Did baldness evolve to protect us from prostate cancer? Study

» By that logic, old and wrinkled men are the fittest, because all men
» become old and wrinkled.
»
» And as for young men, baldness is rare among the young, which shows that
» going bald young is an unfit evolutionary trait, and so has been selected
» out.

Good points, Ahab, but I think baldness is not that rare among the young. Note that, until recently, women married relatively mature men, around 30 or so, and at that age, a significant percentage were already balding. So it seems that early baldness was not selected-out.

Also note that if baldness means a longer and healthier life (this is not for certain yet), this would mean that a bald man will be able to build a stronger and richer family, and his sons will have more resources to suceed in life, and compete better with others.

So, now we have to convince hot chicks that baldness is in fact a good thing, that will ensure a better life for them and her children. :slight_smile:

» Good points, Ahab, but I think baldness is not that rare among the young.

The percentage of baldness roughly directly correlates to age, so that among 20 year old men, 20% have significant baldness.

Among 30 year old men, 30%.

One doesn’t even reach half of men until age 50, and by then most prehistoric men were old or dead, possibly long dead.

» Note that, until recently, women married relatively mature men, around 30
» or so, and at that age, a significant percentage were already balding. So
» it seems that early baldness was not selected-out.

Through most of human history, men and women likely married very much younger, as teenagers. (Else why would boys enter puberty as teenagers? Not likely they waited almost twenty more years before marrying or at least bedding some old bald guy’s wife.

» Also note that if baldness means a longer and healthier life (this is not
» for certain yet), this would mean that a bald man will be able to build a
» stronger and richer family, and his sons will have more resources to suceed
» in life, and compete better with others.

One thing you’re forgetting: the children the rich and powerful bald man is raising aren’t necessarily his.

That is, the woman has been screwing the young hairy hunter on the side, and sticking the old guy husband with the job of unknowingly raising some other man’s kids.

Another problem with the theory is that our beards are growing round about the time we start balding. The beard growth covers up the surface area of the skin reducing exposure to sunlight.

So does nature have its foot on the brake (beard) and the accelerator (baldness) at the same time ?

My theory is that baldness evolved for males to advertise their higher brainpower over other low browed males. It might also be a trick to make us look older than we are (meaning we have survived longer and thus have better genes). This was back when males died pretty early.

Or maybe DHT is like a super steriod giving us animal like strength in battle to grab our enemies by the hair in hand to hand combat and finish them off.

Its one of the mysteries of the universe.

No matter what useful reasoning anyone gives for MPB, I can just poke the same hole in the theory over and over again: At least half the men never get it and they survive fine.

Non-balding men arguably survive better when it comes to women, and evolution has a habit of expressing its strongest preferences through that factor. We have all kinds of social problems today because men and women still sexually prefer exactly what was important thousands of years ago and not what’s important today. Women don’t prefer baldness now = women didn’t prefer baldness thousands of years ago.

» At least half the men never get it and they survive fine.

But consider how much MORE we have to struggle to survive and pass on our genes given our baldness disadvantage. What we lack in hair, we have to make up in (i’m hoping) brainpower. That results in more effort being placed from the evolution prespective on our IQ increase to out-compete other non-balding males.

And we are winning I believe… and spreading our baldness genes all over the place.

In any case women long ago did not have much choice about who they married. They were just married off by their fathers and brothers for land, cattle and money.

Something that makes it harder to reproduce is not an advantage.

Maybe bald guys do earn more money. Maybe they end up with women who are more in love with them. Maybe they make better father figures. So what? Hairy guys impregnate more women and that’s what matters. Evolution does not care how many toys and we die with or how well liked & loved we are, it only cares how much we reproduce.

Women didn’t used to have control over who they married but they had control over who they secretly slept with on the side. This factor has had a lot to do with whose genes really got passed on in human history. In fact evidence points to women’s bodies actually trying harder to get pregnant wih the sperm of an affair than with the regular husband.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fe20090712rh.html

A teenager in an infant’s body may hold the key to eternal youth

By ROWAN HOOPER

We are constantly under attack. Chemicals in the environment, ultraviolet light, even cosmic radiation — our DNA is bombarded 24/7 by agents that can cause damage and mutations. But don’t take my word for it.

“It is estimated that a single cell in mammals can encounter approximately 100,000 DNA-damaging events per day,” says Emi Nishimura of Tokyo Medical and Dental University, who works on the biology of aging. Given that there are something like 10 trillion cells in the human body, that’s a battle on an epic scale.

Most of the DNA damage is unavoidable and fixed — being the reason, for example, why our skin wrinkles and we start to look old. But something can easily go wrong.

Nishimura’s work came to mind last month after I’d digested an astonishing story about a teenage girl trapped in the body of an infant.

My immediate reaction was that the story was a hoax. I’d heard of progeria, the tragic disease that causes its child victims to age at a vastly accelerated rate. But the opposite; something that apparently freezes the aging process? It didn’t seem possible.

Outside of science fiction or films such as “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” I’d never come across the like of it. Neither, it seems, had anyone else. The case of Brooke Greenberg, from Baltimore, Maryland, is unique — and not a hoax. I read a medical report on her in a journal titled Mechanisms of Ageing and Development.

Brooke Greenberg is 16 years old, but her size and mental development correspond to that of an 11-month-old child. She has a first set of teeth, like those of an 8-year-old, but no adult teeth. Her bones have the cell structure of a 10-year-old, but are the length of an infant’s. Her brain is no more developed than that of a baby.

It’s an extraordinary case, and the girl’s doctors can’t yet explain it.

She has no known genetic disease or chromosomal abnormality. Eventually, somebody will find what’s gone wrong. And what then? Could it be possible, I wondered, once we find out what is behind this arrested development, to replicate it?

Even Brooke’s father has suggested that his daughter could be the “fountain of youth.” Understanding her condition could allow us to switch off the aging process at any age we choose. Now we really are straying into the realms of science fiction — but that is why science is so fascinating: It allows us to understand what used to be considered supernatural.

It reminds me of the cases you sometimes hear about, of a child born in some village in a developing country with a genetic condition that is considered magical. A couple of years ago in India a girl was born with eight limbs. She was named Lakshmi after the multi-limbed Hindu goddess of wealth, and whose reincarnation some believed the girl to be. (The superfluous limbs, which were successfully removed, belonged to a “parasite twin” who had merged with the girl’s body in the womb.)

Richard Walker, of the University of South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa, Florida, is Brooke’s doctor. He thinks that she might help scientists discover the “master controller” of development, which seems to be switched off in her case.

A British biologist, George Bidder, proposed in 1932 that there was just such a “master controller,” but that gene or those genes have never been found.

Not that we would want to switch it off completely, as appears to have happened in Brooke’s case. Aging is part of life. Cells need to grow old and die, or else our bodies won’t function properly. And if we couldn’t grow and develop brain neurons, we wouldn’t be able to learn new things, or create new memories.

However, the tragic case of Brooke Greenberg might well shed light on the mechanism of aging, and eventually allow us to turn off the bits we don’t like, such as muscle deterioration, skin wrinkling, loss of stamina and sexual libido.

I haven’t included hair graying in that list. Nishimura’s work shows that the processes that lead to gray hair — or shiraga (white hair) as it’s referred to in Japan — may have a surprisingly beneficial role.

The pigment in hair is supplied by cells called melanocytes. These cells are themselves created by stem cells, and when the number of stem cells in hair follicles decreases, hair turns gray. In tests on mice, Nishimura’s team determined why the numbers of these stem cells falls.

The mice were exposed to DNA- damaging mutation agents, such as certain chemicals and radiation. In large doses, they are things that cause cancer. But what the Tokyo team found was that stem cells damaged by the mutation agents transformed themselves permanently into melanocytes — the cells that produce hair pigment. Fewer stem cells to supply new melanocytes meant that their numbers fell, and the mice turned gray.

But this is a good thing, says Nishimura. She says that the trick of having damaged stem cells turn into melanocytes might be a sophisticated way of getting rid of those damaged cells. If the mutant stem cells were allowed to continue to produce “daughter” cells, they might produce cancers.

Hair-graying, in other words, could be protecting us from cancer. I guess it’s a good thing then, though I can’t take too much comfort from seeing more gray hairs when I look in the mirror.

Yours are good points, Ahab.

Still, among 30 year old men, maybe “just” 30% are balding, but many more are already thinning.
Baldness is a very significant detail amongst the young. I am surprised that it has not been “selected out” by evolution.

Another detail that we should consider is that men have no menopause, while women have. Why mature men are capable of reproduce if only young men are suppossed to do so.

If baldness is a way to signal the end of the fertile period for men, it would have been much more simple if nature had simply given us a menopause.

