Just need to point out that it does not. Especially since it only includes things like the effect to a single person, for very narrow times/events. This chart, while amazing, is not comparing total levels of anything!

This also already happens. I'm right now paying the price of deciding to avoid credit and use my own money to live. Turns out the system really wants you to borrow, and through the beauty of credit scores, all manner of daily things become a hassle or downright impossible unless you play along. The tracking of info might appear harmless... till companies and people rely on it and require it. Then your choice is between sheeple or outcast.

Your problem is not too hard to solve, and the fact that a car is your current solution does not mean the only solution. You can replace a whole parking lot with a few lockers. Also, parking is another reason for using these cars as taxis. Not only you avoid it, but also the same car can go serve another customer. Mass adoption would mean a hugely reduced motor pool (and all those benefits).

In my case, knowing and understanding the pain my wife would feel if I betray her is what keeps me in check. I don't thing that falls into "political correctness". That said, I definitely enjoy seeing sensual, beautiful women, without the need to act on it. Sometimes I even comment on a girl I see on the street with my wife present. It is not "a way to cope" or "a release mechanism", it is just a free, casual and harmless passtime, same as I like ice cream for instance. IMHO, this whole sexism thing is often blown out of all proportion.

Sure, but the US is not the place to look at for contraception efficiency. It is cheap by US standards and pretty much available, so I'm not surprised things stabilized. It plays a much higher role on Africa and Asia, were woman still have an average of 5.1 kids, which can be reduced to sustainable 2 yet.

I appreciate the optimism, but I find the idea of "we will be cause we need to" to be extremely naive. It ignores a history full of fallen civilizations and makes broad future predictions with no evidence whatsoever. Also, it seems to calm any worries without involving any particular push to action nor plan to follow. Mankind's epitaph could well be "they did what they needed to survive, till they failed".

On the other hand the idea of reducing population seem very sound. It involves practical plans with some evidence of good results (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Family-Planning), and I don't know anyone that actually proposes to kill people (yes, China used draconian measures but that does not mean other options are not possible). If we added BILLIONS of people over 50 years (say, from 3bn in 1960 to 7bn in 2012) thinking of reversing the trend in another 50 doesn't seem to me the aberration you seem to believe. Overall, it makes the statement that many of our current, social, economical and environmental problems seem to come from too many wanting to consume more, so reducing the number of people that needs to be supported helps diminish said problems. Also, reducing serious organizations (like the UN http://unfpa.org/swp/2009/en/ch6.shtml) and serious people to "these naysayers" hardly gets us to a better understanding.

With all due respect, I consider the fact that you were modded insightful kind of dangerous.

You seem to be forgetting that the tsunami was a disaster in its own right http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17219008. I think it is weird how people decouple Fucushima from the larger picture at the moment, as if it is an expected part of any reactor's lifetime.

I agree on many of your points, but you are underestimating the potential impact of contraception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy#Incidence

I would argue the opposite: federal power is a symptom, not the disease. There is so much federal power precisely because we are willing to sell it for money. Until money is not taken away to avoid making politics a market, this will not change.

It depends. Theism in general is not incompatible, but plenty of particulars from this religion or the other are not compatible with scientific knowledge and/or logic. So they are not complete opposites, but they are not orthogonal either. Hence much of the confusion.

No. But skepticism is a great start.

I always wonder about soda cans. It should not be too difficult to create a slashing implement with them...

The obvious would happen. You would lose, but it would probably not change much for the common guy. The main problem on your train of though is that you are expecting a rational, constitutional, response. Real life allows for solutions that are neither.

Sincerely, I doubt it would work. First, you are adding yet another middleman, increasing practical costs and bureaucracy for no reason. Second, there is a huge incentive for the USPTO to reject things to cash the fee. Third, it would imply a process of appeal that will never be used by the little guy.

I mean, the end result might well be less patents, but the mechanism is equally flawed and a burden for those who should get one. I would love to see less patents around, hell, after reading this long paper on the topic I'm convinced no patents are needed at all, even for pharmaceuticals. But unless you abolish patents completely, you need some system that minimizes abuse.

Yours seem like a reasonable and happy life to me. So people expect too much what? Stuff, Fame, Money? Probably. Actual life? Probably not.