muninn_

32 ms·

151.
by muninn_ 9y ago
> Population stagnation could potentially lead to worldwide cultural stagnation, which would result in humans never getting off the planet and eventually getting wiped out somehow. I understand the population piece, but I don't unde
152.
by muninn_ 9y ago
> First, we don't need more mining, we need much less, preferably zero. I don't disagree. We will have some mining forever though, whether that's here on earth or elsewhere. > We should be living more sustainably, with
153.
by muninn_ 9y ago
Thanks for your polite, well-thought reply. I used to be more pro-immigration/open borders but have since swung the other way. I'm glad that you (as I was) are open to new ideas. The mantra right now is immigration == good. Whenev
154.
by muninn_ 9y ago
Sure. I didn't interpret it that way but that's fine. I still think we need fewer people and we really need to find a way to get something like the 1-child policy reimplemented in high growth areas. Especially if we're going
155.
by muninn_ 9y ago
So following this reasoning, the entire continent of Africa, most of Asia, and most of South America should have massive amounts of people so they can reach prosperity? Sorry. Not buying it. Growth is an ok thing as it happens, but as popul
156.
by muninn_ 9y ago
> We could go on and on about that. Sure, ballpark, first cut, you are correct. But I don't see a better alternative. Well there is an alternative. You build more dense, mixed-use developments where people can walk, bike, or if need
157.
by muninn_ 9y ago
I think it's good. We don't need more people on the planet. We need to build sustainable populations and economic models. Growth! Growth! Growth! isn't needed right now. It probably won't be needed unless/until we m
158.
by muninn_ 9y ago
Social media is the new smoking. Facebook et all. are hiring the most intelligent people in the world, software engineers, psychologists, and cognitive scientists to get you to click on things and stay on their site. The studies are already
159.
by muninn_ 9y ago
What factors do you use to evaluate whether immigration is positive?
160.
by muninn_ 9y ago
No it's not. Plus the selection in American grocery stores is far superior.
161.
by muninn_ 9y ago
You're putting your car before your horse. The reason they don't pass this cost benefit analysis is because we continue to build and subsidize road construction, gasoline, and cars. If you keep subsidizing that, then turn around a
162.
by muninn_ 9y ago
Right, which is why I said average. Average American grocery stores are nearby and sell a gigantic amount of food. And the quality is exactly the same or better.
163.
by muninn_ 9y ago
Because it's ease of access to a large variety of inexpensive food.
164.
by muninn_ 9y ago
Uh, what? Have you been to the United States before? Everything, and I mean everything is incredibly cheap here. I'm just like an average dev in flyover country and I max out my retirement savings, bought a house, and can go buy a BMW
165.
by muninn_ 9y ago
You're calling rail a scam (a system that works marvelously in Europe and Japan for example) and saying that the "rail industry" is out for your tax dollars, but.... did you forget about the massive highway construction indus
166.
by muninn_ 9y ago
I up-voted your post because whether or not I disagree, I can't stand people coming by and doing drive-by down votes on posts like this where you've clearly thought about and put work into a response. Thanks for that. I don't
167.
by muninn_ 9y ago
The absolute number is all that matters. A person immigrating to a country with a low population has a disproportionate affect on that population compared to a country with a large population. Also you're implying that immigration is g
168.
by muninn_ 9y ago
The downvotes are coming from people who think the West is racist and xenophobic and anything contrary to that narrative means downvotes. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the world exhibits some form of racism and in many
169.
by muninn_ 9y ago
Sure I don't disagree. At the same time, I can see (and I'm sure it's happened) that if he had sent just one message, and had not been married, we may see a similar reaction. My larger point isn't that he didn't do
170.
by muninn_ 9y ago
Yeah but reporting on the actual problems in this country instead of Trump tweeting about some people who until a few days ago I had never even heard of doesn't fit the right narrative. Anyway, I'm going to keep trying to teach ki
171.
by muninn_ 9y ago
Obviously written tongue-in-cheek but I don't despise the idea of an annual chosen one to moderate some sort of state function or discussion. I've always thought it would be cool to have a presidential office hour where everyday I
172.
by muninn_ 9y ago
It amounts to a lack of community. Things like Facebook where people spend a stupid amount of their time, disconnect them from their local community and give them a false sense of healthy human relationships. How is it that somebody can hav
173.
by muninn_ 9y ago
Well it definitely has an affect, the only difference is everybody is either ok with it or indifferent to it. If all of a sudden Jimmy's wife starts being an asshole and gets fired then what? You don't think it would be handled di
174.
by muninn_ 9y ago
Yeah I cringe at a lot of the job titles I've been seeing, everything from "chief innovation officer or chief resiliency officer" to "big data consultant" (yes I know what this is I just don't like the buzzword
175.
by muninn_ 9y ago
And here we go already.... > in most cases people have no control over who becomes a member of the government in best case they can vote for a person who becomes a leader of the government Uh, do you not support democracy? Because how
176.
by muninn_ 9y ago
I shudder at reading the phrase "Thought Leadership industry". It is largely manufactured, consensus-oriented opinions by people that happened to get popular for one reason or another and most likely don't really know exactly
177.
by muninn_ 9y ago
Well, I'm looking at things how they currently are in 2017. I support self-determination of Africans (and subsequently all people), but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be better off right now under British rule. The British (
178.
by muninn_ 9y ago
Yes. But that's a far cry from somebody in Brussels creating laws and policies.
179.
by muninn_ 9y ago
1) Many people. Look at Brexit. You can argue until your face turns blue that it's bad for Britain, it most likely is, but at least they don't have unelected politicians setting rules. It's pro-self-determination no matter ho
180.
by muninn_ 9y ago
And that's what we call Religion.

More ›