Oh, I forgot to respond to probably the most interesting point you made: what happens as lifespans increase?

I think in the end, when people live (practically speaking) an indefinite period of time, we'll end up having to restrict childbirth within any ecosystem (ie north america, australia, mars, whatever) to replacements. So, I don't think a specific mathematical formula will make sense. In some way, people ought to achieve a score, of some kind. The people with the highest score ought to have the option, which they have to exercise within a period of time, to procreate. Whatever they choose, they suffer a score penalty.

Or, you know, we could just breed endlessly and fight wars/suffer vastly increased crime rates/have famine. That's another way of keeping the population down. I just suspect that in the end people will get tired of that approach, just as (the rest of the world) has gotten tired of sick people dying because they're poor, and so they've socialized health care.

But.. fuck Facebook. In exchange for connectivity, you give up privacy and trivialize your life.

/never have, hope I never will.

how is anyone suppose to taste the coffee at all? It might as well be instant.

Maybe enough rhetoric like this will pull the center back where it belongs. Allowing Repugs to have a monopoly on demagoguery has cost progressives dearly. See Obama, B.

Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

Even bad, bad people sometimes tell it like it is. Link in sig.

as "Sure, that sounds like a good idea!" *Braying laughter, stage right*

1. I don't think there's any way to stop significant climate change this century. No matter what the US and EU do, China and India are only just getting started, and they don't appear to care a whit about the problem. I also don't believe the US will get serious in time.

2. Rising temperatures certainly will wreak havoc all over the world, in coastal regions and in hot ones especially. There will be more deserts at first, certainly.

3. Lots of species will go extinct because of this.

4. More CO2 probably will mean more plant life, since conditions for plant life will be more benign. Assuming this is the case, CO2 will start to level off, since the plants will be pulling it out of the air.

Note: this is a direct transfer of carbon from underground, inorganic deposits of whatever type to the biosphere. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It could well increase the stability of the homeostasis of the earth, since there'd be more life, total.

5. Species would normally evolve to colonize niches abandoned by the ones that die off, and new ones that open up.

6. Since we're around, we'll probably end up engineering new ones ourselves, not being content to wait tens-hundreds of thousands of years. This is a good thing. We'll make mistakes, and learn from them. More species will become endangered because of our mistakes. The ones that are cute or otherwise useful will get saved. The ugly or un-useful ones won't. We'll make the calls, despite the cries of ethicists, because there is no one else to make it for us, and someone must.

So this healthcare mess can be quietly swept under the rug, the secret prisons kept open, and our *other* two wars in the region continued unabated. Hell, by occupying Iran, we probably *will* save some money on troop movements.

You are so right. I hate how often the green spokespeople confuse and conflate things that aren't related in their unending, futile search to motivate people.. as if people aren't already tired of being lied to about the issues.

Your concern for the accuracy of the photo is really impressive. I wonder, were you equally concerned about the accuracy of the evidence for the Iraq War?

Freedom is slavery, etc.

Why you give even the faintest credence or show interest in what these sock puppets say is what is really mysterious.

Three or four billion years sounds about right. But I reserve the right to prolong my agony even further if the masochism that is life continues to enthrall as it does.

but if he did get promised a deal, and he did believe (at the time) that the judge was going to renege, I don't blame him for fleeing.

Then, during the next 30 years, he should have sorted it out. His fault for not doing that.

He did rape a child, and so I don't have too much sympathy for the guy. But I do believe I can understand why he ran. Seem rational given the circumstances. I don't think his running should be held against him.

His original crimes certainly should.

No. He did not use his passport to rape the girl (eg he did not travel on it to commit the crime), so the State is not culpable in that crime. It did foolishly allow him to flee, but allowing someone to break the law, even foolishly, is not a crime. I think. There may be a lawyer in the house that can comment definitively on that.

Since you didn't bother to read my post past finding something to argue about, I see no special reason to reply beyond pointing out you're a troll.

So you'd rather have bread and circuses than infrastructure? How do you think handouts will accomplish anything?