![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oct. 12th, 2006
Do my homework
Oct. 12th, 2006 03:20 amDoes anyone have a decent source for population changes in China during the Mongol conquest?
But would you want to live there?
Oct. 12th, 2006 02:54 pmJohn Wright replies to this question at SF Signal, except that where SF Review is concerned about "coolest setting," Wright is more concerned about "but would anyone actually want to live there?"
I won't give away his choice or my reaction to it.
Let's see. I'd want:
A relatively non-oligarchic society, whose people are wealthy, whose technology is far superior to ours and which is not teetering on the edge of certain doom. I am going to have to think about this but it's possible AGE OF THE PUSSYFOOT is as close as I am going to get to what I want.
I won't give away his choice or my reaction to it.
Let's see. I'd want:
A relatively non-oligarchic society, whose people are wealthy, whose technology is far superior to ours and which is not teetering on the edge of certain doom. I am going to have to think about this but it's possible AGE OF THE PUSSYFOOT is as close as I am going to get to what I want.
But would you want to live there?
Oct. 12th, 2006 02:54 pmJohn Wright replies to this question at SF Signal, except that where SF Review is concerned about "coolest setting," Wright is more concerned about "but would anyone actually want to live there?"
I won't give away his choice or my reaction to it.
Let's see. I'd want:
A relatively non-oligarchic society, whose people are wealthy, whose technology is far superior to ours and which is not teetering on the edge of certain doom. I am going to have to think about this but it's possible AGE OF THE PUSSYFOOT is as close as I am going to get to what I want.
I won't give away his choice or my reaction to it.
Let's see. I'd want:
A relatively non-oligarchic society, whose people are wealthy, whose technology is far superior to ours and which is not teetering on the edge of certain doom. I am going to have to think about this but it's possible AGE OF THE PUSSYFOOT is as close as I am going to get to what I want.
But would you want to live there?
Oct. 12th, 2006 02:54 pmJohn Wright replies to this question at SF Signal, except that where SF Review is concerned about "coolest setting," Wright is more concerned about "but would anyone actually want to live there?"
I won't give away his choice or my reaction to it.
Let's see. I'd want:
A relatively non-oligarchic society, whose people are wealthy, whose technology is far superior to ours and which is not teetering on the edge of certain doom. I am going to have to think about this but it's possible AGE OF THE PUSSYFOOT is as close as I am going to get to what I want.
I won't give away his choice or my reaction to it.
Let's see. I'd want:
A relatively non-oligarchic society, whose people are wealthy, whose technology is far superior to ours and which is not teetering on the edge of certain doom. I am going to have to think about this but it's possible AGE OF THE PUSSYFOOT is as close as I am going to get to what I want.
Benderism in the press
Oct. 12th, 2006 06:09 pm"The sad truth is, once the humans get out of the picture, the outlook starts to get a lot better," says John Orrock, a conservation biologist at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in Santa Barbara, California."
And yes, I am aware of the irony of being fascinated by androids in a post-human world while being irritated at comments like the above.
And yes, I am aware of the irony of being fascinated by androids in a post-human world while being irritated at comments like the above.
Benderism in the press
Oct. 12th, 2006 06:09 pm"The sad truth is, once the humans get out of the picture, the outlook starts to get a lot better," says John Orrock, a conservation biologist at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in Santa Barbara, California."
And yes, I am aware of the irony of being fascinated by androids in a post-human world while being irritated at comments like the above.
And yes, I am aware of the irony of being fascinated by androids in a post-human world while being irritated at comments like the above.
Benderism in the press
Oct. 12th, 2006 06:09 pm"The sad truth is, once the humans get out of the picture, the outlook starts to get a lot better," says John Orrock, a conservation biologist at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in Santa Barbara, California."
And yes, I am aware of the irony of being fascinated by androids in a post-human world while being irritated at comments like the above.
And yes, I am aware of the irony of being fascinated by androids in a post-human world while being irritated at comments like the above.
655,000 is the Lancet estimate of the number of Iraqis who have died since the US invaded in 2003.
The report is here.
This is about four times the death rate under the Baathists.
Another, less fair*, way to look at it is that Saddam may have murdered around 100,000 Iraqis over about a quarter century, or about 4,000 per year. The excess deaths under the Americans is about 490,000 people over about three and half years or perhaps 35x times Saddam's murder rate.
* Because the Coalition of the Billing isn't directly responsible for most of the deaths, only about 30% of them. If we take that into account, the Coalition is only ten times as lethal to Iraqis as Saddam, which I think we all agree is a much more reasonable figure.
The report is here.
This is about four times the death rate under the Baathists.
Another, less fair*, way to look at it is that Saddam may have murdered around 100,000 Iraqis over about a quarter century, or about 4,000 per year. The excess deaths under the Americans is about 490,000 people over about three and half years or perhaps 35x times Saddam's murder rate.
* Because the Coalition of the Billing isn't directly responsible for most of the deaths, only about 30% of them. If we take that into account, the Coalition is only ten times as lethal to Iraqis as Saddam, which I think we all agree is a much more reasonable figure.
655,000 is the Lancet estimate of the number of Iraqis who have died since the US invaded in 2003.
The report is here.
This is about four times the death rate under the Baathists.
Another, less fair*, way to look at it is that Saddam may have murdered around 100,000 Iraqis over about a quarter century, or about 4,000 per year. The excess deaths under the Americans is about 490,000 people over about three and half years or perhaps 35x times Saddam's murder rate.
* Because the Coalition of the Billing isn't directly responsible for most of the deaths, only about 30% of them. If we take that into account, the Coalition is only ten times as lethal to Iraqis as Saddam, which I think we all agree is a much more reasonable figure.
The report is here.
This is about four times the death rate under the Baathists.
Another, less fair*, way to look at it is that Saddam may have murdered around 100,000 Iraqis over about a quarter century, or about 4,000 per year. The excess deaths under the Americans is about 490,000 people over about three and half years or perhaps 35x times Saddam's murder rate.
* Because the Coalition of the Billing isn't directly responsible for most of the deaths, only about 30% of them. If we take that into account, the Coalition is only ten times as lethal to Iraqis as Saddam, which I think we all agree is a much more reasonable figure.
655,000 is the Lancet estimate of the number of Iraqis who have died since the US invaded in 2003.
The report is here.
This is about four times the death rate under the Baathists.
Another, less fair*, way to look at it is that Saddam may have murdered around 100,000 Iraqis over about a quarter century, or about 4,000 per year. The excess deaths under the Americans is about 490,000 people over about three and half years or perhaps 35x times Saddam's murder rate.
* Because the Coalition of the Billing isn't directly responsible for most of the deaths, only about 30% of them. If we take that into account, the Coalition is only ten times as lethal to Iraqis as Saddam, which I think we all agree is a much more reasonable figure.
The report is here.
This is about four times the death rate under the Baathists.
Another, less fair*, way to look at it is that Saddam may have murdered around 100,000 Iraqis over about a quarter century, or about 4,000 per year. The excess deaths under the Americans is about 490,000 people over about three and half years or perhaps 35x times Saddam's murder rate.
* Because the Coalition of the Billing isn't directly responsible for most of the deaths, only about 30% of them. If we take that into account, the Coalition is only ten times as lethal to Iraqis as Saddam, which I think we all agree is a much more reasonable figure.