alt.education

"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message
news:37ijr3doq6i7qt8glljv85uintk7uem6u7@4ax.com...
> "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.

If we don't know how much we have you could always make that same case ...
the sky is falling ... it has been used ... Paul Ehrlich used it. By 2000
there was suppose to be mass starvation because of shortages ... we have
some starvation not because lack of resources but govt corruption and
inefficiency ... talking about the world.
>
>>Oceans cover most of the earth ... how can one know the resources they
>>hold?
>
> Why does it matter?

It doesn't, you said we were running out of resources. In the 70's I
remember people saying we were running out of oil. That same statement
could have been made in 1870. Yet we still have oil and new discoveries.

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

IMO, we will if we can hold off the luddites ... technology is our best bet
rather than going the other way via the Kyoto treaty.

>>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.

Ok
>
>>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.

Well Mr Ehrlich got to pick the metals ... I'm sure he picked the ones he
thought we would probably run out off. He was the authority, or so he
wanted everyone to think. He lost. What are we 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.

In spite of the Federal govt ... a project like the Hoover Dam probably
couldn't possibly be built today because of the expense of the environmental
impact studies along with all the permits that would have to be obtained.
States are capable of working things out ... probably not without Fed
intervention though.
>
> 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.

Its not my 'demographic mathemaatics', its Mark Steyn. Also: "The
population of Spain doubled during the twentieth century, due to the
spectacular demographic boom by the 60's and early 70's. Then, the birth
rate plunged by the 80's and Spain's population became stalled, its
demographics showing one of the lowest sub replacement fertility rate in the
world, only second to Japan's"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Spain
Spain has a population problem.

> 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.

Which ever is correct, I would say Spain had a population problem when it
comes to its native population.

> 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.

You see no problem with countries in Europe with big welfare programs and
losing population? ... immigrants that don't believe in Western culture ...
sharia law? I see it as a potential big problem if things aren't turned
around.

>>> 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.

Not if they don't blend in and accept western style culture which they don't
seem to be doing in France and the UK ... native population accepts the
native culture ... there are problems because of this?
>
>>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.

Not respected, they want their culture to replace the Western Brit culture
... there is difference. To 'respect' Muslim culture should the UK live
under sharia law?

>> 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.

You assume the Muslims want a life style like the West ... they hate the
west ... remember we are the devils. Do you think in the 60% of the Brit
Muslims are all fundamentalists?
>
>
>>> 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?

Yes, why shouldn't I be? I think Western culture of equality is superior to
Muslim culture.

>>> 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.

Yes, you don't count the $'s that are paid to the Fed govt. for programs
that are used to help people.

>>>>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.

These mortality rates were caused by no govt welfare programs??? Can you
cite where starvation was a big problem in the US. Jane Fonda said children
were starving in Georgia but she couldn't cite a single child that had
starved.
>
>>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 problem exist today with all the govt aid ... people do get the good
food, so that's nothing new.
>
>>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).

I'm talking about govt welfare programs ... Enron wasn't a welfare program.

>>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.

No, I didn't say the high costs were due to scams. Only that scams are
inherent in these big programs. Whether they are scams or not these
programs should be paid for and not run deficits. That, I think is what
irks people. Ms Clinton says she can pay for universal health care by
letting the Bush tax cuts expire and technology changes. This is
rediculous, we can't pay for Medicare/Medicade/Soc Security and all of a
sudden we can pay for universal health care? How gullible does one have to
be? No to mention other universal healthcare countries like Canada and the
UK are having huge problems.
>
>>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.

Not at all, I think they are great, but an individual has a responsibility
to pay for these things himself. I think eating steak and lobster every
night is good, having breakfast in bed good, but I don't expect the govt to
pay for it.
>
>>>>... 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.

Yes, and what did God do ... he helped people. Also people do 'potentially'
benefit from these programs, but the tax burden falls more heavily on the
wealthy ... sometimes people vote for a living.
How free are a people that are dependent on the govt ... isn't that
exchanging one master for another?

>>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.

Are you saying because of this (they make almost nothing) they are entitled
to the money of people who make more money?

>>>>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?

What I meant is they could know the answer and then make the definition to
fit the answer ... some science huh?

>>>>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.

On the contrary, I think you are a Christian. I don't expect people to
believe as I believe either.

>>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.

Do you think Christianity would have been around today without a Bible?
There is wisdom, IMO, in the Bible even if one is a non believer.

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

No, neithter do I think kids should not be corrected when they do wrong.
>
>>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).

I don't know ... most things, IMO, can go back to Bible teaching ... of
course different people can get different answers from the Bible.
>
> lojbab