[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some of that at least makes partially sense. The restrictions in Egypt (not working with fertilizers, pesticides and hormones) could make some sense, in a view on a potentially not yet born baby.
They only make sense if you think it's OK to deny women the autonomy of their bodies to decide when they get pregnant. That's the net effect of that law even if isn't the intent (and let's be real - it's totally the intent). I mean I know what you're getting at and I don't think you're justifying the laws, I just had to say that.
 
....er... I'm actually not following.
My train of thought there is: This work could potentially harm an unborn baby or the fertility of a woman (if that's true: Debatable; I'd guess not). Since most of the women will get babies (if that's true...), we should directly not allow them to work there.
I'm not saying I agree with that, or anything in this direction, but the person who thought about this law had some logic and probably not exclusively bad intent behind it.
 
Anybody else curious what the deal is with Guinea and "certain hammers"?
 
....er... I'm actually not following.
My train of thought there is: This work could potentially harm an unborn baby or the fertility of a woman (if that's true: Debatable; I'd guess not). Since most of the women will get babies (if that's true...), we should directly not allow them to work there.
I'm not saying I agree with that, or anything in this direction, but the person who thought about this law had some logic and probably not exclusively bad intent behind it.
I hear you and I agree this is the purported logic behind a lot of these laws. What it comes down to though is that the state is assuming all women will be having children or at least should be and thereby denying their access to labor markets. Not only is this a faulty premise (post-menopausal women can't get pregnant, some women are infertile and of course some women choose not to have children) but it's basically a way of trying to force women to give up that autonomy.

If you decide to remove women's ability to earn a living you are de facto forcing them towards the role of baby maker and denying them autonomy of choice. Therefore to justify these laws you have to be implicitly OK with reducing autonomy of women.
 
I hear you and I agree this is the purported logic behind a lot of these laws. What it comes down to though is that the state is assuming all women will be having children or at least should be and thereby denying their access to labor markets. Not only is this a faulty premise (post-menopausal women can't get pregnant, some women are infertile and of course some women choose not to have children) but it's basically a way of trying to force women to give up that autonomy.

If you decide to remove women's ability to earn a living you are de facto forcing them towards the role of baby maker and denying them autonomy of choice. Therefore to justify these laws you have to be implicitly OK with reducing autonomy of women.

My impression is that it is mainly casual sexism. Good intent or not. The prime focus is to protect fertility.
And somehow fertility of male is not that much of a traditional topic, and not AFAIK implemented in such regulations as from the map shown.
Although research has shown that sperm counts of male are currently less than 50% compared to the 70ies in the western world.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...estern-men-have-halved-in-last-40-years-study
 
Last edited:
South Africa actually surprised me.
 
South Africa actually surprised me.

It would have surprised me too before I went there, but the blue area includes both Durban and Johannesburg. Cape Town is the only place outside the blue area that matches the size of those two cities (Johannesburg is the largest, then Cape Town, then Durban).

Here is a population density map of South Africa:
 
Is that Hawai'i second from left in the bottom row?
 
Ah. I should have guessed that from my time with EU.
 
South Africa actually surprised me.

Most of those densely populated areas are former bantustans, where black inhabitants were concentrated during the apartheid.
One cluster around Johannesburg, one cluster around Durban.
The northwest area dry with low population density.
 
South Africa actually surprised me.
It's the Afrikaner heartland and the biggest port.

I was reminded that NZ follows the "capital is not the most populous area" pattern that Canada has.
 



Ancient DNA confirms Native Americans’ deep roots in North and South America

By Lizzie WadeNov. 8, 2018 , 2:00 PM


For decades, scientists could describe the peopling of the Americas only in broad strokes, leaving plenty of mysteries about when and how people spread across the continents. Now, state-of-the-art ancient DNA methods, applied to scores of new samples from around the Americas, are filling in the picture. Two independent studies, published in Cell and online in Science, find that ancient populations expanded rapidly across the Americas about 13,000 years ago. They also emphasize that the story continued in the thousands of years since, revealing previously undocumented, large-scale movements between North and South America.

The data include 64 newly sequenced ancient DNA samples from Alaska to Patagonia, spanning more than 10,000 years of genetic history. "The numbers [of samples] are just extraordinary," says Ben Potter, an archaeologist at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. Prior to these studies, only six genomes older than 6000 years from the Americas had been sequenced. As a result, says Jennifer Raff, an anthropological geneticist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, "The [genetic] models that we've been using to explain the peopling of the Americas have always been oversimplified."

Eske Willerslev, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Copenhagen who led the Science team, worked closely with the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe in Nevada to gain access to some of the new samples. The tribe had been fighting to repatriate 10,700-year-old remains found in Nevada's Spirit Cave and had resisted destructive genetic testing. But when Willerslev visited the tribe in person and vowed to do the work only with their permission, the tribe agreed, hoping the result would bolster their case for repatriation.

It did. Willerslev found that the remains from Spirit Cave are most closely related to living Native Americans. That strengthened the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe's claim to the bones, which were returned to them in 2016 and reburied. Willerslev's study validates that "this is our homeland, these are our ancestors," says Rochanne Downs, the tribe's cultural coordinator.

Willerslev added the Spirit Cave data to 14 other new whole genomes from sites scattered from Alaska to Chile and ranging from 10,700 to 500 years old. His data join an even bigger trove published in Cell by a team led by population geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston. They analyzed DNA from 49 new samples from Central and South America dating from 10,900 to 700 years old, at more than 1.2 million positions across the genome. All told, the data decisively dispel suggestions, based on the distinctive skull shape of a few ancient remains, that early populations had a different ancestry from today's Native Americans. "Native Americans truly did originate in the Americas, as a genetically and culturally distinctive group. They are absolutely indigenous to this continent," Raff says.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...-americans-deep-roots-north-and-south-america
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom