The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
by afew Mon Jun 1st, 2015 at 01:26:06 AM EST
Jerome a Paris comment on 31 January 2007:
The problem is that there are now too many euroskepitcal countries (and the leaders of France and Germany themselves are less euro-enthusiastic) to get the second leg working. Or it's just that the euro was such a great economic reform that it has brought no crisis that would really bring about the need for political integration. Compared to the monetary crises and devaluation traumas of the 80s, the current spats on budget deficits are very mild.
Except the short, sharp ones of course. ;) 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
I'm beginning to think that while it remains a good, nice idea the humans of requisite competence and good faith have not emerged with shoulders broad enough to take responsibility for maintaining what they started.
The present clusterfuck is still better than interstate warfare a la Libya but I am far from convinced by the evidence that leaders were at the necessary intellectual level to fairly manage the large and unwieldy beast as it has proven to be.
Unwinding said beast will not be a walk in the park, should it come to that, but then possibly this mess the currency is in has revealed how shallow the commitment to a united Europe really is, and once adjusted that could re-energise the project in toto.
I haven't given up entirely on the EU, but confess to being bitterly disappointed that after the years of Barroso the best we can throw up to take his place is Juncker. FFS, that's like putting Strauss-Kahn in charge of a convent.
I cringe at how naively I trusted back in the late 90's that we were really ready to do this all together.
The red flags for me should have been how profligately Berlu and Co were spending EU money on bridges to nowhere, cementing N Italy over (funnelling billions to the mob in the process) how the farmers were cheating on the CAP, (planting sunflowers for the funds and then letting them shrivel and rot in the fields unwatered), roundabouts going in every 50m etc etc.
All these shenanigans unmonitored by EU watchdogs.
The all-too-rapid expansion to the East and later the way the Ukraine card was played exposed what for me is the most tawdry side of the project. Tolerating dodgy leaders and corrupt states that could even teach Italy a thing or two in that department was apparently a small price to pay in order to flog washing machines and cars on too-easy credit to folks who didn't have them yet.
Lastly the extremely retrogressive stances regarding allowing OGM food for animals that people eat, and worst of all the new brown coal mining and cessation of support for renewables make it impossibly hard to believe they are up to anything good at all.
Then there's the idiotic idea that to solve the influx of refugees all we need is to send an expensive navy to go shoot holes in poor folks' fishing boats, (after throwing the Libyans to the wolves by deposing Ghaddafi), that takes the proverbial cake...
None of this will change unless America radically rethinks macro-economics, (not to mention hegemony and Empire), this much I have gratefully learned here at ET these last 11 years.
Europe is dead, long live the European Union! 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
With integration there is a single point that can be taken up by power interests. With 30 nation states, the same power-hungry interests have to be successfully 30 times.
Diversity is compromised by excess integration. Diversity sometimes brings along bad things (think 20th-century fascism in Southern Europe) but it also can bring about good things (think European social model in the North). We need to try different things, to find the best ways...
Diversity is better than uniformity.
That symbol on top is associated with things that do not represent values that are worth fighting for...
How many people in Europe know what is the Council of Europe? That symbol, for most people, represents something else...
The symbol above, via whatever method, has become a particularly nasty one. Fair or unfair, such is the case. It is starting to mean the antagonizing of democracy. I find it slightly nauseous to see it here.
Nowbody forces yot to participate here.
But if you want to replace it with a mashup of the american and chinese flag...
How many people in Europe know what is the Council of Europe?
It's worth wondering why they don't, since the Council of Europe predates the EEC and the EU by quite a bit.
Mostly, I'd say the reason is that the individual member countries have kept quiet about it. When Cameron scores nationalist-reactionary points by firing bazooka rounds at the Human Rights Act, he doesn't tell the British people about the Council of Europe and the fact that Britain was a prime mover in its foundation, hosting the treaty signing in London. And it's little better anywhere else.
This is just one reason why I don't expect individual European countries to somehow do better separately than collectively. Even though the current collective effort is visibly a failure.
When Cameron scores nationalist-reactionary points by firing bazooka rounds at the Human Rights Act, he doesn't tell the British people about the Council of Europe and the fact that Britain was a prime mover in its foundation, hosting the treaty signing in London.
On paper commendable, in reality though, not much to talk about. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
No need to create new ones, of course, we can do this ourselves. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
What "we" can do is issue ignored-in-advance reports on this that and the other thing, like Belarus' lack of democracy and transparency (as opposed, say, to any Eurogroup negotiation, say) or the report Migeru cites.
The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
That fits.
I see. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
Racist. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Perhaps it's because you're Irish?
:) No irony intended. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Your accusation of racism is both silly and insulting. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
Is it now OK, or not? Does it depend who does it? It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
I think we should all take a step back and reflect on the ridiculousness of the situation. A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
The usual measure of whether something is offensive is whether the putative targets are offended by it (not whether someone else takes offense on their behalf). My guess, which no doubt would require confirmation, is that German participants in this forum are annoyed and offended by redstar's frequent humourless gybes about alleged German humourlessness (leaving aside other alleged national characteristics which he has, in the past, attributed to them).
It might seem trivial, but it's a principle that I feel strongly about. It might be seen as an extended piece of performance art, rather than as representing redstar's true beliefs, but that would actually be an aggravating factor in my view, as it is easy to interpret the intent as being to sow discord between people based on their nationality.
If I were a nationalist, I might suggest that redstar's problem be sorted out by his compatriots (and I would happily delegate the job to the Irish caucus, who might be more expeditive than the French).
But I think it's a collective problem. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
I tried humour. It didn't work. So be it. A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
Not I.
I don't see any racist ad hominems. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
Your accusation of racism is both silly and insulting.
But whatever. Just don't complain.
'Mustard gas' Churchill, the most lionised man of the 20thC.
A sometimes very witty man, but certainly no sage to subscribe to.
His ability to give uplifting oratory at a terrible time gained him much love and respect, but his core values were pompous and predatory, Empah incarnate.
Your sig, Redstar is trolling and you know it, I commend the Germans here for ignoring your provocation and answering on the merit of your often interesting arguments. 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
And irony is really not your strong suit.
Even if the rest of the Council is an fossil now.
No wonder. The Council has withered away outsidde the Court and has been seen in the east as an mntechamber to the EU-membership.
