white partners, as per your original wish to see more "white babies".
A cogent argument. We disagree on first principles but at least you’re willing to engage
FWIW I agree with you on Korea and Japan. The stagnation here is palpable. They definitely NEED a healthy dose of immigration - I am not against immigration per se, that would be an absurd position. Humans move
But the UK has had enough massive migration for now and like a man after a 19 course tasting meal, really needs to digest everything he’s eaten before shoving another burger down. Control the borders, send the boats back
I'll try to offer a more nuanced view on @Leon's comment. We know (or those of use who have put up with him and his previous incarnations on here for 15 years) it's a combination of posting to shock and posting to provoke and sometimes just posting sh1t for the hell of it.
As a provocateur, therefore, it's incumbent to come up with something which doesn't just make you recoil or come back with a kneejerk response but something to make you think.
People like people like themselves - we all know this but it's more layered than that. The overlapping circles of our acquaintances are based on those elements of our life which are important to us so for those who are strongly religious, it's more likely to be a group of those with strong faith and therefore the ethnicity and gender will be irrelevant.
For those who join a political party, again, it's like minded people irrespective of their age, gender or ethnicity.
For others, age or ethnicity or gender matter more so for those for whom ethnicity is important (and there are plenty of them I suspect), gravitating towards people and areas where your ethnicity is in the majority will be important. For others on here, I've even seen and heard the notion of having an MP and Council run by the party you support as being so important people will up sticks to live somewhere which suits them politically.
I live in East Ham where I am in a minority but I see a strong British (not English) identity emerging from among those who have come from other parts of the world to make Britain their home. Their version of what is British is evolving and while it has elements of what I would call English, it's something different and there's nothing wrong with that.
In food, music and sport, to name but three, the contributions of those who have come from other lands to live and work and put down roots here is considerable and cannot be understated.
Along with AI, this is the biggest story in the world, yet almost no one talks about it
Nah, the biggest story in the world is and remains climate change. I know it's not fashionable or sexy to talk about it any more, but the gradual rendering uninhabitable of large areas of the Earth surface has got to be humanity's biggest crisis. However, because of its slow pace (on human timescales) and the difficulty in implementing solutions, many of the world's politicians just pay lip service to the issue or simply pretend it's not happening.
I’m pretty sure they are linked. The world has far too many people and they are polluting a planet that cannot sustain them
When species proliferate too fast for their ecosystem their populations tend to crash - one way or another. Cf lemmings
However humanity needs to manage this difficult, necessary and traumatic decline. It won’t be easy
Climate change is basically fixed. With the advent of likely policy change plus foreseeable technology, we’re heading for about 2.5 degrees of warming. Not great if you live in certain places, but not existential for the human race. And we should gain decent red wine.
For the umpteenth time, it's not. The more carbon there is in the atmosphere, the worse it will be, and there are indications that the damage incurred will increase exponentially with temperature change. Even if we blast past 2 degrees, 3 would be much better than 4.
"Survival of the human race" is not the outcome on which we should assess our efforts, IMO. I'm a little more ambitious.
Nah. Doing any better than I suggest implies societal change nobody will accept. We need to accept 2.5 degrees as a win and help those who suffer most. Unless they are Russian.
You stated that climate change is fixed. It's not - it could be an awful lot worse than 2.5 degrees. I think it could still be a bit better with the astonishing technological progress we are experiencing.
After the various styles of denialism, we've now got to the stage where opponents to climate mitigation simply absolve themselves of any responsibility - "it's too late - should've don't something before". It's pathetic, self-imposed impotence. It's always just a bit too difficult.
If this wasn’t an anonymous forum, you’d see how hilarious it is to call me an “opponent”. I suspect I have done vastly more of practical use in this space than you have. But since it is, I will leave it there and just note that you’ve gone ad hominem, which means it’s time to move on.
