JayB Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 I'm eagerly awaiting the prospect of activists festooning couples emerging from divorce court proceedings with "I'm Changing the Climate!!!" stickers on account of the excess C02 emissions that their selfish lifestyle choices are leading to, and the effects that the said choices will have on every other living occupant of the planet. "Environmentalists who are thinking of getting a divorce may want to reconsider, a new study at Michigan State University finds. Households in which a divorce occurs have a greater negative impact on the environment in terms of efficient use of resources than the households of married couples, according to research that will be published this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The reason is simple — it's all about efficiency, says Jianguo Liu, lead author of the study who has the Rachel Carson chair in ecological sustainability at the university's department of fisheries and wildlife. "In the divorced households, the number of people is smaller than in married households," Liu told ABCNEWS.com. "The resource efficiency used per person is much lower than in married households." Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 -F-0hHrRV50 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 What about people that live in 10-member socialist collectives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 fratboys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Now, let me get this straight. If you have a whole house to yourself, it's more...no wait, less...yeah, that's right, I think...less efficient than if people, let's see, share, yeah, that's right, share a house. That's fucking amazing. Thanks for posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannible Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 What about people that live in 10-member socialist collectives? then you have an environmental disaster for a bathroom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted December 4, 2007 Author Share Posted December 4, 2007 What about people that live in 10-member socialist collectives? Climate heroes for sure, but bush-leaguers compared to the folks living in Colorado City, AZ and Bountiful, BC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Climate heroes for sure, but bush-leaguers compared to the folks living in Colorado City, AZ and Bountiful, BC. Please explain how multiple progeny benefit the environment. Average age of resident in Colorado City, AZ = 14 I eagerly await your snide, dismissive, non sequitar reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 that is the cleanest bong i've ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted December 4, 2007 Author Share Posted December 4, 2007 Now, let me get this straight. If you have a whole house to yourself, it's more...no wait, less...yeah, that's right, I think...less efficient than if people, let's see, share, yeah, that's right, share a house. That's fucking amazing. Thanks for posting. I'm astonished that you haven't seized upon the opportunity to pontificate on behalf of a set of C.A.F.E. standards that would limit the scope of the damage that these selfish life choices inflict on the planet. Couples Average Fidelity Expectations? Counseling Against Familial Egress? Individuals have shown that they have little or no capacity to govern their relationships in a manner that minimizes CO2 emissions, ergo the case is clear that the said behaviors need to be subject to the appropriate international regulatory framework. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Bring Zappa back, fucker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Pontificate's my word. Find your own, stoney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Now, let me get this straight. If you have a whole house to yourself, it's more...no wait, less...yeah, that's right, I think...less efficient than if people, let's see, share, yeah, that's right, share a house. That's fucking amazing. Thanks for posting. I'm astonished that you haven't seized upon the opportunity to pontificate on behalf of a set of C.A.F.E. standards that would limit the scope of the damage that these selfish life choices inflict on the planet. Couples Average Fidelity Expectations? Counseling Against Familial Egress? Individuals have shown that they have little or no capacity to govern their relationships in a manner that minimizes CO2 emissions, ergo the case is clear that the said behaviors need to be subject to the appropriate international regulatory framework. Clearly this is incompatible with a Hayekian worldview. The Viennese school is rolling over in their grave! Praise friedman and pass the pink sheets! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Which headline below is NOT from The Onion? Local Radio Station Has Got Some Doobie Brothers Coming Up For You Study: Casual Sex Only Rewarding For First Few Decades Divorce isn't resource efficient, study finds Third-Grade Scientists Successfully Vaporize Water Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted December 4, 2007 Author Share Posted December 4, 2007 Climate heroes for sure, but bush-leaguers compared to the folks living in Colorado City, AZ and Bountiful, BC. Please explain how multiple progeny benefit the environment. Average age of resident in Colorado City, AZ = 14 I eagerly await your snide, dismissive, non sequitar reply. Seems like you'd have to evaluate that in terms of something like: Total Consumption = Resource Use Per Person * Number of Persons. The polygamists doubtless do well on the resource use per-person front, but probably not so well on the number of persons front. For those who are truly sincere in their convictions and their desire to save the earth from the impending climate catastrophe, the implications are clear: they can maximize their impact on both fronts by killing themselves before they have a chance to reproduce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Hey Jay, why don't you lobby to have divorce quotas bundled in with your highly successful structural adjustment programs for developing countries. What a way to boost consumption! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Seems like you'd have to evaluate that in terms of something like: Total Consumption = Resource Use Per Person * Number of Persons. Since dP/dt >> 0 for polygamists and dP/dt == 0 for the Socialist collective, even a Viennese economist could figure out which does more damage! If I were liberal I'd be in favour of politics based genocide. If I were conservative I'd be in favour of economic genocide. I'm an anti-Onanist. Death to palms and digits. PS: If you are so anti-America JayB, why don't you leave? There are free market paradises such as Singapore crying out for such strong able bodied workers as yourself. Why are you wasting yourself on an America that doesn't love you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted December 4, 2007 Author Share Posted December 4, 2007 Hey Jay, why don't you lobby to have divorce quotas bundled in with your highly successful structural adjustment programs for developing countries. What a way to boost consumption! If they wanted to really go green and reduce the "capita" portion of the resource consumption equations, collectivizing agriculture is clearly the way to go. It has no equal in that regard. Just ask the Ukrainians, Chinese, and North Koreans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 I'd have less impact on the planet if I didn't take so many grounders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Hey Jay, why don't you lobby to have divorce quotas bundled in with your highly successful structural adjustment programs for developing countries. What a way to boost consumption! If they wanted to really go green and reduce the "capita" portion of the resource consumption equations, collectivizing agriculture is clearly the way to go. It has no equal in that regard. Just ask the Ukrainians, Chinese, and North Koreans. KK Found! He's talking out of Jay_B's ass! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Pontificate's my word. Find your own, stoney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 KK Found! He's talking out of Jay_B's ass! that's impossible. JayB is far too high strung on messageboards for an emanations not vetted by the cerebral cortext, cross reference and editted for proper punctuation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted December 4, 2007 Author Share Posted December 4, 2007 Hey Jay, why don't you lobby to have divorce quotas bundled in with your highly successful structural adjustment programs for developing countries. What a way to boost consumption! If they wanted to really go green and reduce the "capita" portion of the resource consumption equations, collectivizing agriculture is clearly the way to go. It has no equal in that regard. Just ask the Ukrainians, Chinese, and North Koreans. KK Found! He's talking out of Jay_B's ass! Clearly. I'm looking forward to the seeing all of the data that support a contrary conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Clearly. I'm looking forward to the seeing all of the data that support a contrary conclusion. And we are looking forward to you opening your eyes - after all SubPrime loans all went to the bottom of the barrel, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.