Tuesday, October 31, 2023

Increasing Melting of West Antarctic Ice Shelves May Now Be Unavoidable

The rate at which the warming Southern Ocean melts the West Antarctic ice sheet will speed up rapidly over the course of this century, regardless of how much emissions fall in coming decades, our new research suggests. This ocean-driven melting is expected to increase sea-level rise, with consequences for coastal communities around the world.

The Antarctic ice sheet, the world’s largest volume of land-based ice, is a system of interconnected glaciers comprised of snowfall that remains year-round. Coastal ice shelves are the floating edges of this ice sheet which stabilise the glaciers behind them. The ocean melts these ice shelves from below, and if melting increases and an ice shelf thins, the speed at which these glaciers discharge fresh water into the ocean increases too and sea levels rise.

In West Antarctica, particularly the Amundsen Sea, this process has been underway for decades. Ice shelves are thinning, glaciers are flowing faster towards the ocean and the ice sheet is shrinking. While ocean temperature measurements in this region are limited, modelling suggests it may have warmed as a result of climate change.

We chose to model the Amundsen Sea because it is the most vulnerable sector of the ice sheet. We used a regional ocean model to find out how ice-shelf melting will change here between now and 2100. How much melting can be prevented by reducing carbon emissions and slowing the rate of climate change – and how much is now unavoidable, no matter what we do?

Rapid change is locked in

We used the UK’s national supercomputer ARCHER2 to run many different simulations of the 21st century, totalling over 4,000 years of ocean warming and ice-shelf melting in the Amundsen Sea.

We considered different trajectories for fossil fuel burning, from the best-case scenario where global warming is limited to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement, to the worst, in which coal, oil and gas use is uncontrolled. We also considered the influence of natural variations in the climate, such as the timing of events such as El Niño.

The results are worrying. In all simulations there is a rapid increase over the course of this century in the rate of ocean warming and ice-shelf melting. Even the best-case scenario in which warming halts at 1.5°C, something that is considered ambitious by many experts, entails a threefold increase in the historical rate of warming and melting.

What’s more, there is little to no difference between the scenarios up to 2045. Ocean warming and ice-shelf melting in the 1.5°C scenario is statistically the same as in a mid-range scenario, which is closer to what existing pledges to reduce fossil fuel use over the coming decades would produce.

The worst-case scenario shows more melting than the others, but only from around mid-century onwards, and many experts think this amount of future fossil fuel burning is unrealistic anyway.

The results imply that we are now committed to rapid ocean warming in the Amundsen Sea until at least 2100, regardless of international policies on fossil fuels.

The increases in warming and melting are the result of ocean currents strengthening and driving more warm water from the deep ocean towards the shallower ice shelves along the coast. Other studies have suggested this process is behind the ice shelf thinning measured by satellites.

How much will the sea level rise?

Melting ice shelves are a major cause of sea-level rise, but not the whole story. We can’t put a number on how much sea levels will rise without also simulating the flow of Antarctic glaciers and the rate of snow accumulating on the ice sheet, which our model didn’t include.

But we have every reason to believe that increased ice-shelf melting in this region will cause the rate at which sea levels are rising to speed up.

The West Antarctic ice sheet is already contributing substantially to global sea-level rise and is losing about 80 billion tonnes of ice a year. It contains enough ice to cause up to 5 metres of sea-level rise, but we don’t know how much of it will melt, and how quickly. Our colleagues around the world are working hard to answer this question.

Courage and hope

There are some consequences of climate change that can no longer be avoided, no matter how much fossil fuel use falls. Substantial melting of West Antarctica up to 2100 may now be one of them.

How do you tell a bad news story? The conventional wisdom is that you’re supposed to give people hope: to say that there’s a disaster behind one door, but we can avoid it if only we choose a different one. What do you do when your science tells you that all doors lead to the same disaster?

Kate Marvel, an atmospheric scientist, said that when it comes to climate change, “we need courage, not hope … Courage is the resolve to do well without the assurance of a happy ending”. In this case, courage means shifting our attention to the longer term.

The future will not end in 2100, even if most people reading this will no longer be around. Our simulations of the 1.5°C scenario show ice-shelf melting starting to plateau by the end of the century, suggesting that further changes in the 22nd century and beyond may still be preventable. Reducing sea-level rise after 2100, or even slowing it down, could save many coastal cities.

Courage means accepting the need to adapt, protecting coastal communities where it’s possible to do so, and rebuilding or abandoning them where it’s not. By predicting future sea-level rise in advance, we’ll have time to plan for it – rather than wait until the ocean is on our doorstep.

Kaitlin Naughten is an Ocean-Ice Modeler with the British Antarctic Survey.

Jan De Rydt is Associate Professor of Polar Glaciology and Oceanography at Northumbria University, Newcastle.

Paul Holland is an Ocean and Ice Scientist with the British Antarctic Survey.

This article appears courtesy of The Conversation and may be found in its original form here.

ECOCIDE

Grounded Ferry Marco Polo Shifts in Bad Weather Releasing More Oil

oil slick from grounded ferry — Large oil slick again appeared on the water after the Marco Polo shifted in high seas on Sunday (Swedish Coastguard photos)

Salvage teams were forced to evacuate the grounded ferry Marco Polo (15,955 gross tons) after the vessel began moving in bad weather and rough seas on Sunday on the coast of Sweden. While the ferry eventually became stuck for a third time, the release of oil from the damaged fuel tank increased creating a worsening environmental situation.

The ferry had been aground for a week in the Baltic along the southeast coast of Sweden near the small island of Hanö, but shortly after noon on October 29, they determined the vessel was again moving due to the worsening weather conditions. According to the Coast Guard, the ferry slipped off the ground while TT-Lines confirmed that the salvage master ordered all non-essential personnel off the vessel. They are reporting by 14:30 the Marco Polo had stopped moving but the vessel had shifted further offshore.