It alsoo tends to overlap with the functions of the OSCE
hat is the problem if people go around and screech that everything is fascist: They totally loose their bearings.
Admittedly, the EU has performed appallingly of late (as it has been captured by austerianism), but I don't see that this is a battle that was being lost in every country. Greece seems to be the only one to really push back.
On the other hand, if you want to address a far bigger issue (yes, I know 60% youth unemployment is shocking and actually does wake me up at night -still, I stand by far bigger) such as sustainability and averting catastrophic climate change, then you need very strong integration. And, until 2008, the EU was indeed a strong hope for the world and the only superpower that was making any sort of noise in the right direction.
Remove that and you have the guarantee that the fate of the world will be decided between Washington and Beijing - nice beacons of hope. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Europe slips into post-democracy -- @VoxEurop -- http://t.co/2WjbUeTRWa pic.twitter.com/2BjMfRUY3Q— Robert Went (@went1955) Mayo 31, 2015
The plan looks harmless at a glance. Laws in Europe should be "better", said Frans Timmermans, first Vice-President of the European Commission. Therefore "more transparency and control" are needed in the future when the EU adopts new laws, vows the Commissioner. The European Parliament and the Council of EU governments should also commit contractually to subdue all legislative changes to a "rigorous" examination before voting on them, demands Timmermans, who presented a contract draft. ... Gradually, Europe gets deeper and deeper into the "post-democracy" state against which the British political scientist Colin Crouch warned us ten years ago. As legislation has moved to a transnational sphere that escapes public control, democracy loses its substance and citizens turn away. "People who actually only reject the current EU policy are forced to turn against the EU system as a whole," says European expert and political consultant Ulrike Guérot - a circumstance that increasingly takes them to vote for parties relapsing into nationalism, like France's Front National. If the EU parliament or at least its pro-European majority take themselves seriously, they should reject Timmermans' plan altogether and call for the exact opposite, a reform facilitating European citizens' initiatives and finally allowing referendums. The EU needs more democracy, not less. Otherwise its days are numbered.
...
Gradually, Europe gets deeper and deeper into the "post-democracy" state against which the British political scientist Colin Crouch warned us ten years ago. As legislation has moved to a transnational sphere that escapes public control, democracy loses its substance and citizens turn away. "People who actually only reject the current EU policy are forced to turn against the EU system as a whole," says European expert and political consultant Ulrike Guérot - a circumstance that increasingly takes them to vote for parties relapsing into nationalism, like France's Front National.
If the EU parliament or at least its pro-European majority take themselves seriously, they should reject Timmermans' plan altogether and call for the exact opposite, a reform facilitating European citizens' initiatives and finally allowing referendums. The EU needs more democracy, not less. Otherwise its days are numbered.
But so do both the country I currently live in (the UK - which is not bound by Maastricht) and the one in which I was born (France, who at some point gave all levels of power except the EP to an allegedly leftist party, only to get right-wing economics if, admittedly and that was welcome, left-wing social policies).
Post-democracy seems to be a feature of our times, one which we must fight, but not, I think, one limited to the EU. International trade agreements apparently among the major culprits. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
http://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/newsroom/better-regulation-should-not-be-excuse-deregulation
"There needs to be more clarity on the Commission's idea to have both a Regulatory Scrutiny Board and independent panel. These impact assessments should be comprehensive and not just look at the costs imposed on businesses, but also the cost to health services, consumers, workers' rights and the environment of not regulating."
Why does @TimmermansEU not want all DG #ExpertGroups to play by same rules? He rejected @EUombudsman recommendations http://t.co/zi0jY0mzhH— Pascoe Sabido (@pascoesabido) junio 3, 2015
I was a rather indifferent (or even passively skeptical) towards the EU integration. Appreciated it as a beneficiary.
Having less hassle with currency, travel, employment was nice... but what were the true motivations for the institutions? Was there a real chance for a hoped progressive performance? What about the EU now being exactly where it is supposed to be?
And, that real-existing EU has not been a force for good, for longer than since 2008.
And the fate of the world is indeed currently being decided in Washington and Beijing, and that might be a good thing, as I'm not sure having François Hollande and Angela Merkel have much of a say is a good idea. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
the fate of the world is indeed currently being decided in Washington and Beijing, and that might be a good thing
Irrespective of how bad the EU is, the world under Washington and Beijing is increasingly free-trade authoritarian liberal, and that might not be a good thing at all.
EU weakness is at its core, starting with the Euro construction, and given that construction, continuing on through the German conservatism which is dominating the aftermath.
And that conservatism is far less dynamic, allows for far less social mobility, than the alternatives.
It is, in a word, conservative. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
We need to try different things, to find the best ways... Diversity is better than uniformity.
In the absence of an imperial arbitrator with a vested interest in promoting the good outcomes, there are at least as many ways for the bad outcomes to spread as there are for the good ones.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Must be love, which means never having to say you are sorry :-) The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
So this is an obituary of sorts, but more of a tribute to a singular type of character. I have just watched the film of "On the Road" and realised how some aspects of Dean Moriarty/Jack Cassady reminded me of this person.