» » Good points, Ahab, but I think baldness is not that rare among the
» young.
»
» The percentage of baldness roughly directly correlates to age, so that
» among 20 year old men, 20% have significant baldness.
»
» Among 30 year old men, 30%.
»
» One doesn’t even reach half of men until age 50, and by then most
» prehistoric men were old or dead, possibly long dead.
»
» » Note that, until recently, women married relatively mature men, around
» 30
» » or so, and at that age, a significant percentage were already balding.
» So
» » it seems that early baldness was not selected-out.
»
» Through most of human history, men and women likely married very much
» younger, as teenagers. (Else why would boys enter puberty as teenagers?
» Not likely they waited almost twenty more years before marrying or at least
» bedding some old bald guy’s wife.
»
» » Also note that if baldness means a longer and healthier life (this is
» not
» » for certain yet), this would mean that a bald man will be able to build
» a
» » stronger and richer family, and his sons will have more resources to
» suceed
» » in life, and compete better with others.
»
» One thing you’re forgetting: the children the rich and powerful bald man
» is raising aren’t necessarily his.
»
» That is, the woman has been screwing the young hairy hunter on the side,
» and sticking the old guy husband with the job of unknowingly raising some
» other man’s kids.

I don-t agree with your conclusion.
If you have melanocytes, you can indeed conclude that the “protecting mechanish” is working as the stem cells are turning themselves into melanocytes.

But if you are graying, this means that there are no melanocytes, so this transformation of stem cells into melanocytes is not occurring.
Most probably, if you have no melanocytes is because your stem cells are dead or screwed, so this is not apparently any good.

» http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fe20090712rh.html
»
» A teenager in an infant’s body may hold the key to eternal youth
»
» By ROWAN HOOPER
»
» We are constantly under attack. Chemicals in the environment, ultraviolet
» light, even cosmic radiation — our DNA is bombarded 24/7 by agents that can
» cause damage and mutations. But don’t take my word for it.
»
» “It is estimated that a single cell in mammals can encounter approximately
» 100,000 DNA-damaging events per day,” says Emi Nishimura of Tokyo Medical
» and Dental University, who works on the biology of aging. Given that there
» are something like 10 trillion cells in the human body, that’s a battle on
» an epic scale.
»
» Most of the DNA damage is unavoidable and fixed — being the reason, for
» example, why our skin wrinkles and we start to look old. But something can
» easily go wrong.
»
» Nishimura’s work came to mind last month after I’d digested an astonishing
» story about a teenage girl trapped in the body of an infant.
»
» My immediate reaction was that the story was a hoax. I’d heard of
» progeria, the tragic disease that causes its child victims to age at a
» vastly accelerated rate. But the opposite; something that apparently
» freezes the aging process? It didn’t seem possible.
»
» Outside of science fiction or films such as “The Curious Case of Benjamin
» Button,” I’d never come across the like of it. Neither, it seems, had
» anyone else. The case of Brooke Greenberg, from Baltimore, Maryland, is
» unique — and not a hoax. I read a medical report on her in a journal titled
» Mechanisms of Ageing and Development.
»
» Brooke Greenberg is 16 years old, but her size and mental development
» correspond to that of an 11-month-old child. She has a first set of teeth,
» like those of an 8-year-old, but no adult teeth. Her bones have the cell
» structure of a 10-year-old, but are the length of an infant’s. Her brain is
» no more developed than that of a baby.
»
» It’s an extraordinary case, and the girl’s doctors can’t yet explain it.
»
» She has no known genetic disease or chromosomal abnormality. Eventually,
» somebody will find what’s gone wrong. And what then? Could it be possible,
» I wondered, once we find out what is behind this arrested development, to
» replicate it?
»
» Even Brooke’s father has suggested that his daughter could be the
» “fountain of youth.” Understanding her condition could allow us to switch
» off the aging process at any age we choose. Now we really are straying into
» the realms of science fiction — but that is why science is so fascinating:
» It allows us to understand what used to be considered supernatural.
»
» It reminds me of the cases you sometimes hear about, of a child born in
» some village in a developing country with a genetic condition that is
» considered magical. A couple of years ago in India a girl was born with
» eight limbs. She was named Lakshmi after the multi-limbed Hindu goddess of
» wealth, and whose reincarnation some believed the girl to be. (The
» superfluous limbs, which were successfully removed, belonged to a “parasite
» twin” who had merged with the girl’s body in the womb.)
»
» Richard Walker, of the University of South Florida College of Medicine in
» Tampa, Florida, is Brooke’s doctor. He thinks that she might help
» scientists discover the “master controller” of development, which seems to
» be switched off in her case.
»
» A British biologist, George Bidder, proposed in 1932 that there was just
» such a “master controller,” but that gene or those genes have never been
» found.
»
» Not that we would want to switch it off completely, as appears to have
» happened in Brooke’s case. Aging is part of life. Cells need to grow old
» and die, or else our bodies won’t function properly. And if we couldn’t
» grow and develop brain neurons, we wouldn’t be able to learn new things, or
» create new memories.
»
» However, the tragic case of Brooke Greenberg might well shed light on the
» mechanism of aging, and eventually allow us to turn off the bits we don’t
» like, such as muscle deterioration, skin wrinkling, loss of stamina and
» sexual libido.
»
» I haven’t included hair graying in that list. Nishimura’s work shows
» that the processes that lead to gray hair — or shiraga (white hair) as it’s
» referred to in Japan — may have a surprisingly beneficial role.
»
» The pigment in hair is supplied by cells called melanocytes. These cells
» are themselves created by stem cells, and when the number of stem cells in
» hair follicles decreases, hair turns gray. In tests on mice, Nishimura’s
» team determined why the numbers of these stem cells falls.
»
» The mice were exposed to DNA- damaging mutation agents, such as certain
» chemicals and radiation. In large doses, they are things that cause cancer.
» But what the Tokyo team found was that stem cells damaged by the mutation
» agents transformed themselves permanently into melanocytes — the cells that
» produce hair pigment. Fewer stem cells to supply new melanocytes meant that
» their numbers fell, and the mice turned gray.
»
» But this is a good thing, says Nishimura. She says that the trick of
» having damaged stem cells turn into melanocytes might be a sophisticated
» way of getting rid of those damaged cells. If the mutant stem cells were
» allowed to continue to produce “daughter” cells, they might produce
» cancers.
»

» Hair-graying, in other words, could be protecting us from cancer. I guess
» it’s a good thing then, though I can’t take too much comfort from seeing
» more gray hairs when I look in the mirror.

» Baldness is a very significant detail amongst the young. I am surprised
» that it has not been “selected out” by evolution.

Evolution works on percentages, not guarantees.

I wholeheartedly believe in evolution. There is so much data now backing it up that at this point I think it’s safe to say it should be labeled as a fact rather than a theory (unlike global warming which is lacking in data and can easily be contradicted by many other factors). Though the role baldness plays in it’s role is baffling. Almost all factors make sense when it comes to evolution except this. I have never really thought about it though. If you look at why blonds popped up after the ice age it’s logical to say due to the limited amount of females they needed a way to attract men. The reason certain people have darker skin and lighter is a no brainier. Even things like dogs that are bread with short legs and long legs are evidence of how we can alter evolution. Certain crabs in Japan where thrown out by fisherman who thought they looked like Samaria. They survived and multiplied while others died off. Fish grew numbs on there bodies to hop from one pond to another eventually turning into arms and legs. I have no d@mn clue about baldness though… I’m sure there’s a reason though I would have to ask a expert. The thing is most things with evolution seem like common sense now. Maybe the answer is so obvious it seems more complicated than it is. Also I may be wrong as I am no science major but I recollect someone saying that evolution is mostly “mistakes”. When a “mistake” occurs that benefits the survival of that specifics or somehow makes it life easier then it tends to be the one that prospers. The ones who did not get the “mistake” that enriched their lives tend to die out. Of course, as we know there are tons of people with mental disability or physical who do not die out now days. This is because our society is designed to help them out. Though they are still limited in numbers because they just aren’t capable of multiplying like the ones who aren’t handicapped. Maybe bald men were just able to compensate better than a guy who has no arm or a person with cerebral palsy. Think about this too… how many historical figures had something considered to be a flaw. Napoleon (short)… Einstein (considered slow as a child), Mozart (deaf) but where able to minimize the effects of their defect because of their strengths. Dang, that theory sounded insulting to those who suffer from MPB but it’s not the way I intended it to be ( I realize ALL TO WELL what it’s like to be less than perfect… as I am farrrrrrrrrrrr from it). Though that may not necessarily be true because some of the most intelligent people I know are bald. Not only that but they are also hugely successful and inspiring in someway shape or form. I could names tons but I just go back to my original statement at this point and time it may just be to difficult to decipher what natures intentions were…

Sorry for rambling on, just this question seemed like an enigma to me that caused my brain to keep thinking. I just started right random thoughts that came to my mind on the topic. Maybe next time I’ll try to think things out before I write them so they are more coherent.

