|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#961
|
|||
|
|||
THE GOLDEN RULE
"Tim McNamara" wrote in message ... In article , bill wrote: Clinton got my attention when he showed up on the Arsenio Hall show and played his Saxophone in 1992, so he had a certain 'cool' factor that neither Bush has had. Since 1980 we have had Republicans with a stick up their ass, so I think change is due. If Hillary runs, she gets my vote, Gore really won the popular vote in 2000, and I think 2004 just showed how a corrupt party can manipulate the votes. No way could Kerry have lost that badly when Bush was already unpopular. Gore did win the popular vote in 2000, including Florida, and should have won the election. In 2004 there were massive voting irregularities that tipped the election from Kerry to Bush. In both cases, the election came down to a state where the person in charge of the vote was also an ambitious Republican that happened to also be in charge of the Bush campaigns for those states. In both cases, neither of the Secretaries of State of Florida and Ohio had the ethical wisdom to recuse themselves from certifying the vote, or alternatively to stay out of involvement in the Bush campaigns in those states. The Diebold problem makes it certain that the 2006 and 2008 election results will not be reliable. Not to mention Republican strategies across the country to make sure that likely Democratic votes aren't cast in the first place. Don't forget the 1888 election which the Republicans also stole, Grover Cleveland (D) won the popular vote but lost the Electoral vote to Benjamin Harrison (R), the scoundrels have been stealing elections for years. :) |
Ads |
#962
|
|||
|
|||
THE GOLDEN RULE
In article MKfWg.8842$Go3.6670@dukeread05, "di"
wrote: Don't forget the 1888 election which the Republicans also stole, Grover Cleveland (D) won the popular vote but lost the Electoral vote to Benjamin Harrison (R), the scoundrels have been stealing elections for years. :) LOL. I grew up near Chicago in the last couple decades of the Richard J. Daley machine. There are scoundrels on all sides. |
#963
|
|||
|
|||
Population surplus
"bill" wrote in message m... Amy Blankenship wrote: "bill" wrote in message ... Tim McNamara wrote: In article , bill wrote: Tim McNamara wrote: In article .net, "george conklin" wrote: Small farms would condemn about 75% of the current world's population to death. That is not a solution except for death. I don't know if the 75% is correct but the basic idea is sound. No, it's not. Where do you think 75% (actually more) of the world's population gets its food now? From small farms. Large scale agribusiness farming is the purview of economically developed countries which feeds a fraction of the world's population regularly, and which does provide emergency capacity when food production fails in ecologically difficult areas due to drought, flooding, fires, etc. In the latter case, large scale farming does save lives. However, 75% of the world's population is not all going to suffer such catastrophes at once. 75% of the world's population is surplus anyway. I just read where the United States is going to top 300 million around October 15. Compared to the country (this one) I grew up in that is about 150 million too many. We are paving over everything, quite literally. I went to visit the houses I grew up in, back in Illinois and all the corn fields I grew up playing in are now built over with housing or "Condo-fields". If we keep replacing corn with people we are going to be in deeper **** than we are now. Rolling the global population to about 1 billion (max) and keeping it there with some no growth thinking is about the only way the human race will be here in another 200 years. I think we are setting ourselves up far a mass plague or starvation that is going to thin out the population. We just plain doesn't need so many people. I suspect that there are points of agreement that we could find, but there are also points of disagreement. For example, your claim that 75% of the population is "surplus." Of course, that gives you a 4:1 chance of being one of the surplus ones. ;-) I agree that there is overpopulation not only in America but around the world as well. I cannot bring myself to call anyone "surplus," however. They have every bit as much right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as I have. My actual solution was to ship food to them that had fertility impairment hormones in it or mandate a vasectomy or tube tie in order to qualify if people already had 2 or more children. Nobody gets hurt, but nobody gets to have 10 kids they can't feed, either. I think you're operating under two fundamental misconceptions: 1) That civilizations never reach a point where population stops increasing 2) That children never feed their parents If you look at the most developed nations, population growth through reproduction is in the near-zero to negative range, depending on which country you're talking about. This implies that as more and more nations become industrialized, population will level off or even decline. The reason we have such extreme population growth now is that we have better education, health care, food production, and food distribution. So mortality is down. Way off base for the US. We get one pregnant Mexican having a baby here and the whole illegal family stays, so that one 'Citizen' gives a whole pre-existing family the right to stay here. Mortality due to disease is down from what it used to be, but then people in non-developed countries just have more children who then starve and of course, we send them food. Us Natural born Americans don't have that many children because we are too busy working to survive the high cost of living to support all the immigrants who we have to support through social programs. China and India are both over 1 Billion and will keep going as long as we keep bleeding money to them, which will eventually make us the "EX" superpower. First, you're talking about population growth in the US through immigration vs reproduction, which is exactly what I said. China and India are growing, but their populations are stabilizing as they need to educate themselves more to be able to fill the tech jobs that are being outsourced there. Now let's look at the second premise. In the developing world, children are often valuable hands to produce food and/or the means to get food. So in that sense, developing nations can't afford "pet children" who are not expected to return any value to the family in the way we do in the US. So people in developing nations tend to reproduce more because they need the additional hands and because of higher infant and child mortality rates. You don't read much, do you? The reason they try to reproduce so much is that there is a high rate of infant death caused by the birth of a new child. Once there is a new baby to breast feed the next older one is expected to survive on adult food and often dies from malnutrition. Our answer to this? Throw money at them or "Adopt" a child in a far away land, thus making it our problem. You don't read *well* do you? I did way they reproduce more in part because of higher infant and child mortality. Small amounts of education, especially for female children, greatly reduces mortality among infants and children, so population will initially spike as education becomes available. Uh-huh! But this makes the benefits of education tangible, so developng peoples slowly spend more and more time in school in order to reap more benefits of education. This extends the childhood years, and people begin to reproduce less. In addition, since the children are spending all their time learning, they are not an asset to the household, but a drain on it until they become productive in their teens or twenties. At which time they are themselves ready to reproduce, so they split off into their own households *and never return any value to the parent household.* And this is exactly why as nations develop, population levels off. So if we really want to control population we need to educate, educate, educate. You really do believe the view through your rose colored glasses, don't you. I just call it the way I see it. Do you really think that the fact that people in developed nations don't even reproduce enough to sustain their own numbers isn't a natural result of the way nations come to be developed? |
#964
|
|||
|
|||
Population surplus
"bill" wrote in message om... Ludmila Borgschatz-Thudpucker, MD wrote: "bill" wrote in message m... And this is exactly why as nations develop, population levels off. So if we really want to control population we need to educate, educate, educate. You really do believe the view through your rose colored glasses, don't you. While he be educatin', everybody else be fornicatin'. Didn't anyone notice that the rich types have one or two kids so they have "Heirs", while the welfare class has more kids to get a raise? That's obvious. But more people have more wealth as nations develop. The "poor" in the US usually have at least one television, air conditioning, clean water, and enough food to eat most of the time. These are things that are wealth beyond belief compared to undeveloped nations or even here 100-150 years ago. |
#965
|
|||
|
|||
Population surplus
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message . .. That's obvious. But more people have more wealth as nations develop. The "poor" in the US usually have at least one television, air conditioning, clean water, and enough food to eat most of the time. Not to mention 2 packs a day and the tattoo artist on speed-dial. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#966
|
|||
|
|||
Population surplus
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:15:58 -0700, Amy Blankenship
wrote: "bill" wrote in message m... Amy Blankenship wrote: "bill" wrote in message ... Tim McNamara wrote: In article , bill wrote: Tim McNamara wrote: In article .net, "george conklin" wrote: Small farms would condemn about 75% of the current world's population to death. That is not a solution except for death. I don't know if the 75% is correct but the basic idea is sound. No, it's not. Where do you think 75% (actually more) of the world's population gets its food now? From small farms. Large scale agribusiness farming is the purview of economically developed countries which feeds a fraction of the world's population regularly, and which does provide emergency capacity when food production fails in ecologically difficult areas due to drought, flooding, fires, etc. In the latter case, large scale farming does save lives. However, 75% of the world's population is not all going to suffer such catastrophes at once. 75% of the world's population is surplus anyway. I just read where the United States is going to top 300 million around October 15. Compared to the country (this one) I grew up in that is about 150 million too many. We are paving over everything, quite literally. I went to visit the houses I grew up in, back in Illinois and all the corn fields I grew up playing in are now built over with housing or "Condo-fields". If we keep replacing corn with people we are going to be in deeper **** than we are now. Rolling the global population to about 1 billion (max) and keeping