8 years ago gun and ammo sales shot through the roof because they thought guns wouldn’t be for sale much longer. Many on the far right were freaked out. I see this very much the same. In 3 or 7 years we won’t see much difference than today. Probably most future decisions will sway conservative, but I doubt any previous decisions will be over turned. Thats my guess, as no one knows what will happen
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
Exactly, we need to go back to when women and minorities couldn't vote. When your wife stayed at home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. When you could just dump your trash in the nearest river. When you could send the boy to go work in the coal mine to earn support the family. The good old days when america was great!
Not that far back, how about say, the 80's ? MAGA
The 80's really sucked ass for an awful lot of people.
That was when wages began to stagnate, the "middle class" started to disappear, and the area we now call the Rust Belt started to get really rusty and then decay. America has never really been great unless you are/were a wealthy (wealthy, not rich, there is a difference) white man.
OK, the 70's work for you? The 60's ? Let me guess, it has always sucked in this nation.. MSCGA (Make the Supreme Court Great Again)
Pretty obvious you're 100% white male
Hey what’s wrong with being a white guy?
Nothing, unless you have zero understanding of history and lack empathy for others.
The obvious point is America was NEVER great... not the 60's or 70's, not now, not ever. Maybe one day, but that seems to be a very distant future right now
Don’t be so negative. It’s not just America, it’s the world. The world is an awful place, but it’s gotten amazingly better in just the last 50 years. If everyone was as negative as you’re being right now there wouldn’t be many people who cared to live their lives at all. Here’s a cool article that made me think about overpopulation and the world as a whole a bit more:
Stay positive, nothing gets achieved when you’re grumpy and negative. dont fall into the “I’m a liberal so I’m mad at everything” bullshit. You can have hopes and be positive regardless of political leanings.
It looks to me like Bill Gates is rather naive when it comes to population. Let's look at the "facts":
Fact #1: Since 1960, child deaths have plummeted from 20 million a year to 6 million a year.
The natural mortality rate for humans is 40%. I recently was told this by a science professor who teaches at a large, well known university on the east coast. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not wishing anyone's child to die but the reality is, our wonderful medical advances have done little to stem over-population.
Fact #2: Since 1960, the fertility rate has fallen by half.
Gates says, "When the fertility rate is close to 2 children per woman, so that every
couple is on average replaced by about two children, population growth
is slow." First of all, the key word here is "when". It hasn't happened. And secondly, since when does women having 2 children reduce population? This is naive in the extreme. Think about it. A twenty five year old woman has two children. When they turn twenty five, they have two children making 4 total. The first mother is still alive. Now we have a population of 7 (from one). When the 4 children have two children, that makes 8 new children and, at 75, the original mother is probably still alive- totally population, 12 to 13. See what I mean? Totally naive.
Fact #3: 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty every day between 1990 and 2015.
That's great! OH, but wait. That's 25 years. How many people have been born into poverty in that amount of time. Over 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. In the last 25 years, imagine how many people became trapped by poverty. Far more than the mere 137,000 who escaped.
The world is getting better? Wishful thinking.
Not that I care a lot about what Bill Gates says, but I would agree with fact #2. Having 2 children doesn’t reduce population, but makes the growth stale. Assuming that every woman is a couple of 2 people (the analogy says from 1, but it’s really 2 people. Never heard of 1 woman reproducing by herself) if they are replaced by 2 children it balances out. The math discussion that attempts to disprove that also completely ignores older generations. When she is 25 then we can assume her great-grandparents have died, of which there are a total of 16. By 50 the grandparents and 75 the parents. So that breakdown of parent, grandparent, etc will cancel out
I agree, partially. My math was wrong. Let's try this again.
Population, 2. Man, woman.
They have two children
Population, 4. man, woman, two children.
Two children each have two children.
Population, 8. Two parents, two children, four grandchildren.
Yes, eventually the original two die off but in their wake leave a larger population.
Some articles I've read argue that the 2 child scenario will eventually reduce population.
But now, again, let's use some critical thinking. What is "eventually"? And in an already over-populated world, how long can we wait for that (theoretical) eventuality? Most scientists see us on a collision course with a major extinction event, the result of human activity that has driven planetary ecosystems out of balance.
But nature always wins. Equilibrium or total annihilation will happen. We can be passive or active in influencing what happens.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
Exactly, we need to go back to when women and minorities couldn't vote. When your wife stayed at home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. When you could just dump your trash in the nearest river. When you could send the boy to go work in the coal mine to earn support the family. The good old days when america was great!
