Daily Archives: October 23, 2022

History is best told through relatable human stories. – Monterey County Weekly

Posted: October 23, 2022 at 12:58 pm

History is best told through relatable human stories.  Monterey County Weekly

Read more from the original source:

History is best told through relatable human stories. - Monterey County Weekly

Posted in History | Comments Off on History is best told through relatable human stories. – Monterey County Weekly

History made in China as Xi Jinping to serve third term – breaking decades-long precedent – Sky News

Posted: at 12:58 pm

History made in China as Xi Jinping to serve third term - breaking decades-long precedent  Sky News

See more here:

History made in China as Xi Jinping to serve third term - breaking decades-long precedent - Sky News

Posted in History | Comments Off on History made in China as Xi Jinping to serve third term – breaking decades-long precedent – Sky News

Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign – Wikipedia

Posted: at 12:55 pm

American Presidential campaign

The 2012 presidential campaign of Ron Paul, U.S. Representative of Texas, began officially in 2011 when Paul announced his candidacy for the 2012 Republican Party nomination for the U.S. Presidency.

On April 14, 2011, Paul announced the formation of a "testing-the-waters" account, and had stated that he would decide whether he would enter the race by at least early May. Paul announced the formation of an exploratory committee on April 26, 2011, in Des Moines, Iowa. He declared his candidacy for President of the United States on May 13, 2011, in Exeter, New Hampshire.[4]

On July 12, 2011, Paul announced that he would not seek another term as the Representative of Texas's 14th District to focus on his presidential campaign.[5] By April 2012, the campaign had raised more than $38 million.[6][7][8][9][10]

On May 14, 2012, Paul announced that he would end active campaigning for the remaining primary states and instead focus on delegate selection conventions at the state level.[11] On July 14, 2012, Paul failed to win a plurality of delegates at the final convention in the state of Nebraska, which ended his ability to ensure a speaking spot at the Republican National Convention.[12] At the 2012 Republican National Convention, Paul's campaign won 190 delegates.[13]

Heavily speculated as a possible Republican candidate in the 2012 presidential election, Paul appeared in the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) straw poll. Paul won the poll, defeating Mitt Romney, who had won it the previous three years.[14] Paul also won the 2011 CPAC straw poll with 30 percent of the vote. Following that, he also won the paid, online Arizona Tea Party Patriots straw poll on February 28, 2011, with 49% of the vote.[15]

In February 2011, Paul asked supporters to donate to his Liberty Political Action Committee to fund trips to Iowa and elsewhere to explore a possible 2012 presidential candidacy. On February 21, a Presidents' Day money bomb raised around $400,000 in 24 hours. Liberty PAC raised more than $700,000 during its February relaunch.[16][17] By the end of March, Liberty PAC had raised more than $1 million.[6]

On April 14, 2011, it was announced that Paul had formed a "testing-the-waters" organization, similar to Newt Gingrich's efforts in exploring his potential candidacy. Paul's spokesman, Jesse Benton was quoted as saying, "He remains undecided on what his plans will be, but as a final decision draws closer, his team has put the pieces in place for him to flip a switch and hit the ground running if he decides to run for president."[18] Paul announced the formation of an exploratory committee in Des Moines, Iowa on April 26 in preparation for a potential bid for the Republican presidential nomination.[19][20]

On May 5, Paul participated in a debate in Greenville, South Carolina among only five candidates.[21] A moneybomb was scheduled for the same day, which raised over $1 million for Paul's campaign.[22]

On May 13, 2011, in Exeter, New Hampshire, Paul announced his decision to seek the Republican nomination in the 2012 election. The announcement was broadcast live nationally on ABC's Good Morning America.[4]

On May 14, 2012, Paul made a statement on the campaign's website that he would no longer be actively campaigning in remaining state primaries, but would instead continue his presidential bid by seeking to collect delegates at caucuses and state conventions for the Republican National Convention in August 2012.[23]

He participated in a debate on June 13, 2011, at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire.[24]On June 18, 2011, Paul won the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll with 41%, winning by a large margin on Jon Huntsman, who trailed second with 25% and Michele Bachmann with 13% (Mitt Romney came in fifth with 5%).[25] On June 19 he again won the Clay County Iowa StrawPoll with 25%, while Michele Bachmann trailed second with 12%. Paul indicated in a June 2011 interview that if nominated, he would consider former New Jersey Superior Court judge Andrew Napolitano as his running mate.[26]

Paul also participated in another debate on August 11, 2011, in Ames, Iowa, and overwhelmingly won the post-debate polls.[27] He then came in second in the Ames Straw Poll with 4,671 votes, narrowly losing to Michele Bachmann by 152 votes or 0.9%, a statistical first-place tie finish according to some in the news media.[28][29][30][31] He received the fourth most votes for a candidate in the history of the Ames Straw Poll.

On August 20, in the New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll Paul came again first, again overwhelmingly, with 45%, Mitt Romney trailing second with 10%.[32] On August 27, in the Georgia State GOP Straw Poll Paul came in a close second place behind Georgia resident Herman Cain, who had 26% of the vote, with Paul receiving 25.7%.[33]

On September 5, Paul attended the Palmetto Freedom Forum in South Carolina along with fellow candidates Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich. The forum was paneled by congressmen Steve King of Iowa, senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Dr. Robert P. George, the founder of the American Principles Project which hosted the event.[34]

On September 12, Paul attended the Tea Party Republican presidential debate broadcast by CNN. During the event, Paul received both unexpected "cheers" and "boos" for his responses to the questions posed by the debate moderators and fellow debate participants.[35][36] When Rick Santorum questioned Paul about his position regarding the motivation behind the September 11 attacks, some of the audience jeered his response that U.S. foreign occupation was the "real motivation behind the September 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism".[35]

When one of the moderators posed a hypothetical scenario of a healthy 30-year-old man requiring intensive care but neglected to be insured pressing Paul with "Are you saying that society should just let him die?", several audience members cheered "yeah!" Paul disagreed with the audience reaction stating that while he practiced as a doctor in a Catholic hospital before the Medicaid era, "We never turned anybody away from the hospital."[36] Paul elaborated further a few days later that he believed the audience was cheering self-reliance and that "the media took it and twisted it".[37]

Jack Burkman, a Republican Party (GOP) strategist, was asked of Paul's performance in the debate. While Burkman stated that his national radio program's polling suggested Rick Perry won the debate (156 Perry votes to 151 Paul votes), he believed Paul's support is extremely deep like Democrat support for Bobby Kennedy decades before and predicted "he could come from behind as the horses turn for home and win the nomination."[38]

On September 18, Paul won the California state GOP straw poll with 44.9% of the vote, held at the JW Marriott in downtown Los Angeles. Out of 833 ballots cast, Paul garnered the greatest number of votes with 374, beating his nearest competitor Texas Gov. Rick Perry by a wide margin.[39]

On September 24, Paul finished fifth in the GOP's Florida Presidency 5 straw poll with 10.4% of the vote.[40] Paul won with 37% of the vote at the Values Voter Summit on October 8;[41] the highest ever recorded at the event.

On October 22, Paul won the Ohio Republican straw poll with the support of 53% of the participants, more than double the support of the second-place candidate, Herman Cain (26%).[42]

Paul won the National Federation of Republican Assemblies Presidential Straw Poll of Iowa voters on October 29 with 82% of the vote.[43]

On November 19, Paul won the North Carolina Republican Straw Poll with 52% of the vote, finishing well ahead of the second-place candidate, Newt Gingrich, who received 22% of the vote.[44]

In an August Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters across the political spectrum asking if they would vote for Paul or Barack Obama, the response narrowly favored Obama (39%) over Paul (38%), but by a smaller margin than the same question asked a month ago (4137%).[45] Paul finished 3rd in a late-August poll of likely Republican primary voters, trailing Rick Perry and Mitt Romney and ahead of Michele Bachmann,[46] climbing from 4th position which, according to another poll, he occupied only a few days earlier.[47]

In a September Harris Poll, respondents chose Paul (51%) over Obama (49%).[48]

In the Illinois Republican Straw Poll held in the beginning of November, Paul took 52% of the votes of those polled with Herman Cain coming in second with 18%.[49]

In a November 1012 Bloomberg News poll of Iowans likely to participate in the January 3, 2012 Republican caucuses, Paul was in a four-way tie at 19 percent with Cain, Romney and Gingrich at 20, 18 and 17 percent respectively.[50]

A Bloomberg News poll released on November 16, 2011, showed Paul at 17% in New Hampshire, in second place to Romney's 40%.[51]

A Public Policy Polling poll released on December 13, 2011, put Paul in a statistical tie for first in Iowa with Newt Gingrich, polling 21% and 22%, respectively.[52] The RealClearPolitics.com average shows Paul in second place in New Hampshire at 18.3% on December 28, 2011.[53] Public Policy Polling results from December 18 show that Paul is now leading in Iowa with 23%, followed by Romney at 20% and Gingrich at 14%.[54]

A January 2012 Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters across the political spectrum found that in a hypothetical two-candidate race between Paul and Barack Obama, respondents preferred Obama (43%) over Paul (37%).[55] The RealClearPolitics.com average of polls also found Obama (47%) favored over Paul (42%), in a two-candidate race.[56]

A January Pew Research Center poll of registered voters across the political spectrum on the eve of the South Carolina primary found that in a hypothetical three-way race between Obama, Romney, and Paul, with Paul running as a third-party candidate, respondents would choose Obama (44%) over Romney (32%) and Paul (18%). (Paul had repeatedly stated he had no plans for a third-party run.)[57][58]

In polls of likely Republican primary voters on the eve of the South Carolina Republican primary, Paul placed third both in South Carolina (15%)[59] and nationally (14%),[60] trailing Romney and Gingrich.

A Rasmussen poll in April 2012 showed Paul as the only Republican candidate able to defeat Obama in a head-to-head match-up. Paul beat Obama by one point in the poll with 44% of the vote.[61]

Paul's second moneybomb (the first being before his official announcement) was scheduled for June 5, 2011, the anniversary of the 1933 joint resolution which abolished the gold standard. The June 5 moneybomb, which was themed as "The Revolution vs. RomneyCare: Round One", raised approximately $1.1 million.[62] A third moneybomb themed "Ready, Ames, Fire!" was executed on July 19, 2011, to provide support leading up to the Ames Straw Poll on August 13, 2011, raising over $550,000.[63]

In the second quarter of 2011, Paul's campaign ranked second, behind Mitt Romney, in total dollars raised with $4.5 million.[64] This was $1.5 million more than his original goal of $3 million.[65] During that quarter, the Paul campaign had raised more money from military personnel than all other GOP candidates combined, and even more money than Barack Obama, a trend that has continued from Paul's 2008 presidential campaign.[66]

A fourth moneybomb took place on Paul's 76th birthday on August 20, 2011. It raised more than $1.8 million despite a cyber-attack against the site that took it down for several hours, after which the donation drive was extended for another twelve hours.[67]

A fifth moneybomb began on September 17, the date of the 224th anniversary of the creation of the United States Constitution. Continuing throughout the following day, it raised more than $1 million.[68] Shortly after the Constitution Day moneybomb, a sixth moneybomb, entitled "End of Quarter Push", began on September 22 in an attempt to generate $1.5 million before the 3rd Quarter fundraising deadline.[69]

In the third quarter of 2011, Paul raised over $8 million.[8] A three-day moneybomb entitled "Black This Out" brought in more than $2.75 million in mid-October.[70][71]

On December 16, a moneybomb titled the "Tea Party MoneyBomb" took place and raised upwards of $4 million over a period of two days.[72]

Paul was also supported by the Super PAC Endorse Liberty. By January 16, 2012, the PAC had spent $2.83 million promoting Paul's campaign.[73]

In June 2011, online publisher Robin Koerner coined the term "Blue Republican" to refer to U.S. voters who consider themselves to be liberal or progressiveor who generally vote Democraticbut plan to register as Republicans and vote in the U.S. 2012 Republican presidential primaries for Paul. The phrase "Blue Republican" quickly spread after Koerner's article "If You Love Peace, Become a 'Blue Republican' (Just for a Year)" was published in The Huffington Post on June 7. Social media entrepreneur Israel Anderson then promoted the term on Facebook, later teaming with Koerner to expand the movement.[74]

Five days after his original article coining the term, Koerner published a follow-up article on the term's popularity: "'Blue Republicans': an Idea Whose Time Has Come."[75] The article was shared on the social networking site Facebook more than 11,000 times by the time the second article was published.[76]

On June 21, 2011, Paul was the first 2012 Republican presidential candidate to sign the Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge.[77] This pledge seeks commitments from politicians for changes of the debt limit, spending decreases, and taxation. The pledge also implores signers to endorse passage of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

