 | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) Ah, but if you're going to take the tack of genetics alone, losing your site virtually guarantees that you die quickly and don't pass your genetics on anyways. If you lose repro capability, at least you can help OTHERS survive. Only in the (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) Well, in terms of this discussion, the individual is irrelevant compared to the larger, longitudinal issue we're addressing. Dave! (24 years ago, 2-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) In my mind, and in the "mind" of 3.5+ billion years of evolution so far. Which do you think provides objectively a greater chance that your genetics will live on--your ability to see, or your ability to reproduce? Dave! (24 years ago, 2-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) not (...) I suppose. But so what? The individuals are the ones who'll feel the pain in either case, and I think most people would rather have their eyes than their eggs. (...) kids (...) and I (...) So far, I think I'm winning. I've spent more (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I think that if it were real, it would be technologically nifty...but I guess I agree that it's not really attractive. I would hope to see them do better if they actually got something off the ground...err, shore. (...) Well, yeah. (...) I (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
