Letters to the Editor
curmudgeon2
Published Letters: 414 Editor's Choice: 64
-
Collapse
[Read the article: No rest for the richest]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm halfway through Jared Diamond's "Collapse". It seems that many societies become their richest just before their death throes. They fail to recognize that some critical resource, which they are extraordinalrily adept at extracting and utilizing is about gone. So the population expands by extensive use of that resource. The groups that control and make the most profit from that resource are very resistant to any change that might reduce their wealth and power. We are going to have to run out of energy and get very poor for a while before we actually can overthrow the oil elite, and develop nuclear power, the only really long-term source of energy and wealth for a large number of people. Oil is essentially the linch-pin of our wealth, and is the basis of industry and agriculture. We are already too late to avoid impoverishment for the majority, but if we get going immediatley, at least we will have a chnace to recover in a generation or so without most of the population having to die off. Get ready to work your asses off, so at least you will go home with at least a little food to a cold house. Sounds like backpacking to me.
-
Skip the psychology
[Read the article: I had no father -- will I always feel I need a man?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The primary need by women for men is to get knocked up. The need to get pregnant is at least as strong as the need for food. Intelligent good looking women know how to the men they want. Dumber not-so-good-looking women have to settle for what they can get. If womens upbringing does not include lessons in how men work (like having a reasonably normal male father, or other role model) the drive to get the sperm donor can be warped into not-so-constructive behavior. Of course our brains can use words to interpret all these drives into something that might be construed as reasonable and socially understandable. But it's all bullshit.
-
Social safety net
[Read the article: Big government, big trade]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I had read that the social safety net protects the workers, but not the companies. Since the worker has nothing to lose if his company goew out of business he does not demand protection. A few years ago my company did some work with a Scandinavian company who was the largest producer of a certain commodity in the world. We also worked with an Auatralian company who was planning to build a very large plant to make the same commodity. Both companies analyzed the Chinese entrance to that market and gave up. The Scandinavian company totally went out of the business, and closed plants in many countries. The Chinese were going to use an old labor intensive technology, but low capital requirements. As the Scandinavian VP said to me "you can hire 200 Chinese for the cost of one Scandinavian". Scandinavian companies do not seek to create jobs by protectionism, like many other European companies and the US. The risk falls on the capitalists, as it should. It also helps to have a relatively homogeneous population who genuinely care about their society, as opposed to the US where it is every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost.
Interestingly enough our company (me) had developed a new technology for that commodity that was both low in capital and labor costs, but it would have taken 10 years to fully commercialize it. Much too long to wait, while the Chinese sewed up the market. Maybe I'll take it to China.
-
Do pro-lifers know something?
[Read the article: Should abortion be prevented?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do most abortions occur because of screwing around before or during marriage or to monogamous married women. If most abortions occurred because of screwing around maybe they should be prevented. After all it is an excellent method of widespread gene mixing, especially if the parents are quite genetically different. Is falling in love or lust with someone a signal that this might be a good genetic partner to produce a child? After all during most of our evolutionary history we had no "higher brain" abilities to make these sorts of decisions. Are our "lower brains" and our bodies better judges of who we should mate with? Evolution did not "invent" sex for our pleasure. It "invented" love, lust, and pleasure to make sure we precreated. Maybe we should have a support mechanism for those producing "bastards" so we get the maximum number of them. Over time our gene pool might just be improved. Maybe those ignorant pro-lifers know something they don't know they know.
-
random particle collisions
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mid-air collisions might be totally random events similar to particles moving at random in a space. The airspace is a huge volume with an extremely low density of airplanes. Are mid-air collisions occurring at about the level that would be expected if there was no control by anyone? Of course one would have to exclude the space around airports where the density is quite a bit higher. In 1600 hours of flying I have been lucky enough to see and avoid a few times, but how many times have I not seen and never knew?
-
Personality is gender (sometimes) to -- nancyawill
[Read the article: Do successful women who mess up let us all down?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Men who had the most power had the most children. It's called natural selection. Value systems are embedded in our genes, we do not select our value systems. Women who can compete with men and win probably have high testosterone. It would be interesting to compare brain scans of women winners with those of the more placid non-competitive types.
Dunn's big mistake was not to treat her fellow board members as people of power who must be respected. Despite her skills and competence she took the weasels way, and now she should pay for it. Who will ever trust her again?