Michael Stuart Kelly Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Here is a very interesting quote from Diane Francis in The Financial Post dated Dec. 8, 2009: The Real Inconvenient TruthThe whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policyMs. Francis continues:A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently...Er...someone dug deeper: What I meant was you people.... Here is a quote from an old Blogger Blog (2006) Ms. Francis left lying around the Web: Diane Francis's Life.I left the business to stay at home with our two babies, Eric and Julie, for six years.Oops...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryce Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 You can't damn her for hypocrisy, yet. She could be willing to sacrifice one of them for the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffrey smith Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Notice that these folks never seem to have thought of the idea that human beings can find a way to overcome problems that come their way through technological innovation. And when I say "never seem to have thought of the idea", I mean precisely that: not that they have considered the idea and rejected it, but that it has never entered their minds in the first place.Jeffrey S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Notice that these folks never seem to have thought of the idea that human beings can find a way to overcome problems that come their way through technological innovation. And when I say "never seem to have thought of the idea", I mean precisely that: not that they have considered the idea and rejected it, but that it has never entered their minds in the first place.Jeffrey S.I don't think technological innovation is holding us back, it's our widespread state of general unsanity that's the problem Technology without intelligence,sanity, etc. actually can make things worse I fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 I don't think technological innovation is holding us back, it's our widespread state of general unsanity that's the problem Technology without intelligence,sanity, etc. actually can make things worse I fear.This is a point Ken Wilber has brought up frequently about the fact that we have technology outpacing ethics, that people in places like Iran might have nukes.It's probably also unethical to build a machine that rapidly develops ethics. oh well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Eichelberger Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 This is so scary on so many levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 (edited) One of the results of China's one child policy is because most people prefer to have sons China is finding they have a dearth of women with men having to import women for marriage. I would suspect that there are few relativly marriageable outside of China. Advocates of a one child policy might consider that millions of girls are not even being born. Edited December 14, 2009 by Chris Grieb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galtgulch Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 I don't think technological innovation is holding us back, it's our widespread state of general unsanity that's the problem Technology without intelligence,sanity, etc. actually can make things worse I fear.This is a point Ken Wilber has brought up frequently about the fact that we have technology outpacing ethics, that people in places like Iran might have nukes.It's probably also unethical to build a machine that rapidly develops ethics. oh well...Christopher, I recall that you are the one who recommended that I explore the www.ChrisMartenson.com website some time ago. I did and watched all twenty videos twice. I was particularly impressed with his explanation of the suddenness with which exponential growth can happen. One minute all seems well and as usual then in no time one is overwhelmed.he uses an example of water filling up Fenway Park starting with one drop which doubles every minute. You are handcuffed in the last row in the bleachers. In less than an hour all still seems well. In another five minutes the stadium is filled to the brim.He applies this to growing population as we are already on the asymptotic stage of the graph. Also at a comparable point on the downswing of oil production. IT is intimidating to watch and I invite others to see for themselves and then come back here and tell us where is the fallacy!He makes it sound as if this will all happen within the foreseeable future as in any year now.Technology is supposed to be able to save us. I understand that the invention of internal combustion engines which run on H2O in which electrolysis occurs within the combustion chamber has been accomplished but suppressed including murder of the inventor by the big oil or auto companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 I understand that the invention of internal combustion engines which run on H2O in which electrolysis occurs within the combustion chamber has been accomplished but suppressed including murder of the inventor by the big oil or auto companies.Huh? Where did you get that nonsense? Or is that some kind of joke I'm missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Imagining human behavior as like cancer cells in a petri dish is nonsense also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galtgulch Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 (edited) I understand that the invention of internal combustion engines which run on H2O in which electrolysis occurs within the combustion chamber has been accomplished but suppressed including murder of the inventor by the big oil or auto companies.Huh? Where did you get that nonsense? Or is that some kind of joke I'm missing?Dragon Fly,Actually it was in the library recently in a magazine which might have been Popular Mechanics or the like. We all know that water is composed of hydrogen which can be used as a fuel and oxygen which facilitates combustion. If it can be done to use electrolysis, if that is the term, to separate hydrogen from oxygen within the cylinder, which evidently can be done then ignite the hydrogen in the presence of oxygen and the deed is done.I cannot quote the source but I read the article which showed a picture of the engine. I don't recall the name of the inventor. It is becoming typical of you to refer to such things as nonsense or a joke. Assuming it can be done can you imagine how far the auto industry and the oil industry would go to stop this from becoming competition? As I recall the inventor met an untimely death.Sorry if I ruined your day.Isn't it so that one reason NASA is so eager to find water on the moon because they could use it as rocket fuel in much the same way as this inventor did? It is not far fetched at all. Admittedly it did sound unbelievable when I first heard it but perhaps my mind is more open to rational evidence or the like. gulchwww.campaignforliberty.com 224,560 at the moment. Edited December 14, 2009 by galtgulch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Actually it was in the library recently in a magazine which might have been Popular Mechanics or the like. We all know that water is composed of hydrogen which can be used as a fuel and oxygen which facilitates combustion. If it can be done to use electrolysis, if that is the term, to separate hydrogen from oxygen within the cylinder, which evidently can be done then ignite the hydrogen in the presence of oxygen and the deed is done.A small question: where do you get the energy from to separate that hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis? And do you know how much energy is needed? (Answer to the last question: at least as much as you can get by burning the hydrogen with the oxygen that are released by that process.)I cannot quote the source but I read the article which showed a picture of the engine. I don't recall the name of the inventor. Well, that man should be very famous, as he has succeeded in beating the laws of thermodynamics...It is becoming typical of you to refer to such things as nonsense or a joke. Assuming it can be done can you imagine how far the auto industry and the oil industry would go to stop this from becoming competition? As I recall the inventor met an untimely death.I should have known!Sorry if I ruined your day.Not at all, I found it quite funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 I understand that the invention of internal combustion engines which run on H2O in which electrolysis occurs within the combustion chamber has been accomplished but suppressed including murder of the inventor by the big oil or auto companies.Huh? Where did you get that nonsense? Or is that some kind of joke I'm missing?Dragon Fly,Actually it was in the library recently in a magazine which might have been Popular Mechanics or the like. We all know that water is composed of hydrogen which can be used as a fuel and oxygen which facilitates combustion. If it can be done to use electrolysis, if that is the term, to separate hydrogen from oxygen within the cylinder, which evidently can be done then ignite the hydrogen in the presence of oxygen and the deed is done.I cannot quote the source but I read the article which showed a picture of the engine. I don't recall the name of the inventor. It is becoming typical of you to refer to such things as nonsense or a joke. Assuming it can be done can you imagine how far the auto industry and the oil industry would go to stop this from becoming competition? As I recall the inventor met an untimely death.Sorry if I ruined your day.Isn't it so that one reason NASA is so eager to find water on the moon because they could use it as rocket fuel in much the same way as this inventor did? It is not far fetched at all. Admittedly it did sound unbelievable when I first heard it but perhaps my mind is more open to rational evidence or the like. gulchwww.campaignforliberty.com 224,560 at the moment.Popular Mechanics loves to publish crap if it seems to make good copy. They publish good stuff too but not scientific.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I hate to be a nag but am I the only person who noticed what the topic is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I hate to be a nag but am I the only person who noticed what the topic is.Yep, apparently the other person was retroactively aborted [murdered] under the new save the planet directive so we are now on our own.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 (edited) I hate to be a nag but am I the only person who noticed what the topic is.Yep, apparently the other person was retroactively aborted [murdered] under the new save the planet directive, so now we are on our own.Adam Edited December 15, 2009 by Selene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now