Comments by "" (@rstevewarmorycom) on "The Guardian" channel.

The bible is totally and completely a FICTION!! It was made up by ISIS style sheep fuckers who just wanted to manipulate their children and frighten their neighbors. Darwin did NOT "repent" on his deathbed, his family reports that never happened, it was a lie invented by creationists. DNA is formed by mistakes in copying of DNA in the form of chromosomal fusions, accidental gene duplication, and accidental mutations of the gene's content, and those are filtered by survival. That is the way ever more complicated genomes are constructed by nature in branching trees of animals with a common original ancestor. Life as a whole grows like a crystal from chemicals. Darwin EXPLAINED how the mammalian eye formed, he didn't wonder about it at all. You've been reading a fiction book as your sole source of knowledge, no wonder you're still so unbelievably stupid.
11
TheDisproof That was my point. Population isn't the big problem, it's political and socio-economic. Division of wealth is currently defective, and many industries are extremely wasteful. Also people are spoiled in the more developed countries. If they can't go out for a soda in the middle of the night for no reason and have all the lights on waiting for them all night, and all the street lights, they think the world is coming to an end, when if they bought it earlier we wouldn't have to do that and could save a quarter of our energy usage. If people are going to be stupid they can waste as much as a small population as they do now as a large population, trust me, they'll find a way!!
2
+Asrat Mengesha Because life forms on land came from the sea, and that's why the blood is almost the same salinity. Non-vertebrates didn't need skeletons in the sea, they were later found useful for fast swimming. Spiders aren't created "all of a sudden", where do you get this fantasy garbage? Vertebra came from the chordates that had a nerve cord, the bone grew to protect it. The other animals had a ventral nerve bundle, not a nodacord. Go back to school, you can barely phrase decent questions.
2
TheDisproof True, now enforce it. Betcha can't. That's why shooting people is actually a better strategy if you really think population is the way to go on this. Maybe we'd better try something else.
1
TheDisproof Yeah, but what do you do if they don't want to? It's one thing to reduce birthrate to ZPG and quite another to reduce the population by an enormous percentage.
1
TheDisproof People are eating or they would not be alive. This means that current food production per acre is sufficient. That it would have to be increased for the population peak near end of century is obvious. That it can be is also obvious. But it will require social measures to control misuse of land and profit and ensure effective food distribution. After that time the population will decrease. The portion of the population that will cause that decrease is already decreasing, but the number of people still alive will balloon this to 11 billion at end of century. Then the population bubble of older people will die off leaving a steadily decreasing population. That it will also take the use of fossil fuels for a time is uncertain. Best predictors say it doesn't have to, that most controls on land use can cause the food production without it.
1
TheDisproof It's obvious we are not currently living sustainably. This is different, however, from being overpopulated. If we COULD currently live sustainably and are simply not doing it, then we may not technically be overpopulated, except in an aesthetic sense. But if we cannot actually live sustainably now, and that's because of population, then we are overpopulated. I'm not sure we know which is true. There is an awful lot that can be done with permaculture, land recovery, vertical farming, and extensive renewables, so that, if we re-organized our political and economic systems, we COULD live sustainably with the current and even future population levels. Whether it would be as grandly oblviious to the need for efficiency in energy, food, and water consumption or not is not yet known.
1
TheDisproof But you just ignored what I said. There are two "carrying capacities", one using only renewables, the other using fossil as well. So there are two possible populations limits that will result in famine. In addition there is the inefficiency factor of food delivery, based on logistic and political and transport energy concerns.What is "poverty"? Is it not having powerful electricity at your beck and call each moment? Or is it not having transport to wherever your heart desires? Doesn't seem so. We can all stay home and work close to home by switching jobs with people who work in our town and commute from elsewhere. We can all go the fuck to sleep at night and turn off all the street lights and close the stores for 8 hours plus.It would barely require only a little personal planning. These are political measures. They would immediately result in a savings of nearly one third our energy consumption. We could superinsulate our homes and save another 25% of all energy. You COULD do it with pulverized dry trash and sheet plastic! If our homes look like garbage bags but we are fine and healthy and have low-consumption consumer equipment are we impoverished? We now have computers that burn 30 Watts and display the whole world. Our big 1960's color TVs used to burn 500 Watts and didn't. Technology CAN change the carrying capacity of the earth. It almost SOUNDS like you want a way to eliminate all these people just so your lifestyle doesn't have to change even a little bit!! How lazy!!