So in America when the sun goes down and I sit on the old broken-down river pier watching the long, long skies over New Jersey and sense all that raw land that rolls in one unbelievable huge bulge over to the West Coast, and all that road going, and all the people dreaming in the immensity of it, ...and nobody, nobody knows what's going to happen to anybody besides the forlorn rags of growing old, I think of Dean Moriarty, I even think of Old Dean Moriarty the father we never found, I think of Dean Moriarty. I think of. Dean. Moriarty." I thought of that line when I heard J. had died, OD'd over the weekend of heroin in Thailand, he thought it was cocaine which you'd do if you were stoned in Thailand and somebody offered you some white powder cos cocaine is what white powder always is, isn't it? Except, in Thailand it's heroin. That's not a mistake anybody gets to make twice and so poor old J. is dead, at 27. There was something of Dean in J. That charm, the easy languid smile, the restless seeking of the next sensual thrill. He was a user too, of people as well as chemicals, although more an abuser of both. Oh yes, he even studied how to be a bastard at Pick-Up School-for-Scoundrels. He'd steal from anyone, which was how he got fired from when I knew him but there was more to it than just a dark mischief, he stole for fun, to prove he was a better survivor, more predatory, sharpened his instincts. I'm sure he was fun to be around, but he wasn't a nice person even if he did me no harm. It's tempting to say he deserved what he got. Although any of us who've woken up after rattling our bones at the ol' reaper know that it's never about deserving. No, in those circumstances when you wake up in unfamiliar rooms with the sweats upon you and you count your limbs and lucky stars you know it's all about dumb luck and the roll of the dice. Well he chased snake eyes all the way of the dragon and somewhere along the line his luck ran out. Dean was the life and soul of a party, wherever he was there was a party. He was a hedonist, relentless in his mischief and, disguising his damage with energy, he attracted the very best of people to him and the intellect and spirit to keep 'em. The positives outweighed Dean's dark side and made his awfulness forgivable. J lacked such enthusiasms, he was just damaged and lost. And now he's dead. In Thailand, where the cocaine is heroin and the heroin is cheap and nobody cares about another dead tourist who OD's cos there are always plenty more. The saddest thing is, unlike Dean, few will think of him. At work everybody went "meh", there had always been that "oh me oh my, feel like I'm fixin to die" inevitability. Live fast, die young, leave a beautiful corpse. If it wasn't going to be from sleeping with the girl with the deranged ex-boyfriend (in SX that is always a possibility) then drugs was always the probability. I think of Dean Moriarty, cos something in you reminds me of him. I'd never met a self-styled "pick up artist" before and the desperate sleaziness fascinated me. But I will not think of you anymore. A lost soul who lost out.
So in America when the sun goes down and I sit on the old broken-down river pier watching the long, long skies over New Jersey and sense all that raw land that rolls in one unbelievable huge bulge over to the West Coast, and all that road going, and all the people dreaming in the immensity of it, ...and nobody, nobody knows what's going to happen to anybody besides the forlorn rags of growing old, I think of Dean Moriarty, I even think of Old Dean Moriarty the father we never found, I think of Dean Moriarty. I think of. Dean. Moriarty."
I thought of that line when I heard J. had died, OD'd over the weekend of heroin in Thailand, he thought it was cocaine which you'd do if you were stoned in Thailand and somebody offered you some white powder cos cocaine is what white powder always is, isn't it? Except, in Thailand it's heroin. That's not a mistake anybody gets to make twice and so poor old J. is dead, at 27.
There was something of Dean in J. That charm, the easy languid smile, the restless seeking of the next sensual thrill. He was a user too, of people as well as chemicals, although more an abuser of both. Oh yes, he even studied how to be a bastard at Pick-Up School-for-Scoundrels. He'd steal from anyone, which was how he got fired from when I knew him but there was more to it than just a dark mischief, he stole for fun, to prove he was a better survivor, more predatory, sharpened his instincts. I'm sure he was fun to be around, but he wasn't a nice person even if he did me no harm.
It's tempting to say he deserved what he got. Although any of us who've woken up after rattling our bones at the ol' reaper know that it's never about deserving. No, in those circumstances when you wake up in unfamiliar rooms with the sweats upon you and you count your limbs and lucky stars you know it's all about dumb luck and the roll of the dice. Well he chased snake eyes all the way of the dragon and somewhere along the line his luck ran out.
Dean was the life and soul of a party, wherever he was there was a party. He was a hedonist, relentless in his mischief and, disguising his damage with energy, he attracted the very best of people to him and the intellect and spirit to keep 'em. The positives outweighed Dean's dark side and made his awfulness forgivable.
J lacked such enthusiasms, he was just damaged and lost. And now he's dead. In Thailand, where the cocaine is heroin and the heroin is cheap and nobody cares about another dead tourist who OD's cos there are always plenty more.
The saddest thing is, unlike Dean, few will think of him. At work everybody went "meh", there had always been that "oh me oh my, feel like I'm fixin to die" inevitability. Live fast, die young, leave a beautiful corpse. If it wasn't going to be from sleeping with the girl with the deranged ex-boyfriend (in SX that is always a possibility) then drugs was always the probability.
I think of Dean Moriarty, cos something in you reminds me of him. I'd never met a self-styled "pick up artist" before and the desperate sleaziness fascinated me. But I will not think of you anymore. A lost soul who lost out.
Carpenter: $19.33 per hour Plumber: $20.11 per hour
I'd also hazard a guess that carpenters have a higher unionization rate (for the same reason).
4. No one goes swimming anymore OK, that's an exaggeration. But it's true that summer beach vacations just aren't the tradition they once were. Parents and kids alike are burdened with more commitments and less free time, and Griswold-style family trips are becoming a relative rarity. A shark terrorizing a seaside resort wouldn't resonate the same way it did in 1975 - most of us would shrug and say, "Who has time to go to the beach?"
OK, that's an exaggeration. But it's true that summer beach vacations just aren't the tradition they once were. Parents and kids alike are burdened with more commitments and less free time, and Griswold-style family trips are becoming a relative rarity. A shark terrorizing a seaside resort wouldn't resonate the same way it did in 1975 - most of us would shrug and say, "Who has time to go to the beach?"
Pete Brown - How Big Lager Lost The Plot And Developed Narcissistic Personality Disorder
As anyone who has read Man Walks into a Pub will know, my entry into the world of beer was via Big Lager. I loved lager ads when I was growing up as a teenager. Later, once I was helping make those ads, I was fascinated by the tribal loyalty people had to their favourite beer brands. If you were a group of mates in your twenties, Carling or Heineken or Carlsberg was like another one of your gang, always there when all the best times happened. In research groups you sometimes do an exercise where you ask people to imagine what brands would be like if they were people at a party. Beer brands were always characterised as confident, friendly guys, witty and popular without being an arse, enjoying a drink but never getting too drunk. This guy was never the pack leader, not necessarily the most popular or pushy guy in the room, but everyone liked him. Things started go go wrong around 1997. Advertising regulations grew ever tighter and the funny campaigns of the eighties were no longer possible. And beer started to take itself seriously. It wanted to provide a bit of substance behind the good-natured banter. Fair enough. But the picture started to blur.
Later, once I was helping make those ads, I was fascinated by the tribal loyalty people had to their favourite beer brands.
If you were a group of mates in your twenties, Carling or Heineken or Carlsberg was like another one of your gang, always there when all the best times happened. In research groups you sometimes do an exercise where you ask people to imagine what brands would be like if they were people at a party. Beer brands were always characterised as confident, friendly guys, witty and popular without being an arse, enjoying a drink but never getting too drunk. This guy was never the pack leader, not necessarily the most popular or pushy guy in the room, but everyone liked him.
Things started go go wrong around 1997. Advertising regulations grew ever tighter and the funny campaigns of the eighties were no longer possible. And beer started to take itself seriously. It wanted to provide a bit of substance behind the good-natured banter. Fair enough. But the picture started to blur.
Dr. Ehrlich's opening statement was the verbal equivalent of a punch to the gut: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over." He later went on to forecast that hundreds of millions would starve to death in the 1970s, that 65 million of them would be Americans, that crowded India was essentially doomed, that odds were fair "England will not exist in the year 2000." Dr. Ehrlich was so sure of himself that he warned in 1970 that "sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come." By "the end," he meant "an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity."As you may have noticed, England is still with us. So is India. Hundreds of millions did not die of starvation in the '70s. Humanity has managed to hang on, even though the planet's population now exceeds seven billion, double what it was when "The Population Bomb" became a best-seller and its author a frequent guest of Johnny Carson's on "The Tonight Show." How the apocalyptic predictions fell as flat as ancient theories about the shape of the Earth is the focus of this installment of Retro Report, a series of video documentaries examining significant news stories of the past and their aftermath. Advertisement Continue reading the main story After the passage of 47 years, Dr. Ehrlich offers little in the way of a mea culpa. Quite the contrary. Timetables for disaster like those he once offered have no significance, he told Retro Report, because to someone in his field they mean something "very, very different" from what they do to the average person. The end is still nigh, he asserted, and he stood unflinchingly by his 1960s insistence that population control was required, preferably through voluntary methods. But if need be, he said, he would endorse "various forms of coercion" like eliminating "tax benefits for having additional children." Allowing women to have as many babies as they wanted, he said, is akin to letting everyone "throw as much of their garbage into their neighbor's backyard as they want."
Dr. Ehrlich's opening statement was the verbal equivalent of a punch to the gut: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over." He later went on to forecast that hundreds of millions would starve to death in the 1970s, that 65 million of them would be Americans, that crowded India was essentially doomed, that odds were fair "England will not exist in the year 2000." Dr. Ehrlich was so sure of himself that he warned in 1970 that "sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come." By "the end," he meant "an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity."
As you may have noticed, England is still with us. So is India. Hundreds of millions did not die of starvation in the '70s. Humanity has managed to hang on, even though the planet's population now exceeds seven billion, double what it was when "The Population Bomb" became a best-seller and its author a frequent guest of Johnny Carson's on "The Tonight Show." How the apocalyptic predictions fell as flat as ancient theories about the shape of the Earth is the focus of this installment of Retro Report, a series of video documentaries examining significant news stories of the past and their aftermath.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
After the passage of 47 years, Dr. Ehrlich offers little in the way of a mea culpa. Quite the contrary. Timetables for disaster like those he once offered have no significance, he told Retro Report, because to someone in his field they mean something "very, very different" from what they do to the average person. The end is still nigh, he asserted, and he stood unflinchingly by his 1960s insistence that population control was required, preferably through voluntary methods. But if need be, he said, he would endorse "various forms of coercion" like eliminating "tax benefits for having additional children." Allowing women to have as many babies as they wanted, he said, is akin to letting everyone "throw as much of their garbage into their neighbor's backyard as they want."
The public discussion of the demographic elephant did not progress much since Malthus and Darwin, Wallace:
In the fall of 1838, [Darwin] picked up the most recent edition of Thomas Malthus's best-selling "Essay on the Principle of Population" [...] The future of the human race, Malthus argued, was shaped by two factors: First, That food is necessary to the existence of man. Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state. [...] because the food supply does not increase as rapidly as the population, a large percentage of those born will always die of starvation: the "difficulty of subsistence" provides a "strong and constantly operating check on population." This, for Malthus, meant that there would never be such a thing as a perfect society, in which all members live "in ease, happiness, and comparative leisure"; some part of the human race will always be suffering from poverty and hunger.
First, That food is necessary to the existence of man.
Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state.
[...] because the food supply does not increase as rapidly as the population, a large percentage of those born will always die of starvation: the "difficulty of subsistence" provides a "strong and constantly operating check on population."
This, for Malthus, meant that there would never be such a thing as a perfect society, in which all members live "in ease, happiness, and comparative leisure"; some part of the human race will always be suffering from poverty and hunger.
Wallace, then in Indonesia, had been forced by a recurrent fever to spend hours every day lying down. "I had nothing to do but think," he later wrote, and one day something brought to my recollection Malthus's "Principles of Population," which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of his clear exposition of "the positive checks to increase"--disease, accidents, war, and famine--which keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of more civilized peoples. It then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also....
something brought to my recollection Malthus's "Principles of Population," which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of his clear exposition of "the positive checks to increase"--disease, accidents, war, and famine--which keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of more civilized peoples. It then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also....
Germany dominance over as demographic crunch worsens -- The Telegraph
Germany's birth rate has collapsed to the lowest level in the world and its workforce will start plunging at a faster rate than Japan's by the early 2020s, seriously threatening the long-term viability of Europe's leading economy. A study by the World Economy Institute in Hamburg (HWWI) found that the average number of births per 1,000 population dropped to 8.2 over the five years from 2008 to 2013, further compounding a demographic crisis already in the pipeline. Even Japan did slightly better at 8.4.
A study by the World Economy Institute in Hamburg (HWWI) found that the average number of births per 1,000 population dropped to 8.2 over the five years from 2008 to 2013, further compounding a demographic crisis already in the pipeline. Even Japan did slightly better at 8.4.
We can do the demographic transition so effectively now!
Let's look closer to the welcome demographic shift:
(birth rate per 1000 women, per year)
Whatever you think about dumb misogynist US conservatives, reproductively they are doing darned well. That is not exactly big news - but the numbers are really distinctive. Just when real natural selection game is starting...
The liberal baby bust -- USA Today (2006)
What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs [...] It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future -- one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families. [...] Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as "world citizens" are also less likely to have children.
It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future -- one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.
[...] Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as "world citizens" are also less likely to have children.
Statistically, this can be seen very clearly in the difference of fecundity rates between Germany and France. The difference is social engineering by the government : mandating maternity leave, with the obligation for the employer to take a woman back afterwards; organisation of schools and affordable childcare to make parenting compatible with full-time work; tax breaks for families with children; etc.
I suspect that Washington, Oregon etc. have increasing populations, because they are fine places to migrate to. But I think their state governments would do well to examine these policy areas if they are concerned about fecundity rates. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Seattle is the the most atheist US city, by the way.
In the Seattle area it's only 52 percent. Reflecting the community's diversity, 10 percent of "believers" claim non-Christian faiths like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hindu.
Removing genetics as a factor is imho the first step.
Graves build up his general system from numerous interviews, inspired by Maslow's pyramid of needs. The progression of values fairly reflects available resources (individually or collectively). The odd-numbered values transpire to be ego-centric (so to speak), while even-number numbered are "society" centric.
The liberals (and socialists) fall neatly into the value level #6: humanistic values, human rights; opposing extreme inequality and hierarchy; providing satisfactory living standards to everyone; supporting sexual choice, etc. The conservatives are represented by a mixed bag in this system: #4 (traditional society values, religion); #3 (authoritarian leadership of various sorts); #5 (entrepreneurship, opportunistic autonomy). The reason that conservatism encompasses a few different value systems is that those systems co-existed for centuries already. Besides, the meta-level #7 (awareness that values are not absolute, and using that for personal benefit) generally favors conservativism as well.
Within this paradigm, the general liberal direction in the last century is well explained by unprecedented abundance of resources. Extrapolation to a bright liberal future is then reasonable only assuming the same abundance of resource further down. But if resources become tight instead, prevalence of the value level #6 is in deep trouble. Firstly, it will badly become a punching bag for the conservatives and #7, as they are more eagerly perceptive of resource limitations. Secondly, it will be tougher to sustain or buy #6 personally, with the personal share of resources and benefits becoming unsatisfactory. Liberals will prevail in the biggest cities pretty long, as this is where resources and services are concentrated. But the liberals (generally) find themselves already pretty low in the financial food chain and social influence. Habitually, they profess their values passively and have intrinsic leadership issues. No wonder that they were led by #7 wolves in the last two decades to wholesome irrelevance. The progress in LGBT rights only masks the lost ground on social-economic issues.
Genetics is surely not a dominant factor in the Graves value system. Rather explicitly, it is postulated that Graves' values "progress" pretty inevitably with a larger cake of resources. In particular, #6 is dependent on the level of education, and appearance of having enough to everyone. Genetics might play a role in flexibility, readiness to embrace or avoid particular value systems. For example, (non)stickiness to authority dynamics might be a genetic determinant for #6 acceptance.
What I notice is that there are several trends heralding a depression of #6 values. The brief rise and fall of #6 might be a recurrent story of great civilizations.
In reality resources are abundant, and with reality-based development there's no need for current and future constraints.
What there is a need for is a removal of resource use for pointless tribal wealth display - which directly and indirectly creates scarcity in the short term, and stunts resource development in the longer term.
The current average Western lifestyle is beyond Earth's carrying capacity (for today's 7 billion) already, many suspect. We are already flaunting our tribal display to the future generations.
Even if humanity is objectively safe with resources for this century, perceptions of the concerned may matter more. The current austerity regime for the masses is indeed artificially sharpened scarcity. Would this be the first time in human history that tribal elites prefer to experiment with artificial scarcity rather than risk a cannibalistic collapse? Would #9s agree to compromise their transhumanist hobbies just to allow a billion more of fit, happy, productive people live on Earth? What if we won't ever reach planets near other stars if we dig into planet's oil resources for another 50 years like now?
Firstly, it will badly become a punching bag for the conservatives and #7, as they are more eagerly perceptive of resource limitations.
Excuse me, who are the people who are perceptive of resource limitations? Do you class the global green movement among the conservatives?
Conservatives are generally in deep denial about resource limitations, or they pretend to be (global warming denialists are rarely liberals, for example). They consider that the commons (fossil fuels, fish in the sea, an unpolluted environment) are theirs for the grabbing, and eagerly exploit them for individual profit, while the negative consequences are denied (and become a collective responsibility, that only liberals care about).
Resource limitations are real. Scarcity is both the result of confiscation, and of mismanagement by the confiscators, who don't care about optimising the global outcome as long as they get their share. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
The NLP/transformational training industry (whether for persons organizations) has definitely gathered a lot of practical impactful knowledge that is guiding big organizations and their leaders. In particular, corporations build up their inner structure as "societies" of individuals with "complimentary" Graves value sets. Not too surprisingly, the industry is not particularly interested do disseminate its knowledge to public just so. An academic formulation is apparently not the most attractive option for those involved.
Hierarchical structures are anti-fragile (in Taleb's sense) with respect to resource limitations, almost tautologically. That is a better characterization than fit.
Even defining "women" as "women over 20" or so, and rounding down to 55, that is still 3.3 children per woman, in other words a runaway population increase. That does not seem right. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
The map is for the year 2011.
Quantifying the effect in this particular case would require me to go dig around in BLS databases for an hour or two, which I don't feel like doing right this moment.
The "replacement rate" of 2.0 children per women corresponds to 66.7 for the map data (=2.0x1000/(30 years)) - right in the gap between the blue and red numbers (apart from Hawaii).
Now imagine that you have two states, one in which all the women are 29 years old, and one in which they are all 28 years old.
Now tell me what the absolute birth rate would be in those two states.
Now tell me what the absolute birth rate would be in the following year, for both states.
For extra credit, calculate whether the states in this example are over or under the replacement fertility.
In the real world, of course, both the demographics and the fertility distribution by age are much messier than in the nice, clean example above. Hence the need for spending an hour or two poking about in BLS data.
The article with the map says:
When Lesthaeghe studied the map county by county, he found the link between family size and political leaning became even stronger.
But let's look at the total population picture (US Census Bureau for 2013:
Total Population of the cited "red" states: 42.4 mn
Total Population of the cited "blue" states: 94.3 mn
In other words, the "red" states don't get to even half the population of the "blue" states.
Which relativises the shock value of the chart.
Yeah, we can just go sleep well and never look at this subject.
So please cut the crap about people are suggesting we just go to sleep.
So the cherries. There are a heap of red states in that CDC table that are barely higher than the blue states, and that are under the 62/1000 level that you tell us means population renewal. Why aren't these cited?
Alabama 60.6 Georgia 61.6 N Carolina 60.4 S Carolina 60.6 Virginia 60.9 W Virginia 61.5
And blue California (not cited) is spot on the 62/1000 level.
If the chart means that the top numbers in the table are pretty much all culturally-isolated conservative religious Mid-West states, well duh.
And secondly that the lowest levels are in the less isolated less conservative less religious heavily-populated regions, well double-duh.
If the point is to say that the rednecks are going to catch up on the bluebottles, then the total population figures show that it isn't going to be much of a thing any time soon.
So what is that chart about?
Secondly, "cherry picking" the most extreme cases of birth rate and observing the color consistency is a totally fair game. Your can surely analyze further the middle pot, isolatedness. But your "double dough" is not on target. The less isolated, less conservative states are more mixed cases, thus their middle range birth rate is fully consistent with the supposed high discrepancy between conservatives and liberals. The researcher says, the discrepancy on the "county by county" level is only more clear.
So you will only worry when the absolute numbers even out? No discussion until then? Then I say, there is always sleep or the Nile.
Is it a reference to Brave New World and the early attempts to teach kids during their sleep? A play on word with nil or nihilist? Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
das monde:
So you will only worry when the absolute numbers even out? No discussion until then?
as if we should not even think about this matter
I've done enough discussion to show that you're wrong.
What I'm dismissive of is that chart. And, probably too, the notion that political demography is just a matter of birth rates.
If renewable energy is ever to become truly subsidy independent and earn its keep in electricity markets, that means there is a natural stopping point at which a marginal increment of wind or solar will become unprofitable. The market revenues earned by these VREs will eventually fall far enough that it's no longer worth deploying more.This is also why the idea of reaching "grid parity," or a levelized cost equal to the prevailing market price, is pretty meaningless. As soon as wind or solar penetration grows, the goal posts move further away due to this merit-order or market price effect. Wind and solar costs will have to keep falling to secure greater penetration levels and remain profitable at the ever lower and lower market prices caused by increasing VRE penetration.Alternatively, if wind and solar are to remain subsidized, the amount of public subsidy per unit of energy supplied will have to keep growing in order to push VRE shares higher and higher. The total subsidy cost could rise sharply, as the price per MWh required increases alongside the quantity of electricity generated from these sources. (...) Indeed, according to a major new study of the challenges of integrating wind and solar in the Western Interconnection of North America, the maximum production of variable renewables at any instant can't exceed about 55-60 percent of total demand without risking system stability.In Ireland, which, as we saw in part 1 is the world leader in variable renewable penetration, system operators currently limit variable renewable production to 50 percent of demand at any given time, although operators are working to increase this limit.In short, the capacity factor threshold may actually be generous: if the instantaneous penetration of wind and solar can't exceed half or two-thirds of power system demand in any given moment, system security concerns will begin to bind before the penetration of variable renewables reaches their capacity factor.
If renewable energy is ever to become truly subsidy independent and earn its keep in electricity markets, that means there is a natural stopping point at which a marginal increment of wind or solar will become unprofitable. The market revenues earned by these VREs will eventually fall far enough that it's no longer worth deploying more.
This is also why the idea of reaching "grid parity," or a levelized cost equal to the prevailing market price, is pretty meaningless. As soon as wind or solar penetration grows, the goal posts move further away due to this merit-order or market price effect. Wind and solar costs will have to keep falling to secure greater penetration levels and remain profitable at the ever lower and lower market prices caused by increasing VRE penetration.
Alternatively, if wind and solar are to remain subsidized, the amount of public subsidy per unit of energy supplied will have to keep growing in order to push VRE shares higher and higher. The total subsidy cost could rise sharply, as the price per MWh required increases alongside the quantity of electricity generated from these sources.
(...)
Indeed, according to a major new study of the challenges of integrating wind and solar in the Western Interconnection of North America, the maximum production of variable renewables at any instant can't exceed about 55-60 percent of total demand without risking system stability.
In Ireland, which, as we saw in part 1 is the world leader in variable renewable penetration, system operators currently limit variable renewable production to 50 percent of demand at any given time, although operators are working to increase this limit.
In short, the capacity factor threshold may actually be generous: if the instantaneous penetration of wind and solar can't exceed half or two-thirds of power system demand in any given moment, system security concerns will begin to bind before the penetration of variable renewables reaches their capacity factor.
A fixed-price take-or-pay agreement is not a subsidy.
In every other freaking sector of the economy, you can write long-term, fix-price frame agreements for variable levels of production. But apparently this bog-standard instrument that every first year student of supply chain management should be familiar with suddenly becomes a puzzling novelty when applied to wind power.
So here is the "thinking man"'s new sophistry: the merit-order effect puts a natural cap on renewables penetration.
It's a pretty convoluted effort. Will we see it trotted out much?
the presenter simply could not shake his obsession with wind power being subsidized and unable to pay its way, despite the Head of Scottish Power trying to tell him that it was not so, but the questions were perfectly framed to prevent him doing so effectively keep to the Fen Causeway
And Bruce's comments are indeed detailed. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
And the readers of this blog have the right to know who backs them.
I thought and think Bruce was onto something interesting with his outlines of discriminatory pricing systems. But off-putting response like yours teaches me to not attempt bringing adult conversation here again, I'll just stick to reading the experts from now on.
There's no reason why other writers reporting on other energy aspects on that site can't be considered useful or interesting. As for this article, I addressed it in my first comment. I think that, at base, it's a convoluted attempt to find new arguments against a roll-out of wind power. And I went on to point out the author's links to an anti-renewable think-tank.
If you wished to draw attention to Bruce McF's comments, you might have done so. But you didn't (I did).
So go away and play at being adult, if that's what you really think you must do. Personally, I find your above comment puerile.
Mentioning you Bjinse was simply a statement of fact, not meant as a personal negative. You'll also notice I didn't take it any further anywhere else.
