|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1041
|
|||
|
|||
Population surplus
Amy Blankenship wrote:
"Jean H." wrote in message ... 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 what are subventions? sorry, I meant subsidy Jean |
Ads |
#1042
|
|||
|
|||
Population surplus
DTJ wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:30:31 -0600, "Jean H." wrote: 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 You people are frickin insane. First, you bitch if we let them starve, then you bitch if we don't. Your point is correct, though you are not targeting the rights persons. THere is a huge difference between helping people (what the population wants) and maintaining the poors in their poor state (what the governments, world bank ect wants). For instance, Africa would be much better if the developed countries were helping to establish a good cold transportation network, irrigation system etc rather than providing cheap food to them! Another example, in Mauritania (one of the poorest country in the world), a while ago (like 20 years), the world bank gave a few billion $ loan to this country in order to built a water treatment plant that would take the salt out of the water... the plant never worked because the country could not afford the petrolum required to run it!... but they had to pay the loan.. do you consider this as an help to development, or as sodomization of this poor country? A few years later, an engineer came with an idea to built a solar powered plant to take the salt out of the sea water... world bank said "No, it doesn't cost enough". I re-ask my previous question. Jean |
#1043
|
|||
|
|||
Population surplus
Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:12:15 -0700, george conklin wrote: "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. No guessing needed. The U.S. has a population growth rate of +0.91%. Australia +0.85%, France +0.35%, United Kingdom +0.28%, Italy +0.04%, Japan +0.02%. This info is from the wild and crazy guys at the C.I.A. By the way, the C.I.A. says there are 272 nations which much mean there are 209 nations are reproducing themselves. And then some as the world population growth rate is +1.14% with a birth rate of 20.05 births/1,000 population and a death rate of 8.67 deaths/1,000 population. Whole lot of reproducing going on. The counties that have negative growth rates are for the most part either tiny or not something anyone would inspire to. Like Russia which has a population growth rate of -0.37% but also an infant mortality two and half times that of the U.S. and a life expectancy ten years less. Is Russia your ideal for the future of the world? Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove "...democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are, the less one individual matters." Isaac Asimov Where did they come up with 272 nations? The last I heard it was 201 or something like that. When I was in grade school I think it was only about 104 or something close. Is somebody minting new countries? Bill Baka |
#1044
|
|||
|
|||
THE GOLDEN RULE
Jean H. wrote:
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? He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he could have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4 years of screwing up, unless the Republicans are either A. Totally stupid. B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election. I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served? Bill Baka |
#1045
|
|||
|
|||
THE GOLDEN RULE
George Conklin wrote:
"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. That is part of the problem I have with the Republicans, since so many claim to be "Born Again" Christians that I am wondering about the church trying to run the United States. I don't want the Vatican dictating our policies, or a dumbo like Bush thinking he's doing God's work. Can politics get much worse? Bill Baka |
#1046
|
|||
|
|||
THE GOLDEN RULE
"bill" wrote in message m... Jean H. wrote: 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? He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he could have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4 years of screwing up, unless the Republicans are either A. Totally stupid. B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election. I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served? Bill Baka Well Bill, if you were to get out of California you would find thousands of people who voted for Bush, or maybe rather voted against Kerry, either way. As far as fixing the election, they didn't have to, Democrats threw the last 2 elections away by running idiots like Kerry & Core.. |
#1047
|
|||
|
|||
Population surplus
Where did they come up with 272 nations? The last I heard it was 201 or
something like that. When I was in grade school I think it was only about 104 or something close. Is somebody minting new countries? Bill Baka 1) a nation is not a country... think of the First Nations, Quebecers etc. 2) There are many more coutries than that, most of them are not recognized... the weirdest country being this offshore oil platform close to britain! Jean ------------------------ http://geography.about.com/cs/countr...wcountries.htm New Countries of the World From Matt Rosenberg, Your Guide to Geography. Jan 2 2006 The 30 New Countries Created Since 1990 Since 1990, thirty new countries have been created. The dissolution of the USSR and Yugoslavia in the early 1990s caused the creation of most of the newly independent states. You probably know about many of these changes but a few of these new countries seemed to slip by almost unnoticed. This comprehensive listing will update you about the countries which have formed since 1990. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Fifteen new countries became independent with the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. Three of these countries declared and were granted independence a few months preceding the fall of the Soviet Union but the remaining twelve did not become independent until the Soviet Union fell completely on December 26, 1991. Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Estonia (September 1991) Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Latvia (September 1991) Lithuania (September 1991) Moldova Russia Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan Former Yugoslavia Yugoslavia dissolved in the early 1990s into five independent countries. Bosnia and Herzegovina, February 29, 1992 Croatia, June 25, 1991 Macedonia (officially The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) declared independence on September 8, 1991 but wasn't recognized by the United Nations until 1993 and the United States and Russia in February of 1994 Serbia and Montenegro, (also known as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), April 17, 1992 Slovenia, June 25, 1991 Other New Countries Nine other countries became independent through a variety of causes. March 21, 1990 - Namibia became independent of South Africa May 22, 1990 - North and South Yemen merged to form a unified Yemen October 3, 1990 - East Germany and West Germany merged to form a unified Germany after the fall of the Iron Curtain September 17, 1991 - The Marshall Islands was part of the Trust Territory of Pacific Islands (administered by the United States) and gained independence as a former colony September 17, 1991 - Micronesia, previously known as the Caroline Islands, became independent from the United States January 1, 1993 - The Czech Republic and Slovakia became independent nations when Czechoslovakia dissolved May 25, 1993 - Eritrea was a part of Ethiopia but seceded and gained independence October 1, 1994 - Palau was part of the Trust Territory of Pacific Islands (administered by the United States) and gained independence as a former colony May 20, 2002 - East Timor declared independence from Portugal in 1975 but became independent of Indonesia in 2002 |
#1048
|
|||
|
|||
THE GOLDEN RULE
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:20:44 GMT, bill wrote:
Jean H. wrote: 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? He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he could have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4 years of screwing up, unless the Republicans are either A. Totally stupid. B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election. I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served? Bill Baka Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into collecting up all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular issue with you and your friends, in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California, New York, and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the 2nd amendment, the rest of the country, those vast seas of red states, believe that without our guns, the liberals would do just as they please, and negate even more of the bill of right. Now, I understand that the Dems have given up on the idea of collecting up all the guns. Maybe they'll actually get somewhere in the polls this time. But, in any close election, the NRA will kill you if you are not pro-gun (notice that doesn't mean simply not anti-gun, but actually _for_ 2nd amendment rights). It doesn't matter to the NRA whether you're Dem or Rep, you get an endorsement from them if you support gun right. Then I vote for that person. And several million other NRA members do the same. And that's how they win the election. Dave Head |
#1049
|
|||
|
|||
THE GOLDEN RULE
In article ,
Dave Head wrote: Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into collecting up all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular issue with you and your friends, Which is a crock of ****. You're just telling a lie here. in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California, New York, and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the 2nd amendment, the rest of the country, those vast seas of red states, believe that without our guns, the liberals would do just as they please, and negate even more of the bill of right. LOL. What crack you been smoking, dude? It's the Republicans that are tossing your rights into the trash, not the Democrats. The Republicans are outstandingly good liars, though, I'll give them credit for that. As the old saying goes, all political parties die at last from swallowing their own lies. It's currently the Republicans' turn. |
#1050
|
|||
|
|||
Population surplus
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:07:54 -0700, bill wrote:
Lorenzo L. Love wrote: On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:12:15 -0700, george conklin wrote: "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. No guessing needed. The U.S. has a population growth rate of +0.91%. Australia +0.85%, France +0.35%, United Kingdom +0.28%, Italy +0.04%, Japan +0.02%. This info is from the wild and crazy guys at the C.I.A. By the way, the C.I.A. says there are 272 nations which much mean there are 209 nations are reproducing themselves. And then some as the world population growth rate is +1.14% with a birth rate of 20.05 births/1,000 population and a death rate of 8.67 deaths/1,000 population. Whole lot of reproducing going on. The counties that have negative growth rates are for the most part either tiny or not something anyone would inspire to. Like Russia which has a population growth rate of -0.37% but also an infant mortality two and half times that of the U.S. and a life expectancy ten years less. Is Russia your ideal for the future of the world? Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove "...democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are, the less one individual matters." Isaac Asimov Where did they come up with 272 nations? The last I heard it was 201 or something like that. When I was in grade school I think it was only about 104 or something close. Is somebody minting new countries? Bill Baka Since you missed it, I'll repeat "the C.I.A. says there are 272 nations". That was as of 5 October, 2006. There may be more by now. Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove "We are living beyond our means. As a people we have developed a life-style that is draining the earth of its priceless and irreplaceable resources without regard for the future of our children and people all around the world." Margaret Mead |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|