http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080918170357.htm Solution To Global Fisheries Collapse? 'Catch Shares' Could Rescue Failing Fisheries, Protect The Ocean A third of open fisheries have collapsed. A sixth of privatized fisheries have collapsed. Even with privatised fishers, instead of a staple, fish becomes a luxury as "the per-pound price has increased significantly."
On top of that, http://www.healthcastle.com/fish-safe-eat.shtml Fish are contaminated with mercury and industrial chemicals. It's okay to eat low mercury fish-- just limit it to 12 oz per week.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080911234836AAEic4K Since 1945- almost 11% of the earths land area degraded for raising crops. 70,000 sq k. abandoned annually. While food production has risen, the rate of increase has been dropping for decades. "If the trend towards soil exhaustion and degradation continues, food production will not keep pace with population growth; this is already the situation in Africa."
Up to about 1960, you could pollute and the earth had enough excess capacity to handle it. After that we started having pollution outbreaks and tighter laws. The laws will need to get tighter. Once you have enough people. you reduce the earth to lifeless soil and the water to mud. Their urine and wastes are coming in large enough quantities that it's increasingly difficult to keep up.
---
What could we do now? Well, we could remove the tax deduction for having a child. That's not killing anyone, right?
But as i posted elsewhere-- I don't think we fix this one. The folks who breed will come to dominate the population. I know three ladies who each had 4 kids. All of modern industrialization didn't do anything to slow them down.
It's not a question of modeling the complexity. You can already see some sub-populations who are resistant to the benefits of industrialization and who continue to breed at high rates. They will come to dominate the population.
It is only surprising that people don't recognize and expect that to occur.
There is no solution other than to let it blow up.
Let me ask you this.
A) Do you think we have stopped war for all time?
B) Do you think the side effects of a war would be more serious with a population of 3 billion or 10 billion?
If you do think there will be another war, and you think the side effects will be more serious with a larger population, then the situation is inescapable.
What would be the impact on disruption of the food and fuel supply for 2 years? What would be the impact of having to return to labor intensive farming for a year?
Thrice in my 2008 element (and once in my older element before that*) my mileage instantly changed from 265 per tank to 300 miles per tank. It instantly dropped back down to 265 miles per tank afterwards.
Short of some secret magic switch- I have to presume the difference was in the fuel.
Now, I tested with premium and got the same mileage.
That leaves me with the conclusion that those special tanks were simply 100% gasoline.
I know on an energy basis, and from the linked government testing that it should be only a 3.6% loss of mileage.
But it wasn't. It was over 10%. So at least for this model of car, ethanol fuel is slightly worse than gasoline.
(* I have been saying 2000 element for my older element but I think it was actually a 2003 element.)
Last model year for the element. Only beddable car so I like it a lot. Plus it has good head room for my 6'5". So I'll be getting a 2011 element.
--- Here's a statement that is accurate and sensational but not sensationalist: After filling up my car, on three separate occasions, (and one time for my prior car), the mileage went from 265 miles per tank to 300 miles per tank. On each occasion, on the next fillup, mileage returned to 265 miles per tank. The 265 mark was the roughly consistent fillup mark for most weeks of driving. Coasting and other "hyper mileage" methods did not pull the mileage up over 270 and were very annoying. The change in mileage occurred when I filled up the tank.
So if they would just offer this at one station in a city, you could easily compare.
13.8 to 15.6 is a huge difference. It seems to me like in some (many?) gasoline targeted cars that the added ethanol causes an increase in gasoline gallons consumed per miles of travel.
In the best tests (by the govt) they still show a 3.6% loss of mileage.
For me, I'd pay 20 cents more per gallon for real gasoline. The time savings of an extra day of driving between fillups would be sweet.
Yea, I agree. Those are standard problems with any internet poll. Also self selection (the site is for people motivated by saving fuel costs).
OTH, these might be watching their mileage a bit more carefully than average folks who don't care.
Like I said in another post- I'd like to see consumer reports (or hmm Mythbusters?) do a formal test.
I did some research on Keith Knoll and didn't find anything obviously suspicious. OTH, he works for a part of the government dedicated to expanding green fuel usage. Still the linked paper looks solid and indicates only a 3.6% mileage loss per 10% in gasoline targeted cars.
And arguing against several of those points is the very consistent swap between 265 and 300 miles per tank.
Since posting this, I'm also reading that some refiners have been caught occasionally goosing the fuel slightly above 10% ethanol to increase their profits too.
Still- no damage to my car reported at my regular tuneups so it could not be too high.
How much mileage loss have you experienced using E10 (10% ethanol) fuel versus pure gasoline?
Mileage Loss No difference 8% Less than 5% 6% 5% - 10% 15% 10% - 20% 9% --- my bracket with Honda Elements. 20% - 30% 2% --- probably older engine or maintence problems. over 30% 1% I can't tell or I have no access to pure gas 34%
So if I read this correctly, I should have experienced a 3.5% loss of mileage, not a 12% loss of mileage.
Perhaps Honda Elements are particularly bad with Ethanol?
Still, I'd like to see Consumer Reports perform this test. I trust them more than the same government that is pushing ethanol.
As for me personally, I make enough money that it is really the annoyance factor. My 2008 was totaled a couple weeks ago and they have me in a Taurus and it gets 400 miles per tankful. It costs $15 more to fillup so I guess a 20 gallon tank (it said 19.2 mpg when I got it and i reset it and I'm at 22.4mpg with my driving style so the last driver must have done more city or been a leadfoot).
1) A 265 mile or 300 mile trip is the sum of many smaller events. Multiple days of travel (about 8) with 20 to 25 travel events. 2) Wouldn't you think that a 35 mile travel distance is normally a pretty spectacular difference? 3) It's been repeated three times so far -- and similar reports from others in this thread. 3a) So that's about 210 travel events which lead to 900 miles of travel vs 210 travel events which lead to 795 miles of travel. 4) Regardless of weather, wind, etc. With 10% ethanol, the car got 265 miles/tank consistently for 2 years except for those three weeks.
I had the same experience once on my 2000 honda element previously. It also got 265 miles per tank and one fillup suddenly went up to 300 per tank, and then right back down to 265 miles per tank next fillup.
The only factor I've been able to isolate is Shell Stations. Twice at one station near a rich neighborhood and once each at other stations around town.
Tested the 2005 with premium and still got the same mileage.
I mean seriously.. if it causes us to use more gasoline to go the same miles-- why are we doing this?
Yes, it exceeded 3 billion about 1960. Things have been going downhill since then. The environment is increasingly polluted, our standard of living is slowly creeping downwards, the quality of food is slowly dropping, the available nutrients are dropping, male fertility is 1/20th of what it was 110 years ago, various genetic diseases are skyrocketing.
Like you, I don't think there will be a problem keeping people alive as long as everything goes well. But unlike you, i think things will be very brittle. The next time there is a war, they could break down much worse than in the past because so many plates will be spinning.
I think the most consistent measure in the 1st world will be a continuous decline in the standard of living for most of the population.
I also think that sub populations are starting to develop which are having babies at higher rates because they are resistant to the concept of giving up babies so you can have a big screen TV. Logically, they'll come to dominate the population over time.
You'll note I don't really propose a fix above- I don't think we can fix it.
Say, we are all going to starve unless we cut down on eating...
> Oh, well WHO'S going to decide how much we eat, HMMM? Better we just ignore it and think happy thoughts that deal with reality.
Um... we are headed towards the waterfall... we should start rowing.
> Oh??? Well why don't YOU row first! The rest of us are going to sit here and relax.
---
As for "control". Bullshit, there are already human populations that are ignoring those inducements and overbreeding. And they will come to dominate the population. Those control mechanisms are just like any poison on a population. Most are effected by the poison- but a few are not and they come to dominate the population.
--- It's not about what they would rather do. Humans will push the population up to the absolute limit and then it will be very brittle. Afterwards everyone will declare it had been obvious all along- despite 30 years of ignoring people who tried to point it out.
---
OTH, I wonder if there is a Slashdot achievement for getting both a -1 and +5 moderated thread in the same discussion.:-)
There is one only solution. It's getting the population back down below 3 billion.
And that's not going to happen prior to something really bad happening.
I'm guessing we have the disease problem basically beat, so the only thing I can see is war. A world war on top of brittle "just in time" delivery will probably kill billions very quickly.
I have stumbled on "real 100% gasoline" three times in a 2008 Honda Element. Each time, my mileage increased for that tankful from 265 miles to 300 miles.
Honda: 10% Ethanol, 13 gallon tank mileage to fill up (about 12.25 gallons).
265 miles. About 21.6 miles per gallon.
Honda: Gasoline, 13 gallon tank mileage to fill up (about 12.25 gallons).
300 miles. About 24.4 miles per gallon.
12% more miles with gasoline than with 10% Ethanol.
You see the problem, right?
When using 10% ethanol, I actually burn MORE GASOLINE to travel the same number of miles.
So ethanol is worse than useless.
I keep putting this out there so hopefully someone who can reliably get 100% gasoline can perform a formal study. This is increasing the amount of gasoline we use, not reducing it.
At fry's, when a register comes open, it starts flashing and the line wrangler says, "27 is open" to you. One line feeds up to 50 registers. It's pretty awesome.
Without a wrangler, I'd limit it to about 8 lines.
Aye... so would you give a blowjob to a guy (I'm presuming you are straight) for 10 million dollars? Especially if no one else would ever know.
I'm not saying I would... but 10 million bucks is a lot of money. It would take me three lifetimes to earn that much- six lifetimes if that amount was tax free.
And like you, there are women who think I look like Patrick Stewart or John Malkovich (who i don't consider attractive but they do). Fortunately, I'm a little co-dependent so when they like/need me, I like/need them and when they don't I'm not interested.
I adore women but can't stand them full time. About 5 days a week is my limit. Then I run off to go gaming or watch anime.
In case it's not perfectly clear.. Coca Cola which was 20 cents retail back in the 80's then 50 cents and now 75 cents (huh... 20->40->80 basically) is going to be 1.50 a can in 14 to 18 years and about 3.00 a can in 2050. A nice $100,000 six figure job salary will be $400,000. And have the SAME purchasing power as today.
Some things, like TV's and Computers may drop in price due to improvements in technology and transition from custom product to mass market commodity. Houses may not keep up since they inflated dramatically during an extended period of 1% interest.
Even oil being $500 a barrel in 2050 is basically the same as oil being $125 today. It was $147 briefly during the summer a couple years ago. It wasn't sustainable- it took massive manipulation to get it to $147.
But more men offer women a) Money b) Jewelry c) The promise of half their income d) Other nice presents e) Dinner at $200/plate restaurants f) Paid rent.
However, some women do offer these things to some men.
Almost everyone has their price. I saw some study with a "real cash test" a few years ago and they found the real price for most women (and I presume for most men) was $10,000 (and for many it was $1,000 cold hard cash in hand). You don't even need a million bucks.
Any time financial inducement is involved consistently from one party to the other, it's really whoring on the receivers part since they wouldn't choose to have sex unless given a financial inducement.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080918170357.htm
Solution To Global Fisheries Collapse? 'Catch Shares' Could Rescue Failing Fisheries, Protect The Ocean
A third of open fisheries have collapsed. A sixth of privatized fisheries have collapsed.
Even with privatised fishers, instead of a staple, fish becomes a luxury as "the per-pound price has increased significantly."
On top of that,
http://www.healthcastle.com/fish-safe-eat.shtml
Fish are contaminated with mercury and industrial chemicals.
It's okay to eat low mercury fish-- just limit it to 12 oz per week.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080911234836AAEic4K
Since 1945- almost 11% of the earths land area degraded for raising crops. 70,000 sq k. abandoned annually.
While food production has risen, the rate of increase has been dropping for decades.
"If the trend towards soil exhaustion and degradation continues, food production will not keep pace with population growth; this is already the situation in Africa."
http://www.unwater.org/wwd10/faqs.html
Water quality is declining.
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/gradual-decline-in-suffolk-s-drinking-water-1.2570399
Suffolk's draft water management plan found "a continued gradual decline in water quality" since 1987.
---
Up to about 1960, you could pollute and the earth had enough excess capacity to handle it.
After that we started having pollution outbreaks and tighter laws. The laws will need to get tighter.
Once you have enough people. you reduce the earth to lifeless soil and the water to mud. Their urine and wastes are coming in large enough quantities that it's increasingly difficult to keep up.
---
What could we do now? Well, we could remove the tax deduction for having a child. That's not killing anyone, right?
