i thought it was only the right wing that did not understand evolution and natural selection, but apparently many on the left also don't really and have a rather idealistic view of nature.

nature is cruel and wasteful, it is now, and it will if humans aren't around. there is no moral victory if humans are snuffed out. just take a stroll around youtube and look for things like crocodiles chomping on gazelles, tearing them apart. every minute of every day an animal somewhere is running in fear, or caught and being eaten alive. such is nature, you can talk about how its not wasteful, but it isn't only because the prey evolve just enough so enough can get away from this horrible fate to continue their line. human hunters might be wasteful at times, but i dont think many match the cruelty of eating an animals insides while it takes its last breaths.

nature doesn't care about preserving anything. look at invasive species and how they wreak havoc. before humans natural events would bring in invasive species and cause extinctions just the same, and no one was around to care.

nature doesn't dissapear even in cities, the animals just get smaller.

just remember the aids virus is nature. theres nothing idealistic about it at all. and with the chickadee example brought up you see the idealistic igorance again, animals like that run on very simple rules. its how you can trick a goose into thinking a beachball is an egg, how you can have a turkey kill its young if its simply deaf because it only runs on the rule of taking care of small animals that emit a turkey chicks cry. never make the mistake of thinking that animals think exactly the way we do.

"How do you tell a country 'you have to make less babies because you are poor'? You don't. you increase immigration instead and learn to share."

sounds like a release valve that will just continue the cycle of excess reproduction at the expense of the local enviroments of the wealthier countries. much enviromental is localized, not everything is global. of course groups like the sierra club are so afraid of being politically incorrect they've voted to ignore the issue completely. sometimes they make excuses and pretend a sudden utopia will allow or the immigration increase to come with zero impact, but the actual reality is urban sprawl and longer commutes while politicians are paralized because the spineless bleeding heart left colludes with the greedy exploitative business interests of the right.

i like many who jumped to netflix early on will never support blockbuster. we remember what it was like when they ruled the rental market. it was a horrible company dinging people with return fees and even false return feees as they later had to admit losing a class action lawsuit. they never carried unrated directors cuts and their indi film section was horrible. they stuck to pan and scan as long as they could, even on dvd. they were definetly not run by people who appreciated film. netflix on the other hand pushed wide screen from day one, unrated films, indifilms, documentaries etc. ive never had a problem with netflix, and don't care if the rating system is not transferable, i don't see why something like that should be transferable anyways.

just remember, any good behavior at all by blockbuster recently has been forced by netflix. its the only thing keeping them from going back to their old ways. i will never give that company a dime.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28735.html

check out the review of her last book. she seems like an ideologue who only sees what she wants to.

looks like she's been trying to whip out the hysteria for quite some time now

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29820.html

fertility drops rapidly after 30, she shouldn't use her story as some kind of example. she lucked out and didn't have to suffer infertility or expensive rounds of fertility treatments or having to resort to donor eggs as many older hollywood actresses apparently are doing.

the real problem was the feminist movement didn't account for the biological clock and child bearing. her story is success in that she didn't commit genetic suicide. still 1 child is close to none, and can be lost, you kind of need a backup from a darwinistic perspective. a single mother with multiple children is much more difficult. multiple ages, multiple activities to deal with, its a lot to juggle. a society cannot survive long term on single mothers with a single child.

as for the child, children are more resilient than people give them credit for. you only have to look at childhood through history to see this. children are actually rather coddled and infantilized today. they can survive and get by on situations that are less than optimal. its not to say we should spend much time praising such situations. optimally you need atleast two to support a child, the time and work and finances. wealth of course nullifies much of this if you can hire help but isn't an option for most so really is irrelevant.

as someone already said, its a bit early for her to declare herself a success at 15 months.

sure its difficult to have children. our ancestors had children in much worse situations though, and not one failed to continue their line.

its a strange collusion of forces. left pushing for illegals rights and undermining immigration laws, right for worker exploitation and corporate interests. all lead to gridlock on any attempt to control illegal immigration flow. leading to a very low desire/viability for universal healthcare.

a bankrupt universal healthcare system is nothing anyone wants. countries with universal healthcare have enough trouble paying for their citizens care alone.

i wonder how doctors like the idea of being paid as little as their french counterparts:)