Re: ZPG
Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Sep 17, 2008, at 8:26 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 07:57 PM Wednesday 9/17/2008, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 17, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 17 Sep 2008 at 13:46, Dave Land wrote: Perhaps the reproduction tax incentive can be on a curve, with zero or less population growth being rewarded, over-reproduction being penalized: 0 children -- 3 deductions 1 child-- 2 deduction 2 children -- 1 deductions 3 children -- 1 penalty 4 children -- 2 penalties Congratulations, you just lowered the birth rate again among the very people who are not even currently producing a replacement population, and the groups who want lots of children anyway are now bitterly opposed to the government and are very unlike to listen to anything else they say on the matter. That's OK, I'll just go back to the last save point and try again. I imagine most politicians wish it were that easy in RL . . . Do Over Maru . . . ronn! :) There's a lot to be said for the concept of test simulations, alpha and beta testing, and staged rollouts for social policy. Those are foreign concepts to most politicians, who seem to prefer the equivalent of making a full-scale production run of duplicates of the first-generation prototype and releasing them to the public with no testing at all, and when people unsurprisingly call tech support to ask WTF?!, screaming at them for being a bunch of whiners. I for one would particularly like there to be a simulation environment that could be used to catch unintended consequences like these, as well as alpha and beta test environments with some degree of user acceptance testing and feedback, before social-policy bills are signed out of Congress. Never happen, and I'm probably too much of an engineering-type geek for even thinking about it, but it's an appealing thought nonetheless. Actually, this happens in Real Life, at least staged rollouts. In Namibia, for example, they are now test-driving a Basic Income Grant scheme in a limited part of the country for two years, before deciding if this is a good policy to run nation-wide. http://bignam.org /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Probably less after she's already conceived than if she's asking friends/acquaintances for advice before doing so. After conception, it's kind of hard to change course in most cases. in this country, women can still have as many offspring as they can bear. welfare mommies actually profit from having more. Are you actually familiar with any welfare moms well enough to understand their finances? I don't believe anybody on welfare is coming out ahead by having more kids unless they are fake kids or some other kind of fraud. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Probably less after she's already conceived than if she's asking friends/acquaintances for advice before doing so. After conception, it's kind of hard to change course in most cases. in this country, women can still have as many offspring as they can bear. welfare mommies actually profit from having more. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l You gotta be f**king kidding me! What are you doing? Channeling Reagan? john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
ZPG
in this country, women can still have as many offspring as they can bear. welfare mommies actually profit from having more. jon You gotta be f**king kidding me! What are you doing? Channeling Reagan? john just being sardonic, john. when faced with a choice between working at mcdonald's and collecting welfare, one way out for many women who don't have the incentive or aptitude to earn a living wage, is to have one kid after another, so they can stay on welfare. that's how the system works, and the ones who scream the most about infanticide are the very ones who complain about welfare... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
Are you actually familiar with any welfare moms well enough to understand their finances? I don't believe anybody on welfare is coming out ahead by having more kids unless they are fake kids or some other kind of fraud. Nick actually, i had a neighbor who was living in section 8 housing, paying 15% what i was paying for a one bedroom apt. when the heat was on her to get on workfare she would get knocked up by wealthy married men and collect quiet money under the table, not to tell their wives. of course i am aware she is not representative and most women on welfare (whoopi goldberg was one) soon find a productive career and become single mom survivors, not an easy road to hoe. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: in this country, women can still have as many offspring as they can bear. welfare mommies actually profit from having more. jon You gotta be f**king kidding me! What are you doing? Channeling Reagan? john just being sardonic, john. when faced with a choice between working at mcdonald's and collecting welfare, one way out for many women who don't have the incentive or aptitude to earn a living wage, is to have one kid after another, so they can stay on welfare. that's how the system works, and the ones who scream the most about infanticide are the very ones who complain about welfare... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Sounds like Ronnie's Welfare Queen bs. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Probably less after she's already conceived than if she's asking friends/acquaintances for advice before doing so. After conception, it's kind of hard to change course in most cases. in this country, women can still have as many offspring as they can bear. welfare mommies actually profit from having more. I know that others have noted the Reaganesque nature of this post, but I have to ask: cite please? It was an urban legend and a filthy lie that a certain kind of politician used to smear fine people in the 1980s, and I doubt very much that actual welfare mommies of the kind you describe ever existed. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On 19/09/2008, at 11:08 AM, Dave Land wrote: It was an urban legend and a filthy lie that a certain kind of politician used to smear fine people in the 1980s, and I doubt very much that actual welfare mommies of the kind you describe ever existed. I'm sure that they do exist having seen such exposed in the UK and in Australia, but I'm also sure that, like any other total bludger living entirely on welfare (or supplementing meagre welfare with drug dealing), they're also very rare and such a tiny drain on the system that they're an irrelevant distraction. Like IMMIGRANTS!!! and TERROR!!! and ATHEISTS!!! and ELITISTS!!! they're tools of the demagogue pandering to lowest-common denominator fears. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
ZPG
in this country, women can still have as many offspring as they can bear. welfare mommies actually profit from having more. I know that others have noted the Reaganesque nature of this post, but I have to ask: cite please? It was an urban legend and a filthy lie that a certain kind of politician used to smear fine people in the 1980s, and I doubt very much that actual welfare mommies of the kind you describe ever existed. Dave i understand where you are coming from, dave, but such cases do exist. i had one for a neighbor, but as i said, they are the exception rather than the rule. when republican politicians use this as a campaign tactic it only works because the system IS flawed. i tried to look up the urban myth on snopes and this is what i got: Sorry, no matches were found containing welfare mommies. We're sorry you didn't find what you were looking for. Please try again, this time basing your search on one or two words you deem central to the item you are looking for. Because many items circulate in numerous forms, often this slight shift in strategy will locate articles that a search on a specific string or title missed. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
At 10:24 PM Tuesday 9/16/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: So what selection criteria do you suggest be used? And again, are you volunteering to be first? First for what; are you suggesting that it's all my fault and I should commit suicide? No, it's just what I ask _everybody_ who suggests that approaching 7 billion (or whatever the current world population happens to be) is too many people: where _specifically_ do you suggest that the needed reductions be made, and if you personally are not at the head of that list, how do you justify putting anyone else ahead of you? . . . ronn! just because i make the observation that there are too many people on the planet doesn't mean it is entirely my responsibility to correct the problem, ronn, any more than it is my responsibility to redistribute the wealth by giving away my possessions. all i can do is live a sustainable lifestyle as much as i can, try not to spread my seed, or tell anyone else what they MUST do with their body if i knock them up. Does not telling anyone else what they MUST do with their body extend to those who want to have children? If not, please justify why not. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On Sep 17, 2008, at 2:32 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Does not telling anyone else what they MUST do with their body extend to those who want to have children? If not, please justify why not. . . . ronn! :) Given that the act of having children is unique in that it has a collective effect on population, it is effectively an exception to that principle. (And I'm normally about as opposed to taking control of people's individual decisions about what to do with their bodies as it's possible to be .. but where reproduction is concerned, the species' collective survival is an overriding interest. And ignoring that fact is one of the most common distractors in this sort of discussion.) Heard from a flight instructor: The only dumb question is the one you DID NOT ask, resulting in my going out and having to identify your bits and pieces in the midst of torn and twisted metal. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On Sep 17, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 10:24 PM Tuesday 9/16/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: just because i make the observation that there are too many people on the planet doesn't mean it is entirely my responsibility to correct the problem, ronn, any more than it is my responsibility to redistribute the wealth by giving away my possessions. all i can do is live a sustainable lifestyle as much as i can, try not to spread my seed, or tell anyone else what they MUST do with their body if i knock them up. Does not telling anyone else what they MUST do with their body extend to those who want to have children? If not, please justify why not. Are you seriously suggesting that Jon should have to justify NOT ordering a woman to have an abortion against her will? Or are you thinking that something in what he said indicated that he might feel obliged to impregnate a woman who demanded that he do so? (I venture that it might be possible for a woman to _persuade_ him to perform such service, but doubt he'd allow himself to be _compelled_ to do so.) :-) I gather that he believes this: all [he] can do is ... not tell anyone else what they MUST do with their body if [he] knock[s] them up. I assumed that meant that a woman who becomes pregnant by him may choose for herself whether to carry the baby to term or not -- it's not up to him to tell her what she MUST do with her own body. Free Willy Maru Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
ZPG
Does not telling anyone else what they MUST do with their body extend to those who want to have children? If not, please justify why not. . . . ronn! :) I can't make them NOT have children, any more than I can make people not use drugs. Whether it is the body of the planet or our own bodies, people will do what they want unless they are restricted by government. There are autocratic ways to do this, as in China. What America does is reward people for having children by giving them tax deductions. Single people have to pay for my children's education, etc. On the other hand, should we reward people for not having children? Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On Sep 17, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Does not telling anyone else what they MUST do with their body extend to those who want to have children? If not, please justify why not. . . . ronn! :) I can't make them NOT have children, any more than I can make people not use drugs. Whether it is the body of the planet or our own bodies, people will do what they want unless they are restricted by government. There are autocratic ways to do this, as in China. What America does is reward people for having children by giving them tax deductions. Single people have to pay for my children's education, etc. On the other hand, should we reward people for not having children? We should, at least, reward people for NOT having those stupid my family stickers on the rear window of their giant SUVs or minivans, declaring their reproductive excesses. Perhaps the reproduction tax incentive can be on a curve, with zero or less population growth being rewarded, over-reproduction being penalized: 0 children -- 3 deductions 1 child-- 2 deduction 2 children -- 1 deductions 3 children -- 1 penalty 4 children -- 2 penalties and so forth. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
Jon Louis Mann wrote: I can't make them NOT have children, any more than I can make people not use drugs. Whether it is the body of the planet or our own bodies, people will do what they want unless they are restricted by government. There are autocratic ways to do this, as in China. But are these ways _efficient_? China population didn't stop growing, despite the 1-kid-per-couple law. I saw a documentary about a chinese girl that worked as a slave in some export-oriented industry; she was an unperson, an illegal child that was not registered - probably most girls are unpersons in China now. What America does is reward people for having children by giving them tax deductions. Single people have to pay for my children's education, etc. On the other hand, should we reward people for not having children? This is stupid. Nations that have enough money to reward people for _not_ having babies are those with Z(or N)PG. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On 17 Sep 2008 at 13:46, Dave Land wrote: Perhaps the reproduction tax incentive can be on a curve, with zero or less population growth being rewarded, over-reproduction being penalized: 0 children -- 3 deductions 1 child-- 2 deduction 2 children -- 1 deductions 3 children -- 1 penalty 4 children -- 2 penalties Congratulations, you just lowered the birth rate again among the very people who are not even currently producing a replacement population, and the groups who want lots of children anyway are now bitterly opposed to the government and are very unlike to listen to anything else they say on the matter. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
At 03:06 PM Wednesday 9/17/2008, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 17, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 10:24 PM Tuesday 9/16/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: just because i make the observation that there are too many people on the planet doesn't mean it is entirely my responsibility to correct the problem, ronn, any more than it is my responsibility to redistribute the wealth by giving away my possessions. all i can do is live a sustainable lifestyle as much as i can, try not to spread my seed, or tell anyone else what they MUST do with their body if i knock them up. Does not telling anyone else what they MUST do with their body extend to those who want to have children? If not, please justify why not. Are you seriously suggesting that Jon should have to justify NOT ordering a woman to have an abortion against her will? I'm asking if he thinks he has any business saying anything to a woman having frex her eighth child. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
At 03:21 PM Wednesday 9/17/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Does not telling anyone else what they MUST do with their body extend to those who want to have children? If not, please justify why not. . . . ronn! :) I can't make them NOT have children, any more than I can make people not use drugs. Whether it is the body of the planet or our own bodies, people will do what they want unless they are restricted by government. There are autocratic ways to do this, as in China. What America does is reward people for having children by giving them tax deductions. Single people have to pay for my children's education, etc. On the other hand, should we reward people for not having children? Many people (most of whom have children) say that being a DINK is its own reward. Children are expensive: much more expensive than the tax deduction offsets. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On Sep 17, 2008, at 6:11 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 03:06 PM Wednesday 9/17/2008, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 17, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 10:24 PM Tuesday 9/16/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: just because i make the observation that there are too many people on the planet doesn't mean it is entirely my responsibility to correct the problem, ronn, any more than it is my responsibility to redistribute the wealth by giving away my possessions. all i can do is live a sustainable lifestyle as much as i can, try not to spread my seed, or tell anyone else what they MUST do with their body if i knock them up. Does not telling anyone else what they MUST do with their body extend to those who want to have children? If not, please justify why not. Are you seriously suggesting that Jon should have to justify NOT ordering a woman to have an abortion against her will? I'm asking if he thinks he has any business saying anything to a woman having frex her eighth child. . . . ronn! :) Probably less after she's already conceived than if she's asking friends/acquaintances for advice before doing so. After conception, it's kind of hard to change course in most cases. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
But are these ways _efficient_? China population didn't stop growing, despite the 1-kid-per-couple law. I saw a documentary about a chinese girl that worked as a slave in some export-oriented industry; she was an unperson, an illegal child that was not registered - probably most girls are unpersons in China now. Besides the fact that Chinas policy is not enforced absolutely (especially in rural areas) it hasn't had time to reveal it's effectiveness yet - not until the post war population bulge and their offspring pass away. The one child policy becomes effective when the single children and their single offspring become the breeding population and their ancestors begin dying out, a process currently beginning but not yet the norm for China. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On Sep 17, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 17 Sep 2008 at 13:46, Dave Land wrote: Perhaps the reproduction tax incentive can be on a curve, with zero or less population growth being rewarded, over-reproduction being penalized: 0 children -- 3 deductions 1 child-- 2 deduction 2 children -- 1 deductions 3 children -- 1 penalty 4 children -- 2 penalties Congratulations, you just lowered the birth rate again among the very people who are not even currently producing a replacement population, and the groups who want lots of children anyway are now bitterly opposed to the government and are very unlike to listen to anything else they say on the matter. That's OK, I'll just go back to the last save point and try again. Game of Life Maru Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
At 07:57 PM Wednesday 9/17/2008, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 17, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 17 Sep 2008 at 13:46, Dave Land wrote: Perhaps the reproduction tax incentive can be on a curve, with zero or less population growth being rewarded, over-reproduction being penalized: 0 children -- 3 deductions 1 child-- 2 deduction 2 children -- 1 deductions 3 children -- 1 penalty 4 children -- 2 penalties Congratulations, you just lowered the birth rate again among the very people who are not even currently producing a replacement population, and the groups who want lots of children anyway are now bitterly opposed to the government and are very unlike to listen to anything else they say on the matter. That's OK, I'll just go back to the last save point and try again. I imagine most politicians wish it were that easy in RL . . . Do Over Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On Sep 17, 2008, at 8:26 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 07:57 PM Wednesday 9/17/2008, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 17, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 17 Sep 2008 at 13:46, Dave Land wrote: Perhaps the reproduction tax incentive can be on a curve, with zero or less population growth being rewarded, over-reproduction being penalized: 0 children -- 3 deductions 1 child-- 2 deduction 2 children -- 1 deductions 3 children -- 1 penalty 4 children -- 2 penalties Congratulations, you just lowered the birth rate again among the very people who are not even currently producing a replacement population, and the groups who want lots of children anyway are now bitterly opposed to the government and are very unlike to listen to anything else they say on the matter. That's OK, I'll just go back to the last save point and try again. I imagine most politicians wish it were that easy in RL . . . Do Over Maru . . . ronn! :) There's a lot to be said for the concept of test simulations, alpha and beta testing, and staged rollouts for social policy. Those are foreign concepts to most politicians, who seem to prefer the equivalent of making a full-scale production run of duplicates of the first-generation prototype and releasing them to the public with no testing at all, and when people unsurprisingly call tech support to ask WTF?!, screaming at them for being a bunch of whiners. I for one would particularly like there to be a simulation environment that could be used to catch unintended consequences like these, as well as alpha and beta test environments with some degree of user acceptance testing and feedback, before social-policy bills are signed out of Congress. Never happen, and I'm probably too much of an engineering-type geek for even thinking about it, but it's an appealing thought nonetheless. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On 18/09/2008, at 11:32 AM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: I for one would particularly like there to be a simulation environment that could be used to catch unintended consequences like these, as well as alpha and beta test environments with some degree of user acceptance testing and feedback, before social-policy bills are signed out of Congress. Never happen, and I'm probably too much of an engineering-type geek for even thinking about it, but it's an appealing thought nonetheless. The UK has such a test environment. It's called Scotland. Charlie Not Entirely Serious, Not Entirely Joking Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
At 08:45 PM Wednesday 9/17/2008, Charlie Bell wrote: On 18/09/2008, at 11:32 AM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: I for one would particularly like there to be a simulation environment that could be used to catch unintended consequences like these, as well as alpha and beta test environments with some degree of user acceptance testing and feedback, before social-policy bills are signed out of Congress. Never happen, and I'm probably too much of an engineering-type geek for even thinking about it, but it's an appealing thought nonetheless. The UK has such a test environment. It's called Scotland. Dude, you're too far away to come clean my monitor . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
At 08:32 PM Wednesday 9/17/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Sep 17, 2008, at 8:26 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 07:57 PM Wednesday 9/17/2008, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 17, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 17 Sep 2008 at 13:46, Dave Land wrote: Perhaps the reproduction tax incentive can be on a curve, with zero or less population growth being rewarded, over-reproduction being penalized: 0 children -- 3 deductions 1 child-- 2 deduction 2 children -- 1 deductions 3 children -- 1 penalty 4 children -- 2 penalties Congratulations, you just lowered the birth rate again among the very people who are not even currently producing a replacement population, and the groups who want lots of children anyway are now bitterly opposed to the government and are very unlike to listen to anything else they say on the matter. That's OK, I'll just go back to the last save point and try again. I imagine most politicians wish it were that easy in RL . . . Do Over Maru . . . ronn! :) There's a lot to be said for the concept of test simulations, alpha and beta testing, and staged rollouts for social policy. Those are foreign concepts to most politicians, who seem to prefer the equivalent of making a full-scale production run of duplicates of the first-generation prototype and releasing them to the public with no testing at all, and when people unsurprisingly call tech support to ask WTF?!, screaming at them for being a bunch of whiners. I for one would particularly like there to be a simulation environment that could be used to catch unintended consequences like these, as well as alpha and beta test environments with some degree of user acceptance testing and feedback, before social-policy bills are signed out of Congress. Never happen, and I'm probably too much of an engineering-type geek for even thinking about it, but it's an appealing thought nonetheless. I suppose one response might be that ideally the debate in committee between the sponsor(s) and members of the opposition party should bring up all possible problems and objections before the bill is finalized. A more cynical hypothesis might be that despite the American principle that all men are created equal the kind of people who are likely to run for and get elected to Congress (similarly for state legislatures, county commissions, city councils, etc.) nevertheless see themselves as the elite who are by definition qualified to know what is best for the masses (certainly more qualified to do so than the masses are to choose for themselves). . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On 18 Sep 2008, at 02:45, Charlie Bell wrote: On 18/09/2008, at 11:32 AM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: I for one would particularly like there to be a simulation environment that could be used to catch unintended consequences like these, as well as alpha and beta test environments with some degree of user acceptance testing and feedback, before social-policy bills are signed out of Congress. Never happen, and I'm probably too much of an engineering-type geek for even thinking about it, but it's an appealing thought nonetheless. The UK has such a test environment. It's called Scotland. Which is one reason why the SNP gained control of the Scottish Parliament. Poll Tax Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ “Babies are born every day without an iPod. We will get there.” - Adam Sohn, the head of public relations for Microsoft's Zune division. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
ZPG
Probably less after she's already conceived than if she's asking friends/acquaintances for advice before doing so. After conception, it's kind of hard to change course in most cases. in this country, women can still have as many offspring as they can bear. welfare mommies actually profit from having more. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
ZPG
Many people (most of whom have children) say that being a DINK is its own reward. Children are expensive: much more expensive than the tax deduction offsets. . . . ronn! :) which is why those who can afford children will continue to have their 2.3. and those who can't have welfare!~) what is a DINK? jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
ZPG
Congratulations, you just lowered the birth rate again among the very people who are not even currently producing a replacement population, and the groups who want lots of children anyway are now bitterly opposed to the government and are very unlike to listen to anything else they say on the matter. AndrewC right, and at the rate populations are growing the rabble will soon be able to take over, and they will never allow genetic enhancements for religious reasons... since they are also against stem cedll research, the mortality rate will increase. on the plus side, that means more will get into heaven!~) jo ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
ZPG
Congratulations, you just lowered the birth rate again among the very people who are not even currently producing a replacement population, and the groups who want lots of children anyway are now bitterly opposed to the government and are very unlike to listen to anything else they say on the matter. AndrewC right, and at the rate populations are growing the rabble will soon be able to take over, and they will never allow genetic enhancements for religious reasons... since they are also against stem cedll research, the mortality rate will increase. on the plus side, that means more will get into heaven!~) jo ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
ZPG
Congratulations, you just lowered the birth rate again among the very people who are not even currently producing a replacement population, and the groups who want lots of children anyway are now bitterly opposed to the government and are very unlike to listen to anything else they say on the matter. AndrewC right, and at the rate populations are growing the rabble will soon be able to take over, and they will never allow genetic enhancements for religious reasons... since they are also against stem cedll research, the mortality rate will increase. on the plus side, that means more will get into heaven!~) jo ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
ZPG
Congratulations, you just lowered the birth rate again among the very people who are not even currently producing a replacement population, and the groups who want lots of children anyway are now bitterly opposed to the government and are very unlike to listen to anything else they say on the matter. AndrewC right, and at the rate populations are growing the rabble will soon be able to take over, and they will never allow genetic enhancements for religious reasons... since they are also against stem cedll research, the mortality rate will increase. on the plus side, that means more will get into heaven!~) jo ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: ZPG
We used to have fifty such testing environments, until the feds decided they had to micromanage us under the Interstate commerce clause - their excuse being that any fungible items could end up in interstate commerce. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: ZPG Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 03:38:07 +0100 On 18 Sep 2008, at 02:45, Charlie Bell wrote: On 18/09/2008, at 11:32 AM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: I for one would particularly like there to be a simulation environment that could be used to catch unintended consequences like these, as well as alpha and beta test environments with some degree of user acceptance testing and feedback, before social-policy bills are signed out of Congress. Never happen, and I'm probably too much of an engineering-type geek for even thinking about it, but it's an appealing thought nonetheless. The UK has such a test environment. It's called Scotland. Which is one reason why the SNP gained control of the Scottish Parliament. Poll Tax Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ “Babies are born every day without an iPod. We will get there.” - Adam Sohn, the head of public relations for Microsoft's Zune division. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On Sep 17, 2008, at 8:21 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Many people (most of whom have children) say that being a DINK is its own reward. Children are expensive: much more expensive than the tax deduction offsets. . . . ronn! :) which is why those who can afford children will continue to have their 2.3. and those who can't have welfare!~) what is a DINK? Dual Income, No Kids. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
ZPG
So what selection criteria do you suggest be used? And again, are you volunteering to be first? First for what; are you suggesting that it's all my fault and I should commit suicide? No, it's just what I ask _everybody_ who suggests that approaching 7 billion (or whatever the current world population happens to be) is too many people: where _specifically_ do you suggest that the needed reductions be made, and if you personally are not at the head of that list, how do you justify putting anyone else ahead of you? . . . ronn! just because i make the observation that there are too many people on the planet doesn't mean it is entirely my responsibility to correct the problem, ronn, any more than it is my responsibility to redistribute the wealth by giving away my possessions. all i can do is live a sustainable lifestyle as much as i can, try not to spread my seed, or tell anyone else what they MUST do with their body if i knock them up. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
