The global population may be growing, but for developed countries where we get most of our news (I assume, at least I do), they're just starting to tip over into the shrinkage and dealing with the bulge of elderly people. The narrative is right for the political and economic interests that we hear from.
I imagine if we were consuming news from India, Egypt or Nigeria it would be a very different story.
As far as I am aware, modern humanity is by far the most capable civilisation that has ever existed on earth as far as moving rocks is concerned. The only thing beating us right now is glaciers and tectonic activity.
I think they're making reference to some ancient Alien theories along the lines of Erich Von Daniken and others, which tend to postulate that certain ancient and megalithic structures would have been impossible to build without modern technology, and thus can only have been the result of alien interference.
It's worth mentioning that there is often a white supremacist or pro-colonialist dimension to these theories. Rarely does anyone question whether the Greeks built their architecture, for instance, but according to these people it's simply not possible for the Egyptians to have built the pyramids.
The strongest mobile crane in the world can lift about 300 tons. While they are mobile cranes (with wheels) it’s hard for them to move in soft sand even without heavy loads. When they lift something they don’t move.
There are some granite blocks that weigh over 1000 tons. We’re told that these were transported from hundreds of miles away, across mountain and over a river. Historians are not engineers so they don’t understand what they’re saying.
If we were to move those blocks now we would need to build massive crane around it, that would move on tracks (ones you see in harbors).
In this video they transport 340 ton rock. Pretty massive project and they used satellite data to find route without any uphill..
Somehow those ancient blocks were carved and transported thousands of years ago. How it was done and by who is unknown.. I think it’s understandable if someone picks the alien explanation as the most plausible answer. Personally I can entertain any idea but I wouldn’t bet on anything.
> There are some granite blocks that weigh over 1000 tons. We’re told that these were transported from hundreds of miles away, across mountain and over a river. Historians are not engineers so they don’t understand what they’re saying.
I am still unsure which ancient blocks you're referencing though. Stonehenge? Could you link to them, or a picture, or where in the world they are so I can google it?
I asked from ChatGTP how many people would be required to lift 1000 ton block (if we consider slaves).
“It would require approximately 19,753 people to lift a 1000-ton granite boulder, given the assumptions made regarding average lift capacity and efficiency factors. This is a theoretical estimate and assumes perfect conditions where all individuals can contribute equally and simultaneously, which may not be feasible in reality due to the physical space required and coordination challenges.
1. *Weight of the Boulder*: 1000 tons (US tons) = 2,000,000 pounds (lbs) since 1 ton = 2,000 lbs.
2. *Average Lift Capacity per Person*: The average untrained adult can safely lift about 135 pounds (deadlift, which is a reasonable approximation for lifting something off the ground) without training. However, for trained individuals, this number can be significantly higher. Let's use the untrained capacity for a conservative estimate.
3. *Safety and Efficiency Factors*: When lifting heavy objects, especially with many people, not everyone will be able to lift their maximum capacity due to the awkward shape of the object, grip issues, coordination, and safety concerns. Thus, we might apply a safety factor to ensure we're considering a realistic scenario. Let's assume 75% efficiency to account for these factors.”
But you can’t fit that many people under the rock. If you wanted to use chains to help lifting it would require something better than wine ropes. Even chain made from copper wouldn’t hold it.
That fallen Ramses statue is rose granite.
Another mystery is how this statue was created. Because it’s so symmetrical and smooth we would have to use machinery in order to do it.
Quick TLDR. They don't lift it, they dig under it. Either constructing a canal, and putting a weighted barge beneath it. Then remove the ballast so the barge lifts up the weight. For overland they do a similar thing, but with a sled, pour a lubricant under the sliders, and then pull. Apparently 2 people can pull 1 Ton this way. So 500 people pulling the sled. (They had approx 2000 people working on a similar project) Also they used shallow ramps over long distances to raise it up.
There was also a modern thing when they moved a lighthouse.
The 80 ton statue was difficult because they wanted to do it with minimal people, and with minimal disruption, and quickly. If you had 2000 people working 5 days a week, 3 years to do it in, and the legal ability to dig up the road/canal etc it can be done. The amazing thing to me is how much priority Ancient Egyptians gave building these monuments, seems like the most important thing they were doing. I guess it gets easier to deal with planning permission when your absolute ruler says "Do it".
I've seen a very good take that it is the ideal renewable fuel for large machinery such as farming or construction equipment. Batteries wouldn't work due to the cost and charging time (when you're using them you need them for long stretches), but weight (and therefore some of the complex/heavy containment). These places (at least in the UK) have their own diesel logistics infrastructure already.
But Iran also likes the Houthis being a credible threat to Saudi Arabia and the UAE even more.
Continuing to poke international commercial shipping will obviously trigger a response. No one powerful, even China, wants non-military ships being attacked.
So they're risking substantial damage to Houthi power for... what?
Tying up naval capacity? Eh. Temporarily. And with minimal effect on Israel/Palestine.*
Boosting the price of oil? Maybe. But doesn't seem to be doing much yet.
At Russia's behest? Maybe. General chaos elsewhere and tying up ISR assets benefits Russia.
* Would become much more relevant if Hezbollah enters the war.
You make some good points. But the Houthis have been being bombed by Saudi Arabia for years and haven't been crippled by it. Getting them to poke and prod some shipping could be and easy way to cause an outsized impact.
It could also be an internal thing for the Houthis that we (certainly I) don't know about. Being able to say "We're standing up to Israel and the US" could be big for their credibility in Yemen. That is pure speculation however.
> Given that the Houthis have said they are holding up ships they consider linked to Israel
They're stopping ships that they can, and it is in their interest to stop. Iranian ships seem to be passing through no bother, but ships flagged as Liberian, coming from Europe to Asia with a Filipino and Indian crew are stopped. You can consider any ship linked to Israel if you don't care how tenuous the link is.
> and that everyone in the UN bar the US and Israel are calling for a ceasefire.
Notably Hama's isn't calling for a ceasefire, and it takes two to tango, so even if Israel wanted a ceasefire there won't be one.
> wouldn't it be more useful to get a ceasefire, so then the Houthis can stop?
Since when did "Don't give in to terrorists" stop being a thing? Just throw ourselves on the good graces of a violent terrorist group.
Hamas has called for a ceasefire numerous times, and in fact there was a temporary ceasefire. To forestall the next question, as to who broke the truce, I've not seen evidence either way, only claims. Regardless, this does kinda invalidate your claim.
One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. In this case, nearly the whole of the UN has voted for a ceasefire, so interests align, which should be a better solution yes?
> Notably Hama's isn't calling for a ceasefire, and it takes two to tango, so even if Israel wanted a ceasefire there won't be one.
It takes two to tango, but two people holding a staring contest hoping the other will propose a tango doesn't work all that well.
> Since when did "Don't give in to terrorists" stop being a thing?
It was never a thing. America's very first treaty was with pirates. Countries negotiate with terrorist groups regularly; they use the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" thing when they don't want to.
It improves general camera performance by having an accurate depth scan. Things like portrait mode and object recognition benefit.
The Measure app is quietly one of the most amazing apps in existence. You can get an accurate measurement of anything anytime! The lidar sensor makes it far more accurate and less finnicky than on the non-Pro phones.
Obviously on its own it’s not worth an upgrade but it’s a great sensor to have on a phone.
Compared to who? Modern day, of course they weren't. 1500's Britain was quite poor, but not more so than many other places.
If you look at the general populace for basically anywhere before modern times, they all had bad hygiene nutrition and medial aptitude by modern standards. Looking at what the 0.1% could manage doesn't tell you much about a society.
Not compared to present day, no, but most of the folks who interacted with Europeans at that time (including the natives in the Americas) commented on how sickly they looked and how badly they smelled. Nobody was springtime fresh, but early modern Brits were apparently notable even then.
I do use drugs. I have never seen spirits in a plastic bottle, even own brand super market vodka.
Boxed wine exists, and is a bit under half the market (by volume). Wine in glasses is still the majority of sales. Beer/cider/larger is sold in cans or bottles, with cans being about 2/3rd by volume.
I do drugs as well, but I don't typically drink alcohol. Maybe I am not qualified to speak on this, but in the US most of the cheap vodkas have been coming in plastic bottles for around 15 years now at least.
I agree in theory with you. But you can 'bank' labour for later on. Building infrastructure (that will last) when you have a population bulge, means that the generations after can take advantage of that infrastructure, and have to do the lower amount of work, of maintaining it. This can go for things like education, investing in businesses, and generally any capital.
Of course you can also over build this capital that will never be used, but will need to be paid back (for example a local government pays to build a town that there are no people to fill it with) and the maintenance is too much, but you still have to look after the people who did the building.
I imagine if we were consuming news from India, Egypt or Nigeria it would be a very different story.