RE: Genesis
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Louis Mann Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 2:39 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Genesis What's wicked about bringing children into the world that you have the resources to support and nurture? Doug it's wicked because it creates even more scaricities among other children in undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the resources to support and nurture. would you suggest that we forbid anyone too poor from having children? jon Going with your logic, with scarcity of commodities being the cause of poverty, shouldn't people have been much richer 3000 years ago, at the time that the earth's resources were barely touched? We don't have to go that far back to see the difficulty with that argument. The prices of most commodities had dropped from 1975 (a year books on scarcity, overpopulation, pollution etc. were abundant) to 2000. With the exception of oil, the price in 2005 of most basic commodities (iron ore, copper, aluminum ore, etc.) were roughly half of what they were two and three decades earlier. Even oil fell into that pattern, falling below $10/barrel in 1998 on the spot market, and averaging around 11 for the year ($15 in today's dollars). Resources were abundantly available for poor countries, at low prices. Some Asian countries started to develop, but sub-Sahara Africa remained in poverty. Zambia, which I have a very close connection to, actually suffered because the drop in the value of their main export (copper). Poor countries, to first order, are cut out of international trade. As they become integrated in the world economy (e.g. China and India) the levels of income rise. Its happened fast enough and soon enough after an oil bust, so that oil prices are high (oil production has a long lead time and cost of setupbut once a well is flowing producing oil is usually a minor part of the cost). CO2 and mid-East Venezuelan politics are good reasons to cut oil consumption, but just in terms of resource availabilitywe have plenty of choices for low entropy energy sources for years to come. There is no evidence that, if the United States decided to fade away as continental Europe is doing, instead of having a ZPG birth rate, that poor people (eg those in sub-Sahara Africa) would benefit. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Genesis
Dan M wrote: There is no evidence that, if the United States decided to fade away as continental Europe is doing, instead of having a ZPG birth rate, (...) Brazil is fading away too. Last count is 1.8 births/female. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
On 30 Jul 2008, at 15:46, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Dan M wrote: There is no evidence that, if the United States decided to fade away as continental Europe is doing, instead of having a ZPG birth rate, (...) Brazil is fading away too. Last count is 1.8 births/female. Below the UK and France but well above Thailand (1.5) and South Korea (1.1). Patterns Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Genesis
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William T Goodall Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:30 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Genesis On 30 Jul 2008, at 15:46, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Dan M wrote: There is no evidence that, if the United States decided to fade away as continental Europe is doing, instead of having a ZPG birth rate, (...) Brazil is fading away too. Last count is 1.8 births/female. Below the UK and France but well above Thailand (1.5) and South Korea (1.1). Patterns Maru It's an interesting topic. The CIA factbook has estimates for 2008 (estimates most likely based on 2007 and 2006 data) at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127ra nk.html http://tinyurl.com/3yur88 It has the UK at 1.6, falling below Brazil.which it gives at 1.86. The UK number may not be an outlandish estimate because the UN has the UK at 1.7 between 2000 and 2005. I'm not arguing with Brazil's number, but it does represent a big drop from 2000-2005: (2.35). But, with the EU, on the whole at 1.5 and Russia at 1.4, we're looking at a Europe that will be shrinking, roughly, 30% per generation. We see birth rates exceeding death rates in countries like Germany, France, and Italy now. Of course, we're also seeing that in Japan. Given the fact that Europe is showing resistance to the idea of significant additional immigration of non-Europeans, and that Japan has long held racial purity as important, I wonder who will take care of all the baby boomers as they enter their 70s, 80s and 90s, when the working population continues to shrink drastically. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
On 30 Jul 2008, at 19:31, Dan M wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William T Goodall Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:30 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Genesis On 30 Jul 2008, at 15:46, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Dan M wrote: There is no evidence that, if the United States decided to fade away as continental Europe is doing, instead of having a ZPG birth rate, (...) Brazil is fading away too. Last count is 1.8 births/female. Below the UK and France but well above Thailand (1.5) and South Korea (1.1). Patterns Maru It's an interesting topic. The CIA factbook has estimates for 2008 (estimates most likely based on 2007 and 2006 data) at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127ra nk.html http://tinyurl.com/3yur88 It has the UK at 1.6, falling below Brazil.which it gives at 1.86. The UK number may not be an outlandish estimate because the UN has the UK at 1.7 between 2000 and 2005. I'm not arguing with Brazil's number, but it does represent a big drop from 2000-2005: (2.35). http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=369 The provisional Total Fertility Rate (TFR) for 2007 gives an average of 1.91 children per woman in England and Wales. This is an increase from 1.86 in 2006 and is the sixth consecutive annual increase from a low point in 2001 where the TFR was 1.63. The last time the TFR exceeded 1.91 was 34 years ago in 1973 when it was 2.00. The number of live births in England and Wales increased for the sixth successive year in 2007. Not the CIA Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