1
TheDisproof TV's were common in homes in the 1960's. Vast majority had them. So there aren't "100 times more" now. TV isn't as important as a computer, and a majority now has computers and they use a tenth the wattage and offer a hundred times the service or more. Technology increases carrying capacity for energy, and tells us how to heat and cool our homes without added energy from elsewhere. Likewise for food and water production, technology includes farming methods like permaculture and land recovery, and water conservation using swales. You seem to think all 7 billion of us are not all eating well now because the word can't produce it, when every study on food waste says we waste over half of it. They ARE eating "enough" or they would be dead. Tell me which commodity is Liebig's Law's minimal commodity. I can't think of one. Water doesn't disappear, it merely requires desalination, processing and conservation. Food only requires ever more fraction of labor to produce enough by intensive gardening. Warmth is eminently avialable in the ground. What is the limiting quantity? I see none yet, no where near it. The limits are strictly political and economic, both a matter of killing the right assholes.
1
TheDisproof Your cynicism is simply not supported by evidence. We have enough for even 11 billion people to be warm, and sheltered and fed, and have water. The only limitations are political. There is 10 acres of arable land for every person, growable land, not desert. We only need a half acre or less to support one human life. All you have to do is garden by hand a half hour a day. Water doesn't disappear, we simply use it faster than it is replenished as fresh water from the hydrologic cycle from the oceans. We don't need the massive quantities we are using, we only need enough to drink and grow our crops, sea water can be processed for all industrial processes. The amount used for agriculture the way we're doing it is 100 times more than the crops need. Proper soil development holds water like a sponge. The way we're doing it it all runs off or evaporates. Some don't have cellphones or computers, but those are a few, and that is easily remedied by technology. Fossil fuels are NOT necessary to grow food, it is simply the easy way to do it if people won't garden and want machines to quickly fuck over the soil and leave it barren. That it takes fossil fertilizer is a myth promoted by people who want to keep all their conveniences and not be bothered to garden a half hour a day. All you have to do is compost your greenwaste and nightsoil and you can grow your food without it. Soil loss is accelerating everywhere people refuse to garden and where they try to get off easy over-grazing with food animals. If they used chickens instead of goats that wouldn't happen. Chickens provide meat and eggs and do wonderful things with garden soil. People who wish can grow catfish and tilapia in small ponds, and use the waste on the garden. These things are all easy. Why are you so discouraged? Gardening is easy, the sun and the plants do all the work.
1
TheDisproof No they (105) don't, what posturing!! 105 science academies could never agree with any one internet YouTube clown!! How absurd!! A hectare is what, about 2.5 acres, so 12 billion hectare is about 30 billion acres, or three acres apiece for 11 billion people. And the land used for agriculture doesn't include ALL arable land OR people's yards, where they could easily grow most of their vegetables and chickens. Yes, a 4 acre truck garden can feed 20 people easily. I'm a former pig and truck farmer, AND an EMT AND an auto engine rebuilder, AND a physicist-engineer!! I do have a long list of practical skills that let me know these things. I'm retired but I have had a full life. No, you obviously think food comes from the grocery store and take somebody's word for the rest of it. We do NOT NEED fossil fuels to grow food. We can replace ALL fertilizers with greenwaste and human and animal manure, and all it takes is a half hour a day to grow your food. The ONLY thing fossil fertilizers do is make it easy to grow a lot with a few people and machinery. But if everyone who wants to get fed works a half hour a day gardening, then you can grow three times as much easily. Any truck farmer can tell you that you don't need ammonium nitrate and potassium and phosphorus unless you take the greenwaste off the land and don't add manure. All fossil fertilizer is for is to enable most people not to garden!! The only reason we use fossil fuels and barely make do is because we don't garden!! Many of the global impoverished don't have the know how to grow on a half acre, but if they took one minimal gardening course they would know how. Many of them don't even have any handtools! You're EXTREMELY city-ignorant!!
