On 17/09/2008, at 8:52 AM, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
Deciding who does and does not get to have children (or deciding how
many they're allowed to have) is in the same class of problems as
deciding who lives or who dies.
But noting that in affluent, educated societies, birth-rates fall (and
At 05:37 PM Tuesday 9/16/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
On Sep 16, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
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
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
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The fact that deciding which of the existing 6-7 billion should be
allowed to live is an extremely thorny ethical and moral question (and
one I wouldn't even begin to be qualified to answer) doesn't take away
from the fact
Bruce Bostwick wrote:
There is a third
option, if viable enough habitats can be created elsewhere in the
solar system -- ::eyes Mars enviously::
Opening new frontiers is never a solution to overpopulation. The
reason is that emmigration will only reduce the home population
by a tiny
On Sep 17, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
At 05:37 PM Tuesday 9/16/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
On Sep 16, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
No, it's just what I ask _everybody_ who suggests that
approaching 7
billion (or whatever the current world population happens
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
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Bruce Bostwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(It also doesn't address the fact that certain subcultures within that
population are deliberately breeding children at a greatly
*accelerated* rate, specifically as a long-term strategy to promote
their own ideologies
On Sep 17, 2008, at 5:21 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
It is all the people who have MORE children
than Jon who are the real problem!
He had 2.
I have 3.
Can I really help that the second pregnancy was with
*twins*? (And no,
there were no
Good to see you again Ticia!
xponent
Greetings Maru
rob
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Thanks rob, never actually left, just too little time to get involved
in discussions anymore... This is the rush hour of our lives as they
say in Dutch. The only reason I was able to type my previous message
is I returned to work 2 weeks ago and now have these pockets of 'quiet
time' in
At 03:30 PM Tuesday 9/16/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
I said that we can't feed the world and dispense with
agribusiness, but i hope we can dispense make food production more
productive and less destructive to habitats. we are approaching 7
billion people and little sign of reaching zpg.
On Sep 17, 2008, at 2:46 AM, Wayne Eddy wrote:
From: Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The fact that deciding which of the existing 6-7 billion should be
allowed to live is an extremely thorny ethical and moral question
(and
one I wouldn't even begin to be qualified to answer) doesn't
The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over nine
years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set
up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established
a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat
technologies, and even casts of regulars over
On Sep 17, 2008, at 7:27 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Bruce Bostwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(It also doesn't address the fact that certain subcultures within
that
population are deliberately breeding children at a greatly
*accelerated* rate,
No, it's just what I ask _everybody_ who suggests
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
This is the rush hour of our lives,
as they say in Dutch.
They also say, It's not much if it's not Dutch~)
Jon
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Sep 17, 2008, at 2:32 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
This is the rush hour of our lives,
as they say in Dutch.
They also say, It's not much if it's not Dutch~)
Jon
This sort of reminds me of Mike Myers' line in a certain SNL sketch:
If it's not Scots, it's CRAP!
(I vaguely remember Kyle
On Sep 16, 2008, at 8:21 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
It is all the people who have MORE children
than Jon who are the real problem!
He had 2.
I have 3.
Can I really help that the second pregnancy was with
*twins*? (And no,
there were no
On Sep 17, 2008, at 12:01 AM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 17/09/2008, at 8:52 AM, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
Deciding who does and does not get to have children (or deciding how
many they're allowed to have) is in the same class of problems as
deciding who lives or who dies.
But noting that in
A Modest Proposal of a different kind?
Eat the Rich Maru
Dave
They certainly have more meat on their bones...~}
Long Pig Maru
Jon
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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
Lets hope that that technology will eventually enable 6-7
billion humans to
exist on Earth on a sustainable basis.
Mind you, I think we should be ambitous and work towards a
population of
20-100 billion plus near immortal humans, living in
stimulating artifical
environments in
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
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
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.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Bruce Bostwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 17, 2008, at 7:27 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote:
Cite?
Come on, you knew that was coming. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull - only one example, but
rather representative
On Sep 17, 2008, at 4:27 PM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Bruce Bostwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 17, 2008, at 7:27 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote:
Cite?
Come on, you knew that was coming. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull - only one example, but
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
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A Modest Proposal of a different kind?
Eat the Rich Maru
Dave
They certainly have more meat on their bones...~}
Long Pig Maru
http://www.goveg.com/
:-)
--
Mauro Diotallevi
Carnivore Maru
At 03:03 PM Wednesday 9/17/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
A Modest Proposal of a different kind?
Eat the Rich Maru
Dave
They certainly have more meat on their bones...~}
I think it you look at who is fat in America you might change that statement.
. . . ronn! :)
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
At 03:12 PM Wednesday 9/17/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
i like the idea of living in arcologies under the earth, oceans,
and ice caps, so the planet can revert to habitats for plant and
animal species.
Humans are not adapted to living in warrens any more than most other
large animal or
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
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
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
On 18/09/2008, at 9:13 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
At 03:12 PM Wednesday 9/17/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
i like the idea of living in arcologies under the earth, oceans,
and ice caps, so the planet can revert to habitats for plant and
animal species.
Humans are not adapted to living in
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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!~)
i like the idea of living in arcologies under the
earth, oceans,
and ice caps, so the planet can revert to habitats for
plant and animal species.
Humans are not adapted to living in warrens any more than
most other
large animal or plant species.
. . . ronn! :)
i didn't suggest we
Eat the Rich Maru
Dave
They certainly have more meat on their bones...~}
I think it you look at who is fat in America you might
change that statement.
. . . ronn! :)
right, and we can thank the fast food establishments for that!~)jon
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
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
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
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
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:
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
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/09/17/big-fat-resumes.aspx
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375_pf.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27aamodt.html?_r=2oref=sloginoref=slogin
http://www.welcometoyourbrain.com/
A few
55 matches
Mail list logo
