CA has at least one large wind-farm, I thought NM did as well. I thought
thre were a few others.
I mean electricity not generated by burning petroleum.
I know that metals require alot of heat for shaping, alloying, etc., and
nope, I don't know the figures for how much oil or coal the furnaces burn.
But I'm not sure that's the point because making a wind turbine is a one
time event, whereas running a home (esp. one that is energy-intensive) goes
on and on.
Yes...there are wind farms all over the place. The problem is that they
generate a fraction of a percent of the electricity the country uses. In
order for them to make a dent in our total usage, the area required is
something on the order of all of the New England states combined. And even
then you need to take into account the fact that the wind doesn't always
blow hard enough. Yes, it's being used, but it's the proverbial drop in the
bucket <bold><italics><underline> and it always will be a drop in the
bucket, no more </underline></italics></bold>.
OK....what other options are there? How many are cost effective? How about
effective at all on a mass scale at the quality level we've come to expect?
I know of only one economically feasible one at this time.
Read the report I sited...look at the math done regarding the physical
requirements (much less the infrastructure requirements). You'll learn that
wind energy, on a large scale, is a boondoggle, too.
Hey...I'd love to have cheap, renewable, clean electricity. The fact is,
we're not even close to being there yet. We've not invented the techology
to make it happen.
My wife's family has 7 children, all of which are rather intelligent,
including the youngest in a PhD Chem program.
Or, does that make my in-laws low in IQ?
Or, maybe, you really didn't mean what you said.
If you want to take it onto a personal plane, well, *I* have a pair of
relatives who are dim bulbs and have something like 12 kids - some of the
kids are OK, some are totally whacked out, none are all that well-off.
But that's not the point. It isn't personally or specifically about
various members of our respective families. It's something that seems to
me to generally be the case. OK, maybe I should have added on a lot of
hedge words and disclaimers, so mea culpa for not being politically correct
- but don't try to lay a guilt trip on me by implying that I'm
intentionally and personally and specifically insulting any specific
Merely that, from what I've seen, it doesn't seem to work that way most of
the time. "Most" meaning, technically, anything more than 50%.
But I keep forgetting (being, as I am, PC-impaired) that these days, most
of the time, people are increasingly prone to take even statistical info as
personal insults, rather than looking at whether the statistic is valid
and, if so, how it can be changed for the better - all of which meaning
that one is not to express personal opinions that are PC or, at the least,
are not in keeping with the norm/majority.
Personally, I think that competent, intelligent people *should* have larger
families. So, better to instead ask (1) whether this gloomy-gus impression
is reflected by actual statistics, and (2) if it is, why would that be the
trend and how can it be mitigated.
At the same time, in purely statistical terms, if the average (i.e. 50% of
the population) IQ is between 90 and 100 (it used to be 100 to 110 but it's
dropped), and if 50%+X% of the population is under 130, then simple raw
statistics indicate that there are comparatively few children of, for
example, people with 160+ IQs, simply because relatively few people *have*
So, you in-laws are probably part of the minority. Given the statistics
for educational levels, only a minority of people get a 4-yr degree in
science, and an even smaller minority get PhDs in science. So if your in-
law finishes the PhD, that's great but it wouldn't change the statistic
that the vast majority of people do not get PhDs in science, and citing the
statistic would not be intended as an insult to those who do.
And, last but not least - frankly, if someone can contest my gloomy
impression with statistical info to the contrary, hey, that's be GREAT, I'd
actually really like to know that my general cynicism is unfounded.
Additionally, if someone wants to say, well, that is not their own
observation, that's OK, and if someone says they think I'm full of hot air,
fine. But, sorry, the guilt trip doesn't work.
It's sort of like the fact that most of the kids with whom I went to school
*did* end up working in places like the GM plant and the Exxon refinery.
Which is what, as I've prob. mentioned at some point (can't recall), my HS
"guicance councellor" told me I would end up doing as a "dumb pollak" and
that I therefore shouldn't even think about going to a 2-yr college, never
mind Rutgers, and as a science major to boot. The point being that, yup,
there *are* norms that exist.
