alt.education

"Joe Irvin" wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message
>news:o5qhr31i901jcov74evf597shppilf2jh5@4ax.com...
>> "Joe Irvin" wrote:
>>>> Having more children is not necessarily the optimal survival strategy.
>>>> Faced with the prospect of overpopulation, and a world running out of
>>>> resources, a society that reduces its population might end up with its
>>>> fewer offspring richer and better off and producing a higher
>>>> probability of survival.
>>>
>>>Assuming that the world is running out of resources.
>>
>> It is.
>
>How do you know this ...

We use resources that are non renewable. By definition, they
therefore get used up.

>Oceans cover most of the earth ... how can one know the resources they hold?

Why does it matter?

The question is whether we have the capability of acquiring the use of
those resources without using up the ones that we have.

>Perhaps you've heard of the wager that Julian
>Simon made with Paul Ehrlich, author of the "Population Bomb" ... it
>advocates the same thing you seem to believe. Mr Ehrlich said we were
>running out of resources because of population ...

We are.

>They bet on the cost of I
>think it was 5 metals in 1980. Mr Simons bet the price would be the same or
>less 5 or 10 years later. Mr Simon won on all 5 metals ... prices had
>declined.

Why is that relevant? Metals are not the resources we are running out
of.

>> The government has nothing to do with it. For the most recent case,
>> there are too many people trying to use the Colorado River as a water
>> source. Now they believe that Lake Mead will dry up in a few years if
>> something doesn't change.
>
>I'm talking about govts of the world ... the Colorado River will be there in
>a few years, don't worry.

If not for the Federal government, it would already be gone. Already,
none of it any longer reaches the ocean.

http://www.counterpunch.org/colorado.html

>> Actually, they don't. They have medium sized families, while the
>> non-Moslems have extremely small families, or none at all.
>
>Whether you call them medium or large they are out producing the Europeans
>... how every you rationalize it the Europeans generally are losing native
>population. "Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral;
>Russia and Italy are 1.2; Spain 1.1 about half replacement rate. That's to
>say, Spain's population is halving every gereration.

Alas, your understanding of demographic mathematics isn't correct.

http://www.prb.org/Countries/Spain.aspx
By this source, Spain is still increasing in population, but will
start to decrease between 2025 and 2050. It is expected to lose
around 10% of its population in 25 years.

http://encarta.msn.com/fact_631504865/spain_facts_and_figures.html
By this source, it is still increasing slowly but will start to
decrease before 2025. It will still lose only about 10% of its
population between 2025 and 2050.


By 2050, Italy's
>population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36% Estonia's by 52%."
>Its the Demography, Stupid, by Mark Steyn.

http://encarta.msn.com/fact_631504788/italy_facts_and_figures.html
again shows around a 10% decline in Italy's population between 2025
and 2050.

Bulgaria, which is indeed losing population rapidly, is not losing it
primarily from low birth rate. Even with extremely low birth rate it
is one of the poorest countries in the continent, and people are
emigrating to better pastures at an enormous rate (more than 10% of
the population from 1990 to 2004). The ones who are emigrating are
primarily young people. When the people who have the kids are
leaving, then of course that drives down the fertility rate.

I don't see any data suggesting Estonia dropping any faster than
Italy.

Of course, I think that the population loss is GOOD.

>> In Russia and Spain, fertility is only 1.1 births per woman, about
>> half the replacement rate. I think the overall European average is
>> 1.5. So the Moslem average might be 4.5. Given my background, I
>> don't call that a large family.
>
>Maybe not but they are still out producing the native populations of much of
>Europe.

For one generation. Then their kids are part of the native
population.

>Mr Steyn points out: "According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60%
>of British Muslims want to live under sharia - in the UK.

So? They want their culture to be respected.

> If a population
>'at odds with the modern world' is the fastest breeding group on the
>planet - if there are more Muslim nations, more fundamentalists Muslims
>within those nations, more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations, and
>more and more Muslims represented in more and more transnational
>institutions - how safe a bet is the survival of the 'modern world"?

Quite high. Fundamentalism is a reactionary movement against the
change that is inevitable. It won't last, simply because it cannot
produce the lifestyles that the people want.


>> http://rfmcdpei.livejournal.com/408410.html
>> (takes a while to load, for some reason)
>> reports that the Moslem birthrate is France is rapidly dropping, and
>> that the average foreigner in France has around 3 children. It is
>> usually only the first generation that has several children. Later
>> generations approach the fertility rates of native French families.
>
>Still the Moslim are increasing while the French population is just at
>replacement or falling. Also you have a population that has nothing in
>common with the West ... they want their own sharia law ... that doesn't
>bode well for France/Europe/West.

Why not? Are you afraid of sharia?

>> But as noted above, they are donating only 2.2% of their AFTER tax
>> income.
>
>This doesn't count the time charities put in, in donated time.

The Biblical tithe was in assets, not time.

>>>Govt, IMO, should be the very last resort for helping people
>>
>> If charity provided enough, that would be fine. It doesn't come
>> close. Therefore government gets to do the last resort bit. Even
>> with government largess, we still have millions of homeless people in
>> this country.
>
>Well how did the country survive before the govt started these programs ...

with very high mortality rates, starvation, etc.

>people in the US were not starving to death.

Actually, some were. A lot more died of disease, after being weakened
by lack of good food. A family of distant cousins of mine essentially
starved to death during the depression. That isn't what appears on
the death certificate, but the father had been injured in a mine
accident, and the mother had no working skills. The two parents, and
2 of the 5 kids died within a year or two around 1932.

>The thing about govt programs are they are so unweildy they can be scammed.

Certainly. So can private enterprise, and the scams are much more
catastrophic (e.g. Enron).

>Every Presidential candidate
>I can remember in the last 20 years said they would clean up the scamming
>going on in Medicare/Medicade and other programs.

That's because the electorate wants to pretend that the costs are
primarily due to "scams". They aren't. There isn't much to clean up,
and the cost of doing so would entail too much unacceptable invasion
of privacy.

>Its like most programs that subsidize ... they get more of what they subsidize.

More houses. More health care. More education. You seem to think
these are bad things.

>>>... subsidizing
>>>school loans, mortgages, business loans etc surely take away from peoples
>>>ability to tithe, IMO.
>>
>> The don't tithe 10% of their *after*-tax income.
>
>Add the 2.2% you said people only tithe to the total amount of govt money
>used for these many, many programs and it probably comes out to more than
>10%

Since people potentially benefit from the programs that they are taxed
for, that is not charity. Nor is it going to the church, which is
what the tithe was about. Nothing in the Bible said that the tithe
was for charity - it was for God.

>If you are paying taxes for the same things (preFDR) why would one
>think they have to give more? Of course our tax scheme is biased so the
>bottom 50% pay almost nothing.

They also make almost nothing, so that is no surprise.

>>>Is there a scientific test to tell if one loves their mate?
>>
>> One would have to give an objective definition of "loves their mate"
>> in order to tell. If it cannot be defined objectively, then it cannot
>> be tested scientifically.
>
>The definition is in the dictionary

There are several definitions in the dictionary, many of which are not
objective definitions but simply beg the question.

... so it should be able to be tested
>scientifically shouldn't it? Making a definition that scientist can prove
>what they want is easy isn't it?

Who says that science is easy?

>>>How about Christian scientists such as Kepler, Newton, and Copernicus were
>>>men of faith and they didn't seem to need a scientific test for a
>>>transcendent God.
>>
>> So? I don't need a test for a transcendent God either (you probably
>> have the idea that I am an atheist). But I simply call it my belief,
>> and stop there. I neither require nor expect anyone else to believe
>> as I believe.
>
>So you don't hold your belief to the scientific test ...

Of course not. It can't be tested scientifically by definition, since
it is a claim about the supernatural.

>I don't either ... so you believe there is a way to aquire knowledge without a scientific test

No. One can only believe, which is not knowledge.

>> So is ignoring our instincts. Of course it isn't a battle. One
>> cannot call it a "battle" if it is simply ignoring them. Most people
>> give morality very little thought most of the time.
>
>It is a battle to do right all the time every day using the Bible as the
>standard.

That is because the Bible is pretty near useless as a standard.
Especially since people are selective about what parts they think
really apply.

Or do you think we should stone to death kids who are insolent to
their parents?

>Some morality is almost automatic ... its the gray areas that are hardest.

The gray areas are not covered in the Bible. And the black and white
areas we have largely decided do not apply to us (see above re
stoning).

lojbab