it there with some no growth thinking is about the only way the human race will be here in another 200 years. I think we are setting ourselves up far a mass plague or starvation that is going to thin out the population. We just plain doesn't need so many people. I suspect that there are points of agreement that we could find, but there are also points of disagreement. For example, your claim that 75% of the population is "surplus." Of course, that gives you a 4:1 chance of being one of the surplus ones. ;-) I agree that there is overpopulation not only in America but around the world as well. I cannot bring myself to call anyone "surplus," however. They have every bit as much right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as I have. My actual solution was to ship food to them that had fertility impairment hormones in it or mandate a vasectomy or tube tie in order to qualify if people already had 2 or more children. Nobody gets hurt, but nobody gets to have 10 kids they can't feed, either. I think you're operating under two fundamental misconceptions: 1) That civilizations never reach a point where population stops increasing 2) That children never feed their parents If you look at the most developed nations, population growth through reproduction is in the near-zero to negative range, depending on which country you're talking about. This implies that as more and more nations become industrialized, population will level off or even decline. The reason we have such extreme population growth now is that we have better education, health care, food production, and food distribution. So mortality is down. Way off base for the US. We get one pregnant Mexican having a baby here and the whole illegal family stays, so that one 'Citizen' gives a whole pre-existing family the right to stay here. Mortality due to disease is down from what it used to be, but then people in non-developed countries just have more children who then starve and of course, we send them food. Us Natural born Americans don't have that many children because we are too busy working to survive the high cost of living to support all the immigrants who we have to support through social programs. China and India are both over 1 Billion and will keep going as long as we keep bleeding money to them, which will eventually make us the "EX" superpower. First, you're talking about population growth in the US through immigration vs reproduction, which is exactly what I said. China and India are growing, but their populations are stabilizing as they need to educate themselves more to be able to fill the tech jobs that are being outsourced there. Now let's look at the second premise. In the developing world, children are often valuable hands to produce food and/or the means to get food. So in that sense, developing nations can't afford "pet children" who are not expected to return any value to the family in the way we do in the US. So people in developing nations tend to reproduce more because they need the additional hands and because of higher infant and child mortality rates. You don't read much, do you? The reason they try to reproduce so much is that there is a high rate of infant death caused by the birth of a new child. Once there is a new baby to breast feed the next older one is expected to survive on adult food and often dies from malnutrition. Our answer to this? Throw money at them or "Adopt" a child in a far away land, thus making it our problem. You don't read *well* do you? I did way they reproduce more in part because of higher infant and child mortality. Small amounts of education, especially for female children, greatly reduces mortality among infants and children, so population will initially spike as education becomes available. Uh-huh! But this makes the benefits of education tangible, so developng peoples slowly spend more and more time in school in order to reap more benefits of education. This extends the childhood years, and people begin to reproduce less. In addition, since the children are spending all their time learning, they are not an asset to the household, but a drain on it until they become productive in their teens or twenties. At which time they are themselves ready to reproduce, so they split off into their own households *and never return any value to the parent household.* And this is exactly why as nations develop, population levels off. So if we really want to control population we need to educate, educate, educate. You really do believe the view through your rose colored glasses, don't you. I just call it the way I see it. Do you really think that the fact that people in developed nations don't even reproduce enough to sustain their own numbers isn't a natural result of the way nations come to be developed? Developed nations like the U.S., Australia, France or the United Kingdom? All have positive population growth rates. Even Japan which is often cited as an example of a stable population has a positive population growth rate. The few Western nations that have negative growth rates are mostly former Soviet Block nations which have low life expectancy due to a variety of reasons. That includes Germany which has inherited Soviet Block East Germany. Check your facts. Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove "Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution, but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and the education of the billions who are it victims." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. |
#967
|
|||
|
|||
THE GOLDEN RULE