But as i posted elsewhere-- I don't think we fix this one. The folks who breed will come to dominate the population. I know three ladies who each had 4 kids. All of modern industrialization didn't do anything to slow them down.
I agree. It's unprovable til it happens.
It's not a question of modeling the complexity. You can already see some sub-populations who are resistant to the benefits of industrialization and who continue to breed at high rates. They will come to dominate the population.
It is only surprising that people don't recognize and expect that to occur.
There is no solution other than to let it blow up.
Let me ask you this.
A) Do you think we have stopped war for all time?
B) Do you think the side effects of a war would be more serious with a population of 3 billion or 10 billion?
If you do think there will be another war, and you think the side effects will be more serious with a larger population, then the situation is inescapable.
What would be the impact on disruption of the food and fuel supply for 2 years?
What would be the impact of having to return to labor intensive farming for a year?
I'm sure they won't bring it up enough but you should include alcohol and cigarette deaths.
No, you misunderstood what I said.
Thrice in my 2008 element (and once in my older element before that*) my mileage instantly changed from 265 per tank to 300 miles per tank.
It instantly dropped back down to 265 miles per tank afterwards.
Short of some secret magic switch- I have to presume the difference was in the fuel.
Now, I tested with premium and got the same mileage.
That leaves me with the conclusion that those special tanks were simply 100% gasoline.
I know on an energy basis, and from the linked government testing that it should be only a 3.6% loss of mileage.
But it wasn't. It was over 10%. So at least for this model of car, ethanol fuel is slightly worse than gasoline.
(* I have been saying 2000 element for my older element but I think it was actually a 2003 element.)
Last model year for the element. Only beddable car so I like it a lot. Plus it has good head room for my 6'5". So I'll be getting a 2011 element.
---
Here's a statement that is accurate and sensational but not sensationalist: After filling up my car, on three separate occasions, (and one time for my prior car), the mileage went from 265 miles per tank to 300 miles per tank. On each occasion, on the next fillup, mileage returned to 265 miles per tank. The 265 mark was the roughly consistent fillup mark for most weeks of driving. Coasting and other "hyper mileage" methods did not pull the mileage up over 270 and were very annoying. The change in mileage occurred when I filled up the tank.
So if they would just offer this at one station in a city, you could easily compare.
13.8 to 15.6 is a huge difference. It seems to me like in some (many?) gasoline targeted cars that the added ethanol causes an increase in gasoline gallons consumed per miles of travel.
In the best tests (by the govt) they still show a 3.6% loss of mileage.
For me, I'd pay 20 cents more per gallon for real gasoline. The time savings of an extra day of driving between fillups would be sweet.
Yea, I agree. Those are standard problems with any internet poll. Also self selection (the site is for people motivated by saving fuel costs).
OTH, these might be watching their mileage a bit more carefully than average folks who don't care.
Like I said in another post- I'd like to see consumer reports (or hmm Mythbusters?) do a formal test.
I did some research on Keith Knoll and didn't find anything obviously suspicious. OTH, he works for a part of the government dedicated to expanding green fuel usage. Still the linked paper looks solid and indicates only a 3.6% mileage loss per 10% in gasoline targeted cars.
And arguing against several of those points is the very consistent swap between 265 and 300 miles per tank.
Since posting this, I'm also reading that some refiners have been caught occasionally goosing the fuel slightly above 10% ethanol to increase their profits too.
Still- no damage to my car reported at my regular tuneups so it could not be too high.
It's a paradigm shift and folks don't see it coming.
How do you properly tax when a company that used to have 20 employees now has 1 and has the same output.
And when enough companies have automated enough that 4 of those employees can't find work anywhere, what do you do?
This! This! to your entire post. Folks are blind to the changes that are coming.
So I decided I would search around for 100% gasoline stations and found a couple sites.
Found this interesting poll (still anecdotal of course) but apparently 15237 respondants.
http://www.houstongasprices.com/Past_polls.aspx?poll_id=516
How much mileage loss have you experienced using E10 (10% ethanol) fuel versus pure gasoline?
Mileage Loss
No difference 8%
Less than 5% 6%
5% - 10% 15%
10% - 20% 9% --- my bracket with Honda Elements.
20% - 30% 2% --- probably older engine or maintence problems.
over 30% 1%
I can't tell or I have no access to pure gas 34%
Total votes: 15237
Good link.
Thanks.
So if I read this correctly, I should have experienced a 3.5% loss of mileage, not a 12% loss of mileage.
Perhaps Honda Elements are particularly bad with Ethanol?
Still, I'd like to see Consumer Reports perform this test. I trust them more than the same government that is pushing ethanol.
As for me personally, I make enough money that it is really the annoyance factor. My 2008 was totaled a couple weeks ago and they have me in a Taurus and it gets 400 miles per tankful. It costs $15 more to fillup so I guess a 20 gallon tank (it said 19.2 mpg when I got it and i reset it and I'm at 22.4mpg with my driving style so the last driver must have done more city or been a leadfoot).
I get your point.
Consider these
1) A 265 mile or 300 mile trip is the sum of many smaller events. Multiple days of travel (about 8) with 20 to 25 travel events.
2) Wouldn't you think that a 35 mile travel distance is normally a pretty spectacular difference?
3) It's been repeated three times so far -- and similar reports from others in this thread.
3a) So that's about 210 travel events which lead to 900 miles of travel vs 210 travel events which lead to 795 miles of travel.
4) Regardless of weather, wind, etc. With 10% ethanol, the car got 265 miles/tank consistently for 2 years except for those three weeks.
I had the same experience once on my 2000 honda element previously. It also got 265 miles per tank and one fillup suddenly went up to 300 per tank, and then right back down to 265 miles per tank next fillup.
The only factor I've been able to isolate is Shell Stations. Twice at one station near a rich neighborhood and once each at other stations around town.
Tested the 2005 with premium and still got the same mileage.
I mean seriously.. if it causes us to use more gasoline to go the same miles-- why are we doing this?
Thanks for your rational response.
Yes, it exceeded 3 billion about 1960. Things have been going downhill since then. The environment is increasingly polluted, our standard of living is slowly creeping downwards, the quality of food is slowly dropping, the available nutrients are dropping, male fertility is 1/20th of what it was 110 years ago, various genetic diseases are skyrocketing.
Like you, I don't think there will be a problem keeping people alive as long as everything goes well. But unlike you, i think things will be very brittle. The next time there is a war, they could break down much worse than in the past because so many plates will be spinning.
I think the most consistent measure in the 1st world will be a continuous decline in the standard of living for most of the population.
I also think that sub populations are starting to develop which are having babies at higher rates because they are resistant to the concept of giving up babies so you can have a big screen TV. Logically, they'll come to dominate the population over time.
You'll note I don't really propose a fix above- I don't think we can fix it.
Say, we are all going to starve unless we cut down on eating...
> Oh, well WHO'S going to decide how much we eat, HMMM? Better we just ignore it and think happy thoughts that deal with reality.
Um... we are headed towards the waterfall... we should start rowing.
> Oh??? Well why don't YOU row first! The rest of us are going to sit here and relax.
---
As for "control". Bullshit, there are already human populations that are ignoring those inducements and overbreeding. And they will come to dominate the population. Those control mechanisms are just like any poison on a population. Most are effected by the poison- but a few are not and they come to dominate the population.
---
It's not about what they would rather do. Humans will push the population up to the absolute limit and then it will be very brittle.
Afterwards everyone will declare it had been obvious all along- despite 30 years of ignoring people who tried to point it out.
---
OTH, I wonder if there is a Slashdot achievement for getting both a -1 and +5 moderated thread in the same discussion. :-)
And THIS kind of stupid modding is part of why nothing will be fixed.
There wasn't anything racist, bigoted, hateful- just a simple statement of fact and people who do not like that fact downmod it.
The earth is already about 3 billion past its healthy carrying capacity for humans.
The breakdown of multiple global systems is evidence for this fact.
There is one only solution. It's getting the population back down below 3 billion.
And that's not going to happen prior to something really bad happening.
I'm guessing we have the disease problem basically beat, so the only thing I can see is war. A world war on top of brittle "just in time" delivery will probably kill billions very quickly.
I hope it's more than 30 years away.
I have stumbled on "real 100% gasoline" three times in a 2008 Honda Element. Each time, my mileage increased for that tankful from 265 miles to 300 miles.
Honda: 10% Ethanol, 13 gallon tank mileage to fill up (about 12.25 gallons).