» I wholeheartedly believe in evolution. There is so much data now backing it
» up that at this point I think it’s safe to say it should be labeled as a
» fact rather than a theory (unlike global warming which is lacking in data
» and can easily be contradicted by many other factors).

Virgo, Virgo, you always seemed so humble, and now this. Perhaps your promise to next time ‘think things through’ will allow yourself the consideration of the purported fact that 95%(heck, maybe it’s only 93%)of the world’s leading scientists DO think there’s data enough to worry about global warming, and to at least try and do something about it. And the other 5 or 7 percent? Not that such a miniscule minority (sort of unscientific) should be given much voice, but they are, and you then have to ask yourself why. Turns out most of’em work for oil or power companies, or for lobbists, etc. It’s not something you’re gonna hear on Fox News, though. Anyway, I didn’t intend to get mean-spirited about it, and hope you don’t take it that way. There are some of us, however, even here in the U. S., that think there’s a problem and the consequences of doing nothing make for a pretty rough scenario, with hair or without it.

Women lose their hair too, that is part of the evolution process to protect women against prostate cancer?

» I wholeheartedly believe in evolution. There is so much data now backing it
» up that at this point I think it’s safe to say it should be labeled as a
» fact rather than a theory (unlike global warming which is lacking in data
» and can easily be contradicted by many other factors). Though the role
» baldness plays in it’s role is baffling. Almost all factors make sense when
» it comes to evolution except this. I have never really thought about it
» though. If you look at why blonds popped up after the ice age it’s logical
» to say due to the limited amount of females they needed a way to attract
» men. The reason certain people have darker skin and lighter is a no
» brainier. Even things like dogs that are bread with short legs and long
» legs are evidence of how we can alter evolution. Certain crabs in Japan
» where thrown out by fisherman who thought they looked like Samaria. They
» survived and multiplied while others died off. Fish grew numbs on there
» bodies to hop from one pond to another eventually turning into arms and
» legs. I have no d@mn clue about baldness though… I’m sure there’s a
» reason though I would have to ask a expert. The thing is most things with
» evolution seem like common sense now. Maybe the answer is so obvious it
» seems more complicated than it is. Also I may be wrong as I am no science
» major but I recollect someone saying that evolution is mostly “mistakes”.
» When a “mistake” occurs that benefits the survival of that specifics or
» somehow makes it life easier then it tends to be the one that prospers. The
» ones who did not get the “mistake” that enriched their lives tend to die
» out. Of course, as we know there are tons of people with mental disability
» or physical who do not die out now days. This is because our society is
» designed to help them out. Though they are still limited in numbers because
» they just aren’t capable of multiplying like the ones who aren’t
» handicapped. Maybe bald men were just able to compensate better than a guy
» who has no arm or a person with cerebral palsy. Think about this too… how
» many historical figures had something considered to be a flaw. Napoleon
» (short)… Einstein (considered slow as a child), Mozart (deaf) but where
» able to minimize the effects of their defect because of their strengths.
» Dang, that theory sounded insulting to those who suffer from MPB but it’s
» not the way I intended it to be ( I realize ALL TO WELL what it’s like to
» be less than perfect… as I am farrrrrrrrrrrr from it). Though that may
» not necessarily be true because some of the most intelligent people I know
» are bald. Not only that but they are also hugely successful and inspiring
» in someway shape or form. I could names tons but I just go back to my
» original statement at this point and time it may just be to difficult to
» decipher what natures intentions were…
»
» Sorry for rambling on, just this question seemed like an enigma to me that
» caused my brain to keep thinking. I just started right random thoughts that
» came to my mind on the topic. Maybe next time I’ll try to think things out
» before I write them so they are more coherent.

hehe, i had actually written the exact same thing earlier about 95% of the worlds scientists believing in global warming, while the other 5% are paid by the oil lobby which is running an extremely effective campaign to spread doubts in the minds of the average joe on the issue of global warming… this can be seen by the stunning figure of 50% of the americans not believing that global warming is man made. absolutely ridiculous.

