Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #700
« Last post by daniel1948 on Today at 09:46:26 AM »
In an over-populated world, I do not see everybody having an inalienable right to make more people. They want to have “a baby of their own”? Fuck them. That’s just selfish.

Selfish is too strong, and judgmental a term for something that can cause many couples years of emotional grief and depression.

Yes it would be nice if all non-fertile couples would adopt and that all couples (married, defacto, LGBTI etc) who can provide a safe and loving environment for a child, could adopt, but life is more complicated than that. If having a baby through IVF or any other scientific procedure can give a couple happiness, then why deny them that.

Because when every couple’s “happiness” depends on having a passel of babies, the planet cannot support the resulting mountain of babies. Note, and this is hugely important, that it’s not just a question of how many humans can the Earth feed; it’s a matter of maintaining an ecological balance while feeding them. We are already causing the worst mass extinction in the history of the world. Yes, the green revolution has enabled us to feed 7.53 billion people, but the cost has been such environmental destruction that we are exterminating the life of other creatures at breakneck speed. Morality aside, this is not sustainable.

You discount happiness too easily. I know women who have been clinically depressed and on medication because of their inability to have children. You are looking it as a black and white solution. Couple A want baby, Baby B need parents = Couple A adopt Baby B. It's not that simple. Some women want the whole experience of having a baby including the growing, anticipation, birth etc. As men we can't understand that fully.  There are hundreds of reasons why IVF is the answer to many couples. Some reasons may be selfish, but not all and that's their right to decide.

IVF only accounts for 4% of babies born in Australia each year. It's not a rate that's going to cause global over population.

I would argue that the solution is better education (stop indoctrinating little girls with the idea that their only value as human beings is having babies) and then treat the depression as the mental health issue it is rather than artificially making them pregnant.
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #699
« Last post by BTS on Today at 09:16:36 AM »

What does the 97% consensus really mean?

Warming is happening.  (probably safe to say 97%)

Warming is all man made since the start of the 20th century (still 97% but not as strong)

Warming is going to cause grievous harm.  Difficult question, requires an extremely complex analysis of many different fields….certainty is likely very low – 97%  no way!  Motivated reasoning has the “science community” looking mostly for harm and forgetting to look for good.  Steve even said that deaths from high temperature would go up, but as I understand the data deaths from cold may go down even more – perhaps even a net benefit of temperature induced deaths.  How do we know we have found all the plus’s and minus’s for the analysis?

Warming is going to have calamitous Economic impact over the next 80 years.   An even more complex  question than just  what the consequences of warming will be.  And this is definitely not a climate science alone conclusion. There are huge temporal unknowns including how will technology change over time.  How will we adapt to the climate change?  What are the unforeseen consequences of radical reduction in CO2 emissions on living standards and  poverty?  An example, the anti-Nuke lobby has caused a huge amount of unforeseen harm due to the CO2 emissions of the alternatives that wouldn’t have happened if the Environmental lobby hadn’t priced Nuclear power out of the market due to regulatory pressures.  This is partly PIPO, pessimism in-pessimism out.  Of course unbridled optimism is not justified either.

I am not arguing that climate change is not happening, that it is not man made or that will not cause some harm.  I am arguing for some intellectual humility.  Predicting the climate over the next 80 years is very difficult, predicting the economic responses and impacts is probably so difficult that the error bars are so large as to make the analysis almost meaningless.  I don't how many times I have heard Steve say on even narrow issues that it is complicated, yet somehow the Economic impact of climate change over the next 80-100 years is a slam dunk straight forward analysis, 97% agree don't you know, as  the rouges en masse spout off consistently that we are all screwed and that anyone who doesn’t toe the line is a denier.  This is not a skeptical approach.

As for precautionary principle, that is also mostly motivated reasoning.  I want people to stop emitting carbon, therefore we should cease most CO2 emissions due to potential harm even if there is uncertainty.  I don’t support this use of the precautionary principle any more than I support the notion that some immigrants may commit crimes, we don’t have to admit immigrants, thus as a precaution it is reasonable to not allow any immigrants lest some additional crimes be committed in our country.
Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine / Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Last post by gmalivuk on Today at 08:19:11 AM »
(And when you're talking about drawing logical conclusions from evidence, the logical meaning is the one everyone else you're talking to will expect, so it's the one to use if you actually want them to understand you.)
Forum Games / Re: Visual Counting
« Last post by unixTechie on Today at 07:48:42 AM »
Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine / Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Last post by gmalivuk on Today at 07:40:41 AM »
The common use of the phrase (which is "Correlation doesn't imply causation") is the sense jt and I are both using, so why would he start a thread criticizing it? You and Novella are the ones using it inconsistently with its logical meaning.
Forum Games / Re: Visual Counting
« Last post by DevoutCatalyst on Today at 07:14:26 AM »
Forum Games / Re: Visual Counting
« Last post by DevoutCatalyst on Today at 07:12:33 AM »
Forum Games / Re: Visual Counting
« Last post by DevoutCatalyst on Today at 07:11:22 AM »
Two other things I happen to be an authority on.
Yeah, but don't forget "uninformed".
TV & Movies / Re: Rate the last movie you just saw.
« Last post by werecow on Today at 06:17:22 AM »
That was not the rating I was expecting after that review. Neat! I'd given it a skip before, but I'll see about watching it.

I'm a werecow. I enjoy dark things from time to time. >}|:o)

Oh, but one thing that I didn't like was that the animals had ever so slightly anthropomorphized faces. Something in the eyes. It threw me off a little for the first few minutes.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10