Study says drive-thrus are cleaner than park and walk

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by shovel

Wha? So every day I spend not trying to make babies I'm "forcing" thousands of potential someones to not live? And those times I log on to adult websites?

SOMEONE LOCK ME UP I'M A MENACE TO POTENTIAL SOCIETY!

You sir are your own Hitler!

But seriously, it's more along the lines of not complaining about other people having kids, or maybe even specifically complaining not about people having kids, but relatively rich people who will probably consume a lot of stuff having kids, when the biggest problem no matter how it's cut is a relatively wasteful lifestyle. Conspicuous consumption and all that. Cheerio!

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Sorry, that was a drive by.

OK... per 100 people units, how many are going to be scientists that do something that has a profound good effect on humanity?

I'm not gonna look it up but I'd say it's closer to 1:100 than 99:100.

In the meantime, per productive scientist, their "caseload" of human units increased exponentially.

Or.... right now, today, there are more scientists than ever in history.

Are we better off today or not?

hmmmm

Apology accepted, but why follow it up w/ another one?

Generally speaking, the percentage of productive people is going to be roughly the same independent of population, maybe even greater w/ more people since there won't be as much energy around for people to go four-wheelinz0rz and all. But really it's more or less the same AFAIK. There's no "caseload" of human units, at least based on my experience at uni. I can't demand that someone research what I want them to.

The question IMO isn't are we better off now, but are we better off sucking down the planet's resources w/ 10 billion people or sucking down the same resources w/ 1 billion people? Arguably, if the trends were reversed, with relatively equitable resource consumption and the growth rate of average lifestyle decreasing while the rate of population growth was increasing, I'd be inclined to agree that population was the problem, but as it stands that isn't the case. There's an incredibly inequitable distribution of resources, w/ most of the resources going to a relatively small group of people, population growth is declining overall and has been for the past half century or so, while the growth in average lifestyle has shown no sign of doing the same. That points to a problem w/ average lifestyle, not a problem w/ population. If the trends reverse, then sure, it's population, but until then I'm pretty sure you know where I stand.

[Wonderboy]

If a single individual influences enough people to change, can't his actions offset more than his footprint? In that case, couldn't it actually be worthwhile to have kids?

I think about this dilemma too because I see these gigantic families filled with what you know are going to be absolutely brainwashed children, and I know well that each one of them can and will vote. Most likely they will vote (not just in politics either, like I said what one consumes is also a vote) for things that perpetuate the lifestyle they were born into. Considering we really need cultural change to begin approaching all the nasty little problems we have, thinking about that really makes me want to either be a teacher or raise several children.

Raise is the key word here, Tas. I think that if extremely privileged westerners like ourselves feel the need to raise children, they should at least be adopted away from slavery or something. (Which by the way there are more of today than there was at the peak of American slave trade - slaves, I mean. Fun fact, eh? ). We feel so entitled to everything, including the spread of our own DNA, and I think we could all do better without that sentiment.