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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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 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
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 03:21 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 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!~)
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
-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
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
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
36 matches
Mail list logo
