Time is everything An intriguing controversy hit much of the civilized planet in the second half of the 19th century. How would we tell what time it is? For the whole of human history‚ this was not a problem. Schedules were coordinated based on the position of the sun. With the invention of the sundial – sometime around 1500 BC and used commonly until relatively recently – mankind knew that having the sun overhead meant it was midday.  The face of the medieval clock with mechanical levers‚ ticks‚ and gongs was nothing but an extension of the sundial‚ except that you could tell the time even if the sun was not out. That’s rather helpful and one can see how it caught on. The city hall and the main churches in every town would sound the time for the whole community.  By the mid and late 19th century‚ each household started acquiring clocks. It was a huge business and involved traveling salesmen. Clock makers (and repairmen) formed the industrial backbone of many cities in Europe‚ UK‚ and the US. They were forever improving‚ and that helped with work schedules and time sheets at the office. The whole industrialized world became governed by time and with greater precision than had ever been possible.  So far so good. But then came the railroads. You see‚ until then‚ of course‚ every town possessed its own understanding of what time it is. It was a different time in New York City than it was in Brooklyn or Long Island or Newark. This was true all over the world. Every community had its own time. That’s because the sun hits the moving earth at a different moment in every square inch of the planet. Save 40% on DNA Force Plus NOW! Try it today and see why so many listeners have made it an essential part of their daily routine! As Wolfgang Schivelbusch (1977) describes it: “London time ran four minutes ahead of time in Reading‚ seven minutes and thirty seconds ahead of Cirencester time‚ fourteen minutes ahead of Bridgwater time. This patchwork of varying local times was no problem as long as traffic between the places was so slow that the slight temporal differences really did not matter; but the temporal foreshortening of the distances that was effected by the trains forced the differing local times to confront each other.” There we have it: the trains! They shortened space and time in amazing ways. This is simply because they ran faster than the sun was rotating around the earth‚ thus giving rise to every manner of philosophical reflections on the meaning of geography itself. With the advance of railroad speeds‚ would the whole world become one big city? Would we even care where we live given that we can see so much of the world in all directions and even in one day?  In any case‚ all of this made life extremely difficult for trains to make schedules. After the trains began to run in the 1830s and faster and faster through the decades‚ you could arrive at a place not that far away and be there‚ according to the clock‚ before you left your origin city. This played havoc with coordination.  This was especially true in the US because there were so many competing lines of trains. They were in stiff competition so they also kept their own time schedules too. Mostly the railroad companies would settle on a single standard of time‚ usually wherever the headquarters of the company was‚ and just watch it pass and set arrival times based on that alone. This meant that departure and arrival times could be hours off from what was technically local time (or what is now called solar time).  Eventually‚ the companies agreed on standards. They would divide up geography according to large zones‚ regardless of the actual time. During the 1880s‚ this created enormous controversies for most of the general public and city fathers who were faced with pressure from industrial interests to adopt the new zones and dispense with local time. This was extremely annoying to just about everybody except those who took the trains all the time or were scheduled to meet someone at the station.  This did‚ however‚ create new opportunities for the clock industry. They started manufacturing large household clocks that would have one clock face for local time and another for what was called “Railroad Time.” So there was real time and industrial time. That seems easy enough but the solution did not last. As city managers were very much of the desire to court the railroad industrialists‚ they were keen to dragoon the entire population into accepting the new “modern” ways and letting go of their old systems of timekeeping that were in keeping with nature.  So you had an odd situation. Someone would say “It’s 11am” but you look overhead or at your sundial or at your actual clock and you see that it is midday noon. All things lined up to say it is noon. And yet here stands this Thoroughly Modern Millie telling you something that is obviously completely untrue and yet insisting that it is true.  Thus began for many the detachment between technological truth and actual truth. And this was not a small issue. Time is everything. It’s when you go to work‚ when you take a break‚ when you eat‚ when you go to bed and when you rise to meet the day. Here we have some technologically informed experts telling you that something is the case that clearly is not the case because their truth contradicts the way we’ve determined the time for 3‚500 years!  