I didn't call you an opponent. I'm just aware of how the debate has moved on so that climate change is fixed and inevitable, and therefore there is no use in doing any mitigation.
Having said that, we are now at a stage that the optimal outcome for the UK probably sees us increase spending on adaptation given the baked in upcoming damage. There is very little discussion of that so far.
I'll try to offer a more nuanced view on @Leon's comment. We know (or those of use who have put up with him and his previous incarnations on here for 15 years) it's a combination of posting to shock and posting to provoke and sometimes just posting sh1t for the hell of it.
As a provocateur, therefore, it's incumbent to come up with something which doesn't just make you recoil or come back with a kneejerk response but something to make you think.
People like people like themselves - we all know this but it's more layered than that. The overlapping circles of our acquaintances are based on those elements of our life which are important to us so for those who are strongly religious, it's more likely to be a group of those with strong faith and therefore the ethnicity and gender will be irrelevant.
For those who join a political party, again, it's like minded people irrespective of their age, gender or ethnicity.
For others, age or ethnicity or gender matter more so for those for whom ethnicity is important (and there are plenty of them I suspect), gravitating towards people and areas where your ethnicity is in the majority will be important. For others on here, I've even seen and heard the notion of having an MP and Council run by the party you support as being so important people will up sticks to live somewhere which suits them politically.
I live in East Ham where I am in a minority but I see a strong British (not English) identity emerging from among those who have come from other parts of the world to make Britain their home. Their version of what is British is evolving and while it has elements of what I would call English, it's something different and there's nothing wrong with that.
In food, music and sport, to name but three, the contributions of those who have come from other lands to live and work and put down roots here is considerable and cannot be understated.
I agree with a lot of that. UK is a “magnetic” country. People are attracted to it. And thoughout history the UK has profited from that. From Huguenot weavers onwards. Not everything has been positive (and our legacy abroad is also a distinctly mixed bag). But generally, economies that are magnetic tend to do better than those that aren’t.
If folk were genuinely interested in the best interests of “your country” they would not be simply putting up fences. But working out how to maximise the benefits for all from those that want to be here, and minimise the harms.
Along with AI, this is the biggest story in the world, yet almost no one talks about it
Nah, the biggest story in the world is and remains climate change. I know it's not fashionable or sexy to talk about it any more, but the gradual rendering uninhabitable of large areas of the Earth surface has got to be humanity's biggest crisis. However, because of its slow pace (on human timescales) and the difficulty in implementing solutions, many of the world's politicians just pay lip service to the issue or simply pretend it's not happening.
I’m pretty sure they are linked. The world has far too many people and they are polluting a planet that cannot sustain them
When species proliferate too fast for their ecosystem their populations tend to crash - one way or another. Cf lemmings
However humanity needs to manage this difficult, necessary and traumatic decline. It won’t be easy
Climate change is basically fixed. With the advent of likely policy change plus foreseeable technology, we’re heading for about 2.5 degrees of warming. Not great if you live in certain places, but not existential for the human race. And we should gain decent red wine.
For the umpteenth time, it's not. The more carbon there is in the atmosphere, the worse it will be, and there are indications that the damage incurred will increase exponentially with temperature change. Even if we blast past 2 degrees, 3 would be much better than 4.
"Survival of the human race" is not the outcome on which we should assess our efforts, IMO. I'm a little more ambitious.
Nah. Doing any better than I suggest implies societal change nobody will accept. We need to accept 2.5 degrees as a win and help those who suffer most. Unless they are Russian.
You stated that climate change is fixed. It's not - it could be an awful lot worse than 2.5 degrees. I think it could still be a bit better with the astonishing technological progress we are experiencing.
After the various styles of denialism, we've now got to the stage where opponents to climate mitigation simply absolve themselves of any responsibility - "it's too late - should've don't something before". It's pathetic, self-imposed impotence. It's always just a bit too difficult.