1
TheDisproof Sure, if we use fossil we ARE unsustainable, but not if we don't!! So: No. That's NOT why we're using it. We're using it because we don't want to have to all become part time gardeners. That's the only reason. The shit required to fertilize the crops we eat comes from the crops we eat, which we then shit out, and if we use that directly back on the crops then the crops will have enough. This is the nutrient cycle. We use fossil fuels to avoid having to take good care of the earth and do so personally. We do it so a very few people can grow our food very very inefficiently on a great deal of land, when it takes ten times less land if we grew our food personally in gardens. Many intensive gardeners can, with only about an hour or two a day, produce enough food for them and their families on a quarter to a half acre. Part of this is fruit and nut trees which need very little attention. The rest is moving around chicken tractors to fertilize garden plots and for eggs and meat and harvesting catfish raised in small ponds with plant waste. The vegetables, when properly mulched, literally grow themselves. Very little actual energy is needed when it is all set up properly. I'm a physicist and raised soybeans, corn and hogs and chickens in my youth. My garden never needed a fucking tractor. We had so much wood chips and mulch on it that it never needed any weeding and virtually no watering. We would collect that from the woods with tarps and a rake. We had easily enough to feed ourselves on only an hour a day labor. And with raised beds we barely had to bend over! Only the corn and beans needed tractoring. And those were to feed another 200 folks who didn't want any dirt under their fingernails. We don't have to keep living that way!! I don't think you know shit about farming. You're an idiot. You talk like a city boy who thinks food comes in trucks.
1
TheDisproof No. Fossil fuels were just a convenience so that we each did not have to compost our waste and garden about a quarter acre for each one of us for about an hour a day. The atoms were sufficient, the space is sufficient, evidenced by the fact that we are alive. The sun is more than sufficient, the water is sufficient as well when retained in the soil by thick humus. All fossil Haber-Bosch did was make it so few could feed many without returning waste and compost to the soil. Previously we had felled forests and wasted the topsoil they provided till there was little left, and then came the dust bowls. The only way to continue to raise food on such land was to add NPK from other sources, usually fossil driven. And because we had removed and not returned the nutrients after we had passed them through our bodies we had to add lime as well, it was becoming calcium and phosphorus depleted because it was hauled away to market to be eaten elsewhere and wind up in rivers and streams down to the ocean. Same with iron and magnesium. As for population, watch Hans Rosling, US population specilaist and MD. As for gardening yields, watch Permaculture recovery of land, it is amazing. We don't have to live this way, we can live the RIGHT way. Then we won't NEED fossil fuels for food. If we need some machinery it can run on Canola and Corn oil biodiesel, we don't need that much of it and rarely. On most Permaculture farms the tractor sits idle and has to be started periodically just to keep the battery charged and the fuel bowl from drying out. But the very things we usually use tractors and trucks for are usually actually mistakes!! Sure, spades and hoes need fuel to make, but there are the forests to burn judiciously, and we don't need that much if we are frugal. We over-use steel for most of its applications. And solar can be used to reform the monstrous pile of metal we currently have laying around. I run my welder on an inverter off batteries charged by solar panels! According to Rosling, 11 billion can be fed, no big problem, the problem is all political, the rich abusing the resources and the land for quick wealth. Sure, we need clothing, but we don't need as much as we have. Nor does its manufacture take that much fuel compared to most uses. Even plastics can be re-used much more than today if we sort and process them. And its a relatively low-temperature process. And n, I find your "points" invalid and uninformed.
1
TheDisproof Nonsense. it doesn't take fossil fuels to heat homes in temperate climates, and certainly not in Cambodia or anywhere semi-equatorial or equatorial. Passive solar using southern exposure, superinsulation, and proper earth massing works fine, even at 50 latitude, and few live north of there. Nor do laptops require more than a solar panel to run. And they don't constitute much embodied energy either. You're talking to a physicist, I'm an expert at analyzing energy budgets, you can't fool me. This "modern standard of living" of which you speak seems to consist mostly of driving for everything, instead of having it delivered, which is ten or twenty TIMES more energy efficient, turning on powerful lights you don't need when LED lighting is fine, and expecting to be able to burn Watts when Watts aren't available from wind or sun, which is like expecting the sun to be out whenever you happen to wake up, it's stupid. You do your laundry when you have the power, ot whenever you choose, you still have clean clothes if you're not an ignoramus. You cook your food when the sun cooks your food, and you do something called "planning", what a concept. The rest is solar and batteries quite sufficient to run your lights and laptop, and if you think you need a big screen TV you're a dipshit anyway. Your heat comes from the sun, as does your hot water, and when you close your big shutters on your south-facing windows at night, the masonry down the middle of your sun-exposed south room radiates the heat it gained during the day. If there are some dark days you use a little wood in a very efficient stove whose flue is piped through masonry to retain the heat in the base of the house. You stop whining and see how good it all works, and without all the cost you've been paying and without the damage to the planet you've been wreaking. You take public transport, or use an electric bicycle to do your shopping. You drive an electric car and its powered off 15 solar panels. You have well-maintained warm clothing and reduce your expectation of perfection and having your every want supplied for a change. Your 105 national science academies would be scandalized to see how you've lied about everything they hold true. I know, I'm a physicist.
1
TheDisproof Your "105 national science academies" don't seem to actually have said anything together than I can find. I suspect you've pulled them out of your ass. Most things made of plastics either should not be, or could be made otherwise. But we have sch a huge backlog of plastic trash in landfills and the oceans which we could go get, and such an enormous amount of petrochemical tailings that can be used for plastics with only a little processing, that imagining something we use only 11% of fossil fuel for now is going to be a problem is ridiculous. The stuff is made of the most abundant elements in nature. And it can be synthesized from plant material. That's how nature made fossil fuel. And we have such an enormous pile of smashed cars that some cities are trucking them away or selling them abroad! Steel is also totally recyclable. Supporting 2 or 7 or 11 billion is all eminently do-able using the proper gardening methods. The problems are only political. If those who rape the land and take it away from indigenous and the poor can be killed and their bodies fertilize the ground I'm sure we can grow enough. "Encouraging the rich to have smaller families?" They already have the lowest fertility, did you mean the poor? The poor everywhere in the world except Africa are heading toward ZPG, but the overshoot it still going to hit 11 billion before it gets any better. It's a myth that the poor are still having huge families in the third world, haven't you seen Hans Rosling's statistics class on population? If you are suffering from outdated notions you had better look!
1
TheDisproof Ah, the much vaunted call, at last. I can see why you didn't really wish anyone to see it. All it does is say that 105 orgs in the IAP are concerned about population and consumption. That's IT! AND IT DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOUR BELIEF AT ALL!! Shit, I could have signed THAT!! Hans Rosling made no "errors", HIS office in the UN is the one all of these 105 nations come to FOR the statistics and their analysis!! As for plastics this has been known for a VERY long time. Go do some research, I'm sure there are hundreds of papers. I've read a few, and I barely scratched the surface. An "Ecologist"? I would doubt there is any such thing anymore, most universities have closed their undergrad "ecology" programs and rely on the sub-specialities of science to do that kind of work in the post doc careers. It was found to be too broad a field to have a university specialty in, their graduates kept not getting jobs or getting jobs cleaning pools or working on farms, etc. Rosling has showed the rich are too small a number to matter as long as they are already at ZPG, and they are. Most of Europe is well below ZPG and most of them aren't rich. You still haven't seen Rosling's work on the age demographics of population, which shows that when the next forty years worth of people die the job will be done and we'll be heading down and fast!! And do you even know why? I bet you don't. It is NOT intuitive.
1
TheDisproof I read it, it was just a paragraph, for gawd sake. It says nothing about your conclusion, so I repeat: You're misusing it to support your idiotic notion that has now been disproved. Hans Rosling advises the WHO and UNICEF, and is a recognized population statistician. See Wikipedia. He has not been accused of any "errors". Nothing can be found of that allegation. Consumption by the rich and their progeny are two totally separate matters, and unrelated. As for Europe, their population on average is wealthy by worldwide standards, but not by developed world standards. And their rich class is who you appear to be addressing. Now you're reduced to nit-picking and posturing, and desperately doubling-down on your incorrect information.
1
TheDisproof You didn't "check" shit, you're no population demographer. His wasn't some "theory", he got his information from public statistics, it is irrefutable. Sure, the statement is serious, but it's not like we're not dealing with it. The big problem isn't population, it's energy and resource waste and CO2. The rest is political. He wasn't wrong about peak child, the stats show that quite clearly. His software graphing of it makes it totally obvious. The challenge of population growth is simply how are we going to meet the needs of 11 billion while waiting for population's predicted decline. There is no way to stop it anyway, nobody is going to let you tell them how many children they must not have. Be glad that we can reduce childbirth with economic opportunity and education of women and available birth control. Be glad we can control consumption with renewables and the popularization of low energy ad energy efficiency solutions. Just pray we don't permanently screw up the climate while waiting for the population to subside. THAT I'm not so sure about.
1
TheDisproof You didn't "check" shit, you're no population demographer. His wasn't some "theory", he got his information from public statistics, it is irrefutable. Sure, the statement is serious, but it's not like we're not dealing with it. The big problem isn't population, it's energy and resource waste and CO2. The rest is political. He wasn't wrong about peak child, the stats show that quite clearly. His software graphing of it makes it totally obvious. The challenge of population growth is simply how are we going to meet the needs of 11 billion while waiting for population's predicted decline. There is no way to stop it anyway, nobody is going to let you tell them how many children they must not have. Be glad that we can reduce childbirth with economic opportunity and education of women and available birth control. Be glad we can control consumption with renewables and the popularization of low energy ad energy efficiency solutions. Just pray we don't permanently screw up the climate while waiting for the population to subside. THAT I'm not so sure about.
1
TheDisproof Now you're nitpicking. For the size of the problem, the scale of his "error" is quite small, and still below replacement, as was his point. If all you want to do is provide education and extraordinary access to contraception, you have my blessing. Efficiency can be incentivized by higher prices for energy, and the price difference can be used to fund renewables expanding on a war footing to replace fossil. The consequent drop in CO2 will result in potential preservation of the oceans and fish stocks.
1
TheDisproof Except that all those people you used to worry about in China and India and all over the fucking place are only having one or two children now!! Except for Africa and a few places in the middle east. That's what Rosling is trying to tell you, 40 years ago you would have been right, but not now!! The jaunt up to 11 billion is NOT due to greater than ZPG, but the wait in time for the elderly to die and even out the result. I bet you've never even watched his videos, you don't even address what he said! And once again, Liebig does NOT apply. Today's efficiency is fueled by scarcity and price, not by science and abundance.
1
James Nation No one knows what the fuck you're talking about!
1
James Nation You sure like emotional posturing in place of making sense. Earth losing wildlife is not the same as human life on earth being beyond carrying capacity, however much you like biologic diversity. Rosling never said that human consumption of energy would not put us in danger atmospherically and climatologically. His concern was population, and his figures appear to be accepted by most scholars in the field. The population is doing what he said it would do, by actual measures, and that was his chief concern. However bad things get, that will be true. Whether we shall enjoy how bad things get is another matter. It really doesn't matter whether we like 11 billion, we're going to get 11 billion, and short of killing a bunch of people there is no way to prevent it. People may have to settle for survival, rather than "having needs". Most poverty is not caused by lack but by greedy systems and mal-distribution. Population won't change that. These are massive trends that you won't be able to turn. So I don't know why you're wringing your hands and posturing your snide insults without providing proofs of your own, it won't do you or anyone any good. Sustainable may have to be rice and lentils and just enough water to drink for a time. And so it goes. I worry more about people continuing to burn things than I do about population. Some fraction of us can always die of starvation and the rest will be alright, but we can't repair an atmosphere gone loony and killed us all.
1
TheDisproof No, he knows. And contraception won't stop it. You haven't even read why. And no, humans might well be able to double that population and do well even if they got rid of all wild animals and wild spaces. It's a matter of careful agriculture. Not that I would like or recommend that.
1
James Nation No, he's just a happy Swede, they are happy people. But he knows we're going to GET 11 billion and there's nothing civilized we can do about it, but the good news is that it is self-correcting. It might not have been. And his concern is not sustainability, he leaves that to others. He knows the key to that is alleviating poverty. If you are worried about these conditions we don't know what you want, because you keep neglecting to tell us what we can do about it except some vague handwaving reference to birth control. Did you want to select certain populations and sterilize them all, or what? The miracle is that a nation of starving refugees who kept trying to have as many children as they could starve a generation ago is now a nation of people who desire only to have two children, and their people are getting fed. The rest of Bangladesh lately is indeed a mess, but that is political and religious and is unrelated to that achievement. I don't see your point.
1
James Nation Well, gee, I'm with you, but how are we going to magically convince everyone to join our Socialist world government? You see, however laudable, and I truly think it is, achieving that in the time frame would not appear to be possible. It would involve killing a great number of people, and people don't seem to favor that, and if you try to do it yourself you will be quickly eliminated. Human obstinacy seems to be entirely unfactored in your view. I am puzzled why you imagine our happy Socialist Swede Rosling is some kind of criminal, when he would probably like the same outcome for all this as you do, but he thinks it isn't feasible. Once again I would ask for many more specifics for your proposals. How would you achieve this. It is obvious that a command political authority over the whole world would be able to do that, but how do you intend to achieve that?
1
James Nation I'm not talking about what it LEADS to, but what is required to bring it about. So far the idea of a peaceful Socialist World Government hasn't caught on. This suggests someone is preventing it actively. Getting rid of that opposition would require physically opposing these people. That would likely require killing them. If some people are not obstinate, as you say, then why has the situation not naturally progressed to a World Wide Socialism? Whatever measures you might like to institute, the question remains as to whether everyone is simply stupider than you and haven't been told about them yet, or that there are forces that are obstinate against them. You haven't been very specific with your recommendations. Your whole argument seems a bit immature, developmentally speaking. Yes, Sweden is not socialist, precisely, but it has made much progress toward it. If you compare it to here in the USA, then you will see a vast difference.
1
Pssst! Antarctica is the SOUTH pole. And yes, GPS and gyrocompass works fine.
1
Vladimir Nachev It CAN be made more accurate that way, but it relies on the satellites for lat/long. And the antennas are called fractal antennas. I've used them for close-order mapping.
1
These people should be lined up, shot in the head and dropped into a trench.
1
+leo lilil No, your assertion is a lie. So-called "macro" and "micro" evolution are the same, there are no "kinds". We HAVE the fossils of the animal that preceded BOTH dogs and cats, and the other animals in those lineages We can SEE them changing. We HAVE the fossil whale between a land predator and modern whales, a dozen or more of them, whole skeletons, and we can see the blowhole moving back and the legs shrinking. We HAVE the fossils of birds with teeth and tails that go back to the therapod dinosaurs with feathers. We HAVE the fossils of lobefin lungfish that first crawled out on land and how their limbs came from their large fins. Hitler didn't know shit about evolution, he tried to use it as a justification when the theory actually informed us of the exact opposite.
1
jim thinnsen No, when a man can walk ten miles, it is a logical conclusion that if he did it for a thousand times longer that he could walk ten thousand miles. THAT is the only difference between so-called "micro" and "macro" evolution, which terms biologists and scientists generally do NOT use for that reason. We have a world of fossil evidence, one transitional form after another, all lined up. No real assumptions need be made, other than the evidence of our senses is not some plot to deceive us. There is no "satan" and no "gawd". No one has ever seen either of them. Now those ARE figments of imagination and unsupported by reason and the evidence of our senses. You're desperately blathering words without reason and logic, and with no evidence. You're living in a fantasy, and you will say absolutely ANYTHING to defend your sick pitiful terrified little religion. Your just vomiting your "magic" words in hysterical terror, trying to avoid the truth that you also know you will face.
1
jim thinnsen Their alignment is obvious, like 1,2,3,4 etc. You're the idiot who is fooled.
1
To Richard Dawkins: Richard, jesus didn't even exist. The ONLY accounts of a jesus are by ANONYMOUS writers, who obviously stole from each other and wrote after 70 AD to 110AD. Should ANYONE believe stories of magic and miracles by conniving collection of ALL ANONYMOUS writers? Should anyone believe a schizotypal like paul who ONLY believed in an angel jesus in heaven whom he could ONLY access by visions and dreams, and whom he believed had been crucified ONLY in heaven beneath the moon by satan and his demons! There are NO secular public records of a jesus or disciples, no death notices, no family remembrances for these supposedly illustrious men, nothing. Pilate NEVER mentioned him in his memoirs, the temple has NO record of a trial, nor did the temple conduct trials at night, NOR do they conduct capital trials over less than two days, to give the priests time to sleep on their verdict, NOR would they EVER do that during Passover! No do the Romans have ANY record of that name, and the Romans were ANAL about those kinds of records!! The writings of josephus, the testamonium flavianum, has been show to be a forgery by Eusebius, the dishonest cleric in the third century!! This leaves NO respectable sources for jesus in the whole of the first century and most of the second!!
1