Efforts had begun the previous day to remove the fuel from the grounded vessel in a salvage operation being undertaken by SMIT. The shallow draft bunker vessel Tresfjord went alongside the Marco Polo on Saturday and they were beginning the efforts to pump fuel from the damaged tank which contained 163 cubic meters of oil at the time of the casualty. The Coast Guard can not confirm the amount of oil that has leaked, but as of Sunday, they were saying 30 cubic meters of oil and oil waste had been recovered from the water and coastline. They believe additional amounts remain under the water’s surface and the damaged tank is continuing to leak while the pumping operation was suspended due to the weather. Another undamaged tank holds a further 300 cubic meters of fuel.

The Swedish Coast Guard is reporting a large new oil slick around the vessel on Monday saying the Sunday’s high swell “dramatically changed the cleanup situation.” Several vessels are in place to pick up the oil at sea and Coast Guard aircraft are mapping the area in search of additional oil. As of midday on Monday, they reported that one Coast Guard vessel had recovered about three cubic meters of oil. They are also reporting that the oil crossed Pukavik Bay and has come ashore in a second location near the small town of Norje. Previously, they have reported that at least three miles of the coastline have been fouled by the oil.

Members of the Home Guard and coast guard trainees joined the cleanup operation over the weekend (Swedish Coastguard photos)

The salvage operation was also set back because of the weather on the weekend. TT-Line reports that SMIT had submitted a salvage plan to the Swedish authorities which was being reviewed on Saturday before the vessel shifted. The line says there is now a high priority on refloating the vessel. However, the salvage team was now required to send down divers to reinspect the situation. A survey is underway to determine the depths and shapes of underwater terrain around the grounded vessel.

“We are aware of the impact the incident has caused and we are taking the case very seriously - now and after the completion of the case,” TT-Line wrote in its statement. They said the priority has become recovery of the vessel to reduce additional contamination and mitigate the impact.

Sweden last week fined the captain and third officer for what it believed was negligent navigation which contributed to the grounding. They said the officers both had only been using the ship’s electronic chart and not employing other resources despite it being nighttime and there was fog. They believe the electronic navigation system malfunctioned taking the ferry significantly off course. The ferry touched bottom but continued sailing before becoming stuck during a second grounding.

Under Swedish law, the Coast Guard can also impose a fine for the cleanup operation. Media reports said they are also investigating the seaworthiness of the ferry and the suspected malfunction of its systems. Before this weekend’s further release of oil, a local elected official had warned the cleanup could take a year.

ECOCIDE

Environmental Hazard as Cargo Ship Loses Containers in Canadian Far North

Canadian cargo ship — Sivumut on an earlier voyage in the region (NEAS file photo)

The Nunavut government and Canada are scrambling to deal with a potential environmental issue and boating hazard in the northernmost territory, a region located south of the Arctic Circle but with a polar climate and freezing cold for much of the year. Late on Friday afternoon, October 27, a cargo vessel that provides a vital supply line to the remote region had an accident losing a portion of its cargo into the harbor.

Alerts have been sent out warning boaters to use caution as the Canadian Coast Guard and NEAS, operators of Nunavik Eastern Arctic Shipping, work to locate the cargo which is reported to be floating in the harbor. The government is advising that 20 shipping containers and assorted freight fell off the cargo ship and into Frobisher Bay near the Iqaluit port.

The vessel appears to be NEAS’s Sivumut, an 8,000 dwt cargo ship. Built in 2010 and registered in Canada, it can transport up to 655 containers or loose cargo. The vessel has two onboard cranes for cargo handling. The pictures appearing online show the vessel at anchor with the containers floating behind the ship. Weather in the area could also present a challenge with air temperatures in the mid-20s F (-3 C currently).

The government did not advise what is in the containers. However, they are warning that the containers are drifting and could be heading to neighboring Apex. The vessel appears to have been in the port all week handling cargo off loading on to barges.

Iqaluit's new deep sea port was only opened officially in July after an approximately C$100 million (US$72.5 million) project to replace the old sealift beach which the local government had deemed no longer suited to the community’s sealift operations. The town is Nunavut’s territorial capital and a regional hub. The new Iqaluit deep sea port was designed to provide sealift operators and local companies with safer conditions to offload and pick up cargo. The new port they said during the opening ceremonies would permit ships to offload at all tides, streamline sealift operations, and strengthen Nunavut’s marine transportation network.

U$A
Econometer: Has enthusiasm for electric cars waned?

THEY HAVE HARDLY GOT OUT THE FACTORY DOOR YET

2023/10/27

John Gibbins/The San Diego Union-Tribune/TNS

General Motors, Ford and Tesla have all warned of an electric vehicle slowdown because they say demand might drop.

Auto makers mainly say higher borrowing costs are the issue but some car dealerships say EVs are sitting longer than regular cars. They say consumers are concerned about the range of EVs and lack of infrastructure.

In a Cox Automotive survey, 53 percent of consumers said EVs will eventually replace internal combustion engines, but less than a third of dealers agreed. Several dealerships interviewed by CNBC said EVs were taking longer to sell and there was a supply and demand imbalance with the vehicles.

Ford said two weeks ago it would increase production on its hybrid F-150 pickup trucks because of waning demand for its all electric model.

EV advocates insist the demand is still there, but consumers are only temporarily shying away because of high interest rates that make EVs — typically more expensive than your average car — more difficult to purchase.

Q: Has enthusiasm for electric cars waned?

Phil Blair, Manpower

YES: But a momentary blip. As someone who has only bought all-electric cars for my last five purchases, they are the future of car transportation. Yes, it has hit a lull. Interest rates, concern over ample charging infrastructure and availability of lower price models are valid concerns. New houses coming with charging capabilities are a telling sign.

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

NO: Technology breakthroughs often take decades to achieve market acceptance. Electric, and perhaps hydrogen, and other vehicle technologies are in their infancy. The issues of range anxiety, cost and even their actual contribution to reducing the overall carbon footprint, will all be solved over time. Personal perspective: I am now driving my second electric vehicle. They drive better, are simpler to manufacture and incorporate superior technology. And they are more fun to drive.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

YES: One factor is higher interest rates, which makes buying the more expensive electric vehicles more difficult. Another is that gas prices have come down after a recent surge. But a big reason might be that early adopters of the technology may have already gone all in on EVs. Getting the next tier of customers might require a game changer such as Toyota's solid-state battery technology, which could raise the range to 700 to 900 miles and reduce charging times to less than 10 minutes.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

YES: Enthusiasm for electric vehicles has waned, though EVs are still growing in number. GM is delaying the opening of a large electric-pickup-truck factory in Michigan and Ford is considering canceling a shift of factory production on its electric F-150 Lightning pickup. Tesla's vehicle deliveries are still growing, but at a slowing rate, despite steep price cuts. There are concerns about charging vehicles on long drives, prices, and government subsidy requirements.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

YES: Or at least the rate of growth of sales has slowed. The first wave of buyers of EVs were higher-income households with strong concerns about the environment. Adoption may be slower for other demographic groups. Higher interest rates historically depress all vehicle sales and disproportionately discourage sales of more expensive cars like EVs. The ultimate transition is inevitable but may come a little slower than some people thought 12 months ago.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

NO: As with all new technologies, at first, enthusiastic technophiles and idealists purchased EVs. Today, the economics are positive for many consumers, especially those who own single-family homes. Higher interest rates, a recent buying binge, and unfamiliarity are causing a temporary weakening in demand. Fear of the unknown — range/charging/tech — and car replacement timing have deterred others thus far. In time, additional exposure, improved range, increased competition, gas price uncertainty, and environmental awareness will drive widespread adoption.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

NO: I think the desire for EVs remains but as noted, high interest rates, the lack of needed infrastructure and the vehicles' limited range will slow sales. When range capabilities, infrastructure and charging speeds increase and costs and interest rates decrease, sales will improve. Electric hybrids will continue to bridge the gap as drivers start testing EVs.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: EVs remain relatively more expensive cars, for now, albeit cheaper to own. When budgets are subject to higher interest rates, consumers shift to lower-priced substitutes. A gas Subaru Crosstrek starts at $24,995, a Subaru Solterra EV starts at $44,995. That is a huge difference for the average consumer. With higher interest rates we have seen higher-priced choices, EVs included, become less attractive. EVs are here to stay and eventually, with less expensive batteries, will become more affordable over time. It's all I've driven since 2012.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

NO: Consumers are still interested in electric vehicles, and it will only grow over time as battery technology and long-distance supercharging networks improve. If cost has been a factor, car makers like Tesla have been cutting prices on some of their models recently and interest rate hikes are finally leveling out. With gas prices continuing to increase, an EV is still a good option for long-term fuel savings, lower maintenance costs, and EV tax incentives.

David Ely, San Diego State University

YES: Now that early adopters have purchased EVs, it is natural for enthusiasm to wane. Range anxiety and high interest rates are leading many shoppers to delay the switch to EVs. Sales of EVs are still rising, just at a slower pace. EV sales growth would be lower if not for significant price reductions by manufacturers. This suggests that demand is falling short of expectations and needs to be brought back into alignment with supply.

Ray Major, SANDAG

YES: Early EV adopters and tech enthusiasts are already driving EVs regardless of price. Concerns about range, accessible charging stations, charging time, cost and the lifespan of a vehicle, are some of the reasons why not everyone has jumped in. Nationally, customers in colder climates are experiencing significantly less battery life than those here in Southern California. Enthusiasm for EVs has slowed and full adoption will take decades, not years.

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

NO: Despite waning enthusiasm for Tesla CEO Elon Musk, EVs are still hot commodities with heaps of new models becoming available. Adoption of new technologies tends to follow an S curve — slow at first, then speeds up, and eventually levels off. EV sales are no exception. Sales were pretty flat in the years through 2020, picked up in 2021, and will likely remain strong for some time before flattening.

Haney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers Association

NO: While it may be more expensive to finance a car purchase, gas prices have skyrocketed. Also, the federal and state tax incentives are hefty. I know anecdotally that plenty of people are still in the market for EVs, as there are a lot of reasons for someone to purchase one. Now if there's any waning, it's probably a smaller reduction than in the demand for gas-powered vehicles.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

YES: Electric vehicles continue to have promising technological developments, but there are limits for potential uses that may not encompass all transportation needs. Costs and risks should not be imposed on less well-off citizens to the benefit of wealthy investors and buyers. Electric cars will continue to be a substantial endeavor for those capable and willing to take on inherent risks. Governments should not be imposing mandates or subsidizing developments that may prove counterproductive or ineffective.

Lynn Reaser, economist

YES: Several factors are slowing sales beyond early adopters. First, the limited range is of great concern. Second, the time to recharge takes a multiple of the few minutes to fuel an internal combustion-powered vehicle. Third, the limited number of charging stations is hampering sales. Fourth, the higher prices even with various subsidies are a problem. Fifth, battery inflammatory risk is cause for concern. Finally, the poorer performance in cold climates is a limiting factor.

© The San Diego Union-Tribune

Editorial: Europe figured out how to control social media abuses while protecting benefits. The US should pay attention

2023/10/30

A man takes a photo at Meta corporate headquarters in Menlo Park, California on November 9, 2022.

- JOSH EDELSON/Getty Images North America/TNS

Most Republicans and Democrats can agree that Big Tech needs reining in. But given the gridlock in Congress, even popular legislative initiatives are going nowhere these days, including measures that would update the law to address fast-moving social media companies such as Meta. Unlike Europe, which is adopting holistic, modern laws, the U.S. is stuck with dysfunctional legislation-by-lawsuit.

In the latest example, dozens of state attorneys general, including Illinois’ Kwame Raoul, have targeted Meta for supposedly violating consumer protection laws by pushing “addictive” products on youngsters.

The bipartisan group of lawyers behind this litigation have compared it to the landmark Big Tobacco cases, except the “addictive” products in this case are Meta’s Facebook and Instagram.

“Meta has harnessed powerful and unprecedented technologies to entice, engage and ultimately ensnare youth and teens,” the lawsuit thunders.

But wasn’t that true of television networks a few decades ago? Plenty of baby boomers who spent Saturday mornings staring at the telly can confirm that those commercials sold a lot of Cap’n Crunch and Froot Loops, dental decay be damned.

Worse yet — from the attorneys general point of view, that is — Meta’s “motive is profit,” and the company is “seeking to maximize its financial gains.” As Colorado AG Phil Weiser put it, “Just like Big Tobacco and vaping companies have done in years past, Meta chose to maximize its profit at the expense of public health.”

The lawsuit’s core allegation is that Meta misled the public about the alleged dangers of its social media platforms, and concealed how these platforms get several billion people around the world to spend a lot of time using them. The familiar “likes,” “alerts” and “infinite scrolls” that keep youngsters and others glued to their phones are described in the lawsuit as if they’re smoking guns that the AGs have just discovered and dramatically flourished to shocked jurors, Hollywood-style.

Some allegations in the lawsuit sound like legitimate issues to us, including the charge that Meta routinely collects data on children under 13 without their parents’ consent, which would violate federal law. But our nonsense-detector alarm goes off when New York AG Letitia James overstates, “Kids and teenagers are suffering from record levels of poor mental health and social media companies like Meta are to blame.”

James’ broadside has its roots in the emergence of Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, who came forward in 2021 with internal documents supposedly showing that Meta knew its products could have a negative impact on the mental health of youngsters, especially girls. But it’s a long way from that assertion to blaming Meta for the declining state of mental health in America.

Even if there is a link between social media use and mental distress, it’s unclear that one leads to the other. Studies have not established an increased risk for mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder for social media users, and some therapists believe youngsters turn to social media to help them cope with broader societal stresses.

Would tossing young people off social media altogether necessarily be positive for their well-being? Still hard to say.

Further, the term “social media” covers a lot of ground. Facebook and Instagram are one thing, LinkedIn quite another, Reddit and Pinterest quite another still. One of the ironies of the lawsuit is that it’s brought by a group of aging adults supposedly intent on protecting kids and it focuses on Facebook, which is the most studied platform but one that many kids don’t use.

Meta, for its part, said it’s committed to youth safety online, and has rolled out up-to-date tools to help protect users. “We’re disappointed that instead of working productively with companies across the industry to create clear, age-appropriate standards for the many apps teens use, the attorneys general have chosen this path,”Meta said in a statement.

What’s most disappointing is that while America’s AGs are grandstanding, and regulators such as the Federal Trade Commission tinker with new ways to restrict how Meta can operate, the European Union has made real progress in broadly protecting consumers. Those going online in the EU get asked up front for their consent to data gathering and other practices they might reasonably object to. Not so here.

And rest assured that if you think Meta’s current platforms are “addictive,” you ain’t seen nothing yet. Artificial Intelligence is coming fast, bringing with it digital systems with longer memories and greater personalization, among other astonishing capabilities.

Again, Europe is closing in on laws that would help protect society from bad actors using AI. Again, not so here.

Try not to laugh out loud at the thought, but our dysfunctional Congress needs to get cracking to create standard rules for the internet.

Even Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg said he thinks so, not long after the embarrassing whistleblower disclosures raised doubts about the trade-offs his company was making in balancing profits and growth with social imperatives. “We’re committed to doing the best work we can,” Zuckerberg wrote in a note to employees, “but at some level the right body to assess trade-offs between social equities is our democratically elected Congress.”

Yes, the same crowd that just went through weeks of messy infighting to pick a new House speaker needs to pull its act together — and fast — before this genie is so far out of the bottle there’s no putting it back.

___

© Chicago Tribune

HETEROSEXISM IN SPACE
Astronauts just took one giant leap towards having sex in space

NO MENTION OF SEX WHEN ITS MEN IN SPACE, ALONE OR IN A GROUP, IT ONLY COMES UP WHEN WOMEN GET TO GO INTO SPACE

Story by Katherine Fidler • METRO UK

Love in space is pretty complicated (Picture: Getty)© Provided by Metro

Sex in space has been posing a problem for decades, but an experiment on the International Space Station could soon pave the way for astronauts to join the 100-Mile High Club.

The issue is not, as you might expect, a mechanical one – although since no one has tried to make space love, we do not quite know how it might work out.

The primary concern with amorous orbiting couples is the conception of a child, and what effects microgravity and radiation might have on either the mother or baby.

However, a breakthrough experiment on the International Space Station has shown normal development of mouse embryos while in orbit, suggesting human embryos may also be able to develop under the same conditions.

And while the subject of sex in space is always an entertaining one, it is also serious business if humans want to become an interplanetary species.

‘There is a possibility of pregnancy during a future trip to Mars because it will take more than six months to travel there,’ said Dr Teruhiko Wakayama at the University of Yamanashi in Japan, who led the study. ‘We are conducting research to ensure we will be able to safely have children if that time comes.’

According to the official line, no astronauts have ever had sex in space (Picture: Getty/iStockphoto)© Provided by Metro

Speaking to Metro.co.uk’s sister publication New Scientist, Dr Wakayama said he and his colleagues first grew the embryos on Earth, extracting them at the two-cell stage and freezing them for their journey into space aboard a SpaceX rocket.

Once on board the ISS, astronauts thawed the embryos and cultured them for four days – the longest they can survive outside a uterus. They were then chemically preserved and sent back to Earth for analysis.

Related video: How astronauts on the ISS are tackling the latest ‘unexpected challenges’ (FOX News) Duration 1:12 View on Watch

After their journey the embryos showed no signs of DNA damage from radiation, and no signs of abnormal structure development from the microgravity environment.

Space sex – how is it done?

The honest answer is… no one knows.

As far as Nasa, the ESA, Roscomos and other space agencies are concerned, the official line is that no one has ever ‘done it’ in space.

Unfortunately for one journalist, a hoax about space sex did once hit the headlines.

In 2000, respected science writer Pierre Kohler fell for a story claiming both Nasa and Roscosmos had conducted separate experiments during which two astronauts had actually engaged in a bit of space sex, finding only four positions achievable ‘without mechanical assistance’.

The project was allegedly codenamed STS-XX. Computer simulations were used to test 20 sexual positions, selecting the best 10 for a real life experiment.

‘Two guinea pigs then tested them in real zero-gravity conditions,’ said Mr Kohler. ‘The results were videotaped but are considered so sensitive that even Nasa was only given a censored version.’

While four positions were deemed workable, the remaining six – including a classic – required a special elastic belt and inflatable tunnel to work.

‘One of the principal findings was that the classic so-called missionary position, which is so easy on Earth when gravity pushes one downwards, is simply not possible,’ said Mr Kohler.

Unfortunately, it was later discovered none of the experiments ever actually took place.

The embryos were thawed at a crucial stage, where the cells differentiate into two distinct groups that form the basis of the foetus and the placenta, but appeared to divide normally.

Further research is required before a human can be conceived in space, especially given the embryos were only exposed to four days’ space radiation, but the results, published in the journal iScience, are promising.

They also build on a previous Nasa experiment in which pregnant rats were sent to the ISS for nine to 11 days during the second half of their pregnancy. After a return to Earth, the rats gave birth to normal, healthy pups.

Mouse embryos were cultured on the International Space Station (Picture: Nasa)© Provided by Metro

‘Based on [this] and our results, perhaps mammalian space reproduction is possible,’ said Dr Wakayama.

More research is also required to determine the effects of a microgravity pregnancy on the mother. For instance, an ectopic pregnancy, where the embryo does not descend into the uterus and attaches – usually – in the fallopian tube, could be more likely.

The effects of microgravity on birth are also unknown – for instance, whether it would make delivery harder.

If humans want to settle on other planets, some will have to be able to have children (Picture: Getty/iStockphoto)© Provided by Metro

But before that stage, Dr Wakayama and his team will implant embryos that have travelled to the ISS into mice to see if they develop into healthy offspring.

However, some argue that the research into human reproduction in space will need to pick up the pace following the rapid rise of space tourism.

Earlier this year, the authors of a report titled ‘Sex in Space: Consideration of uncontrolled human conception in emerging space tourism’ said it was ‘unrealistic to assume that all space tourism participants will abstain from sexual activities’.

They added: ‘This raises the possibility of uncontrolled human conception in space.

‘Potential detrimental outcomes and risks include those of a biological nature such as maternal complications related to conception and embryo, foetal, neonatal and later abnormalities.’

Space tourists may not be as committed to orbital celibacy as professional astronauts (Picture: Getty)© Provided by Metro

So far there has been relatively little research in the field from a human angle by national space agencies because the focus is quite firmly elsewhere, and professional astronauts are thought unlikely to risk their jobs or reputations by engaging in any unsanctioned orbital sex.

Last year Nasa hinted it was considering studying sex in space, and has conducted a study into the effects of microgravity and space radiation on human sperm motility, but the results are not yet available.

However, if humans truly hope to one day become an interplanetary species, these are all questions that will need to be answered.

Making babies in space will be vital to keeping civilisation alive.

CIRCA 1976

Trouble on Triton: An Ambiguous Heterotopia - Project MUSE

Jan 1, 2012 ... In a story as exciting as any science fiction adventure written, Samuel R. Delany's 1976 SF novel, originally published as Triton, ...

Read.dukeupress.edu

https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/23/chapter/97460/Gender-Trouble-in-Triton

Gender Trouble in Triton - Duke University Press

C. Riley Snorton places Samuel R. Delany's novel, Triton, in dialogue with contemporary debates in black, ... This content is only available as PDF.

Epdf.pub

https://epdf.pub/trouble-on-triton-an-ambiguous-heterotopia.html

Trouble on Triton: An Ambiguous Heterotopia - PDF Free Downl...

Triton (Trouble on Triton) Samuel R. Delaney 1976ISBN 0-553-22979-6Triton, the outermost moon of Neptune, was a worl...

En.wikipedia.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_(novel)

Triton (novel) - Wikipedia

Trouble on Triton: An Ambiguous Heterotopia (1976) is a science fiction novel by American writer Samuel R. Delany. It was nominated for the 1976 Nebula ...

Texas is terrifying — and Hollywood has noticed

Jayme Lozano Carver, The Texas Tribune
October 31, 2023

Two life-sized horror movie dummies sit in front of a movie prop vending machine at We Slaughter BBQ in Bastrop on Oct. 27. The roadside rest stop and tourist attraction, now restored, is one of several Central Texas locations where the 1974 film "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was filmed.

Credit: Julius Shieh/The Texas Tribune

LUBBOCK — There are few sounds as frightening — and iconic — as the roar of Leatherface's chainsaw.

Even fewer states are as terrifying as Texas.

At least, according to filmmakers who choose to film here.

More than 1,000 horror films — from “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” to “Friday the 13th” — have been made in the Lone Star State. Only California has had more horror films produced in its state, according to a recent report. Other horror movies filmed in Texas include “The Faculty” and Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino’s “Grindhouse” double feature. “Manos: The Hands of Fate,” notoriously considered to be one of the worst movies made before becoming a cult classic, was also filmed here.

“Texas has a very unique identity, its own lore and its own personality,” said James Kendrick, associate professor of film and digital media at Baylor University.

It’s not just horror movies like “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” made by Austin-native Tobe Hooper.

The Austin bar Mean-Eyed Cat, once a chainsaw repair shop, was featured in the 1986 horror film "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2." Credit: Julius Shieh/The Texas Tribune

Dozens of other iconic movies — “Friday Night Lights,” “Dazed and Confused” and “Boyhood” to name a few — as well as TV shows such as “The Leftovers” and “Fear the Walking Dead” have been filmed in Texas, according to the Texas Film Commission.

“Not a lot of communities can boast about having Richard Linklater, Robert Rodriguez, Margaret Brown, and more of these kinds of names,” said Holly Herrick, head of film and creative media for Austin Film Society. “Texas really does have a robust artist community in addition to having crews in the state.”

The society’s studio, which hosted “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning” for filming, is one of many around Texas that offers space for filmmakers. In addition to filming in the state, Rogriguez also owns Troublemaker Studios based in Austin.

Texas’ legacy in film and other forms of creative media is bound to grow. Part of what draws filmmakers to Texas is tax incentives and grant opportunities for film projects. This year, state lawmakers increased the budget for the Texas Motion Image Industry Incentive Program from $45 million to $200 million. This boost can keep Texas’ incentives in the same competitive ballpark for film production as Georgia, New Mexico and Oklahoma.

Another allure for horror film makers is the state’s diverse landscape. Every corner of Texas has a unique beauty to it. West Texas has vibrant sunsets that go on for miles across the empty plains. East Texas’ Piney Woods spans hundreds of thousands of acres and gives hikers a shady retreat on the trail. And Gulf Coast beaches are home to centuries of rich history.

And yet, all of that majestic Texas beauty could quickly turn scary under the right — or wrong — circumstances. And just like that, you have a horror movie.

“One thing that’s really important for a certain subset of horror films is rural spaces,” Kendrick said. “Texas offers rural, southern and backwoods horror. They’re all good fodder for horror because they create isolation.”

Two of horror’s most iconic fictional killers, Jason Voorhees and Leatherface, had their respective franchises take advantage of these landscapes. Voorhees stomped through the grounds of Camp Fern in Marshall, a town in East Texas, where some filming for the 2009 remake took place.

The Bagdad Cemetery in Leander, Texas is seen at night on Oct. 28, 2023. The cemetery once served as a filming location for the 1974 horror film "Texas Chainsaw Massacre." Credit: Julius Shieh/The Texas Tribune

Customers peruse various horror movie decorations and memorabilia at We Slaughter BBQ. Credit: Julius Shieh/The Texas Tribune

Horror movie merchandise and memorabilia are displayed for sale at We Slaughter BBQ. Credit: Julius Shieh/The Texas Tribune

Left: Customers peruse various horror movie decorations and memorabilia at We Slaughter BBQ. The location, originally featured in the 1974 horror film "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," has now been turned into a tourist attraction and horror museum. Right: Horror movie merchandise and memorabilia for-sale sit on display at We Slaughter BBQ. Credit: Julius Shieh/The Texas Tribune

In Leatherface’s case, a whole new fear was created for people nearly 50 years ago. The impact later spawned several sequels, franchise reboots and a dedicated fan base. The original movie was filmed outside Austin in rural Bastrop County at locations still standing today. The original home is now a restaurant named Hooper’s, in the director’s honor. It is accepting chainsaws from visitors for an art installation. We Slaughter Barbecue, the gas station featured in the movie, is now a tourist stop and horror museum.

In many ways, horror draws inspiration from everyday scenarios — someone drives on the far outskirts of a small town that doesn’t have a gas station, let alone a phone signal. They get lost with help nowhere in sight. And, if there is help somewhere far in walking distance, it’s in the form of a one-man police station or an “abandoned” house.

Regardless of the setting, horror movies play on the main character’s feelings of isolation. This is true regardless of the setting, Kendrick said. His favorite horror movie, “Rosemary’s Baby,” does this in Manhattan.

“It’s getting away from everything society puts in place to keep us safe,” Kendrick said. “Then, you’re in horror territory.”

Murder and mayhem isn’t just the stuff of Hollywood. The possibility of seeing ghosts draws in thousands of tourists every year. Texas is haunted from the shores of Galveston to the Alamo in San Antonio.

“It’s hard to talk about hauntings or spooky stories and not have them tie back to real life events,” said Will Wright, chief creative officer for the Galveston Historical Foundation. “Galveston has no shortage of that, especially if we look at the 1900 storm, the largest loss of life in a natural disaster in the United States.”

An estimated 8,000 people died in the storm that leveled the island 50 miles southeast of Houston.

The foundation manages more than 20 historic sites on the island, some of which are available for people to stay at. One of the most well-known supernatural houses is the 1838 Menard House, the oldest residence in town.

Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino used Austin's Texas Chili Parlor as one of the locations in their 2007 double feature horror film "Grindhouse". Credit: Julius Shieh/The Texas Tribune

“It is a scary place for some people,” Wright said. “We’ve had guests stay there who came out afterward and said they would rather not stay there. I’ll get a call a few hours later saying ‘I don’t feel comfortable staying here.’”

As filmmakers continue to explore Texas for more unique film settings, Herrick with the Austin Film Society is confident the state will stand out from other states, both in production and on film — especially when it comes to growing a stamp in horror.

“Filmmakers continue to point to the ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ as being both a classic American film and how you make compelling cinema on a low budget,” Herrick said. “It’s known internationally and a cornerstone of horror.”

Kendrick, the Baylor film professor, also thinks the film has cemented Texas’ vast lore in film. Aside from the lesser-known “A Haunting in Connecticut,” there isn’t another horror movie with the name of a state in the title.

“What a powerful statement that alone is,” Kendrick said.

