Pot Problems in Paradise

[polsongrizz]

Vaping has been available from the start here. There’s still a stigma for some so it’s popular due to a complete lack of odor and smoke. People vape everywhere.

Am I thinking of the wrong thing? I've been behind cars where you can see the vape light, a cloud of vapor and then a god awful smell. Is that only the nicotine ones?

I have an evil weed vape pen in Vegas right now that has zero smell. Most tobacco users have some god awful fragrance added to the oil.

[kalm]

That is a strong scent.

My brother vapes and his wife is a manager of a vape store.


They mostly smell like cheetos and shattered dreams.

That’s some fine work here boys!

[89Hen]

I have an evil weed vape pen in Vegas right now that has zero smell.

Most people don't think they stink.

[houndawg]

The smoke is obviously not helpful but there 100+ other things in it (tobacco) that are worse. Native Americans smoked tobacco all their lives without leaving evidence of a lung cancer epidemic like ours.

I’m sure tobacco IS worse. It is certainly much more addictive

But I’m not comparing the two

I’m just saying that breathing smoke of any kind into your lungs is bad for you

Back in the day pro-pot came out with some pretty outlandish stuff - from curing tennis elbow to landing men on Mars... there was nothing pot couldnt do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know, and I agree. And I love craft beer and I love keeping my whistle wet with some bourbon. It just takes me so much less of them to overdo it than it used to and the weed removes my inclination to jump over the tipping point.

[houndawg]

Didn’t have to smoke. The firewater got ‘em.

Guns, germs, and steel killed 90% of them.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ate-change

I always wondered why the germs didn't work in both directions

[CID1990]

Guns, germs, and steel killed 90% of them.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ate-change

I always wondered why the germs didn't work in both directions

Smallpox wiped out literally millions in the 1500s and 1600s. Europeans had at least partial immunity to the disease - surviving smallpox for a 16th century Spaniard or Englishman was relatively common - but lots of those who had been exposed still carried the virus.

Indians had exactly zero immunity and once infected, they suffered the full effects - Indian mortality rates from smallpox were exponentially higher than with Europeans

I’ve read some interesting scholarship on Indian demographics following the epidemics and subsequent depopulation/ - warlike, less civilized tribes like the Comanche only rose up and thrived at the expense of other tribes because of their adaptation to the horse - but the smallpox epidemics may have had even more of an effect.. The more “civilized” tribes of the midwest, tribes that thrived in actual population centers and had basically left the old hunter-gatherer era and were well into an agrarian one- they were decimated in no small part due to the fact that they lived in large numbers and stayed in one place

The more isolated, primitive tribes had much higher survival rates and they rose to power, especially in the midwest

The native American societies our ancestors encountered in the 18th century were markedly different from what proceeded them - it was equivalent to Roman civilization being supplanted by stone age hunter gatherers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[polsongrizz]

I have an evil weed vape pen in Vegas right now that has zero smell.

Most people don't think they stink.

They are right.

[houndawg]

I always wondered why the germs didn't work in both directions

Smallpox wiped out literally millions in the 1500s and 1600s. Europeans had at least partial immunity to the disease - surviving smallpox for a 16th century Spaniard or Englishman was relatively common - but lots of those who had been exposed still carried the virus.

Indians had exactly zero immunity and once infected, they suffered the full effects - Indian mortality rates from smallpox were exponentially higher than with Europeans

I’ve read some interesting scholarship on Indian demographics following the epidemics and subsequent depopulation/ - warlike, less civilized tribes like the Comanche only rose up and thrived at the expense of other tribes because of their adaptation to the horse - but the smallpox epidemics may have had even more of an effect.. The more “civilized” tribes of the midwest, tribes that thrived in actual population centers and had basically left the old hunter-gatherer era and were well into an agrarian one- they were decimated in no small part due to the fact that they lived in large numbers and stayed in one place

The more isolated, primitive tribes had much higher survival rates and they rose to power, especially in the midwest

The native American societies our ancestors encountered in the 18th century were markedly different from what proceeded them - it was equivalent to Roman civilization being supplanted by stone age hunter gatherers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I live about two hours from the Cahokia Mounds - they don't look like much in the pictures but are quite impressive up close - definitely will cause you to rethink the popular historical view of the native people.

What I find curious is that when "we" arrived there weren't diseases among the locals that we didn't have immunity to and suffer from also. Iguess our immune systems were just that much more robust.

[CID1990]

Smallpox wiped out literally millions in the 1500s and 1600s. Europeans had at least partial immunity to the disease - surviving smallpox for a 16th century Spaniard or Englishman was relatively common - but lots of those who had been exposed still carried the virus.

Indians had exactly zero immunity and once infected, they suffered the full effects - Indian mortality rates from smallpox were exponentially higher than with Europeans

I’ve read some interesting scholarship on Indian demographics following the epidemics and subsequent depopulation/ - warlike, less civilized tribes like the Comanche only rose up and thrived at the expense of other tribes because of their adaptation to the horse - but the smallpox epidemics may have had even more of an effect.. The more “civilized” tribes of the midwest, tribes that thrived in actual population centers and had basically left the old hunter-gatherer era and were well into an agrarian one- they were decimated in no small part due to the fact that they lived in large numbers and stayed in one place

The more isolated, primitive tribes had much higher survival rates and they rose to power, especially in the midwest

The native American societies our ancestors encountered in the 18th century were markedly different from what proceeded them - it was equivalent to Roman civilization being supplanted by stone age hunter gatherers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I live about two hours from the Cahokia Mounds - they don't look like much in the pictures but are quite impressive up close - definitely will cause you to rethink the popular historical view of the native people.

What I find curious is that when "we" arrived there weren't diseases among the locals that we didn't have immunity to and suffer from also. Iguess our immune systems were just that much more robust.

Our immune system didn’t really have much to do with it.

Literally zero pandemic-creating pathogens evolved in the new world. They all came from Europe via Asia and Africa.

It is a fascinating area of study.... our own immune systems were strong at that time because Europe was a pestilential cesspool for a good 800 years after the fall of the Roman Empire. That was the last time Europeans enjoyed actual hygiene. (Side note.... soap was discovered by the Celts, and passed to the Romans during Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul)

Syphillis, smallpox, you name it- they all ravaged the Americas because they were hermetically sealed from the rest of the world for 30,000 years. We all literally had 30,000 years of completely separate evolution. During that time, we evolved in such a way that caused out neural receptors to be especially susceptible to nicotine addiction (due to zero exposure to it), and our exposure to very virulent diseases made us hardy and resistant to various nasty bugs

At the same time, native Americans were largely shielded from the bugs, but they also evolved to be more resistant to the addictive characteristics of nicotine. And their physiology was completely unprepared for the effects of alcohol.

But back to the original point - no human transmitted pathogens evolved in the new world. They all came from the other side of the pond. In fact, there is just one exception... the Irish potato famine was caused by a fungus that originated in South America... which isn’t all that surprising since the potato itself evolved there, and was brought to Europe.

It really is a fascinating subject, and one that is increasingly historical - because we really have no truly isolated human communities anymore. Air travel means that after hundreds of thousands of years, we are now finally evolving (or devolving) as one species.

[houndawg]

I live about two hours from the Cahokia Mounds - they don't look like much in the pictures but are quite impressive up close - definitely will cause you to rethink the popular historical view of the native people.

What I find curious is that when "we" arrived there weren't diseases among the locals that we didn't have immunity to and suffer from also. Iguess our immune systems were just that much more robust.

Our immune system didn’t really have much to do with it.

Literally zero pandemic-creating pathogens evolved in the new world. They all came from Europe via Asia and Africa.

It is a fascinating area of study.... our own immune systems were strong at that time because Europe was a pestilential cesspool for a good 800 years after the fall of the Roman Empire. That was the last time Europeans enjoyed actual hygiene. (Side note.... soap was discovered by the Celts, and passed to the Romans during Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul)

Syphillis, smallpox, you name it- they all ravaged the Americas because they were hermetically sealed from the rest of the world for 30,000 years. We all literally had 30,000 years of completely separate evolution. During that time, we evolved in such a way that caused out neural receptors to be especially susceptible to nicotine addiction (due to zero exposure to it), and our exposure to very virulent diseases made us hardy and resistant to various nasty bugs

At the same time, native Americans were largely shielded from the bugs, but they also evolved to be more resistant to the addictive characteristics of nicotine. And their physiology was completely unprepared for the effects of alcohol.

But back to the original point - no human transmitted pathogens evolved in the new world. They all came from the other side of the pond. In fact, there is just one exception... the Irish potato famine was caused by a fungus that originated in South America... which isn’t all that surprising since the potato itself evolved there, and was brought to Europe.

It really is a fascinating subject, and one that is increasingly historical - because we really have no truly isolated human communities anymore. Air travel means that after hundreds of thousands of years, we are now finally evolving (or devolving) as one species.

It is fascinating especially in light of your Rome to Stone Age analogy and today's estimate of the Mound People living in a metropolis of 100,000. You'd think that would be enough of a crowd to provide an environment for for evolving human transmitted pathogens

[kalm]

I live about two hours from the Cahokia Mounds - they don't look like much in the pictures but are quite impressive up close - definitely will cause you to rethink the popular historical view of the native people.

What I find curious is that when "we" arrived there weren't diseases among the locals that we didn't have immunity to and suffer from also. Iguess our immune systems were just that much more robust.

Our immune system didn’t really have much to do with it.

Literally zero pandemic-creating pathogens evolved in the new world. They all came from Europe via Asia and Africa.

It is a fascinating area of study.... our own immune systems were strong at that time because Europe was a pestilential cesspool for a good 800 years after the fall of the Roman Empire. That was the last time Europeans enjoyed actual hygiene. (Side note.... soap was discovered by the Celts, and passed to the Romans during Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul)

Syphillis, smallpox, you name it- they all ravaged the Americas because they were hermetically sealed from the rest of the world for 30,000 years. We all literally had 30,000 years of completely separate evolution. During that time, we evolved in such a way that caused out neural receptors to be especially susceptible to nicotine addiction (due to zero exposure to it), and our exposure to very virulent diseases made us hardy and resistant to various nasty bugs

At the same time, native Americans were largely shielded from the bugs, but they also evolved to be more resistant to the addictive characteristics of nicotine. And their physiology was completely unprepared for the effects of alcohol.

But back to the original point - no human transmitted pathogens evolved in the new world. They all came from the other side of the pond. In fact, there is just one exception... the Irish potato famine was caused by a fungus that originated in South America... which isn’t all that surprising since the potato itself evolved there, and was brought to Europe.

It really is a fascinating subject, and one that is increasingly historical - because we really have no truly isolated human communities anymore. Air travel means that after hundreds of thousands of years, we are now finally evolving (or devolving) as one species.

Good stuff, CID. Question...using 30,000 years...does that mean you don’t buy the popular timeline of about half of that?

[Grizalltheway]

Our immune system didn’t really have much to do with it.

Literally zero pandemic-creating pathogens evolved in the new world. They all came from Europe via Asia and Africa.

It is a fascinating area of study.... our own immune systems were strong at that time because Europe was a pestilential cesspool for a good 800 years after the fall of the Roman Empire. That was the last time Europeans enjoyed actual hygiene. (Side note.... soap was discovered by the Celts, and passed to the Romans during Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul)

Syphillis, smallpox, you name it- they all ravaged the Americas because they were hermetically sealed from the rest of the world for 30,000 years. We all literally had 30,000 years of completely separate evolution. During that time, we evolved in such a way that caused out neural receptors to be especially susceptible to nicotine addiction (due to zero exposure to it), and our exposure to very virulent diseases made us hardy and resistant to various nasty bugs

At the same time, native Americans were largely shielded from the bugs, but they also evolved to be more resistant to the addictive characteristics of nicotine. And their physiology was completely unprepared for the effects of alcohol.

But back to the original point - no human transmitted pathogens evolved in the new world. They all came from the other side of the pond. In fact, there is just one exception... the Irish potato famine was caused by a fungus that originated in South America... which isn’t all that surprising since the potato itself evolved there, and was brought to Europe.

