You see AC's commentary on the value of secrecy.

"I have 20 toxic chemicals in my body, and all I did today was take my medication, eat at Mcdonald's and smoke a cigarette.

Nosebleeds? Vomitting white foam? Blood pressure issues? Yea, I've got all of those too!"

Your support of truth, justice, and fossil fuel, fast food, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries is noble, but I don't grok the long drawn-out suicide by torture thing.

Please consider making a healthy diet, breathing fresh air, and exercising a higher priority than trolling slashdot.

> .just give incentives
You nailed it. But our priorities are exactly the opposite. And by listing how the priorities should be, I'll upset people.

But here are a few ways we could encourage lower birth rates.

Birth control should be subsidized. Abortions, The Pill, hysterectomies, and vasectomies should be free.

There should be an annual tax on the biological father and biological mother for each child they bring into the world. Child Tax Credits only apply to adopted/foster kids.

Conceiving and bearing a child while on welfare should disqualify the familty from welfare.

> what the fuck has it all been for?
Look at the actual distribution of wealth, and you'll see exactly what they (and we) have been working for.

The people that aren't starving will trade.

> Please go read the Federal Papers

"Federal Papers"?

Do you mean the 85 chaper "The Federalist"? Or its contemporary Anti-Federalist papers (the ones that argued for a Bill of Rights)?

Either way that's a lot of reading. Could you narrow it down a bit? Like point us to the chapter which explains "the original intent of the 2nd Amendment"?

If people were willing to finance some planetary climate engineering experiment, one would think they'd also be willing to try the more conservative course of exacerbating the problem no further.

Or perhaps one day, in some far remote future, we'll come up with a phonetic language and dedicate our minds to ideas instead of esoteric rules about apostrophes.

"You can go out in the woods, build a cabin, and live without electricity or indoor plumbing."

Maybe we could. Let's think about it.

We'd probably have to buy the woods we wanted to build in. We' might need a building permit for the cabin, followed by an inspection. We'd need a permit for a well. We'd probably need to register our firearms, buy a fishing license and hunting license and tags. We might need a business license if we plan to sell those crops, plus all the government oversight selling food would bring.

So, yeah, maybe it's possible. It doesn't really seem like most people could afford it, and it doesn't seem like most people could comply with all the rules of the various agencies and jurisdictions that could be involved.

I think the reality is that lifestyle of 200 years ago is gone. Whatever semblance might remain is costly and wrapped in red tape.

Stockholder banks get a guaranteed 6% dividend.

How did you get from here:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modigliani%E2%80%93Miller_theorem)

to here?
"The Modigliani-Miller theorem of finance shows that how you finance a good idea doesn't matter."

"The Fed gives the government zero cost borrowing"

If only that were true. The Federal Reserve is a cabal of privately held banks that charge interest.

Engineers have bosses. Sometimes in a complicated situation where there are no good answers, engineers do what their bosses say.

"He is ...a very controversial figure in science journalism (in a good way)"

Good why? Does he have a gift for explaining new scientific discoveries to laypeople? Does he somehow further the state of the art?

Sounds to me like what he does for a living is tell people that scientific progress is ending. I see no compelling evidence from him supporting that point, and I see nothing good coming from pushing that idea.

Many Americans don't even accept evolution or global warming yet. Pretending that where we are is the furthest we'll ever get is not constructive and not correct.

If this is all he's got, I wouldn't even call him a science journalist. He's more like an op-ed columnist/author.

If it wasn't a surprise, shouldn't Ukraine have been ready to arrest the hooligans that they instead allowed to steal Crimea?