|
|
|
|
|
|
by papermachete
2465 days ago
|
|
|
>the solution is I'm sorry are you a politician or an authority figure? >1 How did you measure the optimal number to be 1? And how would you value an ethnic minority to be just as valuable as the majority? Don't you support greater minority birth rates at the expense of the majority? >explanations No, that's philosophy. Granted, I haven't encountered a reproducible study on climate change, the scientific method proves or disproves hypotheses to provide a baseline of knowledge. The scientific method is how scientists develop early-stage solutions to climate change, not building contraptions. |
|
|
Frankly, I don't care what the relative birth rates are between "minorities" and "majorities." By the way, which metric are you using to define minority? Is it height? Nose size? Personality type? I'm guessing it's just race, which is a very narrow criteria, but that's the only the criteria respected by the modern definition of "diversity."
> No, that's philosophy.
Erm... no. Science can give us an explanation for what is causing climate change, and even how quickly climate change is occurring, but designing a solution to it is firmly in the domain of engineering.
Anyway, that's all semantics. As to how I came up with the "1" number is really pretty straightforward though. That number will prevent the population from growing or shrinking -- it will maintain the current number. Isn't that obvious?