<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_01_0027242</id>
	<title>Evolution's Path May Lead To Shorter, Heavier Women</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257082260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Yale University researchers believe that if evolutionary pressures of sexual selection and reproductive fitness continue for another 10 generations, the trends detected in their study may mean that <a href="http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=6989">the average woman in 2409 AD will be 2 cm shorter, 1 kg heavier</a>, will bear her first child five months earlier, and enter menopause 10 months later. 'There is this idea that because medicine has been so good at reducing mortality rates, that means that natural selection is no longer operating in humans,' says Stephen Stearns of Yale University. 'That's just plain false.' Stearns and his team studied the medical histories of 14,000 residents of the Massachusetts town of Framingham, using medical data from a study going back to 1948 spanning three generations, and found that <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/6386193/Women-evolving-to-be-shorter-and-heavier-says-research.html">shorter, heavier women had more children than lighter, taller ones</a>. Women with lower blood pressure and cholesterol were also more likely to have large families as were women who gave birth early or had a late menopause. More importantly, <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019162933.htm">these traits are then passed on to their daughters</a>, who also, on average, had more children. The study has not determined why these factors are linked to reproductive success, but it is likely that they indicate genetic, rather than environmental, effects. 'The evolution that's going on in the Framingham women is like average rates of evolution measured in other plants and animals,' says Stearns. 'These results place humans in the medium-to-slow end of the range of rates observed for other living things.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Yale University researchers believe that if evolutionary pressures of sexual selection and reproductive fitness continue for another 10 generations , the trends detected in their study may mean that the average woman in 2409 AD will be 2 cm shorter , 1 kg heavier , will bear her first child five months earlier , and enter menopause 10 months later .
'There is this idea that because medicine has been so good at reducing mortality rates , that means that natural selection is no longer operating in humans, ' says Stephen Stearns of Yale University .
'That 's just plain false .
' Stearns and his team studied the medical histories of 14,000 residents of the Massachusetts town of Framingham , using medical data from a study going back to 1948 spanning three generations , and found that shorter , heavier women had more children than lighter , taller ones .
Women with lower blood pressure and cholesterol were also more likely to have large families as were women who gave birth early or had a late menopause .
More importantly , these traits are then passed on to their daughters , who also , on average , had more children .
The study has not determined why these factors are linked to reproductive success , but it is likely that they indicate genetic , rather than environmental , effects .
'The evolution that 's going on in the Framingham women is like average rates of evolution measured in other plants and animals, ' says Stearns .
'These results place humans in the medium-to-slow end of the range of rates observed for other living things .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Yale University researchers believe that if evolutionary pressures of sexual selection and reproductive fitness continue for another 10 generations, the trends detected in their study may mean that the average woman in 2409 AD will be 2 cm shorter, 1 kg heavier, will bear her first child five months earlier, and enter menopause 10 months later.
'There is this idea that because medicine has been so good at reducing mortality rates, that means that natural selection is no longer operating in humans,' says Stephen Stearns of Yale University.
'That's just plain false.
' Stearns and his team studied the medical histories of 14,000 residents of the Massachusetts town of Framingham, using medical data from a study going back to 1948 spanning three generations, and found that shorter, heavier women had more children than lighter, taller ones.
Women with lower blood pressure and cholesterol were also more likely to have large families as were women who gave birth early or had a late menopause.
More importantly, these traits are then passed on to their daughters, who also, on average, had more children.
The study has not determined why these factors are linked to reproductive success, but it is likely that they indicate genetic, rather than environmental, effects.
'The evolution that's going on in the Framingham women is like average rates of evolution measured in other plants and animals,' says Stearns.
'These results place humans in the medium-to-slow end of the range of rates observed for other living things.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941579</id>
	<title>Re:Idocracy</title>
	<author>bigpat</author>
	<datestamp>1257090540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Evolution would just mean that whomever has the most children (that survive to also make children) becomes the dominant (in numbers) body type.</p></div><p>Yes, that is how evolution works.</p><p>But run this same study in other places and maybe you get a different result.  It could be that in Framingham the people that want to reproduce the most happen to be shorter.  Or maybe there is something about being a bit shorter that opens up more mating possibilities.  And the heavier part needs a bit more investigation, because people that have a lot of kids usually don't lose all the weight after the pregnancy.</p><p>There is a very complicated cultural interplay that is part of human reproduction.  Government policy, language differences, religious beliefs etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution would just mean that whomever has the most children ( that survive to also make children ) becomes the dominant ( in numbers ) body type.Yes , that is how evolution works.But run this same study in other places and maybe you get a different result .
It could be that in Framingham the people that want to reproduce the most happen to be shorter .
Or maybe there is something about being a bit shorter that opens up more mating possibilities .
And the heavier part needs a bit more investigation , because people that have a lot of kids usually do n't lose all the weight after the pregnancy.There is a very complicated cultural interplay that is part of human reproduction .
Government policy , language differences , religious beliefs etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution would just mean that whomever has the most children (that survive to also make children) becomes the dominant (in numbers) body type.Yes, that is how evolution works.But run this same study in other places and maybe you get a different result.
It could be that in Framingham the people that want to reproduce the most happen to be shorter.
Or maybe there is something about being a bit shorter that opens up more mating possibilities.
And the heavier part needs a bit more investigation, because people that have a lot of kids usually don't lose all the weight after the pregnancy.There is a very complicated cultural interplay that is part of human reproduction.
Government policy, language differences, religious beliefs etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941657</id>
	<title>Re:Idocracy</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1257091140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Evolution would just mean that whomever has the most children (that survive to also make children) becomes the dominant (in numbers) body type.</p></div><p>Not entirely, in you're assuming that nothing would change during this period, and that just because mother A got 5 children, so will daughter A, but of course it would as evolution itself is caused by change. It is true that evolution ultimately depends on offspring, but you can't neglect the path to having and raising that offspring. These are all events heavily based on environmental factors, and your second mistake is that evolution in our case depends on second set of genes -- our partners. You can't assume that a gene or a trait is good and that's de facto. Our traits are always based on our environments, thus what if you would mix (just as a silly example) high probability with having many children with high probability of <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/" title="msn.com">dying during childbirth?</a> [msn.com] <br>
&nbsp; <br>So you see the only assumption you can make on evolution without being subjected to the fallancy of the single cause is: whichever creatures who are best (or good enough) adapted to their environment will become a genetic base for future generations. Any simplification on that will be incorrect as it will be based on false assumptions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution would just mean that whomever has the most children ( that survive to also make children ) becomes the dominant ( in numbers ) body type.Not entirely , in you 're assuming that nothing would change during this period , and that just because mother A got 5 children , so will daughter A , but of course it would as evolution itself is caused by change .
It is true that evolution ultimately depends on offspring , but you ca n't neglect the path to having and raising that offspring .
These are all events heavily based on environmental factors , and your second mistake is that evolution in our case depends on second set of genes -- our partners .
You ca n't assume that a gene or a trait is good and that 's de facto .
Our traits are always based on our environments , thus what if you would mix ( just as a silly example ) high probability with having many children with high probability of dying during childbirth ?
[ msn.com ]   So you see the only assumption you can make on evolution without being subjected to the fallancy of the single cause is : whichever creatures who are best ( or good enough ) adapted to their environment will become a genetic base for future generations .
Any simplification on that will be incorrect as it will be based on false assumptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution would just mean that whomever has the most children (that survive to also make children) becomes the dominant (in numbers) body type.Not entirely, in you're assuming that nothing would change during this period, and that just because mother A got 5 children, so will daughter A, but of course it would as evolution itself is caused by change.
It is true that evolution ultimately depends on offspring, but you can't neglect the path to having and raising that offspring.
These are all events heavily based on environmental factors, and your second mistake is that evolution in our case depends on second set of genes -- our partners.
You can't assume that a gene or a trait is good and that's de facto.
Our traits are always based on our environments, thus what if you would mix (just as a silly example) high probability with having many children with high probability of dying during childbirth?
[msn.com] 
  So you see the only assumption you can make on evolution without being subjected to the fallancy of the single cause is: whichever creatures who are best (or good enough) adapted to their environment will become a genetic base for future generations.
Any simplification on that will be incorrect as it will be based on false assumptions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943290</id>
	<title>Re:Reproductive "success" is not genetic.</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1257106800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but not all differences that people display are caused by genes.  If "ugly dwarven females" are caused by entirely environmental factors, there would be no selective pressure regardless of how successfully they breed.</p><p>It is entirely correct that whoever spawns the most progeny will spread their genes, *however*, if those with the most progeny have the same genome as those who have the fewest, this will have no evolutionary effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but not all differences that people display are caused by genes .
If " ugly dwarven females " are caused by entirely environmental factors , there would be no selective pressure regardless of how successfully they breed.It is entirely correct that whoever spawns the most progeny will spread their genes , * however * , if those with the most progeny have the same genome as those who have the fewest , this will have no evolutionary effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but not all differences that people display are caused by genes.
If "ugly dwarven females" are caused by entirely environmental factors, there would be no selective pressure regardless of how successfully they breed.It is entirely correct that whoever spawns the most progeny will spread their genes, *however*, if those with the most progeny have the same genome as those who have the fewest, this will have no evolutionary effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29948070</id>
	<title>Trimmed on both ends of the curve</title>
	<author>Keith Henson</author>
	<datestamp>1257192660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For a human trait where the average is not moving up or down, then the individuals far out on either side of the bell curve must be failing to reproduced to roughly the same degree.  If you think about this with respect to intelligence, then if the really smart ones are not reproducing, the ones on the other end of the scale are unlikely to be reproducing either.  If this was not the case, then the average over generations would drift up or down until the curve was being trimmed on both sides equally.<br> <br>

To give an example far from western culture, <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/why-pygmies-are-small" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/why-pygmies-are-small</a> [wired.com]  In this case, the larger ones didn't have enough reproductive years to replace themselves.  (High mortality.)<br> <br>

The ones who matured too soon didn't do as well in child bearing either.<br> <br>

While we notice the smart people who are not having kids, the ones who are equally far from the mean on the low side don't reproduce either.<br> <br>

Keith Henson</htmltext>
<tokenext>For a human trait where the average is not moving up or down , then the individuals far out on either side of the bell curve must be failing to reproduced to roughly the same degree .
If you think about this with respect to intelligence , then if the really smart ones are not reproducing , the ones on the other end of the scale are unlikely to be reproducing either .
If this was not the case , then the average over generations would drift up or down until the curve was being trimmed on both sides equally .
To give an example far from western culture , http : //www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/why-pygmies-are-small [ wired.com ] In this case , the larger ones did n't have enough reproductive years to replace themselves .
( High mortality .
) The ones who matured too soon did n't do as well in child bearing either .
While we notice the smart people who are not having kids , the ones who are equally far from the mean on the low side do n't reproduce either .
Keith Henson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a human trait where the average is not moving up or down, then the individuals far out on either side of the bell curve must be failing to reproduced to roughly the same degree.
If you think about this with respect to intelligence, then if the really smart ones are not reproducing, the ones on the other end of the scale are unlikely to be reproducing either.
If this was not the case, then the average over generations would drift up or down until the curve was being trimmed on both sides equally.
To give an example far from western culture, http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/why-pygmies-are-small [wired.com]  In this case, the larger ones didn't have enough reproductive years to replace themselves.
(High mortality.
) 

The ones who matured too soon didn't do as well in child bearing either.
While we notice the smart people who are not having kids, the ones who are equally far from the mean on the low side don't reproduce either.
Keith Henson</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942264</id>
	<title>..not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257097260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/07/27/1455253/Are-Women-Getting-More-Beautiful?art\_pos=20</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //science.slashdot.org/story/09/07/27/1455253/Are-Women-Getting-More-Beautiful ? art \ _pos = 20</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/07/27/1455253/Are-Women-Getting-More-Beautiful?art\_pos=20</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942904</id>
	<title>10 generations?</title>
	<author>Deanalator</author>
	<datestamp>1257103740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10 generations?  By that time we'll all have metal wings and laser eyes.  I'm curious if the study takes genetic engineering into account at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10 generations ?
By that time we 'll all have metal wings and laser eyes .
I 'm curious if the study takes genetic engineering into account at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10 generations?
By that time we'll all have metal wings and laser eyes.
I'm curious if the study takes genetic engineering into account at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941491</id>
	<title>Unconvincing.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1257089640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not convinced by these researchers' claims. Is there a trend towards people getting shorter? I thought the opposite was true. As for obesity, that's another story. But what I am convinced this reflects is not an evolutionary trend but rather a socioeconomic one. The better off people are the less likely they are to have children. So poorer people are the ones having children and unlike most of the rest of the world lower-class Americans are very likely to be obese. Do this study in parts of Asia or Africa and these researchers would be saying the trend was towards thinner humans. The US actually bucks the trend established by most developed nations in that many people still tend to have a few children, in Europe and Asia you're lucky if they have one. I'm not sure why there would be a shift towards bearing children sooner considering most people seem to be waiting longer to have kids. Again, it might simply be a reflection class.</p><p>That seems like a big assumption to me given how many variables exist. An interesting thing a gynecologist told me a couple of years ago was that obese women tend do deprive the fetus of nutrients more so than your average women, so they tend to have underweight babies far more frequently. So this evolutionary tend doesn't seem like a particularly good thing to me. But then there are so many variables affecting humanity that these findings are likely meaningless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not convinced by these researchers ' claims .
Is there a trend towards people getting shorter ?
I thought the opposite was true .
As for obesity , that 's another story .
But what I am convinced this reflects is not an evolutionary trend but rather a socioeconomic one .
The better off people are the less likely they are to have children .
So poorer people are the ones having children and unlike most of the rest of the world lower-class Americans are very likely to be obese .
Do this study in parts of Asia or Africa and these researchers would be saying the trend was towards thinner humans .
The US actually bucks the trend established by most developed nations in that many people still tend to have a few children , in Europe and Asia you 're lucky if they have one .
I 'm not sure why there would be a shift towards bearing children sooner considering most people seem to be waiting longer to have kids .
Again , it might simply be a reflection class.That seems like a big assumption to me given how many variables exist .
An interesting thing a gynecologist told me a couple of years ago was that obese women tend do deprive the fetus of nutrients more so than your average women , so they tend to have underweight babies far more frequently .
So this evolutionary tend does n't seem like a particularly good thing to me .
But then there are so many variables affecting humanity that these findings are likely meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not convinced by these researchers' claims.
Is there a trend towards people getting shorter?
I thought the opposite was true.
As for obesity, that's another story.
But what I am convinced this reflects is not an evolutionary trend but rather a socioeconomic one.
The better off people are the less likely they are to have children.
So poorer people are the ones having children and unlike most of the rest of the world lower-class Americans are very likely to be obese.
Do this study in parts of Asia or Africa and these researchers would be saying the trend was towards thinner humans.
The US actually bucks the trend established by most developed nations in that many people still tend to have a few children, in Europe and Asia you're lucky if they have one.
I'm not sure why there would be a shift towards bearing children sooner considering most people seem to be waiting longer to have kids.
Again, it might simply be a reflection class.That seems like a big assumption to me given how many variables exist.
An interesting thing a gynecologist told me a couple of years ago was that obese women tend do deprive the fetus of nutrients more so than your average women, so they tend to have underweight babies far more frequently.
So this evolutionary tend doesn't seem like a particularly good thing to me.
But then there are so many variables affecting humanity that these findings are likely meaningless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943216</id>
	<title>Gah!</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1257106320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like an obvious example of getting the causation wrong.  To me, the very obvious implication is that pregnancy makes women fatter.  Weight is by no means entirely genetically driven.  Neither is blood pressure or cholesterol.  There are genetic factors, sure, but the study as the Telegraph is reporting it at least imply that all of these things are entirely genetic.  This is not true at all.  Environment is significant in weight, blood pressure, cholesterol and even height.  Good nutrition has effects on all of these and it is pretty well known that good nutrition improves fertility.</p><p>The other bit is even funnier:</p><blockquote><div><p>Women who gave birth early or had a late menopause were likely to have more children as well.</p></div> </blockquote><p>It should be obvious that on an entirely probabilistic basis women who give birth early will, in the end, have more children.  Without any proof that there is any genetic basis to giving birth early, this means nothing.  The bit at the other end may make more sense as there's more likely to be a genetic basis for later menopause, but even there you'd have to show that the genetic basis was actually there.</p><p>In truth *any* study that claims that we are "still evolving" without referencing actual genes is suspect as separating out the genetic and environmental factors is extremely difficult.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like an obvious example of getting the causation wrong .
To me , the very obvious implication is that pregnancy makes women fatter .
Weight is by no means entirely genetically driven .
Neither is blood pressure or cholesterol .
There are genetic factors , sure , but the study as the Telegraph is reporting it at least imply that all of these things are entirely genetic .
This is not true at all .
Environment is significant in weight , blood pressure , cholesterol and even height .
Good nutrition has effects on all of these and it is pretty well known that good nutrition improves fertility.The other bit is even funnier : Women who gave birth early or had a late menopause were likely to have more children as well .
It should be obvious that on an entirely probabilistic basis women who give birth early will , in the end , have more children .
Without any proof that there is any genetic basis to giving birth early , this means nothing .
The bit at the other end may make more sense as there 's more likely to be a genetic basis for later menopause , but even there you 'd have to show that the genetic basis was actually there.In truth * any * study that claims that we are " still evolving " without referencing actual genes is suspect as separating out the genetic and environmental factors is extremely difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like an obvious example of getting the causation wrong.
To me, the very obvious implication is that pregnancy makes women fatter.
Weight is by no means entirely genetically driven.
Neither is blood pressure or cholesterol.
There are genetic factors, sure, but the study as the Telegraph is reporting it at least imply that all of these things are entirely genetic.
This is not true at all.
Environment is significant in weight, blood pressure, cholesterol and even height.
Good nutrition has effects on all of these and it is pretty well known that good nutrition improves fertility.The other bit is even funnier:Women who gave birth early or had a late menopause were likely to have more children as well.
It should be obvious that on an entirely probabilistic basis women who give birth early will, in the end, have more children.
Without any proof that there is any genetic basis to giving birth early, this means nothing.
The bit at the other end may make more sense as there's more likely to be a genetic basis for later menopause, but even there you'd have to show that the genetic basis was actually there.In truth *any* study that claims that we are "still evolving" without referencing actual genes is suspect as separating out the genetic and environmental factors is extremely difficult.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941523</id>
	<title>Mexicans?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mexicans and african americans follow both of these traits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mexicans and african americans follow both of these traits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mexicans and african americans follow both of these traits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29950690</id>
	<title>Darwin FTW.</title>
	<author>ex\_ottoyuhr</author>
	<datestamp>1257180000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If beautiful women don't have children, being beautiful is evolutionarily maladaptive, and will be selected out. Margaret Sanger's not working out so well...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If beautiful women do n't have children , being beautiful is evolutionarily maladaptive , and will be selected out .
Margaret Sanger 's not working out so well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If beautiful women don't have children, being beautiful is evolutionarily maladaptive, and will be selected out.
Margaret Sanger's not working out so well...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29950812</id>
	<title>Re:history is not a myth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257180540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure where you are getting your food prices, because where I live (admittedly in Canada), food at any normal supermarket or grocery store, never approach those prices.</p><p>Eggs are bare minimum, $2 a dozen (regular white, large).  Chicken of any sort, at least $1.50 a pound, and that's on sale (unless you're willing to risk sketchy, unrefrigerated meat).  Milk has now shot up to over $5 for 4 litres (which is pretty close to your gallon quantity wise).  Ham for $1.29 a pound, not happening here.</p><p>Even accounting for the exchange rate, there's still a huge gap between your prices and what I observe (for those items picked, it's close to a factor of 2).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure where you are getting your food prices , because where I live ( admittedly in Canada ) , food at any normal supermarket or grocery store , never approach those prices.Eggs are bare minimum , $ 2 a dozen ( regular white , large ) .
Chicken of any sort , at least $ 1.50 a pound , and that 's on sale ( unless you 're willing to risk sketchy , unrefrigerated meat ) .
Milk has now shot up to over $ 5 for 4 litres ( which is pretty close to your gallon quantity wise ) .
Ham for $ 1.29 a pound , not happening here.Even accounting for the exchange rate , there 's still a huge gap between your prices and what I observe ( for those items picked , it 's close to a factor of 2 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure where you are getting your food prices, because where I live (admittedly in Canada), food at any normal supermarket or grocery store, never approach those prices.Eggs are bare minimum, $2 a dozen (regular white, large).
Chicken of any sort, at least $1.50 a pound, and that's on sale (unless you're willing to risk sketchy, unrefrigerated meat).
Milk has now shot up to over $5 for 4 litres (which is pretty close to your gallon quantity wise).
Ham for $1.29 a pound, not happening here.Even accounting for the exchange rate, there's still a huge gap between your prices and what I observe (for those items picked, it's close to a factor of 2).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941585</id>
	<title>You 7ail it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OF AMERICA) is the Woot battled in court, to th3 crowd in</htmltext>
<tokenext>OF AMERICA ) is the Woot battled in court , to th3 crowd in</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OF AMERICA) is the Woot battled in court, to th3 crowd in</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941211</id>
	<title>Reproductive "success" is not genetic.</title>
	<author>acon1modm</author>
	<datestamp>1257085980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think evolutionary change is being stifled by both medicine and civilization. Reproductive "success" is not genetic anymore, its based on social factors. The goal of most humans is no longer to spawn the most progeny.

</p><p>I come from a small backwoods town and women in these areas (e.g. low income, low education) have more children, and have them at a younger age. ( This is a generalization, no anecdotes please. And no I don't feel like looking up stats, maybe someone else can post some).

</p><p>Also, regardless of the details, I hope TFA is wrong. Have you seen dwarven females?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think evolutionary change is being stifled by both medicine and civilization .
Reproductive " success " is not genetic anymore , its based on social factors .
The goal of most humans is no longer to spawn the most progeny .
I come from a small backwoods town and women in these areas ( e.g .
low income , low education ) have more children , and have them at a younger age .
( This is a generalization , no anecdotes please .
And no I do n't feel like looking up stats , maybe someone else can post some ) .
Also , regardless of the details , I hope TFA is wrong .
Have you seen dwarven females ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think evolutionary change is being stifled by both medicine and civilization.
Reproductive "success" is not genetic anymore, its based on social factors.
The goal of most humans is no longer to spawn the most progeny.
I come from a small backwoods town and women in these areas (e.g.
low income, low education) have more children, and have them at a younger age.
( This is a generalization, no anecdotes please.
And no I don't feel like looking up stats, maybe someone else can post some).
Also, regardless of the details, I hope TFA is wrong.
Have you seen dwarven females?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943678</id>
	<title>Re:Reproductive "success" is not genetic.</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1257066360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I think evolutionary change is being stifled by both medicine and civilization.</i> </p><p>Modern society certainly has a huge effect in evolution, but it does not diminish the process of evolution.</p><p> <i>Reproductive "success" is not genetic anymore, its based on social factors</i> </p><p>Genetics affect social factors. It is almost certain the development of human language and intelligence was largely driven by social factors. Individuals who were more intelligent and more linguistically capable would have been far better at climbing the social hierarchy, getting more social support and control. They would have been better at avoiding dangerous social violence, better at building obtaining alliances for mutual defense against violence, better at obtaining food and other resources for themselves and for their ates and for their children. They also would have been far more appealing as mates both because of the previous reasons, but also for the direct reason of "sexual attractiveness" selection for more linguistically skilled mates.</p><p> <i>The goal of most humans is no longer to spawn the most progeny.</i> </p><p>Evolution doesn't care about goals, and evolution does not care about our values. Evolution only cares about one thing your long term number of descendants.... how many offspring you leave behind and how successful those offspring are in producing more offspring.</p><p>There is a particularly striking recent human genetics discovery that demonstrating this point. DNA analysis of large numbers of people over the last few decades has identified quite a few genes that are currently undergoing significant positive evolutionary selection. In particular genes for certain mental illnesses (such as bipolar disorder) are seeing POSITIVE evolutionary selection. People will these mental instabilities are more inclined to promiscuous or intense-but-unstable sexual relationships. They tend to neglect birth control, or only use it erratically. They tend to get pregnant (or get other people pregnant) at a very high rate. Being unstable, they tend to leave that child to be raised by the other partner or by family members, and they move on to the next unstable relationship producing more children.</p><p>It doesn't matter if you or I consider mental and emotional instability to be a "bad thing". The evolutionary fact is that people with these genes produce more offspring than average, and those offspring tend to produce more offspring than average. In the long term more complex factors may (or may not) turn against the genes for these forms of mental instability, but it perfectly illustrates that evolution doesn't care what we like or what we want or what we value. Evolution simply selects whatever works - where "works" means producing more copies of the genes.</p><p>Medicine and modern society have radically altered the selections pressures on humans, but have not diminished the fact of evolutionary selection. We are no longer threatened by many diseases, being near sighted or far sighted is no longer a significant survival issue, broken bones are rarely crippling or fatal. On the other hand physical tolerance for surgery and anesthesia is a significant selection factor. Physical tolerance for modern medicines is a selection factor - someone with a fatal allergy to penicillin has a problem. Mental capabilities in literacy and  basic arithmetic handling money and relevant. The skills and temperament to navigate modern urban and suburban society (humans are still significantly adapted to tribal society where at most a few hundred people in a population all knew each other). One of the largest causes of death today is driving fatalities - so spacial skills and other driving skills are a significant selection pressure. Our modern diet has radically changed - vitamins and starvation have largely vanished as selection issues, but now obesity and diet-related hart disease are major health issues (people will with either be selected towards a better diets, or to selected to better thrive on a modern diet). And on and on and on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think evolutionary change is being stifled by both medicine and civilization .
Modern society certainly has a huge effect in evolution , but it does not diminish the process of evolution .
Reproductive " success " is not genetic anymore , its based on social factors Genetics affect social factors .
It is almost certain the development of human language and intelligence was largely driven by social factors .
Individuals who were more intelligent and more linguistically capable would have been far better at climbing the social hierarchy , getting more social support and control .
They would have been better at avoiding dangerous social violence , better at building obtaining alliances for mutual defense against violence , better at obtaining food and other resources for themselves and for their ates and for their children .
They also would have been far more appealing as mates both because of the previous reasons , but also for the direct reason of " sexual attractiveness " selection for more linguistically skilled mates .
The goal of most humans is no longer to spawn the most progeny .
Evolution does n't care about goals , and evolution does not care about our values .
Evolution only cares about one thing your long term number of descendants.... how many offspring you leave behind and how successful those offspring are in producing more offspring.There is a particularly striking recent human genetics discovery that demonstrating this point .
DNA analysis of large numbers of people over the last few decades has identified quite a few genes that are currently undergoing significant positive evolutionary selection .
In particular genes for certain mental illnesses ( such as bipolar disorder ) are seeing POSITIVE evolutionary selection .
People will these mental instabilities are more inclined to promiscuous or intense-but-unstable sexual relationships .
They tend to neglect birth control , or only use it erratically .
They tend to get pregnant ( or get other people pregnant ) at a very high rate .
Being unstable , they tend to leave that child to be raised by the other partner or by family members , and they move on to the next unstable relationship producing more children.It does n't matter if you or I consider mental and emotional instability to be a " bad thing " .
The evolutionary fact is that people with these genes produce more offspring than average , and those offspring tend to produce more offspring than average .
In the long term more complex factors may ( or may not ) turn against the genes for these forms of mental instability , but it perfectly illustrates that evolution does n't care what we like or what we want or what we value .
Evolution simply selects whatever works - where " works " means producing more copies of the genes.Medicine and modern society have radically altered the selections pressures on humans , but have not diminished the fact of evolutionary selection .
We are no longer threatened by many diseases , being near sighted or far sighted is no longer a significant survival issue , broken bones are rarely crippling or fatal .
On the other hand physical tolerance for surgery and anesthesia is a significant selection factor .
Physical tolerance for modern medicines is a selection factor - someone with a fatal allergy to penicillin has a problem .
Mental capabilities in literacy and basic arithmetic handling money and relevant .
The skills and temperament to navigate modern urban and suburban society ( humans are still significantly adapted to tribal society where at most a few hundred people in a population all knew each other ) .
One of the largest causes of death today is driving fatalities - so spacial skills and other driving skills are a significant selection pressure .
Our modern diet has radically changed - vitamins and starvation have largely vanished as selection issues , but now obesity and diet-related hart disease are major health issues ( people will with either be selected towards a better diets , or to selected to better thrive on a modern diet ) .
And on and on and on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I think evolutionary change is being stifled by both medicine and civilization.
Modern society certainly has a huge effect in evolution, but it does not diminish the process of evolution.
Reproductive "success" is not genetic anymore, its based on social factors Genetics affect social factors.
It is almost certain the development of human language and intelligence was largely driven by social factors.
Individuals who were more intelligent and more linguistically capable would have been far better at climbing the social hierarchy, getting more social support and control.
They would have been better at avoiding dangerous social violence, better at building obtaining alliances for mutual defense against violence, better at obtaining food and other resources for themselves and for their ates and for their children.
They also would have been far more appealing as mates both because of the previous reasons, but also for the direct reason of "sexual attractiveness" selection for more linguistically skilled mates.
The goal of most humans is no longer to spawn the most progeny.
Evolution doesn't care about goals, and evolution does not care about our values.
Evolution only cares about one thing your long term number of descendants.... how many offspring you leave behind and how successful those offspring are in producing more offspring.There is a particularly striking recent human genetics discovery that demonstrating this point.
DNA analysis of large numbers of people over the last few decades has identified quite a few genes that are currently undergoing significant positive evolutionary selection.
In particular genes for certain mental illnesses (such as bipolar disorder) are seeing POSITIVE evolutionary selection.
People will these mental instabilities are more inclined to promiscuous or intense-but-unstable sexual relationships.
They tend to neglect birth control, or only use it erratically.
They tend to get pregnant (or get other people pregnant) at a very high rate.
Being unstable, they tend to leave that child to be raised by the other partner or by family members, and they move on to the next unstable relationship producing more children.It doesn't matter if you or I consider mental and emotional instability to be a "bad thing".
The evolutionary fact is that people with these genes produce more offspring than average, and those offspring tend to produce more offspring than average.
In the long term more complex factors may (or may not) turn against the genes for these forms of mental instability, but it perfectly illustrates that evolution doesn't care what we like or what we want or what we value.
Evolution simply selects whatever works - where "works" means producing more copies of the genes.Medicine and modern society have radically altered the selections pressures on humans, but have not diminished the fact of evolutionary selection.
We are no longer threatened by many diseases, being near sighted or far sighted is no longer a significant survival issue, broken bones are rarely crippling or fatal.
On the other hand physical tolerance for surgery and anesthesia is a significant selection factor.
Physical tolerance for modern medicines is a selection factor - someone with a fatal allergy to penicillin has a problem.
Mental capabilities in literacy and  basic arithmetic handling money and relevant.
The skills and temperament to navigate modern urban and suburban society (humans are still significantly adapted to tribal society where at most a few hundred people in a population all knew each other).
One of the largest causes of death today is driving fatalities - so spacial skills and other driving skills are a significant selection pressure.
Our modern diet has radically changed - vitamins and starvation have largely vanished as selection issues, but now obesity and diet-related hart disease are major health issues (people will with either be selected towards a better diets, or to selected to better thrive on a modern diet).
And on and on and on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941551</id>
	<title>Bad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't beauty and media imagery influence have at least some role in evolution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't beauty and media imagery influence have at least some role in evolution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't beauty and media imagery influence have at least some role in evolution?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943024</id>
	<title>Re:Idocracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't even need a class/education reason. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William\_Kamkwamba" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">This guy</a> [wikipedia.org] wasn't highly educated, and did pretty well.</p><p>The reason why it seems like there's more dumb people, is because society doesn't value intelligence. If you're smart at something, you're part of a minority called <i>nerds</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't even need a class/education reason .
This guy [ wikipedia.org ] was n't highly educated , and did pretty well.The reason why it seems like there 's more dumb people , is because society does n't value intelligence .
If you 're smart at something , you 're part of a minority called nerds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't even need a class/education reason.
This guy [wikipedia.org] wasn't highly educated, and did pretty well.The reason why it seems like there's more dumb people, is because society doesn't value intelligence.
If you're smart at something, you're part of a minority called nerds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941751</id>
	<title>Obviously, this is Intelligent Design</title>
	<author>GrubLord</author>
	<datestamp>1257091980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>God just likes 'em pudgy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>God just likes 'em pudgy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God just likes 'em pudgy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942528</id>
	<title>Re:Bad misquote in summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257099900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's an indisputable fact that people with lower incomes <a href="http://www.russellsage.org/chartbook/householdform/figure4.5/view" title="russellsage.org" rel="nofollow">tend to have more children</a> [russellsage.org]. And the GP didn't say anything about welfare queens or politics; he simple stated the fact that the many transfer programs in this country mean being unable or unwilling to provide for your offspring no longer limits your reproductive potential.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an indisputable fact that people with lower incomes tend to have more children [ russellsage.org ] .
And the GP did n't say anything about welfare queens or politics ; he simple stated the fact that the many transfer programs in this country mean being unable or unwilling to provide for your offspring no longer limits your reproductive potential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an indisputable fact that people with lower incomes tend to have more children [russellsage.org].
And the GP didn't say anything about welfare queens or politics; he simple stated the fact that the many transfer programs in this country mean being unable or unwilling to provide for your offspring no longer limits your reproductive potential.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941541</id>
	<title>Re:What will be the impact of docters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you see the teabag rallies? Already happened - I think the Neanderthal genes (see previous story) have been inbred to the surface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you see the teabag rallies ?
Already happened - I think the Neanderthal genes ( see previous story ) have been inbred to the surface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you see the teabag rallies?
Already happened - I think the Neanderthal genes (see previous story) have been inbred to the surface.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941463</id>
	<title>Re:Idocracy</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1257089280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give that idiocracy shit a rest. It's not genetically dumber people who make more children, it's people lower on the social scale. As in, people in ghettos and immigrants. Poor education and poor nutrition (both which cause lower IQs) aren't genetically hereditary.