Disclosure: Austin Film Society and Baylor University have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/31/texas-horror-movies-ghost-tours/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

HAPPY SAMHAIN

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for SAMHAIN

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for HALLOWEEN

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for ALL SAINTS DAY

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for DAY OF THE DEAD

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for WITCHES

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for WITCHCRAFT

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PAGAN

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PAGANS

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PAGANISM

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for CELTS

How America's oligarch problem became the world's oligarch problem

THEY USED TO BE CALLED PLUTOCRATS

Thom Hartmann
October 31, 2023

Image by Dee from Pixabay

LONG READ

Many of America’s oligarchs — the people whose great wealth and/or ownership of media properties gives them tremendous influence over our politics — believe they’re arguing for policies that will produce a “better” America. Or at least an America that’s better and safer for oligarchs and their families and businesses

Tragically, they’re wrong. Their support for GOP-aligned racist, “free market deregulation,” and climate denial policies are tearing America apart and will threaten their grandchildren every bit as much as they do yours and mine.

Nonetheless, in America and increasingly around the world, oligarchs taking over the political dialogues of nations are all the rage. From America to Turkey to Russia to the Philippines, oligarchs have either risen to near-absolute power or bought off so many politicians that they have effective control of entire political parties and thus entire nations.

Increasingly, America’s oligarch problem has become the world’s oligarchy problem, as country after country follows the GOP’s example and sidelines labor rights, women’s rights, voting rights, and democracy itself.

When the Constitution was being written there were multiple debates about how to prevent our republic from turning into a dictatorship or an oligarchy. Thomas Jefferson was worried about too much power being invested in the president; John Adams was concerned that wealthy oligarchs would either get themselves elected to the senate or simply purchase senators for their own ends.

While Jefferson was still the US envoy to France and living in Paris, just after the Constitution had been written but a year before it would be ratified, Adams wrote him on December 6, 1778 that:

“You are afraid of the one — I, of the few. We agree perfectly that the many should have a full fair and perfect Representation. — You are Apprehensive of Monarchy; I, of Aristocracy.

Today we have both.

Donald Trump was both an oligarch and very much wanted and tried to become America’s first Caesar, an emperor with unlimited power who would hold his office for life. At the same time, because of the corrupt Citizens United decision by 5 Republicans on the Court, both the Senate, House, and much of America’s media are very much under the control of our nation’s rightwing oligarchs.

It’s a phenomenon that’s popping up worldwide. In a new book, The Oligarch’s Grip, authors David Lingelbach and Valentina Rodríguez Guerra take the definition of “oligarch” beyond the common understanding of a person who’s morbidly rich.

In a review of the book for The Financial Times, Simon Kuper writes:

“The book distinguishes various types of oligarchs. ‘Business oligarchs’ like Musk turn wealth into political power, while ‘political oligarchs’ go the other way. A classic example of the latter, says the book, is Vladimir Putin, ‘a billionaire with nuclear weapons’. Oligarch presidents have decision-making power, oligarch influencers such as Rupert Murdoch, Charles Koch and George Soros set agendas, while platform owners such as Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Larry Page have rewired the information streams that flow into our brains.”

The authors of The Oligarch’s Grip argue that a true oligarch is a rich person who uses his or her (it’s almost always a man, though) money to seize political power (whether by running for office or simply buying and owning politicians) or an elected or appointed official who used their political position and power to make a boatload of money.

A true oligarch, they write, is “someone who secures and reproduces wealth or power, then transforms one into the other.”

For example, when South Africa was working out their post-apartheid constitution, one of America’s largest corporations loaned them a lawyer who helped get corporate personhood written into their constitution, along with fighting most efforts at limiting money in South African politics.

The result was predictable: current South African president Cyril Ramaphosa rose from a union leader through the political ranks to becoming, in 1994, the chairman of the Constitutional Assembly which wrote the new Constitution.

Knowing the new rules of the game he’d helped write, he retired from politics in 1996 to seek his fortune and, using his considerable political connections and power, ended up in short order as one of South Africa’s dozen or so billionaire oligarchs. Once he became fabulously rich through his political connections, he got himself elected president in 2018 and was recently re-elected.

Here in the USA, we’ve seen this cycle play out more than once. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, American oligarchs had largely avoided politics until World War I. Following the war and Woodrow Wilson’s raising the top tax rate to 91 percent, many jumped in with both feet when Warren Harding ran for president on the Republican ticket in 1920.

Harding’s platform was twofold: “A return to normalcy” (which meant lowering the top wartime income tax bracket on the morbidly rich from 91 percent down to 25 percent) and “more business in government, less government in business” (privatize and deregulate).

The uber-wealthy and owners of America’s largest newspapers loved it. They threw a small fortune into getting Harding elected and he won the popular vote by 26.2 percent, the largest margin in American history.

For the next nine years Republicans went on a tax-cutting and regulation-destroying spree known as the “Roaring 20s,” making the merely rich into the morbidly rich while keeping average working people in poverty by violently fighting that era’s union movement, routinely murdering strikers and union leaders.

Their excesses led straight to the stock market crash of October 1929, which kicked off the Republican Great Depression and brought Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt into office. Roosevelt gleefully took on America’s most toxic oligarchs, saying, “They hate me, and I welcome their hatred!”

Between that and the failed attempt the DuPont family and a handful of other oligarchs allegedly organized to kidnap and kill FDR (ended by General Smedley Butler), America’s oligarchs decided to pretty much stay out of politics after World War II.

The Nixon and Agnew bribery scandals of the late 1960s and early 1970s produced a whole new crop of laws further limiting America’s oligarchs from participating in politics. The top tax rate was generally around 90 percent, giving the very wealthy an incentive to leave their money in their businesses and pay their employees well. Which is why from the 1930s through the end of the 1970s the American middle class grew in both numbers and wealth faster than any the world had ever seen.

But then in the 1970s five Republicans on the Supreme Court, for the first time in American history, began the process of legalizing political bribery, first ruling that laws limiting big money in politics were suppressing the “free speech” rights of billionaires (1976) and then extending that “right to bribe” to corporations as well (1978).

This was a huge flag for America’s oligarchs signaling that, like during Harding’s, Coolidge’s, and Hoover’s time, the GOP was again up for sale to the highest bidder. Those with money began shoveling it at politicians who’d do their bidding, and politicians with power began to get seriously rich from their association with the oligarchs.

History knows that time as the “Reagan Revolution.”

In 2010, five Republicans on the Supreme Court doubled down on their predecessor’s work, making it super easy for billionaires to give lavish gifts and support to Supreme Court justices and members of Congress. That Citizens United decision blew open the doors to oligarchy in America.

A new report from Americans for Tax Fairness details the damage these democracy-destroying decisions, made by SCOTUS members who, themselves, were at the time being groomed by billionaires, have done to our political system.

In 2010, American billionaires spent a mere $31 million on elections. Buckley and Bellotti notwithstanding, there were still substantial limits on dark money and big money in politics. But that was the year the Court handed down their Citizens United decision.

That number jumped to $231 million in the 2012 and 2014 elections, and over $600 million for both 2016 and 2018.

The blowout came in 2020, when Trump was running for re-election and there was a very real chance the billionaires could seize complete control of the federal government.

They spent a total of $2,362,000,000 in that election, with $1.2 billion of it going to elect conventional politicians who would then be beholden to their patrons.

As Americans for Tax Fairness notes:

“The report finds that almost 40% of all billionaire campaign contributions made since 1990 occurred during the 2020 season. Billionaires had a lot more money to give politicians and political causes in 2020 as their collective wealth jumped by nearly a third, or over $900 billion, to $3.9 trillion between the March beginning of the pandemic and a month before Election Day. Billionaire fortunes have continued to climb since: as of October 2021, billionaires were worth $5.1 trillion, more than a 20-fold increase in their collective fortune since 1990, when it stood at $240 billion, adjusted for inflation.

“These campaign donations are a profitable investment: they buy access to politicians and influence over tax and other policies that can save tycoons billions of dollars. While that $1.2 billion ‘investment’ in 2020 was massive, it totaled less than 0.1% of billionaire wealth (and less than one day’s worth of their pandemic wealth growth), leaving almost unlimited room for future growth in billionaire campaign spending.”

And next year will be far worse. As NBC News tells us:

“Political ad spending is projected to reach new heights by the end of the 2024 election cycle, eclipsing $10 billion in what would amount to the most expensive two years in political history.”

This crisis of oligarchy isn’t limited to the US. The Thatcher/Reagan “great neoliberal experiment” of the late 1970s and 1980s — which included deregulation of campaign contributions and gutting political bribery laws — was experienced worldwide.

For 30 years, ending laws against political bribery became an international fad. Oligarchs promoted it at Davos and before the UN. Countries around the world tried to imitate America’s tax-cut policy.

As a result, since 1980 we’ve seen multiple democracies first flip into oligarchy; many then went all the way to full-on fascism. They include: Russia, Turkey, Philippines, Peru, Brazil (in recovery now), El Salvador, Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Nigeria, Nepal, and Montenegro.

Each of these countries are now controlled by local oligarchs.

So why are these oligarchs putting all this time and money into deconstructing democracy in nation after nation?

Numerous studies (and history) tell us that great wealth distorts the mind. As wealth goes up, empathy goes down. People who’ve achieved great wealth (even when inherited, like with Trump or Koch) often come to believe that their success is purely a function of their own brilliance, and their superb judgement should give them the right to decide what’s best for the nation and the world.

Whether it’s Elon Musk retweeting white supremacists, Mark Zuckerberg dialing back content moderation, Rupert Murdoch platforming lies and disinformation, or Charles Koch funding think tanks and political action groups across the nation, all of them believe they’re doing the right thing.

But in any population — including a population of oligarchs — there will always be people who are so damaged, uninformed, or narcissistic that they’re destructive to everything and everyone around them. The difference is that ordinary people — unless they buy an AR15 — are incapable of destroying many people’s lives, whereas oligarchs routinely make decisions that often lead to just that outcome.

The core idea of democracy is to prevent oligarchs from seizing and wielding political power out of proportions to average citizens. It’s to defer to the wisdom of the crowd, rather than any one oligarch.

Oligarchy, as I lay out in The Hidden History of American Oligarchy, is neither a stable political or economic system. It’s always a transitional system, typically a mere waystation in the shift from democracy to fascism or some other form of authoritarianism.

And it tears nations apart.

America is suffering from a crisis of cynicism about our political system: few trust our politicians or political parties. The reason, apparently invisible to the media, is simple: everybody can see that what the vast majority of Americans want (stronger social safety net, climate action, better schools, affordable healthcare, a nation free of gun violence, the rich paying their taxes) isn’t happening.

And in every case, Americans know, these things are not happening because some oligarch is paying off some politician.

Oligarchy is corrosive. It destroys trust and confidence in government. It breeds cynicism and discontent. It encourages crime, both white collar and on the street. It even corrupts a nation’s legal system, as we can see with the Trump trials: if he wasn’t a billionaire oligarch he would have been in prison long ago.

The world is slowly coming to terms with its crisis of oligarchy. Before Barack Obama showed how Democratic politicians could fund elections without oligarchs’ money, even the Democratic Party, starting with the 1992 election, had slipped into neoliberalism and begun to dance to the oligarchs’ tune.

Now the Congressional Progressive Caucus — which eschews PAC and other dark money — is nearly half the party at the federal level and President Biden is leading a charge for campaign finance reform. It nearly bore fruit last year, when only at the last-minute did bought-off Senators Sinema and Manchin join a Republican filibuster to kill the For The People bill that would have begun the process of again limiting dark money in politics.

As long as Republicans, deeply corrupted by America’s rightwing billionaires, control the House of Representatives, there’s little we can do about our oligarchy crisis at the federal level. But lots is happening at the state level, and movement building to overturn Citizens United and its unprincipled predecessors is well underway.

If you agree, hook up with your local Democratic Party and let them — and your elected officials — know your top priority is to end oligarchy and return American government to the people who vote to elect our officials instead of the billionaires who pay for their TV ads.

Step by step, we’ll make America into a functioning democracy, and this time it’ll be a fully inclusive one. Tag, we’re it!