alt.education

"Joe Irvin" wrote:
>"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.

He was right. Not about the timeline, but about the eventual result
if population continues to increase.

>By 2000 there was suppose to be mass starvation because of shortages ...

Darfur, Ethiopia, North Korea. Meanwhile, you are arguing a different
issue. Food is a renewable resource. Coal and oil aren't. Fresh
water is in between. We know how to make it in quantity, but the ways
that we know of to do so will use energy primarily from coal and oil.

>we have some starvation not because lack of resources but govt corruption and
>inefficiency ...

Yeah, yeah. Always an excuse for anything - just blame it on the
government. Keeps you from having to take responsibility.

>>>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.

Yep. With or without the oceans, there is X amount of oil. We are
using it up. Sooner or later it will be gone. If there is some
hidden under the ocean, it might be a little later, but it will still
come.

>In the 70's I remember people saying we were running out of oil.

We were. We still are. Only now we are more dependent on the good
will of other countries that are feeling very little good will towards
us.

>That same statement could have been made in 1870.

It was true in 1870 as well, only much further off.

>Yet we still have oil and new discoveries.

There is a limit to what can be discovered, and when we stop
discovering it, we'll go try in a big hurry, if we keep growing in
population.

Meanwhile, I hope you enjoy your local town with 5 or 10 times the
population it has now.

>> 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 ...

You are one of the Luddites. You cling to the idea of unlimited
resources.

>technology is our best bet rather than going the other way via the Kyoto treaty.

changing the subject again.

>>>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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager
< proposed wager were not critical indicators and said so at the
< time.... They emphasized that the depletion of so-called renewable
< resources--environmental resources such as soils, forests, species
< diversity, and groundwater--is much more indicative of the
< deteriorating state of society's life-support systems....Nonetheless,
< after consulting with many colleagues, Paul and Berkeley physicists
< John Harte and John Holdren accepted Simon's challenge in late
< 1980..."[1]

...
< climatologist Stephen Schneider counter-offered, challenging Simon to
< bet on 15 current trends, betting $1000 that each will get worse (as
< in the previous wager) over a ten year future period.[

>He was the authority, or so he
>wanted everyone to think. He lost. What are we running out of?

Space, among other things. I doin't agree with the anti-immigration
fanatics much, but the country will be a lot less comfortable with
twice as many people as there are today. Which of course will
eventually happen if we keep growing, even if we stop immigration.

>> 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.

[yawn]

>States are capable of working things out ...

No reason to believe states are any more competent than the Fed. They
are still "government". If "government" is the problem, it wouldn't
matter whether it was state or Federal or the local dogcatcher.

>>>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.

No. It is your misunderstanding of what they say. The next
generation might be half the size of the current one, but because
multiple generations are alive at once, the population doesn't change
that fast.

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.

No. It has a population benefit. That is one country that isn't
becoming more overcrowded (it already has three times the population
density of the United States - if it has a "population problem" it is
one the United States would face with a billion people living here.

Italy has more than twice the population density of Spain. Imagine
the US with 2.4 billion people. Even Bulgaria has more than twice our
population. If they do lose half their people, it will STILL be more
crowded than this country is.

But then maybe you consider being a sardine to be a good thing.

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

Why is its native population privileged? We didn't respect the native
population of this country. If you want the world to keep growing in
population, you'd better forget about national borders, because only
mass murder will stop them from coming and thou shalt not kill.

>> 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? ...

Nope.

>immigrants that don't believe in Western culture ...

What is so special about "Western culture"?

>sharia law?

No worse than fundamentalist Christian law would be.

>I see it as a potential big problem if things aren't turned around.

You would.

>> For one generation. Then their kids are part of the native
>> population.
>
>Not if they don't blend in and accept western style culture

The sources I provided say that they follow the native practice of
having fewer kids. That is the ONLY relevant "culture" issue if we
are talking about demographics.

>which they don't seem to be doing in France and the UK ...

Because they don't because areligious like most of Europe, you think
it is bad?

>native population accepts the native culture ...

Do they?

You don't seem to accept American culture. You keep railing about
immorality and big government. If you want our culture so badly, you
get all of it, including the immorality and the big government.

> there are problems because of this?

There are problems no matter what happens.

>>>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

That is not what the poll means.

The question of Sharia law just came up in the last week, and the
Archbishop of Canterbury SUPPORTS the institution of Sharia law for
Moslems. He knows that it is not a threat to his religion and
culture, but it is a basic part of their human rights.

>... there is difference. To 'respect' Muslim culture should the UK live
>under sharia law?

The Moslems there should be able to if they wish.

Maybe you should learn something about the issue before fearmongering.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/02/the_archbishop_of_canterbury_w.html
Sharia law is unequivocally clear that Muslims who live as minorities
in non-Muslim majority communities are required to abide by the law
of the land. That doesn't prevent British Muslims from practicing
aspects of Sharia that don't conflict with British law, or from
seeking changes in British 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 do.

>they hate the west ...

In your ignorant opinion.

>remember we are the devils.

Only to the fundamentalists.

>Do you think in the 60% of the Brit Muslims are all fundamentalists?

No. Which is why Sharia isn't a threat.

Only fundamentalists, including Christian ones, are a threat to the
rest of us.

>>>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?

Because ignorant xenophobia is not a virtue.

>I think Western culture of equality is superior to Muslim culture.

I don't think you know much about either culture.

>> 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.

Doesn't matter. The Federal government isn't the church, and it isn't
God.

>>>>>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???

That was only part of it.

>Can you cite where starvation was a big problem in the US.

Starvation isn't the issue. Very few people die directly from
starvation. They instead die from increased susceptibility to
disease.

>>>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.

Cite the percentage of government welfare programs that is lost to
scams.

Hint: AFDC, which was eliminated by Clinton's welfare reform, had a
fraud rate of around 2%. Which is almost exactly the same fraud rate
found in private enterprise in this country.

>No, I didn't say the high costs were due to scams. Only that scams are
>inherent in these big programs.

Scams are inherent in life. There is no evidence that the scams in
welfare are any worse than in any other form of economic activity.

>Whether they are scams or not these programs should be paid for and not run deficits.

Then we should raise taxes until the budget is balanced. I support
that.

>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.

Well, her husband did a damn sight better than the Bushman on
balancing the budget and paying for the benefits that "we the people"
want (which include welfare).

>This is rediculous, we can't pay for Medicare/Medicade/Soc Security and all of a
>sudden we can pay for universal health care?

Universal health care would cost less than what it now costs. With
universal health care, people without insurance coverage wouldn't be
clogging up emergency rooms with non-emergency health care, which the
hospitals then charge YOUR insurance company for.

>How gullible does one have to
>be? No to mention other universal healthcare countries like Canada and the
>UK are having huge problems.

Not compared to the ones we have.

>>>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.

Good. Have two kids, and then pay for them to go to school at $10K a
year each, while still in your 20s which is when you are likely to
have kids.

If people had to pay full price for their kids, then we'd have a
bigger demographic crisis than Bulgaria, because *everyone* would have
abortions (except the fundies, who would have to practice abstinence
all their life).

>>>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.

Did He? Not with the tithe money. God doesn't need money to help
people.

>How free are a people that are dependent on the govt ...

As free as they want to be. No one is forcing you to accept
government benefits. You can pay for private schooling if you want.

>isn't that exchanging one master for another?

In our system, "we the people" are the masters.

>>>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?

Yep. "We the people" said so. No one is 'entitled' to "make more
money"

>> 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?

That isn't how science works.

>> 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?

For the first 300 years there was no Bible. For the next 1400 years,
there was a Bible, but only priests and a small number of others
literate in church Latin could read it.

>> 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.

If you believe that the Bible tells us what is moral, then you have to
stone your kids to death for being insolent. If the Bible is the word
of God and not the words of men, then you cannot pick and choose which
parts of the law are "real".


Homosexuality is an abomination, but so is eating seafood. There is
no Biblical evidence that one is worse than the other. If the Bible
is an absolute standard of morality, then both are equally sinful.


lojbab