![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Links and a little commentary:
A Boston Globe article on Neanderthals. It's sad that they chose to title it: "Stone Age feminism? Females joining hunt may explain Neanderthals' end" when the article has far more interesting material, and the idea that women hunting may have contributed to Neanderthal extinction is only one of many theories. Clearly they want a headline that sucks us in, but jeepers! I'm tired of seeing the word "feminism" attached to things that bear little relation to modern feminism, and here, as often happens, the connotations are negative. The article also brings up the theory that homo sapiens committed genocide, with this comment from Svante Paabo: "humans and Neanderthals coexisted for thousands of years, so I think talk about genocide says more about how modern humans think...."
That almost segues into a frightening glimpse of now. I'm aware of research into a number of non-lethal weapons, and I think it will be a great thing if riots can be stopped without shooting people and perhaps one day wars can be made less deadly. However, non-lethal weapons also bring the temptation to use weapons where no weapon at all is needed. Here's a Wired piece on acoustic weapons at a predominantly peaceful protest in Tbilisi, Georgia. The imbedded video is three-and-a-half minute clip from a news broadcast (Russia News?) that gives a little background on the protests, including the fact that they've been mostly peaceful and that this suppression came after calm had returned, and a brief look at what appears to be an acoustic weapon. The article contains another link that leads to this video (cannot be imbedded) that shows more of the acoustic weapon.
What neither shows very much is how badly the victims were affected; there are a number of ambulances present, and some people had already been taken to hospitals before the news clip. I know there has been concern that acoustic weapons can cause permanent hearing damage, and of course the water cannon and tear gas they used have their own, better-known risks. (More background can be found in this article in The Economist.)
I hope those working on non-lethal weapons are watching closely to see how severe the effects are. I could hardly find any news coverage mentioning the acoustic weapon using Google; only Wired seems to be paying much attention.
A Boston Globe article on Neanderthals. It's sad that they chose to title it: "Stone Age feminism? Females joining hunt may explain Neanderthals' end" when the article has far more interesting material, and the idea that women hunting may have contributed to Neanderthal extinction is only one of many theories. Clearly they want a headline that sucks us in, but jeepers! I'm tired of seeing the word "feminism" attached to things that bear little relation to modern feminism, and here, as often happens, the connotations are negative. The article also brings up the theory that homo sapiens committed genocide, with this comment from Svante Paabo: "humans and Neanderthals coexisted for thousands of years, so I think talk about genocide says more about how modern humans think...."
That almost segues into a frightening glimpse of now. I'm aware of research into a number of non-lethal weapons, and I think it will be a great thing if riots can be stopped without shooting people and perhaps one day wars can be made less deadly. However, non-lethal weapons also bring the temptation to use weapons where no weapon at all is needed. Here's a Wired piece on acoustic weapons at a predominantly peaceful protest in Tbilisi, Georgia. The imbedded video is three-and-a-half minute clip from a news broadcast (Russia News?) that gives a little background on the protests, including the fact that they've been mostly peaceful and that this suppression came after calm had returned, and a brief look at what appears to be an acoustic weapon. The article contains another link that leads to this video (cannot be imbedded) that shows more of the acoustic weapon.
What neither shows very much is how badly the victims were affected; there are a number of ambulances present, and some people had already been taken to hospitals before the news clip. I know there has been concern that acoustic weapons can cause permanent hearing damage, and of course the water cannon and tear gas they used have their own, better-known risks. (More background can be found in this article in The Economist.)
I hope those working on non-lethal weapons are watching closely to see how severe the effects are. I could hardly find any news coverage mentioning the acoustic weapon using Google; only Wired seems to be paying much attention.
Tags: