zapatos

57 minutes ago, grayson said:

Calculus is the study of change, not similarity

Um, that is what you asked for...

57 minutes ago, grayson said:

I am asking for some continuous rate of change

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Fresh water, farm land, grain, fish, oil, gas, roads, rail, dairy, rubber, clean air, condoms, . . . .

Quote

Today, the world produces 150% more food on only 13% more land compared with 1960, thanks to many innovations in food production made over the years. We produce enough food to feed 1.5x the global population. That's enough to feed 10 billion yet we are at just over 7 billion currently. There is enough for everyone.

https://news.thin-ink.net/p/we-produce-enough-food-to-feed-15#:~:text=Today%2C the world produces 150,There is enough for everyone.

You'll have to explain why you believe we don't have enough of some of the others. With water for example as far as I can tell we have plenty, it is just that people often live in the wrong place. Not enough dairy for whom? Saudi Arabia and Russia are cutting back on oil production due to too much oil on the market. Are we expected to run out soon? 

3 hours ago, Chhavi421 said:

Yes, the earth is overpopulated, according to the old times, the population is increasing very much and we do not have regular resources for such a large population.

Which resources do we not have enough of?

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

Video about living with a rooster...

...in a Mumbai apartment

https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/582871/tungrus/?utm_source=atl&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share

 

That was quite interesting to watch!! 😁

41 minutes ago, iNow said:

They are NOT population control. They are progress accelerators with a side benefit of reduced birth rates.

They ARE population control. With a side benefit of progress.

/tomato tomahtoe 

28 minutes ago, Sensei said:

This is the result of a choice made by the customer.

It is also a result of choices made by industries and governments. Everyone who has a voice in the decision on what/where/how to manufacture has an impact.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Who gets to decide which potential parents get sterilized and by what method their genetic line terminates with them?

I don't think anyone needs to be sterilized. Many countries have already shown that simply by being prosperous (and the things that go along with that) is often enough to lead to population decline. Stopping lives from beginning can be achieved through global development. Not many people are opposed to their lives getting better.

Not everyone is doing okay.

3 hours ago, Steve81 said:

I’m talking about the power plant application from my prior post, FYI. Sorry for the confusion.

My fault. I didn't re-read your post first to understand why you responded the way you did.

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

the rules should consider the new definition of what a woman is. 

Please tell me what that new definition is. Because if you cannot, then how can they possibly consider it?

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The governing bodies are attempting to integrate this new definition into sporting categories.  

Please show an example of where they are doing this and what that new definition is.

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The rules have to consider the new definition to enable integration.

NO THEY DON'T!!!!!!! 

They've ALREADY allowed trans women to compete WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL WOMEN'S CATEGORY!!!

10 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

You cant have a competition with rules that were based on old definitions and expect it to continue to function properly without evolving to include/consider changed/new definitions, that would be illogical.  

 

Again, you are the one who is saying how they need to change the definition to function. No one else.

7 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not the one forcing them to change the definition?????

 

You are the one advocating for them to change it because you say they "have to operate around universally accepted definition." They are not attempting to change it themselves. They are attempting to integrate transgender women into the competition.

1 minute ago, Steve81 said:

The only component salt water would come into contact with is the boiler.

Pipes? Toilet tank mechanism? Pumps? Metal components at the sewage plant? 

Wonder what all that salt water is going to do to the metal components it comes in contact with. And we've now given the treatment plants the additional responsibility of desalination or risk killing freshwater plants and fish or fouling groundwater when the treated water is discharged.

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Sure it is...

Then how do you explain the fact that we have men's and women's categories now even though there is no universally accepted definition of male and female?

The world is full of examples where we don't have universally accepted definitions yet we function just fine. In my circles, a gun would include my target pistol whereas in the military it only includes "any large-calibre, direct-fire, high-velocity, flat-trajectory artillery piece employing an explosive-filled hollowed metal shell or solid bolt as its primary projectile."

What is the universally accepted definition of "football"? How can we study black holes if we don't have a clear definition of what it is? Why must the definition of "woman" be the same for a priest, biologist, sports league, school administrator, justice system, corporation and individual?

Sports leagues are free to define 'woman' any way they wish, and if they choose to define 'man' and 'woman' as they've done for the past 50 years, why should they be forced to change that definition now?