William T Goodall quoted: The provisional Total Fertility Rate (TFR) for 2007 gives an average of 1.91 children per woman in England and Wales. This is an increase from 1.86 in 2006 and is the sixth consecutive annual increase from a low point in 2001 where the TFR was 1.63. The last time the TFR exceeded 1.91 was 34 years ago in 1973 when it was 2.00. The number of live births in England and Wales increased for the sixth successive year in 2007. The scary thing is that, probably, those 0.5 extra kids are muslims... Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
On 30 Jul 2008, at 20:41, Alberto Monteiro wrote: William T Goodall quoted: The provisional Total Fertility Rate (TFR) for 2007 gives an average of 1.91 children per woman in England and Wales. This is an increase from 1.86 in 2006 and is the sixth consecutive annual increase from a low point in 2001 where the TFR was 1.63. The last time the TFR exceeded 1.91 was 34 years ago in 1973 when it was 2.00. The number of live births in England and Wales increased for the sixth successive year in 2007. The scary thing is that, probably, those 0.5 extra kids are muslims... Actually mostly children of Polish and other Eastern European immigrants and Catholic. Borscht Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Debunking bullshit is a thankless task. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
On 31/07/2008, at 4:31 AM, Dan M wrote: Given the fact that Europe is showing resistance to the idea of significant additional immigration of non-Europeans, and that Japan has long held racial purity as important, I wonder who will take care of all the baby boomers as they enter their 70s, 80s and 90s, when the working population continues to shrink drastically. People will have to work longer. As life expectancies continue to increase, retirement age will have to increase too. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Genesis
People will have to work longer. As life expectancies continue to increase, retirement age will have to increase too. I understand that, and that's reasonable. The retirement age for Social Security in the US has been moved up from 65 to 67 for folks my age and will be 68 for folks a few years younger. Germany will absolutely have to get rid of retirement at 55. But, I've seen international studies on aging, and only 3 developed countries (as of 6 years ago) seemed to be marginally OK with handling the aging of their population. The rest were in various degrees of trouble from big to very big. Part of it is that, even with advances, we tend to slow down in our 70s, at least on average. We cannot expect the same hours of work of a 75 year old as a 30 year old. I had been interested in this, so I did three different scenarios. I have results in a number of different forms, but let me just give a couple. First, assume Europe's population distribution and a constant life expectancy of about 78 years, and the EU fertility rate of 1.5. We'd get the following age distribution: Now 50 years 20 21.7% 15.8% 20-40 26.8% 19.9% 40-60 28.4% 24.3% 60-80 18.4% 25.9% 80+ 4.8%14.0% Then I added a 1 year per decade increase in life expectancy. I got: 20 21.7% 14.4% 20-40 26.8% 18.2% 40-60 28.4% 22.2% 60-80 18.4% 25.0% 80+ 4.8%20.2% Finally, I took a long term ZPG society, with the life expectancy increase of 1 year per decade. I got: 20 30.4% 24.0% 20-40 28.1% 23.4% 40-60 23.0% 21.9% 60-80 14.0% 19.5% 80+ 4.6%11.3% You see the biggest contributor is the near 30% drop in population per generation due to the fertility rate, not the aging of the population because people live longer. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Genesis
i was not the one who initiated the scarcity of commodities argument, although it is obviously that 3,000 years ago lo tech societies did not consume and pollute anywhere near the levels of almost seven billion (approaching 6,832,000,000) do today. prior to the agricultural revolution population levels were even lower and humans were leavers, rather than takers: But, the carrying capacity of the land was very low for hunter gatherer societies. People in such societies were, except for brief periods of time, poor to the point of starvation. People in such a society had little control over their lives. When agriculture can about, particularly in the fertile crescent, the carrying capacity of the land increased. Improvements in technology (e.g. the horse collar and 3 crop rotation) allowed for significant increases in European population (set back by wars and the Black Plague). Population was not far lower way back when because people restrained from sex as a result of Earth awareness. Rather, they helplessly watched their loved ones die at a very young age. We don't have to go that far back to see the difficulty with that argument. The prices of most commodities had dropped from 1975 (a year books on scarcity, overpopulation, pollution etc. were abundant) to 2000. With the exception of oil, the price in 2005 of most basic commodities (iron ore, copper, aluminum ore, etc.) were roughly half of what they were two and three decades earlier. you should mention that is largely due to increased production, and is that adjusted for inflation?~) Actually, it is due to better technology. Take iron ore. The Mesabi range ran out of high grade iron ore in the '60s, but technology improved to the point where low grade ore was very economical. It seems as though you don't believe that wealth can be created. what is your connection to zambia? i lived in tchad in 1979. I have two foster daughters from Zambia, Neli and Nymbezi. They came to the US for college. My other daughters say that Neli is the daughter that takes after me, because she is so much like mewe spend hours arguing economics and politicsenjoying each other's company, while the others leave. They still have family back home in Zambia, but see themselves as having two families. Neli is now fairly independent, having graduated from American University with a MA in Econ. Nymbezi is pre-med at TCU (near straight A), and was thinking about med school in South Africa before her sister Tabita was hurt in anti-foreigner violence there. Poor