 | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | (...) 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: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) 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: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | 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? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) 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? —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | | (...) 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? —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Like I said, it was knee-jerk, rather than rationally considered, and stemmed most likely from the usual perception of the male deciding what's best by seizing control of the female's reproductive process. Upon reflection I realized what you (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | (...) In your mind maybe. To me and my wife, we'd MUCH rather have our sight than kids ;-) I spent $4K for laser surgery just to correct my badly nearsight vision, and I haven't regretted it for a second. -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, in terms of this discussion, the individual is irrelevant compared to the larger, longitudinal issue we're addressing. Dave! (23 years ago, 2-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) Well...I'm not sure I'd say it that way. Certainly the picture over time is more relevant to the issue of population control, but you originally stated something like "it's more of a crime if you look at it genetically." The criminality of (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) And the lifespan of the individual is fleeting in comparison to the lifespan of the genes. I was imprecise in saying "crime," but I was being more metaphorical than litigious. Replace "it's more of a crime" with "the longer-lasting wrong (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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! (23 years ago, 2-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Once again, though--since we're speaking of how we might address the population/resource crisis of the present and near future world, I don't think it's inappropriate refer to something that's been within the realm of possibility (ie: (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) I certainly agree with your larger point -- that your ability to reproduce is is more important than your sight to your ability to propogate your genetic line. However, I disagree with your "infinitely greater" comment. When you reproduce, (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) We're differing on a definition (as always seems to be the case between us!) If a creature passes down its own genes directly to its offspring, I see that as fundamentally different from allowing the passage of genes in which that creature (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
