San Francisco, 10:01 PM
Wed Dec 30
27 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
"Next decade may be the beginning of the end of the population explosion, which is good news for everyone - especially people who will be living on the planet 100 years from now."
I respectfully disagree-- it's good news for *no one*.
First off, the decline is led by Western nations and Japan (with China on our tail given the disastrous-yet-inevitable outcome of the 1 child policy). An aging population with fewer children is a recipe for societal decline-- financially (who's left to pay the taxes?), socially (youth = vibrancy and new ideas), culturally (older population = cultural stagnation; we're STILL talking about the 60s, for Pete's sake), and physically (who is left to care for the increasingly aged? Robots? Better hurry up, Japan).
Second, the poorest nations in the world won't be over the population hump for some time to come-- if ever. Which means the imbalance between the rich and poor nations will get far worse before there's any prospect for it getting better.
And cultural changes are inevitable-- America becoming more Latino (can be a great good, but it can also be a terrible thing-- I happen to like America the way it's been), Europe becoming more Islamic, Russia disappearing, and other changes we can't predict.
Children are a good thing, folks. Not having them has consequences-- not many of them good (great, we "saved" the planet... but for whom? Will those future generations give a damn about what we cared about once we're gone?)
What if you are a doctor and your patients, conjoined twins, have a life-threatening illness but you could save one by separating them? The separation would kill the other twin....who is likely to die anyway. The other twin will die only if he/she remains attached to the other twin. The one who has a chance of living wants the surgery but the other does not. Would you kill one twin to save the other?
Annalee Newitz promoted this comment
alowishus wants to run a Saab Sonett III at LeMons was starred
alowishus wants to run a Saab Sonett III at LeMons was unstarred
Oh, you wanted a diatribe on why this is so? Very well, because common sense demands it. At what point would you stop fight to save a life if you were in the room while a murder was taking place were you faced with an opponent that could not injure you without also injuring themselves to the same degree? Any answer other than 'at no point' must fall under the legal definition of accessory in the very least.
@tetracycloide: If they were conjoined back to back, one twin could be pretending to perform the Heimlich Maneuver while they were really strangling their victim. The other twin may be completely ignorant of what's going on behind their back.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa. Whoa...whoa. Firefly was no disaster, lets get that straight here and now. It's cancellation was brought about due to lack of enthusiasm from the start from FOX which led to poor performance on the decades out of date Nielsen ratings system. I never saw a single advertisement for the show, it was just on all of a sudden one night. And as mysteriously as it came, it disappeared again.
I must be in the minority when it comes to Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. I've tried to read that novel at least a half dozen times, but always end up getting bored with it. I keep going back because friends really recommend it. And, Annalee, your description makes it seem very interesting. So I either need to give it another go or find new friends.
Virgin Galactic makes space tourism more accesable, the next generation of game consoles are born, a black man leads the free world for most of the next decade.
@twophrasebark: For us explorers of urban ruins that sounds like a dream come true. Should the bubble there explode, rather than just burst, and then everyone leaves it will be a playground that makes Gunkanjima look like just another old house on the corner.
#9 Dubai, Ya right. Guess the writer hasn't seen any of the news out of this bankrupt city-state. More likely is the desert reclaiming large portions of the city.
@bishop1j: Evil empires like Haliburton have way too much money invested in Dubai to let it go belly up. When the oil runs out, tax shelters and tourism will be all it has to offer.
@MISS MERCY STREET: I was under the impression that's why Dubai was restructuring itself as a tourist hub in the first place.
Also I read somewhere (I forgot where so yea 'citation needed' but you can trust me ;)) that Dubai may have run out of money but that's not that big of a deal since Abu Dhabi is still doing pretty well and they have always been and still are the real money maker for the UAE, and it's in their interest to have Dubai up and running a.s.a.p.
@MISS MERCY STREET: Dubai already has no oil. Most buildings are sitting empty and because of bankruptcy laws requiring jailing the airport parking lots are full of abandoned cars as many have fled the country. Anything of course is possible but Dubai as the future shining example of architecture and futurism is mostly a bust.
@Annalee Newitz: True, but all signs point to the bail out from Abu Dhabi being more of a take over than a bailout. Either way it will be a fascinating thing to watch over the next 10 years. Either Dubai will reinvent itself again or the dessert will reclaim it.
"an unprecedented book deal: £1 to write 10 books over the next decade"
wow a whole british pound to write 10 books? well, i'm sure he have a couple of ha'pennies left over in 2020, if he doesn't get greedy and spend it all. Perhaps, do you mean a million pounds? :)
09:53 PM
I respectfully disagree-- it's good news for *no one*.
First off, the decline is led by Western nations and Japan (with China on our tail given the disastrous-yet-inevitable outcome of the 1 child policy). An aging population with fewer children is a recipe for societal decline-- financially (who's left to pay the taxes?), socially (youth = vibrancy and new ideas), culturally (older population = cultural stagnation; we're STILL talking about the 60s, for Pete's sake), and physically (who is left to care for the increasingly aged? Robots? Better hurry up, Japan).
Second, the poorest nations in the world won't be over the population hump for some time to come-- if ever. Which means the imbalance between the rich and poor nations will get far worse before there's any prospect for it getting better.
And cultural changes are inevitable-- America becoming more Latino (can be a great good, but it can also be a terrible thing-- I happen to like America the way it's been), Europe becoming more Islamic, Russia disappearing, and other changes we can't predict.
Children are a good thing, folks. Not having them has consequences-- not many of them good (great, we "saved" the planet... but for whom? Will those future generations give a damn about what we cared about once we're gone?)
09:18 PM
[www.parkridgecenter.org]
08:54 PM
08:46 PM
08:46 PM
Oh, you wanted a diatribe on why this is so? Very well, because common sense demands it. At what point would you stop fight to save a life if you were in the room while a murder was taking place were you faced with an opponent that could not injure you without also injuring themselves to the same degree? Any answer other than 'at no point' must fall under the legal definition of accessory in the very least.
09:07 PM
08:45 PM
09:16 PM
08:41 PM
09:15 PM
08:01 PM
08:19 PM
07:58 PM
07:57 PM
07:54 PM
07:53 PM
Wouldn't that be the "Mooniverse"?
I should copyright that right now...
07:35 PM
07:52 PM
09:23 PM
09:32 PM
07:32 PM
Dubai go bye-bye. They broke. No more money.
07:46 PM
08:09 PM
07:24 PM
07:37 PM
08:00 PM
08:06 PM
Also I read somewhere (I forgot where so yea 'citation needed' but you can trust me ;)) that Dubai may have run out of money but that's not that big of a deal since Abu Dhabi is still doing pretty well and they have always been and still are the real money maker for the UAE, and it's in their interest to have Dubai up and running a.s.a.p.
09:01 PM
09:05 PM
07:16 PM
07:16 PM
wow a whole british pound to write 10 books? well, i'm sure he have a couple of ha'pennies left over in 2020, if he doesn't get greedy and spend it all. Perhaps, do you mean a million pounds? :)
07:15 PM
07:15 PM
07:12 PM
You heard it here, folks.