countries, to first order, are cut out of international trade. As they become integrated in the world economy (e.g. China and India) the levels of income rise. Its happened fast enough and soon enough after an oil bust, so that oil prices are high (oil production has a long lead time and cost of setupbut once a well is flowing producing oil is usually a minor part of the cost). CO2 and mid-East Venezuelan politics are good reasons to cut oil consumption, but just in terms of resource availabilitywe have plenty of choices for low entropy energy sources for years to come. poor countries are NOT cut out of international trade, in fact, they are exploited for their labor AND resources... Well, I have obtained my information from two sources. First from Neli, who lived in Zambia when it was one of the poorest countries on the earth. She said that they had virtually no trade, and that the EU trade barriers were devastating to Africa. Indeed, she's said she'd trade an end to all aid for free trade. She has often said she'd love a shoe factory in Zambia, because it allow people to make so much money by Zambian standardseven at wages that are called exploitive in the West. She hopes for a 2 year fellowship with the World Bank, otherwise she'll go straight for her PhD in econ. Her dream is to help build Zambia's economy. So, that's the perspective from the ground, so to speak. To first order, advanced economies only influence was to give aid to the government whose leaders took it as their own. We've had long talks into the night about this, and what possibly could be done to change this. We strongly agree that trade is the first step, because it provides money that does not have to go through dishonest politicians first. Second, I've looked up the lowest GPD per capita countries on Wikipedia and their per capita exports (us taking their goods and labor) to see what goes on in those countries. The twenty poorest countries, their per capita GDP and exports are: 1 Zimbabwe 194 126 2 the Congo 302 19 3 Burundi371 7 4 Liberia372 277 5 Guinea-Bissau 487 65 6 Somalia600 29 7 Eritrea659 8 8 Niger 665 16 9 Sierra Leone 690 33 10 Central African Republic 713
RE: Genesis
BTW - when you talk about people working longer, don't assume we are all leaving the work force early because we want to. While firing people because of their age is illegal in the United States, giving them poor performance reviews, making their lives miserable, etc can be done and often is. Older workers are expensive, too independent, represent roadblocks in the path of the younger generation - and BTW, if the organization can get them out before they're fully vested, it can save itself a ton of money. Bin there dun that, made it to being vested just barely, with the help of a staff advocate - who was later transferred to a position where she could do less harm or good. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: RE: Genesis Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:16:03 -0500 People will have to work longer. As life expectancies continue to increase, retirement age will have to increase too. I understand that, and that's reasonable. The retirement age for Social Security in the US has been moved up from 65 to 67 for folks my age and will be 68 for folks a few years younger. Germany will absolutely have to get rid of retirement at 55. But, I've seen international studies on aging, and only 3 developed countries (as of 6 years ago) seemed to be marginally OK with handling the aging of their population. The rest were in various degrees of trouble from big to very big. Part of it is that, even with advances, we tend to slow down in our 70s, at least on average. We cannot expect the same hours of work of a 75 year old as a 30 year old. I had been interested in this, so I did three different scenarios. I have results in a number of different forms, but let me just give a couple. First, assume Europe's population distribution and a constant life expectancy of about 78 years, and the EU fertility rate of 1.5. We'd get the following age distribution: Now 50 years 20 21.7% 15.8% 20-40 26.8% 19.9% 40-60 28.4% 24.3% 60-80 18.4% 25.9% 80+ 4.8%14.0% Then I added a 1 year per decade increase in life expectancy. I got: 20 21.7% 14.4% 20-40 26.8% 18.2% 40-60 28.4% 22.2% 60-80 18.4% 25.0% 80+ 4.8%20.2% Finally, I took a long term ZPG society, with the life expectancy increase of 1 year per decade. I got: 20 30.4% 24.0% 20-40 28.1% 23.4% 40-60 23.0% 21.9% 60-80 14.0% 19.5% 80+ 4.6%11.3% You see the biggest contributor is the near 30% drop in population per generation due to the fertility rate, not the aging of the population because people live longer. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Genesis
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pat Mathews Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:21 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: RE: Genesis BTW - when you talk about people working longer, don't assume we are all leaving the work force early because we want to.While firing people because of their age is illegal in the United States, giving them poor performance reviews, making their lives miserable, etc can be done and often is. I learned that about 20 years ago when all but one person in the company over 50 was laid off when their positions were eliminated. No one under 50 was laid off. Since it was not a firing, no reason needed to be given. Soon after, new jobs with slightly different descriptions were staffed. But, I'm guessing you are in the 'States, where things are quite different from Europe. I am lucky because my boss can't fire me...he can only cut my hours by decreasing the company's income. What I hope to do, once my wife finds her call and we move, is slowly cut my hours down (I'm 55 this Christmas and everyone will be out of college in 2 years)...but still keep working a bit through my 70s. I like what I do, and I probably have enough unique expertise to keep working, say, 5-10 hours/week in my mid-70s. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see how Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular problem. I'm thinking that causing massive instability in the major oil producing region might have something to do with it. When you add in determined opposition to any form of conservation, I think most of it is covered. Removing one megalomaniac old dictator and his two psychopath heirs is _causing_ massive instability? I think it's the other way: it's _preventing_ massive instability. And what are those two idiots doing, that the oil price fell down so much in the past weeks? They should strike Iran right now! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
Doug Pensinger wrote: Kevin wrote: Wayne Eddy wrote: Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see how Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular problem. I'm thinking that causing massive instability in the major oil producing region might have something to do with it. When you add in determined opposition to any form of conservation, I think most of it is covered. Let's not forget a total lack of vision when it comes to energy policy. Doug Agreed. And after I posted it I thought more carefully about it, and decided that I really had to add disastrous fiscal policy leading to a plummeting dollar. That not only has driven up oil prices (in dollar terms), but has led OPEC countries to start the move away from selling in dollars to other currencies, like the Euro. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. - Dwight D. Eisenhower ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see how Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular problem. I'm thinking that causing massive instability in the major oil producing region might have something to do with it. When you add in determined opposition to any form of conservation, I think most of it is covered. Removing one megalomaniac old dictator and his two psychopath heirs is _causing_ massive instability? I think it's the other way: it's _preventing_ massive instability. There is a certain stability in the grave, to be sure. But I don't think that is what most people want. And what are those two idiots doing, that the oil price fell down so much in the past weeks? They should strike Iran right now! Those two idiots, with able assistance from Republicans in Congress, have managed to screw up the American economy so badly that demand is falling. That does have the effect of putting downward pressure on gas prices, which should be received with great joy by all the Americans who lost their jobs, their homes, ... Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence. - H.L. Mencken ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
- Original Message - From: Kevin B. O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 8:10 AM Subject: Re: Genesis Wayne Eddy wrote: Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see how Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular problem. I'm thinking that causing massive instability in the major oil producing region might have something to do with it. When you add in determined opposition to any form of conservation, I think most of it is covered. That may have pushed up oil prices by $20 a barrel or so, but it has nothing to do with the underlying problem of finite oil supplies and growing world demand. If anything it might turn out to be a positive - forcing the world to consider its energy future a few years earlier than otherwise. I reckon a hike in the price of oil is trival compared to the deaths and maiming of thosands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the name of non-existant weapons of mass destruction. And, I still want to no what global catastrophe Jon was talking about! Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
Wayne Eddy wrote: Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see how Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular problem. I'm thinking that causing massive instability in the major oil producing region might have something to do with it. When you add in determined opposition to any form of conservation, I think most of it is covered. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 Men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all the other alternatives. -- Abba Eban ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
Kevin wrote: Wayne Eddy wrote: Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see how Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular problem. I'm thinking that causing massive instability in the major oil producing region might have something to do with it. When you add in determined opposition to any form of conservation, I think most of it is covered. Let's not forget a total lack of vision when it comes to energy policy. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis 1:28
Jon wrote: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it. surely you don't believe that gawd created man to have dominion over every living thing that moves on the earth? it is not a sacrifice, doug, it is a duty to the planet. no righteous deity would justify destroying habitates to accommodate human expansion. even by reducing materialism and careful husbanding (no pun intended) of resources, we are destroying habitats at a prodigious rate just to feed over six billion hungry humans. It's not just a numbers game. If you have the opportunity to bring a child into the world that has a reasonable chance to make a positive contribution, there are few arguments not to do so. The world doesn't just need fewer people; it needs more people that can make a positive contribution and fewer whose lives will ultimately be fruitless (not to mention miserable). sure the planet can sustain higher human populations, but there is a limit. surely we have already reached the point where your deity would say that enough is enough. Not my deity, no matter which one you're referring to. responsible, enlightened people are too rational to compete in the birthrate race, but they still hold the upper hand in the arms race. as the various fundamentalist schisms succeed in their over population goals they'll continue to war against the heretics, and those who leave the fold. people have a right to breed irresponsibly, but at some point it is going to bite us all in the buttocks!~) Only if the rest of us decide we are saving the planet by _not_ breeding. 8^) Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
On Jul 26, 2008, at 2:38 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: What's wicked about bringing children into the world that you have the resources to support and nurture? Doug it's wicked because it creates even more scaricities among other children in undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the resources to support and nurture. would you suggest that we forbid anyone too poor from having children? jon I might. There, I said it. If our species were made up entirely of individuals who approached decisions, especially important ones like whether it's wise to reproduce, with as much thought toward collective benefit as individual gratification, I wouldn't suggest that. But this species has proven time and time again that the majority of its individuals do, in fact, act only on a motivation of immediate self-gratification and very often completely counter to collective benefit, even in the case of driving a population explosion that continuously paces or exceeds our best efforts at meeting demands for basic necessities such as food and shelter, and in the case of creating gross inequities in wealth that make virtual Olympic god-kings out of the wealthiest one percent or so, and exploit and starve large numbers of other people in the poorest parts of the world. And one big factor of this is a perceived right to reproduce that is common to most cultures, our own included, that makes it seem abhorrent to place any restrictions on how many children any family may have. China has its back farther up against the wall than many other countries, and even with its massive population and the strains on its natural resources, it has to fight the perception that its one- child-per-family policy is some sort of assault on its citizens' civil rights. Yes, if I were to become dictator of the world, placing restrictions on who was and was not allowed to have children would be on the table. I'd likely be despised and hated for it, but I'd still at least consider it, if only to give us some fighting chance of a managed population decrease. Reduce the earth's population to 1-2 billion or so, with the knowledge we now have of agriculture and food production, and earth becomes close to a utopia. The only exceptions I would make would be for people willing to help terraform and colonize other habitable bodies in the solar system. I'm pretty sure Mars' surface could be terraformed to the point where people could live and produce food there without life support, with the right approach to releasing the CO2 locked up in the regolith and using a series of introduced plant species to convert the CO2 to breathable oxygen and jump-start biosphere growth. With a controlled population reduction, the economy could probably support a pretty massive spaceflight/colonization initiative .. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H.L. MENCKEN ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
Jon wrote: are you suggesting that it is rational to have more enlightened children Yes. to balance those who are raised by cults and jihadists, etc.? I don't know about balancing anything, but I do believe that the more enlightened people, the better off we'll all be. the mormons and various religious cults may not have taken over the world, but they are still growing and doing a hell of a lot of damage... we can't stop them from breeding, but we can intervene when there is child and spousal abuse. Yes we can and we should, but that has little to do with what I'm arguing. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
Jon wrote: it's wicked because it creates even more scaricities among other children in undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the resources to support and nurture. Bulls__t. The problems in underdeveloped nations will be ameliorated when their people become more educated. We could deprive ourselves of resources and send the proceeds directly to those nations and it wouldn't do a bit of good. They have to be able to pull themselves up. Whatever we can do to catalyze that, we should do. would you suggest that we forbid anyone too poor from having children? Of course not. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis 1:28
On Jul 26, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: It's not just a numbers game. If you have the opportunity to bring a child into the world that has a reasonable chance to make a positive contribution, there are few arguments not to do so. The world doesn't just need fewer people; it needs more people that can make a positive contribution and fewer whose lives will ultimately be fruitless (not to mention miserable). That's another matter entirely than restricting childbirth. That's a value distinction as to who is more or less entitled to reproduce. And on that, I will agree with you, that some parents are probably better candidates to reproduce the species than others. But, as a member of the species yourself, are you prepared for the responsibility of making that choice for every would-be parent on earth? And would you be prepared to defend your decisions against the inevitable challenges and explain why you made the decision the way you did in every case? (It's a safe bet that any decision along those lines will be challenged, no matter what you do, either by the parents themselves if you say no to them, or by other parents if you say yes and they're not satisfied that you made a fair decision.) There's merit to granting birth-privileges to the best and the brightest, in the most basic analysis. It's the execution of the concept where the very devil is in the details. And it ultimately comes down to trusting someone to make a fair decision .. which is itself a very non-trivial problem. There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey. -- John Ruskin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis 1:28