</p><p>So-called smart people always confuse uneducated people with less intelligent people. Maybe they're not <i>that</i> smart after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give that idiocracy shit a rest .
It 's not genetically dumber people who make more children , it 's people lower on the social scale .
As in , people in ghettos and immigrants .
Poor education and poor nutrition ( both which cause lower IQs ) are n't genetically hereditary .
So-called smart people always confuse uneducated people with less intelligent people .
Maybe they 're not that smart after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give that idiocracy shit a rest.
It's not genetically dumber people who make more children, it's people lower on the social scale.
As in, people in ghettos and immigrants.
Poor education and poor nutrition (both which cause lower IQs) aren't genetically hereditary.
So-called smart people always confuse uneducated people with less intelligent people.
Maybe they're not that smart after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941555</id>
	<title>Sure you can find more trends</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1257090360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's another one for you. Genetically slutty women had more children than genetically prude women. Therefore, women are now genetically easier to get with than they used to be. Discuss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's another one for you .
Genetically slutty women had more children than genetically prude women .
Therefore , women are now genetically easier to get with than they used to be .
Discuss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's another one for you.
Genetically slutty women had more children than genetically prude women.
Therefore, women are now genetically easier to get with than they used to be.
Discuss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29949002</id>
	<title>Environmental Effects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257166380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Massachusetts is cold.  Big women keep you warm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Massachusetts is cold .
Big women keep you warm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Massachusetts is cold.
Big women keep you warm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29947356</id>
	<title>Short fat women put out more.</title>
	<author>TheRealRainFall</author>
	<datestamp>1257097320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean if we do basic math we'll see that they'll get knocked up more</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean if we do basic math we 'll see that they 'll get knocked up more</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean if we do basic math we'll see that they'll get knocked up more</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29950232</id>
	<title>Don't these people read?</title>
	<author>Rambo Tribble</author>
	<datestamp>1257177420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Troglodytes, Eloy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's sooo obvious. H. G. saw the future and it is us. (With apologies to Walt)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Troglodytes , Eloy ... it 's sooo obvious .
H. G. saw the future and it is us .
( With apologies to Walt )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troglodytes, Eloy ... it's sooo obvious.
H. G. saw the future and it is us.
(With apologies to Walt)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941841</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evolution, or adaptation? Isn't evolution one species evolving into another species? Wouldn't this actually be adaptation, as the species hasn't changed? Just saying...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution , or adaptation ?
Is n't evolution one species evolving into another species ?
Would n't this actually be adaptation , as the species has n't changed ?
Just saying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution, or adaptation?
Isn't evolution one species evolving into another species?
Wouldn't this actually be adaptation, as the species hasn't changed?
Just saying...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29946162</id>
	<title>Re:my wife</title>
	<author>chemindefer</author>
	<datestamp>1257085740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Was a Flux Capacitor part of the dowry?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was a Flux Capacitor part of the dowry ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was a Flux Capacitor part of the dowry?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941777</id>
	<title>Yet another prediction...</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1257092160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and we still wont have flying cars</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and we still wont have flying cars</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and we still wont have flying cars</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941745</id>
	<title>Re:What will be the impact of docters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257091980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ugly people = Morlocks?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugly people = Morlocks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugly people = Morlocks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942183</id>
	<title>Re:What a headline</title>
	<author>inode\_buddha</author>
	<datestamp>1257095940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The more the cushion, the more the pushin'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The more the cushion , the more the pushin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more the cushion, the more the pushin'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941611</id>
	<title>Re:What will be the impact of docters</title>
	<author>dachshund</author>
	<datestamp>1257090840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Also there is a trend of finding slimmer women more attractive. In the past this ment that those would be having more children.  However with the pill and other contraceptives, it looks as if the most attractive (in a biological way) females have LESS babies.</i> </p><p>It's not quite as simple as that.  As I've grown older (my 30s) I've discovered (the perhaps obvious fact) that "slimness" is largely a function of age.  It amazes me how easy it is for my early-20s colleagues to stay skinny while drinking corn syrup all day long, and the same goes for females.  I look ridiculously thin in pictures of me when I was the same age (and at the time I thought I needed to slim down, yikes).  Its obviously possible to stay thin as you get older, but it becomes harder.</p><p>The point I'm trying to make here is that our cultural fetish for "skinny = beautiful" can also be viewed as a fetish for "younger = beautiful".  And youth and fertility go together like a horse and carriage.  I'm not sure what this has to do with this study, since they obviously controlled for age, but don't imagine that things are as simple as you make out.</p><p>Also, let's pray there are no women reading Slashdot, oy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also there is a trend of finding slimmer women more attractive .
In the past this ment that those would be having more children .
However with the pill and other contraceptives , it looks as if the most attractive ( in a biological way ) females have LESS babies .
It 's not quite as simple as that .
As I 've grown older ( my 30s ) I 've discovered ( the perhaps obvious fact ) that " slimness " is largely a function of age .
It amazes me how easy it is for my early-20s colleagues to stay skinny while drinking corn syrup all day long , and the same goes for females .
I look ridiculously thin in pictures of me when I was the same age ( and at the time I thought I needed to slim down , yikes ) .
Its obviously possible to stay thin as you get older , but it becomes harder.The point I 'm trying to make here is that our cultural fetish for " skinny = beautiful " can also be viewed as a fetish for " younger = beautiful " .
And youth and fertility go together like a horse and carriage .
I 'm not sure what this has to do with this study , since they obviously controlled for age , but do n't imagine that things are as simple as you make out.Also , let 's pray there are no women reading Slashdot , oy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also there is a trend of finding slimmer women more attractive.
In the past this ment that those would be having more children.
However with the pill and other contraceptives, it looks as if the most attractive (in a biological way) females have LESS babies.
It's not quite as simple as that.
As I've grown older (my 30s) I've discovered (the perhaps obvious fact) that "slimness" is largely a function of age.
It amazes me how easy it is for my early-20s colleagues to stay skinny while drinking corn syrup all day long, and the same goes for females.
I look ridiculously thin in pictures of me when I was the same age (and at the time I thought I needed to slim down, yikes).
Its obviously possible to stay thin as you get older, but it becomes harder.The point I'm trying to make here is that our cultural fetish for "skinny = beautiful" can also be viewed as a fetish for "younger = beautiful".
And youth and fertility go together like a horse and carriage.
I'm not sure what this has to do with this study, since they obviously controlled for age, but don't imagine that things are as simple as you make out.Also, let's pray there are no women reading Slashdot, oy...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941767</id>
	<title>I win!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My wife has already fully evolved.<br>Wait...... that makes her sound like a Bakugan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife has already fully evolved.Wait...... that makes her sound like a Bakugan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife has already fully evolved.Wait...... that makes her sound like a Bakugan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941605</id>
	<title>Ep!?@!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>by simple fucking perspective, the a dead man walking. is EFNet, and you 1. Therefore it's to have to decide to 7his. For you aal is to let fucking confirmed:</htmltext>
<tokenext>by simple fucking perspective , the a dead man walking .
is EFNet , and you 1 .
Therefore it 's to have to decide to 7his .
For you aal is to let fucking confirmed :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by simple fucking perspective, the a dead man walking.
is EFNet, and you 1.
Therefore it's to have to decide to 7his.
For you aal is to let fucking confirmed:</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942986</id>
	<title>A counter trend</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1257104460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I've observed in my life.  Dumb women that really like sex have a lot more kids than average women.</p><p>I've known three ex strippers in my life.  Each eventually shared that they had each had 4 or more children.  All had given at least one up for adoption.<br>All had very high sex drives (which sounds good... but when you really think about it, most of us couldn't emotionally handle being married to women like that).</p><p>They were thin, two were tall, one was about 5'.</p><p>Perhaps dumb is the wrong word tho.  They were intelligent but unwise.</p><p>Along those lines, and in line with the study, women who put themselves first and are wise, tend not to not be prolific in my experience.  Several smart, wise females I knew from college did quite well in life but never had children.  Two never married (and weren't gay-- their standards were just too high until it was too late).</p><p>It's bad for us long term to keep growing the population and I think we would be much happier and sustainable as a race at about 3 billion population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've observed in my life .
Dumb women that really like sex have a lot more kids than average women.I 've known three ex strippers in my life .
Each eventually shared that they had each had 4 or more children .
All had given at least one up for adoption.All had very high sex drives ( which sounds good... but when you really think about it , most of us could n't emotionally handle being married to women like that ) .They were thin , two were tall , one was about 5'.Perhaps dumb is the wrong word tho .
They were intelligent but unwise.Along those lines , and in line with the study , women who put themselves first and are wise , tend not to not be prolific in my experience .
Several smart , wise females I knew from college did quite well in life but never had children .
Two never married ( and were n't gay-- their standards were just too high until it was too late ) .It 's bad for us long term to keep growing the population and I think we would be much happier and sustainable as a race at about 3 billion population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've observed in my life.
Dumb women that really like sex have a lot more kids than average women.I've known three ex strippers in my life.
Each eventually shared that they had each had 4 or more children.
All had given at least one up for adoption.All had very high sex drives (which sounds good... but when you really think about it, most of us couldn't emotionally handle being married to women like that).They were thin, two were tall, one was about 5'.Perhaps dumb is the wrong word tho.
They were intelligent but unwise.Along those lines, and in line with the study, women who put themselves first and are wise, tend not to not be prolific in my experience.
Several smart, wise females I knew from college did quite well in life but never had children.
Two never married (and weren't gay-- their standards were just too high until it was too late).It's bad for us long term to keep growing the population and I think we would be much happier and sustainable as a race at about 3 billion population.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942570</id>
	<title>Re:Idocracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257100380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that you personally are too dumb to separate the political aspects from the scientific aspects of intelligence doesn't invalidate intelligence as a scientific concept.  Intelligence is a measurable phenomenon, it is widely and reliably used in diagnostic medicine, and it clearly also has had a strong effect on human evolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that you personally are too dumb to separate the political aspects from the scientific aspects of intelligence does n't invalidate intelligence as a scientific concept .
Intelligence is a measurable phenomenon , it is widely and reliably used in diagnostic medicine , and it clearly also has had a strong effect on human evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that you personally are too dumb to separate the political aspects from the scientific aspects of intelligence doesn't invalidate intelligence as a scientific concept.
Intelligence is a measurable phenomenon, it is widely and reliably used in diagnostic medicine, and it clearly also has had a strong effect on human evolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942248</id>
	<title>my wife</title>
	<author>rastos1</author>
	<datestamp>1257097020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> the average woman in 2409 AD will be 2 cm shorter, 1 kg heavier,</p></div></blockquote><p>

Shit. My wife comes from future!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the average woman in 2409 AD will be 2 cm shorter , 1 kg heavier , Shit .
My wife comes from future !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the average woman in 2409 AD will be 2 cm shorter, 1 kg heavier,

Shit.
My wife comes from future!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941499</id>
	<title>ignoring curvature and rumble</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1257089700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Normally you'd expect the psychology of priming to catch this one: a linear extrapolation is worthless when medical technology continues to change as fast as it does.  Diabetes continues to exist in 50 years?  On the near side of the apocalypse?  I highly doubt it.  Excepting curvature, we can thus conclude that women are getting fatter.</p><p>Some people see this phase we're in where the genomics/proteomics researchers are discovering that nothing is as simple as we told the investors as evidence that progress in medical science has taken a coffee break.  Hardly.  For the last century, the foundation of modern medicine has been statistical epidemiology: trying to find a needle in a haystack with a densitometer.</p><p>The profit model for the pharmaceutical industry is to spread the benefit of a drug over the largest study population where the effect remains statistically significant.  Cholesterol levels too high?  Add Lipitor to the water supply.  It could be that only 10\% of the people who take Lipitor actually benefit.  But then, if this were determined, they'd have to charge ten times as much per treatment to maintain existing revenues, and fewer uninsured would be able to pay, and we might have to let some future president actually preside.</p><p>We are right now in the heart of the transition to etiology based medicine.  Among the problems are how to pay for it without using giant studies designed to implicate everyone.  This isn't so different from the transition of observational taxonomy (A and B share the same egg tooth dimple) to taxonomy with a genomics turbo assist.  I recall in the early 1980s, this transition was not widely welcomed among traditional taxonomists.  Unreliable, they complained.  Now you couldn't do taxonomy any other way, and a lot of old arguments are long gone in the rear view mirror.  The new bionic taxonomy is better, stronger, faster.</p><p>We're in that deceptive interlude after pressing the ignite button on the Saturn V rocket where the flame and rumble have erupted out the bottom, while the rocket itself just kind of shivers there, apparently going nowhere.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The combined propellant flow rate of the five F-1s in the Saturn V was 3,357 US gallons (12,710 l) per second, which would empty a 30,000 US gallons (110,000 l) swimming pool in 8.9 seconds.  Each F-1 engine had more thrust than all three space shuttle main engines combined.</p></div><p>A decade or two later, you're praying for center-engine cutoff.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo\_8\_acceleration.gif" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo\_8\_acceleration.gif</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/genbankstats.html" title="nih.gov">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/genbankstats.html</a> [nih.gov]</p><p>Swell time to extrapolate the fate of humanity on a straight line.  Besides, I have <a href="http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2009/10/warning-this-models-hips-were-made.html" title="blogspot.com">evidence to the contrary</a> [blogspot.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally you 'd expect the psychology of priming to catch this one : a linear extrapolation is worthless when medical technology continues to change as fast as it does .
Diabetes continues to exist in 50 years ?
On the near side of the apocalypse ?
I highly doubt it .
Excepting curvature , we can thus conclude that women are getting fatter.Some people see this phase we 're in where the genomics/proteomics researchers are discovering that nothing is as simple as we told the investors as evidence that progress in medical science has taken a coffee break .
Hardly. For the last century , the foundation of modern medicine has been statistical epidemiology : trying to find a needle in a haystack with a densitometer.The profit model for the pharmaceutical industry is to spread the benefit of a drug over the largest study population where the effect remains statistically significant .
Cholesterol levels too high ?
Add Lipitor to the water supply .
It could be that only 10 \ % of the people who take Lipitor actually benefit .
But then , if this were determined , they 'd have to charge ten times as much per treatment to maintain existing revenues , and fewer uninsured would be able to pay , and we might have to let some future president actually preside.We are right now in the heart of the transition to etiology based medicine .
Among the problems are how to pay for it without using giant studies designed to implicate everyone .
This is n't so different from the transition of observational taxonomy ( A and B share the same egg tooth dimple ) to taxonomy with a genomics turbo assist .
I recall in the early 1980s , this transition was not widely welcomed among traditional taxonomists .
Unreliable , they complained .
Now you could n't do taxonomy any other way , and a lot of old arguments are long gone in the rear view mirror .
The new bionic taxonomy is better , stronger , faster.We 're in that deceptive interlude after pressing the ignite button on the Saturn V rocket where the flame and rumble have erupted out the bottom , while the rocket itself just kind of shivers there , apparently going nowhere.The combined propellant flow rate of the five F-1s in the Saturn V was 3,357 US gallons ( 12,710 l ) per second , which would empty a 30,000 US gallons ( 110,000 l ) swimming pool in 8.9 seconds .
Each F-1 engine had more thrust than all three space shuttle main engines combined.A decade or two later , you 're praying for center-engine cutoff.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Apollo \ _8 \ _acceleration.gif [ wikipedia.org ] http : //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/genbankstats.html [ nih.gov ] Swell time to extrapolate the fate of humanity on a straight line .
Besides , I have evidence to the contrary [ blogspot.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normally you'd expect the psychology of priming to catch this one: a linear extrapolation is worthless when medical technology continues to change as fast as it does.
Diabetes continues to exist in 50 years?
On the near side of the apocalypse?
I highly doubt it.
Excepting curvature, we can thus conclude that women are getting fatter.Some people see this phase we're in where the genomics/proteomics researchers are discovering that nothing is as simple as we told the investors as evidence that progress in medical science has taken a coffee break.
Hardly.  For the last century, the foundation of modern medicine has been statistical epidemiology: trying to find a needle in a haystack with a densitometer.The profit model for the pharmaceutical industry is to spread the benefit of a drug over the largest study population where the effect remains statistically significant.
Cholesterol levels too high?
Add Lipitor to the water supply.
It could be that only 10\% of the people who take Lipitor actually benefit.
But then, if this were determined, they'd have to charge ten times as much per treatment to maintain existing revenues, and fewer uninsured would be able to pay, and we might have to let some future president actually preside.We are right now in the heart of the transition to etiology based medicine.
Among the problems are how to pay for it without using giant studies designed to implicate everyone.
This isn't so different from the transition of observational taxonomy (A and B share the same egg tooth dimple) to taxonomy with a genomics turbo assist.
I recall in the early 1980s, this transition was not widely welcomed among traditional taxonomists.
Unreliable, they complained.
Now you couldn't do taxonomy any other way, and a lot of old arguments are long gone in the rear view mirror.
The new bionic taxonomy is better, stronger, faster.We're in that deceptive interlude after pressing the ignite button on the Saturn V rocket where the flame and rumble have erupted out the bottom, while the rocket itself just kind of shivers there, apparently going nowhere.The combined propellant flow rate of the five F-1s in the Saturn V was 3,357 US gallons (12,710 l) per second, which would empty a 30,000 US gallons (110,000 l) swimming pool in 8.9 seconds.
Each F-1 engine had more thrust than all three space shuttle main engines combined.A decade or two later, you're praying for center-engine cutoff.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo\_8\_acceleration.gif [wikipedia.org]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/genbankstats.html [nih.gov]Swell time to extrapolate the fate of humanity on a straight line.
Besides, I have evidence to the contrary [blogspot.com].
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942526</id>
	<title>Positive eugenics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257099900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something that doesn't seem to have been pointed out yet:</p><p>There are two ways of looking at the problem. One is the rather unsavoury one of calling out a general alarm because 'the chavs are breeding out of control!' The other is to ask why it is that professional, educated women don't seem to have as many children as people with fewer letters after their names.</p><p>By the time a woman has had done a PhD and established herself in her chosen career, she's likely to be pushing 30 and her fertility will already be declining. Taking a 'baby break' at this time is still like as not career suicide. Or at the very least, it's likely to push her back several years down the pyramid. And even in the UK, with fairly good socialist services, having a baby is likely to mean a fairly severe pay cut. Day care for infants is of variable quality and very expensive. How does anybody do it?!</p><p>So rather than 'negative eugenics' of stopping fat people having babies, perhaps society should look at the stresses we put on professional people. Short term contracts at universities. Ridiculous hours for medics and lawyers. Huge amounts of competition for science funding. I know wonderful, intelligent women who simply can't afford to have a baby without giving up everything they have worked so hard for. They don't plan not to have children or relationships, but time creeps up on you and before they know it they're 40 and the chances of getting pregnant are minimal.</p><p>As a medical student I remember giving babies injections all morning. I was 27, and every single mother who came in that morning was younger than me. More often than not they were in their early 20s, yet they had lives. Families. Part time jobs. In contrast I was slaving away every day and evening whilst the debts accumulated. I knew that any relationship I entered would have to be short term because I would likely have to move away the next year. Then move somewhere else the year after that. And the year after that. And probably a few more times before I could think about a long-term post. Had I married another medic, one or the other of us would simply have simply had to say goodbye to a good career for the sake of the other. Or else lived apart. And for some couples I know, that can mean 5 hours apart. Try getting pregnant when you only see each other every other week. Now, I was in a rough part of town and many of these people live hard, impoverished lives. Yet I also felt jealous of them for a normality that my own life lacked. Jobs and a family and the time to enjoy life.</p><p>You can justify it on eugenics (which I don't), or you can justify it on the grounds of simple humanity: we've made a society where it can be very difficult for professional people to have any semblance of a normal life. The fact that education reduces fertility simply reflects this, and should be changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that does n't seem to have been pointed out yet : There are two ways of looking at the problem .
One is the rather unsavoury one of calling out a general alarm because 'the chavs are breeding out of control !
' The other is to ask why it is that professional , educated women do n't seem to have as many children as people with fewer letters after their names.By the time a woman has had done a PhD and established herself in her chosen career , she 's likely to be pushing 30 and her fertility will already be declining .
Taking a 'baby break ' at this time is still like as not career suicide .
Or at the very least , it 's likely to push her back several years down the pyramid .
And even in the UK , with fairly good socialist services , having a baby is likely to mean a fairly severe pay cut .
Day care for infants is of variable quality and very expensive .
How does anybody do it ?
! So rather than 'negative eugenics ' of stopping fat people having babies , perhaps society should look at the stresses we put on professional people .
Short term contracts at universities .
Ridiculous hours for medics and lawyers .
Huge amounts of competition for science funding .
I know wonderful , intelligent women who simply ca n't afford to have a baby without giving up everything they have worked so hard for .
They do n't plan not to have children or relationships , but time creeps up on you and before they know it they 're 40 and the chances of getting pregnant are minimal.As a medical student I remember giving babies injections all morning .
I was 27 , and every single mother who came in that morning was younger than me .
More often than not they were in their early 20s , yet they had lives .
Families. Part time jobs .
In contrast I was slaving away every day and evening whilst the debts accumulated .
I knew that any relationship I entered would have to be short term because I would likely have to move away the next year .
Then move somewhere else the year after that .
And the year after that .
And probably a few more times before I could think about a long-term post .
Had I married another medic , one or the other of us would simply have simply had to say goodbye to a good career for the sake of the other .
Or else lived apart .
And for some couples I know , that can mean 5 hours apart .
Try getting pregnant when you only see each other every other week .
Now , I was in a rough part of town and many of these people live hard , impoverished lives .
Yet I also felt jealous of them for a normality that my own life lacked .
Jobs and a family and the time to enjoy life.You can justify it on eugenics ( which I do n't ) , or you can justify it on the grounds of simple humanity : we 've made a society where it can be very difficult for professional people to have any semblance of a normal life .
The fact that education reduces fertility simply reflects this , and should be changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that doesn't seem to have been pointed out yet:There are two ways of looking at the problem.
One is the rather unsavoury one of calling out a general alarm because 'the chavs are breeding out of control!
' The other is to ask why it is that professional, educated women don't seem to have as many children as people with fewer letters after their names.By the time a woman has had done a PhD and established herself in her chosen career, she's likely to be pushing 30 and her fertility will already be declining.
Taking a 'baby break' at this time is still like as not career suicide.
Or at the very least, it's likely to push her back several years down the pyramid.
And even in the UK, with fairly good socialist services, having a baby is likely to mean a fairly severe pay cut.
Day care for infants is of variable quality and very expensive.
How does anybody do it?
!So rather than 'negative eugenics' of stopping fat people having babies, perhaps society should look at the stresses we put on professional people.
Short term contracts at universities.
Ridiculous hours for medics and lawyers.
Huge amounts of competition for science funding.
I know wonderful, intelligent women who simply can't afford to have a baby without giving up everything they have worked so hard for.
They don't plan not to have children or relationships, but time creeps up on you and before they know it they're 40 and the chances of getting pregnant are minimal.As a medical student I remember giving babies injections all morning.
I was 27, and every single mother who came in that morning was younger than me.
More often than not they were in their early 20s, yet they had lives.
Families. Part time jobs.
In contrast I was slaving away every day and evening whilst the debts accumulated.
I knew that any relationship I entered would have to be short term because I would likely have to move away the next year.
Then move somewhere else the year after that.
And the year after that.
And probably a few more times before I could think about a long-term post.
Had I married another medic, one or the other of us would simply have simply had to say goodbye to a good career for the sake of the other.
Or else lived apart.
And for some couples I know, that can mean 5 hours apart.
Try getting pregnant when you only see each other every other week.
Now, I was in a rough part of town and many of these people live hard, impoverished lives.
Yet I also felt jealous of them for a normality that my own life lacked.
Jobs and a family and the time to enjoy life.You can justify it on eugenics (which I don't), or you can justify it on the grounds of simple humanity: we've made a society where it can be very difficult for professional people to have any semblance of a normal life.
The fact that education reduces fertility simply reflects this, and should be changed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942494</id>
	<title>Re:Idocracy</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1257099600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So-called smart people always confuse uneducated people with less intelligent people. Maybe they're not that smart after all.</i></p><p>Nobody really knows for certain what the true relationships between heredity, intelligence, economic success, nutrition, and education are.  Your view is just as colored by political preferences as other views.</p><p>Biologically, speciation based on intelligence is quite a plausible possibility for humanity in the future, and analogous events have happened for other species in the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So-called smart people always confuse uneducated people with less intelligent people .
Maybe they 're not that smart after all.Nobody really knows for certain what the true relationships between heredity , intelligence , economic success , nutrition , and education are .
Your view is just as colored by political preferences as other views.Biologically , speciation based on intelligence is quite a plausible possibility for humanity in the future , and analogous events have happened for other species in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So-called smart people always confuse uneducated people with less intelligent people.
Maybe they're not that smart after all.Nobody really knows for certain what the true relationships between heredity, intelligence, economic success, nutrition, and education are.
Your view is just as colored by political preferences as other views.Biologically, speciation based on intelligence is quite a plausible possibility for humanity in the future, and analogous events have happened for other species in the past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942013</id>
	<title>This discussion is probably academic</title>
	<author>Explodicle</author>
	<datestamp>1257094260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In ten generations we'll either be extinct or be consciously choosing our evolutionary directions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In ten generations we 'll either be extinct or be consciously choosing our evolutionary directions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In ten generations we'll either be extinct or be consciously choosing our evolutionary directions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941665</id>
	<title>Nasty, brutish and short</title>
	<author>Charles Dodgeson</author>
	<datestamp>1257091200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't Thomas Hobbes argue that in the state of nature "the wife of man is solitary, nasty, brutish, and short."  Or have I misquoted somehow?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Thomas Hobbes argue that in the state of nature " the wife of man is solitary , nasty , brutish , and short .
" Or have I misquoted somehow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Thomas Hobbes argue that in the state of nature "the wife of man is solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.
"  Or have I misquoted somehow?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942372</id>
	<title>Hooray!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257098280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not being the tallest man myself, this means the amount of potential mates will increase slightly. What? Four hundred years from now? Damn!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not being the tallest man myself , this means the amount of potential mates will increase slightly .
What ? Four hundred years from now ?
Damn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not being the tallest man myself, this means the amount of potential mates will increase slightly.
What? Four hundred years from now?
Damn!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942780</id>
	<title>history is not a myth</title>
	<author>harvey the nerd</author>
	<datestamp>1257102660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Welfare queens" are not a myth, they are history.  TANF was developed and passed in 1996 specifically to replace AFDC for this reason, after peaking in about the 1970s when some states began to tighten up their rules.  Many bricks form the social net, also there are income credits (EIC), Social Security (for deceased/disabled spouses) and still various forms of charity.<br>
<br>
Also careful shopping can reduce food cost far below average.  I've been hiring 2-3 low wage earners/week this year and I notice they spend far more on junk (20 oz branded soda, Cheetos, etc) alone than I spend on half or more of my at home meals (e.g. carved ham, $1.29/lb, two eggs, @$.78-1.10/doz, toast, tomato, $1.99/gal milk/tea and vitamin, 3 cents). Chicken, $0.78/ lb, and fresh produce are usually cheaper, too. I am sure that I am a more careful shopper, although I just pick up staples and specials at their lowest cost place in my part of town, passing by.<br>
<br>
Even today, I am not so sure about welfare being below the incremental cost per child for careful shoppers (e.g. $3/day for healthy food, thrift shop or handed down clothes, and often incrementally free housing.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Welfare queens " are not a myth , they are history .
TANF was developed and passed in 1996 specifically to replace AFDC for this reason , after peaking in about the 1970s when some states began to tighten up their rules .
Many bricks form the social net , also there are income credits ( EIC ) , Social Security ( for deceased/disabled spouses ) and still various forms of charity .
Also careful shopping can reduce food cost far below average .
I 've been hiring 2-3 low wage earners/week this year and I notice they spend far more on junk ( 20 oz branded soda , Cheetos , etc ) alone than I spend on half or more of my at home meals ( e.g .
carved ham , $ 1.29/lb , two eggs , @ $ .78-1.10/doz , toast , tomato , $ 1.99/gal milk/tea and vitamin , 3 cents ) .
Chicken , $ 0.78/ lb , and fresh produce are usually cheaper , too .
I am sure that I am a more careful shopper , although I just pick up staples and specials at their lowest cost place in my part of town , passing by .
Even today , I am not so sure about welfare being below the incremental cost per child for careful shoppers ( e.g .
$ 3/day for healthy food , thrift shop or handed down clothes , and often incrementally free housing .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Welfare queens" are not a myth, they are history.
TANF was developed and passed in 1996 specifically to replace AFDC for this reason, after peaking in about the 1970s when some states began to tighten up their rules.
Many bricks form the social net, also there are income credits (EIC), Social Security (for deceased/disabled spouses) and still various forms of charity.
Also careful shopping can reduce food cost far below average.
I've been hiring 2-3 low wage earners/week this year and I notice they spend far more on junk (20 oz branded soda, Cheetos, etc) alone than I spend on half or more of my at home meals (e.g.
carved ham, $1.29/lb, two eggs, @$.78-1.10/doz, toast, tomato, $1.99/gal milk/tea and vitamin, 3 cents).
Chicken, $0.78/ lb, and fresh produce are usually cheaper, too.
I am sure that I am a more careful shopper, although I just pick up staples and specials at their lowest cost place in my part of town, passing by.
Even today, I am not so sure about welfare being below the incremental cost per child for careful shoppers (e.g.
$3/day for healthy food, thrift shop or handed down clothes, and often incrementally free housing.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942195</id>
	<title>Re:Reproductive "success" is not genetic.</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1257096120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The short form is "The universe has one measure of success: the number of your descendants."</htmltext>
<tokenext>The short form is " The universe has one measure of success : the number of your descendants .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The short form is "The universe has one measure of success: the number of your descendants.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942980</id>
	<title>Zaftig is Beautiful</title>
	<author>bistromath007</author>
	<datestamp>1257104460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always known I was born in the wrong time. Now I know what the right time is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always known I was born in the wrong time .
Now I know what the right time is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always known I was born in the wrong time.
Now I know what the right time is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942386</id>
	<title>Re:Idocracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257098460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a certain amount of use it or lose it at play here too though. Poor individuals' children will be challenged less and not develop to their potential. If you don't develop those nerve paths, you -won't- be smart, not to say that you -can't- be smart, but that it will be much harder to learn the needed things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a certain amount of use it or lose it at play here too though .
Poor individuals ' children will be challenged less and not develop to their potential .
If you do n't develop those nerve paths , you -wo n't- be smart , not to say that you -ca n't- be smart , but that it will be much harder to learn the needed things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a certain amount of use it or lose it at play here too though.
Poor individuals' children will be challenged less and not develop to their potential.
If you don't develop those nerve paths, you -won't- be smart, not to say that you -can't- be smart, but that it will be much harder to learn the needed things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941395</id>
	<title>What will be the impact of docters</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1257088320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was young, an ongoing joke was the question 'Is fertility passed on by the parents." Now you could start asking that question. Also there is a trend of finding slimmer women more attractive. In the past this ment that those would be having more children.</p><p>However with the pill and other contraceptives, it looks as if the most attractive (in a biological way) females have LESS babies.</p><p>The result of this all will be that we have a lot of ugly kids. Perhaps the division becomes so great that we will separate as species and become two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was young , an ongoing joke was the question 'Is fertility passed on by the parents .
" Now you could start asking that question .
Also there is a trend of finding slimmer women more attractive .
In the past this ment that those would be having more children.However with the pill and other contraceptives , it looks as if the most attractive ( in a biological way ) females have LESS babies.The result of this all will be that we have a lot of ugly kids .
Perhaps the division becomes so great that we will separate as species and become two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was young, an ongoing joke was the question 'Is fertility passed on by the parents.
" Now you could start asking that question.
Also there is a trend of finding slimmer women more attractive.
In the past this ment that those would be having more children.However with the pill and other contraceptives, it looks as if the most attractive (in a biological way) females have LESS babies.The result of this all will be that we have a lot of ugly kids.
Perhaps the division becomes so great that we will separate as species and become two.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942171</id>
	<title>Troll</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1257095880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Sir/Madam,</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Evolution doesn't work that way. You're talking about genetic drift, which is not the same.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Kthxbai</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Sir/Madam ,       Evolution does n't work that way .
You 're talking about genetic drift , which is not the same .
      Kthxbai</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Sir/Madam,
      Evolution doesn't work that way.
You're talking about genetic drift, which is not the same.
      Kthxbai</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29951588</id>
	<title>Not new.</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1257183960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at any carving of woman's fertility around the world from any culture from ancient times. Short and Fat are the norm I would say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at any carving of woman 's fertility around the world from any culture from ancient times .
Short and Fat are the norm I would say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at any carving of woman's fertility around the world from any culture from ancient times.
Short and Fat are the norm I would say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941935</id>
	<title>What about the men?</title>
	<author>laron</author>
	<datestamp>1257093480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If tall and fit men have more children than their stouter brothers, the two effects might cancel each other out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If tall and fit men have more children than their stouter brothers , the two effects might cancel each other out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If tall and fit men have more children than their stouter brothers, the two effects might cancel each other out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29945456</id>
	<title>Re:Shorter eh? Obviously never been to Holland</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257078960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because Holland isn't being invaded by hordes of short, illegal, Mexican women.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because Holland is n't being invaded by hordes of short , illegal , Mexican women .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because Holland isn't being invaded by hordes of short, illegal, Mexican women.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943314</id>
	<title>Re:Idocracy</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1257106920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The curve is actually much more complicated than that.  The absolute dirt poor (lowest 5\%) have very few kids.  The lowest quartile (poorest 25\%) have the most.  The *highest* quartile (richest 25\%) have the second most.  The curve is very much U shaped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The curve is actually much more complicated than that .
The absolute dirt poor ( lowest 5 \ % ) have very few kids .
The lowest quartile ( poorest 25 \ % ) have the most .
The * highest * quartile ( richest 25 \ % ) have the second most .
The curve is very much U shaped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The curve is actually much more complicated than that.
The absolute dirt poor (lowest 5\%) have very few kids.
The lowest quartile (poorest 25\%) have the most.
The *highest* quartile (richest 25\%) have the second most.
The curve is very much U shaped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941625</id>
	<title>TFS makes idiotic assumptions.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257090960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFS makes the assumption, that because the people in Framingham are like that, that the <em>whole world</em> <strong>must</strong> be like that.</p><p>Which of course, is total bullshit. This study is only meaningful for Framingham. If you want it to have a global meaning, do it globally.</p><p>I don't understand how someone can create that assumption, and absolutely not notice its wrongness...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFS makes the assumption , that because the people in Framingham are like that , that the whole world must be like that.Which of course , is total bullshit .
This study is only meaningful for Framingham .
If you want it to have a global meaning , do it globally.I do n't understand how someone can create that assumption , and absolutely not notice its wrongness.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFS makes the assumption, that because the people in Framingham are like that, that the whole world must be like that.Which of course, is total bullshit.
This study is only meaningful for Framingham.
If you want it to have a global meaning, do it globally.I don't understand how someone can create that assumption, and absolutely not notice its wrongness...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942778</id>
	<title>Does not follow</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1257102660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Also, if dwarven females are that ugly, there you have an immediate selection pressure against them taking over.</i> <br> <br>
That is not a given. that would only be a given , if there was no contraception. Letme give you a scenario : beautfiul women might want to avoid pregnancy more often than ugly dwarf as you so tactfully put. So they use more often contraception to keep their "beauty" longer, OTOH ugly dwarf would not care on pregnancy making them fat (or at least would not care as much). That could be a scenario, and it would be interresting to see if they took into account societal pressure in the "why" women are getting heavier in average. Also in some country "ideal" women are definitively far heavier than the skeleton ralf lauren and co present us, and that many western women try to imitate. If in those country the women reproduce more in average, then the statistic above, on the whole world, WILL lead to heavier women in average, if not by the sheer number of "lighter" women not reproducing as much in other country. <br> <br>Mind you I have not read the article so I dunno if they took that into account or not. <br> <br>Finally evolution is only linked to what facilitate gene to be given to offspring in a aprticular environment. It does not say that the environment must be natural or artificial, or even purely psychologic (societal). Our modern society changed that environment , and allowed other weaker offspring to be born, but this is only a NEW environment with different constraint. Thus human still evolve. Human would stop evolving is *ALL* environmental constraint were removed, and we ALL had the same number of kids and everybody reproduced the same number of kid (all women and men) since this is obviously NOT true, some selection will happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , if dwarven females are that ugly , there you have an immediate selection pressure against them taking over .
That is not a given .
that would only be a given , if there was no contraception .
Letme give you a scenario : beautfiul women might want to avoid pregnancy more often than ugly dwarf as you so tactfully put .
So they use more often contraception to keep their " beauty " longer , OTOH ugly dwarf would not care on pregnancy making them fat ( or at least would not care as much ) .
That could be a scenario , and it would be interresting to see if they took into account societal pressure in the " why " women are getting heavier in average .
Also in some country " ideal " women are definitively far heavier than the skeleton ralf lauren and co present us , and that many western women try to imitate .
If in those country the women reproduce more in average , then the statistic above , on the whole world , WILL lead to heavier women in average , if not by the sheer number of " lighter " women not reproducing as much in other country .
Mind you I have not read the article so I dunno if they took that into account or not .
Finally evolution is only linked to what facilitate gene to be given to offspring in a aprticular environment .
It does not say that the environment must be natural or artificial , or even purely psychologic ( societal ) .
Our modern society changed that environment , and allowed other weaker offspring to be born , but this is only a NEW environment with different constraint .
Thus human still evolve .
Human would stop evolving is * ALL * environmental constraint were removed , and we ALL had the same number of kids and everybody reproduced the same number of kid ( all women and men ) since this is obviously NOT true , some selection will happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, if dwarven females are that ugly, there you have an immediate selection pressure against them taking over.
That is not a given.
that would only be a given , if there was no contraception.
Letme give you a scenario : beautfiul women might want to avoid pregnancy more often than ugly dwarf as you so tactfully put.
So they use more often contraception to keep their "beauty" longer, OTOH ugly dwarf would not care on pregnancy making them fat (or at least would not care as much).
That could be a scenario, and it would be interresting to see if they took into account societal pressure in the "why" women are getting heavier in average.
Also in some country "ideal" women are definitively far heavier than the skeleton ralf lauren and co present us, and that many western women try to imitate.
If in those country the women reproduce more in average, then the statistic above, on the whole world, WILL lead to heavier women in average, if not by the sheer number of "lighter" women not reproducing as much in other country.
Mind you I have not read the article so I dunno if they took that into account or not.
Finally evolution is only linked to what facilitate gene to be given to offspring in a aprticular environment.
It does not say that the environment must be natural or artificial, or even purely psychologic (societal).
Our modern society changed that environment , and allowed other weaker offspring to be born, but this is only a NEW environment with different constraint.
Thus human still evolve.
Human would stop evolving is *ALL* environmental constraint were removed, and we ALL had the same number of kids and everybody reproduced the same number of kid (all women and men) since this is obviously NOT true, some selection will happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29944584</id>
	<title>Re:What will be the impact of docters</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1257072180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that is actually not at all the results they got.  They studied weight, etc. *after* they had babies.</p><p>They did not find that slimmer women end up having more babies.  To do that, they'd have to take all of these measures *before* women had children and compare that to their future success.  Because of the way they measured, what they *actually* found was that women who have more children end up fatter.</p><p>That doesn't sell the papers, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that is actually not at all the results they got .
They studied weight , etc .
* after * they had babies.They did not find that slimmer women end up having more babies .
To do that , they 'd have to take all of these measures * before * women had children and compare that to their future success .
Because of the way they measured , what they * actually * found was that women who have more children end up fatter.That does n't sell the papers , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that is actually not at all the results they got.
They studied weight, etc.
*after* they had babies.They did not find that slimmer women end up having more babies.
To do that, they'd have to take all of these measures *before* women had children and compare that to their future success.
Because of the way they measured, what they *actually* found was that women who have more children end up fatter.That doesn't sell the papers, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941639</id>
	<title>Re:Bad misquote in summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257091020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell are you talking about?  Do you really need to bring your neocon bullshit into every thread?  High cholesterol = has no job?  The government will pay to raise a child from 1-18?  Do you realize how stupid you are?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell are you talking about ?
Do you really need to bring your neocon bullshit into every thread ?
High cholesterol = has no job ?
The government will pay to raise a child from 1-18 ?
Do you realize how stupid you are ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell are you talking about?
Do you really need to bring your neocon bullshit into every thread?
High cholesterol = has no job?
The government will pay to raise a child from 1-18?
Do you realize how stupid you are?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942246</id>
	<title>Re:Idocracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257096960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nutrition has to be truly, horribly terrible to impact IQ, and education does nothing for IQ, it's the other way around - higher levels of education only let in people with higher IQs. Uneducated people with high IQ tend to be the ones who starts businesses and do better financially than their peers. A moderate part of the variation among people in IQ is due to the environment, yes, but no one has ever been able to find out what specific part of the environment it is that is important. It has been proven that it is none of the obvious things, like reading books, education, nutrition (above starvation) or stimulating environment (short of being locked in a dark box). These things do increase test scores among children, but this is because IQ tests for children are very unreliable, and the component of the score that is being increased is the noise component - i.e. these things teach children to do better in a typical IQ test, but they do not increase their actual IQ (if you don't think that statement makes logical sense then there is a lot you don't know about IQ). The apparent though small increase in IQ you can generate from improving the environment of poor children thus disappears in adulthood, and they do no better in adulthood either when it comes to earning money.

Your sig is "You just got troll'd!", which it seems accurate that I have been.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nutrition has to be truly , horribly terrible to impact IQ , and education does nothing for IQ , it 's the other way around - higher levels of education only let in people with higher IQs .
Uneducated people with high IQ tend to be the ones who starts businesses and do better financially than their peers .
A moderate part of the variation among people in IQ is due to the environment , yes , but no one has ever been able to find out what specific part of the environment it is that is important .
It has been proven that it is none of the obvious things , like reading books , education , nutrition ( above starvation ) or stimulating environment ( short of being locked in a dark box ) .
These things do increase test scores among children , but this is because IQ tests for children are very unreliable , and the component of the score that is being increased is the noise component - i.e .
these things teach children to do better in a typical IQ test , but they do not increase their actual IQ ( if you do n't think that statement makes logical sense then there is a lot you do n't know about IQ ) .
The apparent though small increase in IQ you can generate from improving the environment of poor children thus disappears in adulthood , and they do no better in adulthood either when it comes to earning money .
Your sig is " You just got troll 'd !
" , which it seems accurate that I have been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nutrition has to be truly, horribly terrible to impact IQ, and education does nothing for IQ, it's the other way around - higher levels of education only let in people with higher IQs.
Uneducated people with high IQ tend to be the ones who starts businesses and do better financially than their peers.
A moderate part of the variation among people in IQ is due to the environment, yes, but no one has ever been able to find out what specific part of the environment it is that is important.
It has been proven that it is none of the obvious things, like reading books, education, nutrition (above starvation) or stimulating environment (short of being locked in a dark box).
These things do increase test scores among children, but this is because IQ tests for children are very unreliable, and the component of the score that is being increased is the noise component - i.e.
these things teach children to do better in a typical IQ test, but they do not increase their actual IQ (if you don't think that statement makes logical sense then there is a lot you don't know about IQ).
The apparent though small increase in IQ you can generate from improving the environment of poor children thus disappears in adulthood, and they do no better in adulthood either when it comes to earning money.
Your sig is "You just got troll'd!
", which it seems accurate that I have been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29944896</id>
	<title>Re:Idocracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think so called smart people often confuse poor people with people who don't have money.  I think it is a better conclusion that people don't have money because they are poor (unintelligent).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think so called smart people often confuse poor people with people who do n't have money .
I think it is a better conclusion that people do n't have money because they are poor ( unintelligent ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think so called smart people often confuse poor people with people who don't have money.
I think it is a better conclusion that people don't have money because they are poor (unintelligent).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941875</id>
	<title>The FAs and Big Girls taking over</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1257093000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's simple really. Environment-wise, women are getting fatter. The men who like thin women reject them, while the men who like fat women accept them. Since size preference may be more genetic than environmental, when they have children the males will trend toward those who prefer fat women, and - environmental impact or not - the females will also be genetically predisposed to be fat. And according to the article, their body chemistry will be better equipped to handle being fat (lower blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.)<br> <br>
So get used to it - fat's where's its at!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's simple really .
Environment-wise , women are getting fatter .
The men who like thin women reject them , while the men who like fat women accept them .
Since size preference may be more genetic than environmental , when they have children the males will trend toward those who prefer fat women , and - environmental impact or not - the females will also be genetically predisposed to be fat .
And according to the article , their body chemistry will be better equipped to handle being fat ( lower blood pressure , cholesterol , etc .
) So get used to it - fat 's where 's its at !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's simple really.
Environment-wise, women are getting fatter.
The men who like thin women reject them, while the men who like fat women accept them.
Since size preference may be more genetic than environmental, when they have children the males will trend toward those who prefer fat women, and - environmental impact or not - the females will also be genetically predisposed to be fat.
And according to the article, their body chemistry will be better equipped to handle being fat (lower blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.
) 
So get used to it - fat's where's its at!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941205</id>
	<title>Idocracy</title>
	<author>corsec67</author>
	<datestamp>1257085920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evolution would just mean that whomever has the most children (that survive to also make children) becomes the dominant (in numbers) body type.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution would just mean that whomever has the most children ( that survive to also make children ) becomes the dominant ( in numbers ) body type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution would just mean that whomever has the most children (that survive to also make children) becomes the dominant (in numbers) body type.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943744</id>
	<title>Don't see a problem here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always preferred that sort of woman (think cup size).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always preferred that sort of woman ( think cup size ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always preferred that sort of woman (think cup size).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941761</id>
	<title>But not in the Netherlands</title>
	<author>kanweg</author>
	<datestamp>1257092040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the Netherlands people marry rather late, and many women get their kids in their (late) thirties. A good portion of women of that age miss the boat. There is an enormous selection pressure going on. Ignoring the emerging trend of freezing eggs, one may expect that in a couple of generations Dutch women will be able to bear children at even older age, and may well live even longer than they do now.</p><p>Bert</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the Netherlands people marry rather late , and many women get their kids in their ( late ) thirties .
A good portion of women of that age miss the boat .
There is an enormous selection pressure going on .
Ignoring the emerging trend of freezing eggs , one may expect that in a couple of generations Dutch women will be able to bear children at even older age , and may well live even longer than they do now.Bert</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the Netherlands people marry rather late, and many women get their kids in their (late) thirties.
A good portion of women of that age miss the boat.
There is an enormous selection pressure going on.
Ignoring the emerging trend of freezing eggs, one may expect that in a couple of generations Dutch women will be able to bear children at even older age, and may well live even longer than they do now.Bert</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942312</id>
	<title>Don't know much about evolution...</title>
	<author>SlideGuitar</author>
	<datestamp>1257097860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... but I do know that<br>1) genotypes are a direct function of enviro-types<br>2) the envirotype of 2010 and and of 1900 to the present (antibiotics, changed cultural mores etc.) is pretty different from anything that proceeded it, so of course the genotype will adjust.... if that envirotype hangs around long enough.</p><p>On the other hand, while the Western envirotype has shifted, has the planetary envirotype shifted?  Isn't the normative human environment still China, India, Africa and Brazil?  Must be, because that's where the people live.  So whatever evolution is happening for the species as a whole, it is surely happening because of environmental changes facing people living in places other than Europe and the U.S.</p><p>Seems to me that for human evolution to occur in a meaningful sense you'd need a big change in some fundamental environmental factors, and they would have to effect most of the planet, particularly the places where most of the people live.</p><p>Given climate change and global warming, I'm not even sure we'll be around long enough to measure such effects.  2500 indeed!  Good luck getting to 2200, planet earth.</p><p>Then of course you can get into different scenarios.   What if Asia and Africa are wiped out by global warming, and Framingham Europeans are really a population bottleneck?   Well then you could have evolutionary changes to adopt to Framingham environtypes... but only if they persisted over generations.</p><p>In retrospect, the antibiotic technology based stage of human evolution may prove to be quite temporary... a few generations.  Do you really believe that antibiotics are forever?  I suggest you have forgotten the evolutionary potential of bacteria.</p><p>The world of 20th and 21st century America and Europe is probably a deviation from the basic human condition of the past (certainly) and African villages and Mad Max warriors and Ghengis Kahn is more like the real future (I predict) and so the forms that evolve to live in the modern world are probably dead ends any way.</p><p>I know that you tech optimists find that improbable.  You think antibiotics and high energy society are forever.   I think African villages and are closer to forever, and that if there is a long run that's more what it looks like.  The human forms that can survive in that world will continue to be the face of humanity.</p><p>My two cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... but I do know that1 ) genotypes are a direct function of enviro-types2 ) the envirotype of 2010 and and of 1900 to the present ( antibiotics , changed cultural mores etc .
) is pretty different from anything that proceeded it , so of course the genotype will adjust.... if that envirotype hangs around long enough.On the other hand , while the Western envirotype has shifted , has the planetary envirotype shifted ?
Is n't the normative human environment still China , India , Africa and Brazil ?
Must be , because that 's where the people live .
So whatever evolution is happening for the species as a whole , it is surely happening because of environmental changes facing people living in places other than Europe and the U.S.Seems to me that for human evolution to occur in a meaningful sense you 'd need a big change in some fundamental environmental factors , and they would have to effect most of the planet , particularly the places where most of the people live.Given climate change and global warming , I 'm not even sure we 'll be around long enough to measure such effects .
2500 indeed !
Good luck getting to 2200 , planet earth.Then of course you can get into different scenarios .
What if Asia and Africa are wiped out by global warming , and Framingham Europeans are really a population bottleneck ?
Well then you could have evolutionary changes to adopt to Framingham environtypes... but only if they persisted over generations.In retrospect , the antibiotic technology based stage of human evolution may prove to be quite temporary... a few generations .
Do you really believe that antibiotics are forever ?
I suggest you have forgotten the evolutionary potential of bacteria.The world of 20th and 21st century America and Europe is probably a deviation from the basic human condition of the past ( certainly ) and African villages and Mad Max warriors and Ghengis Kahn is more like the real future ( I predict ) and so the forms that evolve to live in the modern world are probably dead ends any way.I know that you tech optimists find that improbable .
You think antibiotics and high energy society are forever .
I think African villages and are closer to forever , and that if there is a long run that 's more what it looks like .
The human forms that can survive in that world will continue to be the face of humanity.My two cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but I do know that1) genotypes are a direct function of enviro-types2) the envirotype of 2010 and and of 1900 to the present (antibiotics, changed cultural mores etc.
) is pretty different from anything that proceeded it, so of course the genotype will adjust.... if that envirotype hangs around long enough.On the other hand, while the Western envirotype has shifted, has the planetary envirotype shifted?
Isn't the normative human environment still China, India, Africa and Brazil?
Must be, because that's where the people live.
So whatever evolution is happening for the species as a whole, it is surely happening because of environmental changes facing people living in places other than Europe and the U.S.Seems to me that for human evolution to occur in a meaningful sense you'd need a big change in some fundamental environmental factors, and they would have to effect most of the planet, particularly the places where most of the people live.Given climate change and global warming, I'm not even sure we'll be around long enough to measure such effects.
2500 indeed!
Good luck getting to 2200, planet earth.Then of course you can get into different scenarios.
What if Asia and Africa are wiped out by global warming, and Framingham Europeans are really a population bottleneck?
Well then you could have evolutionary changes to adopt to Framingham environtypes... but only if they persisted over generations.In retrospect, the antibiotic technology based stage of human evolution may prove to be quite temporary... a few generations.
Do you really believe that antibiotics are forever?
I suggest you have forgotten the evolutionary potential of bacteria.The world of 20th and 21st century America and Europe is probably a deviation from the basic human condition of the past (certainly) and African villages and Mad Max warriors and Ghengis Kahn is more like the real future (I predict) and so the forms that evolve to live in the modern world are probably dead ends any way.I know that you tech optimists find that improbable.
You think antibiotics and high energy society are forever.
I think African villages and are closer to forever, and that if there is a long run that's more what it looks like.
The human forms that can survive in that world will continue to be the face of humanity.My two cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943822</id>
	<title>Bring on the Fish-Speakers</title>
	<author>myowntrueself</author>
	<datestamp>1257067020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The God Emperor of Dune created a legion of ursine female warriors.</p><p>His idea was that men should be kept as far away from warfare as possible; they are simply not stable enough. If men get to dictate when you go to war, you will always be at war.</p><p>Women, especially ones that have had children, have an entirely different and more stable perspective on the world, more protective and nurturing than men. If women get to dictate when you go to war, you will rarely go to war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The God Emperor of Dune created a legion of ursine female warriors.His idea was that men should be kept as far away from warfare as possible ; they are simply not stable enough .
If men get to dictate when you go to war , you will always be at war.Women , especially ones that have had children , have an entirely different and more stable perspective on the world , more protective and nurturing than men .
If women get to dictate when you go to war , you will rarely go to war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The God Emperor of Dune created a legion of ursine female warriors.His idea was that men should be kept as far away from warfare as possible; they are simply not stable enough.
If men get to dictate when you go to war, you will always be at war.Women, especially ones that have had children, have an entirely different and more stable perspective on the world, more protective and nurturing than men.
If women get to dictate when you go to war, you will rarely go to war.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941663</id>
	<title>Re:Reproductive "success" is not genetic.</title>
	<author>Bieeanda</author>
	<datestamp>1257091200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're showing a breathtaking middle-class, First World bias in that assumption about reproductive goals. There are still plenty of places where the odds of a single child surviving to adulthood are tragically poor, and where having a number of children to help with the family business is advantageous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're showing a breathtaking middle-class , First World bias in that assumption about reproductive goals .
There are still plenty of places where the odds of a single child surviving to adulthood are tragically poor , and where having a number of children to help with the family business is advantageous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're showing a breathtaking middle-class, First World bias in that assumption about reproductive goals.
There are still plenty of places where the odds of a single child surviving to adulthood are tragically poor, and where having a number of children to help with the family business is advantageous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29953142</id>
	<title>Unecessary Study</title>
	<author>ezdude</author>
	<datestamp>1257191520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We already know how tall women will be in the 25th century. Doesn't anyone remember Erin Gray?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We already know how tall women will be in the 25th century .
Does n't anyone remember Erin Gray ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already know how tall women will be in the 25th century.
Doesn't anyone remember Erin Gray?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942193</id>
	<title>Wrong field</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1257096120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to know how will evolve humanity, specially when all survive, is sociology the answer, not biology. Our capacity to replicate memes, like speaking, acting and looking as being actually popular somewhat increases our chances of reproducing. Is globalization pushing us towards not only unified culture, but also unified look,<br><br>Still, most people that dont fully comply with that usually reproduce too. Numbers are just too high, so even if there is a clear trend there, will take many generations, and nothing ensures that our civilization in the current way will remain that long. Won't be so surprising that in a somewhat near future not all survive (disasters, wars, totalitarian governments trying to "clean" their gene pool, etc), or not all will be free to have children (too many books and movies around that), or genes could be "corrected" (we are almost there to avoid genetic diseases, but could derive into "designing" children to met some fashion criteria), and not always will be natural or slow that "evolution".</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to know how will evolve humanity , specially when all survive , is sociology the answer , not biology .
Our capacity to replicate memes , like speaking , acting and looking as being actually popular somewhat increases our chances of reproducing .
Is globalization pushing us towards not only unified culture , but also unified look,Still , most people that dont fully comply with that usually reproduce too .
Numbers are just too high , so even if there is a clear trend there , will take many generations , and nothing ensures that our civilization in the current way will remain that long .
Wo n't be so surprising that in a somewhat near future not all survive ( disasters , wars , totalitarian governments trying to " clean " their gene pool , etc ) , or not all will be free to have children ( too many books and movies around that ) , or genes could be " corrected " ( we are almost there to avoid genetic diseases , but could derive into " designing " children to met some fashion criteria ) , and not always will be natural or slow that " evolution " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to know how will evolve humanity, specially when all survive, is sociology the answer, not biology.
Our capacity to replicate memes, like speaking, acting and looking as being actually popular somewhat increases our chances of reproducing.
Is globalization pushing us towards not only unified culture, but also unified look,Still, most people that dont fully comply with that usually reproduce too.
Numbers are just too high, so even if there is a clear trend there, will take many generations, and nothing ensures that our civilization in the current way will remain that long.
Won't be so surprising that in a somewhat near future not all survive (disasters, wars, totalitarian governments trying to "clean" their gene pool, etc), or not all will be free to have children (too many books and movies around that), or genes could be "corrected" (we are almost there to avoid genetic diseases, but could derive into "designing" children to met some fashion criteria), and not always will be natural or slow that "evolution".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29945902</id>
	<title>Re:Reproductive "success" is not genetic.</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1257083640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think evolutionary change is being stifled by both medicine and civilization.</p></div><p>This is attributing an intent to evolutionary change. There is no such thing as intent where it comes to evolution. </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Reproductive "success" is not genetic anymore, its based on social factors.</p> </div><p>
Reproductive "success" has always partially been based on social factors anyway.</p><p>Once out of the womb, our babies can not survive on their own. To you, this is probably completely natural, but just imagine if you had *not* gone through that process yourself. Imagine if you were an alien who was aware of evolution, but who had also been left to fend for himself and survive on his own just two minutes after his own birth. To you, that alien, the human race as we know it now would seem artificial and weak, not deserving to live, as I'm sure it would run against your sense of what evolution's true intent was supposed to be about.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think evolutionary change is being stifled by both medicine and civilization.This is attributing an intent to evolutionary change .
There is no such thing as intent where it comes to evolution .
Reproductive " success " is not genetic anymore , its based on social factors .
Reproductive " success " has always partially been based on social factors anyway.Once out of the womb , our babies can not survive on their own .
To you , this is probably completely natural , but just imagine if you had * not * gone through that process yourself .
Imagine if you were an alien who was aware of evolution , but who had also been left to fend for himself and survive on his own just two minutes after his own birth .
To you , that alien , the human race as we know it now would seem artificial and weak , not deserving to live , as I 'm sure it would run against your sense of what evolution 's true intent was supposed to be about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think evolutionary change is being stifled by both medicine and civilization.This is attributing an intent to evolutionary change.
There is no such thing as intent where it comes to evolution.
Reproductive "success" is not genetic anymore, its based on social factors.
Reproductive "success" has always partially been based on social factors anyway.Once out of the womb, our babies can not survive on their own.
To you, this is probably completely natural, but just imagine if you had *not* gone through that process yourself.
Imagine if you were an alien who was aware of evolution, but who had also been left to fend for himself and survive on his own just two minutes after his own birth.
To you, that alien, the human race as we know it now would seem artificial and weak, not deserving to live, as I'm sure it would run against your sense of what evolution's true intent was supposed to be about.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29948486</id>
	<title>That's evolution, too.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257156660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Women below 2 meters there drown when the tide rises.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Women below 2 meters there drown when the tide rises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Women below 2 meters there drown when the tide rises.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942105</id>
	<title>a bit weak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257095220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the Yale press release:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;The idea that natural selection has stopped operating in humans because we have gotten better at keeping people alive is just plain wrong,&rdquo; said Stephen C. Stearns</p></div><p>The implicit assumption is that medicine tends to help the weak relatively more than the strong, which is a probably false right out the gate.<br>It is more likely that medicine increase (lifespan) equally across the board.</p><p><b> <i>So he's basically trying to disprove a false assumption that he had made himself.</i> </b></p><p>More bizarre however, is Stearn's implicit notion that tall&amp;thin is weaker than short&amp;heavy (now I see why pr0n sites often have a fatty sub-section).</p><p>Also is Framingham, Massachusetts a completely isolated test tube, without immigration, because arguably the majority of recent migration had been from cultures that are shorter and heavier.</p><p>In case he is correct however, I would like to volunteer my reproductive services to any hawt, tall, thin single females.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Yale press release :    The idea that natural selection has stopped operating in humans because we have gotten better at keeping people alive is just plain wrong ,    said Stephen C. StearnsThe implicit assumption is that medicine tends to help the weak relatively more than the strong , which is a probably false right out the gate.It is more likely that medicine increase ( lifespan ) equally across the board .
So he 's basically trying to disprove a false assumption that he had made himself .
More bizarre however , is Stearn 's implicit notion that tall&amp;thin is weaker than short&amp;heavy ( now I see why pr0n sites often have a fatty sub-section ) .Also is Framingham , Massachusetts a completely isolated test tube , without immigration , because arguably the majority of recent migration had been from cultures that are shorter and heavier.In case he is correct however , I would like to volunteer my reproductive services to any hawt , tall , thin single females .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Yale press release:“The idea that natural selection has stopped operating in humans because we have gotten better at keeping people alive is just plain wrong,” said Stephen C. StearnsThe implicit assumption is that medicine tends to help the weak relatively more than the strong, which is a probably false right out the gate.It is more likely that medicine increase (lifespan) equally across the board.
So he's basically trying to disprove a false assumption that he had made himself.
More bizarre however, is Stearn's implicit notion that tall&amp;thin is weaker than short&amp;heavy (now I see why pr0n sites often have a fatty sub-section).Also is Framingham, Massachusetts a completely isolated test tube, without immigration, because arguably the majority of recent migration had been from cultures that are shorter and heavier.In case he is correct however, I would like to volunteer my reproductive services to any hawt, tall, thin single females.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29944458</id>
	<title>Societal, Not Evolutionary Causes.....</title>
	<author>IHC Navistar</author>
	<datestamp>1257071340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you have a society that says it's OK to be fat and overweight, what do you expect? Designer stores are selling HUGE sizes for men and women, magazines are proclaiming "Big is beautiful", and designers are selling clothes for people who should be on a treadmill, and not in their stores.

I'm sick of hearing people say that it is OK to be overweight - It's not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you have a society that says it 's OK to be fat and overweight , what do you expect ?
Designer stores are selling HUGE sizes for men and women , magazines are proclaiming " Big is beautiful " , and designers are selling clothes for people who should be on a treadmill , and not in their stores .
I 'm sick of hearing people say that it is OK to be overweight - It 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you have a society that says it's OK to be fat and overweight, what do you expect?
Designer stores are selling HUGE sizes for men and women, magazines are proclaiming "Big is beautiful", and designers are selling clothes for people who should be on a treadmill, and not in their stores.
I'm sick of hearing people say that it is OK to be overweight - It's not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29980490</id>
	<title>One positive thing in the future...</title>
	<author>lupinstel</author>
	<datestamp>1257011820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is at least one positive thing to look forward to in the future.  We will have shiny silver jumpsuits that say "NO fat chicks".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is at least one positive thing to look forward to in the future .
We will have shiny silver jumpsuits that say " NO fat chicks " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is at least one positive thing to look forward to in the future.
We will have shiny silver jumpsuits that say "NO fat chicks".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941333</id>
	<title>Re:What a headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i, for one, welcome our shorter, heavier overlords<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i , for one , welcome our shorter , heavier overlords ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i, for one, welcome our shorter, heavier overlords ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941347</id>
	<title>I'll take a crack at it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with most biologists and geneticists (I'm one) is a lack of objectivity.  They should talk to more engineers when solving problems (I'm one of those too).<br>
<br>
Process A<br>
Most planned pregnancies happen in later life.<br>
Most unplanned pregnancies happen while drunk.<br>
Most drunk intercourse is with the first willing partner.<br>
Most willing partners are more homely than gorgeous.<br>
Most homely women are shorter and fatter.<br>
<br>
Process B<br>
Most unplanned pregnancies are followed by unplanned marriages.<br>
Most marriages starting with an unplanned child are followed by subsequent progeny (it started with sex, so sex is what you do together for the first while)<br>
Most social traits carry on through generations - daughters of young mothers often have early pregnancies (these may involve factors expressed in Process A)<br>
<br>
Thus, homely Mom, homely daughters, Mom got drunk and had sex early so why can't I, followed by more homely daughters...<br>
<br>
Where's the mystery?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with most biologists and geneticists ( I 'm one ) is a lack of objectivity .
They should talk to more engineers when solving problems ( I 'm one of those too ) .
Process A Most planned pregnancies happen in later life .
Most unplanned pregnancies happen while drunk .
Most drunk intercourse is with the first willing partner .
Most willing partners are more homely than gorgeous .
Most homely women are shorter and fatter .
Process B Most unplanned pregnancies are followed by unplanned marriages .
Most marriages starting with an unplanned child are followed by subsequent progeny ( it started with sex , so sex is what you do together for the first while ) Most social traits carry on through generations - daughters of young mothers often have early pregnancies ( these may involve factors expressed in Process A ) Thus , homely Mom , homely daughters , Mom got drunk and had sex early so why ca n't I , followed by more homely daughters.. . Where 's the mystery ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with most biologists and geneticists (I'm one) is a lack of objectivity.
They should talk to more engineers when solving problems (I'm one of those too).
Process A
Most planned pregnancies happen in later life.
Most unplanned pregnancies happen while drunk.
Most drunk intercourse is with the first willing partner.
Most willing partners are more homely than gorgeous.
Most homely women are shorter and fatter.
Process B
Most unplanned pregnancies are followed by unplanned marriages.
Most marriages starting with an unplanned child are followed by subsequent progeny (it started with sex, so sex is what you do together for the first while)
Most social traits carry on through generations - daughters of young mothers often have early pregnancies (these may involve factors expressed in Process A)

Thus, homely Mom, homely daughters, Mom got drunk and had sex early so why can't I, followed by more homely daughters...

Where's the mystery?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942095</id>
	<title>Re:What will be the impact of docters</title>
	<author>swb</author>
	<datestamp>1257095100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of socially attractive (meaning they are considered attractive by their peers and others, not that they meet some objective standard) women reject childbearing because of its so-called negative impact on their appearance -- the weight gain, the accelerated sagging of breasts, and if the news reports on genital cosmetic surgery are to be believed, the effects on genital appearance as well.</p><p>It seems like whenever I read about a Hollywood actress with children, they're often adopted, which I can't help but associate with a certain narcissism.</p><p>But from what I've read, though, it's not the trivial social attractiveness (which is often highly manipulated by cosmetics, clothing, branding, etc) that matters in reproduction, it's the more subtle cues in relationship to bust-hip ratios and other sort of non-conscious cues about child rearing capacity.  Social attractiveness is really just a glamorization of those cues.</p><p>IMHO, the more subtle cues are what account for the MILF phenomenon; "real" MILFs (as opposed to porn stars merely labeled) directly portray fertility cues, since presumably they were mothers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of socially attractive ( meaning they are considered attractive by their peers and others , not that they meet some objective standard ) women reject childbearing because of its so-called negative impact on their appearance -- the weight gain , the accelerated sagging of breasts , and if the news reports on genital cosmetic surgery are to be believed , the effects on genital appearance as well.It seems like whenever I read about a Hollywood actress with children , they 're often adopted , which I ca n't help but associate with a certain narcissism.But from what I 've read , though , it 's not the trivial social attractiveness ( which is often highly manipulated by cosmetics , clothing , branding , etc ) that matters in reproduction , it 's the more subtle cues in relationship to bust-hip ratios and other sort of non-conscious cues about child rearing capacity .
Social attractiveness is really just a glamorization of those cues.IMHO , the more subtle cues are what account for the MILF phenomenon ; " real " MILFs ( as opposed to porn stars merely labeled ) directly portray fertility cues , since presumably they were mothers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of socially attractive (meaning they are considered attractive by their peers and others, not that they meet some objective standard) women reject childbearing because of its so-called negative impact on their appearance -- the weight gain, the accelerated sagging of breasts, and if the news reports on genital cosmetic surgery are to be believed, the effects on genital appearance as well.It seems like whenever I read about a Hollywood actress with children, they're often adopted, which I can't help but associate with a certain narcissism.But from what I've read, though, it's not the trivial social attractiveness (which is often highly manipulated by cosmetics, clothing, branding, etc) that matters in reproduction, it's the more subtle cues in relationship to bust-hip ratios and other sort of non-conscious cues about child rearing capacity.
Social attractiveness is really just a glamorization of those cues.IMHO, the more subtle cues are what account for the MILF phenomenon; "real" MILFs (as opposed to porn stars merely labeled) directly portray fertility cues, since presumably they were mothers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29946612</id>
	<title>Re:What will be the impact of docters</title>
	<author>hawk</author>
	<datestamp>1257089760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that far-fetched.</p><p>My computational economics dissertation was on a theoretical genetics topic. We wanted to apply the algorithm to a real gene.  The one for which which we had data was the ESR--the Estrogen Receptor Gene in swine--which influences litter size in swine.</p><p>The other way to look at it is that, being that I was at Iowa State, *of course* swine made it into my dissertation . . .</p><p>hawk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that far-fetched.My computational economics dissertation was on a theoretical genetics topic .
We wanted to apply the algorithm to a real gene .
The one for which which we had data was the ESR--the Estrogen Receptor Gene in swine--which influences litter size in swine.The other way to look at it is that , being that I was at Iowa State , * of course * swine made it into my dissertation .
. .hawk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that far-fetched.My computational economics dissertation was on a theoretical genetics topic.
We wanted to apply the algorithm to a real gene.
The one for which which we had data was the ESR--the Estrogen Receptor Gene in swine--which influences litter size in swine.The other way to look at it is that, being that I was at Iowa State, *of course* swine made it into my dissertation .
. .hawk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29951698</id>
	<title>yes...</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1257184380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and it will also lead to more poor people and less chinese people.</p><p>yes, social rules are having an effect on our gene pool. but will the rules last long enough to stick?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and it will also lead to more poor people and less chinese people.yes , social rules are having an effect on our gene pool .
but will the rules last long enough to stick ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and it will also lead to more poor people and less chinese people.yes, social rules are having an effect on our gene pool.
but will the rules last long enough to stick?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942590</id>
	<title>They are ignoring evolution</title>
	<author>pesho</author>
	<datestamp>1257100500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

<p>From the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They then surveyed the traits that conferred reproductive success. After adjusting for environmental factors such as income, education and lifestyle choices such as smoking, the researchers estimated the heritability of traits by applying correlations among all relatives.</p></div><p>If you are studying evolution, you are not supposed to 'adjust' environmental factors. Environmental factors are driving evolution. If you eliminate them you are studying genetic drift.</p><p>Besides what evolution we are talking about. They had only 2 generation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : They then surveyed the traits that conferred reproductive success .
After adjusting for environmental factors such as income , education and lifestyle choices such as smoking , the researchers estimated the heritability of traits by applying correlations among all relatives.If you are studying evolution , you are not supposed to 'adjust ' environmental factors .
Environmental factors are driving evolution .
If you eliminate them you are studying genetic drift.Besides what evolution we are talking about .
They had only 2 generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

From the article:They then surveyed the traits that conferred reproductive success.
After adjusting for environmental factors such as income, education and lifestyle choices such as smoking, the researchers estimated the heritability of traits by applying correlations among all relatives.If you are studying evolution, you are not supposed to 'adjust' environmental factors.
Environmental factors are driving evolution.
If you eliminate them you are studying genetic drift.Besides what evolution we are talking about.
They had only 2 generation.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941323</id>
	<title>Bad misquote in summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'There is this idea that because medicine has been so good at reducing mortality rates, that means that natural selection is no longer operating in humans,' says Stephen Stearns of Yale University.</p></div><p>
What he says in the opposite:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;The idea that natural selection has stopped operating in humans because we have gotten better at keeping people alive is just plain wrong,&rdquo; said Stephen C. Stearns,</p></div><p>
Reproductive selection will always operate, it is just that the ''<i>selection criteria</i>'' may change, physical fitness may no longer be so important, supplanted by taking advantage of social security/... to enable them to have more children than they can support by the ''sweat of their own brows'', the government picks up the bill.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'There is this idea that because medicine has been so good at reducing mortality rates , that means that natural selection is no longer operating in humans, ' says Stephen Stearns of Yale University .
What he says in the opposite :    The idea that natural selection has stopped operating in humans because we have gotten better at keeping people alive is just plain wrong ,    said Stephen C. Stearns , Reproductive selection will always operate , it is just that the ''selection criteria' ' may change , physical fitness may no longer be so important , supplanted by taking advantage of social security/... to enable them to have more children than they can support by the ''sweat of their own brows' ' , the government picks up the bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'There is this idea that because medicine has been so good at reducing mortality rates, that means that natural selection is no longer operating in humans,' says Stephen Stearns of Yale University.
What he says in the opposite:“The idea that natural selection has stopped operating in humans because we have gotten better at keeping people alive is just plain wrong,” said Stephen C. Stearns,
Reproductive selection will always operate, it is just that the ''selection criteria'' may change, physical fitness may no longer be so important, supplanted by taking advantage of social security/... to enable them to have more children than they can support by the ''sweat of their own brows'', the government picks up the bill.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941403</id>
	<title>Re:Bad misquote in summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Reproductive selection will always operate, it is just that the ''selection criteria'' may change, physical fitness may no longer be so important, supplanted by taking advantage of social security/... to enable them to have more children than they can support by the ''sweat of their own brows'', the government picks up the bill.</p></div><p>To quote Monty Python: "Look at them bloody Catholics, filling up the bloody world with children they can't afford to bloody feed." At least, I assume that's what you were referring to.</p><p>But seriously, the idea of a "welfare queen" is a myth (and typically a racist one at that). The vast majority of welfare recipients are trying to work, are unable to, but find work within about 2 years. Among other things, the per-child benefit that is given via WIC, TANF, and food stamps doesn't completely cover the cost of having the extra child, so having more kids makes even welfare recipients poorer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reproductive selection will always operate , it is just that the ''selection criteria' ' may change , physical fitness may no longer be so important , supplanted by taking advantage of social security/... to enable them to have more children than they can support by the ''sweat of their own brows' ' , the government picks up the bill.To quote Monty Python : " Look at them bloody Catholics , filling up the bloody world with children they ca n't afford to bloody feed .
" At least , I assume that 's what you were referring to.But seriously , the idea of a " welfare queen " is a myth ( and typically a racist one at that ) .
The vast majority of welfare recipients are trying to work , are unable to , but find work within about 2 years .
Among other things , the per-child benefit that is given via WIC , TANF , and food stamps does n't completely cover the cost of having the extra child , so having more kids makes even welfare recipients poorer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reproductive selection will always operate, it is just that the ''selection criteria'' may change, physical fitness may no longer be so important, supplanted by taking advantage of social security/... to enable them to have more children than they can support by the ''sweat of their own brows'', the government picks up the bill.To quote Monty Python: "Look at them bloody Catholics, filling up the bloody world with children they can't afford to bloody feed.
" At least, I assume that's what you were referring to.But seriously, the idea of a "welfare queen" is a myth (and typically a racist one at that).
The vast majority of welfare recipients are trying to work, are unable to, but find work within about 2 years.
Among other things, the per-child benefit that is given via WIC, TANF, and food stamps doesn't completely cover the cost of having the extra child, so having more kids makes even welfare recipients poorer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941727</id>
	<title>I like money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257091740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all idocracy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all idocracy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all idocracy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941339</id>
	<title>I disagree</title>
	<author>sleeponthemic</author>
	<datestamp>1257087720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect that genetics and nutrition will mitigate these factors.  Whilst the trend is towards fat, now, this is likely to plateau and fall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that genetics and nutrition will mitigate these factors .
Whilst the trend is towards fat , now , this is likely to plateau and fall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that genetics and nutrition will mitigate these factors.
Whilst the trend is towards fat, now, this is likely to plateau and fall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941201</id>
	<title>What a headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Evolution's Path May Lead To Shorter, Heavier Women</i></p><p>Well, shit. That sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution 's Path May Lead To Shorter , Heavier WomenWell , shit .
That sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution's Path May Lead To Shorter, Heavier WomenWell, shit.
That sucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942810</id>
	<title>One number explains it: 8008135</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously,</p><p>Women with larger breasts have a stronger tendency to attract a mate, and a frame to support the extra weight.  2 cm shorter and 1kg don't really represent a lot of genetic drift.</p><p>You know, if you think about it, barbie probably has more than 1kg of breast weight and probably 2 cm of spine compression to support it.</p><p>Okay - I wasn't serious.  Men are pigs, myself included.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously,Women with larger breasts have a stronger tendency to attract a mate , and a frame to support the extra weight .
2 cm shorter and 1kg do n't really represent a lot of genetic drift.You know , if you think about it , barbie probably has more than 1kg of breast weight and probably 2 cm of spine compression to support it.Okay - I was n't serious .
Men are pigs , myself included .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously,Women with larger breasts have a stronger tendency to attract a mate, and a frame to support the extra weight.
2 cm shorter and 1kg don't really represent a lot of genetic drift.You know, if you think about it, barbie probably has more than 1kg of breast weight and probably 2 cm of spine compression to support it.Okay - I wasn't serious.
Men are pigs, myself included.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941379</id>
	<title>Re:Reproductive "success" is not genetic.</title>
	<author>NoOneInParticular</author>
	<datestamp>1257088200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the article argues that your 'impression' that evolutionary change is being stifled by both medicine and civilization is plain false. Also, it might be that the goal of most humans is to lead an fruitful and interesting lifes, but also that's irrelevant. Bottom line remains that whoever spawns most progeny will spread their genes. It is that simple.
<p>
You might want to think things through a bit more, as your preliminary paragraph displays a very incorrect view of how selection operates. Whoever makes most kids, takes over the population, genetically. Also, if dwarven females are that ugly, there you have an immediate selection pressure against them taking over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the article argues that your 'impression ' that evolutionary change is being stifled by both medicine and civilization is plain false .
Also , it might be that the goal of most humans is to lead an fruitful and interesting lifes , but also that 's irrelevant .
Bottom line remains that whoever spawns most progeny will spread their genes .
It is that simple .
You might want to think things through a bit more , as your preliminary paragraph displays a very incorrect view of how selection operates .
Whoever makes most kids , takes over the population , genetically .
Also , if dwarven females are that ugly , there you have an immediate selection pressure against them taking over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the article argues that your 'impression' that evolutionary change is being stifled by both medicine and civilization is plain false.
Also, it might be that the goal of most humans is to lead an fruitful and interesting lifes, but also that's irrelevant.
Bottom line remains that whoever spawns most progeny will spread their genes.
It is that simple.
You might want to think things through a bit more, as your preliminary paragraph displays a very incorrect view of how selection operates.
Whoever makes most kids, takes over the population, genetically.
Also, if dwarven females are that ugly, there you have an immediate selection pressure against them taking over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29947930</id>
	<title>Plump farm girls ...</title>
	<author>Fippy Darkpaw</author>
	<datestamp>1257103800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Theres nothing like a plump farm girl.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theres nothing like a plump farm girl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theres nothing like a plump farm girl.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941979</id>
	<title>Not Suprised</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1257093840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>seeing as how most females of the species are smaller then the males in the various mammal species. What is interesting is that evolutionary effects are showing that medical treatment and good diet have slowed the trend down.</p><p>Of course, seeing as how food quality has dropped since the end of WWII, I'm also not surprised that we're beginning to see a reduction in physical size of our female population along with the emphasis towards a greater number of offspring along with the increased length of child bearing ability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>seeing as how most females of the species are smaller then the males in the various mammal species .
What is interesting is that evolutionary effects are showing that medical treatment and good diet have slowed the trend down.Of course , seeing as how food quality has dropped since the end of WWII , I 'm also not surprised that we 're beginning to see a reduction in physical size of our female population along with the emphasis towards a greater number of offspring along with the increased length of child bearing ability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seeing as how most females of the species are smaller then the males in the various mammal species.
What is interesting is that evolutionary effects are showing that medical treatment and good diet have slowed the trend down.Of course, seeing as how food quality has dropped since the end of WWII, I'm also not surprised that we're beginning to see a reduction in physical size of our female population along with the emphasis towards a greater number of offspring along with the increased length of child bearing ability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943320</id>
	<title>Re:What will be the impact of docters</title>
	<author>bugnuts</author>
	<datestamp>1257106980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also there is a trend of finding slimmer women more attractive. In the past this ment that those would be having more children.</p></div><p>According to <a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25845304-36398,00.html" title="news.com.au">this article</a> [news.com.au] that's still the case.</p><p>So, don't fret too much guys.  According to that study, women are getting better looking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also there is a trend of finding slimmer women more attractive .
In the past this ment that those would be having more children.According to this article [ news.com.au ] that 's still the case.So , do n't fret too much guys .
According to that study , women are getting better looking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also there is a trend of finding slimmer women more attractive.
In the past this ment that those would be having more children.According to this article [news.com.au] that's still the case.So, don't fret too much guys.
According to that study, women are getting better looking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29946966</id>
	<title>Re:history is not a myth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'll find that shops in poor areas don't stock chicken or vegetables, they just stock junk. And when you're working three jobs just to pay the rent, you don't exactly have time to cook meals. Junk food also lasts, you can buy a bag of cheetohs and it's good for months, those vegetables will be rotten before you've even had time to eat them, especially when you don't have a fridge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll find that shops in poor areas do n't stock chicken or vegetables , they just stock junk .
And when you 're working three jobs just to pay the rent , you do n't exactly have time to cook meals .
Junk food also lasts , you can buy a bag of cheetohs and it 's good for months , those vegetables will be rotten before you 've even had time to eat them , especially when you do n't have a fridge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll find that shops in poor areas don't stock chicken or vegetables, they just stock junk.
And when you're working three jobs just to pay the rent, you don't exactly have time to cook meals.
Junk food also lasts, you can buy a bag of cheetohs and it's good for months, those vegetables will be rotten before you've even had time to eat them, especially when you don't have a fridge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942844</id>
	<title>Amazing low level intellegence today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257103260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can so many people, even doctors and scientists, not know the difference between evolution and natural selection. I have known the difference since the 3rd grade.</p><p>The article has NOTHING to do with evolution. They are talking about natural selection, with is easily observed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can so many people , even doctors and scientists , not know the difference between evolution and natural selection .
I have known the difference since the 3rd grade.The article has NOTHING to do with evolution .
They are talking about natural selection , with is easily observed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can so many people, even doctors and scientists, not know the difference between evolution and natural selection.
I have known the difference since the 3rd grade.The article has NOTHING to do with evolution.
They are talking about natural selection, with is easily observed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941369</id>
	<title>1 study in 1 small town?</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1257088080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Framingham is not America and America is not the world. While this report might hold true for a statistically insignificant group in one country, it tells us nothing about human evolution over the whole planet.
<p>
The traits described probably have more to do with proximity to the local McDonalds, than anythiing about "survival of the fa^Hittest"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Framingham is not America and America is not the world .
While this report might hold true for a statistically insignificant group in one country , it tells us nothing about human evolution over the whole planet .
The traits described probably have more to do with proximity to the local McDonalds , than anythiing about " survival of the fa ^ Hittest "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Framingham is not America and America is not the world.
While this report might hold true for a statistically insignificant group in one country, it tells us nothing about human evolution over the whole planet.
The traits described probably have more to do with proximity to the local McDonalds, than anythiing about "survival of the fa^Hittest"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942812</id>
	<title>Conclusion</title>
	<author>ildon</author>
	<datestamp>1257103020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the conclusion can be generalized beyond saying that women <em>in the Framingham area</em> are evolving to favor these attributes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the conclusion can be generalized beyond saying that women in the Framingham area are evolving to favor these attributes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the conclusion can be generalized beyond saying that women in the Framingham area are evolving to favor these attributes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943694</id>
	<title>Re:What about my "no fat chicks" sign?</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1257066480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The reason is that the poor breed like cockroaches. They're more likely to be short and fat. The well off take care of themselves and they also work so they're less likely to have kids or as many.</p></div></blockquote><p>Flagrant ignorance on display in full-force.</p><p>First, studies have shown the WEALTHY, not the poor, produce more children.  Additionally, those children are more likely to be wealthy and desirable, and therefore themselves produce more children.</p><p>Secondly, the working theory, and one based on solid evidence, is that shorter women have more children because men find smaller women more desirable.  This appears to be because of deep-rooted instincts.</p><blockquote><div><p>Time to start making people jog on the tread mill to earn those welfare checks.</p></div></blockquote><p>Despite the media noise, something like 90\% of food stamp recipients stay on the program less than a year, and then never again uses them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason is that the poor breed like cockroaches .
They 're more likely to be short and fat .
The well off take care of themselves and they also work so they 're less likely to have kids or as many.Flagrant ignorance on display in full-force.First , studies have shown the WEALTHY , not the poor , produce more children .
Additionally , those children are more likely to be wealthy and desirable , and therefore themselves produce more children.Secondly , the working theory , and one based on solid evidence , is that shorter women have more children because men find smaller women more desirable .
This appears to be because of deep-rooted instincts.Time to start making people jog on the tread mill to earn those welfare checks.Despite the media noise , something like 90 \ % of food stamp recipients stay on the program less than a year , and then never again uses them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason is that the poor breed like cockroaches.
They're more likely to be short and fat.
The well off take care of themselves and they also work so they're less likely to have kids or as many.Flagrant ignorance on display in full-force.First, studies have shown the WEALTHY, not the poor, produce more children.
Additionally, those children are more likely to be wealthy and desirable, and therefore themselves produce more children.Secondly, the working theory, and one based on solid evidence, is that shorter women have more children because men find smaller women more desirable.
This appears to be because of deep-rooted instincts.Time to start making people jog on the tread mill to earn those welfare checks.Despite the media noise, something like 90\% of food stamp recipients stay on the program less than a year, and then never again uses them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942454</id>
	<title>What about my "no fat chicks" sign?</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1257099120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason is that the poor breed like cockroaches. They're more likely to be short and fat. The well off take care of themselves and they also work so they're less likely to have kids or as many.
<br> <br>
We're effectively stalling evolution and will take a step back thanks to protecting the ignorant and lazy. Time to start making people jog on the tread mill to earn those welfare checks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason is that the poor breed like cockroaches .
They 're more likely to be short and fat .
The well off take care of themselves and they also work so they 're less likely to have kids or as many .
We 're effectively stalling evolution and will take a step back thanks to protecting the ignorant and lazy .
Time to start making people jog on the tread mill to earn those welfare checks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason is that the poor breed like cockroaches.
They're more likely to be short and fat.
The well off take care of themselves and they also work so they're less likely to have kids or as many.
We're effectively stalling evolution and will take a step back thanks to protecting the ignorant and lazy.
Time to start making people jog on the tread mill to earn those welfare checks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29945612</id>
	<title>Re:Reproductive "success" is not genetic.</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1257080520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Reproductive "success" is not genetic anymore, its based on social factors. The goal of most humans is no longer to spawn the most progeny."
<br> <br>
The goal of most people is to have sex, the pill is one of the most influential and underrated inventions of the 20th century.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Reproductive " success " is not genetic anymore , its based on social factors .
The goal of most humans is no longer to spawn the most progeny .
" The goal of most people is to have sex , the pill is one of the most influential and underrated inventions of the 20th century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Reproductive "success" is not genetic anymore, its based on social factors.
The goal of most humans is no longer to spawn the most progeny.
"
 
The goal of most people is to have sex, the pill is one of the most influential and underrated inventions of the 20th century.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942129</id>
	<title>Shorter eh? Obviously never been to Holland</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1257095580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are PLENTY of women here close to or over 2 meters. Do you know how hard it is to stare down at a woman's tits when they are above you? I got to carry a stepladder around JUST so I can I look down on women.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are PLENTY of women here close to or over 2 meters .
Do you know how hard it is to stare down at a woman 's tits when they are above you ?
I got to carry a stepladder around JUST so I can I look down on women .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are PLENTY of women here close to or over 2 meters.
Do you know how hard it is to stare down at a woman's tits when they are above you?
I got to carry a stepladder around JUST so I can I look down on women.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942033</id>
	<title>that might be true in Framingham, but...</title>
	<author>dAzED1</author>
	<datestamp>1257094560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great that they extrapolate to the global population a trend that may or may not have been seen in one specific, exact, location over the course of 50 years.</p><p>Framingham appears to be a suburb of Boston.  I've only passed through Boston.  They have baked beans there, or something.  I've lived all across the country, and I do know that body shape averages do actually seem to change.  For example here in SoCal, there seem to be 2 basic social classes, and those within the upper class tend to be pretty thin - especially compared to what I've seen elsewhere.  And to boot, lots of these attractive thin tall women are becoming milfs.</p><p>Lots of talk about "Idiocracy" without considering that it's always been this way, since we started living in communal caves.  And also without considering the fact that there's only 300mil people here in the US, and the planet has 7bill; don't pretend that some cultural phenomena here holds true in the other global cultures, including those cultures that are both dramatically different than ours, and have populations that extremely outnumber ours.   We're becoming a global society, transportation is trivial, we move things across the planet now.  What are people going to look like in 10 generations?  Asian, probably.  And I personally don't see what the fuss is about or why anyone would care; we're ok with giving the children 10 generations from now a heaping pile of trash and a burned out planet, but we're worried about how tall and fat they'll be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great that they extrapolate to the global population a trend that may or may not have been seen in one specific , exact , location over the course of 50 years.Framingham appears to be a suburb of Boston .
I 've only passed through Boston .
They have baked beans there , or something .
I 've lived all across the country , and I do know that body shape averages do actually seem to change .
For example here in SoCal , there seem to be 2 basic social classes , and those within the upper class tend to be pretty thin - especially compared to what I 've seen elsewhere .
And to boot , lots of these attractive thin tall women are becoming milfs.Lots of talk about " Idiocracy " without considering that it 's always been this way , since we started living in communal caves .
And also without considering the fact that there 's only 300mil people here in the US , and the planet has 7bill ; do n't pretend that some cultural phenomena here holds true in the other global cultures , including those cultures that are both dramatically different than ours , and have populations that extremely outnumber ours .
We 're becoming a global society , transportation is trivial , we move things across the planet now .
What are people going to look like in 10 generations ?
Asian , probably .
And I personally do n't see what the fuss is about or why anyone would care ; we 're ok with giving the children 10 generations from now a heaping pile of trash and a burned out planet , but we 're worried about how tall and fat they 'll be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great that they extrapolate to the global population a trend that may or may not have been seen in one specific, exact, location over the course of 50 years.Framingham appears to be a suburb of Boston.
I've only passed through Boston.
They have baked beans there, or something.
I've lived all across the country, and I do know that body shape averages do actually seem to change.
For example here in SoCal, there seem to be 2 basic social classes, and those within the upper class tend to be pretty thin - especially compared to what I've seen elsewhere.
And to boot, lots of these attractive thin tall women are becoming milfs.Lots of talk about "Idiocracy" without considering that it's always been this way, since we started living in communal caves.
And also without considering the fact that there's only 300mil people here in the US, and the planet has 7bill; don't pretend that some cultural phenomena here holds true in the other global cultures, including those cultures that are both dramatically different than ours, and have populations that extremely outnumber ours.
We're becoming a global society, transportation is trivial, we move things across the planet now.
What are people going to look like in 10 generations?
Asian, probably.
And I personally don't see what the fuss is about or why anyone would care; we're ok with giving the children 10 generations from now a heaping pile of trash and a burned out planet, but we're worried about how tall and fat they'll be?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943774</id>
	<title>Tee hee...</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1257066840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yo mama is so evolved...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yo mama is so evolved.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yo mama is so evolved...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942390</id>
	<title>Obvious bias</title>
	<author>dlinear</author>
	<datestamp>1257098520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe I should RTFA, but there seems to an obvious bias in this study. Framingham, Mass is cold, maybe women (and men) do better here when they are stockier since they have less surface area to lose body heat from.