Not that far back, how about say, the 80's ? MAGA
The 80's really sucked ass for an awful lot of people.
That was when wages began to stagnate, the "middle class" started to disappear, and the area we now call the Rust Belt started to get really rusty and then decay. America has never really been great unless you are/were a wealthy (wealthy, not rich, there is a difference) white man.
OK, the 70's work for you? The 60's ? Let me guess, it has always sucked in this nation.. MSCGA (Make the Supreme Court Great Again)
Pretty obvious you're 100% white male
Hey what’s wrong with being a white guy?
Nothing, unless you have zero understanding of history and lack empathy for others.
The obvious point is America was NEVER great... not the 60's or 70's, not now, not ever. Maybe one day, but that seems to be a very distant future right now
Don’t be so negative. It’s not just America, it’s the world. The world is an awful place, but it’s gotten amazingly better in just the last 50 years. If everyone was as negative as you’re being right now there wouldn’t be many people who cared to live their lives at all. Here’s a cool article that made me think about overpopulation and the world as a whole a bit more:
Stay positive, nothing gets achieved when you’re grumpy and negative. dont fall into the “I’m a liberal so I’m mad at everything” bullshit. You can have hopes and be positive regardless of political leanings.
It looks to me like Bill Gates is rather naive when it comes to population. Let's look at the "facts":
Fact #1: Since 1960, child deaths have plummeted from 20 million a year to 6 million a year.
The natural mortality rate for humans is 40%. I recently was told this by a science professor who teaches at a large, well known university on the east coast. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not wishing anyone's child to die but the reality is, our wonderful medical advances have done little to stem over-population.
Fact #2: Since 1960, the fertility rate has fallen by half.
Gates says, "When the fertility rate is close to 2 children per woman, so that every
couple is on average replaced by about two children, population growth
is slow." First of all, the key word here is "when". It hasn't happened. And secondly, since when does women having 2 children reduce population? This is naive in the extreme. Think about it. A twenty five year old woman has two children. When they turn twenty five, they have two children making 4 total. The first mother is still alive. Now we have a population of 7 (from one). When the 4 children have two children, that makes 8 new children and, at 75, the original mother is probably still alive- totally population, 12 to 13. See what I mean? Totally naive.
Fact #3: 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty every day between 1990 and 2015.
That's great! OH, but wait. That's 25 years. How many people have been born into poverty in that amount of time. Over 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. In the last 25 years, imagine how many people became trapped by poverty. Far more than the mere 137,000 who escaped.
The world is getting better? Wishful thinking.
Now that I’m thinking about it, I must be reading #3 wrong. 137,000 escaped every day? That’s 1.25 billion over 25 years. One, that seems to be way too high of a numbered be accurate to me, and if that is correct, how is that not great?
I read that wrong to. If it is true, that is great. I'd like to see more references to verify this. I tried to do the math but got bogged down.
Brookings Institute findings indicate that poverty is indeed on the decline but not quickly enough.
Oh, but wait. We left something out. Earth Overshoot Day. We all know what that is by now (if not, Google it). That day comes earlier every year. That day cannot come earlier every year and have poverty reduced worldwide at the same time with disastrous results in the long run. We cannot both eliminate poverty and strip the planet of resources with epic failure resulting.
Critical thinking. Consequences. Without taking those into account, all arguments collapse under the weight of false assumptions.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
every set of parents will eventually die off. they all cancel each other out. it is just a matter of time. it doesn't matter that in a 100 year span they multiply, eventually it will even. the only way it's not even is if they have more or less than 2. we only had 2. so i'm Even Freaking Steven.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
every set of parents will eventually die off. they all cancel each other out. it is just a matter of time. it doesn't matter that in a 100 year span they multiply, eventually it will even. the only way it's not even is if they have more or less than 2. we only had 2. so i'm Even Freaking Steven.
I don't think you're factoring in that the generations overlap. If the average life span were the same as the age at which people reproduce, and no one died of unnatural cause, that is the only way the number would stay the same.
But I don't know how to precisely explain this. Dammit, where's a mathematician when we need one!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
every set of parents will eventually die off. they all cancel each other out. it is just a matter of time. it doesn't matter that in a 100 year span they multiply, eventually it will even. the only way it's not even is if they have more or less than 2. we only had 2. so i'm Even Freaking Steven.