"di" wrote in message news:MKfWg.8842$Go3.6670@dukeread05... ....stuff deleted The Diebold problem makes it certain that the 2006 and 2008 election results will not be reliable. Not to mention Republican strategies across the country to make sure that likely Democratic votes aren't cast in the first place. Don't forget the 1888 election which the Republicans also stole, Grover Cleveland (D) won the popular vote but lost the Electoral vote to Benjamin Harrison (R), the scoundrels have been stealing elections for years. :) Agreed that Democrats aren't exactly blameless on this, either. Note the Daly political machine of Chicago or the stolen ballot box of Johnson. The list goes on, and even Kennedy's campaign of 1960 was probably rigged to a certain degree, though it may not have been necessary. Nixon's and other republicans are equally guilty of these practices, but never has the voting, nationwide, been as corrupted as it was in the previous 2 presidential elections (read articles by Greg Palast and Martin Luther King III for some examples). And worse, the Diebold systems are fatally flawed. The political stance of the CEO and board are clearly reflected in the results; for example; exit polls, which are historically extremely accurate tools, were taken at booths here in California, Ohio, Florida, and several other states, and they showed very different results than the numbers tallied. It is only in the last 2 elections where these machines were used that the exit polls were so dramatically wrong. In addition, there are thousands of computer experts who can easily hack the code (and probably a few hundred malicious teens, as well). Considering a single programmer stole over 8 Million from Crocker Bank (bought by Wells Fargo, some years back) sometime between closing on Friday and opening on Monday, the idea of running all votes through networked computers running the same software is a questionable practice. On a personal note, using the available networking tools at a previous job, I was able to do some pretty dramatic things, such as read sensitive data, change data on a LAN, or read data going into and out of a network. Yes, some of these holes have been plugged, but by no means have all of them been addressed (see the list of Windows security fixes over the past year for a single, admittedly worst-case, example). Rick |
#968
|
|||
|
|||
Population surplus
Amy Blankenship wrote:
"bill" wrote in message m... Amy Blankenship wrote: "bill" wrote in message ... Tim McNamara wrote: In article , bill wrote: Tim McNamara wrote: In article .net, "george conklin" wrote: Small farms would condemn about 75% of the current world's population to death. That is not a solution except for death. I don't know if the 75% is correct but the basic idea is sound. No, it's not. Where do you think 75% (actually more) of the world's population gets its food now? From small farms. Large scale agribusiness farming is the purview of economically developed countries which feeds a fraction of the world's population regularly, and which does provide emergency capacity when food production fails in ecologically difficult areas due to drought, flooding, fires, etc. In the latter case, large scale farming does save lives. However, 75% of the world's population is not all going to suffer such catastrophes at once. 75% of the world's population is surplus anyway. I just read where the United States is going to top 300 million around October 15. Compared to the country (this one) I grew up in that is about 150 million too many. We are paving over everything, quite literally. I went to visit the houses I grew up in, back in Illinois and all the corn fields I grew up playing in are now built over with housing or "Condo-fields". If we keep replacing corn with people we are going to be in deeper **** than we are now. Rolling the global population to about 1 billion (max) and keeping it there with some no growth thinking is about the only way the human race will be here in another 200 years. I think we are setting ourselves up far a mass plague or starvation that is going to thin out the population. We just plain doesn't need so many people. I suspect that there are points of agreement that we could find, but there are also points of disagreement. For example, your claim that 75% of the population is "surplus." Of course, that gives you a 4:1 chance of being one of the surplus ones. ;-) I agree that there is overpopulation not only in America but around the world as well. I cannot bring myself to call anyone "surplus," however. They have every bit as much right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as I have. My actual solution was to ship food to them that had fertility impairment hormones in it or mandate a vasectomy or tube tie in order to qualify if people already had 2 or more children. Nobody gets hurt, but nobody gets to have 10 kids they can't feed, either. I think you're operating under two fundamental misconceptions: 1) That civilizations never reach a point where population stops increasing 2) That children never feed their parents If you look at the most developed nations, population growth through reproduction is in the near-zero to negative range, depending on which country you're talking about. This implies that as more and more nations become industrialized, population will level off or even decline. The reason we have such extreme population growth now is that we have better education, health care, food production, and food distribution. So mortality is down. Way off base for the US. We get one pregnant Mexican having a baby here and the whole illegal family stays, so that one 'Citizen' gives a whole pre-existing family the right to stay here. Mortality due to disease is down from what it used to be, but then people in non-developed countries just have more children who then starve and of course, we send them food. Us Natural born Americans don't have that many children because we are too busy working to survive the high cost of living to support all the immigrants who we have to support through social programs. China and India are both over 1 Billion and will keep going as long as we keep bleeding money to them, which will eventually make us the "EX" superpower. First, you're talking about population growth in the US through immigration vs reproduction, which is exactly what I said. China and India are growing, but their populations are stabilizing as they need to educate themselves more to be able to fill the tech jobs that are being outsourced there. Now let's look at the second premise. In the developing world, children are often valuable hands to produce food and/or the means to get food. So in that sense, developing nations can't afford "pet children" who are not expected to return any value to the family in the way we do in the US. So people in developing nations tend to reproduce more because they need the additional hands and because of higher infant and child mortality rates. You don't read much, do you? The reason they try to reproduce so much is that there is a high rate of infant death caused by the birth of a new child. Once there is a new baby to breast feed the next older one is expected to survive on adult food and often dies from malnutrition. Our answer to this? Throw money at them or "Adopt" a child in a far away land, thus making it our problem. You don't read *well* do you? I did way they reproduce more in part because of higher infant and child mortality. Small amounts of education, especially for female children, greatly reduces mortality among infants and children, so population will initially spike as education becomes available. Uh-huh! But this makes the benefits of education tangible, so developng peoples slowly spend more and more time in school in order to reap more benefits of education. This extends the childhood years, and people begin to reproduce less. In addition, since the children are spending all their time learning, they are not an asset to the household, but a drain on it until they become productive in their teens or twenties. At which time they are themselves ready to reproduce, so they split off into their own households *and never return any value to the parent household.* And this is exactly why as nations develop, population levels off. So if we really want to control population we need to educate, educate, educate. You really do believe the view through your rose colored glasses, don't you. I just call it the way I see it. Do you really think that the fact that people in developed nations don't even reproduce enough to sustain their own numbers isn't a natural result of the way nations come to be developed? Hopeless argument. Bill |
#969
|
|||
|
|||
Population surplus
Amy Blankenship wrote:
"bill" wrote in message om... Ludmila Borgschatz-Thudpucker, MD wrote: "bill" wrote in message m... And this is exactly why as nations develop, population levels off. So if we really want to control population we need to educate, educate, educate. You really do believe the view through your rose colored glasses, don't you. While he be educatin', everybody else be fornicatin'. Didn't anyone notice that the rich types have one or two kids so they have "Heirs", while the welfare class has more kids to get a raise? That's obvious. But more people have more wealth as nations develop. The "poor" in the US usually have at least one television, air conditioning, clean water, and enough food to eat most of the time. These are things that are wealth beyond belief compared to undeveloped nations or even here 100-150 years ago. Yeah, now. Bush has single handedly increased our national debt by 3 TRILLION dollars, which is no trivial amount to dig out from under. And he says the Republicans will have no new taxes??? China is going to own our ass. Bill |
#970
|
|||
|
|||
THE GOLDEN RULE
Tim McNamara wrote:
In article , bill wrote: Clinton got my attention when he showed up on the Arsenio Hall show and played his Saxophone in 1992, so he had a certain 'cool' factor that neither Bush has had. Since 1980 we have had Republicans with a stick up their ass, so I think change is due. If Hillary runs, she gets my vote, Gore really won the popular vote in 2000, and I think 2004 just showed how a corrupt party can manipulate the votes. No way could Kerry have lost that badly when Bush was already unpopular. Gore did win the popular vote in 2000, including Florida, and should have won the election. In 2004 there were massive voting irregularities that tipped the election from Kerry to Bush. In both cases, the election came down to a state where the person in charge of the vote was also an ambitious Republican that happened to also be in charge of the Bush campaigns for those states. In both cases, neither of the Secretaries of State of Florida and Ohio had the ethical wisdom to recuse themselves from certifying the vote, or alternatively to stay out of involvement in the Bush campaigns in those states. The Diebold problem makes it certain that the 2006 and 2008 election results will not be reliable. Not to mention Republican strategies across the country to make sure that likely Democratic votes aren't cast in the first place. One word....Corruption. That will be how this administration is remembered after we get a Democrat president to investigate all this. Bill |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|