 | | 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)
|