265 miles. About 21.6 miles per gallon.
Honda: Gasoline, 13 gallon tank mileage to fill up (about 12.25 gallons).
300 miles. About 24.4 miles per gallon.
12% more miles with gasoline than with 10% Ethanol.
You see the problem, right?
When using 10% ethanol, I actually burn MORE GASOLINE to travel the same number of miles.
So ethanol is worse than useless.
I keep putting this out there so hopefully someone who can reliably get 100% gasoline can perform a formal study.
This is increasing the amount of gasoline we use, not reducing it.
At fry's, when a register comes open, it starts flashing and the line wrangler says, "27 is open" to you.
One line feeds up to 50 registers. It's pretty awesome.
Without a wrangler, I'd limit it to about 8 lines.
This is the approach Fry's uses. It's extremely efficient.
A single line is very comfortable at the grocery store too.
I was surprised to read in the headline that people thought a single line was not as good but then I see posts saying that here.
In my experience single line > awesomely better than > multiple lines and a chance at the horrific line from hell.
Aye... so would you give a blowjob to a guy (I'm presuming you are straight) for 10 million dollars? Especially if no one else would ever know.
I'm not saying I would... but 10 million bucks is a lot of money. It would take me three lifetimes to earn that much- six lifetimes if that amount was tax free.
I think of myself as not good looking.
And like you, there are women who think I look like Patrick Stewart or John Malkovich (who i don't consider attractive but they do).
Fortunately, I'm a little co-dependent so when they like/need me, I like/need them and when they don't I'm not interested.
I adore women but can't stand them full time. About 5 days a week is my limit. Then I run off to go gaming or watch anime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_a_Gigolo_(song)
It looks like the lyrics changed before Just a Gigalo got to Dave but his changes were minimal if any.
However, he repopularized the song and the site I got for lyrics listed him as the writer.
In case it's not perfectly clear.. Coca Cola which was 20 cents retail back in the 80's then 50 cents and now 75 cents (huh... 20->40->80 basically) is going to be 1.50 a can in 14 to 18 years and about 3.00 a can in 2050. A nice $100,000 six figure job salary will be $400,000. And have the SAME purchasing power as today.
Some things, like TV's and Computers may drop in price due to improvements in technology and transition from custom product to mass market commodity.
Houses may not keep up since they inflated dramatically during an extended period of 1% interest.
Even oil being $500 a barrel in 2050 is basically the same as oil being $125 today. It was $147 briefly during the summer a couple years ago. It wasn't sustainable- it took massive manipulation to get it to $147.
Well... are you young, have good disease free equipment, and extremely attractive?
http://www.cowboys4angels.com/
http://www.vipmaleescort.com/
http://thestraightmaleescort.blogspot.com/
Just a gigolo
everywhere I go
people know the part
I'm playing
Paid for every dance
selling each romance
every night some heart
betraying
There will come a day ...
youth will pass away
then what will they say
about me
Artist: David Lee Roth Lyrics
Jeez.
Look at minimum wage in the 80's.
Look at the price of oil in the 80's.
Look at the price of electicity in the 80's.
Now, look at those today.
Project into the future.
Oil over $320ish a barrel in 2050 is unlikely unless we get a period of hyper inflation.
30 year bonds are predicting a 4% to 5% expected annual 30 year inflation rate.
Rule of 72 ... 72/5 = 14ish, 72/4 = 18. Every 14 to 18 years we get a double in prices, wages, costs, etc.
Does anyone bother to look at salaries, costs in the 80's, 70's, 60's, 50's?
Saying oil will be $500 a barrel conflates that against today's wages. Arguing $320 vs $500 is just a difference of degree.
Jiminy Cricket, this is like pulling teeth sometimes.
A truer statement is most humans are whores.
But more men offer women
a) Money
b) Jewelry
c) The promise of half their income
d) Other nice presents
e) Dinner at $200/plate restaurants
f) Paid rent.
However, some women do offer these things to some men.
Almost everyone has their price. I saw some study with a "real cash test" a few years ago and they found the real price for most women (and I presume for most men) was $10,000 (and for many it was $1,000 cold hard cash in hand). You don't even need a million bucks.
Any time financial inducement is involved consistently from one party to the other, it's really whoring on the receivers part since they wouldn't choose to have sex unless given a financial inducement.