It really is a fascinating subject, and one that is increasingly historical - because we really have no truly isolated human communities anymore. Air travel means that after hundreds of thousands of years, we are now finally evolving (or devolving) as one species.

It is fascinating especially in light of your Rome to Stone Age analogy and today's estimate of the Mound People living in a metropolis of 100,000. You'd think that would be enough of a crowd to provide an environment for for evolving human transmitted pathogens

Maybe, but if none of those people has ever been exposed to the specific pathogens brought over by Europeans, it doesn't really matter.

[Winterborn]

Smallpox wiped out literally millions in the 1500s and 1600s. Europeans had at least partial immunity to the disease - surviving smallpox for a 16th century Spaniard or Englishman was relatively common - but lots of those who had been exposed still carried the virus.

The Bubonic Plague that ravaged Europe back in the late Middle Ages may have had some interesting effects on the survivors and their decedents. When doing DNA mapping from different people and cultures around the world they discovered that Europeans and their descendants have a higher resistance to the AIDS virus for some reason. They don't know why, but apparently there is a mutation that the Bubonic Plague caused in the survivors that is still evident today.

[CID1990]

It is fascinating especially in light of your Rome to Stone Age analogy and today's estimate of the Mound People living in a metropolis of 100,000. You'd think that would be enough of a crowd to provide an environment for for evolving human transmitted pathogens

Maybe, but if none of those people has ever been exposed to the specific pathogens brought over by Europeans, it doesn't really matter.

I think what he is saying is that given the more metropolitan characteristics of pre-Columbian native Americans it is odd that they didn’t “evolve” their own pathogens that would have affected Europeans

It is possible that they did- and that Europeans had more overall immunity


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Our immune system didn’t really have much to do with it.

Literally zero pandemic-creating pathogens evolved in the new world. They all came from Europe via Asia and Africa.

It is a fascinating area of study.... our own immune systems were strong at that time because Europe was a pestilential cesspool for a good 800 years after the fall of the Roman Empire. That was the last time Europeans enjoyed actual hygiene. (Side note.... soap was discovered by the Celts, and passed to the Romans during Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul)

Syphillis, smallpox, you name it- they all ravaged the Americas because they were hermetically sealed from the rest of the world for 30,000 years. We all literally had 30,000 years of completely separate evolution. During that time, we evolved in such a way that caused out neural receptors to be especially susceptible to nicotine addiction (due to zero exposure to it), and our exposure to very virulent diseases made us hardy and resistant to various nasty bugs

At the same time, native Americans were largely shielded from the bugs, but they also evolved to be more resistant to the addictive characteristics of nicotine. And their physiology was completely unprepared for the effects of alcohol.

But back to the original point - no human transmitted pathogens evolved in the new world. They all came from the other side of the pond. In fact, there is just one exception... the Irish potato famine was caused by a fungus that originated in South America... which isn’t all that surprising since the potato itself evolved there, and was brought to Europe.

It really is a fascinating subject, and one that is increasingly historical - because we really have no truly isolated human communities anymore. Air travel means that after hundreds of thousands of years, we are now finally evolving (or devolving) as one species.

Good stuff, CID. Question...using 30,000 years...does that mean you don’t buy the popular timeline of about half of that?

I threw 30,000 out there as a boilerplate figure - but that number sticks in my head as being roughly how long the Americas were populated by humans

I thought the Clovis culture dated around 30,000? Also, I’ve read in a few places where it is now being argued that humans have been in the new world for even longer than that.

If there’s a body of work out there arguing for around 15,000 years, I’d like to see it




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

phpBB [video]

[JohnStOnge]

If there’s a body of work out there arguing for around 15,000 years, I’d like to see it

I don't know if this is a body of work but I think it references one:

https://www.nature.com/news/controversi ... ht-1.21886

[kalm]

Good stuff, CID. Question...using 30,000 years...does that mean you don’t buy the popular timeline of about half of that?

I threw 30,000 out there as a boilerplate figure - but that number sticks in my head as being roughly how long the Americas were populated by humans

I thought the Clovis culture dated around 30,000? Also, I’ve read in a few places where it is now being argued that humans have been in the new world for even longer than that.

If there’s a body of work out there arguing for around 15,000 years, I’d like to see it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that was the consensus for quite awhile. Over the past few decades, more recent discoveries have pushed the debate back including theories of transatlantic travel to South America and far more advanced societies be wiped from history by meteor strikes and volcanic activity. I always understood Clovis culture to be around 11,000 years BC.

[houndawg]

It is fascinating especially in light of your Rome to Stone Age analogy and today's estimate of the Mound People living in a metropolis of 100,000. You'd think that would be enough of a crowd to provide an environment for for evolving human transmitted pathogens

Maybe, but if none of those people has ever been exposed to the specific pathogens brought over by Europeans, it doesn't really matter.

Well, what I'm trying to say is I'm surprised that their own pathogens specific to the New World didn't evolve given the size and density of their populations.

[Grizalltheway]

Maybe, but if none of those people has ever been exposed to the specific pathogens brought over by Europeans, it doesn't really matter.

Well, what I'm trying to say is I'm surprised that their own pathogens specific to the New World didn't evolve given the size and density of their populations.

Gotcha. Maybe something to do with the better sanitation practices that CID mentioned?

[CID1990]

If there’s a body of work out there arguing for around 15,000 years, I’d like to see it

I don't know if this is a body of work but I think it references one:

https://www.nature.com/news/controversi ... ht-1.21886

Recent DNA testing places the Beringians splitting off from Asian genetic populations around 25,000 years ago, according to the Smithsonian.

Some of the latest scholarship points to the Beringians being the first humans in the Americas. That doesn’t rule out shorter incursions from Europe or Africa, but the primary genetic makeup of indigenous Americans traces back to northeast Asia.

I think as the genetic and archaeological record expands, we certainly may see things pushed back even more. But the geological record shows the Bering land bridge existing from about 40,000 to 17,000 years ago- I think the Beringians may nit have been the first humans there, but the genetic record suggests they were the preeminent humans in the new world. They are certainly the primary ancestors of all the people who were in North and South America when Renaissance Europeans arrived


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

I don't know if this is a body of work but I think it references one:

https://www.nature.com/news/controversi ... ht-1.21886

Recent DNA testing places the Beringians splitting off from Asian genetic populations around 25,000 years ago, according to the Smithsonian.

Some of the latest scholarship points to the Beringians being the first humans in the Americas. That doesn’t rule out shorter incursions from Europe or Africa, but the primary genetic makeup of indigenous Americans traces back to northeast Asia.

I think as the genetic and archaeological record expands, we certainly may see things pushed back even more. But the geological record shows the Bering land bridge existing from about 40,000 to 17,000 years ago- I think the Beringians may nit have been the first humans there, but the genetic record suggests they were the preeminent humans in the new world. They are certainly the primary ancestors of all the people who were in North and South America when Renaissance Europeans arrived


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there has been something on that front recently about some bones in the Pacific Northwest that pre-date the land bridge and lend credence to certain tribes oral history of their people being in the Northwest before the ice came.

[CID1990]

Recent DNA testing places the Beringians splitting off from Asian genetic populations around 25,000 years ago, according to the Smithsonian.

Some of the latest scholarship points to the Beringians being the first humans in the Americas. That doesn’t rule out shorter incursions from Europe or Africa, but the primary genetic makeup of indigenous Americans traces back to northeast Asia.

I think as the genetic and archaeological record expands, we certainly may see things pushed back even more. But the geological record shows the Bering land bridge existing from about 40,000 to 17,000 years ago- I think the Beringians may nit have been the first humans there, but the genetic record suggests they were the preeminent humans in the new world. They are certainly the primary ancestors of all the people who were in North and South America when Renaissance Europeans arrived


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there has been something on that front recently about some bones in the Pacific Northwest that pre-date the land bridge and lend credence to certain tribes oral history of their people being in the Northwest before the ice came.

The 40k-17k period mentioned was just the last time the Bering Strait was a land bridge. It has actually been above water numerous times if you dial back several hundred thousand years. In fact, there could have been earlier versions of Homo in North America if you go way back 100 or so thousand years ago.

just recently, archaeologists examined 100k year old mastodon bones from San Diego that born possible evidence of having been smashed with primitive tools (rocks). The evidence isn't conclusive and there are a plurality of scientists saying there are other explanations, but given that the land bridge has come and gone numerous times over the millenia as the climate changed back and forth... and we know for certain that species like Homo Erectus were in Asia around 400,000 to 600,000 years ago - it is certainly possible that parts of the Americas were visited by earlier migrations. There is no fossil record to back this up but it is in the realm of possibility. Especially with the possibility that either Neanderthals or more likely Denisovans could have come across. Homo erectus and similar species were drawn to warmer climates and may not have ventured far north enough to come across. But the Denisovans certainly could have made the trip.

I find all of this subject fascinating

[houndawg]

I think there has been something on that front recently about some bones in the Pacific Northwest that pre-date the land bridge and lend credence to certain tribes oral history of their people being in the Northwest before the ice came.

The 40k-17k period mentioned was just the last time the Bering Strait was a land bridge. It has actually been above water numerous times if you dial back several hundred thousand years. In fact, there could have been earlier versions of Homo in North America if you go way back 100 or so thousand years ago.

just recently, archaeologists examined 100k year old mastodon bones from San Diego that born possible evidence of having been smashed with primitive tools (rocks). The evidence isn't conclusive and there are a plurality of scientists saying there are other explanations, but given that the land bridge has come and gone numerous times over the millenia as the climate changed back and forth... and we know for certain that species like Homo Erectus were in Asia around 400,000 to 600,000 years ago - it is certainly possible that parts of the Americas were visited by earlier migrations. There is no fossil record to back this up but it is in the realm of possibility. Especially with the possibility that either Neanderthals or more likely Denisovans could have come across. Homo erectus and similar species were drawn to warmer climates and may not have ventured far north enough to come across. But the Denisovans certainly could have made the trip.

I find all of this subject fascinating

Seems like every time we have to revise a timeline regarding our ancestors we have to revise it back further. Denisovans may not have needed a land bridge to reach North America given that one of the places their DNA shows up among the locals is the islands of Micronesia. An earlier branch of our tree may be responsible for the Sasquatch in the oral histories of Indian tribes. (trivia: my Dad knew the guys that faked the Patterson film up near Willow Creek, CA, still touted as the gold standard by crypto-zoology. (It was a 6'7" logger in a gorilla suit)).

[CID1990]

The 40k-17k period mentioned was just the last time the Bering Strait was a land bridge. It has actually been above water numerous times if you dial back several hundred thousand years. In fact, there could have been earlier versions of Homo in North America if you go way back 100 or so thousand years ago.

just recently, archaeologists examined 100k year old mastodon bones from San Diego that born possible evidence of having been smashed with primitive tools (rocks). The evidence isn't conclusive and there are a plurality of scientists saying there are other explanations, but given that the land bridge has come and gone numerous times over the millenia as the climate changed back and forth... and we know for certain that species like Homo Erectus were in Asia around 400,000 to 600,000 years ago - it is certainly possible that parts of the Americas were visited by earlier migrations. There is no fossil record to back this up but it is in the realm of possibility. Especially with the possibility that either Neanderthals or more likely Denisovans could have come across. Homo erectus and similar species were drawn to warmer climates and may not have ventured far north enough to come across. But the Denisovans certainly could have made the trip.

I find all of this subject fascinating

Seems like every time we have to revise a timeline regarding our ancestors we have to revise it back further. Denisovans may not have needed a land bridge to reach North America given that one of the places their DNA shows up among the locals is the islands of Micronesia. An earlier branch of our tree may be responsible for the Sasquatch in the oral histories of Indian tribes. (trivia: my Dad knew the guys that faked the Patterson film up near Willow Creek, CA, still touted as the gold standard by crypto-zoology. (It was a 6'7" logger in a gorilla suit)).

Amazing how some science is never really settled, isn’t it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk