Recent submissions

Comment · 10 years ago
One thing is for sure. The CIA could have killed him, could kill him now, if he truly posed a threat to national security. The fact that they don't indicates they don't feel he is a threat. I'm confident that whatever goal posts you claim Snowden set back, I can explain as ultimatley serving US interests. That's the barometer. Has he hurt US Interests? Seems US interests are doing fine to me. Would things be better if he has revealed nothing? Probably not. His revelations are great distractions.
Comment · 10 years ago
At a certain point you're saving people so they can starve to death. That's the worst case. Best case: saving them speeds up how soon we run out of non-renewable resources. What's more merciful to mankind as a whole in the long run? I'd say it's keeping the planet in good shape, and I don't see how eradicating malaria can do anything but hurt that goal.
Comment · 10 years ago
Comment · 10 years ago
>>Probably the strain from chronic malaria is worse for an economy than any theoretical strain due to feeding a few million more people.

How about the strain on the planet's non-renewable resources? One would think that the million more people would cause said resources to run out sooner than they otherwise would.

Perhaps we should focus on how to deal with the consequences of eliminating certain natural human population controls before we go through with it.

Comment · 10 years ago
Those people, if they survived, would have gone on to cause far more ecological damage to the planet than they otherwise did. Until we figure out how to colonize other solar systems, endeavors to spare every human life from such naturally occurring population controls seems foolishly good-hearted.
Comment · 10 years ago
3)Half a million humans that would have died from Malaria, but did not.
Comment · 10 years ago
I agree with you.

"Let's get rid of all these natural population controls!"

Sounds like the beginning of a bad post-apocalypse movie.

Comment · 10 years ago
>It's cheaper in the long run.

Is it? A human that survives to reproduce that would have otherwise died from malaria uses more non-renewable resources than a human that dies from malaria over the course of their lifetime, and continues to do so after their death by way of their progeny.

In terms of how much time we have as a species before running out of non-renewables on earth, killing the mosquitos might cost more than our blue marble can afford.

Perhaps certain natural population controls ought not be tampered with.

Comment · 10 years ago
What's going on here. Is this an HN meme?
Comment · 10 years ago
I can't really disagree with you there.
Comment · 10 years ago
"If you're not signed to a label and have access to their marketing engine then no one will ever hear your music"

Unless you can get popular on youtube.

Comment · 10 years ago
I aspire to fiction that reads like that.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton