Kill_John_Lennon

He obviously meant to say how do you measure that it’s exactly 1m, even when still in a straight line. Exactly being the key word here.

That is a valid question, but in that case you just make it a single league, men and women together.

Yes I remember it also had some surprising findings about electrolytes

Aggregations of objective teachings which contradict each other (within the same book).

So basically it says the homeowners will be affected because if they have children they will need to help them ... And for those who have already purchased a home at an expensive price, their mortgage is impacted. Top Notch journalism.

26

We could be recycling everything but we’re not, and we’re not going to anytime soon, this would be far more complex than feeding everyone. I’m not advocating for anything, please don’t try to put words in my mouth. We’d have less trouble if there happened to be less of us, that’s it. I never said we should forcibly reduce our population, that’s ridiculous. I’m just tired of seeing this same senseless argument that everything is fine with the population because we could potentially feed everyone.

Just because it’s going to plateau and decrease, doesn’t necessarily mean that we aren’t already above where we should ideally be. Being potentially able to feed everyone is not the only criteria. We are overconsuming and this is in proportion to the world population. Even though it’s not evenly spread and everyone doesn't consume the same, at the end of the day the least people there are the least we consume.

I mean, I’m not denying they’re making wrong choices, and I’ve left Reddit myself, but given that they’re losing money I don’t understand how it’s considered ”greedy” to try and change that.