I don't think you're factoring in that the generations overlap. If the average life span were the same as the age at which people reproduce, and no one died of unnatural cause, that is the only way the number would stay the same.
But I don't know how to precisely explain this. Dammit, where's a mathematician when we need one!
If this was the beginning of time, then yes the population would grow due to overlap for the first 75 years. After that, they would die off as quickly as they are being born. But we’re already at that point with older generations dying off. But I don’t see how having 2 kids would reduce population. I guess if you factor in a certain percentage would never have kids, and a small number would die before having kids then yes the population would slowly decline.
8 years ago gun and ammo sales shot through the roof because they thought guns wouldn’t be for sale much longer. Many on the far right were freaked out. I see this very much the same. In 3 or 7 years we won’t see much difference than today. Probably most future decisions will sway conservative, but I doubt any previous decisions will be over turned. Thats my guess, as no one knows what will happen
The right was freaking out because that's what it always does. There has literally never been a push to ban guns. Sane people at the time said it was nonsense, just as sane people now are saying to v wade is toast
Now as for the SCOTUS issue, yes, we are royally fucked. Yes, this country has royally fucking reamed itself into the ground. R.I.P America (for now).
To be honest, you should take the (for now) out cause you are going to be fucked for a very very long time. say bye to abortion in many states, say bye to gay marriage in many states, you want money taken out of politics? sorry not going to happen.
America is beyond fucked.
I may be wrong or just naive but I don't set this happening. I really hope not anyways.
oh, that is exactly their plan. you can bet on it.
This seems like such a trivial thing to want to overturn. The conservative goal is to overturn Roe vs Wade?
Conservatives have been begging for this for decades. its a part of their cultural war
Are they racist or begging for abortion to end?
Are they Racist for this? did i ever say that? no I am not saying that they are racist for this. this about religion for many conservatives.
every set of parents will eventually die off. they all cancel each other out. it is just a matter of time. it doesn't matter that in a 100 year span they multiply, eventually it will even. the only way it's not even is if they have more or less than 2. we only had 2. so i'm Even Freaking Steven.
I don't think you're factoring in that the generations overlap. If the average life span were the same as the age at which people reproduce, and no one died of unnatural cause, that is the only way the number would stay the same.
But I don't know how to precisely explain this. Dammit, where's a mathematician when we need one!
well I thought I was. Because if every set of parents in every generation started with 2 people, had 2 kids, and then those parents die off, the end result is a net 2. Overlap is moot. Because of course there will be fluctuations with that overlap, but it will always be a net average of 2.
I guess I'm not getting it. My simple mind is using this equation:
2 (current parents) + 2 (new kids) -2 (current parents when they eventually die) = 2 people total
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you
What do you consider an assault? Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault. But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening. But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.
Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you
What do you consider an assault? Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault. But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening. But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.
why 7 years? I think they outright overturn it and make it completley illegal except in rape and incest cases. and given some of those weirdos in the south, the latter might not even be part of it.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you
What do you consider an assault? Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault. But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening. But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.
Mace, honestly, in one thread, Democrats are waging assaults on gun rights, and want to seize them all, and you support that notion. Over here, Republicans who have voiced support for the abolishment of Roe v. Wade are in control, and yet in your eyes, Democrats are probably worrying too much about that occurring.
Do you see that as inconsistent logic, given the parallels between the two scenarios?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you
What do you consider an assault? Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault. But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening. But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.
Mace, honestly, in one thread, Democrats are waging assaults on gun rights, and want to seize them all, and you support that notion. Over here, Republicans who have voiced support for the abolishment of Roe v. Wade are in control, and yet in your eyes, Democrats are probably worrying too much about that occurring.
Do you see that as inconsistent logic, given the parallels between the two scenarios?
When have I ever supported the notion that dems want to take all guns? Ive said many times that’s just a paranoia from the far right. And pretty much what I think this is too. Republicans have been in control several times since R v W, and it’s never been repealed. Just like dems have been in control before and I still own guns. But like I said, only time will tell so it’s just my opinion at this point. None of us really know
Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you
What do you consider an assault? Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault. But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening. But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.
why 7 years? I think they outright overturn it and make it completley illegal except in rape and incest cases. and given some of those weirdos in the south, the latter might not even be part of it.
Because in either 3 or 7 years (my guess is more likely 3) Trump will be out and the pendulum will begin to swing back the other way. I can’t imagine the next president not being a democrat.
Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you
What do you consider an assault? Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault. But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening. But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.
