 | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) Which is what we've been seeing in most developed nations for the past forty years. Everyone gets their chance at the genetic lottery, with lower odds. My spin on a couple of other points: -- Environmental impact is affected by consumption and (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) That's what I thought. (...) Aren't there corporate lobbies that want grazing (continuing with your example) prices that low? I'm not sure you can place all the blame on the goverment. (...) I'm still not sure why they should be owned. I've of (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Which won't happen anytime in the near future. One of the biggest impediments to 'universal' public transportation is that our current model of suburban development does not lend itself to fast and convienent transit options. (...) While I (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) A suprisingly effective way to curtail population growth (at least in iteroparous organisms) is to delay the age of first production. It's also a lot nicer than forced sterilization. -chris (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) As long as you can't do that with a hotel room, I should be OK. This year, maybe I'll drive us out to The Store... Chris (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) Sounds about right to me, and that's within (hopefully) my lifetime, so I consider that soon ;-) (...) Yeah, but that really sucks, doesn't it? I would rather have a plague that wiped half the planet's population (or left 90% of the women (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 'Murcan Family Values in action
|
|
(...) "ad nauseum". Very funny. ++Lar (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 'Murcan Family Values in action
|
|
(...) No the dealers don't, but I'd be REAL curious as to how much drug lord money goes into the political coffers (the drug lords are one thing that I worry about if we ever do decriminalize drugs, they've got a lot invested in their power (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 'Murcan Family Values in action
|
|
(...) Why do I not find that surprising? :-) ++Lar (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Of course I'm the exception to prove the rule... Of the significant accidents I've been in since I've been down here, 2 out of 3 have been on the interstate, though still in commuter traffic. Hmm, trying to think of accidents or accident like (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 'Murcan Family Values in action
|
|
(...) But the pot growers don't contribute as much to reelection campaigns as the brewers do. Nor do the cocaine dealers, for that matter. So Jenna doesn't get arrested for partying but thousands of Californians suffering from nausea due to chemo do (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) need to What are you thinking of when you say soon Tom? I'd give it 30-100 years. (...) Nothing. (...) I think that it is ultimately the only solution that can actually address the problem. But how do we get there and how do we speed it up? (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) OK, so _maybe_ SUV owners should pay more for insurance, but not because it consumes more gas. Should I have used the example of a car with a leaking gas tank instead? My point was that gas used is not closely correlated with how I think (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) I agree with your "solution". Reducing population via education is the BEST solution (not the draconian "solution" practiced in China for a while where many female babies were left to die because males were "more desirable"). (...) The only (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 'Murcan Family Values in action
|
|
(...) Why should this surprise anyone. It's well known that Bush doesn't feel that this particular law really has any meaning to his family. Of course he'll stamp his foot down on other "drug" law offenders... FUT: lugnet.off-topic.debate (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