As I've said to you several times in this thread, I believe the quest for the mythical "one true definition of "woman"" is nothing more than a distraction when it comes to the question of transgenders in sport. We've never had the perfect definition in the past and yet we managed to have men's and women's leagues. The focus needs to be on NEW rules for trans women to compete in the existing women's leagues. There is no need to redefine the OLD rules that define women's leagues as they exist now.

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The only issue I see is that I'm told science cannot accurately determine the distinction between a male and female and if a person identifies as either then this seems to trump any physical evidence anyhow. 

I'm not sure a universally accepted definition of male and female is required.

For the purposes of competition we already manage to slot most people into a reasonable category. That is, the way you were identified at birth as male or female works just fine for putting you in the 'male' or 'female' divisions.

If you identify as the opposite of the way you were identified at birth and your transition status complies with the rules, then you compete in the category in which you identify/transition.

There may be something lacking in the above but I think for the most part we needn't get any more detailed in our definitions of male/female.

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Say for soccer, how much bigger a net would be required to allow an XY goaltender? If the teams were all XX vs all XY the XY net  requiring the complete width of the field would not be enough, you would need to increase net height as well and/or reduce number of players allowed on the field for the all XY team.

 

I used to compete in a co-ed soccer league. The way they addressed fairness was to limit the number of XY allowed on the field for a given team at one time. With 22 players on the field the XY advantage could be diluted pretty well by numbers alone in a women's league that allowed trans women to play. Men and women use the same size goals now so I don't think a change would be necessary to allow trans women to play.

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

In my secondary school, there were two girls who could easily beat me at running (did I mention they both ran mid distance for England) and also one lad who could swim to the other end of the pool faster than I could get across it.
(did I mention that he also swam for Emgland)

Did that bother me ?

Not in the least, though I did my best to beat them.

Would it have made any difference if their genders were any different?

I doubt it.

Were there other pupils intermediate between myself and them?

Yes of course. but I also represented the school in those sports.

Sounds like a pretty typical situation for many people.

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

So I'm as entitled to my view of 'fair' as Zapatos is entitled to his.

So, using your definition then, what would you like to discuss?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Is it 'fair' that taller sportsmen and women generally make better fast bowlers and tennis players ?

Is it fair that my eyesight has never been good enough for me to excell at my favourite sport ?

Life is full of unfairness and inequity.

Yet we have to somehow reach conclusions or results.

They are rarely 'fair' as a result.

That is why I clarified by stating:

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Assuming "fair" is roughly equivalent to the way things are "fair" as of today in women's sports.

This thread is about adding transgender players to sport, not about some unattainable 'fairness' ideal. So "YES", in this context, it is 'fair' that some people are taller than others and that some have better eyesight.

37 minutes ago, studiot said:

'Fairly'. Therin lies the whole intractable,  squaring the circle problem. YOU (whoever makes the decision) has to be unfair to someone.

 

Can you expand on that please? Why can't we find a "fair" solution? ( Assuming "fair" is roughly equivalent to the way things are "fair" as of today in women's sports.) What specifically is the intractable issue that you don't feel can be addressed?

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

how do you suggest handicapping a biological male fairly? 

Math, statistics, science, trial and error, etc. The same way they figured out how to allow fair competition in boxing, soccer, bowling, horse racing, co-ed sports, Olympics, etc.

As I said previously, it should be done by the the governing bodies of the sports in consultation players, experts, etc. and should be adjusted as time goes on.

Allowing trans women to compete fairly should be figured out just as they figured out how to deal with new technologies in sports equipment, performance enhancing drugs, and the myriad other issues that arise over the years. 

How would YOU suggest we allow trans women to fairly compete?

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You suggested "handicapping" fine, what type of handicapping do you propose which has no ill health effects and can be consistent across the board?  

Adding weight to the bar for weightlifters who are trans women to achieve the same target lift as a cis woman. As I mentioned earlier.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm sorry but you mis represent me.

I don't think so. You say it will be unfair to include trans women yet you know rules to make it fair will be included. So what part is "unfair"?

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not transphobic by any means, which seems to be the inferred accusation when someone disagrees with the pro trans inclusion in women's sports group. 

 

That's an internal issue you'll have to work out for yourself. I've never hinted you were transphobic.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

This discussion is off limits since maybe perceived by others that the person advocating such is transphobic. 

You really are starting to seem paranoid. That or you like to play the victim.

On the left...