Mace, honestly, in one thread, Democrats are waging assaults on gun rights, and want to seize them all, and you support that notion. Over here, Republicans who have voiced support for the abolishment of Roe v. Wade are in control, and yet in your eyes, Democrats are probably worrying too much about that occurring.
Do you see that as inconsistent logic, given the parallels between the two scenarios?
When have I ever supported the notion that dems want to take all guns? Ive said many times that’s just a paranoia from the far right. And pretty much what I think this is too. Republicans have been in control several times since R v W, and it’s never been repealed. Just like dems have been in control before and I still own guns. But like I said, only time will tell so it’s just my opinion at this point. None of us really know
has the supreme court ever had a potential for such a dramatic tipping of the scale towards the right?
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you
What do you consider an assault? Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault. But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening. But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.
Mace, honestly, in one thread, Democrats are waging assaults on gun rights, and want to seize them all, and you support that notion. Over here, Republicans who have voiced support for the abolishment of Roe v. Wade are in control, and yet in your eyes, Democrats are probably worrying too much about that occurring.
Do you see that as inconsistent logic, given the parallels between the two scenarios?
When have I ever supported the notion that dems want to take all guns? Ive said many times that’s just a paranoia from the far right. And pretty much what I think this is too. Republicans have been in control several times since R v W, and it’s never been repealed. Just like dems have been in control before and I still own guns. But like I said, only time will tell so it’s just my opinion at this point. None of us really know
has the supreme court ever had a potential for such a dramatic tipping of the scale towards the right?
I don't see this as the big swing that warrants all this hysteria I've seen everywhere. There are currently 5 judges appointed by republicans and 4 by democrats. After Kennedy it will still be 5 and 4. My understanding is he's the most liberal of the "republican" judges, but still the type of swing that is not uncommon. If Trump only serves 1 term it will likely not change more (assuming Ruth can stay alive 3 more years), and if the next president is democrat, it will probably be 5-4 in favor of democrats by the end of his (or her) term.
Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you
What do you consider an assault? Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault. But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening. But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.
Mace, honestly, in one thread, Democrats are waging assaults on gun rights, and want to seize them all, and you support that notion. Over here, Republicans who have voiced support for the abolishment of Roe v. Wade are in control, and yet in your eyes, Democrats are probably worrying too much about that occurring.
Do you see that as inconsistent logic, given the parallels between the two scenarios?
When have I ever supported the notion that dems want to take all guns? Ive said many times that’s just a paranoia from the far right. And pretty much what I think this is too. Republicans have been in control several times since R v W, and it’s never been repealed. Just like dems have been in control before and I still own guns. But like I said, only time will tell so it’s just my opinion at this point. None of us really know
has the supreme court ever had a potential for such a dramatic tipping of the scale towards the right?
I don't see this as the big swing that warrants all this hysteria I've seen everywhere. There are currently 5 judges appointed by republicans and 4 by democrats. After Kennedy it will still be 5 and 4. My understanding is he's the most liberal of the "republican" judges, but still the type of swing that is not uncommon. If Trump only serves 1 term it will likely not change more (assuming Ruth can stay alive 3 more years), and if the next president is democrat, it will probably be 5-4 in favor of democrats by the end of his (or her) term.
yes, but that 5 will be a hard 5 to the right. Kennedy had a history of being a swing vote, and often when it came to social issues, to the left. it trump nominates a far righty, everything they want to get done is a potential slam dunk.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you
What do you consider an assault? Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault. But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening. But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.
Mace, honestly, in one thread, Democrats are waging assaults on gun rights, and want to seize them all, and you support that notion. Over here, Republicans who have voiced support for the abolishment of Roe v. Wade are in control, and yet in your eyes, Democrats are probably worrying too much about that occurring.
Do you see that as inconsistent logic, given the parallels between the two scenarios?
When have I ever supported the notion that dems want to take all guns? Ive said many times that’s just a paranoia from the far right. And pretty much what I think this is too. Republicans have been in control several times since R v W, and it’s never been repealed. Just like dems have been in control before and I still own guns. But like I said, only time will tell so it’s just my opinion at this point. None of us really know
has the supreme court ever had a potential for such a dramatic tipping of the scale towards the right?
