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

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 11:42:01 -0700, bill wrote:

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.

For the U.S., it's a birth rate of 14.14 natural born Americans per 1,000
population compared to a death rate of 8.26 deaths of both natural born
and immigrant Americans per 1,000 population ( C.I.A. 2006 est. ). I'm
sure the rest of your info is just as accurate.

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.

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.

Bill Baka

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.

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.

Why are Democrats against tamper-proof voter ID cards? Why are they against
letting illegal aliens vote? Why do they pay homeless and indigent people
to vote? Why do their dead people keep voting? TWICE? LOL

Maybe this time some forged documents and last-minute "news" (like a
decades-old DUI charge released 5 days before the election) will work
/against/ the Dems. Hell, it's just hardball politics, right?!?

Bill Sornson wrote:
Why are Democrats against tamper-proof voter ID cards? Why are they
against letting illegal aliens vote?

Bzzt. Meant they're against /preventing/ illegals from voting. My bad.

"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. :)

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.

"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?

"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.

"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

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.