Why has the out of africa THEORY been presented as fact despite the growing evidence against it? Why have all other theories been so violently opposed?
Simple reason!
...
My mod points just expired. Can someone mod this guy and all children down (including my own post).
To mitigate the poster's obvious paranoia I would like to offer the following explanation as to why his post is misleading and inaccurate and should be modded down in the interests of keeping facts at the forefront of discussion and leaving knee-jerk dogmatism and prejudice to the thousands of other websites dedicated to them.
1. The writer of the above post clearly didn't read the article (yes I know he is not the only one) and seems to have missed the fact that the author, and all other respected paleontologists, clearly believe that we are in fact all one species. It is referred to in the article as 'modern human'. The entire post hinges on the misguided idea that someone in the world who has studied the subject and knows what he is talking about believes that 'foreigners' are a different species from 'us'. This is not the case. 'Us' of course in this case meaning caucasian Europeans.
2. The post is in essence a diatribe against a world wide government conspiracy trying to achieve in his words 'the genocide of the European species'. When I talk about conspiracies that involve multiple world governments I generally get modded down on the grounds that world governments are't organised enough and hate each other too much to perpetrate real conspiracies together. While i disagree with that in general with regard to small groups of nations I think this particular theory has far less evidence and is far more unlikely than any I have suggested.
3. The main justification of the points of view put forward is that the phrase 'Out of Africa' is somehow a lie. As the leading expert in the article states modern humans did in fact originate in Africa, it is not a lie, it is not even disputed by any serious paleontologists (to my knowledge). The new modifications to the theory proposed here suggest no reason to change the name of the theory. What the article says is that our species interbred with other types of prehistoric humans, far in the past, and that traces of their DNA exist in ours to prove it. The slashdot headline might be partly to blame for the confusion here.
4. At the time of posting he has +1, I know the quality of slashdot has declined as the number of users has increased but as someone with mod points you have a small amount of control over this. Take a little pride in the site and make sure someone who posts personal opinions as uninformed and lazily researched as this are far from those gentle impressionable readers who come here for reliable information. If this poster is not trolling he as at least far enough from reality that a troll moderation is called for, especially given that there is no downmod for lies or misinformation.
It isn't science fiction. We know very little about the origin of life and until we have better evidence about the actual mechanism the single vs. multiple origin debate is largely subjective. I am not an expert.
Everyone knows climate change has been going on since the big bang. Doesn't mean that it isn't influenced by humans and it certainly doesn't dispute the fact that it is of concern to modern society. If anything the fact that we have been victims of climate change for millenia reinforces the idea that we should do all we can to research its causes and possible ways to mitigate or adapt to it.
Yeah, maybe if they just ditch the first 3 words of the headline. Or even changed the whole headline. TFA is actually kind of interesting. How about "hardware getting ever cheaper" or "Bargain tablets in Chinese market". Hardware is becoming really cheap, therefore it is dead... yeah, right.
No it is nothing like that, people vote, not property. In case you were just scanning for sentences you could take out of context I was replying to someone who was saying there should be no restrictions on corporate participation in politics "in the name of freedom to exercise property". People can vote, corporations are made of people, so why do they need greater influence than their constituent members? Either they are voting with their shareholders and employees in which case those people are getting a greater say in politics than those not in a corporation, or they are voting against their members which is just stupid. Perhaps I could have phrased that more clearly but if you go around deliberately misunderstanding people you have to accept some of the blame for that.
More than dare, I encourage more mainstream game companies to copy those that are innovating. I already paid for minecraft and dwarf fortress is free but there is still a LOT of room in this genre for new players. Voxel engine, destructable terrain, procedurally generated worlds - if there was anything I could say or do to get both zynga and EA to get in on that I would go for it. I don't think either of those companies have enough creativity to even attempt something like that though. They can't see the world, the dollar signs are in the way.
And like last time there was a zynga vs EA story I will say it again: I hope they both bankrupt each other. I hate lawyers too but if they are going to be ripping someone off, please let it be both Zynga and EA at the same time. Burn baby burn.
Portable memory, I use a usb bridge. Sata/ide to usb, any hard drive becomes portable. If you know tech people or know which dumpsters to root through 40g, 80g, anything up to about 500 if you are lucky are free, as in $0. The bridge is $10 to $20. Nice for extracting data from burned out drives too as the computer doesn't have to handle booting with the drive connected so you can usually copy data without any need for recovery programs.
As to linux games, I have always been one of those wanting to move to linux who was stopped by the gaming problems. I know linux is a better os and wine sounds almost good enough to coax me over. If steam moves over that will probably provide the momentum that developers need to get it really moving. I play foss games when they have a windows binary available. I think this will be a major boost to linux market share, at least to the distros that end up being supported.
Conspiracy theorists tend to be middle-aged, majority, males, with a sense of powerlessness. The conspiracy tends to give them a sense that they, alone, know the truth. It's an obsession, and they tend to wrap their own self-worth in their "knowledge". Since they have no other purpose for existing, they can't be persuaded otherwise. (Until another, better, conspiracy comes along)
Personally, I find gardening much, much, more fulfilling than most conspiracies, but I do like to make up a good one now and then.
Conspiracy:A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful
Theorist:A person concerned with the theoretical aspects of a subject; a theoretician
The majority of conspiracy theorists are police detectives, politicians, bureaucrats, business executives, security workers. You know, people for whom theorising about conspiracies is part of their profession.
Conspiracy theorist is not a derogatory term, could everyone please stop using it as such. The term for crazy people that are obsessed with everyone being out to get them is paranoid, sometimes delusional. I think we should be careful about those labels too though, for example if you met one of the victims of the mkultra project in the 1960's, they might have been living under an overpass in a box. They may have had staring eyes and shaking hands. They may have tried to explain that the CIA erased their memories and tried to reprogram them as an assassin, and that men in black suits could show up at any moment and take them back to the lab. These symptoms can be described as traumatic stress, caused by cia mind control experiments. Delusional it is not.
Sure a lot of people believe the moon landing was a hoax, a lot of people also believe in angels, and that reducing taxes for the rich will stimulate the economy. We are talking about gullible people here. It is not a mental illness, merely a form of ignorance. That ignorance and rejection of science are linked is not news. That ignorance and free market ideology are linked is more newsworthy, but still not that surprising.
The fact that juries are even used in patent disputes... can everyone please think about that again? I know jury trials are enshrined in the US constitution, but they aren't fairer or better. They were, when the constitution was written. The amount of specialist knowledge required in many types of modern legal dispute means that jury trials are more about the charisma of lawyers than anything else. I think it is time to start phasing them out in favour of panels of experts in cases like this, and legal experts (judges) in other cases. There will always be some cases where a jury trial is warranted, but they are becoming a minority.
As to "safety of food and water supplies, vaccination" - what are they really going to say? "No I don't think food should be safe" or "no vaccines"? Only fringe groups think that way. Hell, if anything Republicans would be more prone to allowing food irradiation, so who is on the nutty side of THAT debate?
I think you are massively oversimplifying things. In a debate the question isn't going to be "Are you for or against poisonous drinking water". More realistic questions would be "What measures, if any, do you plan to take to reduce the amount of perchlorate in the drinking water?" (easy, non threatening question. The EPA already has a proposal to address it), or a similar question for any number of other toxic chemicals, food additives, and processes like hydraulic fracturing. Perhaps a more general question could also be asked "What measures if any do you intend to take to improve the quality of drinking water in this country?". Another question I would like to see asked: "US food and water safety regulations are among the most relaxed in the developed world, why do you think this is the case?"
And I only chose food and water as a convenient example, there are important questions to be addressed in policy in every one of the areas you mentioned.
"... and who knows what oppressive crap they would come up with in the name of food and water safety."
Yeah, yeah. Protect our precious bodily fluids and all that. Health and safety inspections and good standards for food and drinking water production and sale? Horrors.
Haha that reminds me of recently hearing that the US only recently established standards on mercury pollution. The horrors are what you guys eat and drink, not the regulations. Yes I know you were being sarcastic, I am agreeing.
And finally, "enforce vaccinations in the interest of public health" - ask Rick Perry how that one worked out.
As a Republican, I am going to assume you are in favour of the death penalty. Please explain why injecting sodium pentathol is alright, but injecting vaccinations is overreaching.
...Giving a whole lot of political parties an equal voice is exactly what happened in 1930's Germany. There were so many parties running with candidates, the leading candidate for Chancellor only needed a small minority of the population to vote him in...
Wrong. What happened in 1930's Germany had nothing to do with number of parties they had. The population was radicalised, and a radical candidate for a radical party got the popular vote. Then they started using violence and dirty tactics to increase their base, and then they suspended the constitution. Modern coalition based multi-party parliamentary systems have far less in common with that situation than the current situation in the US does. If they had had a two party system Hitler probably would have just become head of the nationalist one of the two.
Not only this, but a scientific policy debate would force the puppet masters who write the teleprompter text to talk about science policy, which is a good thing. Teleprompter making scientific debate pointless is a straw man, old testament not so much.
Merkel is a moron, comparing her to Gauss and even Thatcher is wrong. Don't get me wrong I hate Thatcher, but she was way smarter than Merkel. There is a German political comedian who says "I like to quote Merkel because I can't find a better way to insult her". Although given some of the candidates/presidents the US has I can see why she may not seem so thick.
MODS: This is clearly a troll, it is not even a particularly good one. It should not be +3. When I come back I want to see it relegated to -1, troll where it belongs. For those too stupid to see why, consider the following: 1) No one spells harry potter wrong, as much as I would love to live in a world where people weren't inundated with the harry potter logo from birth I sadly don't. 2) How can someone be educated enough to have heard of war and peace, and yet ignorant enough to think it is called world and peace? 3) Everyone knows books have had a significant impact on the world, denying that can only be trolling. The main point seems to be 'the world is how it is, so change didn't happen'. Even if this guy is stupid enough to believe what he is saying, being modded down correctly might help him to rethink that.
Until the Mexican government builds a massive electrified fence all the way across the northern border to stop impoverished US immigrants from stealing their jobs.
You are absolutely right in what you are saying, but your view of the big picture is somewhat limited. Some things can't be done in four hours sure, but we can work one 12 hour shift and one 8 hour shift per week on those jobs, and have a 5 day weekend. Another option would be to work one 40 hour week every second week.
With regard to pay, this is part of a corporate slavery paradigm, taught to everyone at childhood, which is not necessary or based on immutable fact. Money is imaginary, and its value is assigned. We have enough resources to give everyone the necessities of life, and the work required to produce the necessities comes to about 0.5 hours per day per person (this figure is FMA, feel free to look for other sources). Sure we want more than just the necessities, but it is perfectly feasible to have a system under which the necessities are produced and distributed to all with minimal work, and that luxuries are then added on top as a further work requirement. Many people work to ward off starvation and keep a roof over their families' heads. Forcing these people to work 60-80 hour weeks just to make ends meet (nurses are a great example) is pretty close to slavery, and totally unnecessary from the perspective of society at large with regard to the food and housing we have available.
I realise I am offering an idealistic utopia here, and how one might implement that is far from clear, but you cannot deny that the resources are there and the idea is achievable. This, to my mind, destroys any argument in favour of the status quo and the working hours it asks. I dream of a world where I can voluntarily work 12 hours a day at zero pay just because I love my work and feel it has value. Without having to worry that my family is starving to death for my passion.
tl:dr - doing 1/3 of the work does not automatically translate to earning 1/3 of the pay. We have people who earn millions for doing nothing.
It really isn't even about that. I think the entire work debate is hugely misframed. We live in a society where large failing corporations aren't allowed to die because we can't afford to lose the jobs. Where nonsense work like marketing and fashion jobs have to be endlessly created just to give people work. Unemployment is at record highs around the world. 16 hour days are downright unethical. I don't care if your sympathy is for codemonkeys pulling 16 hour shifts where only a fraction of it is really productive time, or for the unemployed codemonkey struggling to make ends meet with 0 hours per day. It is unfair. We need to mandate a maximum 8 hour working day so that the work can be more evenly shared. Didn't we in fact do that in like the 1920's? What happened to that?
Not to mention we have spent the last 100 years tirelessly working on labour saving devices which reduce the number of hours required to create the necessities of life. We could probably move to a 4 hour day without any serious problems. This is stupid, backwards and uncivilised and the argument about whether one can be productive for 16 hours at a stretch is entirely beside the point.
Precisely. Does Ceasium-137 in the soil noticeably increase the background radiation in an area? No. Does this map showing C137 concentrations around the Fukushima area make you want to move there? Also no. I probably wouldn't want to live in Denver either but that is a separate issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Why has the out of africa THEORY been presented as fact despite the growing evidence against it? Why have all other theories been so violently opposed?
Simple reason!
...
My mod points just expired. Can someone mod this guy and all children down (including my own post).
To mitigate the poster's obvious paranoia I would like to offer the following explanation as to why his post is misleading and inaccurate and should be modded down in the interests of keeping facts at the forefront of discussion and leaving knee-jerk dogmatism and prejudice to the thousands of other websites dedicated to them.
1. The writer of the above post clearly didn't read the article (yes I know he is not the only one) and seems to have missed the fact that the author, and all other respected paleontologists, clearly believe that we are in fact all one species. It is referred to in the article as 'modern human'. The entire post hinges on the misguided idea that someone in the world who has studied the subject and knows what he is talking about believes that 'foreigners' are a different species from 'us'. This is not the case. 'Us' of course in this case meaning caucasian Europeans.
2. The post is in essence a diatribe against a world wide government conspiracy trying to achieve in his words 'the genocide of the European species'. When I talk about conspiracies that involve multiple world governments I generally get modded down on the grounds that world governments are't organised enough and hate each other too much to perpetrate real conspiracies together. While i disagree with that in general with regard to small groups of nations I think this particular theory has far less evidence and is far more unlikely than any I have suggested.
3. The main justification of the points of view put forward is that the phrase 'Out of Africa' is somehow a lie. As the leading expert in the article states modern humans did in fact originate in Africa, it is not a lie, it is not even disputed by any serious paleontologists (to my knowledge). The new modifications to the theory proposed here suggest no reason to change the name of the theory. What the article says is that our species interbred with other types of prehistoric humans, far in the past, and that traces of their DNA exist in ours to prove it. The slashdot headline might be partly to blame for the confusion here.
4. At the time of posting he has +1, I know the quality of slashdot has declined as the number of users has increased but as someone with mod points you have a small amount of control over this. Take a little pride in the site and make sure someone who posts personal opinions as uninformed and lazily researched as this are far from those gentle impressionable readers who come here for reliable information. If this poster is not trolling he as at least far enough from reality that a troll moderation is called for, especially given that there is no downmod for lies or misinformation.
It isn't science fiction. We know very little about the origin of life and until we have better evidence about the actual mechanism the single vs. multiple origin debate is largely subjective. I am not an expert.
Everyone knows climate change has been going on since the big bang. Doesn't mean that it isn't influenced by humans and it certainly doesn't dispute the fact that it is of concern to modern society. If anything the fact that we have been victims of climate change for millenia reinforces the idea that we should do all we can to research its causes and possible ways to mitigate or adapt to it.
Yeah, maybe if they just ditch the first 3 words of the headline. Or even changed the whole headline. TFA is actually kind of interesting. How about "hardware getting ever cheaper" or "Bargain tablets in Chinese market". Hardware is becoming really cheap, therefore it is dead... yeah, right.
No it is nothing like that, people vote, not property. In case you were just scanning for sentences you could take out of context I was replying to someone who was saying there should be no restrictions on corporate participation in politics "in the name of freedom to exercise property". People can vote, corporations are made of people, so why do they need greater influence than their constituent members? Either they are voting with their shareholders and employees in which case those people are getting a greater say in politics than those not in a corporation, or they are voting against their members which is just stupid. Perhaps I could have phrased that more clearly but if you go around deliberately misunderstanding people you have to accept some of the blame for that.
If there are any restrictions corporate participation in the political process (in the name of freedom to exercise property there should not be)
So your ideal political system is basically despotic feudalism. I don't see why property should have a say in politics.
More than dare, I encourage more mainstream game companies to copy those that are innovating. I already paid for minecraft and dwarf fortress is free but there is still a LOT of room in this genre for new players. Voxel engine, destructable terrain, procedurally generated worlds - if there was anything I could say or do to get both zynga and EA to get in on that I would go for it. I don't think either of those companies have enough creativity to even attempt something like that though. They can't see the world, the dollar signs are in the way.
And like last time there was a zynga vs EA story I will say it again: I hope they both bankrupt each other. I hate lawyers too but if they are going to be ripping someone off, please let it be both Zynga and EA at the same time. Burn baby burn.
Portable memory, I use a usb bridge. Sata/ide to usb, any hard drive becomes portable. If you know tech people or know which dumpsters to root through 40g, 80g, anything up to about 500 if you are lucky are free, as in $0. The bridge is $10 to $20. Nice for extracting data from burned out drives too as the computer doesn't have to handle booting with the drive connected so you can usually copy data without any need for recovery programs.
As to linux games, I have always been one of those wanting to move to linux who was stopped by the gaming problems. I know linux is a better os and wine sounds almost good enough to coax me over. If steam moves over that will probably provide the momentum that developers need to get it really moving. I play foss games when they have a windows binary available. I think this will be a major boost to linux market share, at least to the distros that end up being supported.
Conspiracy theorists tend to be middle-aged, majority, males, with a sense of powerlessness. The conspiracy tends to give them a sense that they, alone, know the truth. It's an obsession, and they tend to wrap their own self-worth in their "knowledge". Since they have no other purpose for existing, they can't be persuaded otherwise. (Until another, better, conspiracy comes along) Personally, I find gardening much, much, more fulfilling than most conspiracies, but I do like to make up a good one now and then.
Conspiracy:A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful
Theorist:A person concerned with the theoretical aspects of a subject; a theoretician
The majority of conspiracy theorists are police detectives, politicians, bureaucrats, business executives, security workers. You know, people for whom theorising about conspiracies is part of their profession.
Conspiracy theorist is not a derogatory term, could everyone please stop using it as such. The term for crazy people that are obsessed with everyone being out to get them is paranoid, sometimes delusional. I think we should be careful about those labels too though, for example if you met one of the victims of the mkultra project in the 1960's, they might have been living under an overpass in a box. They may have had staring eyes and shaking hands. They may have tried to explain that the CIA erased their memories and tried to reprogram them as an assassin, and that men in black suits could show up at any moment and take them back to the lab. These symptoms can be described as traumatic stress, caused by cia mind control experiments. Delusional it is not.
Sure a lot of people believe the moon landing was a hoax, a lot of people also believe in angels, and that reducing taxes for the rich will stimulate the economy. We are talking about gullible people here. It is not a mental illness, merely a form of ignorance. That ignorance and rejection of science are linked is not news. That ignorance and free market ideology are linked is more newsworthy, but still not that surprising.
The fact that juries are even used in patent disputes... can everyone please think about that again? I know jury trials are enshrined in the US constitution, but they aren't fairer or better. They were, when the constitution was written. The amount of specialist knowledge required in many types of modern legal dispute means that jury trials are more about the charisma of lawyers than anything else. I think it is time to start phasing them out in favour of panels of experts in cases like this, and legal experts (judges) in other cases. There will always be some cases where a jury trial is warranted, but they are becoming a minority.
As to "safety of food and water supplies, vaccination" - what are they really going to say? "No I don't think food should be safe" or "no vaccines"? Only fringe groups think that way. Hell, if anything Republicans would be more prone to allowing food irradiation, so who is on the nutty side of THAT debate?
I think you are massively oversimplifying things. In a debate the question isn't going to be "Are you for or against poisonous drinking water". More realistic questions would be "What measures, if any, do you plan to take to reduce the amount of perchlorate in the drinking water?" (easy, non threatening question. The EPA already has a proposal to address it), or a similar question for any number of other toxic chemicals, food additives, and processes like hydraulic fracturing. Perhaps a more general question could also be asked "What measures if any do you intend to take to improve the quality of drinking water in this country?". Another question I would like to see asked: "US food and water safety regulations are among the most relaxed in the developed world, why do you think this is the case?"
And I only chose food and water as a convenient example, there are important questions to be addressed in policy in every one of the areas you mentioned.
That is hilarious. Someone give this guy funny mod points.
"... and who knows what oppressive crap they would come up with in the name of food and water safety."
Yeah, yeah. Protect our precious bodily fluids and all that. Health and safety inspections and good standards for food and drinking water production and sale? Horrors.
Haha that reminds me of recently hearing that the US only recently established standards on mercury pollution. The horrors are what you guys eat and drink, not the regulations. Yes I know you were being sarcastic, I am agreeing.
And finally, "enforce vaccinations in the interest of public health" - ask Rick Perry how that one worked out.
As a Republican, I am going to assume you are in favour of the death penalty. Please explain why injecting sodium pentathol is alright, but injecting vaccinations is overreaching.
...Giving a whole lot of political parties an equal voice is exactly what happened in 1930's Germany. There were so many parties running with candidates, the leading candidate for Chancellor only needed a small minority of the population to vote him in...
Wrong. What happened in 1930's Germany had nothing to do with number of parties they had. The population was radicalised, and a radical candidate for a radical party got the popular vote. Then they started using violence and dirty tactics to increase their base, and then they suspended the constitution. Modern coalition based multi-party parliamentary systems have far less in common with that situation than the current situation in the US does. If they had had a two party system Hitler probably would have just become head of the nationalist one of the two.
Yeah, I am pretty sure republican leadership hate Ron Paul as much as any democrat.
Not only this, but a scientific policy debate would force the puppet masters who write the teleprompter text to talk about science policy, which is a good thing. Teleprompter making scientific debate pointless is a straw man, old testament not so much.
Merkel is a moron, comparing her to Gauss and even Thatcher is wrong. Don't get me wrong I hate Thatcher, but she was way smarter than Merkel. There is a German political comedian who says "I like to quote Merkel because I can't find a better way to insult her". Although given some of the candidates/presidents the US has I can see why she may not seem so thick.
The Harry Porter novels... ...unnecessary baggages
MODS: This is clearly a troll, it is not even a particularly good one. It should not be +3. When I come back I want to see it relegated to -1, troll where it belongs. For those too stupid to see why, consider the following: 1) No one spells harry potter wrong, as much as I would love to live in a world where people weren't inundated with the harry potter logo from birth I sadly don't. 2) How can someone be educated enough to have heard of war and peace, and yet ignorant enough to think it is called world and peace? 3) Everyone knows books have had a significant impact on the world, denying that can only be trolling. The main point seems to be 'the world is how it is, so change didn't happen'. Even if this guy is stupid enough to believe what he is saying, being modded down correctly might help him to rethink that.
Until the Mexican government builds a massive electrified fence all the way across the northern border to stop impoverished US immigrants from stealing their jobs.
You are absolutely right in what you are saying, but your view of the big picture is somewhat limited. Some things can't be done in four hours sure, but we can work one 12 hour shift and one 8 hour shift per week on those jobs, and have a 5 day weekend. Another option would be to work one 40 hour week every second week.
With regard to pay, this is part of a corporate slavery paradigm, taught to everyone at childhood, which is not necessary or based on immutable fact. Money is imaginary, and its value is assigned. We have enough resources to give everyone the necessities of life, and the work required to produce the necessities comes to about 0.5 hours per day per person (this figure is FMA, feel free to look for other sources). Sure we want more than just the necessities, but it is perfectly feasible to have a system under which the necessities are produced and distributed to all with minimal work, and that luxuries are then added on top as a further work requirement. Many people work to ward off starvation and keep a roof over their families' heads. Forcing these people to work 60-80 hour weeks just to make ends meet (nurses are a great example) is pretty close to slavery, and totally unnecessary from the perspective of society at large with regard to the food and housing we have available.
I realise I am offering an idealistic utopia here, and how one might implement that is far from clear, but you cannot deny that the resources are there and the idea is achievable. This, to my mind, destroys any argument in favour of the status quo and the working hours it asks. I dream of a world where I can voluntarily work 12 hours a day at zero pay just because I love my work and feel it has value. Without having to worry that my family is starving to death for my passion.
tl:dr - doing 1/3 of the work does not automatically translate to earning 1/3 of the pay. We have people who earn millions for doing nothing.
It really isn't even about that. I think the entire work debate is hugely misframed. We live in a society where large failing corporations aren't allowed to die because we can't afford to lose the jobs. Where nonsense work like marketing and fashion jobs have to be endlessly created just to give people work. Unemployment is at record highs around the world. 16 hour days are downright unethical. I don't care if your sympathy is for codemonkeys pulling 16 hour shifts where only a fraction of it is really productive time, or for the unemployed codemonkey struggling to make ends meet with 0 hours per day. It is unfair. We need to mandate a maximum 8 hour working day so that the work can be more evenly shared. Didn't we in fact do that in like the 1920's? What happened to that?
Not to mention we have spent the last 100 years tirelessly working on labour saving devices which reduce the number of hours required to create the necessities of life. We could probably move to a 4 hour day without any serious problems. This is stupid, backwards and uncivilised and the argument about whether one can be productive for 16 hours at a stretch is entirely beside the point.
There is a third option you know, cheaper too.
Precisely. Does Ceasium-137 in the soil noticeably increase the background radiation in an area? No. Does this map showing C137 concentrations around the Fukushima area make you want to move there? Also no. I probably wouldn't want to live in Denver either but that is a separate issue.