The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

Palomar · 2003-10-20 21:58:23

*Let's have some fun. Here's the situation: each of you gets 4 hours with 12 individuals of your choosing -- no matter how
famous or busy these people might be. If they're historical characters who are dead? No problem. Animation and transportation to your place provided!

Explanation as to your choices is optional.

Here is my Guest List (in no particular order):

Bruce Lee
Joan of Arc
Thomas Paine
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Voltaire
Ghandi
Ayn Rand
Benjamin Franklin
Robin Williams
Denis Diderot
Princess Diana
Nicolo Machiavelli

--Cindy :;):

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-21 06:46:42

My list (by no means exhaustive) would be:-

Adolf Hitler
Augustus Caesar
Carl Sagan
Groucho Marx
Jack Ruby
Jesus
John Lennon
John Young (Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle)
Leonardo Da Vinci
Muhammad
Moses
Robert Zubrin

clark · 2003-10-21 10:30:01

Helen Keller
Jack Kerouac
Emperor Nero
Steven Hawking
Larry Flynt
Joan of Ark
King Solomon
Dr. Timothy Leary
Elvis Presley
Phineas Taylor Barnum (P.T. Barnum)
Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)
Pablo Picasso

Free Spirit · 2003-10-21 13:09:48

I'd go back in time and have dinner with some pre-historic cave dwellers. Maybe go hunt an elk for dinner and learn how to tan hides and do some flint knapping.

Shaun, what's the deal with Hitler and Caesar? You're a right wing fanatic for sure, but I hope your list is just a sign of a warped sense of humor rather than an actual desire to meet those fascists for dinner. I guess you and Zubrin would be good drinking buddies eh? You two appear to be very similiar politically wise, unfortunately.

Cindy, I'm surprised Ayn Rand is on your list. That's the type of right wing fanatic I'd expect to see on Shaun's list. I think you should invite Karl Marx to dinner also. At least we could enjoy watching Ayn Rand and Marx go at each other's throats. Voltaire could weigh the arguments and declare the winner of the bout. Don't think Rand would stand a chance though.

Clark wants to meet Nero. Hope it's not because he wants pointers on how to burn down a town when politics aren't going your way.

Palomar · 2003-10-21 13:31:41

Cindy, I'm surprised Ayn Rand is on your list. That's the type of right wing fanatic I'd expect to see on Shaun's list. I think you should invite Karl Marx to dinner also. At least we could enjoy watching Ayn Rand and Marx go at each other's throats. Voltaire could weigh the arguments and declare the winner of the bout. Don't think Rand would stand a chance though.

*I've read Ayn Rand somewhat extensively in the past. Initially I agreed with much of what she said, but began seeing major "holes" in her political ideas after some time. I still recommend portions of her works, especially as regards her definition of "Reason." It's interesting to compare that definition with the 18th century Enlightenment philosophers.

Rand has some compelling ideas, which I think are worthy of consideration (especially John Galt's speech in _Atlas Shrugged_). However, her ideas about individualism tend to be extreme, IMO. She seemed to believe that you CAN be AN ISLAND if you choose. I dunno...there's 6.6 billion other people out there I've got to deal with. Also, she was, IMO, too rigid and inflexible in her views (which she was entitled too, of course). Visiting a mailing list or newgroup run by Objectivists and ARI members will usually result very quickly in "AGREE OR ELSE -- ENTIRELY!" attitudes. I found that out the hard way, a few years ago. That's not who I am, and is why I prefer the Enlightenment philosophers; they were generally a pretty flexible, open-minded bunch who (including Voltaire) admitted reason probably has its limits, allowed room for error and correction of same in their philosophical writings (how many of the so-called Thinkers throughout history have been THAT intellectually honest?), admitted their weaknesses and faults, and were champions of the ideal of questioning things (including themselves), etc. The Enlightenment philosophers were also warm and inclusive, and had a very "You & Me" attitude, whereas Rand tends to be much more "me-oriented" and exclusive.

I included her because she was so forthright and vocal in her views (like Thomas Paine). It'd be great to watch the interactions of her especially with the 18th-century gents (on both sides of the Atlantic) at the dinner table. Bruce Lee might enjoy jumping into the conversation as well, particularly as he studied philosophy rather extensively, and enjoyed presenting Eastern philosophy to Westerners. But that's not the only reason I included him.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-21 16:06:46

Oswald Mosley
Abraham Lincoln
George Washington
Benito Mussolini
Julius Caeser
Nicolo Machiavelli
Freeman Dyson
Ronald Reagan
Genghis Khan
Ben Franklin
Bill Clinton (Because I'd like Washington's and Lincoln's opinion)

And finally, seated together,
Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler

Free Spirit · 2003-10-22 01:59:48

Rand has some compelling ideas, which I think are worthy of consideration (especially John Galt's speech in _Atlas Shrugged_). However, her ideas about individualism tend to be extreme, IMO. She seemed to believe that you CAN be AN ISLAND if you choose.

I believe Ayn Rand did give some proper perspectives on the dangers of authoritarian, Stalinist-style "collectivism".
Have you read the novel Ecotopia by any chance? The type of collective, de-centralized society presented in that novel is a lot closer to what I think communism should be like, libertarian-communism.

Visiting a mailing list or newgroup run by Objectivists and ARI members will usually result very quickly in "AGREE OR ELSE -- ENTIRELY!" attitudes. I found that out the hard way, a few years ago. That's not who I am, and is why I prefer the Enlightenment philosophers; they were generally a pretty flexible, open-minded bunch

Objectivists like to fashion themselves as being masters of logic and reason, but I agree with you, they seem more blinded by ideology and emotion than the supposedly irrational, tree hugging, pinko-commies they hate so much. They act as though any way of living that opposes capitalism automatically runs counter to reason and logic. If the only way to be reasonable and civilized is to have banks, corporations, lawyers, and a$$hole employers, then I'd much rather be an uncivilized savage living out in nature.

Palomar · 2003-10-22 07:17:37

Free Spirit: "Have you read the novel Ecotopia by any chance? The type of collective, de-centralized society presented in that novel is a lot closer to what I think communism should be like, libertarian-communism."

*No, I haven't. I'm sure I've heard of it before, though.

FS: "Objectivists like to fashion themselves as being masters of logic and reason, but I agree with you, they seem more blinded by ideology and emotion than the supposedly irrational, tree hugging, pinko-commies they hate so much."

*True. I know that they will ostracize members who dissent too much from the status quo of the philosophy. Some guy started a Yahoo! Group for such folks, called "Objectivist Outcasts." The moderator is cool and flexible with his viewpoints, etc. -- my idea of reasonable -- but there are still members who fall into what I consider the trap of (to borrow a phrase used recently by Shaun) "rhetorical nitpicking." The metaphysics of Socrates, for instance, is picked over, sliced and diced, etc. It gets tedious after a while; not my cup of tea...but to each their own of course.

FS: "They act as though any way of living that opposes capitalism automatically runs counter to reason and logic. If the only way to be reasonable and civilized is to have banks, corporations, lawyers, and a$$hole employers, then I'd much rather be an uncivilized savage living out in nature."

*Yeah. Rand overstepped herself, IMO. She also wrote an extensive treatise pertaining to art and her conception of what art "is." For instance, she disapproved of impressionists. I asked a former friend, a 60-something artist in Oregon, what he thought of her opinion. He stated his view that Impressionism is the reply to photography, i.e. what's the point of painting everything in precise and fine detail, when photos do that...Impressionism is the response. That made sense to me. I don't quite understand how Rand came to so intimately couple reason and capitalism. She died in the early 1980s, before all the corporate-giant scandals (wherein the little guy gets screwed while the big-wheels float away on their golden parachutes), and before big companies began their dirty little tricks of "laying off" long-time, hard-working, loyal employees so as to deprive them of their pensions which had been "guaranteed" to them. The laborer IS worthy of his/her reward. And, of course, the tried and true method of cheating people out of their 401(k) plans. It's theft, period.

The greed of the 1980s on has really soured the word "capitalism." However, I cannot say I am entirely opposed to capitalism; there's got to be a middle ground somewhere.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-22 08:21:45

Hi Free Spirit!
Thanks for the great wrap! Gosh, I wonder what your definition of a right wing fanatic actually is? I've got a feeling I wouldn't meet most people's criteria ... but maybe your threshold for 'right wing fanatic' is low enough that I might just squeeze through!!
:laugh:

Given the politics of his day, I feel it is difficult to classify Augustus Caesar as a fascist. Unless you simply toss all rulers of the ancient world into that category for the sake of convenience (?). Augustus was actually the epitome of the benign dictator; that extraordinarily rare kind of individual who remains uncorrupted by absolute power.
I thought it would be fascinating to get a glimpse of what the Roman Empire looked like from inside, but I also wanted to speak with a man of such humanity that, though he held the power of life and death in his hands, he thought only of the good of the people he ruled.

I confess a fascination with Adolf Hitler but not for the reasons you imply. I see him, in many ways, as an opposite to Augustus.
It would be a surreal experience to gaze into the eyes of someone who has become for many the embodiment of evil. I happen to think that most of us are capable of terrible things and I think it's important we should examine evil and come to know it. If we don't, how will we recognise it if and when it appears in ourselves?
To me, Hitler is the abyss. I want to look into that abyss and plumb its depths.

I find it interesting that you overlooked the presence of Carl Sagan and John Lennon on my list; both renowned for their liberal and humanitarian outlook. Also, I don't think Jesus was famed for his fascist tendencies either!

As for including Dr. Zubrin, he's the founder of The Mars Society and I'm a paid-up member of that organisation. Is it any surprise that I happen to agree with his views? Is it so remarkable that I'd be interested to speak with him?
Just out of curiosity, are you a member of TMS?

It looks to me like you've found what you thought looked like a good reason to pounce on me and give me a thoroughly good telling off for being a nazi!

I guess it's part of human nature to fall into the trap of categorising people who don't agree with you on some things. The next step is to demonise them and vilify them, which comes easily once you have them categorised. The trouble is, when we really get to know them, most people just don't squeeze into those little boxes we make for them.
I suspect, Free Spirit, that you and I aren't nearly as far apart on basic philosophy as you might think. We just see different solutions to the same problems, that's all.

dicktice · 2003-10-22 09:15:34

Grampa Sidney, master cabinet maker/mentor
Pa Reuben, inventor/pilot/mentor
Mum Hazel, writer/pilot/overachiever
Uncle (Jazz) Jasper, engineer/mentor
Godfather Bruce, mural painter/mentor
Godmother Jean, writer/mentor
Amelia Earheart, Mum's mentor
Wilber Wright, World's first aeronautical engineer
Anna Lindh, Sweden's great loss
Harry Truman, the last honest U.S.President

Byron · 2003-10-22 13:45:27

Now that I'm back from vacation and can post again, here's my list of folks I wouldn't mind having dinner with sometime...

Leonardo da Vinci
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
Mother Teresa
Nelson Mandela
Mother Jones (labor rights activist)
Huey Long (populist presidential candidate)

--- (SF writers subgroup)

Robert Heinlein
Issac Asimov
Authur C. Clarke
Kim Stanley Robinson
Larry Niven

B

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-22 17:13:24

I've decided 12 people is too many, or 4 hours isn't enough!

(My dinner would sit and get stone cold. )

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-22 17:27:42

I've decided 12 people is too many, or 4 hours isn't enough!

I agree. I'd much rather dine with each one on my list individually. Except maybe Hitler, I just know he'd rant all damn night about how I shouldn't eat meat. I don't know if 4 hours of Bill Clinton could be endured either (8 years was already too much) and I suspect Genghis Khan would be less than well-mannered.

Hitler was a vegetarian. Now that's a bumper sticker I need to get.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-23 00:49:31

Cobra Commander:-

Hitler was a vegetarian. Now that's a bumper sticker I need to get.

Ha ha !! :laugh:

I really do like your wicked and perverse sense of humour.

Free Spirit · 2003-10-23 01:44:26

Cindy said:

*Yeah. Rand overstepped herself, IMO. She also wrote an extensive treatise pertaining to art and her conception of what art "is." For instance, she disapproved of impressionists. I asked a former friend, a 60-something artist in Oregon, what he thought of her opinion. He stated his view that Impressionism is the reply to photography, i.e. what's the point of painting everything in precise and fine detail, when photos do that...Impressionism is the response.

I haven't read Rand's essay, but let me guess, she says that art must uplift the human spirit and its grand potential and that realism is the only way to do that? On the flip side, there was one philosopher in the 19th Century (can't remember his name) that believed that true art had to revolve around the misery of life since he believed that the human condition was synonymous with tragedy and suffering. I think art can fit into either category and then some. That artist you talked to though I think captured the essence of what art is, it's pushing the boundaries of experience, emotion, and perception.

Shaun said:

I guess it's part of human nature to fall into the trap of categorising people who don't agree with you on some things. The next step is to demonise them and vilify them, which comes easily once you have them categorised. The trouble is, when we really get to know them, most people just don't squeeze into those little boxes we make for them.
I suspect, Free Spirit, that you and I aren't nearly as far apart on basic philosophy as you might think. We just see different solutions to the same problems, that's all.

I agree that the first step toward hate is categorizing people according to stereotypes. It was stupid of me not to realize that people may have different motivations for meeting the infamous scumbags of history. I'm not a MS member, I don't believe we should be wasting resources sending people to Mars, and I find Zubrin's political philosophy repulsive. And to be honest, I'm wary of high technology. The more technological we become the more likely we are to either destroy ourselves or become more oppressed. Sustainability and good stewardship of the Earth is what we should strive for, not endless technological development and irrelevant flights of fancy. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy discussing technical possibilities but don't construe that to mean I think we should necessarily build such things.

Cobra Commander said:

Hitler was a vegetarian. Now that's a bumper sticker I need to get.

I really don't understand why some people out there are so hell bent on destroying the environment. When you consider that it takes 700 gallons of water and acres of land just to produce one cheeseburger, it seems like it should just be common sense that vegetarianism is better for the planet. Just because Hitler was a vegetarian doesn't mean that all vegetarians are genocidal maniacs.

Byron · 2003-10-23 05:54:04

I'm not a MS member, I don't believe we should be wasting resources sending people to Mars, and I find Zubrin's political philosophy repulsive. And to be honest, I'm wary of high technology. The more technological we become the more likely we are to either destroy ourselves or become more oppressed. Sustainability and good stewardship of the Earth is what we should strive for, not endless technological development and irrelevant flights of fancy.

If you don't think it's cool to be "wasting" resources sending people to Mars, then what in the heck are you doing on this board? ? Also, what exactly about Dr. Zubrin's philosophy you find repulsive? To me, he is a very optimistic gentleman who wants to get to Mars as quickly and cheaply as possible...to stay for good, as opposed to a mindless "flag-and-footprints" mission. So what if he wants to launch a "new society" on the new frontier? Doesn't the human race deserve another opportunity to "start over" and make something better about ourselves? (And perhaps teach the people of Earth a thing or two?)

I know you might be thinking that Zubrin has a bit of Ayn Rand in him, selfish individualism and all of that, but who cares?? It's the people that follow in his footsteps that will determine the future of Mars. If the liberal people of the world simply wrote Mars off as a right-wing, rich man's odyssey, then we would have blown our chance to eventually make Mars into the place we would like it to be. (Which is, in my mind, an ultra-liberal paradise where there's no rich and no poor, and everyone is on an equal footing, always and forevermore.) I say let the capitalists and the big-money people go to Mars first and pay for the initial settlements by plucking the gold nuggets off the surface and tossing them back to Earth on the mass driver or whatever... I'm one who has the long view, however, in that us liberal types can come in later and take over...hehe (We'll just have to figure out a way to reincarnate the spirits of Mother Jones and Huey Long and turn 'em loose on the Red Planet...lol.)

Truthfully, the North American continent was taken over by a bunch of rabid capitalists who didn't give a sh*t about the original owners of the land, not to mention the legions of poor people in this country that made their standard of living possible...but since then, we've made excellent progress in liberalizing this country, although we admittedly still have a very long ways to go. If we want fairness in our society...wherever it may be...we have to stand up and fight for our rights. One example is the FTAA talks down in Miami next month...if enough people can get their butts down there and stop those idiots from coming together to execute their plans for screwing the entire Western Hemisphere, then we would have made real progress towards reshaping this planet in one that we deserve to live on. If we can do this on Earth, we'll certainly be able to do it on Mars.

Quote -- I really don't understand why some people out there are so hell bent on destroying the environment. When you consider that it takes 700 gallons of water and acres of land just to produce one cheeseburger, it seems like it should just be common sense that vegetarianism is better for the planet.

I may be a liberal, but I do like my meat (not much beef, but lots of chicken and fish...but meat is meat, right?) Besides, what would you rather have....a cattle farm (like the one my 90-year old grandfather still owns and operates in eastern Tennesse) or a housing development? (You can see them spreading over the hillsides like a fungus, drawing closer year by year as people sell out their farms for big ca$h.)

Cattle aren't the problem...people are. In two more years, give or take, this country will have 300,000,000 people. By the year 2025, there will not be enough farmland to feed this nation, leaving us at the mercy of other nations (who have to feed their own expanding populations) for our three daily meals plus snacks. The real solution has nothing to do with convincing everyone to become a vegetarian (although we do need to get everyone to eat better and get our butts back into shape), but doing something about population control. If Europe is shedding their population just of its own accord, then we can do the same here, by strictly limiting immigration and yanking the tax incentives for having multiple children. Then, just maybe we can get the rest of this planet into balance with the demands of humanity someday.

B

clark · 2003-10-23 06:16:52

Sustainability and good stewardship of the Earth is what we should strive for, not endless technological development and irrelevant flights of fancy.

The end is predicated on the means. :laugh: How eactly do you achieve 'sustainability and good stewardship of the Earth' without endless technological development and irrelevant flights of fancy?

Just because Hitler was a vegetarian doesn't mean that all vegetarians are genocidal maniacs.

Therefore... just because Hitler was a Nazi dosen't mean that all Nazi's are genocidal maniacs. :laugh: Just kidding with you. Of course they are.

But I still don't trust those vegans.

In two more years, give or take, this country will have 300,000,000 people.

You do realize that Europe has nearly 400,000,000 now. India, 1.1 billion. China, nearly 2 billion. 50% of the US population lives on but a small percentage of the total available land in the US, mostly along the Eastern and Western coasts.

By the year 2025, there will not be enough farmland to feed this nation, leaving us at the mercy of other nations (who have to feed their own expanding populations) for our three daily meals plus snacks.

We pay farmers NOT to farm! Agricultural production in the US alone could nearly feed the entire current world population- now with the introduction of GM food, we're going to see yet another green revolution.

Fodd isn't the issue, drinking water is. That's the train wreck coming down the line.

If Europe is shedding their population just of its own accord, then we can do the same here, by strictly limiting immigration and yanking the tax incentives for having multiple children.

US population growth is driven primarily by immigration. Japan, European countries- the 'silver-haired' nations are all in a bind due to falling population growth- their social saftey net needs young workers to pay for the retired seniors benefits... just like what's going to happen in the US with the baby-boom generation retiring.

Byron · 2003-10-23 06:40:47

US population growth is driven primarily by immigration. Japan, European countries- the 'silver-haired' nations are all in a bind due to falling population growth- their social saftey net needs young workers to pay for the retired seniors benefits... just like what's going to happen in the US with the baby-boom generation retiring.

That's why we (the whole world) need to start expanding "middle age" in line with our increasing lifespans. If the standard retirement age was bumped up to 70 or 75, that would go a long ways in solving the problems of the inbalance between the old and young. Of course, we (1st world nations) need to adopt "fair trade" policies to preserve our job base, and we need to keep pushing for better labor laws (shorter hours, greater flexibility, better job enjoyment and personal growth, along with greater productivity per worker with the use of technology) so that people won't mind working into their 70's or even 80's.