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Jul 26, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: It's not just a numbers game. If you have the opportunity to bring a child into the world that has a reasonable chance to make a positive contribution, there are few arguments not to do so. The world doesn't just need fewer people; it needs more people that can make a positive contribution and fewer whose lives will ultimately be fruitless (not to mention miserable). That's another matter entirely than restricting childbirth. That's a value distinction as to who is more or less entitled to reproduce. And on that, I will agree with you, that some parents are probably better candidates to reproduce the species than others. But, as a member of the species yourself, are you prepared for the responsibility of making that choice for every would-be parent on earth? And would you be prepared to defend your decisions against the inevitable challenges and explain why you made the decision the way you did in every case? (It's a safe bet that any decision along those lines will be challenged, no matter what you do, either by the parents themselves if you say no to them, or by other parents if you say yes and they're not satisfied that you made a fair decision.) There's merit to granting birth-privileges to the best and the brightest, in the most basic analysis. It's the execution of the concept where the very devil is in the details. And it ultimately comes down to trusting someone to make a fair decision .. which is itself a very non-trivial problem. There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey. -- John Ruskin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Everytime I hear the phrase best and the brightest I think of David Halberstram and Vietnam john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
- Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 5:38 AM Subject: Genesis What's wicked about bringing children into the world that you have the resources to support and nurture? Doug it's wicked because it creates even more scaricities among other children in undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the resources to support and nurture. would you suggest that we forbid anyone too poor from having children? jon I agree with Doug. If people only raised the number of children they were able to support nuture AND everyone one was in a position to know that number AND if everyone was able to ensure they didn't have more than that number, we would end up with the appropriate world population, and far less suffering. What's more a lot of people are probably well off today because their parents and grand parents made good decisions about the number of offspring they could support. Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
Jon wrote: it is a numbers game, doug, and as long as it continues the planet will suffer. it is not realistic to suggest that enlightened people will save the planet by breeding. people who are able to enjoy the fruits of their wealth are not about to invest in breeding units of labor when it is not necessary, unless they are doing it to spread their dogma. So if its a numbers game, how do you win by not having children? the argument you should be forwarding is that affluent societies stop consuming so much and put more revenues into an enlightened' educational system and a global social agenda that would eliminate wars over resources. I agree with that argument. But if I don't have kids and get them to believe what I believe, who the f__k is going to believe when I pass? Do you think you and I are going to change everyone else's mind in the next few years? there has always been a gap between the haves and have nots with those at the bottom providing the labor and resources for those at the top. if they were really so enlightened they would prohibit the very greed that enables them to provide for more spoiled brats and share the wealth with the oppressed workers of the world, so they would not have to breed more children in order to survive. If you look at the pre-bush history of the US I'm pretty sure you'll find a trend towards more haves and fewer have-nots. And you'll find that we were the envy of the world in many respects; that people wanted to come here or, that they wanted to emulate our society. That we use far more than our share of the world's resources is a problem, but the fact that we were one of several nations that were aware of the environmental problems that we're facing was a positive. Unfortunately, because of poor leadership, we've lost our way. But I digress. My real point is that I can only do so much in my lifetime, but I can help to shape the future by raising good kids and by helping them to raise good kids. Refusing to do so as some sort of righteous statement is ultimately self-defeating. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
- Original Message - From: Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only exceptions I would make would be for people willing to help terraform and colonize other habitable bodies in the solar system. I'm pretty sure Mars' surface could be terraformed to the point where people could live and produce food there without life support, with the right approach to releasing the CO2 locked up in the regolith and using a series of introduced plant species to convert the CO2 to breathable oxygen and jump-start biosphere growth. With a controlled population reduction, the economy could probably support a pretty massive spaceflight/colonization initiative .. I'd like to see Mars colonised too, but it is not a solution to overpopulation. I can't see it ever being possible to send people to Mars at a faster rate than they are being born. Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis 1:28
From: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] unfortunately, throughout history, it is the the best and the brightest who have perpetrated evils on the poor and downtrodden. there have been exceptions, but over and over again governments and religions have used their ideology or dogma to justify exploitation in the name of spreading civilization. again i ask, what gives any one the right to determine whose agenda is enlightened? what gives any religious schism the right to dictate reproduction, and/or a monopoly on values, ethics, or morality? jon I would love to see a summary of the good evil deeds that the best brightest have been responsible for over the years and contrast that with the deads of the worst dimmest, but it hasn't been done and I suspect it is impossible to do. What justification do you have for your assertion? I don't think Hitler or Pol Pot or Idi Amin would be classified as best brightest, do you? Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis 1:28
Bruce wrote: That's another matter entirely than restricting childbirth. That's a value distinction as to who is more or less entitled to reproduce. And on that, I will agree with you, that some parents are probably better candidates to reproduce the species than others. But, as a member of the species yourself, are you prepared for the responsibility of making that choice for every would-be parent on earth? Absolutely not, but I had the wherewithal to make that decision for myself. And would you be prepared to defend your decisions against the inevitable challenges and explain why you made the decision the way you did in every case? (It's a safe bet that any decision along those lines will be challenged, no matter what you do, either by the parents themselves if you say no to them, or by other parents if you say yes and they're not satisfied that you made a fair decision.) There's merit to granting birth-privileges to the best and the brightest, in the most basic analysis. It's the execution of the concept where the very devil is in the details. And it ultimately comes down to trusting someone to make a fair decision .. which is itself a very non-trivial problem. I don't see very much merit there. That sounds like eugenics to me. All I'm saying is that if I believe I'm capable of raising good kids then it does not benefit society for me to decide not to do so. The corollary being that if you're capable of raising good kids and you decide not to because you think bringing another person into the world is harmful, I think you're fooling yourself and depriving the world of a good people. These are personal decisions, not to be dictated by religions or governments. If I were president of the world, I'd endeavor to set a good example. 8^) Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
Jon wrote: the problem, doug, is that many undeveloped nations rich in resources are governed by despots who need to maintain an ignorant population in poverty so they can continue to use the wealth for their own purposes. when advanced societies enable this so they can continue their global trade advantage it is simply the new colonialism. how can you say we can't help the ver countries we are exploiting with our resources? it would only be just if advanced countries jointly used sanctions and other incentives to forve ALL oppressive governments to provide for their people. Because if we just send them resources 1) there's no assurance that they will receive them via a layer of corrupt bureaucrats and 2) even if they do receive those resources it teaches them nothing about how they can sustain themselves. Please understand that I am not opposed to humanitarian relief; I'm very much in favor of it, but it is not a long term solution. what do you believe can be done to catalyze human rights in those countries; pre-emptive attacks? To be honest, I think the only real solution is a world government that has the power and the resources to correct severe problems. If one nation tries to do it alone, their motivations might be questioned and for good reason (see Iraq). Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
At 02:35 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: I just don't see it happening according to their script. Of those 8 or 10, how many are going to follow their parent's ideology lock step? How many will rebel and provide a backlash? How isolated can they remain in a society changing as rapidly as ours? Mormons have practiced something similar to this ideology for over a hundred years; are they taking over the world? In any case, what are we going to do about it? Tell them they can't have babies? Force them to educate their kids the way we think they should? What we really need is for responsible, intelligent, enlightened people to stop making excuses for _not_ having children. Doug are you suggesting that it is rational to have more enlightened children to balance those who are raised by cults and jihadists, etc.? the mormons and various religious cults may not have taken over the world, but they are still growing and doing a hell of a lot of damage Specify damage. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
At 03:09 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: If our species were made up entirely of individuals who approached decisions, especially important ones like whether it's wise to reproduce, with as much thought toward collective benefit as individual gratification, Perhaps that would be easier if reproduction were not so strongly linked to gratification . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
At 03:55 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: there has always been a gap between the haves and have nots with those at the bottom providing the labor and resources for those at the top. if they were really so enlightened they would prohibit the very greed As the hot dog vendor said to the Zen master http://www.ouuf.org/Humor/zen.html: Change comes only from within. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
At 05:44 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote: To be honest, I think the only real solution is a world government that has the power and the resources to correct severe problems. If one nation tries to do it alone, their motivations might be questioned and for good reason (see Iraq). I know I sure wouldn't have wanted Saddam Hussein and his sons and other relatives and cronies running the world the way they ran Iraq. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
At 07:12 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: are you suggesting it is rational to have more enlightened children to balance those who are raised by cults and jihadists, etc.? the mormons and various religious cults may not have taken over the world, but they are still growing and doing a hell of a lot of damage Specify damage. . . . ronn! :) religious cults that charge their flock to multiply in order to fulfill some principle ordained by a deity are committed to expanding population growth at an exponential rate that will have drastic effects on the planet as a whole. anyone who promotes that sort of irresponsibility withour regard for other species of plant and animal life irritate me no end. what makes homo sapiens so special that they have the right to destroy each other and other species as well? jon See my response to Wayne. Clearly YM does V. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
On Jul 26, 2008, at 6:38 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 03:09 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: If our species were made up entirely of individuals who approached decisions, especially important ones like whether it's wise to reproduce, with as much thought toward collective benefit as individual gratification, Perhaps that would be easier if reproduction were not so strongly linked to gratification . . . . . . ronn! :) You do have a point there. :) (Although the gratification need not necessarily be linked to reproduction. Modern technology can sometimes be very helpful in that regard.) This is an amazing honor. I want you to know that I spend so much time in the world that is spinning all the time, that to be in the no- spin zone actually gives me vertigo. -- Stephen Colbert during an interview on FOX News, The O'Reilly Factor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis 1:28
Jon Louis Mann wrote: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it. surely you don't believe that gawd created man to have dominion over every living thing that moves on the earth? OTOH, if this command should be taken _literally_, then it already has been fulfilled. Man _was_ fruitful, replenished the earth and subdued it. Now it's the time to stop! Alberto the hypocrite ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
At 08:01 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: So if its a numbers game, how do you win by not having children? actually you lose by having too many children and overpopulating the planet... the argument you should be forwarding is that affluent societies stop consuming so much and put more revenues into an enlightened' educational system and a global social agenda that would eliminate wars over resources. I agree with that argument. But if I don't have kids and get them to believe what I believe, who the f__k is going to believe when I pass? Do you think you and I are going to change everyone else's mind in the next few years? no, but neither is realistic to expect enlightened advocates to change any minds. better to focus on solutions that have a chance of working. you can't assume that the force of numbers can always outweigh the power of ideas. if that were the case we would never have progressed beyond the dark ages. it is far easier to change the world now than it was during feudal times. there has always been a gap between the haves and have nots with those at the bottom providing the labor and resources for those at the top. if they were really so enlightened they would prohibit the very greed that enables them to provide for more spoiled brats and share the wealth with the oppressed workers of the world, so they would not have to breed more children in order to survive. * If you look at the pre-bush history of the US I'm pretty sure you'll find a trend towards more haves and fewer have-nots. * And you'll find that we were the envy of the world in many respects; that people wanted to come here or, that they wanted to emulate our society. That we use far more than our share of the world's resources is a problem, but the fact that we were one of several nations that were aware of the environmental problems that we're facing was a positive. Unfortunately, because of poor leadership, we've lost our way. you ahve got to be kidding, the bush/cheney abberration has widened the gap between haves and have nots far more than under clinton. Isn't that exactly what he said? (See the first sentence.) But I digress. My real point is that I can only do so much in my lifetime, but I can help to shape the future by raising good kids and by helping them to raise good kids. Refusing to do so as some sort of righteous statement is ultimately self-defeating. Doug i have sired two sons and endeavoured to teach them the consequences of overpopulation and greed. i won't be around to see what happens to their generation as a result of the legacy of materialism they have inherited. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
- Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 11:40 AM Subject: Genesis it may well come to that, bruce, or the problem may be solved by the collapse of civilization. either way, it serves us right for letting things get out of hand... i feel no pity for the heartland of america that allowed monsters like bush and cheney lead us into an impending worldwide collapse. the irony is that many of those who benefited from that malignant government will be prepared to survive the collapse. jon Which impending worldwide collapse? Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see how Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular problem. Surely there are quite few nice people in the heartland of America that are worth your pity? Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
At 11:52 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Wayne Eddy wrote: - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 11:40 AM Subject: Genesis it may well come to that, bruce, or the problem may be solved by the collapse of civilization. either way, it serves us right for letting things get out of hand... i feel no pity for the heartland of america that allowed monsters like bush and cheney lead us into an impending worldwide collapse. the irony is that many of those who benefited from that malignant government will be prepared to survive the collapse. jon Which impending worldwide collapse? Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see how Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular problem. Surely there are quite few nice people in the heartland of America that are worth your pity? I know quite a few nice people who live here in flyover country. Of course, some might think the main reason they deserve pity is because they truly believe in God and as a result try to live according to the Golden Rule and other things Jesus said in the scriptures . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis (Was Re: Evolution vs. Creation)
Anyone else notice the irony in the subject line? :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
