Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

A more attractive model is emerging: The company funds or co-funds PhD candidates or postdoctoral researchers studying difficult scientific problems or new areas of technology of interest to the company, and its scientists or engineers co-mentor the researchers with faculty members. If something promising emerges, then more funding is forthcoming either directly from the company or via a collaborative proposal to a government agency by the university and the company.

For example, my school has recently partnered with Schlumberger to co-fund PhD students on projects, some of which have justified continued funding from the company.

Companies also recognize that top talent is not confined to just a handful of schools. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education identifies 107 colleges and universities as engaging in the “highest research activity.” Companies are tapping into the rich resources they offer.

For instance, a little over five years ago Procter & Gamble funded a Modeling and Simulation Center for Product Development at the University of Cincinnati that focuses on collaborative research projects and the co-mentoring of PhD students. And in 2015 the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline announced the creation of a dedicated HIV Cure center and a jointly owned new company that will focus on discovering a cure for HIV/AIDS. A small research team from GSK moved to Chapel Hill to be co-located with UNC researchers.

Both industry and academia stand to benefit from long-term cooperation. Companies will gain greater access to cutting-edge research and scientific talent at a time when corporate R&D budgets are increasingly under pressure. Universities will gain access to financial support and partners in research at a time when government funding is shrinking.

Higgenbotham wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 5:23 pm The key point in the repeat of the data below is: "These two sets of data show that there is virtually nobody with any financial means under the age of 25 giving birth in America today." Eyeballing the data below, it can be calculated that about 8 percent of the births in the United States are to women under age 25 who are not on Medicaid. That's a pretty sobering statistic. It corroborates the fact that there are virtually no jobs in the United States available to support young families.

Higgenbotham wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:56 am

Results—The provisional number of births for the United States in 2018 was 3,788,235, down 2% from 2017 and the lowest number of births in 32 years. The general fertility rate was 59.0 births per 1,000 women aged 15–44, down 2% from 2017 and another record low for the United States. The total fertility rate declined 2% to 1,728.0 births per 1,000 women in 2018, another record low for the nation. Birth rates declined for nearly all age groups of women under 35, but rose for women in their late 30s and early 40s.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr-007-508.pdf

Higgenbotham wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 11:08 am

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/nata ... hboard.htm

Selecting "Age Specific Birth Rates" on the left gives this chart.

I've posted the below graph before. These two sets of data show that there is virtually nobody with any financial means under the age of 25 giving birth in America today.

Higgenbotham wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:30 am

Higgenbotham wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 5:23 pm Eyeballing the data below, it can be calculated that about 8 percent of the births in the United States are to women under age 25 who are not on Medicaid.

I went to the CDC site and got the numbers for the data shown. Since the data is based on rate (number of births per thousand), this calculation assumes that the population in each 5 year cohort is the same. The ages of the cohorts are followed by the rate.

30-34 94.9
25-29 90.2
20-24 63.0
35-39 51.8
15-19 15.4
40-44 11.8

All the rates sum to 327.1.

The percentage of births not on Medicaid who are under age 25 is therefore about:

[15.4*(1 - 0.775) + 63.0*(1 - 0.637)]/327.1 x 100 = 8.0%.

Having the majority of births to women aged 25-34, while mostly OK on an individual basis, is probably not OK for the population at large, or at least not as good as the majority of births being to women aged 18-24, who on average are going to be healthier. Most of these births to women aged 25-34 would also be to fathers who are older than the women. At these ages, genetic defects, while still small on an individual basis, are probably increasing enough to have a negative effect on the health of the population, especially if this were to continue for several generations. I am no expert on these matters, but I am also skeptical that there are any true experts, as is the case with many health issues today.

American families changed a lot starting in the 1960s and 1970s. Two years stand out in particular: 1960, when the birth-control pill entered the market, and 1973, when the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. A new study makes the provocative argument that the latter, not the former, is what really prompted Americans to get married and start having children at older ages than they used to. (Hat tip to Tyler Cowen; free draft of the paper here.)

https://nationalreview.com/corner/how-s ... -unfolded/

If this is true (and I'm skeptical about this too), this effect of abortion on the health of the future population did us no favors.

Of the 769 individuals who completed the survey, 284 identified themselves as LGBT
older adults, and 485 identified themselves as family members or friends, social service
providers, legal services providers, or simply “other.” Social service providers included
ombudsman program representatives, state staff of area agencies on aging, administrators
of area agencies on aging, nursing home administrators, doctors, social workers, nurses,
psychologists, hospice workers, and owners of and workers in home health care companies.
The concerns included in this report are mostly expressed in comments from the
respondents themselves rather than in answers to closed-ended questions. At the same
time, some of the findings, while not the product of a random sample or scientifically
reliable, are telling. A majority, for example, believed that staff would discriminate
against an LGBT elder who was open about his or her sexual orientation. More than
half felt that staff would abuse or neglect an LGBT elder and other residents.
However, the most significant results of the survey are expressed in the hundreds
of comments submitted, ranging from reports of staff harassment to staff refusals
to provide basic services or care. Altogether, 328 people reported 853 instances of
mistreatment. Instances were reported by those identifying themselves as LGBT older
adults, family members, friends, social service providers, legal services providers, or
other interested individuals.
Some of these comments point to possible violations of federal nursing home law,
as noted in the section “Legal Rights of LGBT Residents,” while others signify that
far more training and awareness by staff is needed. Additionally, policymakers would
be well advised to consider the wide array of policy remedies that could be enacted to
better support LGBT elders and the institutions where they reside and receive services.
Based in large part on these comments, the recommendations made in this report are
directed toward policymakers and consumers as well as long-term care providers.

Higgenbotham wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:11 am

tim wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:09 pm I once came across an article that talked about "collapsing" now to be able to ease into that lifestyle when that becomes the new normal. Most people will attempt to hang on to the familiar comforts and the known for as long as possible.

That may have been John Michael Greer, who coined the phrase "Collapse now and avoid the rush." He published a book by that name which contains some essays from his old blog. If you go to the address of the original blog, it will say that it's shut, but all of the essays that were on the blog can be found here:

https://thearchdruidreport-archive.2006 ... index.html

I finished talking about catabolic collapse and started fielding questions, of which there were plenty, and somewhere in the conversation that followed one of the other participants made a comment. I don’t even remember the exact words, but it was something like, "So what you’re saying is that what we need to do, individually, is to go through collapse right away."

"Exactly," I said. "Collapse now, and avoid the rush."

Outside of that conversation, I doubt I would have thought of the phrase at all. By the end of the conference, though, it was on the lips of a good many of the attendees, and for good reason: I can’t think of a better way to sum up the work ahead of us right now, as industrial society lurches down the far side of its trajectory through time. Longtime readers of this blog know most of the reasoning behind that suggestion, but it may be worth walking through it again step by step.

https://thearchdruidreport-archive.2006 ... -rush.html

Higgenbotham wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 12:04 pm

Experts agree that it is essential to develop multiple vaccines, because the urgent global need for billions of doses will far outstrip the production capacity of any one manufacturer. But there is widespread concern among scientists that haste could compromise safety, resulting in a vaccine that does not work or even harms patients.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... &utm_term=

The 97th Percentile and Gen X Debacles make this outcome more likely than not, in my opinion. They will rush a vaccine through, counterfeit the money to produce it (government subsidized), then it won't work. There will be opposition from reasonable people, but nobody will listen.

Higgenbotham wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:36 am A couple things I'd mention upon reading this thread.

Warren Buffett owns an insurance company. In his policies, he has clauses that state the policies do not cover damage from nuclear attack. Here's what he said on this topic in 2002:

May 6, 2002 Posted: 7:55 AM EDT (1155 GMT)

Investor Warren Buffett, who has major insurance holdings, says the United States faces a high risk of nuclear, chemical or biological attack.

OMAHA, Nebraska (AP) -- Investment guru Warren Buffett offered a bleak prediction for the nation's national security, saying a terrorist attack on American soil is "virtually a certainty."

Envy and dislike of the United States have fueled rage against the country even as the ability to build a nuclear device has spread, Buffett said Sunday at the final day of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s annual meeting.

"We're going to have something in the way of a major nuclear event in this country," said Buffett, the firm's chief operating officer. "It will happen. Whether it will happen in 10 years or 10 minutes, or 50 years ... it's virtually a certainty."

Washington and New York would be the top two targets because terrorists want to traumatize the country and kill as many people as possible, Buffett said.

Chemical or biological attacks are similarly high risks, Buffett said.

http://research.lifeboat.com/cnn.htm

This is what he said about this same topic in 2012. Here, he mentions governments as possible sources of attacks, not just terrorists:

CNBC's Becky Quick: Overall you are very optimistic about the future not only of this country but of the stock market. But if you have a list of worries, what's at the top of that list?

Warren Buffett: My biggest worry is nuclear, chemical, and biological attack of some sort, whether by a government or by a rogue. That will happen some day in our future and that will be a large tragedy to an unbelievable tragedy.

Quick: Right now it's not on the forefront of Americans' minds although a lot of things that are happening in the Middle East right now are creeping back up there.

