The US Founding Fathers, being the oldest in the US, are almost untouchable.
Or because their works are surprisingly enduring. After all, we don't treat the works of everyone from that age with equal reverence. There are older democracies, but most of those have required extensive modification over the centuries.
China is the size of the US it has 10x the population.
This is not correct. First, China has roughly 4.3 times the population of the US. Second, that ratio is dropping due to immigration to the US. Even in a world of population control or population die-offs the US has the advantage just because it's a nicer place to live and has more food production per unit population.
If the US were playing a long game rather than screwing up like it actually is, then it could be just as populous as China in a few centuries without any need for population control.
I remember trying to explain to people that the world was of a fixed size for us,
It's not. Even if for some reason we chose not to expand into the Solar System, we still can use resources much more efficiently on Earth. That includes resources consumed by the human body.
If we don't have jobs because there's no more productive work to do, then we could, at least theoretically, live lives of leisure and self-improvement.
"IF". We already know, from a casual glance at the world outside of the developed world, that there is plenty of productive work to do.
Haven't you heard? Manufacturing is coming back to America, bigtime. It's just coming back automated.
No, I haven't heard this and I doubt you have either. China remains a better destination for automation just like employment because it's a better environment for manufacturing altogether.
The job market sucks - much of it because employers are squeezing everything they can out of the workforce they have.
No, the job market sucks because a) there's a huge swath of the world willing to work for much less than you, and b) the developed world has succeeded at making the developed world a terrible place to employ people. Instead of just another thoughtless blaming of the current economic situation in the developed world on employers, you should ask what are the incentives that cause employers to try to squeeze more of existing labor than to employ more people?
There's always been greedy people, but history is not a universal period of economic decline. We wouldn't have gotten out of the caves, if it were. Something causes prosperity and progress even in the presence of greedy people - figure that out and duplicate the conditions.
Second, Hebei may simply be at a loss as to how to scale back businesses that they recognize have become massively bloated.
Simple: do nothing. Laissez faire is the appropriate strategy for something that isn't actually a problem. It's interesting how the instinct to meddle overcomes all residual common sense.
Given the low standard for "truth" here, he's probably written a lot of other things that also achieved this level of truth. What makes the "Bible" any more true than any other written work with an ax to grind? Say, "Das Kapital" or "Atlas Shrugged" to give a couple of more modern examples.
So, to get this straight, you are seriously wondering why someone would insist that the point of playing something called a "role playing game" would be to play a role.
Believe me, I don't wonder about that even a little. Instead, I want to make sure my role playing is sanctioned.
which, actually, isn't the point, the point being taking the role of the character instead of making the character act like you would, which would take the story to uncharted pointless ends quite quickly
What authority decides what the point of a role playing game is again? I just want to make sure I'm playing my RPGs in the proper manner.
Well, enjoy having the intellect of a dog or cat I guess.
My point was the obvious. The previous poster had ignored that there were tradeoffs to greater intelligence. Just because humanity has evolved a means for reducing the harm from a particular problem of the human body, doesn't mean the problem never existed. Instead, it indicates the opposite, that the problem was significant enough to create selection pressure for the means to evolve.
however it is a mere coincidence that monkey in one context means one thing and monkey in another means a complete other, and both are being used to describe presidents at a time.
Why did you even bother to write what you did? The contexts are obviously the same. It's meant to be a very insulting comparison. There might come a day, say in some "Planet of the Apes" future where being compared to a monkey is meant to be a compliment, but that obviously is not today.
There are far worse insults to throw at obama that aren't racist. Like how he uses robots to murder people because its more humane. Or how he is just the same in power as anyone else and he is really a hopeless president.
Slashdot Mirror
The US Founding Fathers, being the oldest in the US, are almost untouchable.
Or because their works are surprisingly enduring. After all, we don't treat the works of everyone from that age with equal reverence. There are older democracies, but most of those have required extensive modification over the centuries.
So we'll force people to be genetically engineered ? If you can pull it off, that can work.
Force people to be healthier? Smarter? Stronger? They'll be standing in line.
China is the size of the US it has 10x the population.
This is not correct. First, China has roughly 4.3 times the population of the US. Second, that ratio is dropping due to immigration to the US. Even in a world of population control or population die-offs the US has the advantage just because it's a nicer place to live and has more food production per unit population.
If the US were playing a long game rather than screwing up like it actually is, then it could be just as populous as China in a few centuries without any need for population control.
Don't care. My observation holds just the same.
You can dream, but that's how evolution has happened for the past few billions of years, and that's how its going to continue.
Point to the previous species that has genetic engineering.
but in general governments in first world nations can NEVER promote population control. Why?
Because it's not a problem with first world nations.
We could just have slightly more expensive transportation and use synthetic oil or biofuels.
After a few generations, any genes that promote big families will get more successful, and experience a higher growth rate.
Unless, of course, that doesn't actually happen.
I remember trying to explain to people that the world was of a fixed size for us,
It's not. Even if for some reason we chose not to expand into the Solar System, we still can use resources much more efficiently on Earth. That includes resources consumed by the human body.
And then, it's on to South and central America!
South and central America are ahead of Africa on this curve. Africa will be the last bastion of cheap labor IMHO.
If we don't have jobs because there's no more productive work to do, then we could, at least theoretically, live lives of leisure and self-improvement.
"IF". We already know, from a casual glance at the world outside of the developed world, that there is plenty of productive work to do.
Haven't you heard? Manufacturing is coming back to America, bigtime. It's just coming back automated.
No, I haven't heard this and I doubt you have either. China remains a better destination for automation just like employment because it's a better environment for manufacturing altogether.
My question is in 20 to 30 years when Africa transitions like China did what's the next high density, low cost labour force?
We can look at periods of time when we ran out of low cost labor, like the US did in the post-Second World War period.
The job market sucks - much of it because employers are squeezing everything they can out of the workforce they have .
No, the job market sucks because a) there's a huge swath of the world willing to work for much less than you, and b) the developed world has succeeded at making the developed world a terrible place to employ people. Instead of just another thoughtless blaming of the current economic situation in the developed world on employers, you should ask what are the incentives that cause employers to try to squeeze more of existing labor than to employ more people?
There's always been greedy people, but history is not a universal period of economic decline. We wouldn't have gotten out of the caves, if it were. Something causes prosperity and progress even in the presence of greedy people - figure that out and duplicate the conditions.
Second, Hebei may simply be at a loss as to how to scale back businesses that they recognize have become massively bloated.
Simple: do nothing. Laissez faire is the appropriate strategy for something that isn't actually a problem. It's interesting how the instinct to meddle overcomes all residual common sense.
It's a straightforward application of Jevons Paradox. There's nothing twisted about it at all.
Given the low standard for "truth" here, he's probably written a lot of other things that also achieved this level of truth. What makes the "Bible" any more true than any other written work with an ax to grind? Say, "Das Kapital" or "Atlas Shrugged" to give a couple of more modern examples.
Incidentally, I have played in three role playing games where people were playing themselves in the game. Two of those times, I played myself.
So, to get this straight, you are seriously wondering why someone would insist that the point of playing something called a "role playing game" would be to play a role.
Believe me, I don't wonder about that even a little. Instead, I want to make sure my role playing is sanctioned.
which, actually, isn't the point, the point being taking the role of the character instead of making the character act like you would, which would take the story to uncharted pointless ends quite quickly
What authority decides what the point of a role playing game is again? I just want to make sure I'm playing my RPGs in the proper manner.
Well, enjoy having the intellect of a dog or cat I guess.
My point was the obvious. The previous poster had ignored that there were tradeoffs to greater intelligence. Just because humanity has evolved a means for reducing the harm from a particular problem of the human body, doesn't mean the problem never existed. Instead, it indicates the opposite, that the problem was significant enough to create selection pressure for the means to evolve.
Well, now we know what happens when pigs fly.
Just because it's "strictly business" doesn't mean that North Korea wasn't involved. They probably know how to short stocks too.
Obama is a tough guy.
Because being able to handle an empty insult from a bunch of idiots that nobody cares about or listens to is a solid indication of how tough you are.
however it is a mere coincidence that monkey in one context means one thing and monkey in another means a complete other, and both are being used to describe presidents at a time.
Why did you even bother to write what you did? The contexts are obviously the same. It's meant to be a very insulting comparison. There might come a day, say in some "Planet of the Apes" future where being compared to a monkey is meant to be a compliment, but that obviously is not today.
There are far worse insults to throw at obama that aren't racist. Like how he uses robots to murder people because its more humane. Or how he is just the same in power as anyone else and he is really a hopeless president.
Let's hear some of these insults.