Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 48330
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2017/12/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
12/16   

2007/10/15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:48330 Activity:nil
10/15   It occured t'me dis mo'nin' dat treatin' honky chicks as equal t'men
        has, so's far, been some poo' choice evolushunarily. Slap mah fro! Dis
        suggests de practice gots'ta probably kick d' cud out eventually. Slap
        mah fro!
        \_ What do you mean?  Fewer offspring?  Fewer offspring may be the
           only long-term viable evolutionary strategy due to environmental
           limits.
           \_ That's a salient point, but it requires that all societies agree
              to limit reproduction.  You may get two sets of societies, 'the
              moral slow reproducers' and the 'immoral fast reproducers.' There
              will still be an environmental catastrophe, but the fast
              reproducers will have many more people than the slow reproducers.
              The result is the fast reproducers wipe out the slow reproducers
              in resource wars.  There is historical precedence.
              \_ Historical precedent is invalidated by technological
                 advantage.  When the slow reproducers have a massive military
                 technological advantage due to not living at or below bare
                 subsistence, numbers won't matter.
                 \_ This assumes that the slow reproducers live in segregated
                    political states. In reality there are slow vs. fast within
                    each political entity, especially now with multicultural
                    immigrant states. Therefore in the long run we have the
                    same result.
                    Multicultural states are therefore bad for the species,
                    because they lead to global homogenizing of cultures.
                    Diversity decreases in favor of the fastest-growing
                    domininant subcultures, leaving the population as a
                    whole at greater risk.
              \_ Or you can get mass die off of the fast reproducers, which
                 we will probably see in a generation or two.
2017/12/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
12/16   

You may also be interested in these entries...
2012/1/12-3/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54287 Activity:nil
1/12    "The Case for a 21-Hour Work Week"
        http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-case-for-a-21-hour-work-week.html
        Yeah, let's beat the Europeans on laziness.  If their purpose really
        is to save the planet, why not re-direct the "excess" consumption
        towards environmental causes?  I don't see how traveling, for example,
        in the extra free time is not a form of consumption.
	...
2008/7/16-23 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:50593 Activity:nil
7/16    China burned 1.9 billion metric tons of coal in 2004. By 2020, predicts
        the China Coal Industry Development Research Center, it will burn 2.9
        billion tons a year. That increment alone will send as much carbon
        dioxide into the atmosphere as 3 billion Ford Expeditions, each driven
        15,000 miles a year. This puts into sobering perspective the meager
        efforts of the U.S. to stave off global warming by improving gas
	...
2008/7/6-10 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:50478 Activity:nil
7/5     Just saw Wall-E.  Beautiful movie.  Environmental message was vague
        enough to appeal to anyone.  "Stay the course" was a bit heavy-handed.
        Overall, thumbs up.
        \_ I totally agree, it was very nicely done.  If the stupid right-
           wingers who are up in arms about how bad it is maybe they should
           open their eyes and take a look at how much garbage our society
	...