-1=e^ipi

This. Sometimes the best solution is the simplest. Storing energy as gravitational potential energy is very cost effective.

Not really. You just need a very small proportion (say 1% or less) of humans that are able to rise above primal instincts. Most people are not like Newton, Gauss, etc.

Exactly, it might be more efficient for gmo-free labels instead where the fees paid to have gmo-free labels on your products cover the regulatory costs.

Yep it's insane. Saudis are aligned with Al Queda in Yemen and are trying to overthrow the relatively moderate Houthis in order to impose Wahabbi Islamism.

Not that many people are aware of things like the gender suicide gap. But regardless, you need to identify the cause, not just the existence of the problem. If you identify the cause of all these problems to be 'the patriarchy', then you are misidentifying the causes. Not sure if she self-identifies as an MRA; she self-identifies as a feminist. But she is a bit of a traditionalist, I agree. You. I've seen this argument a lot recently in various comments and articles on Men's Rights where people attack Men's Rights for 'not having any results'. But it's a nonsense argument since MRAs don't have any political power to do anything. It's like saying you shouldn't vote NDP federally because they haven't passed any laws federally in the past 4 years. Karen Straughan recently did a video on this:

Removal of the clitoral hood is a form of female genital mutilation, much like removal of the foreskin is a form of male genital mutilation. The first step to solving a problem is identifying that a problem exists. But this is the 'new' way that 3rd-wave feminists are dismissing arguments put forward by gender egalitarians and MRAs. That because they don't have the political power to enact changes, that somehow their arguments can be dismissed.

I'm comparing clitoral hood removal with foreskin removal, not with more extreme forms of female genital mutilation. The clitoral hood and the foreskin are equivalent and they come from the same set of cells during fetal development. So yes, foreskin removal and clitoral hood removal are very much equivalent. I like how you treat this as some indisputable fact. Do you not understand the difference between feminism the ideology and feminists the people?

Btw, fishermen are grossly subsidized by EI because their work is 'seasonal'. Eyeball, what percentage of your wages are EI? 60%?

Do you not see why I'm skeptical of our membership in NATO (and thus alliance with Turkey)?

You keep referring to predictions made 15 years ago. 15 years ago, people did not predict the recently observed slowdown in the rate of global warming. Understanding of climate sensitivity was much less 15 years ago. Model predictions made 15 years ago have been well outside observations. Understanding of changes in precipitation patterns were much less 15 years ago. 15 years ago, there was immense confirmation bias in climate change literature and there still is. Most of the planet gets wetter due to climate change, though some places get drier. Syria is arguably one of the places that gets drier due to its geography (35 degrees N, ocean to the west, land to the east). However, the amount of climate change that has occurred has been small, so the effect of climate change on the drought is small compared to the effect of natural variation. The Earth is large and there is lots of climate variability from year to year; there has pretty much always been a drought somewhere on Earth at any given time. So 'I predict droughts will occur somewhere on Earth' isn't a very bold prediction. And ultimately, the drought was relatively minor. The problems in the Syria and Iraq have many factors, but religion and the funding of Wahabbism by Saudi Arabia and the gulf states is one of the major ones and greatly dwarfs any contribution due to climate change.

Another example: Double standards with respect to male infant genital mutilation compared to female infant genital mutilation. In the west, female infant genital mutilation is seen as immoral and is illegal. On the other hand, male infant genital mutilation is legal and often encouraged. Obviously many forms of female genital mutilation are worse than removal of the foreskin, but some aren't. It's a complete double standard to say that removal of the male foreskin is acceptable, while the removal of the clitoral hood is not acceptable.