You do realize that Europe has nearly 400,000,000 now. India, 1.1 billion. China, nearly 2 billion. 50% of the US population lives on but a small percentage of the total available land in the US, mostly along the Eastern and Western coasts.

I sure as hell don't want to see that many people in this county... On the flight back from North Carolina last Tuesday night, I had a dramatic view of the nighttime Florida pennisula from my window seat...the air was super-clear, and I could see all the way to the other coast...all those lights! (Jacksonville, Orlando, the entire east coast of Florida.) So what if the middle of North America is still mostly empty of people...I, for one, would like it to remain that way...

B

Palomar · 2003-10-23 07:02:41

Free Spirit: "I'm not a MS member, I don't believe we should be wasting resources sending people to Mars,"

*Hi Free Spirit: I can't recall if you've read _The Case for Mars_? I think -- as $$ and resources go -- Zubrin's plan could be considered *conservationist*, as exploration plans go. To "do" Mars Direct would be a ::fraction:: of the cost versus NASA's plans (NASA figured kazillions of $$$ into their "plan"). Zubrin also outlined how to "live off the land." I was stunned when I read his proposals, how cost-effective, money-wise, and downright cheap (as compared to NASA!!) his outline is. Please check it out and compare, if you haven't already. I'm opposed to wastefulness myself...of money, resources, etc...which is why it was easy for me to join the Mars Society and support it.

Free Spirit: "and I find Zubrin's political philosophy repulsive."

*Okay. I can't say I'm in 100% full agreement with his political philosophy either (and frankly, I really don't care about his *political* philosophical sentiments; his appeal, for me, is Mars Direct and its cost-effectivness, conservationist approach, etc). But can you separate the political philosophy from the Mars Direct plan specifics?

--Cindy

P.S.: Your assessment concerning Ayn Rand's opinion of art is correct, as per your most recent reply to me.

clark · 2003-10-23 07:06:02

That's why we (the whole world) need to start expanding "middle age" in line with our increasing lifespans.

Shoul we extend childhood too?

Of course, we (1st world nations) need to adopt "fair trade" policies to preserve our job base, and we need to keep pushing for better labor laws (shorter hours, greater flexibility, better job enjoyment and personal growth, along with greater productivity per worker with the use of technology) so that people won't mind working into their 70's or even 80's.

Herr's one for you, put this in the context of Mars. Can Martians afford to not have people working?

I sure as hell don't want to see that many people in this county...

Then how many would you like to see? The Bill's of the world want a few more, Free Spirits of the world, I imagine, would like a few less.

If there's room to spare, how can you justify 'no'? Don't get me wrong, I have my views on population control, but that stems from concrete reasons based on saftey issues for space colonists- the argument largely falls apart in an open environment...

Byron · 2003-10-23 07:16:03

Shoul we extend childhood too?

It probably wouldn't hurt. People are growing up too fast as it is...

Herr's one for you, put this in the context of Mars. Can Martians afford to not have people working?

My guess, in the beginning at least, probably not. Likely, the people going to Mars will love their work so much that they'll keep at it until they drop...just like my grandpa...

Then how many would you like to see? The Bill's of the world want a few more, Free Spirits of the world, I imagine, would like a few less.

If we could hold the population of the U.S. at a steady 300 million, I'd be a happy camper. This way, we'll be able to focus on quality of life rather than mindless quantity...

B

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-23 17:52:40

Cobra Commander:-
Hitler was a vegetarian. Now that's a bumper sticker I need to get.
Ha ha !! :laugh:
I really do like your wicked and perverse sense of humour.

Whew, after posting that I got a little worried it might not be taken with the level of jest I intended. Mention Hitler around some people...

I really don't understand why some people out there are so hell bent on destroying the environment. When you consider that it takes 700 gallons of water and acres of land just to produce one cheeseburger, it seems like it should just be common sense that vegetarianism is better for the planet.

Actually, no. Because you're not producing one burger, but to the bigger point: Why is vegetarianism better for the planet? Is the presence of animals destroying it? If so, shouldn't we kill more of them? And what better way to dispose of the carcasses then to eat them?

The idea that vegetarianism is somehow better for "the planet" is absurd. First, the amount of farmland that would be required to feed the entire human population solely on vegetable matter is staggering. All that forest being cleared, all that water being diverted. What was that about destroying the planet?

Farming is also not particularly animal-friendly either. Having worked on a farm for a season I have a first-hand understanding of how many field mice, birds and other small creatures are mangled by farm machinery. If people would eat that stuff we could wipe out hunger in a season. Which brings us to this point, If farming is destructive to the land and needlessly kills animals, then true enviromentalists should want a solution that minimizes both. Logic dictates that the best option is a large, herding animal that can live on uncultivated land. Grass-fed beef for everybody!

Finally, vegetarians overlook the importance of protein found in meat. Not only is it essential for the development of the human brain in individuals, it was essesntial for its evolution. If vegetarians only bred with other vegetarians for long enough, they would decline in mental capacity. A whole feeble-minded sub-race could result. And given their slow wits and herding instinct, somebody would eventually eat them.
Yep, that's a three-eyed mutant chewin' on vegan flesh.

Euler · 2003-10-23 21:39:45

US population growth is driven primarily by immigration

Actually, immigration accounts for less than 40% of the population growth. The primary reason for population growth is still that more people are born than die.

Shoul we extend childhood too?

Childhood is being extended. A typical American today spends 7-8 more years being educated compared with 100 years ago. The average ages for first marriage and childbirth are also increasing.

The idea that vegetarianism is somehow better for "the planet" is absurd. First, the amount of farmland that would be required to feed the entire human population solely on vegetable matter is staggering. All that forest being cleared, all that water being diverted. What was that about destroying the planet?

I think the reasoning goes that because livestock are often fed food that is edible for humans, and because it takes several pounds of plant matter to produce 1 pound of meat, meat production is inefficient and necessitates more farms instead of less. There is some validity to this reasoning, though it does not apply to animals that graze in areas that cannot be farmed easily. I think that, while it does typically require more resources to produce meat than it does to produce plants, meat tastes better and is therefore worth the extra expense. Farm yields are increasing faster than population growth, while at the same time farms are taking up less space and require less labor, so I am not too worried about running out of food soon.

Bill White · 2003-10-23 22:03:24

Back on track:

Chaucer
Homer
William Shakespeare
Socrates (that dude could drink!)
Abraham Lincoln
Bill Clinton (if he brings the saxophone)
Cleopatra
Helen of Troy
Nefertiti
Simone de Beauvoir
John Keats
Ann Coulter (NOT!)
Jane Austen

If we could add fictional people:

Anna Karenina
Falstaff

clark · 2003-10-24 10:02:56

I think mine, and a few others here, are better suited to a Tea party, rather than the dinner.

Oh, and a very happy un-birthday to you!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-10-20 21:58:23

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#2 2003-10-21 06:46:42

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#3 2003-10-21 10:30:01

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#4 2003-10-21 13:09:48

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#5 2003-10-21 13:31:41

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#6 2003-10-21 16:06:46

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#7 2003-10-22 01:59:48

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#8 2003-10-22 07:17:37

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#9 2003-10-22 08:21:45

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#10 2003-10-22 09:15:34

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#11 2003-10-22 13:45:27

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#12 2003-10-22 17:13:24

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#13 2003-10-22 17:27:42

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#14 2003-10-23 00:49:31

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#15 2003-10-23 01:44:26

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#16 2003-10-23 05:54:04

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#17 2003-10-23 06:16:52

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#18 2003-10-23 06:40:47

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#19 2003-10-23 07:02:41

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#20 2003-10-23 07:06:02

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#21 2003-10-23 07:16:03

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#22 2003-10-23 17:52:40

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#23 2003-10-23 21:39:45

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#24 2003-10-23 22:03:24

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

#25 2003-10-24 10:02:56

Re: The Great Dinner Party... - Who's On Your List?

Board footer