They're a battle-tested technology but, like fossil fuels or pesticides, come at a price.
We should aim to take a balanced, complete and holistic view of what that price has looked like, and looks like today.
In general terms it optimises for the middle of various bell-curves, at considerable disbenefit for those towards the edges of the distribution. Essentially if you naturally conform to its proposed life-model, you'll broadly have a fairly good time, and if you don't, you won't.
It's OK to recognise the pros and the cons as part of the assessment, in a quest for a more fulfilling and long-term-sustainable model for society and human existence. I'm not sure many have the open-mindedness and maturity to participate, though.
Who still can't afford US universities, as UK professionals are (excepting the very top executives, public servants, finance and legal professionals, of whom there are relatively few) paid a lot less than the US equivalent.
UK middle class also includes university lecturers, teachers, various health professionals, graphic designers and so on, most of whom make less than 100k USD/year and some not much more than 50k.
It's because you're the same latitude as Namibia, Botswana etc. Even Perth is on the same equivalent (south instead of north) as Cairo or Kuwait.
There's a reason the indigenous Australians stayed dark skinned after 40,000 years - a time frame more than long enough for the Irish to turn red-haired and pale; as a trait it's relatively fast evolving, Europe probably evolved most/all of its variation since the last ice age.
White people - depending on your definition, I mean pale-skinned Northern Europeans - are adapted to live north of about 45 degrees.
Obviously they live lots of other places now, but evolution is slow to catch up.
If you drive through France for a day, you can literally see the change from north to south, "could be Dutch" in the far north to "could be Spanish" in the south. Of course lots of people move around but I'm talking about averages.
Bear in mind that this study is about the UK, and London is on the same latitude as Calgary, give or take.
The sun does get strong enough to burn here, but not for much of the year - especially considering the relatively high % cloud cover (not Seattle high maybe, but high). Skin cancer cases here are AFAIK most commonly related to overseas travel or people with outdoor lifestyles in the southwest of the country.
Most fruits are highly bred, nutrition wise they're very different from their wild-type predecessors. Many of which are outright inedible, or close to it.
That said, we've coevolved with technology of one sort or another (the broadest definition, to include cooking, plant breeding, hunting with weapons, domestication and animal husbandry) ever since we began to master fire, a million years ago give or take.
We should aim to take a balanced, complete and holistic view of what that price has looked like, and looks like today.
In general terms it optimises for the middle of various bell-curves, at considerable disbenefit for those towards the edges of the distribution. Essentially if you naturally conform to its proposed life-model, you'll broadly have a fairly good time, and if you don't, you won't.
It's OK to recognise the pros and the cons as part of the assessment, in a quest for a more fulfilling and long-term-sustainable model for society and human existence. I'm not sure many have the open-mindedness and maturity to participate, though.
reply