The site is part of an concerted effort to break renewables, just as climate-denial is programmed to disrupt effective policy shifts. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
The Marketistas have won again. The end of the EEG feed-in tariff in Germany is already being negotiated: supplanted by tender or auction bids even for small onshore projects or solar installations. The new law will be finalized in 2016 to go into effect a year later. None of the details are now fixed. On first look there are both positive and negative aspects to this development, but one effect is clear: it's really complex.
By the way, Norway yesterday cancelled 1000 MW of windpower because of low prices. This after Sweden and Norway worked together to establish cross border tax and financial policies to make renewables work in the land of oil, hydro and nukes. Civilization, and its so-called leaders, remain blind. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
It now seems the previous threshold of 8% (i.e., only 12 years ago in Germany) has been exceeded greatly, since even the lower threshold of 50% appears on the surface to be a far greater number.
Would the instances of 100% "penetration" of wind alone in Spain or Denmark provide enough of an example to give lie to the "experts" argument?
Could it also be that these "experts" aren't yet aware that the power electronics of modern wind turbines are currently being used to provide grid stability, and low voltage ride-through?
Or that modern prediction of wind and solar out to 48 hours ahead is enough for planning by grid operators in industrial networks?
Shouldn't the experts be aware that subsidies in most advanced grids decrease over time, mimicking the fact that electricity prices would be higher without "variable renewable energy?"
Fact is, these experts are wrong. Two scenarios: 1. They're wrong and they know it, but they're just doing their job: propaganda; or 2, they're wrong and they don't know it, meaning they believe their propaganda... despite all manner of real world data.
I sure wish I would grow up. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
The article's main hypothesis is this, though:
it is increasingly difficult for the market share of variable renewable energy sources at the system-wide level to exceed the capacity factor of the energy source.
If we take Germany as example, onshore wind has a capacity factor varying between 10 and 20 percent while the onshore market share in 2013 was 8,5 percent (with 50,8 TWh producing a third of Germany's renewable energy). I don't see how Germany's current progress could either prove or disprove the thesis proposed. If anything, onshore wind could at least grow a lot more, and when more offshore wind comes online, the figure can rise substantially further.
And to undo my own example, I don't think taking Germany (or another nation) as an example is ultimately sufficient - the scope is still too local for a systemic analysis.
The concept to grasp here is that the "main hypothesis" you quote is meaningless. Capacity factor is a measure over time; instantaneous or short-term have zero meaning (except for those monitoring loads of wind turbines operating above nameplate capacity.)
What do the "experts" mean by market share? Do they mean short-term grid incursion? In which case you already cited one disproving stat, of which there are thousands. Or do they mean in some poorly worded financial sense, which is a failure of market design that has nothing to do with their "variable renewable energy" output thesis.
Like climate deniers, they've used complex meaningless gobbledygook to confound and confuse. They CLEARLY don't understand capacity factor, which has been a utility standard since long before renewables entered the picture.
"the scope is still too local for system analysis"
Grid integration actually becomes easier as the grid becomes larger, either geographically or in terms of generation scale. So taking more local grids (like Denmark or Spain) does actually prove the point.
Except there's actually no point to prove or disprove. I used the phrase complex meaningless gobbledygook before. I should have said your "experts" are full of shit.
Did you know we can change the angle of attack on modern turbines in the control algorithm within minutes (including measurement), so full capacity isn't reached if necessary. At our command, for all manner of reasons. Or at the command of the grid operators! Take that, "experts."
The difference between garbage full of shit and dangerous full of shit depends on the source and funding of the shit. But it's still SHIT. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Offshore ranges from lower 40's to near 55%. In some cases better than gas plants. With no fuel costs, or CO2 damage, or small particles in the lungs, or national security issues.
Fuck the dangerous well-funded "experts" who will be judged as social criminals by future generations, should those future generations survive.
Am i beginning to make myself clear about what's at stake in the original article. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Grid Constraints on Renewable Energy | The Energy Collective
Instead, the fundamental economics of supply and demand is likely to put the brakes on VRE penetration.
Because it makes the ideological frame explicit. As Jake noted initially, the "fundamental economics of supply and demand" are subject to all sorts of constraints in the real world, and there is no reason the electricity sector should escape them.
One technical objection they raise concerns system stability with high renewables penetration; but North America is very much behind on these issues. In Germany and Spain, for example, active system management has pushed the frontiers considerably on this.
The main technical argument they make is clear : on a sunny windy day, generation may exceed demand! Too much energy, oh noes!
But as CH points out, over-capacity is not a technical problem -- modern wind turbines can spill excess energy; also, some industries in Germany are reconfiguring in order to increase energy-intensive processes when electricity is cheapest : demand elasticity will be much greater in the future. So the question is not of the "fundamental economics of supply and demand", but of the economics of the various generating technologies, and how to balance them to achieve the overall goals of public good.
This is where the consideration of who the site's backers are becomes pertinent; the merit-order effect has had a severe impact on the profitability of Europe's fossil-fuel generators, and increasing market share of renewables is likely to worsen that.
The solution is going to include subsidies for on-demand producers for keeping their plant available. These subsidies are philosophically no different from the fixed-price regime for renewables, neither good nor bad in themselves, but useful mechanisms. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
The article's main hypothesis is this, though:it is increasingly difficult for the market share of variable renewable energy sources at the system-wide level to exceed the capacity factor of the energy source.
First, there's the fact that they cannot possibly have calculated the theoretical maximum market share of anything.
The theoretical maximum market share of a volatile renewable depends on the extent of the harvestable resource (for offshore wind this is for all practical purposes infinite, but that is not true for all volatile renewables), the degree of correlation between the volatile output of electricity from the modality and the (also volatile) demand for electricity, and (crucially) the capacity and dispatchability of available storage solutions.
Calculating the theoretical maximum market share, even under the assumption that consumption cannot be moved* is a non-trivial exercise in applied statistics. Which they haven't done. What they've done is look at past data, come up with a rule of thumb to describe it which kinda-sorta works (if you're not too picky about the technical details of the industry they're "studying" and the comparability of the data they're comparing), and proclaimed it a law of nature. Which is bullshit.
Second, capacity factor (actual energy delivered divided by how much energy would be delivered if you were running at full nameplate capacity at all times) has nothing to do with market share (actual energy delivered divided by the total energy consumption of the market into which you deliver energy).
The capacity factor of a particular site depends on the average availability of the harvested resource and the capacity deployed to harvest it. You will notice that these two numbers, capacity factor and maximum market penetration, share precisely zero underlying variables. Which means that to get from one to the other, you have to make all sorts of sketchy assumptions about pricing regimes, correlation coefficients, market structures, and so on and so forth. Assumptions which are never clearly spelled out. That's also bullshit, and it's dishonest bullshit too.
- Jake
*This is a very ambitious assumption, since much consumption can in fact be moved. But if you allow consumption to move in response to prices, then you need to model the full equations of motion for the demand and electricity prices under your market structure of choice. Which is for most realistic (or even merely interesting) market structures not possible. Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
I once saw an adjunct not get his contract renewed after students complained that he exposed them to "offensive" texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain. His response, that the texts were meant to be a little upsetting, only fueled the students' ire and sealed his fate. That was enough to get me to comb through my syllabi and cut out anything I could see upsetting a coddled undergrad, texts ranging from Upton Sinclair to Maureen Tkacik -- and I wasn't the only one who made adjustments, either. I am frightened sometimes by the thought that a student would complain again like he did in 2009. Only this time it would be a student accusing me not of saying something too ideologically extreme -- be it communism or racism or whatever -- but of not being sensitive enough toward his feelings, of some simple act of indelicacy that's considered tantamount to physical assault. As Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis writes, "Emotional discomfort is [now] regarded as equivalent to material injury, and all injuries have to be remediated." Hurting a student's feelings, even in the course of instruction that is absolutely appropriate and respectful, can now get a teacher into serious trouble.
I am frightened sometimes by the thought that a student would complain again like he did in 2009. Only this time it would be a student accusing me not of saying something too ideologically extreme -- be it communism or racism or whatever -- but of not being sensitive enough toward his feelings, of some simple act of indelicacy that's considered tantamount to physical assault. As Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis writes, "Emotional discomfort is [now] regarded as equivalent to material injury, and all injuries have to be remediated." Hurting a student's feelings, even in the course of instruction that is absolutely appropriate and respectful, can now get a teacher into serious trouble.
It seems clear that he will announce rejection of Merkel/Hollande's latest ultimatumconstructive proposal
Shit, meet fan. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
According to data from the European Broadcasting Union, nearly every television viewer in Iceland watched this year's Eurovision, topping every country in the world.
Abstract Structural and functional features of central nervous system lymphatic vessels One of the characteristics of the central nervous system is the lack of a classical lymphatic drainage system. Although it is now accepted that the central nervous system undergoes constant immune surveillance that takes place within the meningeal compartment1, 2, 3, the mechanisms governing the entrance and exit of immune cells from the central nervous system remain poorly understood4, 5, 6. In searching for T-cell gateways into and out of the meninges, we discovered functional lymphatic vessels lining the dural sinuses. These structures express all of the molecular hallmarks of lymphatic endothelial cells, are able to carry both fluid and immune cells from the cerebrospinal fluid, and are connected to the deep cervical lymph nodes. The unique location of these vessels may have impeded their discovery to date, thereby contributing to the long-held concept of the absence of lymphatic vasculature in the central nervous system. The discovery of the central nervous system lymphatic system may call for a reassessment of basic assumptions in neuroimmunology and sheds new light on the aetiology of neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative diseases associated with immune system dysfunction.
Abstract
Structural and functional features of central nervous system lymphatic vessels
One of the characteristics of the central nervous system is the lack of a classical lymphatic drainage system. Although it is now accepted that the central nervous system undergoes constant immune surveillance that takes place within the meningeal compartment1, 2, 3, the mechanisms governing the entrance and exit of immune cells from the central nervous system remain poorly understood4, 5, 6. In searching for T-cell gateways into and out of the meninges, we discovered functional lymphatic vessels lining the dural sinuses. These structures express all of the molecular hallmarks of lymphatic endothelial cells, are able to carry both fluid and immune cells from the cerebrospinal fluid, and are connected to the deep cervical lymph nodes. The unique location of these vessels may have impeded their discovery to date, thereby contributing to the long-held concept of the absence of lymphatic vasculature in the central nervous system. The discovery of the central nervous system lymphatic system may call for a reassessment of basic assumptions in neuroimmunology and sheds new light on the aetiology of neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative diseases associated with immune system dysfunction.
Anyone with positive experiences using Cranio-sacral therapy will smile at this... 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
Kevin Lee, PhD, chairman of the UVA Department of Neuroscience, described his reaction to the discovery by Kipnis' lab: "The first time these guys showed me the basic result, I just said one sentence: `They'll have to change the textbooks.' There has never been a lymphatic system for the central nervous system, and it was very clear from that first singular observation - and they've done many studies since then to bolster the finding - that it will fundamentally change the way people look at the central nervous system's relationship with the immune system." Even Kipnis was skeptical initially. "I really did not believe there are structures in the body that we are not aware of. I thought the body was mapped," he said. "I thought that these discoveries ended somewhere around the middle of the last century. But apparently they have not."
Kevin Lee, PhD, chairman of the UVA Department of Neuroscience, described his reaction to the discovery by Kipnis' lab: "The first time these guys showed me the basic result, I just said one sentence: `They'll have to change the textbooks.' There has never been a lymphatic system for the central nervous system, and it was very clear from that first singular observation - and they've done many studies since then to bolster the finding - that it will fundamentally change the way people look at the central nervous system's relationship with the immune system."
Even Kipnis was skeptical initially. "I really did not believe there are structures in the body that we are not aware of. I thought the body was mapped," he said. "I thought that these discoveries ended somewhere around the middle of the last century. But apparently they have not."
Right under their noses... (or more accurately along them) 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by gmoke - Apr 22 5 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 23 3 comments
by gmoke - Apr 30
by Oui - May 14
by Oui - May 135 comments
by gmoke - May 13
by Oui - May 1321 comments
by Oui - May 12
by Oui - May 119 comments
by Oui - May 11
by Oui - May 109 comments
by Oui - May 10
by Oui - May 921 comments
by Oui - May 9
by Oui - May 81 comment
by Oui - May 73 comments
by Oui - May 7
by Oui - May 63 comments
by Oui - May 61 comment
by Oui - May 5
by Oui - May 58 comments
by Oui - May 44 comments
by Oui - May 3