Embrace - definition of embrace by The Free Dictionary /embrace
embrace Also found in: , , , .
(ĕm-brās′)v.
em·braced, em·brac·ing, em·brac·es v.tr.1.
To clasp or hold close with the arms, usually as an expression of affection.2.
To surround or enclose: "the bold chalk ridge that embraces the prominences of Hambledon Hill" (Thomas Hardy).3.
To include or contain as part of something broader. See Synonyms at .4.
To adopt or support willingly or eagerly: embrace a social cause.5.
To avail oneself of: "I only regret, in my chilled age, certain occasions and possibilities I didn't embrace" (Henry James).v.intr. To join in an embrace.n.1.
An act of holding close with the arms, usually as an exp a hug.2.
An enclosure or encirclement: caught in the jungle's embrace.3.
Eager acceptance: his embrace of socialism.[Middle English embracen, from Old French embracer : en-, in; see
en-1 + brace, the two arms; see
brace.]em·brace′a·ble adj.em·brace′ment n.em·brac′er n.embrace (?m'bre?s) vb (mainly tr) 1.
(also intr) (of a person) to take or clasp (another person) in the arms, or (of two people) to clasp each other, as in affection, greeting, hug2. to accept (an opportunity, challenge, etc) willingly or eagerly3. to take up (a new idea, faith, etc); adopt: to embrace Judaism. 4. to comprise or include as an integral part: geology embraces the science of mineralogy. 5. to encircle or enclosen6. the act of embracing7.
(often plural) euphemistic sexual intercourse[C14: from Old French embracier, from em- + brace a pair of arms, from Latin bracchia arms] em'braceable adj em'bracement n em'bracer nembrace (?m'bre?s) vb (Law) (tr) criminal law to commit or attempt to commit embracery against (a jury, etc)[C15: back formation from embraceor]em•brace
(ɛmˈbreɪs)
-braced, -brac•ing,
to accept willingly:
to embrace an idea.
to embrace a religion.
to include or contain.
to join in an embrace.
an encircling hug with the arms.
[;50; Middle English & Anglo-French, Old French embracier=em- -1 + bracier to embrace]
em•brace′a•ble, adj.
em•brace′ment, n.
em•brac′er, n.
embracePast participle: embracedGerund: embracingImperativePresentPreteritePresent ContinuousPresent PerfectPast ContinuousPast PerfectFutureFuture PerfectFuture ContinuousPresent Perfect ContinuousFuture Perfect ContinuousPast Perfect ContinuousConditionalPast ConditionalImperativeembraceembracePresentI embraceyou embracehe/she/it embraceswe embraceyou embracethey embracePreteriteI embracedyou embracedhe/she/it embracedwe embracedyou embracedthey embracedPresent ContinuousI am embracingyou are embracinghe/she/it is embracingwe are embracingyou are embracingthey are embracingPresent PerfectI have embracedyou have embracedhe/she/it has embracedwe have embracedyou have embracedthey have embracedPast ContinuousI was embracingyou were embracinghe/she/it was embracingwe were embracingyou were embracingthey were embracingPast PerfectI had embracedyou had embracedhe/she/it had embracedwe had embracedyou had embracedthey had embracedFutureI will embraceyou will embracehe/she/it will embracewe will embraceyou will embracethey will embraceFuture PerfectI will have embracedyou will have embracedhe/she/it will have embracedwe will have embracedyou will have embracedthey will have embracedFuture ContinuousI will be embracingyou will be embracinghe/she/it will be embracingwe will be embracingyou will be embracingthey will be embracingPresent Perfect ContinuousI have been embracingyou have been embracinghe/she/it has been embracingwe have been embracingyou have been embracingthey have been embracingFuture Perfect ContinuousI will have been embracingyou will have been embracinghe/she/it will have been embracingwe will have been embracingyou will have been embracingthey will have been embracingPast Perfect ContinuousI had been embracingyou had been embracinghe/she/it had been embracingwe had been embracingyou had been embracingthey had been embracingConditionalI would embraceyou would embracehe/she/it would embracewe would embraceyou would embracethey would embracePast ConditionalI would have embracedyou would have embracedhe/she/it would have embracedwe would have embracedyou would have embracedthey would have embraced
Switch to Noun1.embrace - the act of clasping another person in the arms (as in greeting or affection), , ,
- a close and affectionate (and often prolonged) embrace, ,
- a tigh "come here and give me a big hug", , , , , ,
- "he released his clasp on my arm"; "he has a strong grip for an old man"; "she kept a firm hold on the railing"2.embrace - the state of tak "an island in the embrace of the sea" - the state of being included3.embrace - a close affectionate and p "his willing embrace of new ideas"; "in the bosom of the family", , ,
- the act of acc "its adoption by society"; "the proposal found wide acceptance"Verb1.embrace - include as part
have as one's "This group encompasses a wide range of people from different backgrounds"; "this should cover everyone in the group", , , , , , ,
- act on verbally or in some form of "This book deals with incest"; "The course covered all of Western Civilization"; "The new book treats the history of China" - have as a part, "The list includes the names of many famous writers"2.embrace - squeeze (someone) tightly in your arms, u "Hug me, please"; "They embraced"; "He hugged her close to him", ,
- hold firmly and tightly - embrace amorously - hold (a person or thing) close, as for affection, comfort, "I cuddled the baby",
- become engaged or intermes "They were locked in embrace"3.embrace - take up the cause, ideology, practice, method, of someone and use it as one' "She embraced Catholicism"; "They adopted the Jewish faith", , , , , ,
- "take up new ideas" - cons "I cannot accept the dogma of this church"; "accept an argument"embraceverb1. , , , , , , , , , ,
(slang), take or hold in your arms Penelope came forward and embraced her sister.2. , , , , , , , , , , , , avail yourself of, receive enthusiastically He embraces the new information age.3. , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
a theory that would embrace the whole field of human endeavournoun1. , , , ,
(slang), ,
(slang) a young couple locked in a passionate embraceembraceverb1. To put one's arms around affectionately:, , , , , .Slang:
, , .2. To have as a part:, , , , , , , , , .3. To receive (something given or offered) willingly and gladly:,
(up), .4. To take, as another's idea, and make one's own:, , , .nounThe act of embracing:, , .Slang:
?????? ??????? ????????????????????? ????????? ????????????obejmoutobjetíomfavneomfavnelsehalataomaksuasyleill??lelfa?mafa?ml?gapgl?btiapkabinimasapkabintiapskautapskāviensobjemobjeti seembrace [ɪmˈbreɪs]A. N →
mB. VT1. [+ person] → 2. [+ offer] → ; [+ opportunity] → ; [+ course of action] → ; [+ doctrine, party] →
a; [+ religion] → ; [+ cause, profession] → 3. (= include) → C. VI → embrace [ɪmˈbreɪs] vt (= hug) [+ person] → ,
(= welcome, espouse) [+ religion, ideology] → ; [+ new idea, system] →
(= include) [+ group of people, things] → ,
vi (= hug) → ,
n (= hug) →
fembrace vt (= hug) → , in die
; they embraced each other → sie
(= seize eagerly) religion → ; opportunity → , ; cause → sich
(+gen); offer → , ; he embraced the idea of an integrated Europe → er
sich (dat) → den
(= include) → , ; an all-embracing role → eine
vi → sich
n (= hug) →
f; a couple locked in a tender embrace → ein
; he held her in his embrace → er
sie ; his embrace of the Catholic faith → sein
; death’s embrace (liter) → die
des embrace [ɪmˈbreɪs]1. vta. (person, religion, cause) → b. (include) → 2. vi → 3. n → embrace (im'breis)
verb to take (a person etc) to hug. She embraced her brother warmly. omhelsing
???????? ????????? ????????????
прегръщам
?? ???? ?????? ??? ????
?????? ????
抱きしめる
apkabinti, apgl?bti
a ?mbr??i?a
omfamna, krama
обн?мати
a hug. a loving embrace. omarming
?????? ??????? ?????????????
прегръдка
die Umarmung
omfavnelse
?? ???? ????
apkabinimas
apskāviens
??? ?? ??? ?????
?mbr??i?are
omfamning, kram
об?йми
cái ?m embrace n. v. [each other] abrazarse. embrace n vt abrazar
Want to thank TFD for its existence? , add a link to this page, or visit .
Link to this page:
March became invisible in the embrace of four pairs of loving arms. At night when he went to bed after a long day of adventures in the stables, in the fields, or driving about from farm to farm with his grandfather, he wanted to embrace everyone in the house. The touch of the sea is sensuous, enfolding the body in its soft, close embrace. Had they really closed upon her in some pantheistic embrace that made her a part of them? Then, after another embrace, the incident and our interview closed on my recognition of all the reserves of goodness that, for his joke, he had been able to draw upon. These embrace the whales of middling magnitude, among which at present may be numbered: --I. See that amazing lower lip, pressed by accident against the vessel's side, so as firmly to embrace the jaw. a country whose products embrace all between the tropics and the poles This was the place where the abbot put his arms about me and mashed me, what time he was moved to testify his gratitude to me with an embrace. At last he threw himself upon me in a loving embrace and exclaimed in broken tones: Talmage, of Brooklyn, is going to embrace, and kiss, and weep on, when he comes. And she seized the boy in a crushing embrace that made him feel like the guiltiest of villains.
▲embrace▼
For webmasters:Subscribe:&&&&&&|&&&&&&
by Gary Gripp
penned 11 May 2013
The world we’ve gotten used to and thought of as normal now turns out to be an aberration — a bubble world based upon the ever-accelerating depletion of non-renewable resources. Fossil energy has fueled an industrial revolution as well as an agricultural revolution, which has doubled the population in less than a human lifetime, making the world unendurably crowded with resource- and energy-hungry humans. With peak oil, mass extinctions, ecological degradation (including the depletion of topsoil and growing scarcity of potable water), along with peak everything else–future prospects have been starting to look rather unpromising lately. But it gets worse. What started off as the greenhouse effect morphed into something called global warming, and it looked like it might get a bit warm for future generations. Then we started hearing about climate change, and with this slightly altered terminology the projections for change grew more severe and were expected to arrive a little sooner than formerly believed. As more climate science came online, the modifiers took on a more ominous tone, as in “climate chaos” and “climate emergency” — which again meant it was coming sooner and was going to be more extreme than we’d thought only yesterday.
Now, in 2013, we have scientific projections from reliable data that make near-term human extinction look like a real possibility. Guy McPherson’s website, Nature Bats Last, has become a home for some of the direst of runaway climate predictions, and here the phrase near-term-extinction has become so common as to be referred to by acronym: NTE. From the comment section of this blog, it is clear there is a group of the faithful who follow the science behind near-term extinction, and who try, in this forum, to come to terms with its implications. One such follower has written a very long piece on this subject called “The Irreconcilable Acceptance of Near-Term Extinction,” which attempts to address what it means to accept that your species is doomed to fail with finality, and very probably within your own lifetime. I was a sympathetic reader of this piece to begin with, as it seemed uncommonly thoughtful, and dared to broach a vitally important but taboo subject. As I made my way through this piece I was ready to object to various points along the way, but now I feel much more inclined to cover territory that was never addressed in this exhaustive feat of introspection. If near-term extinction is as real a possibility as it now seems, then there is much that needs to be confronted around this issue, and that is what I will attempt in what follows.
First let me say that I accept near-term human extinction as a real possibility, but not as a foregone conclusion. Methane release from melting Arctic ice, along with a number of other such runaway feedback loops, show every prospect of pushing climate regimes beyond the point of no return, and whatever the exact specifications of the new normal, they would not be friendly to life, human or otherwise. The science and the modeling techniques for all these doomsday projections seem sound, so far as a non-expert can tell. But, at the same time, science, along with its models and assumptions, has been known to be wrong in the past, and sometimes wrong in a very big way. So, for me, that means giving provisional credence to NTE science, but I’m not yet ready to bet the farm on what is still just speculation. Toward the end of his very long piece, author Daniel Drumright admits that he is not quite there, either. He’s convinced intellectually, but not emotionally, so he claims he will give it another couple years before he commits all the way. And here we come to some very fine points as regards attitudes, along with the words we use to describe them.
When someone gives up before they have actually been defeated, we call it capitulation. The word surrender tends to connote that defeat is the fact, and surrender its acceptance on the part of the defeated. And that raises the question: at what point, short of the absence of all living humans on Earth, can extinction be considered a “fact?” At what point does something become so obviously inevitable as to be considered a “fact” in the making? When, in other words, does all resistance become futile? The answers to these questions can be highly subjective and personal, but for my own part, I’m not quite ready to capitulate.
Why not? Well, even apart from a certain stubborn contentiousness of character, it seems to me there are solid logical reasons not to cave in prematurely. In all the best stories, the tide turns for the good guys just when their defeat seems guaranteed. In The Lord of the Rings, the narrator reflects several times upon the unfortunate circumstance of being born into times of trouble, and how there is nothing for it but to do your very best for as long as you have life. Against all odds, a certain modest Hobbit does the best he can, and the dark powers are forced to retreat from the world — at least for a time. Likewise, in Avatar, things are looking pretty grim for the good guys when Eywa abandons her supposed neutrality and comes to their aid. In fact, something of the kind is my own best hope for planet Earth, but with a twist, at least in terms of who are the “good guys,” and who, or what, we should be rooting for.
If we think of near term extinction as some kind of battle, how do we frame the nature of the combat, and how do we characterize the opposing sides? Is it man against Nature?
Is it man against himself? Or is the human just a hapless pawn in a chess game run by forces much larger than himself? I’ve seen our climate catastrophe framed in all these ways, and I find a grain of truth in each, but no whole, clear picture emerges from any of these frames. Borrowing from each of these perspectives, I would say that what we are really looking at here is: humans, under the spell of the culture of civilization, pitted against Nature, the Earth, and the Community of Life. Within this framing, it is not Homo sapiens, as a species, who is contending with Gaia, Natural Law, and all the other species, but only those humans under the influence of civilization. Globally, that may be most humans, but not all, and this is a distinction I must insist upon. It is not our species that is fatally flawed, but our culture.
It is crucial to fully comprehend this distinction when it comes to choosing sides. And I’ll say right here that if I believed we were fatally flawed at the species level I would be very much in favor of our extinction — and the sooner the better. I can say this because I am not at heart instead, my primary identity is as an Earthling and as a member of the Community of Life. In other words, I want to see the whole show go on — the one that started 3.8 billion years ago, when Life first emerged on this planet. Anyone who has an inkling of how synergistic and interdependent the whole Gaian system is must realize that if the Earth goes down, humans go down with it. There is no way we can survive as a species without our life support system, and that system includes millions of other life forms — including the 80% of our innards that is bacterial. At this point in our dubious career, we are causing the extinction of our fellow species at the rate of at least two hundred a day. With ocean acidification and runaway climate chaos, especially after tipping points and thresholds have been breached, and irreversible regime changes have kicked in, the biotic collapse will be general. And if it comes to that, it will have been the handiwork of one particular culture within one particular species. These are my people, and this is my culture, but this is not who I am rooting for. I am not at all interested in civilization is the problem. It is the entire Project of Life that has my deepest loyalty.
A human die- a human die-off may or may not be. We have temporarily expanded the carrying capacity of the planet by mining non-renewable resources, and especially fossil fuels. At the moment, we are almost literally “eating oil.” For now, we are able to support a very unfavorable energy return on investment (EROI), of something like ten calories of energy to produce one calorie of energy in the form of food. Without fossil energy, the whole house of cards collapses, and we’re already past peak oil. So, again, we have to ask ourselves, what does “victory” actually look like? Is our ultimate aim to keep the present system going until it falls of its own weight, and no worries about anything or anyone but ourselves — we of the privileged few? This seems to be the game we’re playing now, but it is not a good long-term strategy for human survival, because you can’t take out your life support systems and expect to thrive–and continued climate disruption promises systems collapse and mass extinctions.
We seem to be stuck in what anthropologist Ronald Wright calls a progress trap, and the damnable thing about it is, there seems no way out of this maze. Our system, our way of life, our lives themselves, all seem to depend upon doing more of the same, even while we observe that what we are doing is killing us. That is a trap indeed. For a time, my own best hope was for a permanent global power failure that would immediately shut down industrial civilization, and save us from ourselves. Then it was pointed out to me that there are globally over four hundred nuclear power plants whose spent fuel rods depend upon electrically delivered water to keep them cool, and from spreading radiation around the globe. Backup generators might buy a few days, but then what? So, I’m no longer hoping for that particular Deus ex machina to come to our aid, but I’m still very much in favor of some sort of intervention — perhaps famine and plague — that will monkeywrench the Death Machine, and give the Earth a new lease on Life.
And here I want to directly confront the contentious issue of our loyalties, and with what or whom we take sides in this life-and-death struggle that faces us. The vast majority of civilized humans believe civilization to be a good thing, and see it as something to be protected, nurtured, and preserved. I strongly disagree with this point of view. To me, that is like saying you want to save the patient and the cancer, too. The culture of civilization is, and always has been, a culture of empire, and empire is built upon theft, deception and deadly violence. Even a casual reading of our history confirms this. And consider exactly what it is that is poisoning us, our planet, and our atmosphere: it’s all that stuff we have helped ourselves to from beneath the Earth’s surface, all of it contaminated with poisons, and not least the fossil fuels. No other culture could or would condone such wanton recklessness, but our culture authorizes and validates taking all from the Earth that can be taken. Some would blame our economic system for encouraging our others would pin the blame on oi neither would be wrong. But both our economic system and our corrupt executive class are products of this culture, and it is this culture that gives them their marching orders and its blessing. For those who believe that civilization is all about libraries and air conditioning and symphony orchestras, it will come as a shock to discover that what civilization really is, is a program whose effect is to devour the Earth. It is precisely for this, and its violence against all life forms, that I hold civilization accountable for our present sorry state of affairs. So: just as you can’t save both the patient and the cancer, neither can you save civilization and the world, too. You have to choose one or the other, and the wrong choice will be fatal.
Absurdly enough, the days of civilization are numbered anyway, no matter whether it succeeds in devouring the world, or if it falls short. If it succeeds, there will be no humans left to carry out its directives, and it will die content in its accomplishment of entropic equilibrium. If enough humans somehow manage to break its spell and come to understand how they’ve been manipulated into this untenable situation of collapse by the very institution that seemed to represent their best interests, then this instigator of dark deeds might just die from disuse. And in any case, civilizations of empire inevitably fade when the booty they depend upon grows too scarce, or hard to come by, to be worth the effort–and that day will soon be upon us.
If we decide that our loyalty belongs to Life rather than to the culture of civilization, what exactly do we mean by Life? Is the human pitted against all the other species of Earth in a zero-sum game of winner take all? No, it’s not us or them, no matter all the stories we’ve heard about the fierce competition for survival. It is either us and them, or it is death all around. Our supposed separation from Nature and the Community of Life has been a fiction all along. We are we are O and we only succeed as part of the larger Community.
When things fall apart, clarity will be hard to come by. Knowing, or believing, that this day is coming soon, it seems wise to work on clarity now. When the unraveling begins, and we are plunged into chaos, we won’t be in a position to know how far things might go. It could be the beginning of human extinction, or it could be the correction to our numbers made inevitable by our so drastically exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet. Cheap available energy, in the form of oil, created a bubble economy and a bubble population to match. That bubble has got to burst, and there is no way around it. Since we seem collectively incapable of downsizing our own population, Nature will be doing it for us, and it is bound to be traumatic. People we love and care about are going to die prematurely of natural causes (as may we ourselves), but natural causes born of an unnatural condition, a one-time-only aberration in biological history. It seems counter-intuitive, unnatural even, to be cheering on a human die-back, and wishing for it to arrive soon. Thinking in terms of all those who are alive today — all 7+ billion of us — such thoughts seem callous and cruel. But if we are thinking beyond our most immediate circle of significant others, and take into consideration the fate of the species,
the sooner this correction comes, the better for them (and for all of Life.) Leaving them a less damaged planet, with its life support systems reasonably intact and functional, would give future humans, and all Life, much better odds of survival. Knowing this to be true, how far are we willing to go to preserve our present way of life, recognizing that it can’t last, anyway, and that the more we consume, pollute, and destroy, the less likely there will be a human future here?
What does the human family owe itself at the species level? Are continuity and longevity something to be sought for the species as a whole, and is this something for which each human generation bears responsibility? All the other animals on Earth manage to address this issue by way of instinct. They take care of their young, perform their ecosystem functions, and the species seems to take care of itself. As the oddball cultural animal, our instincts seem to have been overridden and overwritten by the memes and imperatives of our culture—a culture that has inverted the natural order of things. According to our myths, the individual is more important than the group, and one particular species is eleva indeed, that species is elevated above Nature herself. Only under such a topsy-turvy worldview could this putative Master Species claim all the world for itself, for as long as it lasts, then, with a ruined Earth, declare the game over.
Our way of life, and its supporting myths, seems to suppose that we have arrived at the pinnacle and end point toward which this 3.8 billion year experiment with Life and evolution has always been headed. That is the underlying implication. But is the deepest Meaning of life on Earth really only about us making payments on our standardized boxes in the suburbs, with both parents holding down unfulfilling jobs so that we can drive our air-conditioned SUVs to middle school soccer games, stopping along the way at our favorite fast foods franchise, finally to end our day collapsed in the blue glare of Fox News? Was it for this that we took this country away from the Indians, and turned it into freeways, parking lots, suburban malls and inner city ghettos? Are we dismantling the Earth, ecosystem by ecosystem, species by species, for no better reason than to make bankers, corporate executives, and hedge fund managers filthy rich? Are our excesses of appetite, all at the expense of a living planet, really the ultimate significance of Life on Earth? That seems to be our story — the one we are living in and doing our utmost to make real.
If the human species goes down, as in near term extinction, and we take out the Community of Life and the animate Earth along with us, it won’t be our extinction itself that would leave me inconsolable. E species fail. Were I able to see with the long eye of the Life Force, what I would find irreconcilable is the incommensurability between the ongoing promise of Life’s self-renewal and the paltry, self-serving species that brought it all down.
“No, it’s not us or them, no matter all the stories we’ve heard about the fierce competition for survival. It is either us and them, or it is death all around.”
pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it?
having spent the past five years living in a little cabin on the edge of (relatively) pristine wilderness, i find myself occasionally embarrassed, perhaps even ashamed as i look back at my past and the lies that i bought into… i’m a recovering capitalist, if you will, an ex-wall street cheerleader, if you will, once thoroughly steeped in the myth of individualism and our culture’s mythology around competition for survival… if there’s one thing that my experience in letting go of my past and all the materialistic bull$hit that went with it – and immersing myself in the wilderness has taught me it’s that in fact it is us AND them, that we’re all connected… and not in some “new agey” spiritual sense but as a matter of fact – our survival depends on the RELATIONSHIPS between all things, between all creatures… the earth is a system, a system that works and has worked, evidenced by its mulit-billion year track record of success… EVERYTHING IS A RELATIONSHIP.
there are NO individuals…
i too thought for some time that humanity, our species was the problem, that there was something inherently flawed with homo sapiens… but no, we are a creature, an animal like any other, vested with some “special” and “unique” gifts (for example the “intelligence” we so frequently pat ourselves on the back for), JUST LIKE every other creature with their own special brand of gifts and abilities… the fact that we evolved on this planet suggests that we are not inherently flawed but that our problem lies elsewhere… and that elsewhere is in this insane social structure we have organized ourselves under — civilization.
this is a structure that ENCOURAGES the worst in all of us, that makes deception profitable, that confers a survival advantage to over-consumption, greed and “one-upping” the other guy – and other species.
to be sure, humans are a mix of “good” and “evil” capable of every variation on the spectrum of behavior… to that end, perhaps our “flaws” are in fact inherent… but in a small community of say 25 people, a tribe, selfishness, greed, destruction of the environment are simply not possible… possible, yes, but the resultant reaction from the rest of the tribe would put the kibosh on those behaviors pronto… but in our huge, anonymous culture, it’s so very easy to get away with the worst of our inherent possibilities…
unless and until we realize that WE’RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER, and by “all” i mean humans, animals, bacteria, fungus, ALL OF US AND EVERYTHING, i have little hope for our species nor most other species.
while i don’t want particularly relish the idea of living in the chaos of a plummeting civilization, in fact it frightens me, for the good of everything, i hope for it… i can no longer bear to see everything i love being systematically destroyed by this insance culture and all it stands for…
and i apologize to all for ever having contributed to the worst of it…
July 8, 2014
If you are contemplating suicide, please re-consider. And then click here for awareness, prevention, and support on the topic of suicide. I'm not advocating for or against suicide.
Fourth time's a charm? I doubt this page stays reasonably accurate and lasts long. ... en.m.wikipedia.orgGuy R. McPherson (born 29 February, 1960) is an American scientist, Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona.[1][2] He is best known for bringing to the public's attention the idea of Near Term Extinction (NTE), a term he coined[2] abo...
NBL Archived Posts
NBL Archived Posts
Select Month
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007}