Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Ronnn! Religion is a crutch. Surprise!!! I replied: Crutch? I believe the phrase you were looking for is, useful tool. Erik responded: A crutch is only a useful tool if part(s) of your body is disabled. In depression, part of the normal chemical processing of the brain *is* disabled. One common category of drugs used to treat depression is SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors). Normally, a neuron sends a chemical signal to another neuron in part by releasing serotonin. Some of that serotonin is taken up by the receiving neuron, and some is reabsorbed into the sending neuron. In some depressed people, the sending neuron reabsorbs or re-uptakes too much of that serotonin, and SSRIs are a useful chemical tool to reduce the amount of serotonin that can be reabsorbed. The article said that religion is another useful tool in fighting depression. Reggie Bautista _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Extremist Thugs Respond to Supreme Court Ruling
http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=2id=3490 Extremist Thugs Respond to Supreme Court Ruling Posted by spatula on Jun. 27, 2003 The arrival of the stupidity is at hand. Here's what the country's extremist thugs are saying about today's Supreme Court ruling kicking the state out of the bedroom... Earlier in the week, this site predicted that no matter the outcome of Lawrence and Garner v Texas, there would be no shortage of stupidity to follow. That prediction has come true. (Though, really, that wasn't really much of a prediction, was it?) The sky is falling and traditional families find themselves falling apart at a molecular level, reverting to ions and random subatomic particles, quarks and mesons. Society has plunged into chaos, complete with wailing and gnashing of teeth. Giant winged monkies are looting the villages. Or at least, that's the picture painted by the religious extremist thug organizations, now acting like their anthill has been stomped upon. On my way home this afternoon, I was treated to Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition actually screaming about the ruling. Of course, had the ruling gone the other way, I'd probably have been screaming. It was amusing no less. In their press release, the TVC claims the ruling is a defeat for public morality and America's families because you know that the state's presense in our bedrooms is important American Family business! Sheldon complains that Millions of dollars are spent each year to deal with AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases contracted through homosexual sodomy and thinks this is justification for a discriminatory law. Lou Sheldon, this is your wakeup call: AIDS DOESN'T CARE . This excuse for discriminatory laws is invalid, since homosexual sodomy is not now nor ever was the exclusive transmission vector of HIV. Further, the law does not distinguish between homosexual sodomy between consenting STD-free adults and between adults where one or both partners has a disease. This argument holds no water, and the courts agreed. The Family Research Council had this to say in their press release: Once again judicial activists have used their fertile imagination to create rights that simply don't exist in the Constitution. Never mind those decades of caselaw affirming the right to privacy in sexual matters. Never mind the Fourteenth Amendment. Clearly nobody at the Family Research Council is doing anything one might call Research or they'd know about things like Roe v Wade, Griswold v Connecticut, Romer v Evans, and others. In doing so, they have imposed their own moral judgments in place of state legislatures and have thereby undermined the democratic process. No, they've done their duty as required by the Constitution. Why have a Supreme Court at all if all laws are not to be subject to review and striking down if they're bad laws? Unelected warriors wearing black robes become the chief architects of public policy. Perhaps the FRC would rather they were elected, so the FRC could attempt to lobby them with money, gifts, and promises of power? That is, after all, why the justices are not elected; the framers wanted the Supreme Court to be impartial, not owing anybody any favors. The only policy they've acted on here is sound Constitutional policy. Focus on the Family, which claims it isn't a political organization, had this to say about the decision: With today's decision the court continues pillaging its way through the moral norms of our country. If the people have no right to regulate sexuality then ultimately the institution of marriage is in peril, and with it, the welfare of the coming generations of children. Oh what a world, what a world! For the children and marriage UNDER GOD! They continue, While it may feel good to some that a stigma is lifted from a particular group, something else has been lifted the boundaries that prevent sexual chaos in our culture. In recent years we have seen a sharp rise in unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and heartbreak of every kind. Sexual chaos? Sexual chaos? Do they mean that scene in Lukas' Story II? Can someone tell me when gay sex or sodomy in general started causing unwanted pregnancies? The Concerned Women for America really took the gloves off with their raging gay hate press release with spokeswoman (?) Jan LaRue saying, If there's no rational basis for prohibiting same-sex sodomy by consenting adults, then state laws prohibiting prostitution, adultery, bigamy, and incest are at risk. What's your point, Jan? She went on, apparently intent upon showing us how out of touch with reality she is saying, Six lawyers robed in black have magically discovered a right of privacy that includes sexual perversion. Robed in BLACK! They're a COVEN I tell you! And worse, they're LAWYERS! Lawyers who used MAGIC to discover the CONSTITUTION. OH, what a world! Concerned Woman Robert Knight added, This ruling means that schoolchildren will be taught that
Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 04:09:39AM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Ronnn! Religion is a crutch. Surprise!!! I replied: Crutch? I believe the phrase you were looking for is, useful tool. Erik responded: A crutch is only a useful tool if part(s) of your body is disabled. In depression, part of the normal chemical processing of the brain *is* disabled. Good, that was the point. Another thing about crutches is that they are usually temporary -- they are discarded when the injury is cured. (If the injury is uncurable, then the permanent tool used isn't usually called a crutch) It is also worth noting that the usefulness of such a crutch is limited if the user becomes addicted to it. Then one simply replaces one disability with another. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Strine
Have any of youse septic blokes or shielas come across instances of ridgy didge use of strine? http://minirich.twoday.net/stories/8088/ BUGGER! Strine -- Australian slang -- is invading American speech, says Tom Dalzell, the author of two books on U.S. slang. Thanks to more Australian movies and TV shows becoming hits in America, not to mention the 2000 Olympics, terms such as no worries, agro (aggravated), walkabout and crikey (exclamation of surprise) are being heard in the States more frequently. (Brisbane Courier-Mail) ...That's shonky! If that drongo thinks the trend is new, he's berko. Ooroo, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question Regarding Religion and Atheism
Reggie Bautista wrote: Doug wrote: Or a phenomenon that is beyond our understanding, but in fact has a logical explanation? I replied: Hypothetical situation: At some point in the future, God reveals him/her/itself in an unambiguous, empirically testable way. If that is going to eventually happen, then right now some religious phenomena would qualify as being beyond our current understanding but in fact would have logical explanations, no? Doug responded: What phenomenon and what makes it religious? Whichever religious phenomonon you were talking about in your original email. Sorry, I've been busy and missed your reply. We were discussing Ronn's prescience, (I think). From what I could tell, there was nothing particularly religious about his experiences other than the fact that he was having them. This is an assumption on my part though, as he did not describe his experiences in any detail. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:38:25 -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Ronnn! Religion is a crutch. Surprise!!! Crutch? I believe the phrase you were looking for is, useful tool. I don't find fear, myth and delusion to be useful tools. Lasting solutions are found in the real world. Concepts such as community and purpose can help depression. Religion arrives at these somewhat dishonestly IMO. No solution based on a lie will be successful in the long term. Dean ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 28 Days Later
Erik Reuter wrote: 28 days after the release of the virus, London is a virtual ghost-town by day. Sounds like _Lifeforce_ without Mathilda May. Bah Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scouted: 10 facts about plastic everyone should know...
Industry propaganda or environmental fact? http://www.apme.org/dashboard/presentation_layer_htm/dashboard.asp Ticia ',:) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:46:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: OK, so what is the meaning of the word ought? For example, that a man ought not to torture, rape, and kill a 5 year old girl. It is simply that his desire to do so conflicts with your desire to have him not do so? At some level, yes. But all moralities aren't created equal. Some are clearly better than others, in that some will almost surely lead to a society that almost no one would want to live in. If everyone went around indiscriminately hurting or killing each other, it would be an awful world indeed. Also, some moralities are parasitic, in that if everyone followed those morals, the desired result would not obtain -- in other words, these moralities are only desirable to someone if the majority do not follow the same morals. This can make for an interesting game theory problem, but in general the golden rule strategy is frequently the best game theory tactic. The whole thing is a meme competition, and it seems to me that the meme that provides the most pleasantness for the most number of people is likely to win. Of course, plesantness is subjective, but since humans share a lot of the same genetic heritage and similar environments, most of us will have similar enough definitions to have compatible morals. What I am getting at is that most people explicitly or implicitly have understandings of universals when they discuss things like human rights, morality, etc. But they aren't really universal, are they? The origin is mostly the result of shared genetics and environment, logical thought, and rational extrapolation. And of course, self-perpetuating memes arising from those causes, since many people do not think these things through but rather do as they were taught or indoctrinated. The criterion for every decision is what's in it for me? As you have presented it, this is a short-sighted philosophy. As I alluded to above, if EVERYONE followed such a philosophy, then life would be miserable for everyone. If instead, some people followed a what's in it for me strategy rationally, extrapolating what would happen if it became universal, then they would NOT act in short-sightedly selfish ways, since in the long-run it is NOT in their best interests. Many things cannot be accomplished efficiently alone -- cooperation is frequently the best strategy to achieve a goal. Competition and greed are strong motivators, but if there isn't also a strong degree of cooperation (teamwork, fairness, rule of law, etc.) then progress will be agonizingly slow. You are willing to sacrifice your own direct interest to help others. Yes, but usually because I believe it is in my own long-term direct interest, and when it is ambiguous, I tend to err on the side of cooperation rather than competition (in case some others are following a strict tit-for-tat strategy, it is better for me to err on the cooperative side). Human progress is NOT a zero-sum game -- the pie can be greatly enlarged by cooperation. Best for whom? If not for you, why bother? You see, I'm guessing that there are assumptions by which you judged Bank's world. But it IS best for me, long-term. Maybe I will live forever and see it. But you are right, there is another assumption: it is not a white and black, Culture good, not-quite-Culture bad world. Taking steps closer towards that world is better for me, even if it isn't completely obtainable in my lifetime. But, its really that one assumption that is critical. Agreed. Mine basis for morality is religious, and its that humans are created in the image and likeness of God, and must be treated in a manner that is consistent with this. Human rights, the Golden Rule, etc. all flow from this postulate as theorems. So, my assumption is also quite simple. No, it is NOT so simple. William already replied to that: Even if man is 'created in the image and likeness of God' that says nothing about how men should treat each others without an additional assumption that 'those created in the image and likeness of God must be treated in such and such ways'. So you might as well ditch the 'image and likeness of God' part and go directly to the 'must be treated in such and such ways' part. God is a redundant assumption that adds nothing to the line of argument. I would add that although the concept of god IS redundant to that argument, it may have been useful in persuading people to the 'must be treated in such and such ways' point of view. But I question its usefulness for that purpose today in places where we are enlightened enough not to need fear and superpower to motivate and comfort us. Are we not mature enough to persuade people to morality by honest argument, trusting them to make their choices with their eyes open, rather than tricking them into believing in fairy tales and fearing boogey-men? This, IMHO, makes morality somewhat moot. It makes no more sense saying a man ought not to kill another man in
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On 29 Jun 2003 at 14:02, Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:46:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Mine basis for morality is religious, and its that humans are created in the image and likeness of God, and must be treated in a manner that is consistent with this. Human rights, the Golden Rule, etc. all flow from this postulate as theorems. So, my assumption is also quite simple. No, it is NOT so simple. William already replied to that: Even if man is 'created in the image and likeness of God' that says nothing about how men should treat each others without an additional assumption that 'those created in the image and likeness of God must be treated in such and such ways'. So you might as well ditch the 'image and likeness of God' part and go directly to the 'must be treated in such and such ways' part. God is a redundant assumption that adds nothing to the line of argument. I would add that although the concept of god IS redundant to that argument, it may have been useful in persuading people to the 'must be treated in such and such ways' point of view. But I question its usefulness for that purpose today in places where we are enlightened enough not to need fear and superpower to motivate and comfort us. Are we not mature enough to persuade people to morality by honest argument, trusting them to make their choices with their eyes open, rather than tricking them into believing in fairy tales and fearing boogey-men? Sorry, I'm with Heinlien on this one - Man has no inherent moral sense. Genes allways cause selfish behavoir. The memes (remembering that memes can be selfish or altruistic) for society are a crious mix of altruism and selfishness, and the interplay of them is what defines conventional morality within a society. I honestly don't care if someone reaches a set of values via secular or religious means. I only care with what I have to deal. Also, absolute Intollerance of any kind of beliefs which are generally accepted in society looks just the same to me - fanaticism. Which is dangerous. (how it is dangerous and what it is dangerous TO is another issue, but basically it's corrosive to the core memes of society as praticed today. Today's society is a very fragile construct which is running on inertia - and out of time) Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
Erik Reuter wrote: Good, that was the point. Another thing about crutches is that they are usually temporary -- they are discarded when the injury is cured. (If the injury is uncurable, then the permanent tool used isn't usually called a crutch) It is also worth noting that the usefulness of such a crutch is limited if the user becomes addicted to it. Then one simply replaces one disability with another. You are arguing from the assumption that religion's *only* role is to be a crutch. Religion's crutch effect in regards to depression is most likely simply a side effect of intrinsically motivated religiousness, and is certainly not the main reason people have spiritual beliefs. In fact, according to the article, if you try to become religious just to fight depression, the study would define you as having extrinsically motivated religiousness, which was defined in part as This is what this religion can do for me. That isn't to say, of course, that depression can't lead people to intrinsically motivated religiousness, or following a set of spiritual or religious beliefs because of a sincere belief that doing so is correct as the article puts it. Reggie Bautista _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Names, was Another ultrasound
From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course, most telemarketers these days don't say Mr. Cleaver at all: they say, Hello, may I speak to Ward? I'd like to be able to say that this is the first time I've ever heard this joke... But I can't. grin I will not have anyone calling my son the Beav! - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Top 10 Punchlines to Science Fiction Dirty Jokes (Top5Science Fiction - 6/27/03)
== You mean... *fluid transfer*? TOPFIVE.COM'S LITTLE FIVERS -- SCIENCE FICTION http://www.topfive.com/fivers.shtml == June 27, 2003 The Top 10 Punchlines to Science Fiction Dirty Jokes 10 Nga'chuq! 9 'Done in a Flash Gordon' is more like it. 8 There are skid marks in front of the tribble. 7 A Bantha fell in the mud! 6 You're a mean drunk, Q. 5 Well, it's certainly small enough to be nanotech! 4 Well that's because Klingons are ribbed for her pleasure! 3 She's no Wookiee, she's a pro! 2 'Your Precious' or not, I'm pretty sure that's not where you're supposed to wear it. and the Number 1 Punchline to a Science Fiction Dirty Joke... 1 Klingon? Boy, did she ever! [ Copyright 2003 by Chris White] [ http://www.topfive.com ] == Selected from 33 submissions from 9 contributors. Today's Top 5 List authors are: -- Steven Shehori, Toronto, Canada -- 1 (Woohoo!) Blake Taylor, Ogden, UT -- 2 Rabbi Crut, Bowling Green, OH -- 3, 4, 9 (Hat trick!) Steve Thomas, Atlanta, GA -- 5, 10 Arthur Levesque, Laurel, MD -- 6, 8 Kevin Hogarty, Bedford, PA -- 7 Greg Preece, Toronto, Canada-- Dark Lord of the Sith -- Punchlines to Science Fiction Dirty Jokes RUNNERS UP list -- 25 Credits, Same as in Mos Eisley -- So the Klingon says, Honor? I hardly know her! (Steve Thomas, Atlanta, GA) And that collection of toys she called Deep Space 9. (Rabbi Crut, Bowling Green, OH) That's odd, I know I had three when I came in here (Fran Fruit, Winnetka, IL) So that telepaths can hate them too! (Arthur Levesque, Laurel, MD) Uranus! (Kevin Hogarty, Bedford, PA) I don't know who the other two guys are, but the one in the middle is a tribble! (Brad Wilkerson, Mesa, AZ) -- Punchlines to Science Fiction Dirty Jokes HONORABLE MENTION list -- Attack Of the Groans -- For measly five dollars -- what you get -- am I. Vaseline need you shall, ? (Guy Payne, Birmingham, AL) So the Ferengi says, 'If you think that was good, wait until I get both legs in!' (Brad Wilkerson, Mesa, AZ) ... and if my time machine were working, I would be my own great-grandfather! (Steve Thomas, Atlanta, GA) Not being a Klingon in the first place! (Arthur Levesque, Laurel, MD) == [ TOPFIVE.COM'S LITTLE FIVERS ] [Top 10 lists on a variety of subjects ] [ http://www.topfive.com ] == [ Copyright 2003 by Chris White All rights reserved. ] [ Do not forward, publish, broadcast, or use ] [ in any manner without crediting TopFive.com ] == [ To complain to the moderator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [ Have friends who might like to subscribe to this list? ] [ Refer them to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] == ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the truisms that has been accepted by me, and others, is that the US ecconomy has been growing faster than Europe's, and that this reflects the advantages of less governmental control of the ecconomy. Dan: In the past, you have expresed your disdain for economics and economists as unscientific because you consider economic unsuitable for producing predictions. Yet, you have now used economics to produce a prediction - namely that the relationship between government intervention in an economy and economic growth can be described as a curve, and moreover, that the Europeans are at a higher point on the curve than the US. Thus, it seems we have a contradiction from you. So, do you choose to stand by your claim that economics not a science or do you wish to stand by your predictions? :) Your choice. :) JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yeah, but out real motto should be: We have healthy demographics, while Europe (with the exception of Britain) is about to go down the toilet because of the age of its population. Having just spent the last week or so furiously studying worldwide demographics, the situation for Europe is, to put it mildly, catastrophic. If only those countries, many of which were once heavily Catholic, had listened to the Church's teachings on the blessins of children. John D. (Well, the teaching on contraception might have had the same effect, but at least the above teaching puts a positive spin on at least desiring to have your 2.X children you are supposed to in order to maintain the replacement rate...) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: America's demographics aren't so hot either, just not as bad as Europe's. But that isn't anything to be happy about. Which, by the way, is a very good thing. As our population ages and our health and abilities in old age increase, it is a very good thing to encourage our elderly to continue to support our nation's GDP. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Ronnn! Religion is a crutch. Surprise!!! Its amazing that so many messages have been devoted to dissecting what [EMAIL PROTECTED] precisely meant by this insult. Of course, there's only one thing you need to know about this comment - the count of Brin-L atheists who are unable to discuss religion with a modicum of basic civillity has now reached at least four. JDG - You atheists are really doing yourselves proud here. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
At 03:18 PM 6/29/2003 -0400, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Ronnn! Religion is a crutch. Surprise!!! Its amazing that so many messages have been devoted to dissecting what [EMAIL PROTECTED] precisely meant by this insult. Of course, there's only one thing you need to know about this comment - the count of Brin-L atheists who are unable to discuss religion with a modicum of basic civillity has now reached at least four. JDG - You atheists are really doing yourselves proud here. Just so you count me as a non-religious person in anyway shape or form as one who is civil. Kevin T. - VRWC Does not talking about it count? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Secondly, it's being revised at the moment. According to _The Economist_, France and others succeeding in putting the kabosh on that, getting a moratorium on reforms until 2005 or 2006 passed. We'll see how serious they are about reform. George W. Bush is currently having our trade representative argue for a world-wide liberalizing of trade in agricultural goods, and a joint removal of subsidies - so as to permit the poorest farmers of the world sell their agricultural goods to us competitively. I can only hope that Europe won't stand in the way of this. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: this might be an interesting article
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Russell Chapman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kind of the opposite of a Catholic Mass. Actually, there are charismatic Catholic Masses. I think that they are a lot of fun, actually. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
Of course, there's only one thing you need to know about this comment - the count of Brin-L atheists who are unable to discuss religion with a modicum of basic civillity has now reached at least four. JDG - You atheists are really doing yourselves proud here. I see. Criticizing an idea the JDG believes in makes one uncivil. There must be a lot of uncivil people in JDG's world. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
I cut pasted a bit: Ronn! posted (from article): Other findings revolved around the distinction between what the researchers called intrinsically and extrinsically motivated religiousness. Intrinsic motivation means practicing religion for religion's sake -- praying, meditating and serving because of a sincere belief that doing so is correct. Extrinsically motivated people practice religion for social reasons -- they see church as a chance to build non-faith-based social networks or think, This is what religion can do for me --- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Ronnn! Religion is a crutch. Surprise!!! I replied: Crutch? I believe the phrase you were looking for is, useful tool. Erik responded: A crutch is only a useful tool if part(s) of your body is disabled. In depression, part of the normal chemical processing of the brain *is* disabled. One common category of drugs used to treat depression is SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors)...snip ...and SSRIs are a useful chemical tool to reduce the amount of serotonin that can be reabsorbed. The article said that religion is another useful tool in fighting depression. I'm going to home in on that idea from another angle. To borrow from Chad's idea that spirituality, which involves the experience of numinous moments (sorry, I forget who to credit with that phrase), is enabled by (a) specific gene(s), it may be that having these genes confers some protection from depression. We know that depression has a genetic component, with of course a large influence by environment/nurture; we also know that individuals with a high connectivity factor, which in studies includes a supportive circle of family/friends, volunteerism, significant spiritual or religious activity, active social life etc., suffer less from depression. In an earlier post I linked connectivity with spirituality, but I do not think they are ennabled by the same hypothetical (or theoretical, if you prefer - I'm not looking for a semantics brou-ha-ha here! ;} ) gene(s), although they might be in close proximity (on the actual chromosome), as they do seem to be linked, frequently. So what the article calls intrinsically motivated religiousness I'd guess involves the presence of 'spirituality' genes. BTW, I think the genetic component idea makes a lot of sense; just as someone who has red/green color blindness *cannot* experience those particular colors as most of us do, someone without the 'spirituality' gene(s) cannot experience 'numinous moments' (or maybe with enhancement i.e. drugs/fasting they can, at least a little), and someone without the 'connectedness' gene(s) cannot feel 'universal oneness.' Evidence for the huge effect of nurture (or rather, lack thereof) on 'connectivity' exists in the clinical syndrome of attachment disorder. Debbi Storm And Sunlight Outside My Window As I Write Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Strine
--- Ray Ludenia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have any of youse septic blokes or shielas come across instances of ridgy didge use of strine? http://minirich.twoday.net/stories/8088/ BUGGER! Strine -- Australian slang -- is invading American speech...snip..terms such as no worries, agro (aggravated), walkabout and crikey (exclamation of surprise) are being heard in the States more frequently. grin I think you can credit Crocodile Hunter for the sudden jump in crikey! Stateside, as in: Crikey! This snake is mad now! Don't try this at home, kids! copperhead writhing wildly in his hands, head darting at his bare legs... Annoying Yet Perversely Fascinating Show Maru ~:~ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
On Sunday, June 29, 2003, at 08:18 pm, John D. Giorgis wrote: snip Don't feed the troll. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snippage Sorry, I'm with Heinlien on this one - Man has no inherent moral sense. Genes allways cause selfish behavoir. The memes (remembering that memes can be selfish or altruistic) for society are a crious mix of altruism and selfishness, and the interplay of them is what defines conventional morality within a society. snip Well, _I'm_ not, an' I'm not sorry neither! ;) serious Humans, and their primate cousins, and indeed many if not all social animals, have genetically enabled (if not determined, because so many behaviors are influenced by environment and learning) behaviors that we could label moral or kind or altruistic. While I agree that *most* intrinsic behaviors are designed ultimately to improve the chances of successful reproduction, some certainly are not. In this latter category are behaviors such as defending non-related individuals - who are not potential mates - from predators (sometimes the defendents are not even the same species), and caring for non-related or seriously injured young, which diverts precious time and energy from one's own offspring. The extreme example given earlier was raping a 5-year-old child; this is reproductively immoral behavior because it cannot result in progeny, and may prevent said child from becoming a potential mate if in the process of the rape it is killed. In a social group, it may result in the death of the perpetrator at the hands of the child's relatives. Personality traits such as 'shyness' or 'aggression' appear by current research to have a genetic component; certainly we have bred domestic animals for enhancement of desired behaviors. That behaviors or traits we label moral are influenced by genetic factors seems logical - and I suspect as we continue to crack the code we will only find more supporting evidence. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If only those countries, many of which were once heavily Catholic, had listened to the Church's teachings on the blessins of children. John D. Well, maybe. Given that the two countries in worst shape are Spain and Italy, probably the two most Catholic countries in Europe, it's hard to argue that Catholicism is helping here. They may not practice all that much in either country, but this started a generation ago when they definitely were practicing. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: America's demographics aren't so hot either, just not as bad as Europe's. But that isn't anything to be happy about. As William Bernstein puts it, a lot of retired Americans may be eating Alpo in 20 years. Probably a lot of people won't be able to retire. http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/103/hell4.htm I'm not in the least happy about it, but I'm not sure what you mean by not so hot. By 2050, the US's median age is going to go up by something like a year - to around 37, IIRC. That's pretty good. It's not _ideal_, but it's pretty good. Even more importantly, our problem is a matter of scratching along until things get better. My HS graduating class (1997, you old fogies - am I _still_ the youngest person on the list, for goodness sake? :-) for example, was the largest graduating class in US history, the first one larger than the largest of the baby boom. Every graduating class since mine has been larger still. If the US can hold things together from about 2030-2040, it will be fine - the Baby Boom Echo will be pouring into the workforce. Europe has no similar salvation waiting in the wings, and that's it's real problem. The US, I predict, will do what it always does - muddle on through by putting the problem off into the future. That's not in any way an ideal solution, but it will sort of kind of work in our case. Europe and Japan, by contrast, simply don't have that option, yet they don't seem to be taking any steps to fix the problem. All of this excluding England, of course, which _has_ fixed its pension problem, and at least has healthier demographics than the rest of Europe, if not as good as the US. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: America's demographics aren't so hot either, just not as bad as Europe's. But that isn't anything to be happy about. As William Bernstein puts it, a lot of retired Americans may be eating Alpo in 20 years. Probably a lot of people won't be able to retire. http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/103/hell4.html I should add one more thing - I've looked at the article, and I don't agree, but the data I'm basing that disagreement on is largely proprietary (not to my company) so I can't use it in this discussion :-( If you wait 1 year, there will be some articles and maybe a book in the mass media that discuss it some more. Look for my name very, very, very, very deep in the footnotes. But I would point you towards: http://www.deam-europe.com/pension_reforms/documents/demographics_30october2000.pdf and http://www.ced.uab.es/jperez/PDFs/GoldmanSachs.pdf Both of which are very good on the capital market implications. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 05:33:59PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/103/hell4.htm I'm not in the least happy about it, but I'm not sure what you mean by not so hot. I mean we are going to have some problems in 20-30 years, as summarized in the link I provided. If the US can hold things together from about 2030-2040, it will be fine - the Baby Boom Echo will be pouring into the workforce Agreed. But the economy isn't likely to be strong during 2020-2040. I think a depression (little or no growth, poverty, very low wages or high unemployment) is likely. That is what I mean by not so hot. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 05:42:08PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: I should add one more thing - I've looked at the article, and I don't agree, but the data I'm basing that disagreement on is largely proprietary Specifically what do you disagree with? The argument is fairly simple. Their IS an age wave nearing (traditional) retirement, surely you don't dispute that? What do YOU think will happen when they start selling all of their stocks and bonds to support their consumption in retirement? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
O'Connor's Court.... and America
And here are the most startling statistics that emerge from the final list of the justices voting patterns: Number of 5-4 opinions: 13. Number of 5-4 opinions in which Justice O'Connor is in the majority: 13. N umber of dissenting opinions by Justice O'Connor: 0. Dahlia Lithwick comments: I couldn't agree more that Justice O'Connor is the lynchpin as far as the current court is concerned, and the primary reason for the amazing turn of events this week. It's incredibly telling that she sided one way in each of the two Michigan cases, even where... it's ultimately very hard to reconcile the two, except in very cosmetic ways. While the statistics you cite are indeed intriguing, it's worth recalling that this is a pattern that's been holding fast for several years now: O'Connor as decisive fifth vote, O'Connor never being on the losing end of a case, O'Connor never authoring a dissent, O'Connor concurring in the holding but on narrower grounds. It's been said (and said, and said) that Sandra Day O'Connor is the most powerful woman in America. I think we're only just starting to see why. O'Connor isn't merely the moderate fulcrum on a court that is otherwise pretty consistently polarized 4-4. She is also the justice willing to write the narrowest opinion, frequently confining her holding to the facts of the case. In this way she can almost always find 4 votes that share her viewpoint, if not her reasoning, without signing off on their broad principles of law. O'Connor is often criticized for this narrowness of scope: She wants to see fairness and justice done in each case, more than she worries about creating an elegant structure of precedent for future courts to follow. And because she is so extraordinarily placed right now, she is able to turn whole bodies of law into the law of Sandy Says. For instance, O'Connor changed the Roe v. Wade test for permissible abortions into her own undue burden test. Now states can regulate abortion, so long as such regulations do not unduly burden the mother. Who's to say what's an undue burden? Sandy says. O'Connor's created the same unknowable test for affirmative action with her decision in the Michigan case: Now schools can use race to achieve a critical mass of diversity in a class. Who's to say what constitutes a critical mass? Or what is a permissible use of race to achieve it? Sandy says. Moreover, in the same case O'Connor announced that affirmative action programs should sunset away in the future. But who's to say when the world will be sufficiently diversified? Sandy says. You have long contended, and I have always agreed, that the trick of the Rehnquist court is that they are not necessarily for states rights, or for Congress, or for the individual, per se. They are for their own power to pick and choose which of the above institutions they will privilege on any given day. It seems O'Connor does that both as a member of the court, but also on a micro-level: She picks and chooses which cases, which causes, and which plaintiffs will be bestowed with her unique brand of justice, and she chooses the yardstick by which justice will be measured. Then she yanks the rest of the court around to her position. My guess is that to her mind this is precisely what judging is all about. And in some large biblical sense she is correct. But you can't help but sympathize with a Scalia, who sees rigid precepts and principles first and individual justice second (if that). O'Connor's disproportionate power must drive him insane. From: http://slate.msn.com/id/2084657/entry/2084711/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed. But the economy isn't likely to be strong during 2020-2040. I think a depression (little or no growth, poverty, very low wages or high unemployment) is likely. That is what I mean by not so hot. Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yeah, I'm just very skeptical. Most of the financial models I've seen suggest that the US capital markets (as opposed to those of Europe) are likely to, at worst, only slightly cash-flow negative, and even that for a short period of time. So while I would agree that a market slowdown is fairly probable, I don't think that a depression or anything like that is terribly likely. I would guess that global economic growth will transition towards the US/China/India, certainly. If India ever gets its act together and does serious reform that order might change to India/US/China, but I'm not immensely optimistic on that, sadly. Nonetheless, given intelligent reforms _now_ I don't see a depression as terribly likely (although the chance of intelligent reforms now is fairly small, since Social Security privatization has gone out the window and Europe seems to be in even worse shape), and even if they have to wait a few years, the shock shouldn't be catastrophic. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Specifically what do you disagree with? The argument is fairly simple. Their IS an age wave nearing (traditional) retirement, surely you don't dispute that? What do YOU think will happen when they start selling all of their stocks and bonds to support their consumption in retirement? Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, I think the empirical data that people do sell that much is actually a little shaky, for one, so I think that effect is overstated. Look at Japan, for example. Despite their rapid aging, they haven't actually seen a mass outflow of cash from their retirement savings system (which is the Japanese postal system, oddly enough, which pays absolutely miniscule interest rates and has well over a trillion dollars in assets, IIRC). Money is going to keep flowing into the market from other people as well. People are going to keep investing in their 401(k)s, and they will keep buying stocks. Take a look at the Goldman Sachs paper I posted a link to on capital market implications - I think the anlaytics there are pretty good, and it doesn't suggest that anything disastrous is going to happen to the American capital markets, at least. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
IMF chart appears to do some correction for labor force participation There are several types of people in economic statistics: 1) Non-workers (children, elderly, institutionalized, etc.) 2) Workers (includes both fully employed and under-employed) 3) Unemployed (these people are looking for work but cannot find it) 4) Disgruntled (these people have had so little luck finding a job that they have given up altogether, and now simply collect charity and welfare checks) The labor force participation rate is either (2+3)/population or else (2+3)/(2+3+4). That might clear up the discrepancy you are observing. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, maybe. Given that the two countries in worst shape are Spain and Italy, probably the two most Catholic countries in Europe, it's hard to argue that Catholicism is helping here. They may not practice all that much in either country, but this started a generation ago when they definitely were practicing. That would be an interesting correlation to run - Church Attendance vs. Birth Rate. I'd be surprised if the birth rate fell below the replacement level before Church Attendance started dropping precipitously. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be an interesting correlation to run - Church Attendance vs. Birth Rate. I'd be surprised if the birth rate fell below the replacement level before Church Attendance started dropping precipitously. JDG Well, it fell below replacement level only recently, but it started falling a long time ago. I believe that Mexico's population is starting to fall, actually, or will start to fall soon, so that might be a test case for you. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
Gautam Mukunda wrote: I'm not in the least happy about it, but I'm not sure what you mean by not so hot. By 2050, the US's median age is going to go up by something like a year - to around 37, IIRC. That's pretty good. It's not _ideal_, but it's pretty good. Isn't median age a fairly irrelevant indicator here - you could have massive changes in demographics without affecting median age. If the US has a big group of people at or near retirement age, plus retired people who aren't dying within 10 yrs of retirement as they used to, and this is offset by a larger child population (particularly as the immigrants have a higher birth rate than the anglo-saxons that make a majority of the work force), aren't you looking at only small increases in median age but massive increases in people outside the work force. ie a much smaller proportion of the population being productive? Even more importantly, our problem is a matter of scratching along until things get better. My HS graduating class (1997, you old fogies - am I _still_ the youngest person on the list, for goodness sake? :-) for example, was the largest graduating class in US history, Is that a function of population, or people finishing school? Is high school compulsory in the US? Either way, it's certainly going to improve the situation. If the US can hold things together from about 2030-2040, it will be fine - the Baby Boom Echo will be pouring into the workforce. Shouldn't the children of the baby boomers already be in the workforce? What echo are you looking at in 2030? Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of economic growth
--- Russell Chapman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't median age a fairly irrelevant indicator here - you could have massive changes in demographics without affecting median age. If the US has a big group of people at or near retirement age, plus retired people who aren't dying within 10 yrs of retirement as they used to, and this is offset by a larger child population (particularly as the immigrants have a higher birth rate than the anglo-saxons that make a majority of the work force), aren't you looking at only small increases in median age but massive increases in people outside the work force. ie a much smaller proportion of the population being productive? Yes, but that's not actually what the population profile looks like. I don't have a link to the graph close at hand, but it's a fairly smooth line, enough to make median age a first rule-of-thumb estimate. The dependent/worker ratio is more useful, but, also a lot more complicated. Is that a function of population, or people finishing school? Is high school compulsory in the US? Either way, it's certainly going to improve the situation. HS is effectively compulsory in the US (you can drop out at 16) - but in this case it's a function of population. If the US can hold things together from about 2030-2040, it will be fine - the Baby Boom Echo will be pouring into the workforce. Shouldn't the children of the baby boomers already be in the workforce? What echo are you looking at in 2030? Cheers Russell C. Sorry, that was phrased poorly. 2030-2040 are the crisis point (really earlier in that period) because of the combination of when people will be withdrawing the most from their accounts and the younger workers will be saving the least. In 2030 I will be 51 - just beginning my prime saving years, while the rest of the Echo will be younger still. By 2040 I will be 61, and at the peak of my saving years - and so pouring money into the capital markets at a rate that I can't currently manage. That's what I was referring to. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, it fell below replacement level only recently, but it started falling a long time ago. Well, for sure. Development is obviously going to cause the birth rate to fall - but to what level? To put it another way, imagine three possible societal birth rates. 1) The agricultural birth rate, where 5+ kids is the norm. (Perhaps it was once even higher?) 2) A sustainable birth rate, where 2-4 kids is the norm. 3) The catastrophe birth rate, where 0-1 kids is the norm. I suspect that for developed societies, there may be a correlation between religion and arriving at the 2nd Birth Rate vs. the 3rd Birth Rate. Speaking just in terms of Catholicism for a moment, Catholicism is a very pro-family religion. Married couples are *expected* to have children, and it is considered noble to devote yourself to sustaining a family and raising up the next generation. Thus, the primary unit of hapiness maximization in many cases is treated as the family. Secularism, however, is not nearly as pro-family. In particular, a hallmark of secularism is individualism - i.e. where one's one good is of primary importance. Children are often thought (pre- parenthood) to be an obstacle to one's own happiness. After all, they require a dramatic realtering of one's lifestyle, from how much one works to what sort of entertainment activities one pursues. Moreover, in this worldview, the primary hapiness maximization unit is the individual, and the family is simply a means to this end - and indeed, to the extent that the family interferes with individual happiness, it can be discarded. Thus, to me it seems entirely logical to see how the secular ideology can lead to the popularization of childless marriages - something which in the Catholic worldview is as much of an oxymoron as a dehydrated water bottle (infertile couples would naturally pursue adoption in the Catholic worldview). Moreover, the example of the Holy Family notwithstanding, the paragon of a Catholic family is almost always multiple children, and the phrase only child is not an entirely positive one - in contrast to the secular worldview where having just one child to love is very popular. Anyhow, I could be off-my-rocker on this, but it seems to me to be at least a plausible reason as to why America, with its stronger (albeit not necessarily Catholic) religious roots has arrived at birth rate #2, and Europe has arrrived at birth rate #3, despite our comparable levels of development. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyhow, I could be off-my-rocker on this, but it seems to me to be at least a plausible reason as to why America, with its stronger (albeit not necessarily Catholic) religious roots has arrived at birth rate #2, and Europe has arrrived at birth rate #3, despite our comparable levels of development. JDG I think that probably has something to do with it. My best guess, though, is that the main reason is that the US is just so much wealthier than other countries, even other industrialized countries. It's just incredibly expensive to have kids in a modern industrialized society. You can almost track birthrates to how expensive it is - except in the US, which has much less in the way of pro-family government policies to subsidize the cost, yet it still has a birthrate of about 2.0. My best guess is that Americans are sufficiently wealthier than people in other societies that they can afford to have more kids. That's just a guess. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 01:22:30AM -, iaamoac wrote: High unemployment would strike me very unlikely, since a large number of retirees will have a positive impact on demand. i.e. there will be more consumers of labor, and fewer suppliers. I don't see how this will produce high unemployment. Well, I think that few Americans will be willing to work enough to support the consumption of the retired baby boomers. A lot more jobs will move overseas where people are willing to work for peanuts. Moreover, Gautam's link, which projects population trends for the next 50 years, shows the US working age population (definied rather narrowly at ages 20-60 years) increasing steadly by about 30% from 2000 to 2050. That growth alone should preclude an outright prolonged contraction of GDP. You are neglecting the other side of the equation, consumption by non-workers. When the ratio of workers to non-workers goes from 4:1 (1990) to 1.5:1 (2050 est.), GDP will likely be affected. Actually, the Goldman-Sachs paper glosses over it a little, but they do mention that economic growth will be slower after 2010 for this reason. Indeed, in the long run, economic growth is primarily determined by growths in productivity. I would expect the pace of technological advancement to be unaffected by these demographics - which would also argue against a depression. Maybe. But I wonder who is going to fund the basic research necessary for this technological advancement. US corporations have very high debt levels. The US government is going to have its hands full funding Social Security and Medicare. Lastly, remember that monetary policy can be used to balance out the effects of ageing on liquidity of assets. I seriously doubt that. Monetary policy is not a fundamental effect. Number of workers vs. non-workers IS fundamental. Your statement is like saying that by wiggling the gas pedal around on a Geo Metro you can coax it to outrun a Ferrari. The best you can hope for is to keep that Geo Metro going at a steady speed, and even that is impossible if you are running out of gas. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 05:50:19PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: (although the chance of intelligent reforms now is fairly small, since Social Security privatization has gone out the window Social Security privatization isn't likely to help the problem I'm talking about. I'm referring to the problem of only 1.5 workers per retired person (if retirement stays at 65) in 2050. But perhaps that just means that people will delay retirement to 75, and by then the worst of the age wave will have past. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
I would guess that global economic growth will transition towards the US/China/India, certainly. If India ever gets its act together and does serious reform that order might change to India/US/China, but I'm not immensely optimistic on that, sadly. Gautam Mukunda I'm not presuming to say you are the only to help India, would you have any inside knowledge of someone who could help that country? My only knowledge of India was from a 20/20 program, comparing the US and democracy against other countries. The things the Indian officials didit was like watching a show called How dumb can you be? All the paperwork that had to be filled out to get anything done...maybe we should Algore there to streamline their government. Seriously, do you know of worse stories? Do you think this is a problem with most non-western (type) countries, they have promise but too many good intentions, not enough good people? And from another angle, people in western countries who don't understand how a country that does have a lot of basic services like electricity, can still be so backwards? I mean, westerners who expect electricity also expect high standards of living, good roads I've never been to Tijuana and what I remember of my time in Mexico near Brownsville Texas is sketchy at best. It just seems that if you are 30 miles from the US border in San Diego, you'd know it compared with being 30 miles into Mexico. There is plenty of poverty along the US/Mexico border on the US side, but it always sounds like it is much worse in Mexico. Why can't we raise that country up? Kevin T. - VRWC Sorry, rambling ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 06:02:19PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: and they will keep buying stocks. Take a look at the Goldman Sachs paper I posted a link to on capital market implications - I think the anlaytics there are pretty good, and it doesn't suggest that anything disastrous is going to happen to the American capital markets, at least. I skimmed through it. They really gloss over the 2030 period, but they do say several times that GDP growth will slow. If GDP growth slows, so will equity returns (probably due to decreased earnings and declining multiples from selling pressures). If that happens, do you think people will be anxious to buy stocks as you suggest? And even if they do, they won't buy enough to offset the baby boomers selling. That sounds a lot like the beginnings of a 10+ year depression to me. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Social Security privatization isn't likely to help the problem I'm talking about. I'm referring to the problem of only 1.5 workers per retired person (if retirement stays at 65) in 2050. But perhaps that just means that people will delay retirement to 75, and by then the worst of the age wave will have past. Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, the US retirement age is already scheduled to be at 67 by then, and I rather imagine that it will be higher. But I don't recall seeing a demographic projection that puts the _US_ situation at 1.5:1 by 2050. Europe, certainly - Italy will be below 1:1. If that were to happen, though, there's no doubt in my mind that the retirement age would go up substantially to prevent exactly that from happening. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of economic growth
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I skimmed through it. They really gloss over the 2030 period, but they do say several times that GDP growth will slow. If GDP growth slows, so will equity returns (probably due to decreased earnings and declining multiples from selling pressures). If that happens, do you think people will be anxious to buy stocks as you suggest? And even if they do, they won't buy enough to offset the baby boomers selling. That sounds a lot like the beginnings of a 10+ year depression to me. Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, they have to put their money _somewhere_. Actually, one factor that they haven't modeled is the extent to which foreign money might well come into the US capital markets even more, since the US will be one of the few developed countries that's going to do okay through this - which suggests that the impact might be even less than the GS models predict. Additionally, retirement accounts, even in the US, where they are about the same size as those in the rest of the world put together, are only about (IIRC) 30% of the total market. There's a _lot_ of money out there sloshing around. The GS model suggests a (very small) negative cash flow in US capital markets from around 2030-2035, IIRC. That's hardly catastrophic, and something that policy changes can probably control for fairly easily. I would ask why, btw, you think that new savings won't be enough to counteract the outflow. The GS study thinks that it _will_ be enough, and they've done the best work that I'm currently aware of. If you know of a better study, please point it out - it would be professionally quite useful. GS is generally pretty competent, however. I agree that GDP growth is likely to slow - although that is (as JDG has pointed out) heavily dependent upon productivity increases. But no one - not the CSIS, not the World Bank, and Goldman Sachs or Merrill Lynch, that I'm aware of thinks that the situation is nearly as bad as you suggest. It's a problem, not a disaster. For us, anyways. Even for the Europeans, if they act quickly enough. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Compulsory HS
Is that a function of population, or people finishing school? Is high school compulsory in the US? Either way, it's certainly going to improve the situation. HS is effectively compulsory in the US (you can drop out at 16) - but in this case it's a function of population. Cheers Russell C. Gautam Mukunda I don't know if anyone else saw this reference, and I can't find it now. Two people were talking about education in Europe and the US. This was only about France and Germany, maybe some of the UKers can fill in on England? At a certain age, I think it was 12, the students are ran through a battery of tests. If they do good, they are pushed towards more education. If not, they are put into a trade type school. If a parent feels his kid should be in the academic track, they can send them to a private school or get tutoring to help them continue. I'm sure it's easy for a child to want to go the trade track. If the student has behavior problems in the academic track, they can be easily kicked out. So right there the teachers and administrators have more power and control. If a kid is kicked out, he can go to a trade school, or a private school. When the kids were 18, they took another set of tests. Those with good grades could go to free public college. Those with lesser scores had to pay for college, whether public or private, or start working. The main point was: most schools were public and free, but if the kid had to go to a private school, it was expensive. And all kids had to be in school. So a kid who was smart but a troublemaker, his parents had to do all they could to keep them in school, or they started paying for it if they didn't want their kid to go to trade school. While I didn't catch how much these countries spent on education, I doubt it is more than the US. And they seem to have better results. Kevin T. - VRWC Plus, I still don't know about HS level sports in other countries ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
iaamoac wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, it fell below replacement level only recently, but it started falling a long time ago. Secularism, however, is not nearly as pro-family. In particular, a hallmark of secularism is individualism - i.e. where one's one good is of primary importance. Children are often thought (pre- parenthood) to be an obstacle to one's own happiness. I wonder if the financial cost of raising a family of 2 kids is more in Europe than in the US? As much as housing costs have increased in the US, there has been comparable increases in the size of the average family home. In European cities, accomodation/shelter costs alone may be a stumbling block to many potential parents. In the past, it may have been acceptable to stay in the family home, but now every family unit wants their own housing, with 2.5 TVs, dishwasher and second car. The realtering of lifestyle is a big inhibition to many, but if extra costs are added above what US couples face, it may convince more couples to skip children, limit children to 1 or 2, or delay having children until too late. Cheers Russell C. who knows nothing about housing conditions in Southern Europe beyond what he sees on TV... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of economic growth
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 07:10:56PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: I would ask why, btw, you think that new savings won't be enough to counteract the outflow. I guess I'm not being clear. It is a simple numbers game. Right now there are around 4 workers for every retired person. The GS study says there will only be 2.3 workers for every person 65 and over in 2050. If people retire at 65, there will be a lot more people selling than buying in 2050 as compared to now. Even if some people delay retirement past 65, the gap is so large that there will probably still be a lot more selling in 2030-2050 as compared to now. The GS study thinks that it _will_ be enough, and they've done the best work that I'm currently aware of. I missed that statement in the GS paper, could you point it out? Also, I don't put as much faith as you in the analysis of investment bankers. Even neglecting the corruption and conflicts of interest, I don't think most of them knew there was a market bubble in the late 90's, while it was apparent to a number of others (including William Bernstein, who I linked to earlier). The investment bankers have a tendency to invent new explanations to explain why their desired result is possible, like the new economy. If you know of a better study, please point it out - it would be professionally quite useful. Well, Jeremy Siegel was where I first read about the problem. He presents data in chapter 7 of _Stocks for the Long Run_ that shows net outflows of private pension funds starting in 2025 and reaching $600B per year by 2040. Siegel writes The big picture indicates that the main threat to the baby boomers is not whether the trust fund contains government or private assets but that there is not enough buying power to absorb the sale of ANY asset. I haven't read Siegel's source for the pension flow data, which is cited as John Shoven and Sylvester Scheiber, The Consequences of Population Aging on Private Pension Fund Saving and Asset Markets,' in _Public Policy Towards Pensions_, A Twentieth Century Fund Book (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997), Chap. 7, pp. 219-245. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
At 12:20 PM 6/30/2003 +1000, you wrote: iaamoac wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, it fell below replacement level only recently, but it started falling a long time ago. Secularism, however, is not nearly as pro-family. In particular, a hallmark of secularism is individualism - i.e. where one's one good is of primary importance. Children are often thought (pre- parenthood) to be an obstacle to one's own happiness. I wonder if the financial cost of raising a family of 2 kids is more in Europe than in the US? As much as housing costs have increased in the US, there has been comparable increases in the size of the average family home. In European cities, accomodation/shelter costs alone may be a stumbling block to many potential parents. In the past, it may have been acceptable to stay in the family home, but now every family unit wants their own housing, with 2.5 TVs, dishwasher and second car. The realtering of lifestyle is a big inhibition to many, but if extra costs are added above what US couples face, it may convince more couples to skip children, limit children to 1 or 2, or delay having children until too late. Cheers Russell C. who knows nothing about housing conditions in Southern Europe beyond what he sees on TV... What do you mean by realtering of lifestyle? It seems to me once you have a boy and a girl, the costs don't go up anymore. Kevin T. - VRWC want to say more, but time for sleep ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: SCOUTED: Religiousness associated with less depression
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:45 -0400 (EDT), John D. Giorgis wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Ronnn! Religion is a crutch. Surprise!!! Its amazing that so many messages have been devoted to dissecting what [EMAIL PROTECTED] precisely meant by this insult. Of course, there's only one thing you need to know about this comment - the count of Brin-L atheists who are unable to discuss religion with a modicum of basic civillity has now reached at least four. I'll admit it was a rather terse comment fueled mostly by being totally sick of the subject. It appears you interpret all critical comments as insults. JDG - You atheists are really doing yourselves proud here. As there was nothing in that comment implying that I am an atheist, and I don't recall being involved in these discussions before, I'll assume you are just trying to fill out your enemies list. Let me know when I make the next level. Dean ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of economic growth
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 07:10:56PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: I would ask why, btw, you think that new savings won't be enough to counteract the outflow. I guess I'm not being clear. It is a simple numbers game. Right now there are around 4 workers for every retired person. The GS study says there will only be 2.3 workers for every person 65 and over in 2050. If people retire at 65, there will be a lot more people selling than buying in 2050 as compared to now. Even if some people delay retirement past 65, the gap is so large that there will probably still be a lot more selling in 2030-2050 as compared to now. There will be more people selling than buying compared to _now_, yes, but there probably won't be more people selling than buying. That's a clear difference. First because the selling thing might well be overstated. In a utility maximization sense, people seem to tend to underspend in retirement - that is, they retire with assets still in the market. So it's not clear that people over 65 will be cashing out of the markets completely. To some extent, probably, but not completely. At the same time, people under 65 will be buying in. It seems like we're going in circles a bit. I agree that growth will probably (not certainly, but probably) slow down, but there's a huge difference between that and a Depression. I haven't read the study you cited on capital flows - I'm definitely going to have to look into it. I would say, though, that $600B is a lot higher than _any_ estimate I've seen, and that includes investment bank work, World Bank work, and the CSIS's huge study on this topic. So that seems like something of a worst-case scenario to me. I'll have to look at it to tell you more than that. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Compulsory HS
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I didn't catch how much these countries spent on education, I doubt it is more than the US. And they seem to have better results. I don't really buy this, for two main reasons. The first is that Americans have been complaining that their school systems lag the world since Sputnik, yet over that span of time the American dominance of the world in economics generally, and science and technology in particular, has been essentially total. If American schools were that bad, you'd think it would have shown up by now. Second, American _universities_ are acknowledged by everyone as the class of the world, to the extent that a top-tier American school's only real competitors are other American schools. A large part of that is due to funding and competition, but still, it seems difficult or impossible to have an elite university system and an atrocious public school system. Kevin T. - VRWC Plus, I still don't know about HS level sports in other countries Almost entirely non-existent, I believe. At least in most of Europe sports are organized through clubs, not schools. There's a lot to be said for that system - it means that school isn't such an all-consuming part of the life of most kids. If they don't have a social outlet in school, they can find one somewhere else. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 05:50:19PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: (although the chance of intelligent reforms now is fairly small, since Social Security privatization has gone out the window Social Security privatization isn't likely to help the problem I'm talking about. I'm referring to the problem of only 1.5 workers per retired person (if retirement stays at 65) in 2050. But perhaps that just means that people will delay retirement to 75, and by then the worst of the age wave will have past. Social Security retirement age is being increased very gradually. Too gradually, if you ask me -- I'll theoretically be able to collect full benefits at 67, rather than 65. Of course, that'll be before 2050. I think that in order to keep the system running, retirement age for me ought to be more like 70. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Birth Rates Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
Kevin Tarr wrote: At 12:20 PM 6/30/2003 +1000, you wrote: iaamoac wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, it fell below replacement level only recently, but it started falling a long time ago. Secularism, however, is not nearly as pro-family. In particular, a hallmark of secularism is individualism - i.e. where one's one good is of primary importance. Children are often thought (pre- parenthood) to be an obstacle to one's own happiness. I wonder if the financial cost of raising a family of 2 kids is more in Europe than in the US? As much as housing costs have increased in the US, there has been comparable increases in the size of the average family home. In European cities, accomodation/shelter costs alone may be a stumbling block to many potential parents. In the past, it may have been acceptable to stay in the family home, but now every family unit wants their own housing, with 2.5 TVs, dishwasher and second car. The realtering of lifestyle is a big inhibition to many, but if extra costs are added above what US couples face, it may convince more couples to skip children, limit children to 1 or 2, or delay having children until too late. Cheers Russell C. who knows nothing about housing conditions in Southern Europe beyond what he sees on TV... What do you mean by realtering of lifestyle? It seems to me once you have a boy and a girl, the costs don't go up anymore. I'm not quite sure what you mean -- if you mean that having more children after 1 boy and 1 girl doesn't increase your costs, you're wrong. Talk to someone with 2 kids about their grocery bill for a week, and then talk to someone with 4 kids about their grocery bill. Shoes don't last forever to be handed down. If you have more kids, you need a bigger (and probably more expensive) vehicle to get them around in. Gone are the days when you could pile 4 kids in elementary school into the back of a VW Bug (and those were fun, weren't they? at least, as long as you didn't become a statistic). If you're just talking about shelter costs, it can still be tight. Say you have a 3-bedroom house and 4 kids. If you've got 4 of one gender, or 2 and 2, room-sharing isn't that big a deal, but if it's a 1 and 3 gender split, you may have a problem. I know housing is expensive in NYC. Having 3 kids to house in NYC isn't terribly easy, at least that's the impression I've gotten from conversations with Dan's cousin and his wife who live in NYC and who have 3 kids. If it's anything like that in Europe, I can see how smaller family size could result. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Social Security retirement age is being increased very gradually. Too gradually, if you ask me -- I'll theoretically be able to collect full benefits at 67, rather than 65. Of course, that'll be before 2050. I think that in order to keep the system running, retirement age for me ought to be more like 70. Julia If only more people were so selfless... On a more optimistic note, looking at demographic statistics that project future lifespans is quite shocking as well (although it is very, very strange to be reading papers where pessimistic projections are ones that involve people living _longer_ lives). But it's quite stunning to read stuff that suggests that someone of my age can (they predict), barring revolutionary medical advances, expect to live another 70 or so years, on average. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of economic growth
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 08:30:28PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: There will be more people selling than buying compared to _now_, yes, but there probably won't be more people selling than buying. I don't think we're communicating. I am saying that there will be more supply compared to demand for equities in 2050 compared to now because of the change in demographics. Neither of the papers you cited dispute this. So, the question is, what will happen as a result of the increased supply relative to demand? Law of supply and demand says that equity prices will fall until demand meets supply. Part of the reason the stock market has had such an amazing run since 1982 is the opposite of this trend as the baby boomers save and buy equities. The only factors I can think of to counteract a drop in equity prices are: people delaying retirement, or increasing numbers of non-US buyers of US equities (if the latter happens, it will probably be at the expense of investment in developing economies, which would be unfortunate). I think both of these will probably occur to some extent, but everything I've read suggests that this won't be enough to prevent prices from dropping and the economy from slowing. Perhaps increased productivity could be the saviour, but that only seems possible if some major technological advances are made soon, and it doesn't seem that there is a lot of investment in the necessary basic and applied research now, nor is there likely to be a big increase in the near future. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 28 Days Later
Erik Reuter wrote: 28 days after the release of the virus, London is a virtual ghost-town by day. Alberto Monteiro wrote: Sounds like _Lifeforce_ without Mathilda May. Bah Or that Richard Matheson novel that got made into The Last Man on Earth with Vincent Price, Omega Man with Charlton Heston, and yet another planned remake I've heard plans for... ;-) __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
