I read the parent. He said that those who are around today won' t be around long enough to see the recovery. As in, the recovery will take longer than a human lifetime.

Also read you, where you changed that to "kill all the humans" and asked who would be around. I told you: anyone who isn't stupid enough to stand still and expect the government to solve their problems for them.

All the people who are smart enough to move away from the coast when the sea level takes a couple of decades to rise based on the couple of decades it will take for Greenland to melt.

The ones who won't be waiting around are the ones who are washed out to sea while standing in their houses surrounded by the incoming tide wondering when the government is going to do something about this problem. I.e., the true Darwin Award winners.

FTFY. Maybe you don't realize that opposition to the creation of a federal government department to control something isn't defacto opposition to whatever that something is, so you make your flamebait accusation...

When you can read "work very hard at" and a later comment about there still being infant mortality, and come up with thinking that I said that nobody ever dies, well, I know you're not here to discuss this honestly.

Bye.

I'm fascinated by this concept of "magazine" to which you refer. Do you have a newsletter I might subscribe to that explains it in more detail?

In other words, you pay for a phone line that you can't use because the guy hung up thirty minutes ago and you haven't gotten back to hang yours up yet.

Just like the majority of aircraft incidents are caused by "pilot error" because, well, there was a pilot on board and he didn't stop whatever bad thing it was from happening. Autopilot went south, drove the elevator trim full nose up, and the pilot couldn't get the nose back down before the plane went into a stall/spin/crash/die? That was his error. Or he failed to cancel his flight because he didn't detect the problem before taking off. That's "pilot error", too, just worded as "improper preflight".

So from what you say, as a potential driver of an autonomous vehicle, whenever it barfs and tries to hand control over to me, I should refuse. Otherwise, when I can't fix whatever situation the car has gotten me into it will be my fault ("accidents happen just after the driver takes control"). To keep from being sued for the accident, I'll have to take the position that "hey, I was never in control, it was Google that failed, sue them."

Of COURSE a large number, even majority, of accidents in autonomous vehicles will happen "just after" the vehicle has bailed out on the driver and said "tag, you're it". Especially to those drivers who want to abandon their responsibility for their own safety and sleep instead of drive. "I said WAKE UP human, I can't deal with thi.... (sound of bending metal) oh never mind."

Which includes profit for lawyers, because you can take it as a fact that there will be lawsuits every time an autonomous vehicle kills or injures someone. That's a natural side-effect of outrageous promises that would be called "false advertising" were the same kind of claims applied to a toaster or television.

Yes, there is. It is humans themselves. Natural selection means some get left behind. Humans work very hard to avoid that. Premies get intensive care, diabetics get insulin, and there are any number of other juvenile (and adult) diseases that don't "cull the herd" anymore. And even before modern medical miracles, humans went out of their way to deal with childhood diseases as an intelligent process. It has been a very long time since the wolves or other predators were allowed to pick off the weakest humans in the pack.

Diabetes, cancers, gastric disorders (Celiac, e.g.), endometriosis, fibromyalgia, and any number of other increasingly common disorders would contradict that. Even the now almost ubiquitous eye glasses show a declining trend in physical abilities. The increase in IVF for women who are otherwise unable to have children naturally only tends to continue the genes that create that problem.

Of course there are, and you know what I meant was not "misbehaving" or any other sentient meaning to "bad", I meant genes that were involved in genetic disorders. Whether that's a gene that results in sickle cell or juvenile diabetes or whatever, that's what I mean by a "bad gene".

Not all traits are trade-offs. Tell a child with leukemia or diabetes that his "trait" is actually beneficial in some way. Tell someone who is badly nearsighted and can't see anything without glasses that his trait is beneficial in some way. Tell the child who is born with a cleft palate that you aren't going to do cosmetic surgery because his trait is actually beneficial. Let the Down Syndrome kids use their beneficial trait to make good lives on their own.

You're bending so far over backwards to be politically correct that you're making ridiculous statements.

I really don't care what name you want to apply to it, when you remove natural selection from the process of evolution, evolution no longer works. Humans have not been subject to natural selection for most negative traits for a very long time. No, we haven't managed to remove it completely and there is still infant mortality, but we're working as hard as we can to keep natural selection, and thus evolution, from working for us. By keeping natural selection from working for us, we're being "compassionate" and "social" and all those good things, but we're also allowing the non-beneficial changes to propagate and reducing the benefit from the beneficial ones.

I really have to figure out how the human fossil record gives you that information. No, I really don't care, because that's so far in the past that it was before existing civilizations and thus before current efforts to defeat natural selection that it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

How many times do I have to say "I didn't say 'in every case'?" before you get the clue?

And now you've turned the discussion into ad hominem as you usually do.

I didn't say everyone was in a union, you fucking moron. I said "in many cases", which should make it clear that it isn't everyone. Sheesh, are you this dense deliberately, or do you come by it naturally?

But it would make a dandy newsletter, which I would be happy to subscribe to.

And I'll bet a large part of the decision to shut that down was based on the idea that every job should provide a "living wage" that could support a family and a house and ... we now have people arguing that the minimum wage must be radically increased to provide that living wage. It's harder for any employer to have jobs like that anymore, with minimum wage and taxes and health insurance mandates.

SIEU, for one. AFSCME for another. OPEIU.

Or if you have problems thinking in terms of secretaries, try asking an electrician (IBEW) or auto worker (UAW), or dock worker (ILWU), or retail sales clerk (RWDSU), or actor (SAG, AFTRA, AEA), or bus driver (ATU), or grip (IATSE) to go get your dry cleaning just because they work for you. These are all workers who are bound to work for their pittance and are essentially, according to the OP, slaves. One big difference is, of course, that slaves don't have a contract or a union rep or grievance procedures and can't say "no" when you ask them to do something they aren't paid to do. (Try asking a set electrician to help move a prop like a chair and see how much of a slave these guys are. If they like you, and there isn't anyone to catch them infringing on the grip's job, they might do it. If they say 'no', you've got no right to complain. If you get the grips mad at you for having other people do their job, they MIGHT push you out of the way when a lighting instrument is about to fall on you, but they might also say "that's the electrician's job" and you go to the hospital.)

Like I said, I didn't say "in every case", so if you've never come across a secretary who belongs to a union, that's nice. Where I work they all do, as well as the electricians, plumbers, HVAC, painters, and a lot of other trades. Even the grad teaching assistants have a union here.

By active gene manipulation through selective breeding. We do the same to our crops and produce. I think the term when applied to humans is "eugenics". We could create a super race of humans IF we kept the inferior humans from producing and encouraged the superior, just as we do with pigs. Maybe some day when the aliens with the book "To Serve Humans" show up and cart a bunch of us off to their planet we'll see a demonstration of that.

What we HAVE been able to do by avoiding eugenics with humans while applying modern medicine is to make less robust humans. In the "good old days", if you couldn't see the sabre tooth tiger coming to eat you, your bad eye genes didn't propagate into the rest of the population. Now that eye glasses are common, weak eyes are not selected against on a regular basis, and the genes that lead to them are spread.

The same goes for many medical conditions where our compassion has kept people with bad genes alive long enough to procreate. That's the basis for genetics and evolution, so you can't really say that it isn't happening.

Because we've not allowed the driving mechanism for evolution to act when it comes to humans. What you are seeing is the survival of detrimental mutations or maladaptations, not natural selection against them. For example, an inability to handle HFCS in part of the population has not driven evolution to make humans more able to handle them in our processed foods, because we don't let the people who are maladapted die, we give them medicines to keep them alive and having children.

We fight to the death to keep evolution from adapting us, while using it on a regular basis to make our animals and foods better.

"Yes, the most important thing IS my ego-centrism." -- Clara Oswald, "Deep Breath".

And that definition makes the word meaningless and devoid of any significance. If every time someone doesn't let you say something using their systems it is "censorship", then so what? When an editor of a newspaper cuts paragraphs from a reporter's story that are extraneous it is censorship, and it is a good thing because it keeps the article on-point and concise. When the same editor chooses not to print your rambling letter about JFK conspiracies, it is censorship and it is a good thing, otherwise the paper will be filled with malarky about JFK conspiracies instead of real news. When a discussion group moderator removes the clearly off-topic, or racist, or homophobic, or pornographic comments is it censorship and it is a good thing, because it makes finding the on-topic material much easier and prevents needless offense.

When the broadcast TV operator doesn't let you buy airtime during Saturday cartoons to advertise your "Hooker's Haven Brothel" or "Carl's Cocaine Emporium", or even "Denver John's Pot Palladium", that's censorship and it is a good thing.

When a textbook publisher doesn't print every conceivable theory regarding some controversial topic, it is censorship. I'll leave it up to you if them not printing metaphysical origins of the universe in a science textbook is a good or bad thing, even though it is censorship.

When YouTube takes down patently offensive and violent videos, that censorship and it is a good thing.

So, every time you use the word "censorship" to label a good thing, you dilute the meaning to the point that it is useless when it is used regarding a bad thing. If you want to argue that every instance of censorship is a bad thing, then we have no common ground upon which to hold a discussion, because there are so many clearly good instances of "non-publication decisions" that are, according to newspeak, "censorship" that you can't claim it is all bad and be taken seriously. The only response to "everything is censorship" is that no, not everyone is interested in turning every venue into a cesspool because you want absolute freedom to talk about whatever you want whenever and wherever you want. Anything less means there is someone stopping you, and that's censorship according to this new, useless definition.

If you're using the word applied to a good thing intending to evoke the emotions that are attached to bad censorship* because you have no argument to support your claim and you want to whip up a frenzy against something you don't like, you are being dishonest.

* -- the fact that we now have to differentiate between "good censorship" and "bad censorship" is proof that the word is useless. Imagine ever having to say that something was "bad racism" because so many innocuous or innocent things were being labelled racism that you had to differentiate. (I think we're almost there, by the way.)