Saturday, May 19, 2018

On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 36

 Fig. 1a
Thermal expansion of pure water does not have the same thermodynamic events that the thermal expansion of sea water has.

Nevertheless, you can search the Internet and find videos of someone pouring pure water into a flask, making a mark on the flask, then heating the flask with a Bunsen Burner.

Then, after the water warms, they will put another mark on the flask ostensibly showing that the heat has caused the water to increase in volume.

Then they are apt to declare that this proves that thermal expansion is the major cause of sea level rise because "as water warms it expands."

The problem with this Mickey Mouse trick is that  the pure water they use is at a temperature that is not below its maximum density temperature of 4 deg. C when they apply heat to the flask.

If it was, the pure water would contract (lose volume) rather than expand (gain volume) until the pure water temperature reached the maximum density temperature of 4 deg C.

From that temperature on, it would begin to expand as more heat is applied (see Fig. 1a).

 Fig. 1b
For example, if the pure water temperature is 2 degrees C and heat is applied, the water will contract (lose volume) until its temperature increases to the maximum density temperature of 4 deg C, at which point it will expand (gain volume) if more heat is added.

Determining the maximum density of sea water is more difficult than with pure water, because sea water contains other substances, and also is impacted by depth pressure (Is A New Age Of Pressure Upon Us? - 14).

 Fig. 1c
The graphs at Fig. 1b and Fig. 1c show a history of the sea water temperature in a Hypotherical WOD Zone at 10-20 meters deep (see actual graphs here).

Following the principles depicted in Fig. 1a, I have marked the expansion and contraction events to show the almost unbelievable expanding and contracting actions as the sea water temperature (black line) dips below or rises above the maximum density temperature (maximum density temperature is shown by the red line).

The gist of it is that when the sea water temperature (black line) is above the maximum density temperature (red line) the volume change is the opposite of what it is when the sea water temperature (black line) is below the maximum density temperature (red line).

The non-marked-up version of the Fig. 1b graph is shown at Fig. 1c.

Today, I used only one zone, specifically for emphasizing that the net balance derived by adding up the thermal expansion (pluses), and subtracting the thermal contractions (minuses) does not result in either "the major factor" or "a major factor" of sea level rise.

The graph at Fig. 1c, as well as the following graphs, were computed by using the TEOS-10 function gsw_ct_maxdensity to create the red line, and gsw_ct_from_t to generate the black line (see On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 35).

Each of the following graphs (Fig. 2a - Fig. 2r) was generated using data from a different depth, but they are all constructed from WOD data collected in WOD Zone 5611.

TEST: see if you can determine expansion and contraction segments of the black line as I did in Fig. 1b. [Remember to follow the time line flow (left to right): Answers]

Remember that (in terms of whether expansion or contraction will take place) when the black line is above the red line, sea water thermodynamics are the opposite from when the black line is below the red line (cf On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 35).

This is why we need this focus:
"The vast Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, plays a starring role in the future of climate change. The global oceans together absorb over 90 percent of the excess heat in the climate system and roughly three-quarters of that heat uptake occurs in the Southern Ocean. In addition, the global oceans absorb around 25 percent of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and the Southern Ocean alone accounts for about half of the uptake of CO2.

Despite its critical role in our climate system, the Southern Ocean has gone almost completely unobserved. Scientists have struggled to gather precise measurements because of the harsh environment and extreme remoteness. The changing dynamics of the Southern Ocean will in turn drive key aspects of our future climate, including how sensitive the Earth will be to further warming and increases in carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, improved observations are crucial to helping scientists understand and predict how our climate will change."
(Antarctica 2.0 - 3, quoting Climate Central). When the sea level is rising and the net result of thermal expansion / contraction totals is a minor player, a small number, then melting tidewater glaciers and other melting ice in the Cryosphere quite obviously must be the major player.

Finally, yes the lines on the graphs are somewhat jerky because that area of the world makes it difficult to take measurements.

There are not as many measurements over the decades as we would like (especially at deepest depths), but there are enough to give us a heads up.