I don't see this as the big swing that warrants all this hysteria I've seen everywhere. There are currently 5 judges appointed by republicans and 4 by democrats. After Kennedy it will still be 5 and 4. My understanding is he's the most liberal of the "republican" judges, but still the type of swing that is not uncommon. If Trump only serves 1 term it will likely not change more (assuming Ruth can stay alive 3 more years), and if the next president is democrat, it will probably be 5-4 in favor of democrats by the end of his (or her) term.
yes, but that 5 will be a hard 5 to the right. Kennedy had a history of being a swing vote, and often when it came to social issues, to the left. it trump nominates a far righty, everything they want to get done is a potential slam dunk.
I agree he was seen as a swing vote. But the 5-4 majority isn't unheard of, and something the next president will probably have too.
Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you
What do you consider an assault? Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault. But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening. But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.
Mace, honestly, in one thread, Democrats are waging assaults on gun rights, and want to seize them all, and you support that notion. Over here, Republicans who have voiced support for the abolishment of Roe v. Wade are in control, and yet in your eyes, Democrats are probably worrying too much about that occurring.
Do you see that as inconsistent logic, given the parallels between the two scenarios?
When have I ever supported the notion that dems want to take all guns? Ive said many times that’s just a paranoia from the far right. And pretty much what I think this is too. Republicans have been in control several times since R v W, and it’s never been repealed. Just like dems have been in control before and I still own guns. But like I said, only time will tell so it’s just my opinion at this point. None of us really know
Mace, my sincere apologies - I thought you were one of the ones making that claim. Definitely should've validated with you prior to assuming.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Exactly, we need to go back to when women and minorities couldn't vote. When your wife stayed at home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. When you could just dump your trash in the nearest river. When you could send the boy to go work in the coal mine to earn support the family. The good old days when america was great!
Not that far back, how about say, the 80's ? MAGA
The 80's really sucked ass for an awful lot of people.
That was when wages began to stagnate, the "middle class" started to disappear, and the area we now call the Rust Belt started to get really rusty and then decay. America has never really been great unless you are/were a wealthy (wealthy, not rich, there is a difference) white man.
OK, the 70's work for you? The 60's ? Let me guess, it has always sucked in this nation.. MSCGA (Make the Supreme Court Great Again)
Pretty obvious you're 100% white male
Hey what’s wrong with being a white guy?
Nothing, unless you have zero understanding of history and lack empathy for others.
The obvious point is America was NEVER great... not the 60's or 70's, not now, not ever. Maybe one day, but that seems to be a very distant future right now
Don’t be so negative. It’s not just America, it’s the world. The world is an awful place, but it’s gotten amazingly better in just the last 50 years. If everyone was as negative as you’re being right now there wouldn’t be many people who cared to live their lives at all. Here’s a cool article that made me think about overpopulation and the world as a whole a bit more:
Stay positive, nothing gets achieved when you’re grumpy and negative. dont fall into the “I’m a liberal so I’m mad at everything” bullshit. You can have hopes and be positive regardless of political leanings.
It looks to me like Bill Gates is rather naive when it comes to population. Let's look at the "facts":
Fact #1: Since 1960, child deaths have plummeted from 20 million a year to 6 million a year.
The natural mortality rate for humans is 40%. I recently was told this by a science professor who teaches at a large, well known university on the east coast. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not wishing anyone's child to die but the reality is, our wonderful medical advances have done little to stem over-population.
Fact #2: Since 1960, the fertility rate has fallen by half.
Gates says, "When the fertility rate is close to 2 children per woman, so that every
couple is on average replaced by about two children, population growth
is slow." First of all, the key word here is "when". It hasn't happened. And secondly, since when does women having 2 children reduce population? This is naive in the extreme. Think about it. A twenty five year old woman has two children. When they turn twenty five, they have two children making 4 total. The first mother is still alive. Now we have a population of 7 (from one). When the 4 children have two children, that makes 8 new children and, at 75, the original mother is probably still alive- totally population, 12 to 13. See what I mean? Totally naive.
Fact #3: 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty every day between 1990 and 2015.
That's great! OH, but wait. That's 25 years. How many people have been born into poverty in that amount of time. Over 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. In the last 25 years, imagine how many people became trapped by poverty. Far more than the mere 137,000 who escaped.
The world is getting better? Wishful thinking.
Now that I’m thinking about it, I must be reading #3 wrong. 137,000 escaped every day? That’s 1.25 billion over 25 years. One, that seems to be way too high of a numbered be accurate to me, and if that is correct, how is that not great?
It's not that high a number. Remember that the world's population grew by more than that over the same time period.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you
What do you consider an assault? Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault. But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening. But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.
Mace, honestly, in one thread, Democrats are waging assaults on gun rights, and want to seize them all, and you support that notion. Over here, Republicans who have voiced support for the abolishment of Roe v. Wade are in control, and yet in your eyes, Democrats are probably worrying too much about that occurring.
Do you see that as inconsistent logic, given the parallels between the two scenarios?
When have I ever supported the notion that dems want to take all guns? Ive said many times that’s just a paranoia from the far right. And pretty much what I think this is too. Republicans have been in control several times since R v W, and it’s never been repealed. Just like dems have been in control before and I still own guns. But like I said, only time will tell so it’s just my opinion at this point. None of us really know
has the supreme court ever had a potential for such a dramatic tipping of the scale towards the right?
I don't see this as the big swing that warrants all this hysteria I've seen everywhere. There are currently 5 judges appointed by republicans and 4 by democrats. After Kennedy it will still be 5 and 4. My understanding is he's the most liberal of the "republican" judges, but still the type of swing that is not uncommon. If Trump only serves 1 term it will likely not change more (assuming Ruth can stay alive 3 more years), and if the next president is democrat, it will probably be 5-4 in favor of democrats by the end of his (or her) term.
yes, but that 5 will be a hard 5 to the right. Kennedy had a history of being a swing vote, and often when it came to social issues, to the left. it trump nominates a far righty, everything they want to get done is a potential slam dunk.
Regardless of who happens to be in control of Congress, the system is ripe with potential for abuse. Why are Congress the ones to confirm Supreme Court Judge appointments - are they qualified (i.e. possess judicial experience) to make that call? Why would Judges - who are supposed to interpret based on nothing more than logic and precedence (aka prior logic) - have different sets of conclusions based on their political leanings? And yet they do. Another irreparable break, based on a poorly designed (and I assume Constitutionally protected) system.
I also think that the illusion of civility and ethical behaviour used to be at play in government - that facade has been completely lifted.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you
What do you consider an assault? Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault. But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening. But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.
“I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission...”
Well, are you a doctor? Because if not, your analogy is meaningless. According to law and principles of informed consent, if an individual is capable of giving informed consent then they can consent to (or refuse) an offered treatment, whether it’s acetaminophen or an abortion, and capacity isn’t strictly tied to age. In my opinion that is exactly as it should be.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
every set of parents will eventually die off. they all cancel each other out. it is just a matter of time. it doesn't matter that in a 100 year span they multiply, eventually it will even. the only way it's not even is if they have more or less than 2. we only had 2. so i'm Even Freaking Steven.
I don't think you're factoring in that the generations overlap. If the average life span were the same as the age at which people reproduce, and no one died of unnatural cause, that is the only way the number would stay the same.
But I don't know how to precisely explain this. Dammit, where's a mathematician when we need one!
well I thought I was. Because if every set of parents in every generation started with 2 people, had 2 kids, and then those parents die off, the end result is a net 2. Overlap is moot. Because of course there will be fluctuations with that overlap, but it will always be a net average of 2.
I guess I'm not getting it. My simple mind is using this equation:
2 (current parents) + 2 (new kids) -2 (current parents when they eventually die) = 2 people total
Further...
This equation doesn't account for several things such as premature deaths (kids will not always grow old and procreate) and choices (kids will not always grow into adults and choose to procreate).
This formula will not create equilibrium- it will result in a declining population.
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
every set of parents will eventually die off. they all cancel each other out. it is just a matter of time. it doesn't matter that in a 100 year span they multiply, eventually it will even. the only way it's not even is if they have more or less than 2. we only had 2. so i'm Even Freaking Steven.
I don't think you're factoring in that the generations overlap. If the average life span were the same as the age at which people reproduce, and no one died of unnatural cause, that is the only way the number would stay the same.
But I don't know how to precisely explain this. Dammit, where's a mathematician when we need one!
well I thought I was. Because if every set of parents in every generation started with 2 people, had 2 kids, and then those parents die off, the end result is a net 2. Overlap is moot. Because of course there will be fluctuations with that overlap, but it will always be a net average of 2.
I guess I'm not getting it. My simple mind is using this equation:
2 (current parents) + 2 (new kids) -2 (current parents when they eventually die) = 2 people total
Further...
This equation doesn't account for several things such as premature deaths (kids will not always grow old and procreate) and choices (kids will not always grow into adults and choose to procreate).
This formula will not create equilibrium- it will result in a declining population.
Maybe and maybe not, I'm still trying to track down the book that explains how it may not. But for argument's sake, lets assume that it does lower the population eventually. And again, there's the key word: eventually. When will it slow down the population? Will that be enough, soon enough?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
every set of parents will eventually die off. they all cancel each other out. it is just a matter of time. it doesn't matter that in a 100 year span they multiply, eventually it will even. the only way it's not even is if they have more or less than 2. we only had 2. so i'm Even Freaking Steven.
I don't think you're factoring in that the generations overlap. If the average life span were the same as the age at which people reproduce, and no one died of unnatural cause, that is the only way the number would stay the same.
But I don't know how to precisely explain this. Dammit, where's a mathematician when we need one!
well I thought I was. Because if every set of parents in every generation started with 2 people, had 2 kids, and then those parents die off, the end result is a net 2. Overlap is moot. Because of course there will be fluctuations with that overlap, but it will always be a net average of 2.
I guess I'm not getting it. My simple mind is using this equation:
2 (current parents) + 2 (new kids) -2 (current parents when they eventually die) = 2 people total
Further...
This equation doesn't account for several things such as premature deaths (kids will not always grow old and procreate) and choices (kids will not always grow into adults and choose to procreate).
This formula will not create equilibrium- it will result in a declining population.
Maybe and maybe not, I'm still trying to track down the book that explains how it may not. But for argument's sake, lets assume that it does lower the population eventually. And again, there's the key word: eventually. When will it slow down the population? Will that be enough, soon enough?
Our fate is sealed.
It's only a question of when. To which I'd ask again: is the goal to squeeze out a few more generations? If so... then exactly how much do we balance living with conservation?
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
every set of parents will eventually die off. they all cancel each other out. it is just a matter of time. it doesn't matter that in a 100 year span they multiply, eventually it will even. the only way it's not even is if they have more or less than 2. we only had 2. so i'm Even Freaking Steven.
I don't think you're factoring in that the generations overlap. If the average life span were the same as the age at which people reproduce, and no one died of unnatural cause, that is the only way the number would stay the same.
But I don't know how to precisely explain this. Dammit, where's a mathematician when we need one!
well I thought I was. Because if every set of parents in every generation started with 2 people, had 2 kids, and then those parents die off, the end result is a net 2. Overlap is moot. Because of course there will be fluctuations with that overlap, but it will always be a net average of 2.
I guess I'm not getting it. My simple mind is using this equation:
2 (current parents) + 2 (new kids) -2 (current parents when they eventually die) = 2 people total
Further...
This equation doesn't account for several things such as premature deaths (kids will not always grow old and procreate) and choices (kids will not always grow into adults and choose to procreate).
This formula will not create equilibrium- it will result in a declining population.
Maybe and maybe not, I'm still trying to track down the book that explains how it may not. But for argument's sake, lets assume that it does lower the population eventually. And again, there's the key word: eventually. When will it slow down the population? Will that be enough, soon enough?
Our fate is sealed.
It's only a question of when. To which I'd ask again: is the goal to squeeze out a few more generations? If so... then exactly how much do we balance living with conservation?
I'd say not so much to squeeze out a few more generations but rather, as much as possible, to make life more equitable, rewarding, pleasant, useful etc. as possible for the ones living. And we can balance conservation and living if we learn that life can be good without having to consume as much. In fact, I would argue it could be better/more rewarding by consuming less.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
every set of parents will eventually die off. they all cancel each other out. it is just a matter of time. it doesn't matter that in a 100 year span they multiply, eventually it will even. the only way it's not even is if they have more or less than 2. we only had 2. so i'm Even Freaking Steven.
I don't think you're factoring in that the generations overlap. If the average life span were the same as the age at which people reproduce, and no one died of unnatural cause, that is the only way the number would stay the same.
But I don't know how to precisely explain this. Dammit, where's a mathematician when we need one!
well I thought I was. Because if every set of parents in every generation started with 2 people, had 2 kids, and then those parents die off, the end result is a net 2. Overlap is moot. Because of course there will be fluctuations with that overlap, but it will always be a net average of 2.
I guess I'm not getting it. My simple mind is using this equation:
2 (current parents) + 2 (new kids) -2 (current parents when they eventually die) = 2 people total
Further...
This equation doesn't account for several things such as premature deaths (kids will not always grow old and procreate) and choices (kids will not always grow into adults and choose to procreate).
This formula will not create equilibrium- it will result in a declining population.
Maybe and maybe not, I'm still trying to track down the book that explains how it may not. But for argument's sake, lets assume that it does lower the population eventually. And again, there's the key word: eventually. When will it slow down the population? Will that be enough, soon enough?
Our fate is sealed.
It's only a question of when. To which I'd ask again: is the goal to squeeze out a few more generations? If so... then exactly how much do we balance living with conservation?
I'd say not so much to squeeze out a few more generations but rather, as much as possible, to make life more equitable, rewarding, pleasant, useful etc. as possible for the ones living. And we can balance conservation and living if we learn that life can be good without having to consume as much. In fact, I would argue it could be better/more rewarding by consuming less.
I'd agree with you; however, it would take a massive mindset shift to achieve this.
I don't think we can pull it off. Admittedly, I'm a pessimist though.
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
every set of parents will eventually die off. they all cancel each other out. it is just a matter of time. it doesn't matter that in a 100 year span they multiply, eventually it will even. the only way it's not even is if they have more or less than 2. we only had 2. so i'm Even Freaking Steven.
I don't think you're factoring in that the generations overlap. If the average life span were the same as the age at which people reproduce, and no one died of unnatural cause, that is the only way the number would stay the same.
But I don't know how to precisely explain this. Dammit, where's a mathematician when we need one!
well I thought I was. Because if every set of parents in every generation started with 2 people, had 2 kids, and then those parents die off, the end result is a net 2. Overlap is moot. Because of course there will be fluctuations with that overlap, but it will always be a net average of 2.
I guess I'm not getting it. My simple mind is using this equation:
2 (current parents) + 2 (new kids) -2 (current parents when they eventually die) = 2 people total
Further...
This equation doesn't account for several things such as premature deaths (kids will not always grow old and procreate) and choices (kids will not always grow into adults and choose to procreate).
This formula will not create equilibrium- it will result in a declining population.
Maybe and maybe not, I'm still trying to track down the book that explains how it may not. But for argument's sake, lets assume that it does lower the population eventually. And again, there's the key word: eventually. When will it slow down the population? Will that be enough, soon enough?
Our fate is sealed.
It's only a question of when. To which I'd ask again: is the goal to squeeze out a few more generations? If so... then exactly how much do we balance living with conservation?
I'd say not so much to squeeze out a few more generations but rather, as much as possible, to make life more equitable, rewarding, pleasant, useful etc. as possible for the ones living. And we can balance conservation and living if we learn that life can be good without having to consume as much. In fact, I would argue it could be better/more rewarding by consuming less.
I'd agree with you; however, it would take a massive mindset shift to achieve this.
I don't think we can pull it off. Admittedly, I'm a pessimist though.
Realistically, I too doubt it. Idealistically- I guess it just makes sense to me to try anyway.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Comments
I see this very much the same. In 3 or 7 years we won’t see much difference than today. Probably most future decisions will sway conservative, but I doubt any previous decisions will be over turned.
Thats my guess, as no one knows what will happen
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-EV 8/14/93
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
But I don’t see how having 2 kids would reduce population. I guess if you factor in a certain percentage would never have kids, and a small number would die before having kids then yes the population would slowly decline.
I guess I'm not getting it. My simple mind is using this equation:
2 (current parents) + 2 (new kids) -2 (current parents when they eventually die) = 2 people total
-EV 8/14/93
Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault.
But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening.
But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.
-EV 8/14/93
Do you see that as inconsistent logic, given the parallels between the two scenarios?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Ive said many times that’s just a paranoia from the far right. And pretty much what I think this is too. Republicans have been in control several times since R v W, and it’s never been repealed. Just like dems have been in control before and I still own guns.
But like I said, only time will tell so it’s just my opinion at this point. None of us really know
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I also think that the illusion of civility and ethical behaviour used to be at play in government - that facade has been completely lifted.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Well, are you a doctor? Because if not, your analogy is meaningless. According to law and principles of informed consent, if an individual is capable of giving informed consent then they can consent to (or refuse) an offered treatment, whether it’s acetaminophen or an abortion, and capacity isn’t strictly tied to age. In my opinion that is exactly as it should be.
This equation doesn't account for several things such as premature deaths (kids will not always grow old and procreate) and choices (kids will not always grow into adults and choose to procreate).
This formula will not create equilibrium- it will result in a declining population.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
It's only a question of when. To which I'd ask again: is the goal to squeeze out a few more generations? If so... then exactly how much do we balance living with conservation?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I don't think we can pull it off. Admittedly, I'm a pessimist though.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"