If this wasn’t an anonymous forum, you’d see how hilarious it is to call me an “opponent”. I suspect I have done vastly more of practical use in this space than you have. But since it is, I will leave it there and just note that you’ve gone ad hominem, which means it’s time to move on.
I didn't call you an opponent. I'm just aware of how the debate has moved on so that climate change is fixed and inevitable, and therefore there is no use in doing any mitigation.
Having said that, we are now at a stage that the optimal outcome for the UK probably sees us increase spending on adaptation given the baked in upcoming damage. There is very little discussion of that so far.
That is very true.
What will happen is that the Second Thames Barrier will get built and everywhere else will have "managed retreat".
Along with AI, this is the biggest story in the world, yet almost no one talks about it
The fertility rate (as expressed by the number of births per woman) is still above replacement in over 90 countries including a significant part of sub-Saharan Africa - below replacement fertility is Europe, North and South America, India, China, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand and some other places.
Niger, Chad, Somalia and DR Congo all have above 6 births per woman so we can postulate in 15-20 years we could be facing a surge of immigration from those parts of the world unless we see the kind of economic investment and growth which creates the conditions encouraging people to stay.
I've long thought the future of capitalism lies in Africa if you continue to want a source of cheap labour (all other issues notwithstanding) or want to develop a part of the world hitherto largely neglected (China). Africa as the world's economic powerhouse by 2050 - who knows?
The other questions about which, as you say, no one wants to talk are first will there be an "Africanisation" (horrible word, can't think of anything else?) of Europe and other parts of the world and what will that mean for the indigenous populations (diminishing as they may be) and second, what measures (if any) could or should the rest of the world take to raise fertility rates?
The highest fertility rates are almost all in nations with the highest rate of religious belief too. Even in developed nations it is more religious nations like Ireland and Israel that tend to have the highest fertility rates
Ireland is no longer a religious nation. Ireland's fertility rate has been steadily declining and in 2023 was 1.5, a decrease from 2.0 in 2013. which proves your point.
Along with AI, this is the biggest story in the world, yet almost no one talks about it
The fertility rate (as expressed by the number of births per woman) is still above replacement in over 90 countries including a significant part of sub-Saharan Africa - below replacement fertility is Europe, North and South America, India, China, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand and some other places.
Niger, Chad, Somalia and DR Congo all have above 6 births per woman so we can postulate in 15-20 years we could be facing a surge of immigration from those parts of the world unless we see the kind of economic investment and growth which creates the conditions encouraging people to stay.
I've long thought the future of capitalism lies in Africa if you continue to want a source of cheap labour (all other issues notwithstanding) or want to develop a part of the world hitherto largely neglected (China). Africa as the world's economic powerhouse by 2050 - who knows?
The other questions about which, as you say, no one wants to talk are first will there be an "Africanisation" (horrible word, can't think of anything else?) of Europe and other parts of the world and what will that mean for the indigenous populations (diminishing as they may be) and second, what measures (if any) could or should the rest of the world take to raise fertility rates?
The highest fertility rates are almost all in nations with the highest rate of religious belief too. Even in developed nations it is more religious nations like Ireland and Israel that tend to have the highest fertility rates
Ireland is no longer a religious nation. Ireland's fertility rate has been steadily declining and in 2023 was 1.5, a decrease from 2.0 in 2013. which proves your point.
Yet still higher than ours which again also proves it as Ireland is still more religious than we are
This is a troubling case. Some sad deviant guy uses tech to make pedo images. Also “encourages” others to do depraved things
Definitely needs a custodial sentence (also therapy and probably severe medication). But 18 years in prison??? Really?
AFAICS there is no proof any living individual was physically harmed by his actions. Yet he gets 18 years. At the same time Starmer is releasing actual violent pedophile rapists after they’ve served far far less than that
One could almost argue he was doing a service, and we should offer this to paedophiles who want to engage and avoid offending, on the NHS, but for the fact he based them on real kids.
Yes the use of real images of children is what justifies a custodial sentence. But 18 years??!
This is an area of law which will only get thornier. If we can create perfectly plausible fake porn which satisfies pedos and stops them offending, should we?
If no one is hurt, why not? It will actually PREVENT real crimes and real hurt
Of course we should - adult porn is proven to reduce rape, so it's pretty much guaranteed that AI paedophile porn also would reduce child abuse. Plus even more importantly it's not hurting anyone anyway - AI content of any kind whatsoever should be legal imo.
But it's a complete political non starter about a very niche issue, so I wouldn't expend any more effort considering it. You might as well expect them to reform stamp duty!
I completely agree. It’s the obvious cure for horrible pedophilia. I’d also create sexbots for them
Let these sickos enact their fantasies on harmless silicon robots - problem solved
Yet I suspect some weird Puritanism will prevent us doing this - so real kids will still be really hurt
I met Natasha at the weekend. Natasha is a startlingly real looking human dummy on which doctors and forensic scientists can practice operations, autopsies and the like. She has some internal organs and is due to be fitted with more. Its called simulation and it is increasingly used since we got a bit squeamish about people practising on the dead in mortuaries and the like.
She has a variety of vivid injuries and she also has some Russian tattoos (hence her name). She has the weight and bone structure of a human so, for example, if you lift her arm she her hand falls down at the waist. It was a bit weird but probably the most entertaining lecture of our work weekend away. Forensic pathologists seem to be a bit odd but very amusing (on a limited sample).
Its not hard to imagine such complex models serving certain purposes and it is probably getting easier all the time through 3D printing and the like.
As with the victory of VHS over Betamax and Blu-ray over HDDVD, porn/sex work will lead the way. I also assume this to be true of VR headsets. Once someone works out how to use them for porn, they’ll fly off the shelves.
Well theres a thing...to get to my local large supermarket is two bus journeys..cost 4£ and takes an hour....to get to my local large supermarket by taxi takes 5 minutes is door to door and costs £6.40.....I guess starmer wants me to take that taxi
This is a troubling case. Some sad deviant guy uses tech to make pedo images. Also “encourages” others to do depraved things
Definitely needs a custodial sentence (also therapy and probably severe medication). But 18 years in prison??? Really?
AFAICS there is no proof any living individual was physically harmed by his actions. Yet he gets 18 years. At the same time Starmer is releasing actual violent pedophile rapists after they’ve served far far less than that
One could almost argue he was doing a service, and we should offer this to paedophiles who want to engage and avoid offending, on the NHS, but for the fact he based them on real kids.
Yes the use of real images of children is what justifies a custodial sentence. But 18 years??!
This is an area of law which will only get thornier. If we can create perfectly plausible fake porn which satisfies pedos and stops them offending, should we?
If no one is hurt, why not? It will actually PREVENT real crimes and real hurt
Of course we should - adult porn is proven to reduce rape, so it's pretty much guaranteed that AI paedophile porn also would reduce child abuse. Plus even more importantly it's not hurting anyone anyway - AI content of any kind whatsoever should be legal imo.
But it's a complete political non starter about a very niche issue, so I wouldn't expend any more effort considering it. You might as well expect them to reform stamp duty!
I completely agree. It’s the obvious cure for horrible pedophilia. I’d also create sexbots for them
Let these sickos enact their fantasies on harmless silicon robots - problem solved
Yet I suspect some weird Puritanism will prevent us doing this - so real kids will still be really hurt
I met Natasha at the weekend. Natasha is a startlingly real looking human dummy on which doctors and forensic scientists can practice operations, autopsies and the like. She has some internal organs and is due to be fitted with more. Its called simulation and it is increasingly used since we got a bit squeamish about people practising on the dead in mortuaries and the like.
She has a variety of vivid injuries and she also has some Russian tattoos (hence her name). She has the weight and bone structure of a human so, for example, if you lift her arm she her hand falls down at the waist. It was a bit weird but probably the most entertaining lecture of our work weekend away. Forensic pathologists seem to be a bit odd but very amusing (on a limited sample).
Its not hard to imagine such complex models serving certain purposes and it is probably getting easier all the time through 3D printing and the like.
As with the victory of VHS over Betamax and Blu-ray over HDDVD, porn/sex work will lead the way. I also assume this to be true of VR headsets. Once someone works out how to use them for porn, they’ll fly off the shelves.
We have, what now, over thirty years of usable prototypes and actual products for VR, and it doesn't work, it never works, and we have no need of it. It is always easier to look at a screen.
This is a troubling case. Some sad deviant guy uses tech to make pedo images. Also “encourages” others to do depraved things
Definitely needs a custodial sentence (also therapy and probably severe medication). But 18 years in prison??? Really?
AFAICS there is no proof any living individual was physically harmed by his actions. Yet he gets 18 years. At the same time Starmer is releasing actual violent pedophile rapists after they’ve served far far less than that
One could almost argue he was doing a service, and we should offer this to paedophiles who want to engage and avoid offending, on the NHS, but for the fact he based them on real kids.
Yes the use of real images of children is what justifies a custodial sentence. But 18 years??!
This is an area of law which will only get thornier. If we can create perfectly plausible fake porn which satisfies pedos and stops them offending, should we?
If no one is hurt, why not? It will actually PREVENT real crimes and real hurt
Of course we should - adult porn is proven to reduce rape, so it's pretty much guaranteed that AI paedophile porn also would reduce child abuse. Plus even more importantly it's not hurting anyone anyway - AI content of any kind whatsoever should be legal imo.
But it's a complete political non starter about a very niche issue, so I wouldn't expend any more effort considering it. You might as well expect them to reform stamp duty!
I completely agree. It’s the obvious cure for horrible pedophilia. I’d also create sexbots for them
Let these sickos enact their fantasies on harmless silicon robots - problem solved
Yet I suspect some weird Puritanism will prevent us doing this - so real kids will still be really hurt
I met Natasha at the weekend. Natasha is a startlingly real looking human dummy on which doctors and forensic scientists can practice operations, autopsies and the like. She has some internal organs and is due to be fitted with more. Its called simulation and it is increasingly used since we got a bit squeamish about people practising on the dead in mortuaries and the like.
She has a variety of vivid injuries and she also has some Russian tattoos (hence her name). She has the weight and bone structure of a human so, for example, if you lift her arm she her hand falls down at the waist. It was a bit weird but probably the most entertaining lecture of our work weekend away. Forensic pathologists seem to be a bit odd but very amusing (on a limited sample).
Its not hard to imagine such complex models serving certain purposes and it is probably getting easier all the time through 3D printing and the like.
As with the victory of VHS over Betamax and Blu-ray over HDDVD, porn/sex work will lead the way. I also assume this to be true of VR headsets. Once someone works out how to use them for porn, they’ll fly off the shelves.
We have, what now, over thirty years of usable prototypes and actual products for VR, and it doesn't work, it never works, and we have no need of it. It is always easier to look at a screen.
My colleague has a system that helps surgeons plan heart operations at Great Ormond St.
Comments
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
Snap re "I am no fan of Kemi Badenoch but yet I still voted for her in the Tory leadership contest because Robert Jenrick is her opponent.
After the various styles of denialism, we've now got to the stage where opponents to climate mitigation simply absolve themselves of any responsibility - "it's too late - should've don't something before". It's pathetic, self-imposed impotence. It's always just a bit too difficult.
And they're more likely to go extinct if they are already adversely affected by people and their habitat is constrained.
He’s where he belongs now,,deservedly so.
He’s no martyr.
The last one cost her £300k+, having turned down an offer of £5k.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_v_Hopkins
I disagree that siding with your race is the part of human nature, as you claim. I think sticking with your own tribe is, however viewed. You have chosen to view White Britain as your tribe (or White Anglosphere?), whereas I view Britain as mine. The rise in the far-right occurs when the scale of migration it viewed as too high, particularly of migrants are failing to integrate with the local society. It does not rise as a result of whether white Brits choose white or non-white partners, as per your original wish to see more "white babies".
He’s really quite poor at this side of things. He really needs some comms management.
https://x.com/mrharrycole/status/1850868128604893352?s=61
Detached earlobes only developed among the car driving classes or, possibly, the upright-posture hybrid/mountain bike riders.
And PBers can take comfort in its being notorious for giving you crashing hangovers.
That, and a few bowls of seolleongtang, should give him an interesting night.
https://news.berkeley.edu/2024/10/23/capturing-carbon-from-the-air-just-got-easier/
1. There is no warming
2. There is warming but it is explained by something else / natural causes
3. There is warming caused by greenhouse gases but it is less dramatic than predicted
4. There is warming caused by greenhouse gases but it's too late to do anything about it
5. There is warming caused by greenhouse gases, it can be mitigated but the alternative technologies are too unaffordable
6. There is warming caused by greenhouse gases, the alternative technologies work and are affordable, so we don't need any new policies just let things run
There are still a few who are at 1 or 2 but most of the debate has moved on to 4, 5 and 6. For me it's a relief. I remember the height of climate partisanship coming out of the US around 2008-14 and it was like whack-a-mole with basic science. Now it's a political and economic argument about speed and means, which is much more productive.
EDIT: I note biggles' reply to the original post - I agree I don't think it was intended to be a statement that there's nothing worth doing on mitigation.
FWIW I agree with you on Korea and Japan. The stagnation here is palpable. They definitely NEED a healthy dose of immigration - I am not against immigration per se, that would be an absurd position. Humans move
But the UK has had enough massive migration for now and like a man after a 19 course tasting meal, really needs to digest everything he’s eaten before shoving another burger down. Control the borders, send the boats back
And on that ecumenical note, 잘 자
I'll try to offer a more nuanced view on @Leon's comment. We know (or those of use who have put up with him and his previous incarnations on here for 15 years) it's a combination of posting to shock and posting to provoke and sometimes just posting sh1t for the hell of it.
As a provocateur, therefore, it's incumbent to come up with something which doesn't just make you recoil or come back with a kneejerk response but something to make you think.
People like people like themselves - we all know this but it's more layered than that. The overlapping circles of our acquaintances are based on those elements of our life which are important to us so for those who are strongly religious, it's more likely to be a group of those with strong faith and therefore the ethnicity and gender will be irrelevant.
For those who join a political party, again, it's like minded people irrespective of their age, gender or ethnicity.
For others, age or ethnicity or gender matter more so for those for whom ethnicity is important (and there are plenty of them I suspect), gravitating towards people and areas where your ethnicity is in the majority will be important. For others on here, I've even seen and heard the notion of having an MP and Council run by the party you support as being so important people will up sticks to live somewhere which suits them politically.
I live in East Ham where I am in a minority but I see a strong British (not English) identity emerging from among those who have come from other parts of the world to make Britain their home. Their version of what is British is evolving and while it has elements of what I would call English, it's something different and there's nothing wrong with that.
In food, music and sport, to name but three, the contributions of those who have come from other lands to live and work and put down roots here is considerable and cannot be understated.
Anyway, she's up in Norfolk looking at locations for another project. That will have quite the cast too. (No spoilers!)
NEW THREAD
Having said that, we are now at a stage that the optimal outcome for the UK probably sees us increase spending on adaptation given the baked in upcoming damage. There is very little discussion of that so far.
If folk were genuinely interested in the best interests of “your country” they would not be simply putting up fences. But working out how to maximise the benefits for all from those that want to be here, and minimise the harms.
What will happen is that the Second Thames Barrier will get built and everywhere else will have "managed retreat".