Divorce Your Car --and get into a relationship with a Bike!

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..

"Lorenzo L. Love" wrote in message
newsp.tg4z9tigpheghf@ibm22761843607...
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.

Check YOUR facts. How much is due to reproduction, how much to
immigration?


The UN has published all the necessary data on this, especially the Total
Fertility Rates, TFRs. They show how many children a woman will have in her
reproductive years. 63 nations are now below 2.2 (some say 2.1), which is
zero population growth or less. Why the extra .1? Infertility and
mortality.

"bill" wrote in message
m...
george conklin 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.

You are very ignorant. No native-born group reproduces itself in the
USA. Immigration causes population growth here, but they are only meeting
a demand for labor that a insufficient birth rate from native-born groups
fails to provide.
Hah,
I do have 2 cents to add to this one. I went into a Taco Bell not too long
ago and couldn't order what I wanted without a whole lot of sign language.

Taco Bell does demography now? How interesting.

"george conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...
I do have 2 cents to add to this one. I went into a Taco Bell not too
long ago and couldn't order what I wanted without a whole lot of sign
language.

Taco Bell does demography now? How interesting.

Well, better that than pornography.

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:29:33 -0700, Amy Blankenship
wrote:


"Lorenzo L. Love" wrote in message
newsp.tg6g5gw7pheghf@ibm22761843607...
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:14:11 -0700, Amy Blankenship
wrote:


"Lorenzo L. Love" wrote in message
newsp.tg4z9tigpheghf@ibm22761843607...
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.

Check YOUR facts. How much is due to reproduction, how much to
immigration?



The U.S. has a birth rate of 14.14 births/1,000 population vs a death
rate
of 8.26 deaths/1,000 population. People born in the U.S., not
immigration.
Similarly the other developed nations cited have simplely more people
being born in them then dying in them. This info is readily available if
you would bother to look and not blindly repeat anti-immigrant
propaganda.
Can you cite a few non former Soviet Block developed nations that have
more deaths then births?

First, saying that population in industrialized nations is due more to
immigration than to reproduction is neither for or anti immigration.
It's
just a statement with no value judgments. I happen to be married to an
immigrant and we've discussed immigrating somewhere else ourselves later
in
life.

Second, according to wikipedia, "In industrialized countries with low
child
mortality, sub-replacement fertility is below approximately 2.1 children
per
woman's life time. 2.1 children per woman includes 2 children to replace
the
parents, with one-tenth of a child extra to make up for the mortality of
children who do not reach the age of 15, which is the defined age when
the
fertility rate is calculated."
....
"While almost all of the developed world, and many other nations, have
seen
plummeting fertility rates over the last twenty-years, the United States'
rates have remained stable and even slightly increased. Note however that
some European countries have gradually increasing fertility rates, most
notably France, whose fertility rate increased to 1.85 in 2005.
Nevertheless
even France remains below the 2.09 children/woman fertility rate of the
US."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

The difference is that you're looking at the balance of births and deaths
*today*, where a lot of different factors come into play like a large
group
of people born in the 40's and 50's that happen to be healthy and aging.
Replacement population looks at how many children a couple will actually
produce over the course of their lifetime with the logical expectation
that
they both will die at some point. So that ultimately to permanently
replace
themselves they have to each produce at least one child. If somehow
previous generations were to become immortal we'd need to look at
replacement population differently.

Hope this clarifies;

Amy



What is it about "gradually increasing fertility rates" that you do not
understand? The population of the U.S. and most non former Soviet Block
developed nations are increasing. Not due to immigration but to native
births. In the U.S. birth rate is 14.14 births/1,000 population vs a death
rate of 8.26 deaths/1,000 population for a surplus of 5.88 extra
people/1,000 population. The net migration rate is only 3.18
migrants/1,000 population. Tell me how "population in industrialized
nations is due more to immigration than to reproduction" makes any sense?
The world population is increasing. Are you going to blame that on
immigration? It is expected that the world population will level off at
around 9 billion by 2050 or so. The problem is the world can't support 9
billion people. It can't support the current 6 billion for long. Forget
little things like running out of oil. We are running out of fresh water
and top soil. If you think the wars being fought over oil are bad, wait
until we start fighting over water.

Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

"They're making people every day, but they ain't makin' any more dirt."
Will Rogers

"Lorenzo L. Love" wrote in message
newsp.tg8lacqipheghf@ibm22761843607...

What is it about "gradually increasing fertility rates" that you do not
understand?

What YOU do not understand is that the future growth of populations is
measured by the Total Fertility Rates, or TFRs. These are calculated by the
census for nations and they say that 63 nations are no longer reproducing
themselves. I suggest you check out the population pyramid projections
which the census makes available, both for the USA and most other nations of
the world. Stop simply guessing.

"Lorenzo L. Love" wrote in message
newsp.tg8lacqipheghf@ibm22761843607...
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:29:33 -0700, Amy Blankenship
wrote:


"Lorenzo L. Love" wrote in message
newsp.tg6g5gw7pheghf@ibm22761843607...
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:14:11 -0700, Amy Blankenship
wrote:


"Lorenzo L. Love" wrote in message
newsp.tg4z9tigpheghf@ibm22761843607...
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.

Check YOUR facts. How much is due to reproduction, how much to
immigration?



The U.S. has a birth rate of 14.14 births/1,000 population vs a death
rate
of 8.26 deaths/1,000 population. People born in the U.S., not
immigration.
Similarly the other developed nations cited have simplely more people
being born in them then dying in them. This info is readily available if
you would bother to look and not blindly repeat anti-immigrant
propaganda.
Can you cite a few non former Soviet Block developed nations that have
more deaths then births?

First, saying that population in industrialized nations is due more to
immigration than to reproduction is neither for or anti immigration.
It's
just a statement with no value judgments. I happen to be married to an
immigrant and we've discussed immigrating somewhere else ourselves later
in
life.

Second, according to wikipedia, "In industrialized countries with low
child
mortality, sub-replacement fertility is below approximately 2.1 children
per
woman's life time. 2.1 children per woman includes 2 children to replace
the
parents, with one-tenth of a child extra to make up for the mortality of
children who do not reach the age of 15, which is the defined age when
the
fertility rate is calculated."
....
"While almost all of the developed world, and many other nations, have
seen
plummeting fertility rates over the last twenty-years, the United States'
rates have remained stable and even slightly increased. Note however that
some European countries have gradually increasing fertility rates, most
notably France, whose fertility rate increased to 1.85 in 2005.
Nevertheless
even France remains below the 2.09 children/woman fertility rate of the
US."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

The difference is that you're looking at the balance of births and deaths
*today*, where a lot of different factors come into play like a large
group
of people born in the 40's and 50's that happen to be healthy and aging.
Replacement population looks at how many children a couple will actually
produce over the course of their lifetime with the logical expectation
that
they both will die at some point. So that ultimately to permanently
replace
themselves they have to each produce at least one child. If somehow
previous generations were to become immortal we'd need to look at
replacement population differently.

Hope this clarifies;

Amy



What is it about "gradually increasing fertility rates" that you do not
understand? The population of the U.S. and most non former Soviet Block
developed nations are increasing. Not due to immigration but to native
births. In the U.S. birth rate is 14.14 births/1,000 population vs a death
rate of 8.26 deaths/1,000 population for a surplus of 5.88 extra
people/1,000 population.

I'm not going to address this point, because Mr. Conklin has already done
it. Continuing to throw facts at someone who either can't comprehend them
or who is determined never to allow his understanding to change is a waste
of time.

The net migration rate is only 3.18 migrants/1,000 population. Tell me how
"population in industrialized nations is due more to immigration than to
reproduction" makes any sense? The world population is increasing. Are you
going to blame that on immigration?

"World Population". "Population in Developed Nations." Are you sincerely
NOT able to comprehend that these are two different things?

It is expected that the world population will level off at around 9
billion by 2050 or so. The problem is the world can't support 9 billion
people.

I totally disagree with you. I also believe that at some point world
population will level off and begin to decline. The fastest way to acheive
this is through education, in my opinion.

It can't support the current 6 billion for long. Forget little things
like running out of oil. We are running out of fresh water and top soil.

I do have a problem with the way that we treat potable water. The fact that
we think it's acceptable to **** in it bothers me to no end. But I think it
will be a long time before the general population sees it as a problem...if
it ever happens. However, our water treatment processes are fairly ok, so
I don't think we're going to run out of fresh water before population levels
off.

Top soil, contrary to popular belief, IS a renewable resource. And the
processes for building it are pretty well understood. Unfortunately, they
are incompatible with large agribusiness AND low-level subsistence farming
(by this I mean when a farmer lacks the area to rotate crops and access to
livestock to help fertilize the soil). We also have a severe problem in the
fact that once a human mouth has ever touched a nutrient, it is essentially
lost to the system because of the way we view our own wastes. All that
aside, we are producing more than enough food to feed the world right now.
The problem is distribution, politics, and corruption. And we don't
necessarily use land optimally. There is a lot of land out there that could
be brought into production if needed.

If you think the wars being fought over oil are bad, wait until we start
fighting over water.

If you genuinely believe this is a real possibility, you should educate
yourself on issues such as greywater recycling, composting toilets, etc.

Hope this provides some clarity;

Amy

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.

Now that is a lame statement.
Most underdevloped countries have the potential to be autonomous
regarding the food... however the dear poisoned "gift" from developed
country, as free or cheap food, prevents any development of a local
agriculture. Who can compete against free food????

By sending food to these countries, our governments are 1)giving
subventions to the farmers 2)usually making a loan to the poor country
3)making sure that the markets of this poor country will remain open for
their goods.

So don't blame your problem on the back of the poors.
Jean

Hah,
I do have 2 cents to add to this one. I went into a Taco Bell not too
long ago and couldn't order what I wanted without a whole lot of sign
language. It seems they were so busy hiring Mexicans who didn't speak
English they forgot to hire one to take the orders from the main
clientèle, which just happened to be whiteys, like me. Some people got
frustrated and walked out but I hung in there and got my 2 Green bean
burritos, the only thing I ever order there. It felt like forever trying
to get them to understand even something that simple.
Yeah, we really need them.
Bill Baka

Last time I went in a fast food in the US, the 100% WASP worker could
not understand my order because I had a litle foreign accent... so what
is the difference? At least the mexican one you are talking about is
making an effort to try to understand, unlike that stupid kid that just
didn't care since I was not talking with his very local accent (probably
the only one he heard in all his life).

..... or another time in a fencier restaurant, with some (much) older
friends: I had to have my friend "translating" (from regular english to
local accent english) since the dump WASP waiter could not understand my
orders, even repeated 3 times. When I took my credit card out, he
suddenly understood everything, including "extra last minute orders".
what a pitty.

Jean

Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
available at all.

hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
Monsanto..

Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool thinks
stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November he will be
a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except maybe Truman.
Bill Baka

agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?

"Jean H." wrote in message
...
Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
available at all.

hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
Monsanto..

Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool thinks
stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November he will be
a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except maybe Truman.
Bill Baka

agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?

Stem cell research is caught up in theological debates, since the Roman
Catholic Church is against such research too.