Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:sorry, it's not that simple (Score 1) 346

Not surprising that Greenpeace says stupid shit. They're the ones who had the war on chlorine.

Greenpeace, the international environmental advocacy group, launched the first salvo in 1991 with its call to phase out completely "the use, export, and import of all organochlorines, elemental chlorine, and chlorinated oxidizing agents (e.g. chlorine dioxide and sodium hypochlorite)." As Greenpeace's Joe Thornton explains, "There are no uses of chlorine which we regard as safe."

And when they get a wild idea, it often passes on to other environmentalist organizations.

It makes good sense to prioritize environmental protection. Unfortunately, good sense is conspicuously absent in current efforts to ban the use of chlorine. Greenpeace calls for a "chlorine-free society." Support also comes from other environmental organizations. George Coling of the Sierra Club states ". . . the debate is no longer whether to phase out these chemicals, but how" and Tim Eder, of the National Wildlife Federation notes, "When it comes to (these chemicals) you don't make them, produce them, or dispose of them . . . you just get rid of them!" We should be wary of their claims, for they suggest political opportunism, not sound science.

Comment Re:Welcome to the Trump future... (Score 1) 482

Bright future, if goosestepping whilst clutching a bible , is your thing.

Remember, that's the TDS talking. Obama was lying just as shamelessly in the 2008 election as Trump (though perhaps not quite as poorly thought out), yet we didn't turn into goosestepping left-oriented fascists while clutching a copy of Dreams of my Father. I think we should care about real dangers rather than the imaginary ones.

Comment Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . (Score 1) 266

First, Texas is not "doing better than California".

By "doing better" I mean higher absolute population growth, higher absolute employment growth, and higher absolute GDP growth over the period in question.

Without Houston, Texas would be sucking as bad as Kansas

And California would be sucking pretty badly without Silicon Valley too.

Comment Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. (Score 1) 322

Big firms are powerful, and the US had done everything possible to destroy the unions where were the only force that could have resisted them.

Decline in US labor pricing power due to globalization did that. And we would still have globalization even if the US erected trade barriers way back when. Here is the usual failure to understand basic causes and to attribute current failure to convenient scapegoats.

Comment Re: We knew this going in (Score 1) 575

Say that after the coming battle over the very existence of Social Security.

Why haven't Social Security payouts already been trimmed back by the necessary quarter or more to bring future liabilities in line with future revenue? It makes little sense to complain about fights over the existence of Social Security if no one has done anything for the long term viability of Social Security ever since its inception.

The dissolution of Social Security is inevitable unless one is willing to stabilize it fiscally.

Comment Re:We knew this going in (Score 1) 575

C) If I have to carry B)'s analogy any further, there's really no point in even responding.

Ultimately, this is where we go. It isn't the analogy that's the problem. It's the lack of evidence for the supposed seriousness of global warming, both the actual degree of warming and the cost of the supposed harm of global warming.

Poverty is such a serious threat because there is a well known correlation between poverty and high human fertility. And overpopulation already is a key driver of many big human problems like war, disease, habitat destruction, pollution, global warming, etc.

To claim that global warming is bigger than one of the biggest problems on Earth requires more than analogy, it requires evidence.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 533

Food prices continue to be extremely low because population doesn't expand to drive prices up.

[...]

My argument is that population expands to fit abundance.

How do you have both of those happening at the same time? Keep in mind that population growth in the US has remained at the 1% for three or four decades while coexisting with cheap food prices. There has been no population expanding to fit abundance going on.

Do you see population rapidly expanding to consume all of our employment opportunities?

No.

What if I told you that the labor force would slow its expansion during high unemployment?

And that's relevant how?

What if that actually happened from 2008 to 2012? What if the population somewhat dipped during that time?

I'll note that you refer to a four year period with a lot of other stuff going on. Meanwhile I referred to your own example which was a far longer period of time (at least a century) which doesn't show that effect. And we also can compare countries world-wide and not see that effect. You just cherry picked a brief span of time.

You haven't provided any argument that says that expanding beyond our means would not cause population to slow its growth, while I have shown good reasoning that it does and demonstrated the effect actually occurring during times when poverty (and thus individual access to means) has increased.

And I don't have to. We aren't expanding beyond our means. This is not a relevant scenario.

The developed world, which are the countries with by far the most abundant food production, have the lowest fertility. One doesn't have to go far to explain why. There are two well known effects that cause this situation: first, women in the workplace mean lower fertility; and second, higher survival rates of children to adulthood mean lower fertility.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 533

Food happens to be a relatable tangible good. I've had trouble with people claiming things like Netflix or cellular communication aren't "making things" and that the US doesn't "make things" because anything that's not concrete isn't real. If people are going to point at an increase in medical care, high-speed internet availability, and personal entertainment services and call that "not really making anything" to argue that the economy is failing and the US has collapsed, I'm going to have to start pointing at things that people can actually relate to.

So what does that have to do with your Malthusian stuff? I'm not those people with the above argument so this post seems quite irrelevant to me.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 533

That's only because there is massive government interference in the markets to keep them low.

Not in the US at least. Most such subsidies increase the cost of food.

The suppression of food prices leads to other things being more expensive, including and especially what it costs to start new businesses and jobs. Less job prospects means people feel less secure to have more kids.

It's just not that big an effect. There's a lot of other stuff that has way more effect on employment such as social safety net costs, adversarial relationship with regulators, etc.

Labor participation is down, remember? You can't have it both ways saying how the economy is doing worse because participation is down but then claim we should be having more population growth because things are doing great.

"Doing great" is not a bit you set for your whole economy. For example, the US economy is quite good at producing food (which is a bluefoxlucid obsession). It's not so good at producing jobs in a job-hostile environment. There is no contradiction here.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 533

The obvious rebuttal here is that food prices continue to be extremely low for the developed world. There's not going to be an enormous change in fertility from minor changes in a minor cost.

Look, your whole argument is a combination of circular reasoning and ignoring reality. It's just not happening. You need a new model.

Comment Re:worst ones (Score 1) 359

1) Enough tax money to pay for many independent news agencies at various levels, local, state, etc.

If it's paid for with tax money, it's not independent. Everything else you mentioned is window dressing and easily worked around. Let us also note here that if 3845 accredited news agencies say Trump is a liar and Fox News doesn't, then a lot of people are going to believe Fox News.

Sorry, but there's a great deal of magic thinking here. Government, like any large, unaccountable bureaucracy would readily subvert such a massive program. As I see it, the biggest difference between today and such an alternative is that far less of my money is being squandered on bad media today.

Comment Re: hazardous processes (Score 1) 302

Yes, of course, they must be idiots.

Oh look, another slashdot poster who has never heard of conflict of interest or adversarial debate.

A little increase would 'only' kill a few tens of thousands of people.

Or actually help tens of thousands live longer (radiation hormesis) . That's possible too especially given the complete lack of evidence for your claims.

But no, here comes a 'khallow' stating that all those experts incorrectly interpret research

You do recall I already found one example in your linksv where they did just that?

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with a lot of self-made men is that they worship their creator.

Working...