-1=e^ipi

So your position is that if there exists a finite resource, we should never use the resource because it will eventually run out? How does that make sense? All resources are finite. Even the sun won't last forever. Why not use those resources to increase standards of living and the speed of technological progress? Increasing energy prices drastically in order to lower the jobs available to our children and grand children and slow the rate of technological progress. How is that helping? I also find it ironic that you have such a pessimistic view of the future yet assume children and grandchildren as a given. If people don't have economic stability due to high energy prices, they might not bother to have children. Also, sacrifices? How about not traveling around the world in jets going to South Asia? http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24717-where-have-you-travelled-going-to-travel-open-thread/?p=1072253 There are sufficient fossil fuel reserves to last us several decades and there are sufficient uranium 235 reserves to last us like 200 years. Then you have thorium, which is several times as abundant as uranium 235, and then you have fast breeder technology. So humanity can last several centuries on fossil fuels and nuclear energy. You mean his latest study where he skips the peer review purpose for political purposes? Where he assumes sea levels will rise exponentially, which has no basis in physical reality, especially since greenhouse gas radiative forcing is only rising roughly quadratically? Where he gets sea level predictions that not only are well outside the confidence intervals of the IPCC's predictions, but also disagree with paleoclimate data about the Eemian and make even Michael Mann highly critical? Where he doesn't even fit his faulty model to empirical evidence, but arbitrarily chooses parameters that 'feel right' and then rather than doing a properly uncertainty analysis, just handwaved a value of uncertainty that subjectively feels right? The 2C target has no scientific basis.

And they are also free to fire you or not give you tenure if you say the wrong thing.

Look this interpretation of microaggressions being pushed at universities essentially bans classic liberalism. It suggests that the following positions of Morgan Freeman and Martin Luther King Jr. are hateful racist microaggressions, and if you hold them you should receive disciplinary action by the university. Morgan Freeman: "black history month is ridiculous." To solve racism you should "stop talking about [race]." This classifies as a microaggression under the "Color Blindness" section of the UCLA microaggression guide. In particular, it denies the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and history and the individual as a racial/cultural being Martin Luther King Jr. People should "not be judged on the color of their skin but by the content of their character" This classifies as a microaggression under the "Myth of Meritocracy" section of the UCLA microaggression guide. It's right up there with " I believe the most qualified person should get the job."

I don't scoff at the idea of micro-aggressions, I just find it concerning that it's being used to justify essential banning free speech and certain political positions on universities. Especially since many of these positions are classical liberal positions, such as thinking that everyone should be treated equally and get paid based on their merit, not on race or gender. To be fair, 'you people' depends on context.

That still doesn't imply an election every two years. 1. The resulting coalition will at least represent the majority of the population, unlike the less than 40% which we seem to get with the first-past-the-post system. 2. That is one possible election outcome out of many. There are many outcomes where the party with 3% of the popular vote may end up being irrelevant in all coalitions. Indices of measuring party power to influence decisions in parliament such as the Banzhaf power index or the Shapley-Shubik index generally increase more than proportionately with representation. Again, that is one outcome out of many, both in terms of distribution of seats and in terms of possibilities of coalitions. If the other parties didn't like the religious parties, why don't they offer better coalition deals to the ruling party in order to not get those laws passed? I'm just saying we are screwed either way, and I don't see how the federal liberals or NDP can make it much worse given that they already control the vast majority of provincial governments.

How does a 'pizza parliament' imply an election every two years? How does giving a party representation proportional to its support giving it 'disproportionate power'? Is UKIP getting 13% of the vote and 1 seat 'proportionate power'? Energy prices are going to go through the roof regardless of who is in the Federal government. The Ontario liberals will continue to make provincial energy prices skyrocket, Ontario+Quebec are making a cap-and-trade agreement with California, BC has a $30 per metric ton of CO2 emissions tax, Alberta has a $15 per metric ton CO2 emissions price and now has an NDP government, etc. Fair point. Fair point.

I'm not assuming everyone would be in favor of this. I'm just saying it is extremely unlikely anyone would be opposed to this in this forum. Much like a topic on the Earth being round. And from what I have observed so far in this thread, there is no one opposed to this. You have 2 false premises here: 1. The claim that I'm being a 'crybaby'. 2. The claim that I'm complaining about the existence of this thread. In any case, I have contributed to this thread. For example, should we get rid of the precautionary principle if it slows down drug availability?

Who is you?

I don't have any objections to RU-486.

I pointed out that given that everyone on this forum is likely going to be in favour of this drug, what is there to discuss other than the fact that we agree? It creates about as much discussion as a thread on the Earth being round. Sure, there may be a tiny fraction of people somewhere on the planet who still think the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean creating a thread about the Earth being round will create much discussion. I can play the 'my feelings are implicitly hurt' game too. Your comments discourage posters from participating in threads and asking questions, which in my opinion are sadly lacking.

Anyway, this drug would have been available in Canada sooner if our procedure for passing drugs did not follow the precautionary principle. Maybe we should have a more intelligent methodology to allowing drugs into Canada than the precautionary principle. Btw, this is the same principle that climate alarmists use to avoid empirical evidence when trying to justify extreme mitigation policy.

Is Rona Ambrose on these forums?

So I've read a number of people make the argument that the following approximating equation is valid: i = r + μg where i is the real interest rate, r is the social rate of time preference, μ is the elasticity of marginal utility with respect to consumption (alternatively, it can be thought of as the coefficient of relative risk aversion), and g is the real GDP growth rate. For a developed country like the USA, the real interest rate has been ~5% in recent decades and the real gdp growth rate is ~2%. If the coefficient of relative risk aversion is ~1, then this suggests that the social rate of time preference is ~3%. Edit: the equation is unofficially called the Ramsey equation and in the case of population growth gets modified to: i = r + μg + (μ-1)n where n is the rate of population growth. Also, it might be possible to estimate r and μ from a regression of time series data.

Except it's not. I still don't see one person opposing this.

A pill that terminates pregnancies during the first 49 days? I'm skeptical you will find someone.

No, I think that this topic isn't likely to create much discussion. Agender, not pangender.

Exactly, everyone is just going to agree with each other on this topic, so there isn't much to discuss.

Is this thread supposed to create a discussion?

That doesn't follow. Maybe some people just support gay rights and don't care who is offended by that, be they Christian, Muslim or Pastafarian.

That is sad to hear.

... I explained this in my post. The guide has been temporarily taken down (so the link no longer takes you to the guide; a screenshot was the best I could find) and the university administration has distanced themselves from this, so it's not like in Berkley's case where the guide is endorsed by the administration.

The nonsense spreads. Now to the University of New Hampshire and their 'Bias Free Language Guide'. Although in this case it looks like the university administration is distancing themselves from this and from what I can tell the guide has been temporarily taken down from the university's website. http://www.unh.edu/inclusive/bias-free-language-guide Above is a screen shot. Clearly it talks about micro-aggressions. Anyway, apparently many words are considered 'problematic'. This includes, referring to your nationality as 'American', calling people 'Foreigners', calling people 'Seniors', calling people 'Poor' or 'Rich', calling people 'overweight', etc. Calling people 'Black' is okay, but 'White' is 'problematic'. http://www.vdare.com/posts/university-of-new-hampshire-language-commissars-say-its-better-if-you-dont-refer-to-your-nationality-as-american http://www.mediaite.com/online/universitys-bias-free-language-guide-is-a-cornucopia-of-inoffensiveness/ http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/28/public-universitys-bias-free-language-guide-calls-the-word-american-problematic/ http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6697

Look, generally the SJWs are the ones advocating that equality get thrown out the window in the name of not offending others, not hurting people's feelings, to be culturally sensitive, etc. A good example of this are the SJWs opposing gay pride parades in Sweden in the name of countering 'racism'. So it makes no sense to call this person an SJW on the basis that she doesn't want to be treated differently on the basis of her gender. Now I wonder if this thread's poll results would be the same if a man was told to move because another passenger felt that 'I am threatened by sitting next to men since men are dangerous pedophiles that want to rape me because we live in a rape culture. Thus we should have safe spaces for women on planes where men are not allowed.'.

You didn't answer the question...

Why? What was done that was SJWery?