IDK. Personally I think it's silly to romanticise and wax lyrical about what are - when it comes down to it - errors in the data; artefacts of the crudeness of the technology that was available when the material was created. Do we routinely add errors of this type to modern footage? No. Why not? Because they detract from the material.
The material is already hugely compromised as a historical document of the reality on the day the events were captured. Let's not put it on a pedestal. For example, if we remove the effect of hand-cranking on film to make it more watchable, are we destroying or enhancing? I would argue the latter. The hand-cranking adds little of value.
No. There's some evidence that Homo sapiens, after distributing itself, had some degree of regional admixture from archaic hominids, which may be what you're thinking of.
Not if you're part of the massive destruction of wildlife wrought by these biodiversity annihilators masquerading as cute pets.
'As an invasive species[1] and superpredator,[2] they do considerable ecological damage.[2] In Australia, hunting by cats helped to drive at least 20 native mammals to extinction,[3] and continues to threaten at least 124 more.[3] Their introduction has caused the extinction of at least 33 endemic species on islands throughout the world.[2] Feral and domestic cats kill billions of birds in the United States every year, where songbird populations continue to decline.[4]'
I think there is vast potential for moving all kinds of activities underground. Upfront cost is huge, but once it's done as long as it's maintained it's there for good.
Package and food delivery is going to have to be moved underground. People are going to hate the sight and sound of drones all day and night. Hopefully delivery drones will at least have a curfew so they're not buzzing around 24hr/day.
It's there until the next big earthquake, anyway. Which would probably be more or less okay with garbage, but terrifying for the combination of gas & electric
Not if there`s a maintenance shaft running along various tubes. In any case, solutions like this are only viable in relatively dense, urban areas. That would be a difficult prerequisite for many, even if it makes a lot of sense.
Where I am in the US the average cost of first birth without c-section is ~$8k to the patient. With c-section it's ~$20k to the patient. ~30% of all births where I am are c-sections. These prices do not include any other treatment to the mother or child, only the delivery fee. I assume these prices include medicaid/VA patients as well, but I cannot confirm. Likely that means people not under government insurance are paying more than what I stated, but I'd go with those numbers with a gun to my head.
So, the simple act of having children in my part of the US is quite expensive.
At the moment (speaking for myself), cost of living is a negative pressure on having children; in a lot of places you can no longer own a house without a double income.
Yes. US wasn't incentivizing having children because the population growth historically always used to be a solid 1%. But it ended around 2008, so policy is likely to change soon.
"The West" taken in general predictably provides incentives when it sees effects of small or negative population growth.
Take for example stats for the year 2000 to see how the past shaped policy of today:
- US 1.1%
- France 0.7%
- UK 0.4%
- Germany 0.1%
- Italy 0.0%
You'd need to make a compelling reason for incentivizing it if anything.
Western countries are incentivized by corporate interests. Corporate interests don't care for children because they get in the way of profits. You'd need someone who can rise above corporate interests to do things like health care, children, human rights, etc.
> Corporate interests don't care for children because they get in the way of profits.
Baloney. People having more children is the dream scenario for all business--more children = more consumers = more economic growth.
This has nothing to do with some evil corporate boogeyman.
Just look at the data. There's a direct correlation between rising standards of living and having less children. This is because, if you give humans education and birth control, it turns out most of them don't actually want to have 8 kids.
Indeed, it's the first 'popular revolution' I've ever seen that's been pushed hard as a full-spectrum propaganda war by virtually the entirety of the establishment and elite; this 'diversity' they bore on about ad-nauseam does not seem to extend to diversity of thought. Object to it and you get cancelled (or worse) by the SJW footsoldiers.
The irony is that diversity of thought is supposedly predicated on diversity of social background. That was promoted so thoroughly— “we want different social backgrounds on our team because this will result in more creative ideas and thoughts”.
Yet... clearly we see there is no intention for real diversity of thought. Instead, there must be an ulterior motive.
Basically, get a population to buy in to tribalism. Then, they self-police each other into politically correct conformity.
Luckily though, the social institution of diversity consumes itself, no one can escape from the group-policing driving the group towards utterly bland conformity.
'“The problem with colourisation is it leads people to just think about photographs as a kind of uncomplicated window onto the past, and that's not what photographs are,” says Emily Mark-FitzGerald, Associate Professor at University College Dublin’s School of Art History and Cultural Policy.'
Why do these academics always want to complicate things and dictate how we feel? Nobody put them in charge!
'“There's something that's gained, but there's also something that's lost,” says Mark-FitzGerald. “And I think we need to have a conversation about what both of those things are.”'
I'm guessing that would be a pretty one-way 'conversation'.
Edit: looking at the Leeds video it's clear to me the processed version adds a great deal - you can even see clearly how much fun they are having by the smiles on their faces, which is pretty hard to spot on the raw footage. It's charming to think of them fooling around in the garden with new technology, 132 years ago this month.
They're not dictating anything. They're giving their opinion. Just as you are.
> Edit: looking at the Leeds video it's clear to me the processed version adds a great deal - you can even see clearly how much fun they are having by the smiles on their faces, which is pretty hard to spot on the raw footage.
I mean, isn't that exactly the issue that the critics are pointing out? The algorithm is inserting something - the behaviour of people - into the source material that may not have been there. It may be biased towards falsely making the past look like the present because that's what the algorithm has been trained on.