Buffett: It'll happen sometime when it isn't on our minds just like it happened on 9-11. There are people that wish us ill and they wish us a lot of ill if they can pull it off. So nuclear, chemical, and biological knowledge is spent. There are plenty of people that wish us ill, so that is the biggest worry.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... ttack-cnbc

Moving onto the next topic, I don't recall bringing this up anywhere on the forum, but I think the nuclear war, if the war does occur that way, will start with either small suitcase nukes or devices that disperse and contaminate a limited but critical area. I believe either terrorists or robots will be involved in executing these attacks, but governments will be behind the attacks. They will be difficult to trace, but I think nuclear material is ultimately traceable as to its source. You guys please correct me if I'm wrong on this. I found this article that describes the current state of the art (perhaps traceable, perhaps not it appears).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/2 ... -ministers

If nuclear material can be used that is not ultimately traceable, then I think limited scale nuclear war as an initial strategy is pretty much a done deal. But anyway, my point is that if the Chinese want to retaliate against the US for whatever reason, as an example, they will use a terrorist organization. They may smuggle a suitcase nuke in through, say, the border of Mexico, then detonate it somewhere nearby that has critical infrastructure, like Houston. Or the terrorists may take it all the way to Washington or New York if they can, but I'm not sure if they would be able to get it that far without it being detected. As another example, the Russians can be behind smuggling and detonating a suitcase nuke and make it look like the Chinese did it. The possibilities are endless.

Anyway, once something like this is accomplished in one or several critical cities, it would put the targeted country in a bind as to how to respond. I believe the ultimate response would be to launch a larger scale attack against whoever is supected to be the source.

I would also mention that if bioweapons with pandemic effects can be perfected soon enough, then I strongly believe those will become the weapons of choice and they will be delivered in much the same manner, with infected terrorists spreading the pandemic via public transportation systems and so on.

Is China Sneaking Military Personnel into the U.S. Via Border? What We Know

BY ALEKS PHILLIPS ON 6/16/23 AT 12:28 PM EDT

The Republican Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee has said that it was "very likely" that "military personnel" were being inserted into the United States by China by crossing the southern land border.

Announcing an investigation into the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, over his role in the border crisis, Mark Green, a former U.S. Army serviceman and representative for Tennessee, claimed many of the Chinese nationals entering America were "military-age men," many of them having "known ties" to the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and People's Liberation Army (PLA).

It comes after Melissa Dalton, assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, told the House Armed Services Committee in March that China, along with Russia, was now posing "more dangerous challenges to the safety and security of the U.S. homeland."

Both Dalton and Green cited the incident in February in which a Chinese spy balloon—which Beijing claims was a wayward weather balloon—passed over the continental U.S. before being shot down and recovered off the coast of South Carolina as a sign of this new threat.

During a press conference, Green noted that there had been "a massive surge in Chinese nationals" crossing the southern border, claiming "many of whom are military-age men, many with known ties to the PLA, ties to the CCP."

Public data from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency shows 2023 has seen a spike in encounters of Chinese nationals at the southern land border compared to the previous years—when border crossings were overall lower due to coronavirus pandemic restrictions.

As of April, there had been a total of 9,854 encounters in the fiscal year-to-date, which runs from October to September, rising sharply from February. In 2022, there were 2,176 encounters.

While over 1,500 of these were individuals in a family unit, the vast majority (8,304) were single adults—though a breakdown of age and what proportion are male is not given. Neither has the government publicly stated if any were believed to have ties to Beijing.

Asked about the credibility of Green's claim, Rebecca Grant Ph.D., a national security analyst at IRIS Independent Research, told Newsweek that she personally believed it to be true, referencing the likelihood of some immigrants having ties to the Chinese state given the many Chinese nationals already in the U.S.—5.4 million in 2021, according to Migration Policy Institute figures.

"If you're a bad guy that wants to infiltrate operatives into the U.S.A., the southern border is a pretty easy way to do it," she added.

A Department of Homeland Security official told Newsweek that it used "biometric and biographical" information on those encountered at the border "to identify potential terrorists or criminals and prevent their release into the United States."

They stressed that "anyone who poses a national security or public safety threat is detained and not released into the United States."

When questioned on his source for the claims, Green said that he had heard it from a border sector chief, but declined to say more. However, he added: "We have a classified briefing on it in the very near future."

Newsweek approached CBP for comment regarding Green's claims via email on Friday.

Grant said that it was an area of national security where the intelligence community was "never going to give us public information," but "the fact that they're going to brief Congress on it tells me that there's something there."

Green also said that the alleged insertions were "very likely using Russia's template of sending military personnel into Ukraine," adding: "China is doing the same in the United States."

tim wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2023 8:57 pm How many of the PLA fighters have slipped into the United States this way? Some estimate 5,000, others 10,000. Those numbers sound high, but whatever the actual figure more are coming.

These are China's shock troops. The concern is that, on the first day of war in Asia they will take down America's power lines, poison reservoirs, assassinate officials, start wildfires, spread pathogens, and create terror by bombing shopping malls and supermarkets.