Just because a theory or field doesn't explain 100% of observations doesn't mean you throw it out. Newtonian physics can't explain why the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames, yet Newtonian physics has uses. However, evolutionary psychology and reproductive utility theory certainly has more explanatory power than feminism and patriarchy theory (which as I explained in another thread is an unfalsifiable flying spaghetti monster). There is more than just genetic evolution. There is societal evolution. Societies and cultures are able to reproduce, face selectional pressures and undergo mutations, so are also subject to evolution. Arguably, societal evolution is much stronger/faster than genetic evolution, so the conditions under which humans lived for the past 10,000 years is very relevant. Also, humans aren't the only species where societal / cultural evolution plays an important role. I would argue that societal / cultural evolution is important for Orcas and chimpanzees. http://www.pelagic.org/overview/discover_1293.html The rest of your post basically ignores that I was primarily referring to societal evolution rather than genetic evolution in my original post. Pretty much all of them. Females having more reproductive utility than males is pretty much universal throughout all sexually dimorphic animal species (although there might be some exceptions such as sea horses). Gotta love the societal double standard that whenever there is a gender gap that favours women, it's genetic/physiological, but whenever there is a gender gap that favours men, it's all due to discrimination. Like say you have a society where men are expected to go work in coal mines for 14 hours a day and women are expected to stay at home all day tending to children and doing house work. You really think that difference in life expectancy has nothing to do with men inhaling coal dust all the time? Our society is not that extreme, but there are still cultural pressures which cause different activities which cause differences in life expectancy outcome. Also, societal attitudes like 'be a man', 'man up', 'grow balls', etc. leads men to less often seek healthcare for their health problems. Yet violence against men is far more prevalent in our society than violence against women. http://www.victimsweek.gc.ca/res/r512.html Men are more likely to be assaulted, murdered, robbed and face violent crimes. Yet society doesn't really care about that. It's all, 'we need to deal with violence against women and only women, even though men face on average more violence than women'. Why do you think that is? Because society values women more than men. No they weren't. They had very clear gender roles. Do you know why? Because it makes sense in a hunter-gatherer society to have gender roles because you are taking advantage of biological comparative advantage. In today's society gender roles make no sense, so it makes sense to be egalitarian. When you look at the number of homeless people, men far outnumber women. It's almost like men have less reproductive utility than women, so have a larger incentive to work hard to obtain value in society, and this leads to more men at the top and bottom of society... Also, this ignores generational effects. The people at the top of society today are primarily baby-boomers and maybe some generation Xers. So for example, if female millenials have more opportunities than male millenials (as we seen in the urban millenial gender wage gap, the unemployment gender gap, the job stability gender gap, the gender-specific scholarships gender gap, the university attendance gender gap, studies that show that resumes with female names are preferred over identical resumes with male names, studies that show females have a 2:1 hiring advantage in stem fields for similar qualifications, etc.) then it will take some decades for that to show up in number of CEOs or number of politicians. In the meantime, it is pretty clear that millenial males are being scapegoated by society for the 'privilege' that baby-boomer males experienced. You mean like taking into account things like number of hours worked or type of occupation? Oh the horror! You know that wage is defined as income per unit of time worked right? But no, keep pretending that things like hours worked don't matter. Because it's not like if people work more, they get paid more. Or if people have a higher education, they get paid more. Or if people have more experience, they get paid more. Or different types of occupations (say fast food worker compared to physician) don't pay different amounts. No, taking that into account is crazy, and only something those evil misogynists do. *sarcasm* Because they are a 3rd world country with limited resources, and the northern part of the country is fairly Islamist. Nah, couldn't be that. Clearly it is patriarchy. *sarcasm* 'I don't know her argument but I'll probably agree with it because it fits my narrative'. Do you not see how this sort of thinking is dogmatic? But for people that are emotionally invested in a position, maintaining the narrative is far more important that truth. That's why religions are so popular. Where did I mention feminism and blame it for violence in hockey? That doesn't make sense. Feminism didn't invent gender roles or male disposability, those have existed for millions of years.

So any male that doesn't care about the fact that a woman is able to do the same job is lying? Do you have proof of this claim? Many people question the claim that our society is patriarchal. I certainly do. We should put this up there with Hillary Clinton's claim that women are the primary victims of war, even though men do the majority of fighting and dying. Look at all these non-primary victims of war: Clearly they are privileged and live in a patriarchal society. *sarcasm*

You're like those christians who dismiss arguments put forward by atheists on the basis that 'atheists just want to sin'.

So you are resorting to name calling? What a well thought out argument! *sarcasm* But I guess it is to be expected.

With respect to labeling GMO food, how much would that cost? How do you keep track of everything and what do you do with food products that mix GMO and nonGMO food? Maybe it would make more sense to label food as non-GMO, and charge companies that wish to use the non-GMO label a fee in order to cover the regulatory costs to ensure that this food is non-GMO and cover the costs of labeling.

One genus where males arguably have higher reproductive utility and females are more disposable are sea horses:

It doesn't explain 100% of observations regarding gender differences and roles, but it explains a lot. For example, it would be very difficult to use reproductive utility theory to explain witch burnings (you would have to stretch things a lot). Witch burnings are better explained by the Judeo-Christian idea that women are responsible for evil because a talking snake told Eve to eat a magic fruit (this mythology arguably has origins in humans trying to explain why women have periods). Obviously. Because of that, it makes zero sense to bite the head off your mate after sex for humans. It makes far more sense to get the male to marry you and help support your offspring for the next few decades.

I didn't even read the article. Someone else linked to the image on another blog.

I wanted to provide more information. If you go with equatorial countries, they don't have seasonal variation. So you can't compare summer death rates with winter death rates.

Higher rates of death in winter vs summer are observed in Hong Kong: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4439064/ Is Hong Kong 'cold'?

Australia and New Zealand are in the southern hemisphere. My understanding is that global average temperatures would have to rise by at least 7 C for this to start occurring in tropical regions (since tropical regions warm slower than the global average). This means that atmospheric CO2 would have to be more than quadruple pre-industrial levels (given a reasonable level of climate sensitivity and including other GHGs). So we are talking like 1100 + ppm of CO2.

The fact that the winter death rate is higher than the summer death rate is even observed in places like India. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.1954.tb01269.x/pdf See figure 4 for total death rate in Bombay by month.

Do you deny that mortality rates are higher in winter than in summer for the above countries? Btw, the source is Falagas M E et al.

Thought I would share this: Mortality rates are much higher in winter than in summer for basically all countries: