• "Britain's Naked Public Square"
• "A Vaccine Debate Once Focused on Sex Shifts as Boys Join the Target Market" 
• "Stem Cell Wrestling" 
• "Is Obama Worth a Mass?" 
• "Good enough for the church. (Or God's Love Letter to Artists)" 
• "Headed toward extinction?" 
• "Hellhole" 
• "How USA Today used me (and I let it)" 
• "Abortion chain owner's family died in MT cemetery plane crash -- near Tomb of the Unborn" 
• "Historian Helped Blaze a Civil Rights Path" 

Comments

[David]

Regarding the article “Headed Toward Extinction”, I find myself whistling the tune that LeeQuod put in my head in a different post: “Welcome my friend to the show that never ends…”. Does any body really believe we are headed for extinction? (… does anybody really care?” But I digress.)

The writer worries that “With fewer workers to support each elder, the world economy might have to run just that much faster, and consume that much more resources, or else living standards will fall.” Why will it *have to* run faster? And how could it, even if that was desirable? More directly to his statement, falling living standards is not the definition of extinction. I’ll even concede something worse: with fewer workers to support each elder, each elder might not live as long! That isn’t extinction either; it’s just the inevitable arriving a little sooner.

This is one megatrend that will not disturb my sleep.