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

 Fig. 2a

 Fig. 2b

 Fig. 2c

 Fig. 2d

 Fig. 2e

 Fig. 2f

 Fig. 2g

 Fig. 2h

 Fig. 2i

 Fig. 2j

 Fig. 2k

 Fig. 2l

 Fig. 2m

 Fig. 2n

 Fig. 2o

 Fig. 2p

 Fig. 2q

 Fig. 2r

The question posted about CT, MDCT parallel situations was posed here,
and the general questions were posted here.

ANSWER: The graphs generally show that as the CT trend line parallels the MDCT trend line the thermosteric impact is minuscule,  when the CT trend line moves away from the MDCT trend line the thermosteric impact is larger, and when the CT trend moves toward the MDCT trend the thermosteric impact is smaller.

Updated, marked, and more detailed graphs are below:

 Fig. 2a

 Fig. 2b

 Fig. 2c

 Fig. 2d

 Fig. 2e

 Fig. 2f

 Fig. 2g

 Fig. 2h

 Fig. 2i

 Fig. 2j

 Fig. 2k

 Fig. 2l

 Fig. 2m

 Fig. 2n

 Fig. 2o

 Fig. 2p

 Fig. 2q

 Fig. 2r

Thursday, May 17, 2018

 Impeachment Proceedings
I. Above The Law?

In this series we have been analyzing and discussing the cultural phenomenon that is called "immunity" (Follow The Immunity, 2, 3, 4).

The street description for "immunity" is "being above the law."

Actually, however, in some instances immunity is the law:
"The Senators and Representatives ... shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same ...."
(U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). There are valid reasons for that, such as the potential for one political party being able to cause or instigate the arrest of a number of members from the opposing political party (which could or would keep them from being able to show up and vote on an issue that is very close in the vote tally).

II. Is The President Above The Law?

If Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations are "the law" then we can say that there are times when the U.S. President is above the law, or that the President is immune from felony indictment while in office:
"In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination. We believe that the conclu­sion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution."
(DOJ Regs, PDF). Both "opinions" indicate that it is DOJ policy, now, that the president is above the law in terms of a criminal indictment while he or she is still in office.

The U.S. President's lawyer, Rudolf Guliani, says that he was informed by Robert Mueller, the "special counsel" (who heads up a team that is investigating Russian tampering with the outcome of the most recent election), that pursuant to DOJ regulations the DOJ cannot indict the president while the president is in office (CNN, NYT, NBC).

III. Immunity For The Wee People?

In a recent federal court decision, the federal judge pointed out that this is not the case for "regular" (Wee The People, 2, 3) citizens:
"Defendant Manafort has moved to dismiss the Superseding Indictment.  He contends that when the Acting Attorney General issued the Appointment Order, he exceeded limits imposed on his appointment authority by the Department of Justice Special Counsel Regulations, and that therefore, the Appointment Order, and the acts undertaken by the Special Counsel under its auspices, are invalid. Manafort also argues that even if the appointment was valid, the Special Counsel overstepped the authority he was granted when he investigated and prosecuted the particular charges in this case.

It is important to note that Manafort does not challenge the entire Appointment Order; he objects only to paragraph (b)(ii), the grant of authority to pursue “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation,” which he claims is too broad.

Thus, as Manafort acknowledges, his motion does not support the dismissal of any charges if they were properly brought under paragraphs (b)(i) or (iii) of the Appointment Order. See Tr. of Apr. 19, 2018 Mot.Hr’g [Dkt. # 281] (“Tr.”) at 8–9.

The motion to dismiss [the indictment] will be denied for a number of reasons. [Order at p. 2]
...
"Defendant does not argue in his pleadings that the Acting Attorney General violated any statute when he defined the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction to include “any matters that arose;” his claim is that paragraph (b)(ii) of the Appointment Order is inconsistent with the Department’s Special Counsel Regulations. But those internal agency regulations do not create rights that an individual under investigation may enforce in court."
[Order, p 13]
...
"The word “collusion” does not even appear in the Appointment Order, and the Special Counsel was tasked with taking over the existing investigation, “including” “any links and/or coordination.”
[Order at pp. 14-15]
(US v Manafort, Opinion & Order). The DOJ and Special Counsel have broad powers of investigation over the wee people:
"28 C.F.R. §600.7(d) (providing that a Special Counsel “may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General”)."
...
"Nevertheless, it is intended that ultimate responsibility for the matter and how it is handled will continue to rest with the Attorney General (or the Acting Attorney General if the Attorney General is personally recused in the matter)" ... (Final Rule, 64 Federal Register at 37,038)
(ibid, Judge's Order).  The judge cites to and quotes several of what the President and the defendants incessantly call "fake news" media (Order p. 17-18).

It would seem that a lot of the ancient "the King can do no wrong" ideology survived the trip across the ocean to the Colonies from The British Empire (Sovereign Immunity Source: Toxins of Power?).

IV. The Only Remedy

What, then, is the remedy available to wee the people when a president runs amok (Arrested Development: The Creep State)?

If the DOJ opinion holds up, the only remedy available to wee the people when a president runs amok is Impeachment:
"At the federal level, the impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate who is also the Vice President of the United States.

In theory at least, as President of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States could preside over the impeachment of him/herself, although legal theories suggest that allowing a defendant to be the judge in his own case would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of anyone besides the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

To convict an accused, "the concurrence of two thirds of the members present" is required.[37] Conviction removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him or her from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed."
(Wikipedia, Impeachment Process). Thus, wee the people are at the mercy of the politicians who are at the mercy of the voting public.

V. Conclusion

Unless there is some challenge in the federal courts, and unless the federal courts, the Supreme Court being the final arbiter, overrules the current DOJ opinion, that opinion will have the force of law for the foreseeable future.

Which means "impeachment is off the table" (a bi-partisan view in the House of Representatives) (Pelosi: Impeaching Trump 'not someplace that I think we should go').

That, even though it is a constitutional command and the duty of the U.S. Congress to remove deviant office holders: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" (Presidential Impeachment).

Yet, "The involuntary removal of a sitting President of the United States has never occurred in our history" (ibid).

So, the opinion of a few trumps the constitution it would seem.

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 35

 Fig. 1
I. Got Pure Water?

One thing that is never missing in the text containing the proclamation that "thermal expansion is the major cause of sea level rise" is the dogmatic statement that "water expands when heat is added to it."

Likewise, in the similar proclamation that "thermal expansion is a major cause of sea level rise" is the dogmatic statement (or mantra?) that "water expands when heat is added to it."

The only problem with that is the scientific fact that water does not always expand when heat is added to it.

The full truth is that water expands (increases in volume) OR contracts (decreases in volume) when heat is added to it.

 Fig. 2
So, what controls whether water expands or contracts when heat is added to it?

The answer is that it depends on the temperature of the water at the time the heat is added (Fig. 1).

Why is that?

That is because when the water is below its maximum density temperature (4 deg. C) the addition of heat to that water will cause it to become more dense (contraction, less volume).

 Fig. 3
But, when the water is above its maximum density temperature (4 deg. C) the addition of heat to that water will cause it to become less dense (expansion, more volume).

II. Got Sea Water?

Sea water, being water and all that, holds to the same principle (Fig. 2), except that, unlike pure water, its temperature of maximum density depends on its degree of "impurity" and the pressure upon it caused by its depth (i.e. unlike pure water which always has a maximum density temperature of 4 deg. C, sea water has a sliding scale of various temperatures at maximum density).

"Impurity," then, in this case means that there is more in sea water than just "water."

Yes, the characteristic of salinity ("saltiness"), alters the temperature of sea water's maximum density, depending on the degree of that salinity.

Sea water has a complicated "personality," because depth can also play a part in altering its temperature of maximum density.

Meanwhile, science done since the early models miscalculated thermal expansion is now downplaying it:
"Research over the last few years suggests most of the rise is a result of ‘thermal expansion’ of seawater. But a new study in the journal Nature Geoscience suggests that in recent years melting ice may have been the main cause of sea level rise.

The study finds that between 2005 and 2011 melting ice sheets and glaciers were responsible for about 75 per cent of sea level rise, while the effect of water warming and expanding played a much smaller role. So does the research suggest melting ice is a bigger problem than scientists previously thought?"
(Carbon Brief Org, emphasis added). Perhaps using the old EOS-80 methods to determine the thermodynamics of sea water was the reason the old models were exaggerating thermal factors (like the early satellite data did).

The scientists were unequivocal in their paper published in Nature GeoScience:
"Our reassessment suggests an ocean mass contribution of 1.80±0.47 mm yr−1, for a total sea level rise of 2.40±0.54 mm yr−1, in agreement with the altimeter-based estimates. On the basis of the GRACE data, we conclude that most of the change in ocean mass is caused by the melting of polar ice sheets and mountain glaciers. This contribution of ice melt is larger than previous estimates, but agrees with reports of accelerated ice melt in recent years."
(Nature Geoscience, emphasis added). This is in accord with the current Dredd Blog calculations concerning the contributing factors to both sea level rise and fall.

III. Got TEOS-10?

Modern scientists need to begin to use the latest technology and formulas to determine the thermodynamics of sea water:
"The EOS-80 seawater properties are obsolete; They have been superseded by the International Thermodynamic Equation Of Seawater - 2010, (TEOS-10). The official site for the thermodynamic properties of seawater is www.TEOS-10.org.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Replacement of EOS-80 with
the International Thermodynamic Equation of Seawater – 2010 (TEOS-10)

The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), with the endorsement of the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) and the International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans (IAPSO), has adopted the International Thermodynamic Equation Of Seawater - 2010 (TEOS-10) as the official description of seawater and ice properties in marine science. All oceanographers are now urged to use the new TEOS-10 algorithms and variables to report their work. The TEOS-10 computer software, the TEOS-10 Manual and other documents may be obtained from www.TEOS-10.org."
(TEOS-10 Org, emphasis added). "Ground control to Major Tom" comes to mind.

As regular readers know, I downloaded and now use the TEOS-10 toolkit for Dredd Blog computations (see TEOS-10 software).

I have finally developed software modules (which use that software library) to calculate (among many other things) the maximum density temperature of sea water at various depths and at various degrees of impurity.

 Fig. 4 Greenland waters
As it turns out, the maximum density temperature is so low that it does not impact upon thermal expansion and contraction in the most significant geographical areas.

What I mean is that when heat is added to sea water in Greenland or Antarctica, that sea water will only expand, not contract, as a result of the added heat.

The only way the sea water in those ocean areas will contract (lose volume) is if cold water from melting glaciers flows into sea water to cool it further.

That is happening at the 0-2000 meter depth levels in those areas (Fig. 4, Fig. 5).

Compare the graph at Fig. 3 (a hypothetical maximum density of sea water at 4 deg. C), and the graph at Fig. 2 (a hypothetical maximum density of sea water at about 2 deg. C), with the graph at Fig. 4 (the actual TEOS-10 calculated temperatures and maximum densities at three depth levels).

IV. Antarctica

 Fig. 5 Antarctic waters
I completed the Antarctica module that focuses on the WOD zones there.

The same maximum density conditions exist there as they do in Greenland (Fig. 5).

That is, the only thermal expansion and contraction that takes place there is also at densities above the maximum density of that sea water.

The reason I have ventured into the sea water density issue is because of what is written in the TEOS-10 manual:
"Since the density of seawater is rarely measured, we recommend the approach illustrated in Figure 1 as a practical method to include the effects of composition anomalies on estimates of Absolute Salinity and density. When composition anomalies are not known, the algorithm of McDougall et al. (2012) may be used to estimate Absolute Salinity in terms of Practical Salinity and the spatial location of the measurement in the world oceans."
(TEOS-10 Manual, p. 14, p. 24 PDF). The TEOS-10 toolkit points out (in notations) its C library function which calculates the maximum density temperature of sea water:
"!==========================================
!elemental function gsw_ct_maxdensity (sa, p)
!==========================================
!
! Calculates the Conservative Temperature of maximum density of seawater.
! This function returns the Conservative temperature at which the density
! of seawater is a maximum, at given Absolute Salinity, SA, and sea
! pressure, p (in dbar).
!
! SA = Absolute Salinity [ g/kg ]
! p = sea pressure [ dbar ]
! ( i.e. absolute pressure - 10.1325 dbar )
!
! CT_maxdensity = Conservative Temperature at which [ deg C ]
! the density of seawater is a maximum for
! given Absolute Salinity and pressure.
!----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
(Notes in the TEOS-10 "C programming library" module). Thus, the benefit we derive from having developed those modules is to simplify the calculations necessary to compute thermal expansion and contraction (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34).

Tidewater glacier ice melt by sea water takes place at very cold temperatures, so very little warming at great depths will cause abundant sub-surface melting  (Hot, Warm, & Cold Thermal Facts: Tidewater-Glaciers, 2, 3, 4).

That is why hundreds of them are melting in Antarctica (Antarctica 2.0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 [& supplements A, B, C, D, E, F]) and in Greenland (Greenland 2.0, 2).

V. Conclusion

Imagine the difficulty in calculating actual thermal expansion and contraction if the maximum density was at 4 deg C or at 2 deg C (as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).

As we now know, the only thermal expansion which needs to be calculated is based on an increase in the Conservative Temperature (CT), while the only thermal contraction to be calculated is based on a decrease in the CT of the sea water (because the "Conservative Temperature of maximum density of seawater" is not generally crossed over according to in situ measurements).

That simplifies things, but changes nothing concerning the Dredd Blog hypothesis that, all things considered, thermal expansion is a minor factor in sea level change.

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

Monday, May 14, 2018

Arrested Development: The Creep State

 A culture of mania
I. The Creep State

In this post the phrase "The Creep State" (TCS) indicates the condition that manifests when a culture suffers arrested development in the form of reverting back into behaviors that are less of "a shining city on a hill" than they are of "stinking up the joint."

TCS can be anything from: a) reverting back to racism (Symbolic Racism: A Look At The Science - 3),  b) surreptitious formation of a police state (Will The Military Become The Police? - 10), or c) the full blown industrialization of ignorance (Etiology of Social Dementia - 18).

But always TCS is primarily the population segment diagnosed as a despotic minority which the once most-often-quoted historian, Toynbee, fingered as one of the members of the trinity of extinction that he found in all civilizations that were about to become very successful at becoming extinct:
That something is the dementia that produces and ends up in suicide:
"In other words, a society does not ever die 'from natural causes', but always dies from suicide or murder --- and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown."
(A Study of History, by Arnold J. Toynbee). There is no cure for the final symptom of that group dementia, there is only prevention by way of avoiding it altogether in the first place.

The components of that group dementia were pointed out in an encyclopedia piece concerning that historian quoted above:
"In the Study Toynbee examined the rise and fall of 26 civilizations in the course of human history, and he concluded that they rose by responding successfully to challenges under the leadership of creative minorities composed of elite leaders. Civilizations declined when their leaders stopped responding creatively, and the civilizations then sank owing to the sins of nationalism, militarism, and the tyranny of a despotic minority. Unlike Spengler in his The Decline of the West, Toynbee did not regard the death of a civilization as inevitable, for it may or may not continue to respond to successive challenges. Unlike Karl Marx, he saw history as shaped by spiritual, not economic forces" ...
(Encyclopedia Britannica, emphasis added). The show stopper, in terms of remedy, in this type of group dementia is that it is a contagious dementia.
(Etiology of Social Dementia - 18). That particular "minority" is not a racial or ethnic minority, rather, it is primarily composed of a destructive suicidal trance (Choose Your Trances Carefully, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

II. Science Friction

When a group loses its moorings, eventually the individuals within that meme complex will also lose their moorings.
Perhaps the most striking thing about such trances is how quickly they can develop:
American psychologist Boris Sidis wrote of a striking instance of a trance that was not limited to one person, but affected a whole group. He cited the memoirs of Russian writer and journalist Ivan Ivanovich Panaev, describing the riots of military colonists in Russia in 1831. Panaev recounted that in the course of some of the hardest fighting, he came across a corporal lying in the street, crying bitterly. When Panaev asked why he was crying, the young soldier said it was because down the street, a mob was trying to kill his beloved commander, Sokolov. Panaev suggested that the corporal stop crying and go to his leader's aid. A little later, when Panaev himself brought soldiers to help Sokolov, he was astonished to see that the corporal had joined the mob and was beating Sokolov with a club. When Panaev asked what on earth he was doing, the young man replied: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't I?

Immersed in the energy of the mob, the corporal had totally given up his own individuality and control of his own mind. His normal perception of reality had disappeared, and he was locked into the thinking and reality of the mob. The mob possessed a corporate mind that overwhelmed the personal views of all who came under its sway. The "group mind" of the rioters was so strong that even the soldier, who was sincerely devoted to his commander, could not resist it. He was plunged into a group-mind trance in which he was absorbed in the thought and emotion of the group and out of touch with reality as he normally knew it.

Group-mind trance does not occur only in highly charged temporary gatherings, such as riots or lynch mobs. Group-mind trance is a part of the everyday life of each one of us. We belong to various kinds of groups--families, work groups, churches, and other organizations. Each has its own group mind that entrances us, perhaps more subtly than a lynch mob, but every bit as effectively. And in the group-mind trance, we experience all the features of other trance states.

Group-mind trances give us a basis for understanding the macrotrance of culture. We could think of group-mind trances as existing on a spectrum from the family on one end to culture on the other. Culture is the group-mind trance of a whole people, and because it is so pervasive, it remains largely invisible to those who are held in its sway.

The influence of group-mind trances cannot be overestimated.
...

The trance that is least recognized but very significant in our lives is group-mind trance ... Here the individual becomes a carrier of the values and drives that characterize the group as a whole. While immersed in the group mind, people may think and act in ways that are totally out of character with how they are when separate. Group-mind trance can occur in connection with such groups as one's family, church, or club; at sports events, rock concerts, tenants' meetings, and political conventions; or when involved with the staff at work or friends at a gathering. Group-mind trance forms a bridge to cultural trance, which may be thought of as a group-mind trance on the level of a whole people.
(Comparing a Group-Mind Trance to a Cultural Amygdala). It is as if a wireless server forms within the group whereby the group behavior is eventually completely synchronized by a centralized controlling essence.

This seems to be the modern version of what was said to explain how a group-mind phenomenon can eventually control the morph of individuals within its borders ("It is forbidden to kill therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." - Voltaire).

Some who lived quite a while ago, looking ahead from that vantage point now long gone, envisioned the end of the matter: (“The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson).

III. Conclusion

There seem to be two approaches to solving group-mind trances, Leave it to Beaver, or leave it to Freud:
If the evolution of civilization has such a far reaching similarity with the development of an individual, and if the same methods are employed in both, would not the diagnosis be justified that many systems of civilization——or epochs of it——possibly even the whole of humanity——have become neurotic under the pressure of the civilizing trends? To analytic dissection of these neuroses, therapeutic recommendations might follow which could claim a great practical interest. I would not say that such an attempt to apply psychoanalysis to civilized society would be fanciful or doomed to fruitlessness. But it behooves us to be very careful, not to forget that after all we are dealing only with analogies, and that it is dangerous, not only with men but also with concepts, to drag them out of the region where they originated and have matured. The diagnosis of collective neuroses, moreover, will be confronted by a special difficulty. In the neurosis of an individual we can use as a starting point the contrast presented to us between the patient and his environment which we assume to be normal. No such background as this would be available for any society similarly affected; it would have to be supplied in some other way. And with regard to any therapeutic application of our knowledge, what would be the use of the most acute analysis of social neuroses, since no one possesses power to compel the community to adopt the therapy? In spite of all these difficulties, we may expect that one day someone will venture upon this research into the pathology of civilized communities. [p. 39]
...
Men have brought their powers of subduing the forces of nature
to such a pitch that by using them they could now very easily exterminate one another to the last man. They know this——hence arises a great part of their current unrest, their dejection, their mood of apprehension. [p. 40]
(Civilization and Its Discontents, S. Freud, 1929, emphasis added). I'm with Freud on this one.

The next post in this series is here.