So yes‚ there was a massive political struggle in every town and city in the country over this issue. Rightly so. All of this came to a head in 1889 when the railroads‚ many of which were by now government-backed monopolies‚ officially agreed on four time zones. In 1918‚ the time zones were all given legal recognition by the federal government‚ according to Schivelbusch (The Railway Journey‚ University of California Press‚ 1977).  Might there have been a more elegant solution? It’s very obvious: one universal time for the world (Greenwich Mean Time) which could be called schedule time‚ and then all actual real-world local times could go on as always. The idea of zones is a confusing and half-baked solution – cobble together to pretend what is not real is real – and made even worse by the absurdities of Daylight Savings Time.  Oddly‚ we seem headed in this direction now in any case‚ since GMT is ever more used to schedule meetings around the world. The time zone bit‚ however‚ still sticks.  So‚ you see‚ it could all have been achieved without imposition‚ upheaval‚ and industrial hegemony over nature and tradition. There was no reason for intimidation‚ compulsion‚ and time imperialism. It could have been completely voluntary and completely rational‚ without any social conflict at all.  We read about this history and wonder where we would have been on this great struggle. The romantic in me likes to believe that I would have resisted the change and stuck to reality. The techno-enthusiast in me suspects I would have rallied behind the ambitions of the railroad company.  Still‚ something about the way it ended up makes me sad. Not one in 10 million people can read a sundial today‚ knows the origin of the clock face‚ or knows that noon once meant sun overhead. For that matter‚ fewer and fewer people today can even tell time!  I was once party to a discussion between a man‚ who was doing a lot of TV interviews in China‚ and his wife. He pointed out that he had to get back to the house to be at the studio since in China it is already tomorrow.  “That’s really neat that you can broadcast from today into tomorrow‚” she said in all seriousness.  He gently pointed out that only the definition of time changes‚ not time itself‚ since what we call “now” is the same everywhere. She was seriously confused by that point. There would never be such confusion if we had stuck with local time (solar time) and GMT.  Our sense of reality has never been more detached from reality itself. We experience it constantly online but also even with little things like the weather. Is it cold outside? I don’t know‚ let me pull up my app connected to my smart device which is connected to the Internet which travels down fiber lines and exchanges information with a cell tower that broadcasts information from thousands of miles away. Of course I could put a thermometer actually outside and look but that would be too much trouble.  Making it all even more preposterous‚ we are supposed to trust only the technically employed climatologists – not our own eyes and experience – to tell us the present and future of the climate itself‚ which they unveil at international conferences and complicated academic papers in prestigious journals. Just trust them!  Those who live virtually have lost contact with those who do not. It was so bad only four years ago that “knowledge workers” decided to close the whole world and lounge in PJs and stream movies while expecting random non-persons to deliver them groceries and supplies‚ not for two weeks but for two years‚ with nary a thought about who these people are or whether they might catch the bad virus hanging around.  We’ve become so detached from physical reality that many people don’t even think their own bodies are determinative of their health‚ physical or mental. I’m sick. Here’s a pill. I’m sad. Here’s a pill. I want muscles. Take this drug. I’m fat. Here’s a pill. There’s a virus. Take this shot‚ twice‚ three times‚ even seven times. I got sick anyway. Take another pill. It’s expensive. Put it on your insurance for which someone else pays. I got the bug again. Take another pill.  So on it goes‚ as if physical reality and nature don’t even exist or that it can all be overcome with some new medical technology which includes not only pharmaceuticals but endless and expensive therapies. For that matter‚ if we have access to it all‚ we can live forever. Just have to have the right combination of chemical stuff to make it possible. If that doesn’t work‚ freeze your head. We’ll get there eventually.  So‚ yes‚ every trend can be taken too far‚ but perhaps we should become more aware of how all this detachment from the world around us begins and be more skeptical. For my part‚ I would be happy knowing and following the actual local time again. Maybe we need sundials again. Our times are so rough‚ brutalized by a techno-fascist junta that forever wants to jab us and force us all into the metaverse‚ I’m finding the idea just a bit tempting.  P.S.: Oh wait: there is a website to tell you your actual local (solar) time! Thank you technology‚ I guess. 

by Mac Slavo‚ SHTF Plan: “Long COVID” has been an interesting phenomenon and the term was coined for those who test positive for COVID-19 and never fully recover. A new study is now showing that long COVID is a direct consequence of getting the COVID-19 “vaccine.” New research published in PLoS One found that people who develop long […]

by John Nolte‚ Breitbart: The start of the COVID pandemic is about four years in the rearview and still being blamed for Hollywood losing 20 percent of moviegoers. “One out of every five moviegoers has vanished since the pandemic‚ according to research compiled by one Hollywood studio‚” reports the far-left Hollywood Reporter. “Whether they’ll ever return to see […]

This story was originally published by High Country News. In 2006‚ Luis Reyes Jr.‚ CEO of Kit Carson Electric Cooperative‚ an electricity distribution cooperative in northern New Mexico‚ was in a bind. On one side‚ clean energy proponents were pushing him to add more renewables. On the other‚ Kit Carson’s energy supplier‚ Tri-State Generation and Transmission‚ was doubling down on coal. Worse‚ the co-op’s contract with Tri-State — which barred it from producing more than five percent of its own energy — wouldn’t end until 2040. “That was really the start of the breakup‚” Reyes said. Kit Carson’s ensuing separation from Tri-State‚ which took nearly a decade‚ was driven by the persistence of its members. Unlike investor-owned utilities‚ which are controlled by shareholders‚ rural distribution co-ops answer to the households and businesses that use the energy. Luis Reyes Jr.‚ CEO of Kit Carson Electric Cooperative. Credit: Juan Antonio Labreche / High Country News A product of the New Deal‚ Kit Carson was founded in 1944 to bring electricity to rural northern New Mexico. Today‚ there are 832 rural distribution co-ops nationwide. In general‚ rural co-ops rely more on coal and have moved more slowly toward decarbonization than large investor-owned utilities. But that’s changing‚ with Kit Carson leading the charge. Co-op members worried about climate change are leveraging the distinctly democratic governing structures of rural distribution co-ops to encourage decarbonization. Robin Lunt‚ chief commercial officer at Guzman Energy‚ Kit Carson’s current energy supplier‚ called co-ops “a great bellwether” for shifting public opinion. “They’re much closer to their communities‚” she said‚ “and to their customers‚ because their customers are their owners.” But democracy is messy‚ and change can take years. Lunt praised Reyes’ patience and persistence at Kit Carson‚ while Reyes credits the committed‚ vocal co-op members who pushed it to be “good stewards … of the land and water.” Still‚ the job is far from done‚ as the co-op continues its struggle to phase out fossil fuels entirely. Kit Carson’s largest solar array‚ near Taos‚ New Mexico. Juan Antonio Labreche / High Country News Reyes was raised in Taos‚ in a home powered by Kit Carson. He was with his mother one day when she paid her bill at the co-op office. A manager offered Reyes a job‚ which he took after graduating from New Mexico State in 1984 with a degree in electrical engineering. A decade later‚ he became CEO. The early 2000s found the co-op trying to expand its offerings in rural areas and launch internet services. Tri-State was also trying to grow‚ and‚ in 2006‚ it announced plans to build a large coal plant in Kansas. It also wanted Kit Carson to extend its contract until 2050‚ adding another decade. It was around this time‚ Reyes said‚ that some members started asking “some pretty tough questions‚” wondering why the co-op wasn’t investing more in renewables and whether it should extend its Tri-State contract. Bobby Ortega‚ a retired community banker who was elected to the board in 2005‚ said that some board members‚ himself included‚ were hesitant to move away from fossil fuels. “When I got on this board‚ I was more leaning towards coal‚” he said. “We were all raised on that kind of mentality (about) how our energy would be derived.” Most of the board members had open minds‚ though‚ Ortega said‚ and Kit Carson refused to consent to an extension of the contract. The co-op wanted to end its relationship with Tri-State. But legally‚ the contract was still in force‚ and Kit Carson needed to find another energy provider before it could leave Tri-State. Crushed by negative news? Sign up for the Reasons to be Cheerful newsletter. [contact-form-7] In the following years‚ the co-op convened a committee of its members to discuss increasing solar energy usage. Tri-State‚ however‚ had set a five percent cap on locally generated electricity. In 2012‚ a group of Taoseños who shared an interest in renewable energy formed a nonprofit‚ Renewable Taos‚ and set a goal of 100 percent renewable energy for the area — a goal that was blocked by the Tri-State cap. Renewable Taos reached out to Reyes to discuss the issue. As a co-op‚ Kit Carson needed buy-in across its service area — Taos and the Taos and Picuris pueblos‚ along with parts of Colfax and Rio Arriba counties — in order to make large-scale changes. But the co-op’s membership was hardly a monolith. “You had the liberals‚” Reyes recalled‚ and the Renewable Taos members worried about climate change. But there had been an influx of “very wealthy but very conservative folks” in the Angel Fire ski area‚ and some of them were actively skeptical of renewables. Other Kit Carson members‚ notably those without much disposable income‚ feared that renewables would increase their monthly expenses. Kit Carson’s largest solar array‚ near Taos‚ New Mexico. Credit: Juan Antonio Labreche / High Country News Renewable Taos began attending Kit Carson’s board meetings with a new goal in mind: moving the entire service area to 100 percent renewable energy if the Tri-State contract was broken. “We didn’t align at all‚” Reyes recalled. The board thought Renewable Taos‚ some of whose members were well-to-do retired scientists‚ were “kind of telling us dummies what to do‚” he said‚ with a chuckle. But Reyes and the board found a way to address that tension. “At the end of our first meeting (with Renewable Taos)‚ I suggested to the board‚ well‚ if these guys are really going to help us and be critical‚ let’s give ’em some homework‚” he said. The board asked Renewable Taos to visit every municipality Kit Carson served to build support for a joint resolution declaring that all co-op members were committed to fighting climate change. A shuttered molybdenum mine in Questa‚ New Mexico‚ would be the site of a new green hydrogen plant. Credit: Juan Antonio Labreche / High Country News Jay Levine‚ one of the original Renewable Taos members‚ still wonders if that was an attempt to put them off politely. Even so‚ the group accepted Reyes’ challenge‚ visiting every municipality in Kit Carson’s service area and answering questions about renewables and energy costs. “We talked to a lot of folks‚ and I think everywhere we went‚ they signed on‚” he said. The process was aided by the falling cost of solar energy‚ which began reaching price parity with coal in the mid-2010s. By 2014‚ every community in Kit Carson’s service area had signed on to Renewable Taos’ clean energy resolution. Two years later‚ after the co-op board finally found an alternate energy supplier‚ it broke its Tri-State contract for $37 million. Thanks to increased control over its power sources‚ Kit Carson reached an important goal in 2022: Renewable energy now provides 100 percent of the year-round daytime electrical needs of its more than 30‚000 members. Now‚ other co-ops‚ notably Delta-Montrose in western Colorado‚ are following Kit Carson’s lead and leaving Tri-State in the name of clean energy. Levine‚ the Renewable Taos member‚ said that Kit Carson’s long struggle paved the way for other co-ops to leave Tri-State. “That (trend) literally wouldn’t have happened‚” he said‚ “because nobody else would have had the guts to do it.” Energy users in the Taos area. Credit: Juan Antonio Labreche / High Country News The co-op’s achievement — hitting the 100 percent daytime clean energy milestone — is clearly significant‚ but it also needs to meet a New Mexico mandate that rural co-ops transition entirely to carbon-neutral electricity by 2050. One potential pathway involves a green hydrogen plant that the co-op has explored with the National Renewable Energy Lab‚ other government partners and the small village of Questa. Conventional hydrogen production‚ which uses fossil fuels‚ contributes to climate change‚ but so-called green hydrogen can be produced by splitting water atoms with an electrolyzer powered by renewable energy. Proponents think widespread green hydrogen could reduce US carbon dioxide emissions by 16 percent by mid-century. Despite all the investment and hype‚ however‚ few green hydrogen projects have broken ground. Still‚ Kit Carson has beaten the odds before; Reyes recalled that many people doubted that the co-op would ever reach its goal of meeting daytime energy needs with 100 percent renewables. Become a sustaining member today! Join the Reasons to be Cheerful community by supporting our nonprofit publication and giving what you can. Join The Questa plant would be built at a shuttered molybdenum mine‚ which operated from the 1920s until 2014 and was a major source of both jobs and pollution. In 2005‚ a Chevron subsidiary‚ Chevron Mining‚ acquired Unocal‚ the mine’s parent company. Today‚ Chevron manages the remediation of what is now a Superfund site. At a series of local meetings‚ water was the top concern for Kit Carson members. A variety of sources could be used to power the proposed plant‚ including water that Chevron is already pulling from the underground mine‚ treating‚ and sending to the Red River as part of its Superfund mitigation. Reyes is optimistic about the hydrogen project‚ describing it as the next phase of Kit Carson’s clean energy journey. But he noted that the future of the project‚ and of the co-op as a whole‚ ultimately lies in the hands of the co-op’s members. “They have been part of that equation the whole time‚” he said. The post The New Mexico Electricity Co-op Breaking Up With Fossil Fuels appeared first on Reasons to be Cheerful.

  On the 11th of June 323 BCE‚ in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon‚ Alexander the Great breathed his last. At just 32 years old he had carved out the largest empire that the world had yet seen‚ uniting Greece‚ Anatolia‚ the Levant‚ Egypt‚ and Mesopotamia under a single power and toppling the formidable Achaemenid Persian Empire. Alexander was treated like a god among men‚ but he was as mortal as anyone else. His sudden death left a vacuum and his empire was soon torn apart by the ambitious men who lay claim to his legacy.   The question of what killed Alexander has captivated historians for over two thousand years. What could possibly have brought down history’s greatest conqueror at such a young age? Historians and medical professionals have poured over the accounts of his final days and proposed several theories about what killed Alexander the Great.   Alexander the Great’s Death in the Sources Dying‚ Alexander the Great bids farewell to his army‚ Carl von Piloty‚ 1885‚ via Staatliche Museen zu Berlin   Alexander’s death occurred shortly after his return to Babylon following a difficult and ultimately unproductive campaign in India and only a few months after the similarly mysterious death of his close friend Hephaestion in 324 BCE. Several sources describe Alexander’s last days and agree on key details.   Plutarch’s account is the most detailed. In typical Plutarchian fashion‚ the event was preceded by omens — a flock of ravens falling dead at Alexander’s feet‚ a prized lion being kicked to death by a mule — that indicated the imminent death of the conqueror. Alexander recognized these portents and became even more paranoid in his last weeks. Eventually‚ Alexander was struck with a fever after a night of drinking that gradually worsened over the following days. Alexander retired to his bed and‚ over several days‚ lost the ability to move or speak. Ten days after the fever struck‚ he was declared dead. Apparently‚ the deified man’s body did not decay and remained pristine after his death.   The Death of Alexander the Great‚ Jean Restout‚ 1692-1768‚ via MutualArt‚   Plutarch also presents several other accounts that add different details. For example‚ some sources claimed that Alexander suffered a sudden stabbing pain in his abdomen while drinking‚ and this signaled the beginning of the fever and his fatal illness. Plutarch also tells us that no one initially suspected poison‚ but such accusations gained steam some years after the king’s death.   Diodorus Siculus similarly shows Alexander being aware of his imminent death. Diodorus also places Alexander’s illness immediately after a night of hard drinking with his friends that was interrupted by a sudden abdominal pain. Alexander’s pain and fever worsened over several days until it was obvious‚ he would not survive. When asked to whom the empire should pass after his death‚ the ailing Alexander simply replied‚ “to the strongest.” Also‚ like Plutarch‚ Diodorus offers his readers alternate theories for Alexander’s death‚ namely that he was poisoned by his enemies within his court. The account of Quintus Curitus Rufus echoes Diodorus’‚ although Curtius is more amenable to the theories that poison was the true cause of Alexander’s end.   Although there are some disagreements‚ there are several details that are consistent across all or most accounts:   Fever that worsened over several days Intense partying and alcohol consumption the night before the onset of the illness Gradual decline in his ability to move or speak Sudden intense abdominal pain at the start of the illness (not Plutarch) No initial suspicion that Alexander had been poisoned Absence of decomposition of the body after death   Scholars have used these details to construct several theories for Alexander’s death. We will proceed through the most popular theories and determine which one best aligns with the information in the sources.   Was Alexander Poisoned? Alexander the Great Founding Alexandria‚ Placido Constanzi‚ 1736-7‚ via The Walters Art Museum   As we have seen‚ theories that Alexander was poisoned are thousands of years old. Any number of people could have had the motivation to eliminate the king: resentful subjects‚ spurned nobles‚ or ambitious rivals all had reasons to want the king dead.   First‚ we must determine whether poison fits the symptoms of Alexander’s fatal sickness. Given the sheer variety of deadly substances‚ it is easy to find several that might work. Scholars have suggested ergot‚ a fungus that grows on certain types of cereals and can produce symptoms of high fevers‚ coma‚ and death‚ as one potential poison‚ although it does not produce the same gradual decline in faculties observed in Alexander nor the intense abdominal pain.   Graham Phillips‚ in Alexander the Great: Murder in Babylon‚ suggested strychnine poisoning‚ a relatively rare poison in the ancient world that might easily have gone unnoticed and was easily masked when mixed in with wine. However‚ strychnine does not typically cause fever and instead produces convulsions that are wholly absent from accounts of Alexander’s death.   Helleborus Vesicarius‚ a variety of poisonous hellebore native to Anatolia and the Middle East‚ via Wikimedia Commons   Leo Schep proposed hellebore as the fatal culprit. This poisonous plant was well-known to the Greeks and would have been mixed with wine‚ which is consistent with accounts that place his sudden illness after a night of drunken revelry. Hellebore also produced a more protracted poisoning than other substances‚ complete with a high fever and abdominal pain‚ although the gradual loss of speech and motor functions described in Alexander’s death are not typical of this poison.   The trouble with diagnosing a poison is that different people can manifest different symptoms. It’s also possible that a concoction of multiple substances was used. Therefore‚ we cannot assert a single poison as the cause. However‚ every symptom of Alexander’s illness could have been caused by one poison or another‚ so we cannot discount the poison argument either.   Who Poisoned Alexander? Alexander (obverse) and Athena (reverse)‚ Silver tetradrachm issued under Lysimachus‚ 305-281 BCE‚ via The British Museum   The poison theory also depends on circumstantial evidence. Poison looks more likely when one considers how many people had the means or the motivation to eliminate Alexander.   The obvious candidate who is named in both Plutarch and Curtius is Antipater. Antipater was an elder statesman and general who was entrusted with the governance of Macedonia and Greece in Alexander’s absence. By controlling such an important part of the empire‚ and being an experienced and respected leader in his own right‚ Antipater was the second most powerful person in Alexander’s empire. Alexander’s paranoia was well-known — he had already eliminated another elder statesman Parmenion on specious pretenses a few years earlier — and Antipater would have recognized his precarious position. Furthermore‚ Antipater had two sons in close proximity to Alexander: Cassander and‚ crucially‚ Iolas‚ who served as Alexander’s personal cupbearer.   Diodorus‚ Curitus‚ and several modern scholars have proposed that Antipater ordered the poisoning of Alexander out of fear that Alexander would eliminate him in time. These fears were perhaps justified. Shortly before his death‚ Alexander had dispatched a small army to Greece under the command of Craterus‚ with most scholars agreeing that Craterus was sent to relieve Antipater of power. Before he could be removed‚ however‚ Antipater secretly sent orders to Iolas to poison the king. Being the cupbearer‚ it would have been an easy crime.   Stater coinage of Cassander‚ son of Antipater‚ produced during his rule of Macedon 305-297 BCE‚ via Wikimedia Commons   Later events lend some support to this theory. After Alexander’s death‚ Antipater did not willingly submit to the designated heir‚ Perdiccas‚ and led a coalition against him. After Perdiccas’ death in 321 BCE‚ Antipater was effectively the head of the empire until his own death a few years later.   Amid the chaotic wars of the successors‚ Antipater’s son Cassander showed an ambition for power and briefly ruled Macedonia himself. Cassander also ordered the execution of Alexander’s young son‚ Alexander IV‚ in 309 BCE‚ before the young heir could be old enough to inherit his father’s power. Plutarch reports that Cassander was deathly afraid of Alexander‚ even in death‚ and would panic when he merely saw a statue of the man. Was this fear one that masked guilt for his role in killing the great conqueror?   If not Cassander‚ then Iolas is another obvious culprit‚ and Alexander’s own mother agreed. Iolas died around 320 BCE‚ but after his death‚ Olympias accused Iolas of poisoning her son and had Iolas’ body exhumed and desecrated. This might have been a political move to target Antipater’s faction amidst the wars of the successors‚ or it could be a mother’s sincere belief in punishing the man who murdered her son.   Eumenes fighting Neoptolemus during the wars of the diadochi‚ a typical example of the internecine warfare in the wake of Alexander’s death‚ possibly by Heinrich Leutemann‚ 1878‚ via Wikimedia Commons   Antipater and his family are probably candidates‚ but far from the only ones. Perdiccas‚ who became Alexander’s actual successor‚ obviously profited from his death and would be a natural suspect. However‚ no sources accuse him of the crime‚ and none of his many enemies ever accuse him either. Another suspect was Alexander’s wife‚ Roxanne. Graham Phillips noted that the rare strychnine poison was native to her homeland of Bactria‚ and the young woman chose to dispose of the man who’d forced her into marriage and subjugated her kingdom. As with Perdiccas‚ there is no contemporary evidence of this‚ and is based purely on speculation.   Many other people could have been responsible. Any number of ambitious nobles in court could have killed Alexander‚ perhaps hoping to rise to the top in the inevitable scramble for succession. Members of the Persian elite could also have wanted to avenge their fallen empire by eliminating its destroyer. Even the Greeks resented Alexander’s dominance and launched a rebellion shortly after his death‚ adding to the already formidable list of suspects.   The truth is that we do not have the evidence to assert that Alexander was poisoned. It remains a tempting possibility‚ a favorite for historical fiction and sensational headlines‚ but just one theory among many.   Did He Drink Himself to Death? Banquet of Alexander‚ engraving‚ Domenico del Barbiere and Francesco Primaticcio‚ 1540-50‚ Via Los Angeles County Museum of Art   Consistent among every account is that Alexander’s illness appeared during or shortly after a night of intense drinking with his friends. It is natural to ask whether alcohol had anything to do with his demise.   Alexander’s contemporaries would have been well aware of alcohol poisoning and its symptoms‚ but none of the sources suggest that is what killed him. The protracted nature of Alexander’s illness is also inconsistent with alcohol poisoning‚ as is the absence of vomiting‚ which is a distinct sign of alcohol poisoning.   It is possible that alcohol exacerbated‚ but was not the root cause‚ of an underlying illness. One theory is that Alexander was killed by acute necrotizing pancreatitis exacerbated by heavy alcohol consumption. This is when tissue from the pancreas starts to die and potentially causes a fatal septic infection in the bloodstream. Sudden intense abdominal pain is consistent with this diagnosis. The gradually escalating fever aligns with a worsening infection caused by the necrotizing organ. Late-stage infections can also cause the loss of speech and motor functions consistent with the accounts of Alexander’s death due to swelling of the brain.   This theory was first proposed by C. N. Sarbounis in 1997 and has enjoyed support from a number of other historians and medical professionals. There are no obvious incompatibilities with any of the accounts of Alexander’s death‚ but it would also be unreasonable to assert that such a rare ailment was definitely the cause of his death when other explanations are plausible too.   Did Alexander Die of Disease? Marble head of Alexander the Great‚ 2nd-1st century BCE‚ via the British Museum   Other scholars have proposed infectious disease as the cause of Alexander’s untimely death. Stress from the recent Indian campaign‚ the loss of his Hephaestion‚ and the accumulated stress of years of military campaigns could have weakened Alexander’s immune system and made him vulnerable to any number of illnesses. Three candidates deserve special attention on this front.   John Marr and Charles Calisher were the first to propose West Nile virus (WNV) as Alexander’s killer. They suggested that the omen of dying birds in Plutarch’s account was no fictional construct but evidence of the disease’s presence in Babylon at the time of Alexander’s death. Birds act as hosts for the WNV and‚ similar to how the mass death of rodents can anticipate an outbreak of Black Death‚ the mass death of birds preceded an outbreak of WNV in Babylon. Alexander could have been infected by a mosquito which picked up the disease from one of the birds‚ which resulted in his death.   Colorized transmission electron of micrograph (TEM) of West Nile virus‚ via Encyclopedia Britannica   Intriguing as this theory is‚ Alexander’s symptoms do not indicate WNV. Fever is the only significant symptom shared between a typical WNV infection and Alexander’s illness. Early WNV infections produce delirium and confusion that was not apparent in Alexander’s case‚ and paralysis or comes as seen in Alexander’s last days is extremely rare‚ even in fatal cases of WNV.   The other candidate is‚ of course‚ malaria. Arguably the biggest killer of human beings in history‚ malaria is almost always a reasonable suspect in any unexplained death in its endemic areas. Malaria was endemic to Mesopotamia. The Euphrates River that ran through Babylon‚ in which Alexander would have bathed countless times‚ must have been infested with these malaria-carrying insects. It’s also plausible that Alexander was infected at some point in his years-long conquest and faced a sudden fatal relapse at Babylon. Alexander’s worsening fever is a good fit for a malaria diagnosis. Severe cases of malaria can produce neurological conditions that fit Alexander’s loss of bodily functions and could have sent him into a coma before he died.   Both diseases would leave Alexander’s abdominal pain unexplained‚ however‚ and another candidate offers a stronger explanation that accounts for all symptoms: typhoid fever.   Typhoid fever is caused by a bacterial infection usually acquired from contaminated food or drinking water. It has been a common ailment throughout history and was almost ubiquitous around the world in the pre-industrial age. David Oldach was the first to argue that Alexander’s worsening fever with abdominal pain and eventual loss of key bodily functions‚ perhaps due to encephalitis‚ were indicative of a fatal typhoid infection. Oldach pointed out that serious typhoid infections can cause a ruptured bowel which could explain the sudden onset of severe abdominal pain that our sources record. A counterargument for the typhoid diagnosis is that a perforated bowel typically occurs very late in the infection‚ not at the start.   Once again‚ we are left with many possibilities but no certainty. Typhoid fever appears more likely than WNV or malaria‚ but there is no smoking gun that definitively settles the question in favor of one infection or another.   Was He Even Dead at All? Death of Alexander the Great‚ Nicola de Laurentiis‚ 1783-1832‚ via MutualArt   One final possibility should be discussed‚ and it is by far the most disturbing: it is possible that Alexander was not dead at all.   Of course‚ Alexander did die in 323 BCE‚ but he might not have died when people thought he did. Katherine Hall suggested that Alexander was afflicted with Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). GBS is a condition where the immune system attacks the nervous system causing severe neurological damage‚ including difficulty speaking‚ paralysis‚ and eventually death. GBS can occur due to a number of infections‚ including both typhoid fever and acute necrotizing pancreatitis‚ which were discussed earlier.   The true horror of a GBS diagnosis hinges on that last consistent detail of Alexander’s death: his body did not decompose after death. In the ancient world‚ death was determined based on breathing‚ not pulse. Hall suggested that GBS caused near-total paralysis that made Alexander’s breathing imperceptible but that he was very much alive and possibly still conscious. The reason Alexander didn’t decompose was that he wasn’t dead. This theory presents a vision of Alexander‚ unable to move or speak‚ trapped in his own mind in his last days while everyone around him treated him as a corpse.   Hall concludes that Alexander was the most famous case of “pseudo-Thanatos” or false diagnosis of death in history. Of course‚ Alexander did eventually die. Lack of food or water would have seen to that‚ even if the infection didn’t‚ but for hours or even days‚ it’s possible that Alexander lay there unable to tell anyone that he was still alive.   Verdict: How Did Alexander the Great Die?  The Alexander Sarcophagus‚ depicting scenes of Alexander’s conquests and thought to belong to Abdalonymus‚ King of Sidon‚ 4th Century BCE‚ via Wikimedia Commons   As with so many historical mysteries‚ we have to choose between several plausible options and accept that we cannot offer a definitive answer.   In their review of the historiography of Alexander’s death‚ Mishra et al. concluded that acute necrotizing pancreatitis was the ultimate cause of Alexander’s death. Excessive alcohol consumption exacerbated the necrotizing process‚ which in turn led to a serious infection that spread into the bloodstream. This infection could have led to brain swelling‚ which explains the neurological decay in Alexander’s last days‚ or caused GBS as his body’s immune system tried and failed to repel the infection. The symptoms of GBS led to a mistaken diagnosis of death while Alexander was still alive and created the legend of his non-decomposing body.   This diagnosis accounts for all of the peculiarities of Alexander’s death and aligns with modern observations on these illnesses that were beyond the knowledge of Alexander’s contemporaries. It is not a definitive diagnosis‚ and plenty of reasonable doubt exists. However‚ on the strength of the evidence‚ acute necrotizing pancreatitis leading to GBS is the strongest theory for how history’s greatest conqueror met his untimely end.

Proclaim the Truth of God’s Love Therefore‚ since through God’s mercy we have this ministry‚ we do not lose heart. Rather‚ we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception‚ nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary‚ by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. —2 Corinthians 4:1-2 Richard Baxter‚ a 17th-century preacher from Kidderminster‚ England‚ was known for his passionate ministry style. He saw himself as a dying man ministering to dying people‚ so he always spoke as if he were preaching his last sermon and his audience was hearing their last message. In addition to his dynamic style of preaching‚ Baxter spent every Monday and Tuesday instructing the children of his church. On Wednesdays‚ he went from house to house to make sure the needs of his church’s widows‚ aged‚ and sick were met. And during the rest of the week‚ he prepared his sermons and wrote books. As a result of Baxter’s ministry‚ the town of Kidderminster was completely transformed. The small village that had once been a place full of sexual immorality‚ violence‚ and sin‚ eventually became a town where almost every household honored the Lord. Baxter’s zeal for ministering to others and bringing them to Jesus reaped a great spiritual harvest. Are you doing everything you can to minister to the needs of those in your family‚ neighborhood‚ circle of friends‚ and church? Are you a daily witness and servant to those with whom you share life? As believers in Christ‚ we have a ministry...even if we don’t work for a church!  Today‚ determine to proclaim the truth of God’s love in word and action...as if you were a dying man or woman of God ministering to dying people! PRAYER CHALLENGE: Ask the Lord to open up opportunities for you to minister to others who are lost and hurting. Pray that He would give you a great passion for serving others and bringing them to Him. Visit the Senior Living Ministries website The post Proclaim the Truth of God’s Love – Senior Living – January 9 appeared first on GodUpdates.

January 09‚ 2024

To mark Jimmy Page’s 80th birthday on January 9‚ here are the former Led Zeppelin guitarist’s 10 all-time greatest riffs