What sense does it make if you raise your population and everyone is miserably poor or on the edge of becoming poor?

There’s an overall negative correlation between wealth and fertility, so it’s not like the rich are having a ton of kids, either. Or even the societies with decent metrics on wealth or income equality, still tend to be low birth rate countries.

It’s a difficult problem, with no one solution (because it’s not one cause). Some of it is cultural. Some of it is economic. There are a lot of feedback effects and peer effects, too. And each society has its own mix of cultural and economic issues.

And I’m not actually disagreeing with you. I think there’s probably something to be said for cheap cost of living allowing for people to be more comfortable having more children (or at a younger age, which also mathematically grows populations faster than having the same number of children at an older age).

Have you ever had to clean public restrooms? Nothing microscopic about the drops of splashback.

Gotta paint some faces on there, with puckered lips.

You’re paying way too much for antimatter, man. Who’s your antimatter guy?

Slang term for ejaculating, usually with some projectile distance implied. Very popular term in the mid-2000’s, see Get Low by Lil Jon.

Depends on how you want to use Lemmy. When using it as a link aggregator, you’d probably want to hide the stuff you’ve already clicked on. But as a discussion forum, it doesn’t hurt to go back to threads you’ve already seen to see what new comments have been made since.

I just subscribed to cocktails. Thanks for putting that together.

I still have a few reddit alts that I lurk with, at least until we get enough activity on Lemmy on those topics:

• Sports discussion, including specific leagues and teams
• Discussion about my specific local city (and maybe the other cities I frequently visit)
• Things relevant to my career/industry in law
• Economics and financial news
• Food and cooking
• Television shows and movies, including specific shows or narrow discussions
• Super specific hobbies and interests, not just the stuff I’m personally into, but also knowing that there’s a community around some other hobby so that there is lots of archived discussion where I can just click around and learn something new. For example, the most recent plane crashes in DC and Toronto, I went to the aviation community on Reddit to see what experienced professionals were saying about those things as the news broke.

Lemmy’s good on all the tech and science stuff I like, and most of the memes/humor that I’m looking for. It’s coming along on some mainstream interests, including the ones I’ve listed above, but still has a ways to go before the organic discussions reach the level of detail and expertise that reddit has. But it’s on the right track, and I’m optimistic about those things filling in over time.

I sure did, whoops.

If you’re interested in this stuff, Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions describes a lot of how science actually happens, where most normal science builds up accumulated information under an accepted paradigm, but occasionally those old models slowly become untenable with repeated observations that are anomalous or not explained by that existing accepted scientific paradigm. Then a scientific revolution occurs, the old paradigm is cast aside or limited in its scope, while the new paradigm takes over as the generally accepted set of theories. The book is one of the most cited works of the post-war era.

Geocentrism Heliocentrism didn’t have a clear advantage over Heliocentrism geocentrism, until Kepler made the observation that the planetary orbits were elliptical. (One big objection to geocentrism was that the stars should have some kind of observable parallax if the earth were moving around the sun, but that ended up being explained by learning just how freaking far away the stars are.) Heliocentrism with elliptical orbits, though, laid the groundwork for Newton’s theory of gravitation.

Later on, Mercury’s anomalous orbit just couldn’t be made to fit Newton’s theory, but astronomers held onto Newton’s theories for decades before Einstein’s general relativity was enough to explain it. Einstein’s own cosmological theories needed to be fit in with the discovery of the cosmic background radiation and our expanding universe, and eventually we got to our current paradigm of the lambda-CDM model, which postulates the existence of dark matter to account for galactic structures, dark energy to account for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. All along the way, there were discarded theories that just don’t hold up.

The history of how we got here can help inform how we should speculate about where we might go next. New normal science might try to figure out what dark matter actually is (different theories can be tested by looking for different observations), without actually challenging the overarching lambda-CDM model. Or research into the Hubble Tension might allow enough observation to propose a new model entirely, for a revolution into a new paradigm.

And of course, Kuhn wrote his hugely influential book in 1962, so many decades of thought have refined and challenged some of those ideas. It’s interesting stuff.