The other point, tho', is that on eought to question the extent to which
they exist merely as a function of, so to speak, "brainwashing". IOW, your
kid goes to public school - well, if it's a low-quality school in an
industrial or poor area, the chances are that most of the teachers are
either burned out, or couldn't get better positions, so it's therefore also
likely that the children will receive a less vigorous education, a lower
quality education, and be more subject to the expectation that they will
never leave that industrial or poor environment.
What would happen if, all other things (ethnicity, class, economics) being
equal, the kids instead had, right from the start, an energetic, high-
quality education and expectations of, or at least encouragement to,
achieve, develop their abilities to the fullest? Even more radical, what
if they also received a quality, nourishing breakfast before class? And I
don't mean the junk that gets passed off as school food.
The whole point is that statistics do not have to be static. If they do
remain static, much of that is because most people prefer stability to the
uncertainties of change, even if the situation is bad or untenable. It
seems to be that most of the time, people in situation X are mostly
interested in (1) blaming someone because the situation is X (rather than
taking responsibility for trying to change X, since that takes effort), and
(2) having their kids follow in their footsteps because if the kids
achieved more, it'd make the parents look bad. Sometimes, "tradition" ends
up being just another word for "stagnation". I've seen families and
neighborhoods like that, where the kids are DIS-couraged from "fantasizing"
about being scientists, or architects, or whatever, by families and peers
and the public 'school' as well. And usually, from what I've seen, having
as many kids as possible seems to go along with the rest of the
brainwashing that occurs. It's a vicious cycle.
It's not about being PC... I've seen examples like yours...12 kids and not
particuarly bright parents (almost as if they didn't realize there was a
connection to sex and pregnancy). I also have some relatives who've adopted
many kids (too many, if you ask me), and they're screwed up, too--and it's
obviously not genetic, but environmental.
I suppose my point is that perceived anectodal experiences do not make for a
statistical analysis (this is the kind of crap that gets thrown around to
"prove" human caused global warming -- and if you want an eye opener into
how bad that field is screwed up, spend some time on
http://www.climateaudit.org - start with "McKitrick: What is the Hockey
Stick debate about?)
Observations can be useful -- and stereotypes exist for a reason, too. But
in this case, I'm not sure there's enough to hang your hat on. It didn't
offend me, either. Personally, I think the current social life in this
country promotes stupidity. I've worked with enough kids to see that in the
general population "being smart" is not cool. Some of them go out of their
way to be stupid...and this is true regardless of family size.
And a coment made in a cynical moment also is not statistical analysis.
I'll say it once more, mea culpa for not addin in the appropriate
disclaimers. But I haven't seen anything that proves it to be completely
100% bogus. Again, it'd be *nice* to see some stats that prove the comment
is just a blivet. Until then, it's my casual observation that it's more
often true than not. Which doesn't in itself deny that your observation
might be different.
I'm not sure it's a good analogy, because there is some science behind the
warnings. And I have no patience whatsoever for the opposing notion of "we
didn't cause it all, so we can pollute and multiply and screw the
environment up however much we want".
Very few things are either-or situations; most are interactions between two
or more phemomena. That being said, if something *can* be mitigated, it
seems silly to simply let things continue getting worse.
Granted on all of the above. But it still seems to me that people who are
more thoughtful are generally not very inclined to have more children than
they can effectively rear and support.
Didn't say that...only that the current state of climate science is very
sad... The thing I've learned in the past couple of months regarding
climate is that we know so little that we don't even know if any of the
things we might do would actually mitigate any potential "problems" the
climate might be having.
I'm against pollution, dirty water, etc... I have no problem saying that
indivudals (and individuals running companies) should limit the negative
impact on the environment. And, to that end, less government, rather than
more, will eventually be more effective.
(PS - spend some time at climate audit...seriously. You'll be amazed...,
even if the math ends up being above your head)
surely it's clear that 'IQ' is a limited evaluation ? Nor does it correspond
to Education. And that good character is more effective than both??
one should say "there, but for Grace..." since each one gets what they
didn't ask for. it's the blessed few that realize it's up to themselves to
move on up...the great thing thing is that anyone can do this for themselves
whenever they take stock and accept the possibility. so beware defining
persons, yourself especially - this thing was made to change!
I didn't add the proper disclaimers, but yup, you got that part of it.
The other part is that there are more people focused on procreation, yet
forgetting about the care issue that you mentioned in your other post.
Also, people living on gov.t support tend to receive an increase in that
support every time they have another kid. OTOH, people working for a bank,
a graphics shop, a computer company, a corporation, or, like you, as an
independent small-business person, do NOT automatically receive an income
increase if they have another kid.
((Note that I am not equating wealth with intelligence, because the two do
not seem to correlate.))
And still another part is that, although some people *are* able to really
care for *all* the kids, it's generally the case that at least well-
educated people do tend to have fewer children, but invest more resources
(time, care, attention, money) in each child. That's not something I just
made up, it's a statistic. At the same time, people who are less educated
are more prone to accepting the idea that, in terms of procreation,
quantity is important. That's not something I made up.
And on top of all of that, poverty levels aren't exactly DEcreasing in the
US. The average (or is it median - I get the 2 confused) income is, last I
read, around $44K/yr, but the poverty level for a family of 4 is now at
about $35K per year. More poverty usually means not only fewer
opportunities for good education, but more significantly, poor nutrition,
which has a direct influence upon brain development. Simultaneously,
parents near or below the poverty level, working is low-paying jobs, which
often tend to be less secure, would be under more stress due to financial
pressures, and probably also work longer hours, leaving less time for
taking care of kids. If that *is* combined with a greater tendency to
beleive that quantity of children is important, well I'll just say that the
scenario is not good. And if the kids also end up in the same lifestyle,
and themselves have a lot of kids, the number of people in that position
Please, that whole blivet is simply disgusting.
Even a bacterium (e.g., cells of E. coli) can stick a tube into another
bacterium and inject genetic material. Well whoopie, these people can
function at the level of an intestinal organism. Well doesn't that make me
want to fall all over myself with awe and respect for them.
I have more respect for a tapeworm.
Precisely. And takes responsibility (ethically, financially, and in all
other ways) for the outcome of those actions/choices.
Everyone makes mistakes, experiences errors in judgement, but it's one
thing to take responsibility for them and at least try to correct them, or
live with them if need be - it's a whole different ball of crap to just
whine that "nobody's perfect" and we're all supposed to love and respect
and cherish a meatblob who exhibits all the humanity of a botfly larva.
At least one of the most serious...
Well, I know what it's like to be little more than an unwelcome additional
burden, so I have not even the smallest shred of even tolerance (never mind
respect!) for people who act as tho' children are just *things*, or in the
case of too damn many people, less impotant than their *things*, less
important than their own warped little self-obsessed manipulative egos,
less important than getting drunk or high. If someone doesn't want to rear
the child properly and lovingly, then put him or her up for adoption so
someone who is capable of love, care, and teaching can take care of the
Sorry but as much as I have tried to be tolerant and understanding of
peole's plights, one thing I find unforgivable is having children and then
giving them nothing but neglect and abuse and resentment and so on. If
someone wants to foul up their own life, well, that's their business and I
really don't care - but there is no excuse for putting a child through a
History, psychology, even myths and legends. This is an ancient truth, not
some recent discovery. But a truth that some poeple simply are not capable
ah, sadly, no. the makers esp like to move the reverse around... maybe you
have to push the stick down, or pull a lever up... [ i'm thinking just
German makes, for instance ] ... and then theres reversing the turn and
wiper positions! :7
I would imagine that the manufacturer only makes one set of buttons,
which end up being used on walk-up ATMs as well as drive-thru ATMs.
That's always been my thought when hearing this question, anyway.
Blind friend of mine says the bill texture is different, but he is a great
joker. He also really sails boats, skis, rides a bike, and has appeared on
TV fencing. His favorite comment is "are you blind or something?"
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.