Or maybe I am just bitter about the cold weather out here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I should RTFA , but there seems to an obvious bias in this study .
Framingham , Mass is cold , maybe women ( and men ) do better here when they are stockier since they have less surface area to lose body heat from .
Or maybe I am just bitter about the cold weather out here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I should RTFA, but there seems to an obvious bias in this study.
Framingham, Mass is cold, maybe women (and men) do better here when they are stockier since they have less surface area to lose body heat from.
Or maybe I am just bitter about the cold weather out here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941865</id>
	<title>only one way to know</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1257092880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait until the year 2400 and see for yourself.  Pardon me while I make a note to myself reminding me to do this...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait until the year 2400 and see for yourself .
Pardon me while I make a note to myself reminding me to do this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait until the year 2400 and see for yourself.
Pardon me while I make a note to myself reminding me to do this...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941577</id>
	<title>Essentially reporting the obvious I should think</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1257090480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be nice if evolution were driven by our ideals, but our ideals are not conducive to evolutionary drives and mechanisms which effectively boil down to "who gets laid more" and who don't.</p><p>In the western U.S., I think the situation is only slightly more complex than described, but I can't disagree with its general assertions.  However, some of this is somewhat regional.  This should be expanded to include other nations.  The short-fat thing in other nations and cultures don't work the same way as they do in N.America.  For example, many women in other nations and cultures don't gain lots of weight before childbirth  or lose all of the extra weight after childbirth.  They do this through force of will which is something N.American women lack quite often.  Women who want to remain thinner and sexier (ironic since those are theoretically signs that make a woman more appealing to men who would want to make them pregnant in the first place) usually control pregnancy and simply have fewer, if any children.</p><p>Similar projections have been made with regards to intelligence or personality traits that lead to wealth and power as the more intelligent, wealthy and powerful people have fewer children when compared to people on the other end of that spectrum.  Further, the same pattern is observed when comparing white and non-white people in terms of population shrinkage and growth numbers.  (Did you know that in Texas "hispanics" can no longer be considered "minority"?  It's true!  Though they still seem to be collecting a lot of minority targeted benefits at the moment.)</p><p>While this is all pretty interesting, it is also pretty obvious in so many ways.</p><p>It's all good though.  I like shorter, darker, softer women to begin with.  The girl that plays Velma Dinkley is awesome cute!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be nice if evolution were driven by our ideals , but our ideals are not conducive to evolutionary drives and mechanisms which effectively boil down to " who gets laid more " and who do n't.In the western U.S. , I think the situation is only slightly more complex than described , but I ca n't disagree with its general assertions .
However , some of this is somewhat regional .
This should be expanded to include other nations .
The short-fat thing in other nations and cultures do n't work the same way as they do in N.America .
For example , many women in other nations and cultures do n't gain lots of weight before childbirth or lose all of the extra weight after childbirth .
They do this through force of will which is something N.American women lack quite often .
Women who want to remain thinner and sexier ( ironic since those are theoretically signs that make a woman more appealing to men who would want to make them pregnant in the first place ) usually control pregnancy and simply have fewer , if any children.Similar projections have been made with regards to intelligence or personality traits that lead to wealth and power as the more intelligent , wealthy and powerful people have fewer children when compared to people on the other end of that spectrum .
Further , the same pattern is observed when comparing white and non-white people in terms of population shrinkage and growth numbers .
( Did you know that in Texas " hispanics " can no longer be considered " minority " ?
It 's true !
Though they still seem to be collecting a lot of minority targeted benefits at the moment .
) While this is all pretty interesting , it is also pretty obvious in so many ways.It 's all good though .
I like shorter , darker , softer women to begin with .
The girl that plays Velma Dinkley is awesome cute !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be nice if evolution were driven by our ideals, but our ideals are not conducive to evolutionary drives and mechanisms which effectively boil down to "who gets laid more" and who don't.In the western U.S., I think the situation is only slightly more complex than described, but I can't disagree with its general assertions.
However, some of this is somewhat regional.
This should be expanded to include other nations.
The short-fat thing in other nations and cultures don't work the same way as they do in N.America.
For example, many women in other nations and cultures don't gain lots of weight before childbirth  or lose all of the extra weight after childbirth.
They do this through force of will which is something N.American women lack quite often.
Women who want to remain thinner and sexier (ironic since those are theoretically signs that make a woman more appealing to men who would want to make them pregnant in the first place) usually control pregnancy and simply have fewer, if any children.Similar projections have been made with regards to intelligence or personality traits that lead to wealth and power as the more intelligent, wealthy and powerful people have fewer children when compared to people on the other end of that spectrum.
Further, the same pattern is observed when comparing white and non-white people in terms of population shrinkage and growth numbers.
(Did you know that in Texas "hispanics" can no longer be considered "minority"?
It's true!
Though they still seem to be collecting a lot of minority targeted benefits at the moment.
)While this is all pretty interesting, it is also pretty obvious in so many ways.It's all good though.
I like shorter, darker, softer women to begin with.
The girl that plays Velma Dinkley is awesome cute!
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942125</id>
	<title>Re:Idocracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257095520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
"Intelligence" is one of those vague abstract terms with cultural/political undertone, not some scientific notion.  Such terms have their use, but let's stay clear of extrapolating it into something more like the social Darwinism did to evolution.
</p><p>
I'd expect that much from slashdotters.  Wouldn't you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Intelligence " is one of those vague abstract terms with cultural/political undertone , not some scientific notion .
Such terms have their use , but let 's stay clear of extrapolating it into something more like the social Darwinism did to evolution .
I 'd expect that much from slashdotters .
Would n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"Intelligence" is one of those vague abstract terms with cultural/political undertone, not some scientific notion.
Such terms have their use, but let's stay clear of extrapolating it into something more like the social Darwinism did to evolution.
I'd expect that much from slashdotters.
Wouldn't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29945394</id>
	<title>Biological life in 2409?</title>
	<author>InsertCleverUsername</author>
	<datestamp>1257078540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think women will be some strange, never-before-seen shape and metallic by 2409 --maybe beings of pure energy.  It's kind of funny to assume we'll still be simple biological entities at that point.  Even if you think Kurzweil's estimates of the date of the Singularity are absurd, it's difficult to believe it won't have happened in under 400 years (barring some cataclysmic disaster, of course).</p><p>I really enjoy sci-fi with space-faring humans in the distant future and all that, but the robots are going to think that stuff is absolutely hilarious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think women will be some strange , never-before-seen shape and metallic by 2409 --maybe beings of pure energy .
It 's kind of funny to assume we 'll still be simple biological entities at that point .
Even if you think Kurzweil 's estimates of the date of the Singularity are absurd , it 's difficult to believe it wo n't have happened in under 400 years ( barring some cataclysmic disaster , of course ) .I really enjoy sci-fi with space-faring humans in the distant future and all that , but the robots are going to think that stuff is absolutely hilarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think women will be some strange, never-before-seen shape and metallic by 2409 --maybe beings of pure energy.
It's kind of funny to assume we'll still be simple biological entities at that point.
Even if you think Kurzweil's estimates of the date of the Singularity are absurd, it's difficult to believe it won't have happened in under 400 years (barring some cataclysmic disaster, of course).I really enjoy sci-fi with space-faring humans in the distant future and all that, but the robots are going to think that stuff is absolutely hilarious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29952498</id>
	<title>Re:history is not a myth</title>
	<author>harvey the nerd</author>
	<datestamp>1257188280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have had to live without refridgeration before, e.g right after I bought a home with my last cent of disposable income. Used canned goods and a part time ice chest for several months.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have had to live without refridgeration before , e.g right after I bought a home with my last cent of disposable income .
Used canned goods and a part time ice chest for several months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have had to live without refridgeration before, e.g right after I bought a home with my last cent of disposable income.
Used canned goods and a part time ice chest for several months.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29946966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29949546</id>
	<title>The future of womankind</title>
	<author>jasper\_amsterdam</author>
	<datestamp>1257173220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that the authors have confused an opinion related to natural selection with one related to evolution.
Natural selection relates to the inability of dead people to have children, which causes a close link between dying and not reproducing. It is one driving force of evolutionary change that does indeed have a decreased influence in societies with intense medical care. Sexual selection is another force (which I do not think can account for the Gnomification of womankind either), and a third relates to everything to do with fertility, breeding, and raising children. I believe this third factor may be related to the matter at hand.

For instance, it is easy to imagine that anorexic women have trouble breeding. More importantly, women who get pregnant a lot tend to weigh more as a result of their pregnancy; nothing genetic there (correlation != causation). and of course women who give birth young tend to have more children in their lifespan (or conversely, the women who will wind up having many children are the ones that tend to start early). That last factor is interesting, because the psychological urge to have children is very much influenced by genetics, and (because it is now the single most important determinant of the number of children you have) strongly subject to evolutionary change.

Additionally, we may expect the future to bring us women who are genetically insensitive to birth control medication, and who are allergic to letex (or aversive to condoms; I believe the last is a very rare example where men are an evolutionary step ahead of women).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the authors have confused an opinion related to natural selection with one related to evolution .
Natural selection relates to the inability of dead people to have children , which causes a close link between dying and not reproducing .
It is one driving force of evolutionary change that does indeed have a decreased influence in societies with intense medical care .
Sexual selection is another force ( which I do not think can account for the Gnomification of womankind either ) , and a third relates to everything to do with fertility , breeding , and raising children .
I believe this third factor may be related to the matter at hand .
For instance , it is easy to imagine that anorexic women have trouble breeding .
More importantly , women who get pregnant a lot tend to weigh more as a result of their pregnancy ; nothing genetic there ( correlation ! = causation ) .
and of course women who give birth young tend to have more children in their lifespan ( or conversely , the women who will wind up having many children are the ones that tend to start early ) .
That last factor is interesting , because the psychological urge to have children is very much influenced by genetics , and ( because it is now the single most important determinant of the number of children you have ) strongly subject to evolutionary change .
Additionally , we may expect the future to bring us women who are genetically insensitive to birth control medication , and who are allergic to letex ( or aversive to condoms ; I believe the last is a very rare example where men are an evolutionary step ahead of women ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the authors have confused an opinion related to natural selection with one related to evolution.
Natural selection relates to the inability of dead people to have children, which causes a close link between dying and not reproducing.
It is one driving force of evolutionary change that does indeed have a decreased influence in societies with intense medical care.
Sexual selection is another force (which I do not think can account for the Gnomification of womankind either), and a third relates to everything to do with fertility, breeding, and raising children.
I believe this third factor may be related to the matter at hand.
For instance, it is easy to imagine that anorexic women have trouble breeding.
More importantly, women who get pregnant a lot tend to weigh more as a result of their pregnancy; nothing genetic there (correlation != causation).
and of course women who give birth young tend to have more children in their lifespan (or conversely, the women who will wind up having many children are the ones that tend to start early).
That last factor is interesting, because the psychological urge to have children is very much influenced by genetics, and (because it is now the single most important determinant of the number of children you have) strongly subject to evolutionary change.
Additionally, we may expect the future to bring us women who are genetically insensitive to birth control medication, and who are allergic to letex (or aversive to condoms; I believe the last is a very rare example where men are an evolutionary step ahead of women).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941819</id>
	<title>Re:Reproductive "success" is not genetic.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Europe and America are no longer major breeders.  Heck, all of the dominant white nations are actually losing population EXCEPT for illegal immigrants. The same thing is happening in Japan , except they really crack down on illegals (even harder than EU does). South Korea is the only western nation that has a stable population.<br> <br>

Basically, look to Asia and Hispanics for the extreme population rate. Africa also has a very high breeding rate, but the disease (esp. HIV), make for a very low life span. BUT, throughout Latin America, thanks to the Catholics push against birth control, they are reproducing at a wild rate.  And yes, those hispanics that come to America and work the fields or do low end work, typically have 3-5 children, sometimes more. More importantly, these are the ppl that are shorter and fatter. Of course that may have a lot to do with eating habits and not genetics. For example, look at Indians. They were traditionally VERY small. In the last several generations they have been growing in height. Why? Diet is changing. They are including lots more meat (heavy on protein).<br>
It is possible that many of the hispanics under a decent diet will also grow in height.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Europe and America are no longer major breeders .
Heck , all of the dominant white nations are actually losing population EXCEPT for illegal immigrants .
The same thing is happening in Japan , except they really crack down on illegals ( even harder than EU does ) .
South Korea is the only western nation that has a stable population .
Basically , look to Asia and Hispanics for the extreme population rate .
Africa also has a very high breeding rate , but the disease ( esp .
HIV ) , make for a very low life span .
BUT , throughout Latin America , thanks to the Catholics push against birth control , they are reproducing at a wild rate .
And yes , those hispanics that come to America and work the fields or do low end work , typically have 3-5 children , sometimes more .
More importantly , these are the ppl that are shorter and fatter .
Of course that may have a lot to do with eating habits and not genetics .
For example , look at Indians .
They were traditionally VERY small .
In the last several generations they have been growing in height .
Why ? Diet is changing .
They are including lots more meat ( heavy on protein ) .
It is possible that many of the hispanics under a decent diet will also grow in height .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Europe and America are no longer major breeders.
Heck, all of the dominant white nations are actually losing population EXCEPT for illegal immigrants.
The same thing is happening in Japan , except they really crack down on illegals (even harder than EU does).
South Korea is the only western nation that has a stable population.
Basically, look to Asia and Hispanics for the extreme population rate.
Africa also has a very high breeding rate, but the disease (esp.
HIV), make for a very low life span.
BUT, throughout Latin America, thanks to the Catholics push against birth control, they are reproducing at a wild rate.
And yes, those hispanics that come to America and work the fields or do low end work, typically have 3-5 children, sometimes more.
More importantly, these are the ppl that are shorter and fatter.
Of course that may have a lot to do with eating habits and not genetics.
For example, look at Indians.
They were traditionally VERY small.
In the last several generations they have been growing in height.
Why? Diet is changing.
They are including lots more meat (heavy on protein).
It is possible that many of the hispanics under a decent diet will also grow in height.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942151</id>
	<title>Science reveals evolutionary origins of stereotype</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1257095760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>British scientists have uncovered why little girls like pink toys. &ldquo;Women are hardwired to like pink,&rdquo; says Professor Gene Hunt of the University of Metro, &ldquo;because <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2008/10/23/science-reveals-evolutionary-origins-of-gender-stereotypes/" title="today.com">their cavewoman foremothers</a> [today.com] spent their days gathering red leaves and berries amongst the trees.&rdquo; Later, women needed to notice red-faced babies and blushing boyfriends. Men are attracted to blue because of the colour of the sky as seen when hunting.

</p><p>Women are also predisposed to backstab one another in the workplace and cry in the boardroom, just like the social structures in the cave population as extrapolated from two bone needles. Being too successful will increase women&rsquo;s testosterone, giving them hairy nipples and male-pattern baldness. Females joining the hunt may also explain the end of the Neanderthals.

</p><p>IQ test studies show that women have lower IQs on average than men, undoubtedly from lesser need for environmental variation while taking care of the cave. Tests on little boys prove that testosterone correlates with a sense of humour, so women are naturally more humorless than men. Housework has been shown to cut the risk of several fatal diseases, and dressing up nicely around the house is psychologically healthy as it uses the Homo erectus clan maintenance abilities of the female of the tribe.

</p><p>Men are naturally predisposed to sleep with as many women as possible, as proven by lions, whereas women are naturally predisposed to stay loyal to their man and their spawn. Women who sleep around are at increased risk of parasites and death, as proven by cheetahs, who are a pack of catty sluts.

</p><p>In a final crowning achievement, the team has shown that daily fellatio greatly reduces the incidence of breast cancer. Furthermore, regular sexual intercourse is essential to feminine health, but may be injurious if prolonged for more than two minutes or conducted while the man is sober.

</p><p>&ldquo;In conclusion,&rdquo; says Professor Hunt, &ldquo;all of this is top-notch science that you can absolutely rely on. Now get your knickers back on and make me a cuppa.&rdquo;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>British scientists have uncovered why little girls like pink toys .
   Women are hardwired to like pink ,    says Professor Gene Hunt of the University of Metro ,    because their cavewoman foremothers [ today.com ] spent their days gathering red leaves and berries amongst the trees.    Later , women needed to notice red-faced babies and blushing boyfriends .
Men are attracted to blue because of the colour of the sky as seen when hunting .
Women are also predisposed to backstab one another in the workplace and cry in the boardroom , just like the social structures in the cave population as extrapolated from two bone needles .
Being too successful will increase women    s testosterone , giving them hairy nipples and male-pattern baldness .
Females joining the hunt may also explain the end of the Neanderthals .
IQ test studies show that women have lower IQs on average than men , undoubtedly from lesser need for environmental variation while taking care of the cave .
Tests on little boys prove that testosterone correlates with a sense of humour , so women are naturally more humorless than men .
Housework has been shown to cut the risk of several fatal diseases , and dressing up nicely around the house is psychologically healthy as it uses the Homo erectus clan maintenance abilities of the female of the tribe .
Men are naturally predisposed to sleep with as many women as possible , as proven by lions , whereas women are naturally predisposed to stay loyal to their man and their spawn .
Women who sleep around are at increased risk of parasites and death , as proven by cheetahs , who are a pack of catty sluts .
In a final crowning achievement , the team has shown that daily fellatio greatly reduces the incidence of breast cancer .
Furthermore , regular sexual intercourse is essential to feminine health , but may be injurious if prolonged for more than two minutes or conducted while the man is sober .
   In conclusion ,    says Professor Hunt ,    all of this is top-notch science that you can absolutely rely on .
Now get your knickers back on and make me a cuppa.   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>British scientists have uncovered why little girls like pink toys.
“Women are hardwired to like pink,” says Professor Gene Hunt of the University of Metro, “because their cavewoman foremothers [today.com] spent their days gathering red leaves and berries amongst the trees.” Later, women needed to notice red-faced babies and blushing boyfriends.
Men are attracted to blue because of the colour of the sky as seen when hunting.
Women are also predisposed to backstab one another in the workplace and cry in the boardroom, just like the social structures in the cave population as extrapolated from two bone needles.
Being too successful will increase women’s testosterone, giving them hairy nipples and male-pattern baldness.
Females joining the hunt may also explain the end of the Neanderthals.
IQ test studies show that women have lower IQs on average than men, undoubtedly from lesser need for environmental variation while taking care of the cave.
Tests on little boys prove that testosterone correlates with a sense of humour, so women are naturally more humorless than men.
Housework has been shown to cut the risk of several fatal diseases, and dressing up nicely around the house is psychologically healthy as it uses the Homo erectus clan maintenance abilities of the female of the tribe.
Men are naturally predisposed to sleep with as many women as possible, as proven by lions, whereas women are naturally predisposed to stay loyal to their man and their spawn.
Women who sleep around are at increased risk of parasites and death, as proven by cheetahs, who are a pack of catty sluts.
In a final crowning achievement, the team has shown that daily fellatio greatly reduces the incidence of breast cancer.
Furthermore, regular sexual intercourse is essential to feminine health, but may be injurious if prolonged for more than two minutes or conducted while the man is sober.
“In conclusion,” says Professor Hunt, “all of this is top-notch science that you can absolutely rely on.
Now get your knickers back on and make me a cuppa.”</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29948486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29945902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29945456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29946612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29946966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29952498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29944896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29945612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29946162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29950812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29944584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0027242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0027242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0027242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29948486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29945456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0027242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0027242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941463
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942125
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29944896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941657
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0027242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29946162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0027242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0027242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0027242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0027242.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942780
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29950812
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29946966
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29952498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0027242.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0027242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0027242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29944584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29946612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941745
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0027242.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29945612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29945902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941379
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942195
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29943290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0027242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29942171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0027242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0027242.29941555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