During his previous presidential campaign, it was alleged by many supporters that there was a media blackout and suppression of coverage of Paul.[78] Similar allegations arose in the 2012 campaign and received some media coverage.[79] Politico columnist Roger Simon noted on CNN's Reliable Sources that Paul has received considerably less coverage than Michele Bachmann, despite earning a close second to her at the Ames Straw Poll.[80] Simon later opined in Politico that the media was treating Paul unfairly.[81]

Comedian Jon Stewart similarly complained about the lack of coverage, despite Paul polling much better than candidates who received coverage. Stewart presented a montage of mainstream media clips that showed commentators ignoring, and two CNN correspondents admitting to suppressing, coverage of Paul.[82] Will Wilkinson opined in The Economist that "Ron Paul remains as willfully overlooked as an American war crime", arguing that if Paul had won the Ames straw poll, it would have been written off as irrelevant, but since Bachmann had won, it was claimed to boost her campaign.[83] Other commentators noted that Paul has had success at past straw polls but has not turned that into broader success as a reason for the relative lack of media attention.[84]

Paul was asked in a Fox News interview "What are they [the media] afraid of?"[85] He answered "They don't want to discuss my views, because I think they're frightened by me challenging the status quo and the establishment."

During the November 12 CBS/National Journal Debate, Paul was allocated 90 seconds speaking time. Paul's campaign responded, saying, "Congressman Paul was only allocated 90 seconds of speaking in one televised hour. If we are to have an authentic national conversation on issues such as security and defense, we can and must do better to ensure that all voices are heard. CBS News, in their arrogance, may think they can choose the next president. Fortunately, the people of Iowa, New Hampshire, and across America get to vote and not the media elites."[86]

The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism found in August 2011 that Paul received substantially less coverage than other candidates in the 2012 race.[87][88][89][90] Pew released another study in October 2011 confirming that Paul has been receiving disproportionately low coverage in the media. Paul polled 6.09.8% during the study period, but only received 2% of media coverage, the lowest of all candidates. It also noted that Paul's coverage among blogs was the most favorable of all candidates.[91] In January 2012, The Atlantic cited the weekly Pew study. They noted that despite steadily rising in the polls, Paul has been losing his share of press coverage, going from 34% in late-December 2011 to about 3% in mid-January 2012. They also noted a sharp drop in positive coverage and a small rise in negative.[92]

In June, a group of lawyers and legal experts filed a lawsuit[93][94] in the US District Court against the Republican National Committee and 55 state and territorial Republican party organizations for depriving Paul delegates of voice in the nominating process as required by law, and illegally coercing them to choose Mitt Romney as the party's presidential nominee.[95] Supporters of the effort say there is "evidence that the voting rights of Ron Paul Republican delegates and voters have been violated by nearly every state GOP party and the RNC during the 2012 primary election phase."

The plaintiffs claim that the party violated federal law by forcing delegates to sign loyalty affidavits, under threat of perjury, to vote for Mitt Romney, before an official nominee is selected. The suit alleged that there had been "a systematic campaign of election fraud at state conventions," employing rigging of voting machines, ballot stuffing, and falsification of ballot totals. The suit further pointed to incidents at state conventions, including acts of violence and changes in procedural rules, allegedly intended to deny participation of Paul supporters in the party decision-making and to prevent votes from being cast for Paul. An attorney representing the complainants said that Paul campaign advisor Doug Wead had voiced support for the legal action.[95] Paul himself told CNN that although the lawsuit was not a part of his campaign's strategy and that he had not been advising his supporters to sue, he was not going to tell his supporters not to sue, if they had a legitimate argument. "If they're not following the rules, you have a right to stand up for the rules. I think for the most part these winning caucuses that we've been involved in we have followed the rules. And the other side has at times not followed the rules."[96]

In August 2012, the lawsuit was dismissed by U.S. District Judge David Carter, who described most of the plaintiffs' claims as vague and largely unintelligible. The judge said that the one intelligible claim they had lodgedthat the Massachusetts Republican Party had illegally excluded 17 elected state delegates from participating in the national convention because they had refused to commit to a particular nomineefailed because political parties have a right to exclude people from membership and leadership roles. The judge left the plaintiffs "a third and final opportunity" to amend their complaint.[97] The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint just days before the scheduled start of the convention.[98]

Despite ceasing most campaign activities, the Paul campaign did some fundraising in July 2012, in an attempt to fund the transportation expenses of Paul delegates traveling to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida.[99] Paul said one of his goals at the convention was to "plant our flag and show that our Liberty movement is the future of the GOP".[99] He also said he was expecting a conflict over "credentials" and the party's platform.[99] As of late August, Paul's pet issue of auditing the Federal Reserve is on the draft version of the Republican Party's national platform.[100] Presumptive candidate Romney would call for the plank's final inclusion.[101]

Paul finished third in the Iowa Republican caucuses, held on January 3, 2012. Paul was projected to receive 7 delegates out of 28, as many as Mitt Romney and one less than Rick Santorum, making him tied for second place in the delegate count at the time.[102][103]

Paul placed second in the New Hampshire Republican primary, held on January 10, with 22.9% of the vote, behind Mitt Romney with 39.4%. He gained 3 delegates from this contest. In the South Carolina Republican primary on January 21, Paul placed fourth and gained no delegates. Paul also gained no delegates in the Florida Republican primary on January 31, after he did little campaigning in the state because of its "winner-take-all" delegate apportionment.

The Nevada Republican caucuses were held on February 4. Paul finished third behind Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney with 18.7% of the votes and 5 of the delegates, behind the winner Romney's 50.0% and Gingrich's 21.1%.[104] The Colorado and Minnesota Republican caucuses were held on February 7. In Colorado, Paul finished fourth with 11.8% behind Santorum (winner with 40.2%), Romney, and Gingrich. In Minnesota, Paul finished 2nd (27.1%) behind winner Rick Santorum (44.9%), with Romney (16.9%) and Gingrich (10.8%) placing 3rd and 4th.[105] A non-binding vote in the Missouri Republican primary was held on February 7 as well, and Paul got 12.2% of the vote. The primary did not apportion any delegates; that will be done at the Missouri caucuses, scheduled to begin on March 17.[citation needed]

On February 17, with 95% of precincts in the Maine Republican caucuses reporting, Paul was running second to Mitt Romney with 34.9% of the vote to Romney's 39%.[106] Neither of the frontrunners have pressed for a recount, and the Maine Republican Party's chairman has stated that recounts are impossible due to the votes being physically thrown away.[107]

The Michigan and Arizona Republican primaries were held on February 28. Paul came in third place in Michigan, with 11.9%; and fourth in Arizona, with 8.5%.

A large portion of the delegates for the Republican National Convention were awarded in March, which includes the Washington Republican caucuses on March 3, Super Tuesday on March 6, and several other states later in the month. Paul came in second in the Washington caucuses, with 24.8%. On March 10, he picked up one delegate in the U.S Virgin Islands Caucuses while Romney added four delegates to the three super-delegates previously known to support him.[108]

Paul received 1.2% of the vote in the Puerto Rico primary, coming in sixth, his lowest polling of any territory during the campaign.[109][110][111]

On The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Paul said he forwent Secret Service protection because he considered it "a form of welfare" and that he believed he should pay for his own protection.[112]

Ultimately, Paul accrued the most second place popular vote finishes in the primaries.

The Paul campaign pursued a strategy of gathering support from state delegates as opposed to outright winning states.[113] For example, Paul had a strong showing in Romney's home state, Massachusetts, with supporters getting the majority of delegates there (though they are compelled to vote for Romney in the first round), causing a battle between the Paul delegates, the Massachusetts Republican Party, and the Republican National Convention Committee.[114] A similar situation played out in Louisiana, with the Paul campaign initially winning 17 of 30 available delegates before procedural and legal challenges changed the allocation.[115] Paul also managed a delegate win in Nevada, with 88% of delegates supporting him.[116] Paul won 21 of 25 delegates in Iowa.[117]

Paul remained active in the race through the 2012 Republican National Convention.[118] Leading up to the convention, he won bound-pluralities of the official delegations from the states of Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and Oregon (but not the Virgin Islandsdespite winning the popular vote there). During the credentials committee meetings the week prior to the official opening of the convention, the Paul members of the delegations from Louisiana, Maine, and Oregon were disputed (as well as the Paul delegates from Massachusetts), and many of his delegates from those states were unseated. At the same time, Paul delegates from Oklahoma disputed the credentials of the official Oklahoma delegation, but they did not succeed. In the end, he had bound-pluralities from Iowa, Minnesota, and Nevada; however, he additionally had nomination-from-the-floor-pluralities in the states of Oregon and Alaska, plus the territory of the Virgin Islands. Under the 2012 rules, this total of 6 from-the-floor pluralities was sufficient to earn a fifteen-minute speech on national television; the rules were changed at the last minute to require 8 from-the-floor pluralities, and thus he did not speak at the convention.[119] Although he wasn't named the 2012 Republican nominee, he did not officially end his campaign or endorse nominee Mitt Romney for president.[120][121] At the convention, he received second place with 8% of the delegates; Gingrich and Santorum had released their bound delegates to Romney the week before the official opening of the convention. Paul's state-by-state delegates tallies were not verbally acknowledged by the RNC.

Paul would end the campaign with 118 delegates, coming in fourth behind Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney."2012 Republican Delegates".

A Ron Paul rally was held in Tampa, Florida, the site of the 2012 Republican National Convention, the day before the convention was to begin.[122]

Ron Paul endorsements

According to Forsythe, Paul has received support from 20 of New Hampshire's 400 state representatives as of early July 2011.[165]

Democratic Party officials

Republican Party officials

Read the rest here:
Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign - Wikipedia

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign – Wikipedia

Funding | The Official Website of The Duke & Duchess of Sussex

Posted: at 12:51 pm

Welcome to Sussex Royal, the source for factual information and details relating to the works and structure of Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. We are so pleased to have you as part of this community. In this section, you will find answers and clarification to questions that have come to the forefront in recent years. Many of you may be familiar with these policies, but for those of you who are not, we hope this page sheds some light on what can sometimes be misreported or quite confusing.

In 2020, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have made the choice to transition into a new working model. As they step back as senior members of the Royal Family and no longer receive funding through the Sovereign Grant, they will become members of the Royal Family with financial independence which is something they look forward to. As The Duke and Duchess of Sussex prepare to make this change, the answers to the following questions aim to provide clarity on existing and future funding arrangements.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex take great pride in their work and are committed to continuing their charitable endeavours as well as establishing new ones. In addition, they value the ability to earn a professional income, which in the current structure they are prohibited from doing. For this reason they have made the choice to become members of the Royal Family with financial independence. Their Royal Highnesses feel this new approach will enable them to continue to carry out their duties for Her Majesty The Queen, while having the future financial autonomy to work externally. While the contribution from The Sovereign Grant covers just five percent of costs for The Duke and Duchess and is specifically used for their official office expense, Their Royal Highnesses prefer to release this financial tie. More details on the specifics of the Sovereign Grant are outlined below.

The Sovereign Grant is the annual funding mechanism of the monarchy that covers the work of the Royal Family in support of HM The Queen including expenses to maintain official residences and workspaces. In this exchange, The Queen surrenders the revenue of the Crown Estate and in return, a portion of these public funds are granted to The Sovereign/The Queen for official expenditure. This is outlined in the 2018-19 Annual Report of the Sovereign Grant which is linked below. Please note, this structure replaced The Civil List in 2012. More details on this can be found on The United Kingdoms public sector information website: gov.uk

Yes, there is precedent for this structure and applies to other current members of the Royal Family who support the monarch and also have full time jobs external to their commitment to the monarchy.

No, under the current structure and financing arrangements, they are prohibited from earning any income in any form.

No, see above.

AsworkingmembersoftheRoyalFamily,The Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain dedicated to maximising Her Majestys legacy both in the UK and throughout the Commonwealth. They will continue to proudly do so by supporting their patronages and carrying out works for The Monarchy within the UK or abroad, as called upon.

Five percent of the funding for their official office was provided through the Sovereign Grant starting in 2019 (more details on Sovereign Grant below). Public fundinghasnever been used, nor would it ever be used for privateexpenditure by The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who also do not receive any tax privileges.

Since the establishment of The Office of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, 95 percent of the funding received for their Office expenditure is derived from income allocated by HRH The Prince of Wales, generated throughtheDuchyofCornwall.This provision has been in place since Prince William and Prince Harry first established their offices in support of The Queen, and is the responsibility of The Prince of Wales. This information continues to be available on The Duchy of Cornwall website.

As described above, the remaining five percent of funding for the Office of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, covering costs associated with employing members of their official office, is received through the SovereignGrant. During the course of 2020, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have made the choice to step back as senior members of the Royal Family and no longer receive funding through the Sovereign Grant, thereby making them members of the Royal Family with financial independence. This phased approach will take time to transition in consultation with other senior members of the Royal Family, but Their Royal Highnesses are hopeful that this change is in the best interest for all and look forward to carrying out their duties to the monarch as well as their charitable work with financial autonomy.

In the 2018-2019 fiscal report, Her Majesty The Queen surrendered approximately 329 million from the Crown Estate to the government. In exchange for this contribution, in return, the government granted the sovereign approximately 82 million to cover the costs for official expenditure. This constitutes the Sovereign Grant. Further detail as stated on gov.uk can be found below:

The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 came into effect on 1 April 2012. It sets the single grant supporting the monarchs official business, enabling The Queen to discharge her duties as Head of State. It meets the central staff costs and running expenses of Her Majestys official household such things as official receptions, investitures, garden parties and so on. It also covers maintenance of the Royal Palaces in England and the cost of travel to carry out royal engagements such as opening buildings and other royal visits.

In exchange for this public support, The Queen surrenders the revenue from The Crown Estate to the government which for 2017-18 was 329.4 million. The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is 82.4 million which is 25% of 329.4 million.

It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be 85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estates revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was 343.5 million.

It is worth noting that an annual grant of approximately 30 million has been added to the above figure for the 10 year re-servicing plan of Buckingham Palace, bringing the sum to 85.9 million. The below graphic helps to further explain this exchange. For clarity, in the graphic sourced from The BBC, HM refers to Her Majesty.

The contribution from UK taxpayers towards the full overhead of the British Monarchy is equivalent to approximately 1 per head per year.

The British Royal Family generates an estimated 1.8 billion a year in tourism revenues for The United Kingdom.

The refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, the Grade-2listedbuilding in Windsor Home Park was funded by Her Majesty The Queen through the Sovereign Grant, reflecting the Monarchys responsibility to maintain the upkeep of buildings with historical significance (see above). Expenses related to fixtures, furnishings, and fittings at the official residence which is owned by Her Majesty the Queen were funded privately by The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. As stated on The Official UK Government website: The occupied Royal Palaces are held in trust for the nation by The Queen as Sovereign. Their maintenance and upkeep is one of the expenses met by the government in return for the surrender by the Sovereign of the hereditary revenues of the Crown (mainly the profit from the Crown Estate). The Sovereign Grant will allow the Royal Household to set its own priorities and thus generate economies. The occupied Royal Palaces are: Buckingham Palace, St Jamess Palace, the residential and office areas of Kensington Palace, the Royal Mews and Royal Paddocks at Hampton Court, Windsor Castle and buildings in the Home and Great Parks at Windsor.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex chose to move to Windsor for various reasons. Their previous residence of Nottingham Cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace could not accommodate their growing family. The option of Apartment 1 in Kensington Palace was estimated to cost in excess of 4 million for mandated renovations including the removal of asbestos (see details above on the Monarchys responsibility for this upkeep). This residence would not have been available for them to occupy until the fourth quarter of 2020. As a result, Her Majesty The Queen offered The Duke and Duchess the use of Frogmore Cottage, which was already undergoing mandated renovations, and would be available to move in before the birth of their son. The refurbishment cost equated to 50 percent of the originally suggested property for their proposed official residence at Kensington Palace. It is for these reasons, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex chose Frogmore Cottage as their Official Residence.

Frogmore Cottage will continue to be the property of Her Majesty the Queen. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will continue to use Frogmore Cottage with the permission of Her Majesty The Queen as their official residence as they continue to support the Monarchy, and so that their family will always have a place to call home in the United Kingdom.

All travel arrangements undertaken by The Duke and Duchess in their private time have always been and will continue to be paid for privately and not by UK taxpayers. With their transition to becoming members of the Royal Family with financial independence this will continue to be the case. Wherever possible and unless advised otherwise on security grounds, their logistical arrangements are undertaken via commercial air carriers, local trains and fuel-efficient vehicles, be it for official or personal travel.

The Duke and Duchess proudly carry out official overseas visits in support of Her Majesty The Queen at the request of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), as is the case for all members of the Royal Family. The length and location of these tours are determined by the FCO and the Royal Visits Committee. All Official overseas visits are in support of Her Majestys Governments objectives and paid for by The Sovereign Grant as well as contributions from the host country, when appropriate.

The provision of armed security by The Metropolitan Police is mandated by the Home Office, a ministerial department of Her Majestys Government, responsible for security and law & order. As stated on gov.uk, No breakdown of security costs is available as disclosure of such information could compromise the integrity of these arrangements and affect the security of the individuals protected. It is long established policy not to comment upon the protective security arrangements and their related costs for members of the Royal Family or their residences.

More Information, please visit:

Royal Finances

The Duchy of Cornwall

The Official United Kingdom Public Sector Information Website

Read more:

Funding | The Official Website of The Duke & Duchess of Sussex

Posted in Financial Independence | Comments Off on Funding | The Official Website of The Duke & Duchess of Sussex

Human behaviour genetics – Wikipedia

Posted: at 12:45 pm

Human behaviour genetics is an interdisciplinary subfield of behaviour genetics that studies the role of genetic and environmental influences on human behaviour. Classically, human behavioural geneticists have studied the inheritance of behavioural traits. The field was originally focused on determining the importance of genetic influences on human behaviour (for e.g., do genes regulate human behavioural attributes). It has evolved to address more complex questions such as: how important are genetic and/or environmental influences on various human behavioural traits; to what extent do the same genetic and/or environmental influences impact the overlap between human behavioural traits; how do genetic and/or environmental influences on behaviour change across development; and what environmental factors moderate the importance of genetic effects on human behaviour (gene-environment interaction).[1] The field is interdisciplinary, and draws from genetics, psychology, and statistics. Most recently, the field has moved into the area of statistical genetics, with many behavioural geneticists also involved in efforts to identify the specific genes involved in human behaviour, and to understand how the effects associated with these genes changes across time, and in conjunction with the environment.[2]

Traditionally, the human behavioural genetics were a psychology and phenotype based studies including intelligence, personality and grasping ability. During the years, the study developed beyond the classical traits of human behaviour and included more genetically associated traits like genetic disorders (such as fragile X syndrome, Alzheimer's disease and obesity). The traditional methods of behavioural-genetic analysis provide a quantitative evaluation of genetic and non-genetic influences on human behaviour. The family, twin and adoption studies marks the huge contribution for laying down the foundation for current molecular genetic studies to study human behaviour.[3]

In 1869, Francis Galton published the first empirical work in human behavioural genetics, Hereditary Genius. Here, Galton intended to demonstrate that "a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world." Like most seminal work, he overstated his conclusions. His was a family study on the inheritance of giftedness and talent. Galton was aware that resemblance among familial relatives can be a function of both shared inheritance and shared environments. Contemporary human behavioural quantitative genetics studies special populations such as twins and adoptees.

The initial impetus behind this research was to demonstrate that there were indeed genetic influences on human behaviour. In psychology, this phase lasted for the first half of the 20th century largely because of the overwhelming influence of behaviourism in the field. Later behavioural genetic research focused on quantitative methods.

In 1984, a research program named the Swedish Adoption/Twin Study of Aging (SATSA) was initiated in gerontological genetics. The research was executed on Twins Reared Apart (TRA) and Twins Reared Together (TRT). In this three-year interval study, the testing was carried out in two ways, Mail-Out Questionnaire and In-Person Testing (IPT). The IPT includes functional capacity, physical performance measurements, neurological state, general health, cardiovascular health, and cognitive abilities, all of which are particularly significant in ageing. The IPT had two major components for testing, Biomedical and Cognitive Assessment. The biomedical component was constructed to analyses the general health status like age changes, lungs function and capacity, physical strength. With this, the cognitive component was developed to represent and evaluate domains of crystallized and fluid intelligence and memory.

The data acquired from this study allowed researchers to assess genetic contributions to age changes and continuities throughout the length of the SATSA twins' later lives, which prolonged a decade and a half.[3]

Behavioural geneticists study both psychiatric and mental disorders, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and alcoholism, as well as behavioural and social characteristics, such as personality and social attitudes.

Recent trends in behavioural genetics have indicated an additional focus toward researching the inheritance of human characteristics typically studied in developmental psychology. For instance, a major focus in developmental psychology has been to characterize the influence of parenting styles on children. However, in most studies, genes are a confounding variable. Because children share half of their alleles with each parent, any observed effects of parenting styles could be effects of having many of the same alleles as a parent (e.g. harsh aggressive parenting styles have been found to correlate with similar aggressive child characteristics: is it the parenting or the genes?). Thus, behaviour genetics research is currently undertaking to distinguish the effects of the family environment from the effects of genes. This branch of behaviour genetics research is becoming more closely associated with mainstream developmental psychology and the sub-field of developmental psychopathology as it shifts its focus to the heritability of such factors as emotional self-control, attachment, social functioning, aggressiveness, etc.

Several academic bodies exist to support behaviour genetic research, including the International Behavioural and Neural Genetics Society, Behavior Genetics Association, the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics, and the International Society for Twin Studies. Behaviour genetic work features prominently in several more general societies, for instance the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society.

Human behavioural geneticists use several designs to answer questions about the nature and mechanisms of genetic influences on behaviour. All of these designs are unified by being based around human relationships which disentangle genetic and environmental relatedness.

The cornerstone of behavioural genetics approaches is quantitative genetics theories, which were formulated more than half a century ago by geneticists concerned with the practical challenges of increasing economically relevant characteristics of domestic plants and animals. These methods are used to study a myriad of traits, including intelligence and other cognitive abilities, personality traits like extraversion and emotionality, and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disease.[3]

To examine genetic and environmental impacts on complex human behavioural traits, researchers uses three classic methods: family, twin, and adoption studies. Individual variations within the normal range of variation, as well as the genesis of psychopathologies, are investigated using each of these techniques.

Genes and shared (or familial) environmental factors have a role in family resemblance. The majority of familial research on schizophrenia are concerned with relative risk. Despite the fact that the scope of diagnosis varies, the lifetime risk of schizophrenia in the general population is generally stated as 1%. Siblings of people with schizophrenia, on the other hand, constitute 13% of the population[which?]. The hazards for second- and third-degree relatives are lower, at 3% and 2%, respectively, as predicted. In a As a result, schizophrenia is certainly a familial trait.[3]

The basic understanding of behavioural genetics requires the separate study of effects of genes and environment influence on human behaviour. Such as, the genetic effects in a trait are discernible if pair of genetically identical (monozygotic twins) are much similar to one another than pair of genetically non-identical (dizygotic twin).

Twin and adoption studies describe the extent to which family resemblance is due to shared genes and the extent to which it is due to shared environments. Behavioral Scientist uses twin studies to examine hereditary and environmental influences on behavioural development.

For instance, some researchers also study adopted twins: the adoption study. The adoption design produces estimates of various genetic and environmental components of variance, similar to the twin design. Furthermore, the adoption design facilitates

(1) the identification of specific environmental influences that are unaffected by heredity (e.g., the effects of life stressors),

(2) the analysis of heredity's role in ostensibly environmental relationships, and

(3) the evaluation of genotype-environment interactions and correlations.[3]

In this case the adoption disentangles the genetic relatedness of the twins (either 50% or 100%) from their family environments. Likewise the classic twin study contrasts the differences between identical and fraternal twins within a family compared to differences observed between families. This core design can be extended: the so-called "extended twin study" which adds additional family members, increasing power and allowing new genetic and environmental relationships to be studied. Excellent examples of this model are the Virginia 20,000 and the QIMR twin studies.

Generally, if the observed behaviour and cognitive traits have a genetic component, then genetically similar relatives resemble to each other as comparative to individuals who share lesser component of genome. I n case of environmental influence, researchers study the two broad classes of effects in behavioural genetics such as shared environmental factors causing them to behave similarly and the other one is nonshared environmental factors causing them to behave different from one another. For example, siblings raised together in same environment will have more evident shared environment influences whereas in relative siblings raised apart from each other will have non-shared environmental influence. The understanding of the effects of genes and the influence of shared and nonshared environment on human behaviour provides a comprehensive data for genetic and environmental relatedness.[3]

Also possible are the "children of twins" design (holding maternal genetic contributions equal across children with paternal genetics and family environments) and the "virtual twins" design - unrelated children adopted into a family who are very close or identical in age to biological children or other adopted children in the family. While the classical twin study has been criticized they continue to be of high utility. There are several dozen major studies ongoing, in countries as diverse as the US, UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Australia, and the method is used widely on phenotypes as diverse as dental caries, body mass index, ageing, substance abuse, sexuality, cognitive abilities, personality, values, and a wide range of psychiatric disorders. This is broad utility is reflected in several thousands of peer-review papers, and several dedicated societies and journals.

The approaches improve the capacity to specify and generalize results on the effects of genetic and environmental factors on characteristics and their evolution across time.

Quantitative trait locus (QTL) analysis is a statistical approach for attempting to explain the genetic basis of variation in complex characteristics by linking two types of data: phenotypic data (trait measurements) and genotypic data (typically molecular markers).

Researchers in disciplines as diverse as agriculture, biology, and medicine use QTL analysis to relate complicated traits to particular chromosomal regions. The purpose of this procedure is to determine the action, interaction, quantity, and type of action. The ability to disentangle the genetic component of complex characteristics has been enabled by QTL studies in model systems.

To research behavioural characteristics such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, alcoholism, and autism, large-scale national and international alliances have been constructed. Such partnerships will bring together enormous, consistently gathered samples, improving the likelihood of finding real susceptibility gene connections.[3]

The method is designed in collaboration of quantitative geneticists to enhance the capabilities to delineate between the genetic and environmental components of complex behavioural characteristics. Path analysis and structural equation modelling are two statistical approaches used in this methodology. The approach is used to see if genetic and environmental impacts can be employed in various populations. It would be useful to know how much of the total genetic varianceheritabilityis accounted for by a limited selection of potential loci in studies of emotional stability, for example.[3]

Link:
Human behaviour genetics - Wikipedia

Posted in Human Genetics | Comments Off on Human behaviour genetics – Wikipedia

Austin ISD, Austin Public Health and Ascension Seton warn of worse than normal flu season – KXAN.com

Posted: at 12:43 pm

Austin ISD, Austin Public Health and Ascension Seton warn of worse than normal flu season  KXAN.com

Continued here:

Austin ISD, Austin Public Health and Ascension Seton warn of worse than normal flu season - KXAN.com

Posted in Ascension | Comments Off on Austin ISD, Austin Public Health and Ascension Seton warn of worse than normal flu season – KXAN.com

The automation CoE market size to grow from USD 0.3 billion in 2022 to USD 1.5 billion by 2027, at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 36.9% -…

Posted: at 12:42 pm

The automation CoE market size to grow from USD 0.3 billion in 2022 to USD 1.5 billion by 2027, at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 36.9%  GlobeNewswire

Here is the original post:

The automation CoE market size to grow from USD 0.3 billion in 2022 to USD 1.5 billion by 2027, at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 36.9% -...

Posted in Automation | Comments Off on The automation CoE market size to grow from USD 0.3 billion in 2022 to USD 1.5 billion by 2027, at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 36.9% -…

City of Lubbock Public Health Dept. updates COVID-19 testing hours at one site – KLBK | KAMC | EverythingLubbock.com

Posted: at 12:40 pm

City of Lubbock Public Health Dept. updates COVID-19 testing hours at one site  KLBK | KAMC | EverythingLubbock.com

Read the original:

City of Lubbock Public Health Dept. updates COVID-19 testing hours at one site - KLBK | KAMC | EverythingLubbock.com

Posted in Covid-19 | Comments Off on City of Lubbock Public Health Dept. updates COVID-19 testing hours at one site – KLBK | KAMC | EverythingLubbock.com

It’s Time to Reaffirm Our First Amendment Right to Boycott | News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union – ACLU

Posted: at 12:39 pm

  1. It's Time to Reaffirm Our First Amendment Right to Boycott | News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union  ACLU
  2. ACLU of Arkansas urging Supreme Court to hear case on First Amendment right to boycott  KATV
  3. ACLU asks US Supreme Court to overturn Arkansas law requiring pledge not to boycott Israel  JURIST
  4. High court asked to stop Arkansas law against Israel boycott  KY3
  5. ACLU Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Overturn Arkansas Law Against Israel Boycotts - U.S. News  Haaretz
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read the original here:
It's Time to Reaffirm Our First Amendment Right to Boycott | News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union - ACLU

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on It’s Time to Reaffirm Our First Amendment Right to Boycott | News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union – ACLU

Survival of the fittest – Wikipedia

Posted: at 12:38 pm

Phrase to describe the mechanism of natural selection

"Survival of the fittest"[1] is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms, the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

Herbert Spencer first used the phrase, after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones: "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[2]

Darwin responded positively to Alfred Russel Wallace's suggestion of using Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as an alternative to "natural selection", and adopted the phrase in The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication published in 1868.[2][3] In On the Origin of Species, he introduced the phrase in the fifth edition published in 1869,[4][5] intending it to mean "better designed for an immediate, local environment".[6][7]

By his own account, Herbert Spencer described a concept similar to "survival of the fittest" in his 1852 "A Theory of Population".[8] He first used the phrase after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in his Principles of Biology of 1864[9] in which he drew parallels between his economic theories and Darwin's biological, evolutionary ones, writing, "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life."[2]

In July 1866 Alfred Russel Wallace wrote to Darwin about readers thinking that the phrase "natural selection" personified nature as "selecting", and said this misconception could be avoided "by adopting Spencer's term" Survival of the fittest. Darwin promptly replied that Wallace's letter was "as clear as daylight. I fully agree with all that you say on the advantages of H. Spencer's excellent expression of 'the survival of the fittest'. This however had not occurred to me till reading your letter. It is, however, a great objection to this term that it cannot be used as a substantive governing a verb". Had he received the letter two months earlier, he would have worked the phrase into the fourth edition of the Origin which was then being printed, and he would use it in his next book on "Domestic Animals etc.".[2]

Darwin wrote on page 6 of The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication published in 1868, "This preservation, during the battle for life, of varieties which possess any advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct, I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well expressed the same idea by the Survival of the Fittest. The term 'natural selection' is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity". He defended his analogy as similar to language used in chemistry, and to astronomers depicting the "attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets", or the way in which "agriculturists speak of man making domestic races by his power of selection". He had "often personified the word Nature; for I have found it difficult to avoid this ambiguity; but I mean by nature only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws,and by laws only the ascertained sequence of events."[3]

In the first four editions of On the Origin of Species, Darwin had used the phrase "natural selection".[10] In Chapter 4 of the 5th edition of The Origin published in 1869,[4] Darwin implies again the synonym: "Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest".[5] By "fittest" Darwin meant "better adapted for the immediate, local environment", not the common modern meaning of "in the best physical shape" (think of a puzzle piece, not an athlete).[6] In the introduction he gave full credit to Spencer, writing "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient."[11]

In The Man Versus The State, Spencer used the phrase in a postscript to justify a plausible explanation of how his theories would not be adopted by "societies of militant type". He uses the term in the context of societies at war, and the form of his reference suggests that he is applying a general principle.[12]

"Thus by survival of the fittest, the militant type of society becomes characterized by profound confidence in the governing power, joined with a loyalty causing submission to it in all matters whatever".[13]

Though Spencer's conception of organic evolution is commonly interpreted as a form of Lamarckism,[a] Herbert Spencer is sometimes credited with inaugurating Social Darwinism. The phrase "survival of the fittest" has become widely used in popular literature as a catchphrase for any topic related or analogous to evolution and natural selection. It has thus been applied to principles of unrestrained competition, and it has been used extensively by both proponents and opponents of Social Darwinism.[citation needed]

Evolutionary biologists criticise the manner in which the term is used by non-scientists and the connotations that have grown around the term in popular culture. The phrase also does not help in conveying the complex nature of natural selection, so modern biologists prefer and almost exclusively use the term natural selection. The biological concept of fitness refers to both reproductive success (fecundity selection), as well as survival (viability selection), and is not prescriptive in the specific ways in which organisms can be more "fit" by having phenotypic characteristics that enhance survival and reproduction (which was the meaning that Spencer had in mind).[15]

While the phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used to mean "natural selection", it is avoided by modern biologists, because the phrase can be misleading. For example, survival is only one aspect of selection, and not always the most important. Another problem is that the word "fit" is frequently confused with a state of physical fitness. In the evolutionary meaning "fitness" is the rate of reproductive output among a class of genetic variants.[16]

The phrase can also be interpreted to express a theory or hypothesis: that "fit" as opposed to "unfit" individuals or species, in some sense of "fit", will survive some test. Nevertheless, when extended to individuals it is a conceptual mistake, the phrase is a reference to the transgenerational survival of the heritable attributes; particular individuals are quite irrelevant. This becomes more clear when referring to Viral quasispecies, in survival of the flattest, which makes it clear to survive makes no reference to the question of even being alive itself; rather the functional capacity of proteins to carry out work.

Interpretations of the phrase as expressing a theory are in danger of being tautological, meaning roughly "those with a propensity to survive have a propensity to survive"; to have content the theory must use a concept of fitness that is independent of that of survival.[6][17]

Interpreted as a theory of species survival, the theory that the fittest species survive is undermined by evidence that while direct competition is observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups such as, for example, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Instead, these groups have evolved by expanding into empty ecological niches.[18] In the punctuated equilibrium model of environmental and biological change, the factor determining survival is often not superiority over another in competition but ability to survive dramatic changes in environmental conditions, such as after a meteor impact energetic enough to greatly change the environment globally. The main land dwelling animals to survive the K-Pg impact 66million years ago had the ability to live in tunnels, for example.[citation needed]

In 2010 Sahney et al. argued that there is little evidence that intrinsic, biological factors such as competition have been the driving force in the evolution of large groups. Instead, they cited extrinsic, abiotic factors such as expansion as the driving factor on a large evolutionary scale. The rise of dominant groups such as amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds occurred by opportunistic expansion into empty ecological niches and the extinction of groups happened due to large shifts in the abiotic environment.[18]

It has been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in biology was interpreted by late 19th century capitalists as "an ethical precept that sanctioned cut-throat economic competition" and led to the advent of the theory of "social Darwinism" which was used to justify laissez-faire economics, war and racism[citation needed]. However, these ideas pre-date and commonly contradict Darwin's ideas, and indeed their proponents rarely invoked Darwin in support.[citation needed] The use of the term "social Darwinism" as a critique of capitalist ideologies was introduced in Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought published in 1944.[19]

Russian zoologist and anarchist Peter Kropotkin viewed the concept of "survival of the fittest" as supporting co-operation rather than competition. In his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution he set out his analysis leading to the conclusion that the fittest was not necessarily the best at competing individually, but often the community made up of those best at working together. He concluded that

In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood in its wide Darwinian sense not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress.[20]

Applying this concept to human society, Kropotkin presented mutual aid as one of the dominant factors of evolution, the other being self-assertion, and concluded that

In the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of our ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, mutual support not mutual struggle has had the leading part. In its wide extension, even at the present time, we also see the best guarantee of a still loftier evolution of our race.[21]

"Survival of the fittest" is sometimes claimed to be a tautology.[22] The reasoning is that if one takes the term "fit" to mean "endowed with phenotypic characteristics which improve chances of survival and reproduction" (which is roughly how Spencer understood it), then "survival of the fittest" can simply be rewritten as "survival of those who are better equipped for surviving". Furthermore, the expression does become a tautology if one uses the most widely accepted definition of "fitness" in modern biology, namely reproductive success itself (rather than any set of characters conducive to this reproductive success). This reasoning is sometimes used to claim that Darwin's entire theory of evolution by natural selection is fundamentally tautological, and therefore devoid of any explanatory power.[22]

However, the expression "survival of the fittest" (taken on its own and out of context) gives a very incomplete account of the mechanism of natural selection. The reason is that it does not mention a key requirement for natural selection, namely the requirement of heritability. It is true that the phrase "survival of the fittest", in and by itself, is a tautology if fitness is defined by survival and reproduction. Natural selection is the portion of variation in reproductive success that is caused by heritable characters (see the article on natural selection).[22]

If certain heritable characters increase or decrease the chances of survival and reproduction of their bearers, then it follows mechanically (by definition of "heritable") that those characters that improve survival and reproduction will increase in frequency over generations. This is precisely what is called "evolution by natural selection". On the other hand, if the characters which lead to differential reproductive success are not heritable, then no meaningful evolution will occur, "survival of the fittest" or not: if improvement in reproductive success is caused by traits that are not heritable, then there is no reason why these traits should increase in frequency over generations. In other words, natural selection does not simply state that "survivors survive" or "reproducers reproduce"; rather, it states that "survivors survive, reproduce and therefore propagate any heritable characters which have affected their survival and reproductive success". This statement is not tautological: it hinges on the testable hypothesis that such fitness-impacting heritable variations actually exist (a hypothesis that has been amply confirmed.)[22]

Momme von Sydow suggested further definitions of 'survival of the fittest' that may yield a testable meaning in biology and also in other areas where Darwinian processes have been influential. However, much care would be needed to disentangle tautological from testable aspects. Moreover, an "implicit shifting between a testable and an untestable interpretation can be an illicit tactic to immunize natural selection ... while conveying the impression that one is concerned with testable hypotheses".[17][23]

Skeptic Society founder and Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer addresses the tautology problem in his 1997 book, Why People Believe Weird Things, in which he points out that although tautologies are sometimes the beginning of science, they are never the end, and that scientific principles like natural selection are testable and falsifiable by virtue of their predictive power. Shermer points out, as an example, that population genetics accurately demonstrate when natural selection will and will not effect change on a population. Shermer hypothesizes that if hominid fossils were found in the same geological strata as trilobites, it would be evidence against natural selection.[24]

Read more:

Survival of the fittest - Wikipedia

Posted in Darwinism | Comments Off on Survival of the fittest – Wikipedia