Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
The danger, as I am sure Ms Cyclefree would attest, is that too many prosecutions are pursued and the whole thing gets unwieldy. It would be better to focus on a hndful of slam dunk cases.
These should of course be aimed at the more senior staff. I would definitely start with a couple of chief execs.
Too many? So far the police have interviewed four people in relation the post office scandal. That is over 5 years at a cost of £7m with a current headcount of 100 people.
If they really find that too unwieldy lets just forget all about it.
It's a bad sign. It suggests they are sifting through the mountain of paperwork before interviewing people. This is a mistake, not least because some of the suspects are getting on a bit. It's not just the victims that are dying off.
It may also be because the police are shit scared. Successive Governments, senior civil servants and leading names from the business sector were all complicit. If the police are to get serious, they will want to be sure someone has their back.
Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
The danger, as I am sure Ms Cyclefree would attest, is that too many prosecutions are pursued and the whole thing gets unwieldy. It would be better to focus on a hndful of slam dunk cases.
These should of course be aimed at the more senior staff. I would definitely start with a couple of chief execs.
If memory serves they all basically say they were completely useless and know nothing and it's not their fault, despite being the sorts of people who naturally fall into high profile jobs paying hundreds of thousands a year.
To be fair, the two seem to be not merely not mutually exclusive but positively a sine qua non for many companies and government positions.
Only if you know the right sort of people.
Nonetheless it is infuriating when they deploy the two bits simultaneously. I'd bet good money most of the top people at the Post Office are doing just fine or even better now than they were before, as consequences are for the proles.
Being incompetent is a *requirement* - these people live in fear of someone who knows what’s going on.
So incompetence and a “safe pair of hands”, a “team player”. As in someone who will join the wagons, when they start circling them.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
Why is it central government's role to tell councils what employment package, salary, perks, etc they should use for a role? That should be up to the council who will know better than Whitehall whether they're having difficulty recruiting and keeping good people and need to sweeten the pot a bit.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
Hmm. Depends if it’s about clockwatchers or getting the job done. My contracted week is 36.5 h, over 5 days. But realistically, as an academic, (a) no one is checking and (b) I do more than that most of the time and fail to take all my leave, plus working weekends for recruitment events.
I genuinely think if you set someone their tasks and they have achieved it in four days, then that’s fine.
I know I've said this before, but I work 24-7.
That's 24 minutes an hour, 7 hours a day.
I may jest, but I don't think that is too far off the mark for many of us, once you factor in coffee breaks, loo breaks, chats to colleagues, the odd domestic chore when wfh, and of course dipping in to an online discussion site every so often.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
The danger, as I am sure Ms Cyclefree would attest, is that too many prosecutions are pursued and the whole thing gets unwieldy. It would be better to focus on a hndful of slam dunk cases.
These should of course be aimed at the more senior staff. I would definitely start with a couple of chief execs.
Too many? So far the police have interviewed four people in relation the post office scandal. That is over 5 years at a cost of £7m with a current headcount of 100 people.
If they really find that too unwieldy lets just forget all about it.
It's a bad sign. It suggests they are sifting through the mountain of paperwork before interviewing people. This is a mistake, not least because some of the suspects are getting on a bit. It's not just the victims that are dying off.
It may also be because the police are shit scared. Successive Governments, senior civil servants and leading names from the business sector were all complicit. If the police are to get serious, they will want to be sure someone has their back.
Not so much shit scared as “why risk upsetting things by being seen not to be a Safe Pair of Hands?”
Run an enquiry for a decade, spend its of money on office jobs for people who will remember you for giving them a cushy number. When your report is published, and it’s too late to prosecute, *you* will have a rep for being a Safe Pair of Hands. Good way to get promoted, that.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
What makes men grow up? Running their own home is high on the list, whether that is at 18 or 28.
Not an anthropologist, but I understand that for much of history most people groups had challenges or similar, which were effectively graduation ceremonies where the boys became men, round about 13 or so. That sort of thing is lost in our society.
The most extraordinary feature being that although his hours were falsified nobody disputed he had in fact done all the work.
Which tells me there was some feather bedding going on.
3 years in prison. Probably moonlighting as the governor working remotely in exchange for prison perks.
I want to hire this guy. Pay him on a piece work basis.
With the timesheets he did venture into fraud, but not sure it should be considered fraud not to declare other employments, if it is a case of omission rather than deceit.
Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
The danger, as I am sure Ms Cyclefree would attest, is that too many prosecutions are pursued and the whole thing gets unwieldy. It would be better to focus on a hndful of slam dunk cases.
These should of course be aimed at the more senior staff. I would definitely start with a couple of chief execs.
If memory serves they all basically say they were completely useless and know nothing and it's not their fault, despite being the sorts of people who naturally fall into high profile jobs paying hundreds of thousands a year.
A few have virtually confessed so may as well start with them. A few more are so obviously culpable they may as well plead guilty. Then there are a few very senior people with little excuse.
If you got that lot for starters you may find that some of the smaller fry become very much easier to catch.
I'm interested to see what happens to the lawyers. They were amongst the biggest and most outrageous culprits. You would have thought the Law Society might be springing into action to protect the profession's reputation, but I haven't noticed anything yet. Have you?
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
Why is it central government's role to tell councils what employment package, salary, perks, etc they should use for a role? That should be up to the council who will know better than Whitehall whether they're having difficulty recruiting and keeping good people and need to sweeten the pot a bit.
I assume it's the Yes Minister theory that if you let Local Government do it and it works, it will be harder to stop Whitehall clamouring for it.
Just had a GP appointment where an AI recorded the whole thing and produced the summary for the records.
The GP was at pains to point out that he would review it.
I have a PhD student looking at the tech. The recent NHS 10 Year Plan makes repeated reference to the administrative savings such technology should produce, but at the same time, this year, the NHS and MHRA said that all the products on the market should go through class IIa software as a medical device approval, and none of them have yet. Which means all current usage is in a little bit of a grey area.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
Don't be so hard on yourself. I've noticed a very slight improvement in the quality of your PB posts in 2025.
Thank you, Al. But I sense you're only saying that because it's Christmas.
Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
The danger, as I am sure Ms Cyclefree would attest, is that too many prosecutions are pursued and the whole thing gets unwieldy. It would be better to focus on a hndful of slam dunk cases.
These should of course be aimed at the more senior staff. I would definitely start with a couple of chief execs.
Too many? So far the police have interviewed four people in relation the post office scandal. That is over 5 years at a cost of £7m with a current headcount of 100 people.
If they really find that too unwieldy lets just forget all about it.
It's a bad sign. It suggests they are sifting through the mountain of paperwork before interviewing people. This is a mistake, not least because some of the suspects are getting on a bit. It's not just the victims that are dying off.
It may also be because the police are shit scared. Successive Governments, senior civil servants and leading names from the business sector were all complicit. If the police are to get serious, they will want to be sure someone has their back.
Not so much shit scared as “why risk upsetting things by being seen not to be a Safe Pair of Hands?”
Run an enquiry for a decade, spend its of money on office jobs for people who will remember you for giving them a cushy number. When your report is published, and it’s too late to prosecute, *you* will have a rep for being a Safe Pair of Hands. Good way to get promoted, that.
I share your cynicism, generally, but the chair of the Inquiry, Sir Wyn Niceoldthing is no fool, and I don't think he'll be taken for one.
I think he knows what has been going on, and will say so. It will then be difficult for the police, and indeed the Government, not to act.
The most extraordinary feature being that although his hours were falsified nobody disputed he had in fact done all the work.
Which tells me there was some feather bedding going on.
3 years in prison. Probably moonlighting as the governor working remotely in exchange for prison perks.
I want to hire this guy. Pay him on a piece work basis.
With the timesheets he did venture into fraud, but not sure it should be considered fraud not to declare other employments, if it is a case of omission rather than deceit.
If you are hired for a full-time role, you are expected to declare any other employment at time of interview. And if it is a full time role, say you will resign from it/them on appointment.
I'm much more concerned that four supposedly full time roles could be managed by one person and nobody noticed.
Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
The danger, as I am sure Ms Cyclefree would attest, is that too many prosecutions are pursued and the whole thing gets unwieldy. It would be better to focus on a hndful of slam dunk cases.
These should of course be aimed at the more senior staff. I would definitely start with a couple of chief execs.
Too many? So far the police have interviewed four people in relation the post office scandal. That is over 5 years at a cost of £7m with a current headcount of 100 people.
If they really find that too unwieldy lets just forget all about it.
It's a bad sign. It suggests they are sifting through the mountain of paperwork before interviewing people. This is a mistake, not least because some of the suspects are getting on a bit. It's not just the victims that are dying off.
It may also be because the police are shit scared. Successive Governments, senior civil servants and leading names from the business sector were all complicit. If the police are to get serious, they will want to be sure someone has their back.
Successive Governments, senior civil servants and leading names from the business sector all do bear some responsibility for the scandal, but they’ll all be too distant to be criminally liable, so I don’t think that’s an issue.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.
I suspect Max is a 40 something going on 80. Theyve just had a really interesting prog on radio 4 about GenZ girls and their politics and how their social concerns are greater than their male equivalents which is why they are big fans of Zack and Sultana and they care about immigrants and Gaza. It was like an oasis in a desert and quite uplifting.
I have two girls (13, 19) and a boy (16) and it is quite notable the difference in their interests/concerns. The girls are ultra woke, the boy is a bit of an edgelord.
On the other hand my 18 year old son is ultra woke and my 12 year old daughter is showing proto-Thatcherite tendencies.
I hope like me you are gently guiding them both to the mushy centrist dad worldview.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
Don't be so hard on yourself. I've noticed a very slight improvement in the quality of your PB posts in 2025.
Thank you, Al. But I sense you're only saying that because it's Christmas.
In the military there's an acronym of the 7 P's - Prior preparation and planning prevents piss poor performance. PB should have some sort of similar acronym for simply sticking your bum in the line of fire.
Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
The danger, as I am sure Ms Cyclefree would attest, is that too many prosecutions are pursued and the whole thing gets unwieldy. It would be better to focus on a hndful of slam dunk cases.
These should of course be aimed at the more senior staff. I would definitely start with a couple of chief execs.
Too many? So far the police have interviewed four people in relation the post office scandal. That is over 5 years at a cost of £7m with a current headcount of 100 people.
If they really find that too unwieldy lets just forget all about it.
It's a bad sign. It suggests they are sifting through the mountain of paperwork before interviewing people. This is a mistake, not least because some of the suspects are getting on a bit. It's not just the victims that are dying off.
It may also be because the police are shit scared. Successive Governments, senior civil servants and leading names from the business sector were all complicit. If the police are to get serious, they will want to be sure someone has their back.
Successive Governments, senior civil servants and leading names from the business sector all do bear some responsibility for the scandal, but they’ll all be too distant to be criminally liable, so I don’t think that’s an issue.
Governments, yes; Civil Servants, not sure; business people, definitely not.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
What makes men grow up? Running their own home is high on the list, whether that is at 18 or 28.
Not an anthropologist, but I understand that for much of history most people groups had challenges or similar, which were effectively graduation ceremonies where the boys became men, round about 13 or so. That sort of thing is lost in our society.
That's the role of the Common Entrance examination to the English (historically) Public [sic] Schools, surely.
Kearney & Levine (2022): “We are unable to identify any period-specific social, economic, or policy changes that can statistically explain much of the decline [of fertility in the US]. We conjecture instead that the sustained decline in the US fertility rate more likely reflects shifted priorities across recent cohorts of young adults. A prolonged US total fertility rate this low—specifically, a rate substantially below 2—would lead to slower population growth, which could in turn cause slower economic growth and present fiscal challenges. While the decline presents a fairly new challenge to the United States, other high-income countries have sustained below replacement level fertility for some years now and have attempted policies to mitigate that trend. But the evidence on these pro-natalist policies leads us to conclude that incremental policy responses are unlikely to reverse trends in the US fertility rate.”
Bergsvik et al. (2021): “In the course of the twentieth century, social scientists and policy analysts have produced a large volume of literature on whether policies boost fertility. This paper describes the results of a systematic review of the literature on the effects of policy on fertility since 1970 in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Empirical studies were selected through extensive systematic searches, including studies using an experimental or quasi-experimental design. Thirty-five studies were included, covering reforms of parental leave, childcare, health services, and universal child transfers. In line with previous reviews, we find that childcare expansions increase completed fertility, while increased cash transfers have temporary effects. New evidence on parental leave expansions, particularly from Central Europe, suggests larger effects than previously established. High-earning couples benefit more from parental leave expansions, while expanding childcare programs can reduce social inequalities on other domains. Subsidizing assisted reproductive treatments shows some promise of increasing birth rates for women over the age of 35. Countries that to date have limited support for families can build on solid evidence if they choose to expand these programs.”
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
If the government does want to fix the birthrate then they need to start working with positive male social influencers like Joey Swoll and family first women influencers to really push home the message that having a family is a good thing, having kids is a blessing, and whatever perceived sacrifices there are don't come close to the emotional rewards of having amazing children in your life everyday.
If male influencers want to influence the TFR then they should be encouraging stay at home dads who are eager to help with the chores, and not just the fun stuff like the cooking.
But I don't think it will make much difference. The drop in TFR is a worldwide phenomenon, even in places not noted for its Woke University professors like Russia and Iran.
TFR still holding up in the poorest but most religious continent, Africa though.
How religious parents of child bearing age are is probably the biggest factor in TFR
Infant mortality is another.
It is but even in the UK Christian evangelicals and Muslims and still to an extent Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jew parents have more children on average than atheist parents do
Which is weird, when you think about it.
Because atheist parents know their kids won't be going to hell. While it has to be a constant worry for the more religiously minded.
The hope is though for religious parents their children will go to heaven if they follow God, Jesus, Muhammad etc
Well, if Revelation 7:4 and 14:1 are correct, then only 144,000 people are going to heaven over the entire history of humankind.
So, statistically, the chance don't look good.
Jesus made clear that all who trust and follow him go to heaven. As atheists like you are largely responsible for declining fertility a bit more humility would be a good thing, even if you yourself have produced some heirs
I cannot even guess what prompted such a bizarre comment as this, reading the thread back will be wild.
That's one example of why this has been quite an entertaining train crash of a derailed thread. It really has flushed out the right-wing religious natalists, as well as those who can't see the contradiction between keeping the two child cap and wider population policy. But all to the wider interest. If I were in ordinary social media it'd be more siloed than the Minuteman ICBM fields of North Dakota. One of the great advantages of PB.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
Hmm. Depends if it’s about clockwatchers or getting the job done. My contracted week is 36.5 h, over 5 days. But realistically, as an academic, (a) no one is checking and (b) I do more than that most of the time and fail to take all my leave, plus working weekends for recruitment events.
I genuinely think if you set someone their tasks and they have achieved it in four days, then that’s fine.
I know I've said this before, but I work 24-7.
That's 24 minutes an hour, 7 hours a day.
I may jest, but I don't think that is too far off the mark for many of us, once you factor in coffee breaks, loo breaks, chats to colleagues, the odd domestic chore when wfh, and of course dipping in to an online discussion site every so often.
It depends. When I have a complex case I can step up the work rate remarkably and get prodigious amounts done in very little time. But it is exhausting and for short bursts only. I could not possibly work at that rate most of the time. Most of the time we potter along, doing enough to keep the emails answered, the engagements met, the routines followed. It's dull and I can't deny I feel more alive when genuinely pushed. I would just make myself ill if I kept it up for too long.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Beautifully written, but surely somewhat dated now?
Just had a GP appointment where an AI recorded the whole thing and produced the summary for the records.
The GP was at pains to point out that he would review it.
I have a PhD student looking at the tech. The recent NHS 10 Year Plan makes repeated reference to the administrative savings such technology should produce, but at the same time, this year, the NHS and MHRA said that all the products on the market should go through class IIa software as a medical device approval, and none of them have yet. Which means all current usage is in a little bit of a grey area.
Sounds right. He told me it was experimental and asked permission. He also offered, at the beginning, to show me the result at the end, but I forgot to ask.
Just had a GP appointment where an AI recorded the whole thing and produced the summary for the records.
The GP was at pains to point out that he would review it.
I have a PhD student looking at the tech. The recent NHS 10 Year Plan makes repeated reference to the administrative savings such technology should produce, but at the same time, this year, the NHS and MHRA said that all the products on the market should go through class IIa software as a medical device approval, and none of them have yet. Which means all current usage is in a little bit of a grey area.
Sounds right. He told me it was experimental and asked permission. He also offered, at the beginning, to show me the result at the end, but I forgot to ask.
We know it makes mistakes, and so review by the Doctor is essential, but there’s the risk of that not happening in routine use. But then the system doesn’t have to be perfect to be better than exist record-keeping, which is often poor!
It also speaks to the changing nature of the record, with records now routinely shared with patients and the constant fear of litigation, but I think another danger is losing sight of the purpose of the record. The record shouldn’t simply be a summary of what was said. It should capture the doctor’s reasoning and act as a message to a future doctor.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
Hmm. Depends if it’s about clockwatchers or getting the job done. My contracted week is 36.5 h, over 5 days. But realistically, as an academic, (a) no one is checking and (b) I do more than that most of the time and fail to take all my leave, plus working weekends for recruitment events.
I genuinely think if you set someone their tasks and they have achieved it in four days, then that’s fine.
I know I've said this before, but I work 24-7.
That's 24 minutes an hour, 7 hours a day.
I may jest, but I don't think that is too far off the mark for many of us, once you factor in coffee breaks, loo breaks, chats to colleagues, the odd domestic chore when wfh, and of course dipping in to an online discussion site every so often.
It depends. When I have a complex case I can step up the work rate remarkably and get prodigious amounts done in very little time. But it is exhausting and for short bursts only. I could not possibly work at that rate most of the time. Most of the time we potter along, doing enough to keep the emails answered, the engagements met, the routines followed. It's dull and I can't deny I feel more alive when genuinely pushed. I would just make myself ill if I kept it up for too long.
I suspect that we are not well suited to a steady "7 or 8 hours a day at a steady pace, week in week out, for years". My mental image of a hunter gatherer lifestyle seems much more to have ups and downs at multiple timescales: seasons where there's lots to do and off seasons where life is slower paced, weeks when you're busy and weeks with less exhausting chores, and intense hours and hours spent idling.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
Just remember the words of Frank Spencer (I watched the Some Mothers do ave ‘em Xmas specials on telly today) ‘every day in every way I’m getting better and better.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
What makes men grow up? Running their own home is high on the list, whether that is at 18 or 28.
My Mum told me that I'd grown up a lot after my daughter was born.
Perhaps male adolescence is extended because they're not becoming Dads?
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
So learn something new. Anything.
Yes. That's what I'm thinking. A craft. Hands not brain.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I did 2 or 3 weeks ancient Greek at the end of 5th year at school. I was supposed to be studying it the following year but I didn't go back and went to University instead. I can remember thalssa meant sea and that's about it. I regret not getting a better education before I focused on law.
Phase 1: 1950-1990s - NASA Solar was invented in the US by Bell labs and pretty much only used by NASA who needed something very lightweight to power their space assets.
Phase 2: 2000 - Energiewind The German government passed a law where it guaranteed that if you put solar panels on your roof the German government would pay you a high feed in tariff. Demand exploded.
Phase 3: 2005 - 2015 - China In Europe German manufacturers could not meet their demand at home and Chinese entrepreneurs saw this fixed arbitrage opportunity and went all in. Chinese companies like Suntech took on huge government loans and built vast factories. Spain and Italy joined Germany with solar subsidies. Because of the price fixing in Europe the market arbitrage held as the solar cell manufacturing output in China exploded.
Phase 4 2015-2025 - Swanson’s Law Once the big Chinese gigafactories were built, Swanson’s Law kicked in. This is the learning curve where manufacturers compound marginal gains and accumulate 1,000s of solutions to solved problems.
1. Ingots, originally they grew small Si crystals this was a slow batch process. Later they used continuous Czochralski pulling where you refill the crucible whilst the machine is still running. Saving hours of cooldown per batch. They also learnt how to grow huge single crystals that were 2-3 meters long.
2. Wafers, originally they sliced the crystals into wafers using saws. This was slow and turned 40% of the Si crystal into sawdust (kerf loss). The fix was diamond wire cutting, the wire was razor sharp, fast, much thinner than the saw, easier to keep clean and far less wasteful (4% kerf loss). Wafer costs plummeted.
3. Cells, you have to print silver lines on the back of the wafer to collect electricity. Over 15 years silver printing resolution improved and silver use was reduced by 70% whilst also blocking less sunlight. The mirror backing used to be aluminium which captured some solar energy as heat and was lost, so they added a dielectric passivation layer that captured more photons and improved cell conversion efficiency without changing materials...
Ahem: in Phase 1 it was also used in tens of millions of pocket calculators.
I've got one. Hold on while I check. Yes, my Casio fx-451 still works.
Obviously selling to parents is profitable. Parents want the best for their kids and are mostly prepared to pay for it. So there's lots of advertising to convince parents that a particular product is the thing that will help your child to grow up well-adjusted, happy and healthy.
Non-parents see this advertising too, and the message they learn is that they need to have oodles of spare cash to be able to buy all the things a child needs, and so they wait until they have that cash.
Ban advertising.
I think that's the one single reform that could do the most to improve the world.
Have you seen the price of nappies? In olden times, cloth nappies would be washed and reused.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
Just remember the words of Frank Spencer (I watched the Some Mothers do ave ‘em Xmas specials on telly today) ‘every day in every way I’m getting better and better.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Beautifully written, but surely somewhat dated now?
Yes, I figured so, and at times sensed it. But from my (scant) level of knowledge going in that didn't matter so much.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I did 2 or 3 weeks ancient Greek at the end of 5th year at school. I was supposed to be studying it the following year but I didn't go back and went to University instead. I can remember thalssa meant sea and that's about it. I regret not getting a better education before I focused on law.
Sometimes I feel that education is wasted on the young and we should do more of it later in life when we can appreciate why we're doing it.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
So learn something new. Anything.
Yes. That's what I'm thinking. A craft. Hands not brain.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
Sounds great. But I'd prefer something totally new so that I'm not just trying to reattain a standard that I used to have. So, languages, I'd avoid French, German and Latin, all of which I've studied before.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
My wife was referred to as a geriatric mother. She didn’t take it personally - she gave birth to our son at the age of 42.
My wife was 42 when our youngest was born as well. I don't really remember much fuss about it, possibly because she was nearly half way to term before we had it confirmed. It was a bit of a surprise.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Beautifully written, but surely somewhat dated now?
It's a history of science. The invention of the wheel and Newton's discoveries haven't changed much in fifty years. I guess you might revise a couple of the later episodes and add a couple to accommodate recent discoveries but the rest holds up fine. What you get with Ascent of Man, which you are much less likely to get today, is a serious imparting of knowledge to viewers who are expected to be intelligent and curious but not to be knowledgeable on the topics, all delivered with a strong moral purpose.
Obviously selling to parents is profitable. Parents want the best for their kids and are mostly prepared to pay for it. So there's lots of advertising to convince parents that a particular product is the thing that will help your child to grow up well-adjusted, happy and healthy.
Non-parents see this advertising too, and the message they learn is that they need to have oodles of spare cash to be able to buy all the things a child needs, and so they wait until they have that cash.
Ban advertising.
I think that's the one single reform that could do the most to improve the world.
Have you seen the price of nappies? In olden times, cloth nappies would be washed and reused.
Still are. Better than that, you can get shaped things that fit better and nifty elasticated clips to hold things together.
(Ah, memories...)
Councils like them, because they reduce landfill. Unfortunately, they code as hippy-woke.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
Hiding pain, making excuses to leave early, swooshing over memory lapses, swallowing pills, surely - to name but a few!
Phase 1: 1950-1990s - NASA Solar was invented in the US by Bell labs and pretty much only used by NASA who needed something very lightweight to power their space assets.
Phase 2: 2000 - Energiewind The German government passed a law where it guaranteed that if you put solar panels on your roof the German government would pay you a high feed in tariff. Demand exploded.
Phase 3: 2005 - 2015 - China In Europe German manufacturers could not meet their demand at home and Chinese entrepreneurs saw this fixed arbitrage opportunity and went all in. Chinese companies like Suntech took on huge government loans and built vast factories. Spain and Italy joined Germany with solar subsidies. Because of the price fixing in Europe the market arbitrage held as the solar cell manufacturing output in China exploded.
Phase 4 2015-2025 - Swanson’s Law Once the big Chinese gigafactories were built, Swanson’s Law kicked in. This is the learning curve where manufacturers compound marginal gains and accumulate 1,000s of solutions to solved problems.
1. Ingots, originally they grew small Si crystals this was a slow batch process. Later they used continuous Czochralski pulling where you refill the crucible whilst the machine is still running. Saving hours of cooldown per batch. They also learnt how to grow huge single crystals that were 2-3 meters long.
2. Wafers, originally they sliced the crystals into wafers using saws. This was slow and turned 40% of the Si crystal into sawdust (kerf loss). The fix was diamond wire cutting, the wire was razor sharp, fast, much thinner than the saw, easier to keep clean and far less wasteful (4% kerf loss). Wafer costs plummeted.
3. Cells, you have to print silver lines on the back of the wafer to collect electricity. Over 15 years silver printing resolution improved and silver use was reduced by 70% whilst also blocking less sunlight. The mirror backing used to be aluminium which captured some solar energy as heat and was lost, so they added a dielectric passivation layer that captured more photons and improved cell conversion efficiency without changing materials...
Ahem: in Phase 1 it was also used in tens of millions of pocket calculators.
I've got one. Hold on while I check. Yes, my Casio fx-451 still works.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I did 2 or 3 weeks ancient Greek at the end of 5th year at school. I was supposed to be studying it the following year but I didn't go back and went to University instead. I can remember thalssa meant sea and that's about it. I regret not getting a better education before I focused on law.
Sometimes I feel that education is wasted on the young and we should do more of it later in life when we can appreciate why we're doing it.
I know the feeling only too well.
On the other hand ... I ended up using my pure and applied maths in my research, including calculus and mechanics, and my Latin in local history work. So it was there when it was needed.
Perhaps the apparent contradictiom is resolved by appreciating the way in which one can really put one's mind to it when one really needs to (and is grown up, confident and motivated).
I had one particular problem which I worked out for myself. Turned out to be a standard textbook calculation in a different field, where a friend was a specialist. He was mildly startled that this chap in a completely different field had worked it out from scratch ...
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I did 2 or 3 weeks ancient Greek at the end of 5th year at school. I was supposed to be studying it the following year but I didn't go back and went to University instead. I can remember thalssa meant sea and that's about it. I regret not getting a better education before I focused on law.
If you know 'thalassa' you know something worth knowing. One of the most famous of all Greek quotations is 'θάλασσα θάλασσα' from Xenophon's Anabasis, which is an extraordinary, and first hand, account of the journey out, battle and return of a bunch of Greek soldiers to help out in an internal Persian conflict.
They shout 'the sea the sea' on sighting the Black Sea, after an extraordinary arduous return from the desert. It's a great story from a totally forgotten bit of Greek/Persian history of about 400 BC. There's a decent Penguin Classics edition.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I did 2 or 3 weeks ancient Greek at the end of 5th year at school. I was supposed to be studying it the following year but I didn't go back and went to University instead. I can remember thalssa meant sea and that's about it. I regret not getting a better education before I focused on law.
If you know 'thalassa' you know something worth knowing. One of the most famous of all Greek quotations is 'θάλασσα θάλασσα' from Xenophon's Anabasis, which is an extraordinary, and first hand, account of the journey out, battle and return of a bunch of Greek soldiers to help out in an internal Persian conflict.
They shout 'the sea the sea' on sighting the Black Sea, after an extraordinary arduous return from the desert. It's a great story from a totally forgotten bit of Greek/Persian history of about 400 BC. There's a decent Penguin Classics edition.
Xenophon knew Socrates, which makes you think.
It also gives Iris Murdoch a book title.
Also the word thalassocracy. Athens; Venice; and the UK, in part.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Beautifully written, but surely somewhat dated now?
It's a history of science. The invention of the wheel and Newton's discoveries haven't changed much in fifty years. I guess you might revise a couple of the later episodes and add a couple to accommodate recent discoveries but the rest holds up fine. What you get with Ascent of Man, which you are much less likely to get today, is a serious imparting of knowledge to viewers who are expected to be intelligent and curious but not to be knowledgeable on the topics, all delivered with a strong moral purpose.
There has actually been quite a lot of recent archaeological thinking on the invention of the wheel, as it happens… But no criticism of that style of programming. I’d love to see more like that. “Life on Earth”, barring a short bit on dinosaurs, has dated less perhaps.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I did 2 or 3 weeks ancient Greek at the end of 5th year at school. I was supposed to be studying it the following year but I didn't go back and went to University instead. I can remember thalssa meant sea and that's about it. I regret not getting a better education before I focused on law.
If you know 'thalassa' you know something worth knowing. One of the most famous of all Greek quotations is 'θάλασσα θάλασσα' from Xenophon's Anabasis, which is an extraordinary, and first hand, account of the journey out, battle and return of a bunch of Greek soldiers to help out in an internal Persian conflict.
They shout 'the sea the sea' on sighting the Black Sea, after an extraordinary arduous return from the desert. It's a great story from a totally forgotten bit of Greek/Persian history of about 400 BC. There's a decent Penguin Classics edition.
Xenophon knew Socrates, which makes you think.
It also gives Iris Murdoch a book title.
Also the word thalassocracy. Athens; Venice; and the UK, in part.
There are a great many Thalassotherapy spa/hotels on the Breton coast.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
So learn something new. Anything.
Yes. That's what I'm thinking. A craft. Hands not brain.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I did 2 or 3 weeks ancient Greek at the end of 5th year at school. I was supposed to be studying it the following year but I didn't go back and went to University instead. I can remember thalssa meant sea and that's about it. I regret not getting a better education before I focused on law.
Sometimes I feel that education is wasted on the young and we should do more of it later in life when we can appreciate why we're doing it.
When I went from being a solicitor to an advocate I had to pass exams in European law, Roman Law and Procedure. I had been a solicitor for nearly 20 years by then.
I really enjoyed going back to studying and got far more out of it than I had the fist time around, partly because I had a much clearer idea of how a legal system worked in the real world. I had some excellent debates with a Roman law tutor as to what the phrase "iudex qui litem suam facit " meant (basically a judge who makes a case his own by becoming partisan in it for one side or the other). It was an interesting intellectual problem for an academic but a practical reality for someone who had been dealing with a highly variable quality of judges, sheriffs and Tribunal chairman for more than 15 years. It is the key to understanding judicial immunity and how essential that is for our legal system to work (as I am sure Sandy Kemp will appreciate). My perspective was very different and I found it genuinely enjoyable after spending most of my undergraduate degree bored and poorly motivated.
US pauses offshore wind projects over security* concerns
(*Yeah right)
It used to be that those on the left were seen as having their head in the clouds, with no experience of the real world, while conservatives were solid, pragmatic types who knew how to get things done.
But today’s conservatives are fundamentally unserious. It’s all bitter academics convince women not to have babies, wind power is woke, and tariffs don’t cause inflation.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I did 2 or 3 weeks ancient Greek at the end of 5th year at school. I was supposed to be studying it the following year but I didn't go back and went to University instead. I can remember thalssa meant sea and that's about it. I regret not getting a better education before I focused on law.
If you know 'thalassa' you know something worth knowing. One of the most famous of all Greek quotations is 'θάλασσα θάλασσα' from Xenophon's Anabasis, which is an extraordinary, and first hand, account of the journey out, battle and return of a bunch of Greek soldiers to help out in an internal Persian conflict.
They shout 'the sea the sea' on sighting the Black Sea, after an extraordinary arduous return from the desert. It's a great story from a totally forgotten bit of Greek/Persian history of about 400 BC. There's a decent Penguin Classics edition.
Xenophon knew Socrates, which makes you think.
It also gives Iris Murdoch a book title.
Also the word thalassocracy. Athens; Venice; and the UK, in part.
There are a great many Thalassotherapy spa/hotels on the Breton coast.
And in olden times lots of Thalassocnus aquatic giant sloths paddling around on the Pacific coast of South America.
"The generic epithet Thalassocnus derives from the Greek word thalassa "sea" and Ocnus, an allegorical deity from Greek and Roman mythology that represents the wasting of time, or slothfulness."
Obviously selling to parents is profitable. Parents want the best for their kids and are mostly prepared to pay for it. So there's lots of advertising to convince parents that a particular product is the thing that will help your child to grow up well-adjusted, happy and healthy.
Non-parents see this advertising too, and the message they learn is that they need to have oodles of spare cash to be able to buy all the things a child needs, and so they wait until they have that cash.
Ban advertising.
I think that's the one single reform that could do the most to improve the world.
Have you seen the price of nappies? In olden times, cloth nappies would be washed and reused.
Still are. Better than that, you can get shaped things that fit better and nifty elasticated clips to hold things together.
(Ah, memories...)
Councils like them, because they reduce landfill. Unfortunately, they code as hippy-woke.
Not much domestic waste goes to landfill these days. Most gets burnt in Energy from Waste plants (aka Incinerators).
Now, as roughly half the CO2 emitted from an EfW is of biogenic origin, if you apply CO2 Capture the facility becomes net carbon negative, and can sell offsets to other emitters in the manner of papal indulgences.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I did 2 or 3 weeks ancient Greek at the end of 5th year at school. I was supposed to be studying it the following year but I didn't go back and went to University instead. I can remember thalssa meant sea and that's about it. I regret not getting a better education before I focused on law.
Sometimes I feel that education is wasted on the young and we should do more of it later in life when we can appreciate why we're doing it.
When I went from being a solicitor to an advocate I had to pass exams in European law, Roman Law and Procedure. I had been a solicitor for nearly 20 years by then.
I really enjoyed going back to studying and got far more out of it than I had the fist time around, partly because I had a much clearer idea of how a legal system worked in the real world. I had some excellent debates with a Roman law tutor as to what the phrase "iudex qui litem suam facit " meant (basically a judge who makes a case his own by becoming partisan in it for one side or the other). It was an interesting intellectual problem for an academic but a practical reality for someone who had been dealing with a highly variable quality of judges, sheriffs and Tribunal chairman for more than 15 years. It is the key to understanding judicial immunity and how essential that is for our legal system to work (as I am sure Sandy Kemp will appreciate). My perspective was very different and I found it genuinely enjoyable after spending most of my undergraduate degree bored and poorly motivated.
"The judge who makes his own bed", no? Nice expression.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I did 2 or 3 weeks ancient Greek at the end of 5th year at school. I was supposed to be studying it the following year but I didn't go back and went to University instead. I can remember thalssa meant sea and that's about it. I regret not getting a better education before I focused on law.
If you know 'thalassa' you know something worth knowing. One of the most famous of all Greek quotations is 'θάλασσα θάλασσα' from Xenophon's Anabasis, which is an extraordinary, and first hand, account of the journey out, battle and return of a bunch of Greek soldiers to help out in an internal Persian conflict.
They shout 'the sea the sea' on sighting the Black Sea, after an extraordinary arduous return from the desert. It's a great story from a totally forgotten bit of Greek/Persian history of about 400 BC. There's a decent Penguin Classics edition.
Xenophon knew Socrates, which makes you think.
It also gives Iris Murdoch a book title.
The one I loved was Pliny's letters which I spent a year translating from the Latin. In them he described being in the bay of Naples as Vesuvius erupted and engulfed Pompey and Herculaneum. He described this vividly as a flow of molten rock pouring down the volcano at incredible speed. This was thought to be some artistic embellishment for centuries until in relatively modern times a pyroclastic flow was observed in either Canada or Alaska and it was appreciated that the description had been entirely factual.
US pauses offshore wind projects over security* concerns
(*Yeah right)
It used to be that those on the left were seen as having their head in the clouds, with no experience of the real world, while conservatives were solid, pragmatic types who knew how to get things done.
But today’s conservatives are fundamentally unserious. It’s all bitter academics convince women not to have babies, wind power is woke, and tariffs don’t cause inflation.
There's definitely some on the right who are themselves getting a bit fed up of the 'woke right' and other unserious types who want to posture and moan more than apply any actual conservative ideology (this particular one is Canadian in fairness).
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I did 2 or 3 weeks ancient Greek at the end of 5th year at school. I was supposed to be studying it the following year but I didn't go back and went to University instead. I can remember thalssa meant sea and that's about it. I regret not getting a better education before I focused on law.
Sometimes I feel that education is wasted on the young and we should do more of it later in life when we can appreciate why we're doing it.
Some people do.
My wife decided to change careers and has started at University this year to qualify for the job she wants. She's absolutely loving it.
Says there's no way she'd have chosen this path at 18 but it suits her now and will still get a good couple of decades of career after graduation.
She'll also graduate about the same time as our eldest is starting her GCSEs and looking forwards to what she wants to do after school, which will hopefully be inspirational.
US pauses offshore wind projects over security* concerns
(*Yeah right)
It used to be that those on the left were seen as having their head in the clouds, with no experience of the real world, while conservatives were solid, pragmatic types who knew how to get things done.
But today’s conservatives are fundamentally unserious. It’s all bitter academics convince women not to have babies, wind power is woke, and tariffs don’t cause inflation.
TBF, it's stretching it a bit to call Trump a 'conservative.' Or Truss, for the matter of that. They seem to be much closer to nihilism than conservatism.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
Hmm. Depends if it’s about clockwatchers or getting the job done. My contracted week is 36.5 h, over 5 days. But realistically, as an academic, (a) no one is checking and (b) I do more than that most of the time and fail to take all my leave, plus working weekends for recruitment events.
I genuinely think if you set someone their tasks and they have achieved it in four days, then that’s fine.
I know I've said this before, but I work 24-7.
That's 24 minutes an hour, 7 hours a day.
I may jest, but I don't think that is too far off the mark for many of us, once you factor in coffee breaks, loo breaks, chats to colleagues, the odd domestic chore when wfh, and of course dipping in to an online discussion site every so often.
It depends. When I have a complex case I can step up the work rate remarkably and get prodigious amounts done in very little time. But it is exhausting and for short bursts only. I could not possibly work at that rate most of the time. Most of the time we potter along, doing enough to keep the emails answered, the engagements met, the routines followed. It's dull and I can't deny I feel more alive when genuinely pushed. I would just make myself ill if I kept it up for too long.
I suspect that we are not well suited to a steady "7 or 8 hours a day at a steady pace, week in week out, for years". My mental image of a hunter gatherer lifestyle seems much more to have ups and downs at multiple timescales: seasons where there's lots to do and off seasons where life is slower paced, weeks when you're busy and weeks with less exhausting chores, and intense hours and hours spent idling.
When I first got involved in software development many years ago I was told by a wise old programmer that most coders can't write good quality code for more than 2 hours per day. Their brains just get tired and start making mistakes or get distracted by time wasting activities.
I've found this to be broadly true, but flexible depending on the difficulty of the task. These days I write hardware description language, which is much harder than writing software, and I struggle to do one hour of useful work. The rest of the day is spent on less demanding things like writing documentation or arguing with people on the internet.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I did 2 or 3 weeks ancient Greek at the end of 5th year at school. I was supposed to be studying it the following year but I didn't go back and went to University instead. I can remember thalssa meant sea and that's about it. I regret not getting a better education before I focused on law.
If you know 'thalassa' you know something worth knowing. One of the most famous of all Greek quotations is 'θάλασσα θάλασσα' from Xenophon's Anabasis, which is an extraordinary, and first hand, account of the journey out, battle and return of a bunch of Greek soldiers to help out in an internal Persian conflict.
They shout 'the sea the sea' on sighting the Black Sea, after an extraordinary arduous return from the desert. It's a great story from a totally forgotten bit of Greek/Persian history of about 400 BC. There's a decent Penguin Classics edition.
Xenophon knew Socrates, which makes you think.
It also gives Iris Murdoch a book title.
The one I loved was Pliny's letters which I spent a year translating from the Latin. In them he described being in the bay of Naples as Vesuvius erupted and engulfed Pompey and Herculaneum. He described this vividly as a flow of molten rock pouring down the volcano at incredible speed. This was thought to be some artistic embellishment for centuries until in relatively modern times a pyroclastic flow was observed in either Canada or Alaska and it was appreciated that the description had been entirely factual.
I had to do that too ... 'hora fere septima' is about I can recall of the Latin. But quite so. IIRC Pliny's comparison of the smoke plume to a pine tree (of the Italian kind) also turns out to be spot on for the pyroclastic clouds before they collapse down onto the slopes.
US pauses offshore wind projects over security* concerns
(*Yeah right)
It used to be that those on the left were seen as having their head in the clouds, with no experience of the real world, while conservatives were solid, pragmatic types who knew how to get things done.
But today’s conservatives are fundamentally unserious. It’s all bitter academics convince women not to have babies, wind power is woke, and tariffs don’t cause inflation.
Tariffs support American jobs and industries.
Oh, wait, Iconic reddest of red state plant closes down:
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I did 2 or 3 weeks ancient Greek at the end of 5th year at school. I was supposed to be studying it the following year but I didn't go back and went to University instead. I can remember thalssa meant sea and that's about it. I regret not getting a better education before I focused on law.
If you know 'thalassa' you know something worth knowing. One of the most famous of all Greek quotations is 'θάλασσα θάλασσα' from Xenophon's Anabasis, which is an extraordinary, and first hand, account of the journey out, battle and return of a bunch of Greek soldiers to help out in an internal Persian conflict.
They shout 'the sea the sea' on sighting the Black Sea, after an extraordinary arduous return from the desert. It's a great story from a totally forgotten bit of Greek/Persian history of about 400 BC. There's a decent Penguin Classics edition.
Xenophon knew Socrates, which makes you think.
It also gives Iris Murdoch a book title.
Also the idea behind the 1980 film of NYC gangs 'The Warriors'.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.
I suspect Max is a 40 something going on 80. Theyve just had a really interesting prog on radio 4 about GenZ girls and their politics and how their social concerns are greater than their male equivalents which is why they are big fans of Zack and Sultana and they care about immigrants and Gaza. It was like an oasis in a desert and quite uplifting.
I have two girls (13, 19) and a boy (16) and it is quite notable the difference in their interests/concerns. The girls are ultra woke, the boy is a bit of an edgelord.
On the other hand my 18 year old son is ultra woke and my 12 year old daughter is showing proto-Thatcherite tendencies.
I hope like me you are gently guiding them both to the mushy centrist dad worldview.
Why are you guiding MelonB’s children anywhere???
Perhaps his own got heartily sick of it and told him to do one.
Obviously selling to parents is profitable. Parents want the best for their kids and are mostly prepared to pay for it. So there's lots of advertising to convince parents that a particular product is the thing that will help your child to grow up well-adjusted, happy and healthy.
Non-parents see this advertising too, and the message they learn is that they need to have oodles of spare cash to be able to buy all the things a child needs, and so they wait until they have that cash.
Ban advertising.
I think that's the one single reform that could do the most to improve the world.
Have you seen the price of nappies? In olden times, cloth nappies would be washed and reused.
Still are. Better than that, you can get shaped things that fit better and nifty elasticated clips to hold things together.
(Ah, memories...)
Councils like them, because they reduce landfill. Unfortunately, they code as hippy-woke.
It's also Vimes boots. A large upfront cost for long-term savings.
We also had issues with nursery staff not liking them, so had to supply disposable for nursery.
US pauses offshore wind projects over security* concerns
(*Yeah right)
It used to be that those on the left were seen as having their head in the clouds, with no experience of the real world, while conservatives were solid, pragmatic types who knew how to get things done.
But today’s conservatives are fundamentally unserious. It’s all bitter academics convince women not to have babies, wind power is woke, and tariffs don’t cause inflation.
TBF, it's stretching it a bit to call Trump a 'conservative.' Or Truss, for the matter of that. They seem to be much closer to nihilism than conservatism.
A nihilist does not believe in anything and Trump believes, passionately, in himself.
He is an egoist.
Solipsism would suit better than nihilism, but is too philosophical and doesn't cover his mendacity.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
So learn something new. Anything.
Yes. That's what I'm thinking. A craft. Hands not brain.
Learn plumbing. This time next year, Rodney.......
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I did 2 or 3 weeks ancient Greek at the end of 5th year at school. I was supposed to be studying it the following year but I didn't go back and went to University instead. I can remember thalssa meant sea and that's about it. I regret not getting a better education before I focused on law.
Sometimes I feel that education is wasted on the young and we should do more of it later in life when we can appreciate why we're doing it.
Some people do.
My wife decided to change careers and has started at University this year to qualify for the job she wants. She's absolutely loving it.
Says there's no way she'd have chosen this path at 18 but it suits her now and will still get a good couple of decades of career after graduation.
She'll also graduate about the same time as our eldest is starting her GCSEs and looking forwards to what she wants to do after school, which will hopefully be inspirational.
She is not the oldest on her course.
I am seriosly considering going back to University in my retirement. Something completely different this time, perhaps film studies or African history. No purpose to it at all, just fun.
I do wonder if I would have an unfair advantage over the youngsters as I have watched more films and lived more history.
Obviously selling to parents is profitable. Parents want the best for their kids and are mostly prepared to pay for it. So there's lots of advertising to convince parents that a particular product is the thing that will help your child to grow up well-adjusted, happy and healthy.
Non-parents see this advertising too, and the message they learn is that they need to have oodles of spare cash to be able to buy all the things a child needs, and so they wait until they have that cash.
Ban advertising.
I think that's the one single reform that could do the most to improve the world.
Have you seen the price of nappies? In olden times, cloth nappies would be washed and reused.
Still are. Better than that, you can get shaped things that fit better and nifty elasticated clips to hold things together.
(Ah, memories...)
Councils like them, because they reduce landfill. Unfortunately, they code as hippy-woke.
Not much domestic waste goes to landfill these days. Most gets burnt in Energy from Waste plants (aka Incinerators).
Now, as roughly half the CO2 emitted from an EfW is of biogenic origin, if you apply CO2 Capture the facility becomes net carbon negative, and can sell offsets to other emitters in the manner of papal indulgences.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I did 2 or 3 weeks ancient Greek at the end of 5th year at school. I was supposed to be studying it the following year but I didn't go back and went to University instead. I can remember thalssa meant sea and that's about it. I regret not getting a better education before I focused on law.
Sometimes I feel that education is wasted on the young and we should do more of it later in life when we can appreciate why we're doing it.
Some people do.
My wife decided to change careers and has started at University this year to qualify for the job she wants. She's absolutely loving it.
Says there's no way she'd have chosen this path at 18 but it suits her now and will still get a good couple of decades of career after graduation.
She'll also graduate about the same time as our eldest is starting her GCSEs and looking forwards to what she wants to do after school, which will hopefully be inspirational.
She is not the oldest on her course.
I am seriosly considering going back to University in my retirement. Something completely different this time, perhaps film studies or African history. No purpose to it at all, just fun.
I do wonder if I would have an unfair advantage over the youngsters as I have watched more films and lived more history.
The joy of learning is too often beaten out of the young and forgotten by the old, so we should take every opportunity to regain it.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
We also need to produce men who can be good husbands and fathers so that women will feel emotionally secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think the Andrew Tate generation are going to help with this.
British society has always been quite anti-child. Eg kids should be "seen and not heard", boarding school, public support for the 2 child benefit cap etc. My wife and I were lucky to have been brought up in families who didn't share those kinds of attitudes, and maybe that's why we have three children. I think there are lots of factors behind the declining birth rate, and it is a global phenomenon. But I do suspect that being much more ready to see children as a blessing not a burden and an investment not a cost would probably help.
I think your last sentence is absolutely 100% true. Kids aren't a cost or a burden, they're brilliant and I know that if we didn't have ours I'd living through a lifetime of regret. Again, the answer to this question is emotional, not monetary. In countries where they have huge incentives to have kids the birth rate is barely above ours, there's been this huge global push across all forms of media to discourage women from starting families and, as you say, paint children as a burden rather than a blessing. That's the attitude we need to change.
I am not sure that leaning on women to have kids is the best way to go about it. My wife wanted to have 3 kids because she knew I would play my part - I would be there for the childcare and do my fair share in terms of domestic tasks, I wouldn't be in the office all hours or down the pub after work, I would support her so she could have a meaningful career as well as having children, and I wouldn't cheat on her or run off with someone else leaving her holding the babies. Being a father means you can't always focus on your career and your weekends and evenings are not your own anymore. I think a big part of the problem is that women rightly expect more from their life nowadays, and men aren't willing to play their part to help make that happen. I guess the other elephant in the room here is that the world is going to shit and maybe some people don't want to bring children into that. Thinking of my children trying to survive in a world of rising temperatures, depleted natural resources and growing fascism is the only thing that makes me regret our choice.
I don't think the world is going to **** any more or less today than it was at any other point in time.
US pauses offshore wind projects over security* concerns
(*Yeah right)
It used to be that those on the left were seen as having their head in the clouds, with no experience of the real world, while conservatives were solid, pragmatic types who knew how to get things done.
But today’s conservatives are fundamentally unserious. It’s all bitter academics convince women not to have babies, wind power is woke, and tariffs don’t cause inflation.
TBF, it's stretching it a bit to call Trump a 'conservative.' Or Truss, for the matter of that. They seem to be much closer to nihilism than conservatism.
A nihilist does not believe in anything and Trump believes, passionately, in himself.
He is an egoist.
Solipsism would suit better than nihilism, but is too philosophical and doesn't cover his mendacity.
They're still 'much closer to nihilism than conservatism,' no? Nihilism is essentially destructive while conservatism is essentially protective.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.
Me, I'd like to take up Ancient Greek. My school performance wasn't good enough to get to grips with the middle pluperfect or the stylistic issues of the [edit] men/de dichotomy.
I did 2 or 3 weeks ancient Greek at the end of 5th year at school. I was supposed to be studying it the following year but I didn't go back and went to University instead. I can remember thalssa meant sea and that's about it. I regret not getting a better education before I focused on law.
Sometimes I feel that education is wasted on the young and we should do more of it later in life when we can appreciate why we're doing it.
Some people do.
My wife decided to change careers and has started at University this year to qualify for the job she wants. She's absolutely loving it.
Says there's no way she'd have chosen this path at 18 but it suits her now and will still get a good couple of decades of career after graduation.
She'll also graduate about the same time as our eldest is starting her GCSEs and looking forwards to what she wants to do after school, which will hopefully be inspirational.
She is not the oldest on her course.
I am seriosly considering going back to University in my retirement. Something completely different this time, perhaps film studies or African history. No purpose to it at all, just fun.
I do wonder if I would have an unfair advantage over the youngsters as I have watched more films and lived more history.
US pauses offshore wind projects over security* concerns
(*Yeah right)
It used to be that those on the left were seen as having their head in the clouds, with no experience of the real world, while conservatives were solid, pragmatic types who knew how to get things done.
But today’s conservatives are fundamentally unserious. It’s all bitter academics convince women not to have babies, wind power is woke, and tariffs don’t cause inflation.
TBF, it's stretching it a bit to call Trump a 'conservative.' Or Truss, for the matter of that. They seem to be much closer to nihilism than conservatism.
A nihilist does not believe in anything and Trump believes, passionately, in himself.
He is an egoist.
Solipsism would suit better than nihilism, but is too philosophical and doesn't cover his mendacity.
They're still 'much closer to nihilism than conservatism,' no? Nihilism is essentially destructive while conservatism is essentially protective.
Thesedays 'conservatives' seem to be the most radical and revolutionary out there, other than your old school far left loonies. I know definitions change, but it is really stark.
Obviously selling to parents is profitable. Parents want the best for their kids and are mostly prepared to pay for it. So there's lots of advertising to convince parents that a particular product is the thing that will help your child to grow up well-adjusted, happy and healthy.
Non-parents see this advertising too, and the message they learn is that they need to have oodles of spare cash to be able to buy all the things a child needs, and so they wait until they have that cash.
Ban advertising.
I think that's the one single reform that could do the most to improve the world.
Have you seen the price of nappies? In olden times, cloth nappies would be washed and reused.
Still are. Better than that, you can get shaped things that fit better and nifty elasticated clips to hold things together.
(Ah, memories...)
Councils like them, because they reduce landfill. Unfortunately, they code as hippy-woke.
Not much domestic waste goes to landfill these days. Most gets burnt in Energy from Waste plants (aka Incinerators).
Now, as roughly half the CO2 emitted from an EfW is of biogenic origin, if you apply CO2 Capture the facility becomes net carbon negative, and can sell offsets to other emitters in the manner of papal indulgences.
Could you not just claim the same credits for putting it straight to landfill? It is still carbon capture.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
Hmm. Depends if it’s about clockwatchers or getting the job done. My contracted week is 36.5 h, over 5 days. But realistically, as an academic, (a) no one is checking and (b) I do more than that most of the time and fail to take all my leave, plus working weekends for recruitment events.
I genuinely think if you set someone their tasks and they have achieved it in four days, then that’s fine.
I know I've said this before, but I work 24-7.
That's 24 minutes an hour, 7 hours a day.
I may jest, but I don't think that is too far off the mark for many of us, once you factor in coffee breaks, loo breaks, chats to colleagues, the odd domestic chore when wfh, and of course dipping in to an online discussion site every so often.
It depends. When I have a complex case I can step up the work rate remarkably and get prodigious amounts done in very little time. But it is exhausting and for short bursts only. I could not possibly work at that rate most of the time. Most of the time we potter along, doing enough to keep the emails answered, the engagements met, the routines followed. It's dull and I can't deny I feel more alive when genuinely pushed. I would just make myself ill if I kept it up for too long.
I suspect that we are not well suited to a steady "7 or 8 hours a day at a steady pace, week in week out, for years". My mental image of a hunter gatherer lifestyle seems much more to have ups and downs at multiple timescales: seasons where there's lots to do and off seasons where life is slower paced, weeks when you're busy and weeks with less exhausting chores, and intense hours and hours spent idling.
When I first got involved in software development many years ago I was told by a wise old programmer that most coders can't write good quality code for more than 2 hours per day. Their brains just get tired and start making mistakes or get distracted by time wasting activities.
I've found this to be broadly true, but flexible depending on the difficulty of the task. These days I write hardware description language, which is much harder than writing software, and I struggle to do one hour of useful work. The rest of the day is spent on less demanding things like writing documentation or arguing with people on the internet.
I think 2x2hr blocks of 'good' development work and I count it as a good day. Sadly, these days I have endless short meetings so the chance of a 2hr block are a fantasy compared to continual interruptions to explain 'why isn't that done yet?' :-(
I sometimes wonder if people who just spend their days floating from meeting, to meeting, to meeting understand that people who are trying to get the underlying work done don't find that a very helpful way to spend their time.
Obviously selling to parents is profitable. Parents want the best for their kids and are mostly prepared to pay for it. So there's lots of advertising to convince parents that a particular product is the thing that will help your child to grow up well-adjusted, happy and healthy.
Non-parents see this advertising too, and the message they learn is that they need to have oodles of spare cash to be able to buy all the things a child needs, and so they wait until they have that cash.
Ban advertising.
I think that's the one single reform that could do the most to improve the world.
Have you seen the price of nappies? In olden times, cloth nappies would be washed and reused.
Still are. Better than that, you can get shaped things that fit better and nifty elasticated clips to hold things together.
(Ah, memories...)
Councils like them, because they reduce landfill. Unfortunately, they code as hippy-woke.
Not much domestic waste goes to landfill these days. Most gets burnt in Energy from Waste plants (aka Incinerators).
Now, as roughly half the CO2 emitted from an EfW is of biogenic origin, if you apply CO2 Capture the facility becomes net carbon negative, and can sell offsets to other emitters in the manner of papal indulgences.
Could you not just claim the same credits for putting it straight to landfill? It is still carbon capture.
Not if that landfill is exposed to the elements and can decay as methane released into the atmosphere.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
I suspect that we will find that the major cause of the collapse of the birth rate is the fall in testosterone and semen production in young men which again seems to be almost world wide but more marked in developed countries. I have read that a lot of plastics produce by-products that imitate estrogen and micro plastics can interfere with sperm production. Human fertility seems on a negative trend and has been for a considerable time now.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
Hmm. Depends if it’s about clockwatchers or getting the job done. My contracted week is 36.5 h, over 5 days. But realistically, as an academic, (a) no one is checking and (b) I do more than that most of the time and fail to take all my leave, plus working weekends for recruitment events.
I genuinely think if you set someone their tasks and they have achieved it in four days, then that’s fine.
I know I've said this before, but I work 24-7.
That's 24 minutes an hour, 7 hours a day.
I may jest, but I don't think that is too far off the mark for many of us, once you factor in coffee breaks, loo breaks, chats to colleagues, the odd domestic chore when wfh, and of course dipping in to an online discussion site every so often.
It depends. When I have a complex case I can step up the work rate remarkably and get prodigious amounts done in very little time. But it is exhausting and for short bursts only. I could not possibly work at that rate most of the time. Most of the time we potter along, doing enough to keep the emails answered, the engagements met, the routines followed. It's dull and I can't deny I feel more alive when genuinely pushed. I would just make myself ill if I kept it up for too long.
I suspect that we are not well suited to a steady "7 or 8 hours a day at a steady pace, week in week out, for years". My mental image of a hunter gatherer lifestyle seems much more to have ups and downs at multiple timescales: seasons where there's lots to do and off seasons where life is slower paced, weeks when you're busy and weeks with less exhausting chores, and intense hours and hours spent idling.
When I first got involved in software development many years ago I was told by a wise old programmer that most coders can't write good quality code for more than 2 hours per day. Their brains just get tired and start making mistakes or get distracted by time wasting activities.
I've found this to be broadly true, but flexible depending on the difficulty of the task. These days I write hardware description language, which is much harder than writing software, and I struggle to do one hour of useful work. The rest of the day is spent on less demanding things like writing documentation or arguing with people on the internet.
I think 2x2hr blocks of 'good' development work and I count it as a good day. Sadly, these days I have endless short meetings so the chance of a 2hr block are a fantasy compared to continual interruptions to explain 'why isn't that done yet?' :-(
I sometimes wonder if people who just spend their days floating from meeting, to meeting, to meeting understand that people who are trying to get the underlying work done don't find that a very helpful way to spend their time.
One place I used to work at people would create meetings with themselves to block out time in their calendar for actually getting work done. Of course this made scheduling meetings more difficult if people chose different times, so a policy was introduced about people being available for meetings in what was known as "core working hours"...
Obviously selling to parents is profitable. Parents want the best for their kids and are mostly prepared to pay for it. So there's lots of advertising to convince parents that a particular product is the thing that will help your child to grow up well-adjusted, happy and healthy.
Non-parents see this advertising too, and the message they learn is that they need to have oodles of spare cash to be able to buy all the things a child needs, and so they wait until they have that cash.
Ban advertising.
I think that's the one single reform that could do the most to improve the world.
Have you seen the price of nappies? In olden times, cloth nappies would be washed and reused.
Still are. Better than that, you can get shaped things that fit better and nifty elasticated clips to hold things together.
(Ah, memories...)
Councils like them, because they reduce landfill. Unfortunately, they code as hippy-woke.
Not much domestic waste goes to landfill these days. Most gets burnt in Energy from Waste plants (aka Incinerators).
Now, as roughly half the CO2 emitted from an EfW is of biogenic origin, if you apply CO2 Capture the facility becomes net carbon negative, and can sell offsets to other emitters in the manner of papal indulgences.
Could you not just claim the same credits for putting it straight to landfill? It is still carbon capture.
Not if that landfill is exposed to the elements and can decay as methane released into the atmosphere.
It would need to be buried and sealed.
True, yes, depending what form of carbon there is in the waste. Methane bad.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
I suspect that we will find that the major cause of the collapse of the birth rate is the fall in testosterone and semen production in young men which again seems to be almost world wide but more marked in developed countries. I have read that a lot of plastics produce by-products that imitate estrogen and micro plastics can interfere with sperm production. Human fertility seems on a negative trend and has been for a considerable time now.
I suspect it is better quality of living and having things like electronic lights, TVs, let alone streaming, computers and phones that means people have other things to occupy themselves other than sex.
Which some people might bemoan, but plenty of couples are quite happy in bed watching a show or doing other mundane things.
In the olden days people would have nothing other to do than 'do it like they do on the Discovery Channel' and not many actually do choose to 'do it doggy style so we can both watch X-Files'.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
Hmm. Depends if it’s about clockwatchers or getting the job done. My contracted week is 36.5 h, over 5 days. But realistically, as an academic, (a) no one is checking and (b) I do more than that most of the time and fail to take all my leave, plus working weekends for recruitment events.
I genuinely think if you set someone their tasks and they have achieved it in four days, then that’s fine.
I know I've said this before, but I work 24-7.
That's 24 minutes an hour, 7 hours a day.
I may jest, but I don't think that is too far off the mark for many of us, once you factor in coffee breaks, loo breaks, chats to colleagues, the odd domestic chore when wfh, and of course dipping in to an online discussion site every so often.
It depends. When I have a complex case I can step up the work rate remarkably and get prodigious amounts done in very little time. But it is exhausting and for short bursts only. I could not possibly work at that rate most of the time. Most of the time we potter along, doing enough to keep the emails answered, the engagements met, the routines followed. It's dull and I can't deny I feel more alive when genuinely pushed. I would just make myself ill if I kept it up for too long.
I suspect that we are not well suited to a steady "7 or 8 hours a day at a steady pace, week in week out, for years". My mental image of a hunter gatherer lifestyle seems much more to have ups and downs at multiple timescales: seasons where there's lots to do and off seasons where life is slower paced, weeks when you're busy and weeks with less exhausting chores, and intense hours and hours spent idling.
When I first got involved in software development many years ago I was told by a wise old programmer that most coders can't write good quality code for more than 2 hours per day. Their brains just get tired and start making mistakes or get distracted by time wasting activities.
I've found this to be broadly true, but flexible depending on the difficulty of the task. These days I write hardware description language, which is much harder than writing software, and I struggle to do one hour of useful work. The rest of the day is spent on less demanding things like writing documentation or arguing with people on the internet.
I think 2x2hr blocks of 'good' development work and I count it as a good day. Sadly, these days I have endless short meetings so the chance of a 2hr block are a fantasy compared to continual interruptions to explain 'why isn't that done yet?' :-(
I sometimes wonder if people who just spend their days floating from meeting, to meeting, to meeting understand that people who are trying to get the underlying work done don't find that a very helpful way to spend their time.
Sadly, and regrettably, those focused on the work are completely wrong. Those floating from meeting to meeting will inevitably build networks and be given promotion to ever higher levels of pointlessness to the bafflement of those focused on the actual work.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
What makes men grow up? Running their own home is high on the list, whether that is at 18 or 28.
Not an anthropologist, but I understand that for much of history most people groups had challenges or similar, which were effectively graduation ceremonies where the boys became men, round about 13 or so. That sort of thing is lost in our society.
That's the role of the Common Entrance examination to the English (historically) Public [sic] Schools, surely.
Amongst the oiks it’s setting up a VPN to access Pornhub. The Etonians get their valet to do it.
The Greens are everything the young (particularly girls) wanted Labour to be. It's what the radio 4 prog was about. Streeting knows what he's doing. You can't be a lefti leaning Party and be an idealogical vacuum at the same time. Starmer doesn't seem to get it
Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
The danger, as I am sure Ms Cyclefree would attest, is that too many prosecutions are pursued and the whole thing gets unwieldy. It would be better to focus on a hndful of slam dunk cases.
These should of course be aimed at the more senior staff. I would definitely start with a couple of chief execs.
Too many? So far the police have interviewed four people in relation the post office scandal. That is over 5 years at a cost of £7m with a current headcount of 100 people.
If they really find that too unwieldy lets just forget all about it.
It's a bad sign. It suggests they are sifting through the mountain of paperwork before interviewing people. This is a mistake, not least because some of the suspects are getting on a bit. It's not just the victims that are dying off.
It may also be because the police are shit scared. Successive Governments, senior civil servants and leading names from the business sector were all complicit. If the police are to get serious, they will want to be sure someone has their back.
Not so much shit scared as “why risk upsetting things by being seen not to be a Safe Pair of Hands?”
Run an enquiry for a decade, spend its of money on office jobs for people who will remember you for giving them a cushy number. When your report is published, and it’s too late to prosecute, *you* will have a rep for being a Safe Pair of Hands. Good way to get promoted, that.
I share your cynicism, generally, but the chair of the Inquiry, Sir Wyn Niceoldthing is no fool, and I don't think he'll be taken for one.
I think he knows what has been going on, and will say so. It will then be difficult for the police, and indeed the Government, not to act.
Yes, but when? 2029? Before hell freezes over? Before England win the Ashes in Australia? Where is the urgency? Nuremberg Trials were in 1946.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
So learn something new. Anything.
Yes. That's what I'm thinking. A craft. Hands not brain.
I can recommend knitting. Compatible with watching TV or listening to the radio/music or just chatting too.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
Do they really have such traditional values or is that largely a projection of our own prejudices?
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.
Sure:
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
I suspect that we will find that the major cause of the collapse of the birth rate is the fall in testosterone and semen production in young men which again seems to be almost world wide but more marked in developed countries. I have read that a lot of plastics produce by-products that imitate estrogen and micro plastics can interfere with sperm production. Human fertility seems on a negative trend and has been for a considerable time now.
I suspect it is better quality of living and having things like electronic lights, TVs, let alone streaming, computers and phones that means people have other things to occupy themselves other than sex.
Which some people might bemoan, but plenty of couples are quite happy in bed watching a show or doing other mundane things.
In the olden days people would have nothing other to do than 'do it like they do on the Discovery Channel' and not many actually do choose to 'do it doggy style so we can both watch X-Files'.
Isn't infidelity still a major cause of relationship breakdown, which itself is still at high levels?
That doesn't speak to me of a society that has collectively lost interest in sex.
Comments
This is an extraordinary case, on many levels:
https://tewkesbury.gov.uk/former-tewkesbury-borough-council-employee-prosecuted-for-fraud/
The most extraordinary feature being that although his hours were falsified nobody disputed he had in fact done all the work.
Which tells me there was some feather bedding going on.
It may also be because the police are shit scared. Successive Governments, senior civil servants and leading names from the business sector were all complicit. If the police are to get serious, they will want to be sure someone has their back.
So incompetence and a “safe pair of hands”, a “team player”. As in someone who will join the wagons, when they start circling them.
#NU10K
https://x.com/archivetvmus71/status/2003104487293255689?s=61
That's 24 minutes an hour, 7 hours a day.
I may jest, but I don't think that is too far off the mark for many of us, once you factor in coffee breaks, loo breaks, chats to colleagues, the odd domestic chore when wfh, and of course dipping in to an online discussion site every so often.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78vgm0e3zzo
"Husband and five other men charged with sex offences against ex-wife"
Just like Gisele Pericot, she has waived anonymity.
Run an enquiry for a decade, spend its of money on office jobs for people who will remember you for giving them a cushy number. When your report is published, and it’s too late to prosecute, *you* will have a rep for being a Safe Pair of Hands. Good way to get promoted, that.
If you got that lot for starters you may find that some of the smaller fry become very much easier to catch.
I'm interested to see what happens to the lawyers. They were amongst the biggest and most outrageous culprits. You would have thought the Law Society might be springing into action to protect the profession's reputation, but I haven't noticed anything yet. Have you?
I think he knows what has been going on, and will say so. It will then be difficult for the police, and indeed the Government, not to act.
I'm much more concerned that four supposedly full time roles could be managed by one person and nobody noticed.
But, it's gentle fire.
Bergsvik et al. (2021): “In the course of the twentieth century, social scientists and policy analysts have produced a large volume of literature on whether policies boost fertility. This paper describes the results of a systematic review of the literature on the effects of policy on fertility since 1970 in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Empirical studies were selected through extensive systematic searches, including studies using an experimental or quasi-experimental design. Thirty-five studies were included, covering reforms of parental leave, childcare, health services, and universal child transfers. In line with previous reviews, we find that childcare expansions increase completed fertility, while increased cash transfers have temporary effects. New evidence on parental leave expansions, particularly from Central Europe, suggests larger effects than previously established. High-earning couples benefit more from parental leave expansions, while expanding childcare programs can reduce social inequalities on other domains. Subsidizing assisted reproductive treatments shows some promise of increasing birth rates for women over the age of 35. Countries that to date have limited support for families can build on solid evidence if they choose to expand these programs.”
It also speaks to the changing nature of the record, with records now routinely shared with patients and the constant fear of litigation, but I think another danger is losing sight of the purpose of the record. The record shouldn’t simply be a summary of what was said. It should capture the doctor’s reasoning and act as a message to a future doctor.
Perhaps male adolescence is extended because they're not becoming Dads?
Which is cause and which is effect?
(Ah, memories...)
Councils like them, because they reduce landfill. Unfortunately, they code as hippy-woke.
On the other hand ... I ended up using my pure and applied maths in my research, including calculus and mechanics, and my Latin in local history work. So it was there when it was needed.
Perhaps the apparent contradictiom is resolved by appreciating the way in which one can really put one's mind to it when one really needs to (and is grown up, confident and motivated).
I had one particular problem which I worked out for myself. Turned out to be a standard textbook calculation in a different field, where a friend was a specialist. He was mildly startled that this chap in a completely different field had worked it out from scratch ...
They shout 'the sea the sea' on sighting the Black Sea, after an extraordinary arduous return from the desert. It's a great story from a totally forgotten bit of Greek/Persian history of about 400 BC. There's a decent Penguin Classics edition.
Xenophon knew Socrates, which makes you think.
It also gives Iris Murdoch a book title.
US pauses offshore wind projects over security* concerns
(*Yeah right)
I really enjoyed going back to studying and got far more out of it than I had the fist time around, partly because I had a much clearer idea of how a legal system worked in the real world. I had some excellent debates with a Roman law tutor as to what the phrase "iudex qui litem suam facit " meant (basically a judge who makes a case his own by becoming partisan in it for one side or the other). It was an interesting intellectual problem for an academic but a practical reality for someone who had been dealing with a highly variable quality of judges, sheriffs and Tribunal chairman for more than 15 years. It is the key to understanding judicial immunity and how essential that is for our legal system to work (as I am sure Sandy Kemp will appreciate). My perspective was very different and I found it genuinely enjoyable after spending most of my undergraduate degree bored and poorly motivated.
But today’s conservatives are fundamentally unserious. It’s all bitter academics convince women not to have babies, wind power is woke, and tariffs don’t cause inflation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassocnus
"The generic epithet Thalassocnus derives from the Greek word thalassa "sea" and Ocnus, an allegorical deity from Greek and Roman mythology that represents the wasting of time, or slothfulness."
Now, as roughly half the CO2 emitted from an EfW is of biogenic origin, if you apply CO2 Capture the facility becomes net carbon negative, and can sell offsets to other emitters in the manner of papal indulgences.
My wife decided to change careers and has started at University this year to qualify for the job she wants. She's absolutely loving it.
Says there's no way she'd have chosen this path at 18 but it suits her now and will still get a good couple of decades of career after graduation.
She'll also graduate about the same time as our eldest is starting her GCSEs and looking forwards to what she wants to do after school, which will hopefully be inspirational.
She is not the oldest on her course.
I've found this to be broadly true, but flexible depending on the difficulty of the task. These days I write hardware description language, which is much harder than writing software, and I struggle to do one hour of useful work. The rest of the day is spent on less demanding things like writing documentation or arguing with people on the internet.
https://electrek.co/2025/12/15/tesla-reports-another-robotaxi-crash-even-with-supervisor/
Oh, wait, Iconic reddest of red state plant closes down:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy5gv5z24n2o
We also had issues with nursery staff not liking them, so had to supply disposable for nursery.
He is an egoist.
Solipsism would suit better than nihilism, but is too philosophical and doesn't cover his mendacity.
I do wonder if I would have an unfair advantage over the youngsters as I have watched more films and lived more history.
Edit (should have made that my 100k post really).
But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.
I sometimes wonder if people who just spend their days floating from meeting, to meeting, to meeting understand that people who are trying to get the underlying work done don't find that a very helpful way to spend their time.
It would need to be buried and sealed.
He’s the friendliest person on my route, joint with his wife
Which some people might bemoan, but plenty of couples are quite happy in bed watching a show or doing other mundane things.
In the olden days people would have nothing other to do than 'do it like they do on the Discovery Channel' and not many actually do choose to 'do it doggy style so we can both watch X-Files'.
Where is the urgency? Nuremberg Trials were in 1946.
That doesn't speak to me of a society that has collectively lost interest in sex.