Archive for the ‘Extinction’ Category

Extinction Of Dinosaurs & Demoncrats: A Unified Theory

November 27, 2016

Obsolete Dinosaurs Extinguished In Anguish by Blossoming Mammals, Newer, Better, More Energized.  Same Fate For Smaller Brained Demonocrats?

[The science in this essay is real (although the thesis proposed is new, as far as I know). However, the science is used to generate a sarcastic analogy in the last few sentences.]

My opinion about the fundamental cause for the disappearance of dinosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, etc. is that what I call “core volcanism”, also known as super Traps. Massive hyper volcanism, with ejecta of the order of 10,000 times that of the proverbial asteroid, changed the climate durably when the Dekkan Traps started to erupt (millions of years before an asteroid hit Yucatan, future base of the Maya). Weirdly, the Dekkan Traps eruption reached its paroxysm around the time of the asteroid strike (the detailed timing of what exactly happened when is ever more refined, every year). However dinosaurs and their cousins were made for a warm Jurassic climate (the sort we, the fossil carbon burners are trying to implement in the next 100 years). Dinosaurs and their ilk had insufficient temperature generation capability, something birds and mammals, being of a much higher metabolism, due to their much greater internal heat generation, had plenty of.

Mammalian reptiles appeared 250 million years ago or so. Full mammals are more than 3% of the age of the Earth old. Large ( meter long or more) carnivorous mammals existed already 150 million years ago, around the time birds diverged from dinosaurs.

Mesozoic Repenomamus, about one meter long were found with dinosaurs in their stomach:

Repenomamus Mammals Hunting for Dinosaur Prey during the Mid-Jurassic Period of Europe.

An Early Case of Advanced Types Devouring Demoncrats? Furry Repenomamus Mammals Hunting for Dinosaur Prey during the Early Cretaceous Period of Europe. Mesozoic Era, 122 Million Years Ago.

So picture this: climate cools, dinosaurs, which were spread from the poles to the equator, have increasing difficulties, the number of their species go down. How come dinosaurs could not adapt? Probably because mammals and birds ate them, or their young.

Mammals and birds may well have been a complicating factor in the change of fauna at the end of the Cretaceous. Mammals and birds, capable of sustaining higher metabolism in cooler climes turned a near-extinction into a full extinction. They were a catalyst accelerating the reaction. This is supported by direct scientific evidence, not just philosophy. Some Cretaceous mammals fed on juvenile dinosaurs. It does not require much imagination to figure out that massive carnivorous mammals, whose fossils have been found, had been into that habit for already 100 million years when dinosaurs croaked terminally.

Some may sneer: they don’t know enough. Mammaliaformes are actually 225 million years old. They had evolved from large brained ancestors descending from mammalian reptiles which, themselves, evolved from Synapsids. Synapsids were the largest terrestrial vertebrates in the Permian period, 299 to 251 million years ago. (Large Synapsids were annihilated by the Siberian Traps eruption… however those among synapsids which had become bigger brained, and more prone to make burrows did survive… Thus big braininess in mammalian ancestors was established 251 million years ago…)

In the Jurassic, mammals tended to occupy the niche of smallness. Not that they were terrified by the dinosaurs and tried to make themselves as small as possible, like Trump voters terrified of rampaging demonocrats. More simply, I guess, dinosaurs could not make themselves very small, as they would lose too much heat. So anything smaller than a chicken was a mammal, or the soon to evolve birds.

What sort of philosophy to extract from all of this? Brains and higher metabolism, higher energy lifestyle, can overwhelm the more primitive forms. Extinction itself is multicausal: maybe if neither birds nor mammals (nor sharks or sea-going crocs) had been around, dinosaurs, plesiosaurs, pterosaurs and mosasaurs would have survived the considerable climate cooling at the end of the Cretaceous.

Demoncrats and plutocrats are whining all over as they (correctly) fear going extinct. Asteroid Trump has landed, the climate was changing already anyway, disaster looms for these primitive forms. Flushed with new notions, more clever monsters are roaming the land, devouring the very environment which sustained demonocratic, even plutocratic life, not to say lies. This is how dinosaurs disappeared: global change, and the death-blow given by better equipped predators.

Please stay tuned.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Could Veganism Cause Extinctions?

June 7, 2016

For millions of years, hominids evolved as ever more efficient killer apes. This allowed entire human races or subspecies to live off meat. Such as the Homo Sapiens Sapiens variant Cro-Magnon, or Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis. Meat was a hyper concentrated energy source. just ask seals, dolphins, killer whales, humpback whales, polar bears and walruses.

East Africans, tall and lean, evolved to run down exhausted preys in the mid-day sun, they became ancestral to many people today (most of all of them, according to the “Out of Africa” theory). Cro-Magnon looked like ancestral Scandinavians, tall and strong, ready to fight the fiercest lions, wolves and bears. They are ancestral to many people today. They long lived in present day France, when France was landlocked by enormous glaciers on towering mountains, all around, or the giant ice sheets form the north, and the icy seas, west and south. Then non-glaciated Europe was a land of tundra, and enormous herds of often gigantic beasts.

Hunting is our past, how we evolve, and so was war. Vegans want to change all this. They claim that the future is not to touch adversely the smallest hair or feather. Thus they suggest to not use any animal product whatsoever. Instead, one should go fully agricultural. Agri-cultural means to cultivate the ager, the field. Hence the question: Vegans say they are friendly to beasts, they want to live off fields they cultivate, but are fields friendly to beasts?   

Pure Veganism Would Lead To The Extermination Of This Species

Pure Veganism Would Lead To The Extermination Of This Species

This is the paradox: is one friendly with others, when one exclude others? (The question is not just for Brexiters) When vegans exclude all animal species, are they friendly to animals?

Nature is good and evil. Gods stand above nature (supernatural), they don’t exclude it. Could it be that, when vegan want to exclude evil, they want to exclude nature?

How so? Very simple. Contemplate the world we have. Look at the Auroch. The last auroch died in a royal preserve in Poland in the Seventeenth Century. Europeans domesticated aurochs perhaps 25,000 years ago. Through a careful mix of natural and artificial selection, over 10,000 generations, Europeans created the European domestic cattle (meanwhile Indians and Africans were doing the same with their own breeds; the African zebu was probably evolved in India first; it resists well to African diseases such as sleeping sickness, malaria…)

Or consider sheep and goats: millions live today. They are descendants of their wild ancestors.

What do vegans want to do with all those animals? Through these millions of these domesticated animals survive the ancient species which graced the Earth for tens of millions of years.

This is not an idle question. Take chicken. The rooster was made by the Romans into the symbol of Celtic lands (which they called “Gallia”, the land of chicks…) In the wild, chickens, initially from South East Asia, are basically extinct. By refusing the presence of chicken inside plates, and in the fields, vegans condemn the species to terminal extinction.

Does hard core veganism allows to ride on horses and run dogs?

Conclusion: hard core veganism would lead to the terminal extinction of the most megafauna. They claim to be friendly to the individuals, but they will kill the species.

Solution: keep on using animal species, but do it in what is, ironically enough, called a “humane” way. If a rooster has a beautiful, easy, comfortable life, and then loses by surprise its head in a laser explosion, is it so bad? Would this sudden death be worse than enjoying life prior to this impromptu, sudden, unforeseen and painless demise?

Is veganism, pushed to extreme, the psychological equivalent of a brat who declares to his mom that he will refuse to breathe, rather than to eat its vegetables? Mummy here, being nature herself?

There is an extremely powerful metapsychological objection to veganism: we have seen that story, the story of renouncing life, many times before. Periodically, a slave religion arises, and recommends to us to lay prone, refuse life, reject even self-defense, accept to live small, barely eating, afraid to bother others in all and any way. This apparently bizarre cult is only natural, and is an evolutionary selected mode of operation: that of the prey which surrenders to those red in fang and claw.

When an animal of one of these species which get preyed upon, is surrounded, and death is unavoidable, it is often seen surrendering to its fate: this is part of the co-evolution of ecological systems (something not well-known, but still a fact). Not the evolution of the fittest individual as the naive evolutionists of the 19 C had it, but the evolution of entire ecological systems, as individuals made of multitudes. Is the vegan is a beast which wants to die and disguises this as a lofty language, while dragging hundreds of large species in its hateful discourse? Hateful of what? Hateful of life itself. Life is about living, thus suffering and dying. Not that the latter activities are necessarily something to look for, just the opposite. But mitigating and escaping them, is the spice of life.

Thus it is not excluded that the rise of veganism corresponds to surrender to mighty plutocrats: instead of tearing and shredding plutocratic substance, vegans decide that broccoli is all the protein they need. ‘They are starving? Let them eat grass!’ Say these new Marie-Antoinettes of the abysmal age.

Thus we have seen that story before. Whenever great plutocrats rise, We The People tends to roll on its back, presents its belly, and waits for horror, persuading themselves that horror is all what they ever wanted. Buddhism preaches that it is better to give up on life in full, rather than indulge into giving and receiving suffering. After its creation by a Princeling (not a coincidence), Buddhism took over most of India. But the predators laid in wait. They re-took all of India.

Vegans can preach. The only way what they preach can not lead to mass extinction, is by reserving around half of the land mass to total wilderness, in all and any ecological zone. That could, even should, be done. However, refusing the essence of life, preferring non-existence to death, is another matter entirely.

Patrice Ayme’