 | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) As Tom pointed out, I was the one who tossed that out originally. You did the math right and understand the reason. If you are controlling a population (of mamals, at least), the way to do so is to control the female reproduction. Good and bad (...) (24 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
Well, Chris mentioned the 90% number. As to what the percentage would really be in order to curtail our population explosion, who knows? I'm sure it could be calculated using the averages for twins, etc. But yeah, it's obviously only a thought (...) (24 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) Tom, let me see if I understand your reasoning for suggesting the 90% female infertility rate. What you're suggesting seems to be: Given 100 fertile women and 100 fertile men, the effective maximum (barring twins and/or technological (...) (24 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I haven't managed to total any hotel rooms yet (though other members of my college SF club did discover that silly string doesn't just wipe off the walls one time at a convention... fortunately they took the responsibility and didn't pass it (...) (24 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) Gotcha...soon enough for you to have to deal with it. (...) Amending that to be more in line with what I said later, I mean that we _won't_ do anything, not that we couldn't. (...) Sure, but what can you do? (...) Sure. Anyone who you could (...) (24 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