Anyway i had decided not to post it as it was too off topic. However having done minor research on global warming in the past myself… i assure u the threat is real and possibly one of the greatest threats in human history… and should rank second on the mankinds problem solving priority list (after having solved hairloss) :smiley:

» » I wholeheartedly believe in evolution. There is so much data now backing
» it
» » up that at this point I think it’s safe to say it should be labeled as
» a
» » fact rather than a theory (unlike global warming which is lacking in
» data
» » and can easily be contradicted by many other factors).
»
»
» Virgo, Virgo, you always seemed so humble, and now this. Perhaps your
» promise to next time ‘think things through’ will allow yourself the
» consideration of the purported fact that 95%(heck, maybe it’s only 93%)of
» the world’s leading scientists DO think there’s data enough to worry about
» global warming, and to at least try and do something about it. And the
» other 5 or 7 percent? Not that such a miniscule minority (sort of
» unscientific) should be given much voice, but they are, and you then have
» to ask yourself why. Turns out most of’em work for oil or power companies,
» or for lobbists, etc. It’s not something you’re gonna hear on Fox News,
» though. Anyway, I didn’t intend to get mean-spirited about it, and hope
» you don’t take it that way. There are some of us, however, even here in
» the U. S., that think there’s a problem and the consequences of doing
» nothing make for a pretty rough scenario, with hair or without it.

» » I wholeheartedly believe in evolution. There is so much data now backing
» it
» » up that at this point I think it’s safe to say it should be labeled as
» a
» » fact rather than a theory (unlike global warming which is lacking in
» data
» » and can easily be contradicted by many other factors).
»
»
» Virgo, Virgo, you always seemed so humble, and now this. Perhaps your
» promise to next time ‘think things through’ will allow yourself the
» consideration of the purported fact that 95%(heck, maybe it’s only 93%)of
» the world’s leading scientists DO think there’s data enough to worry about
» global warming, and to at least try and do something about it. And the
» other 5 or 7 percent? Not that such a miniscule minority (sort of
» unscientific) should be given much voice, but they are, and you then have
» to ask yourself why. Turns out most of’em work for oil or power companies,
» or for lobbists, etc. It’s not something you’re gonna hear on Fox News,
» though. Anyway, I didn’t intend to get mean-spirited about it, and hope
» you don’t take it that way. There are some of us, however, even here in
» the U. S., that think there’s a problem and the consequences of doing
» nothing make for a pretty rough scenario, with hair or without it.

I take no offense whatsoever… and thanks for the compliment, I think that was in there was one in there somewhere. :wink:

I don’t disagree that the climate is changing. I know you are correct when saying the majority of scientist believe in global warming but I still don’t. I think we may effect it slightly but not even nearly enough to make a drastic effect. I know scientist get money from the government to work on global warming. Maybe they just don’t want to bit the hand that feeds. I don’t know, I could be wrong… Either way you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else.

One last thing in the end… if you are thinking farther ahead into the future… like what really matters when the clock is up… I think no matter what our planet is doomed and therefore irrelevant. There are many other factors such as comets floating around in space, or rogue blacks that concern me more. There is the obvious as well, suns don’t live forever. So IMO finding a way off this planet is literally the most important thing we could do humans.

Oh, except for finding a cure for hair-loss (all forms of hair-loss that is everywhere on the body). :wink:

» »
»
» I take no offense whatsoever… and thanks for the compliment, I think
» that was in there was one in there somewhere. :wink:
»
» I don’t disagree that the climate is changing. I know you are correct when
» saying the majority of scientist believe in global warming but I still
» don’t. I think we may effect it slightly but not even nearly enough to make
» a drastic effect. I know scientist get money from the government to work on
» global warming. Maybe they just don’t want to bit the hand that feeds. I
» don’t know, I could be wrong… Either way you are entitled to your opinion
» just like everyone else.
»
» One last thing in the end… if you are thinking farther ahead into the
» future… like what really matters when the clock is up… I think no
» matter what our planet is doomed and therefore irrelevant. There are many
» other factors such as comets floating around in space, or rogue blacks that
» concern me more. There is the obvious as well, suns don’t live forever. So
» IMO finding a way off this planet is literally the most important thing we
» could do humans.

It’s good to see there are some on this forum that can take an opposing view and not think the world is collapsing around them. Speaking of that, and your mention of a possible doomsday comet event, what if 95% of the world’s leading scientists predicted one would hit us in say five years. They had identified the problem(a comet big enough to destroy earth heading straight for Iowa). I’m pretty sure inhabitants of our planet would put up quite a stir to their respective governments to at least try and do something about it. Real life problem identified: too much man made carbon dioxide released into atmosphere. Solution: Stop doing so much of it. Anyway, you and me both are probably about to get blasted for getting off topic. But thanks for being a good guy.
» Oh, except for finding a cure for hair-loss (all forms of hair-loss that
» is everywhere on the body). :wink: