22 thoughts on “Projectile envy perchance?”

  1. or “behavioral sink” as noted from the john calhoun experiments back in the sixties by the smithsonian mag:

    … to study the effects of population density on behavior. But what looked like rat utopias and mouse paradises at first quickly spiraled into out-of-control overcrowding, eventual population collapse and seemingly sinister behavior patterns.
    The mice were not nice.
    Calhoun’s experiments, which started with rats an outdoor pen and moved on to mice at the National Institute of Mental Health during the early 1960s, were interpreted at the time as evidence of what could happen in an overpopulated world. The unusual behaviors he observed he dubbed “behavioral sinks.”
    Now, interpretations of Calhoun’s work has changed. Inglis-Arkell explains that the habitats he created weren’t really overcrowded, but that isolation enabled aggressive mice to stake out territory and isolate the beautiful ones. She writes, “Instead of a population problem, one could argue that Universe 25 had a fair distribution problem.”


    what we have here is a fair distribution problem or just boys being boys?

    heck, what else could all that money used for a few minutes in space for rich guys be spent on – real R & D?  carbon capture? clean up the oceans?  

  2. sorry if this sounds like sexism but are we seeing evidence of what happens when there are (what wapo wrote about in 2018) too many males?

    Nothing like this has happened in human history. A combination of cultural preferences, government decree and modern medical technology in the world’s two largest countries has created a gender imbalance on a continental scale. Men outnumber women by 70 million in China and India.
    The consequences of having too many men, now coming of age, are far-reaching: Beyond an epidemic of loneliness, the imbalance distorts labor markets, drives up savings rates in China and drives down consumption, artificially inflates certain property values, and parallels increases in violent crime, trafficking or prostitution in a growing number of locations.
    Those consequences are not confined to China and India, but reach deep into their Asian neighbors and distort the economies of Europe and the Americas, as well. Barely recognized, the ramifications of too many men are only starting to come into sight.
    Both nations are belatedly trying to come to grips with the policies that created this male-heavy generation. And demographers say it will take decades for the ramifications of the bulge to fade away.
    [long article continues with a lot of graphs]


    or is it just too much money & too much power in too few hands – no matter whether they be male or female hands – and way too many other people who have neither?

  3. I remember that rat experiment from a 70’s AbPsych course……fascinating it was.  That one and Milgram stuck in me little brain.

  4. Overpopulation is a contributing factor in increasing male infertility in younger males mainly due to environmental pollution.  We may be getting more men, but fewer children as it becomes harder and harder for women to become pregnant due to damaged sperm.

    Mother Nature fighting back.


  5. harking back to what fearless leader was advising to do about HR1 vs HR4 J.L. voting rights advancement Act.

    op ed by *liptak at NYT 2 days ago:

    WASHINGTON — If the sweeping voting rights bill that the House passed in March overcomes substantial hurdles in the Senate to become law, it would reshape American elections and represent a triumph for Democrats eager to combat the wave of election restrictions moving through Republican-controlled state legislatures.
    But passage of the bill, known as H.R. 1, would end a legislative fight and start a legal war that could dwarf the court challenges aimed at the Affordable Care Act over the past decade.
    “I have no doubt that if H.R. 1 passes, we’re going to have a dozen major Supreme Court cases on different pieces of it,” said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a law professor at Harvard.
    The potential for the bill to set off a sprawling constitutional battle is largely a function of its ambitions. It would end felon disenfranchisement, require independent commissions to draw congressional districts, establish public financing for congressional candidates, order presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns, address dark money in political advertising and restructure the Federal Election Commission.
    Some scholars have urged congressional Democrats to concentrate their efforts on narrower legislation, notably the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which seeks to restore a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court effectively eliminated by a 5-to-4 vote in 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder.
    The provision, the law’s Section 5, required states with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing voting procedures. In the Shelby County decision, the court ruled that the formula for deciding which states were covered violated the Constitution because it was based on outdated data.
    The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named for the civil rights leader who served in the House for more than three decades until his death last year, responds to that invitation by updating the coverage formula. Whether the Supreme Court — which has become more conservative since 2013 — would uphold the new formula and allow Section 5 to be restored is an open question, but the Shelby County decision at least allows Congress to try.
    Similarly, the court’s precedents suggest that not all of the anticipated challenges to the much broader H.R. 1 would succeed.

    *Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. 


    also see yesterday’s  Democrats Rethink Strategy as Filibuster Dashed – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

    Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, has set up a series of votes in the next three weeks that he says will test Republicans’ willingness to compromise, including on pay equity between men and women and the voting rights measure. Leaders will also take up Mr. Manchin’s suggestion that they proceed on a more limited voting rights bill, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, though that measure lacks the support of the 10 Republicans who would be needed to advance it past a filibuster.
    Democrats do have options. They could, for instance, break the For the People Act into separate measures to expand voting rights, rein in campaign finance abuses and restore ethical standards and transparency in the executive branch shattered by Donald J. Trump.
    Another option would be to expand the reach of the voting rights law that Mr. Manchin says he does support, the John Lewis Act, which would restore federal oversight of state voting laws to protect minority groups that might be targeted.

  6. Long ago, way before the personal computer age I took my first “real” college level economics class.  The prof started it all out with a statement, probably very common to all, that animals, including humans, were economic beings.  We make judgements about what the cost is to do anything.  Expending energy is an economic decision, is it worth the cost of energy to climb a tree for a nut or sit in the sun waiting for it to drop.  It was a good course.
    It costs so much in travel, day care for children or adults, food, time and much more to go to work.  If you are making an average of five dollars an hour (tips + basic wage) over a ten hour day (fifty dollars per day) and all your other expenses are four dollars an hour you have to decide if that ten dollars is actually worth the hassle.  That ten hour per day in the bar might be more like twelve hours with travel and preparations.  People are making decisions in this next phase of our new world and it is causing a bit of teeth gnashing by the business owners used to a compliant servant staff.  Cutting off benefits might cause a migration away from the cheapskates.  It is still early in the new version of life.  Looking back to Europe after the black death might provide some insight, hint it was not the same as before the plague.

  7. jamie,

    if it weren’t for bb and sturge comments today, i’d be worrying that the hacks and outages had done in the east coast.  what’s up?  power failures, cicada coup?

  8. bink, wapo has a story on the tax avoidance man men among us.

    Wealthiest Americans, including Bezos, Musk pay little in taxes, IRS records show – The Washington Post

    The wealthiest Americans — including Warren Buffett, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos — paid little in federal income taxes at times in recent years despite soaring fortunes, according to Internal Revenue Service data obtained by ProPublica.
    The release of the records sent shock waves through Washington, with the federal government referring the unauthorized disclosure to investigators and some Democrats saying the revelations affirmed their long-held view that the richest Americans are able to shield much of their wealth from taxation.
    The information published Tuesday shows how billionaires are able to legally reduce their tax burden, highlighting how the American tax system can hit ordinary wage earners harder than the richest people in the country. That’s often because the richest Americans tend to have their wealth tied up in stocks and real estate, allowing them to avoid taxes on unrealized profits.


  9. POTUS Joe should get that Jan 6th commission ready to go…since the GQP can’t see its way clear on infrastructure.

    Dems need to wake up. The GQP’s idea of compromising means Dems have to cave and Repugz give up nothing.

    Use the media! Republicans are blocking infrastructure (jobs) to help their rich donors. They don’t care how the average American is doing.


    The townsfolk are coming to the ballot box with pitchforks pointed at those trying to protect billionaires and corporations at their expense.

Comments are closed.