Conference back40::soapbox

    
    
      Someday??
    
       The earths human population would be sustainable if cut by a factor
      of 10?  The number is a wag.  Since I hate crowds I'd like to see
      it much higher.
    
    Ken

    When god chooses a woman as pope we might just be able to get
    somewhere.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Actually, the world could sustain a population 100 times higher than it
    has now.  There are vast tracts of land with nothing on, how many
    people could live in your house?  Just look at all those wastefull
    national parks, forests, golf courses, get them under cultivation.  Ban
    meat production (especially cattle) and hay presto, its easy.  You
    got it, so all these new people are alive.  But what sort of life? 
    Would it be worth it?  - Personally I doubt it, however no form of
    population control can be forced on a population, it has to want it. 
    Its down to educating people with the options.  Afterall, Italy listens
    very carefully to what the pope has to say but doesn't have the
    massive population growth experienced in the southern hemisphere
    catholic countries.
    
    R. Michael  -  Already chastising himself for these wicked
    generalisations.

	RE .2 Boy, and I thought I was a radical.......%^(

	I don't agree that the earth can sustain in the long term
more people than we have today.

	The de-forrestation, polution etc.... will do us in
if we don't stop. I don't think it is a space issue rather
a resource and polution issue.

	Can I help chastize you.......??

    Its a quality of life question methinks.  What is life for?  Some
    suggestions seem to be:
    
    There isn't one  (gets my vote.)
    Make babies and fight for every ecological slot available (Darwinists?)
    The greater glory of my God (radical/conservative god heads)
    The greater glory of god (liberal/soft god heads)
    Watch television (my daughter)
    To take control of as much of the available resourses as possible (most
    of the right wing neo_thingies lurking in this notes conference.)
    Copulate (The bus queue, just down from where I live when ther pubs
    have shut.)
    something else. (someone else.)
    
    So, why are we here is the first question?  I standy the idea that
    hugely more numbers of people can be supported if it was the global
    will to do it.  Alas, if it was the global will we could do many things
    but those neo_thingies will try and stop us.
    
    more later, Mike.

    re: .0
    
    Wars will take care of the excess...always has.  In the past, there
    were fewer people inhabiting the earth than today, but technology has
    paved the way to wipe out the additional people without much of a
    problem.
    
    If one pays attention to Revelation (of Jesus Christ), then you may see
    the signs being fulfilled before your eyes for a future conflict that
    will render the population problem (if one really existed) moot.
    
    If one looks at the nuclear proliferation in countries not supposed to
    have nukes, the time bomb of Russia, and the tension in the middle
    east, you may see a prelude for WWIII.
    
    -steve (alarmist, and damn proud of it) 8^)

	Too late for me...........%^)

    Yep, eventually the population will fall, some form of "predation" will
    occur.  Humanity is not immune to extinction it would just be very very
    difficult.
    
    R. mike
    

    re: .5
    
    So, rather than control the population by peaceful and intelligent
    means, you'd rather wait until, disease, famine or war wiped them out?
    
    How humane of you. 

    re: .9
    
    You got that from my apocalyptic note?  Sigh.

    Arm the populas! Arm criminals, children,women, even the pope. And one
    day a year, all dress in black, with black hoods. And go hunting each
    other. Thus it cures the population program, cures the fact that not
    enough guns are in the populas's hands, and cures the current
    economical slump. Manufacturing of small arms and bullets! What a
    deal!:) Who says were not radical?

    
    
    
    Wow!!! Deja Vu!!! Didn't some guy named Teekma come screaming into the
    box not too long ago with the very same sort of suggestion???
    

	Yeah, hey, that was my idea.............!!!!!!

	So I guess it wasn't too far fetched after all ehhhhhh ??

    population tend to follow standard of living. Although which is cause
    and which effect I don't know.
    
    Try to increase the standard of living in third world countries by
    offering a formal aide program. Make it a requirement of the aide
    program that some form of government regulated birth control be
    implimented (ex forced sterilization after x children).
    
    OR 
    
    Stop the UN and US from getting involved in everyone elses disputes
    and let the foremention war/famine take its course.
    
    
    Brian V
    
    
    (make meat consumption illegal....extremely wastefull process)
    
    NOT

    > population tend to follow standard of living. Although which is cause
    > and which effect I don't know.
    
    Countries where the standard of living is very low and child mortality
    high tend to have large families (high birthrates) to provide extra
    labor and guarantee at least some progeny surviving to take care of
    elders in their dotage.  Trends in numerous countries over the last
    several centuries clearly document that population rates start to go
    down a generation or so after standards of living substantially
    improve; several threshholds are recognized, the only one I know
    offhand is that when average family income exceeds ~$4500/year then 
    enough of the population is affluent enough to start purchasing major
    consumer goods like refrigerators, washing machines, automobiles, etc.
    The income average threshhold where countries start seeing lower
    birthrates because raising more mouths and educating them costs more
    than their labor provides is higher than that.  But the studies have
    been done to answer your question: clearly, population effects follow
    changes in standards of living, not vice versa; in the developing
    world, anyway.
    
    > Try to increase the standard of living in third world countries by
    > offering a formal aide program. Make it a requirement of the aide
    > program that some form of government regulated birth control be
    > implimented (ex forced sterilization after x children).
    
    That was the consistent and bipartisan US policy, and we lead the world
    in that stance, from the post-war era until the 80's, when Reagan and
    the radical right reversed this policy because of the politics of
    abortion in the US.  30+ years of progress were erased in less than a
    decade; population pressures are hugely worse in most LDCs as a result.
    Clinics shut, trained health care personnel lost to other careers, a
    right royal screwup.
    
    DougO
    

    .14, .15:
    
    How Nice.
    
    Dick

    imperialism to want to help other countries raise their standards of
    living?  oh, I feel so dirty.
    
    DougO

    re: Note 54.17 by SX4GTO::OLSON 
    > imperialism to want to help other countries raise their standards of
    > living?  oh, I feel so dirty.
    
    Why don't we focus on OUR citizens & neighbors first?  How many folks
    eat out of garbage cans in your part of town?  If you want to help
    the rest of the world, which is a noble idea, do it with your own 
    resources.

    doom?

    > If you want to help the rest of the world, which is a noble idea, do
    > it with your own resources.
    
    The way I want to "help other countries raise their standards of
    living" is to help them up to our standards of education and
    availability of birth control; thus, Dick's crack abut 'cultural
    imperialism'.  I presume I don't have to argue in this country for the
    right of all kids to an education and the right of all people to
    effective means of birth control.  You may disagree, and think that
    there are still pockets of the US where the educational system doesn't
    effectively guarantee the children an education, and pockets where
    access to effective birth control isn't secure; but I think you'll
    probably begrudgingly admit that if I want to spend my time supporting
    those efforts in countries that need them far more than here, that I
    have a justifiable case for so doing; because for the most part, people
    here don't disagree about the needs for those things, just the methods
    of accomplishing them.  
    
    In terms of your cry to do so with my own resources, well, I think it
    is in the interests of the US to help people establish the rights
    to proper education and to effective means of birth control - because
    with those things, they will be equipped to do the work to raise
    themselves.  They won't need to come illegaly to this land of
    opportunity and swarm our borders and cost our taxpayers millions if
    they turn their own countries into land of opportunity as well.  So a
    US role in helping the developing world in these areas is an investment
    I think will pay the US back many times over; so I'll argue for it as a
    policy choice.  Feel free to argue against the ideas, but try to do it
    without spittle forming as you  sneer "one-worlder" at me.
    
    DougO
    

re: Note 54.20 by SX4GTO::OLSON
        
>    The way I want to "help other countries raise their standards of
>    living" is to help them up to our standards of education and
>    availability of birth control; thus, Dick's crack abut 'cultural

Who's going to pay for it?

>    imperialism'.  I presume I don't have to argue in this country for the
>    right of all kids to an education and the right of all people to
>    effective means of birth control.  You may disagree, and think that
>    there are still pockets of the US where the educational system doesn't
>    effectively guarantee the children an education, and pockets where
>    access to effective birth control isn't secure; 

We already have public education, last I looked. That's why I agree to
pay tax on my home.  It goes to the town.  Now if the kids would show
up, and people would quit shoving their agendas into the program and simply
TEACH kids,  maybe we'd get our moneys worth.  As for "effective birth
control", don't put it where it don't belong.  That's about as economical
as it gets.


>   but I think you'll
>    probably begrudgingly admit that if I want to spend my time supporting
>    those efforts in countries that need them far more than here, that I
>    have a justifiable case for so doing; because for the most part, people
>    here don't disagree about the needs for those things, just the methods
>    of accomplishing them.  
 
I don't begrudgingly admit it, I'll freely admit if you so choose to spend
your time assisting other folks in countries less fortunant than ours
be my guest, go ahead, with your money, or get a corporation to sponsor
you.  Totally justifyable.  Taking federal tax dollars for in is totally
unconstitutional.  I'd love to see someone challenge those programs and
see 'em get dumped.
   
>    In terms of your cry to do so with my own resources, well, I think it
>    is in the interests of the US to help people establish the rights
>    to proper education and to effective means of birth control - because
>    with those things, they will be equipped to do the work to raise
>    themselves.  They won't need to come illegaly to this land of
>    opportunity and swarm our borders and cost our taxpayers millions if
>    they turn their own countries into land of opportunity as well.  So a
>    US role in helping the developing world in these areas is an investment
>    I think will pay the US back many times over; so I'll argue for it as a
>    policy choice.  

Ah, "Our best interest":  Rob peter to pay paul.  I, along with most everyone
else bust our arss every day to make a living.  To raise MY family, and
the fed takes your money and sends it all over the world buying condoms
for kids in Ecudor.  As for your "don't come here illegally",  Well, we
already have laws that are supposed to prevent that (but they obviously
DON'T work, and they cost us big bux as well).  I see no future financial
gain in buying tons of condoms for children in Peru.  I DO NOT condone
isolationism.  I condone, and EXPECT a LEGAL, clear & logical foreign policy
from our federal government.  Building alliances, looking out for our
best interests (oil, unfortunantly, ya... starving kids suffering due to
civil war in Somolia, no, kids screwing like rabbits in Fredonia, no.)
Cruel, but fair.  Your argument that our border will be overloaded and
our (imo: illegal federal services) social "safety nets" will be overloaded is
due in part because this country can not properly protect our borders and
    because we've  made it extremely lucrative to come here (FREE HANDOUTS FOR
SITTING ON YOUR ASS WATCHING ROSEANNE & JERALLDO ALL DAY!!!!).
Who the hell would resist that?  This _is_ a land of immigrants.  At one
time, folks were willing to come here and bust there arse to get ahead.
Today, it's not that way.  Time to fix it, not ship condoms and bribe
money to North Korea. 

>Feel free to argue against the ideas, but try to do it
>    without spittle forming as you  sneer "one-worlder" at me.
 
    I'm sorry, Global Socialist is more appropriate.  We need to fix our own
    back yard before helping others.  Kinda like the drunk who was so
    worried about helping his fellow drunks, he didn't have enough strenght
    to help himself.     

MadMike                                                        

    > Ah, "Our best interest":  Rob peter to pay paul.  I, along with most
    > everyone else bust our arss every day to make a living.  To raise MY
    > family, and the fed takes your money and sends it all over the world
    > buying condoms for kids in Ecudor.
    
    I'd rather the fed take money and spread it around in the effort (which
    was *working*, for 30 years, before Reagan trashed it) to teach people
    how not to have more kids, than I would we have to send our own kids
    off to fight in wars that threaten our vital interests in some
    unfortunate corner of the world.  We either invest in the stability of
    the whole planet, or we send our kids off to die.
    
    > I condone, and EXPECT a LEGAL, clear & logical foreign policy from our
    > federal government.  Building alliances, looking out for our best
    > interests (oil, unfortunantly, ya... starving kids suffering due to
    > civil war in Somolia, no, kids screwing like rabbits in Fredonia, no.)
    > Cruel, but fair.
    
    Too simple.  Half-starved and suffering kids grow up to produce more
    kids in poverty and in social systems too crippled to lift themselves
    up, destabilizing entire continents and threatening our interests.  It
    IS logical foreign policy for us to work on global population control.  
    The border argument is only one of many; avoiding threats from poor
    have-nots by helping them turn themselves into haves is the larger one.
    
    DougO

    	So eloquent.
    
    	So wrong.

    re: .22 by DougO
    
>    I'd rather the fed take money and spread it around in the effort (which

"Take fed money and spread it around" is blatant income redistribution.
And wrong.  

>    was *working*, for 30 years, before Reagan trashed it) to teach people
>    how not to have more kids,

I do NOT believe this.  To me your "*WORKING*" = Pacify.  When you take away 
the cookie jar, people naturally will become angry.  TOUGH.

>  than I would we have to send our own kids
>    off to fight in wars that threaten our vital interests in some
>    unfortunate corner of the world.  

I MAY agree with this phrase, if the rest of your note were true, but it's
not.  We can flex military might anywhere in the world to protect our 
interests *IF* it is 
justifyably so.  Take Somalia for example.  While I am saddened to see
lots of folks starving there, we have absolutely NOTHING of importance
to gain by helping them, except a warm-&-fuzzy that we "made an effort".
Instead, we see *American* troops being dragged through town.  If I were
BillC, I would have flattened that effin place while withdrawing.  Actually,
I would have gone home before the carnage started, and stated flatly,
"You know, and I know, that I can kick your ass anytime I want.  See ya."
DougO, I think you are a father.  I am a father.  I would be ABSOLUTELY
RIPSHYTE if I saw my son being dragged through mogidishu (sp?).

>    We either invest in the stability of
>    the whole planet, or we send our kids off to die.
    
We are NOT the keepers of the planet.  We are the keepers of America.
We actually do piss a lot of people off projecting this global policeman
mentality, and we shouldn't "send our kids off to die" doing it.
If it has to do with our National security, and the CONGRESS agrees to it,
BY CHR**ST WE'RE COMIN' TO TOWN... otherwise, no deal.  Look at haiti.
You don't want to drown?  Don't set sail.  If you do set sail, we'll stop
you and return you.  We will (maybe?) educate you in the proper procedure
for entry into this country, but, if you wash up on shore, we'll send you
home.

>    Too simple.  Half-starved and suffering kids grow up to produce more
>    kids in poverty and in social systems too crippled to lift themselves
>    up, destabilizing entire continents and threatening our interests.  It

That's too bad Doug.  If (and it does) occur INSIDE of the USA, we need to
fix it.  IMO: it occurs here because we make it too easy to become dependant
upon the system, actually, we make it beneficial.  If it happens elsewhere,
well, God Bless America... we musta done something right (in having a
society which works and that maybe others SHOULD follow, but not be forced
or bribed into playing along.  After all, Communism fell apart on its own)

>    IS logical foreign policy for us to work on global population control.  
>    The border argument is only one of many; avoiding threats from poor
>    have-nots by helping them turn themselves into haves is the larger one.

We can and should be involved in discussion.  Someone can present the USA's 
opinion in a world forum.  But when you start sending money, and dictating 
policy and mingling in other peoples business *WE* are out of line and looking
for trouble.  I guarantee you we will find it.

MadMike

    >> was *working*, for 30 years, before Reagan trashed it) to teach people
    >> how not to have more kids,
    >
    > I do NOT believe this.  To me your "*WORKING*" = Pacify. 
    
    You are merely ignorant of the facts.  Check out the history of the
    efforts since the end of world war II, lead by the US to help the rest
    of the world control population.  Numerous developing countries turned
    around their soaring birthrates and started the long climb out of
    poverty.  Those who made it far enough fast enough to continue the
    positive trends with sound macroeconomic policies survived the end of
    that assistance in the 80's.  Many others, who had not, have tumbled
    back down the slope; childbirth rates are rising, famines and wars and
    droughts and bad governments prolong the instability and threaten our
    access to raw materials in numerous places around the globe.
    
    > We can flex military might anywhere in the world to protect our 
    > interests *IF* it is  justifyably so. 
    
    Like I said, that is unbelievably costly, in terms of putting American
    lives at risk  And I'd rather spend the money making it UNNECESSARY.
    
    >> We either invest in the stability of the whole planet, or we 
    >> send our kids off to die.
    >
    > We are NOT the keepers of the planet.  We are the keepers of America.
    > We actually do piss a lot of people off projecting this global
    > policeman mentality,
    
    You're the one wants to throw the military weight around.  I'd rather
    work to preserve our interests in a more constructive way, by investing
    in the human capital of those places and building them into our strong
    allies and trade partners.
    
    >> up, destabilizing entire continents and threatening our interests.
    >
    >That's too bad Doug.  If (and it does) occur INSIDE of the USA, we
    > need to fix it.
    
    Big picture time; we can't defend our interests solely within our own
    borders.  We are involved with the rest of the world.  That
    involvement, for mostly economic reasons, has prompted us to intervene
    with military force more than 70 times in South and Central America in
    just the last century.  Your way, to throw military force at it when
    security needs dictate, has proven to be too short sighted.  We simply
    cannot return to splendid isolationism.  This was recognized in the
    aftermath of WWII, when the western allies joined together in a host of
    multinational institutions to cement the relationships between them so
    firmly that war would become too risky and too uneconomic to dare.  The
    GATT, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, the Bretton Woods agreements,
    all were intended to provide a framework that the existing developed
    heirs to Western Civilization could use to enjoy the benefits of these
    growing relationships and which could expand to encompass the ranks of
    poorer nations around the globe.  And those institutions *have*
    functioned in that fashion; the global economy is much more tightly
    integrated, numerous nations have finally dragged themselves up out of
    endemic poverty, and few nations have dared risk war with the western
    democracies in that past fifty years.
    
    > we musta done something right (in having a society which works and
    > that maybe others SHOULD follow, but not be forced or bribed into
    > playing along.  After all, Communism fell apart on its own)
    
    Communism fell apart because in the polarisation of the Cold War, the
    strengths of our system were reinforced by the growth of our economic
    power in partnership with our allies, while their system couldn't
    afford to compete and eventually went bankrupt trying.  It fell apart
    of its own inherent weaknesses, yes, but only because the free world
    became stronger in opposition.  Yet the dangers of chaos, bad
    macroeconomic policies, and tyranny from powerful states has not ended. 
    We need to continue to develop the framework of free traders which has
    brought low our powerful foes in the past, in order to continue to
    resist the dangers of the present and the future.
    
    > We can and should be involved in discussion.  Someone can present the
    > USA's  opinion in a world forum.  But when you start sending money, and
    > dictating  policy and mingling in other peoples business *WE* are out
    > of line and looking for trouble.  I guarantee you we will find it.
    
    We do not dictate policy.  We provide assistance to programs that we
    think will work to reinforce our objectives.  Other countries look to
    us for leadership, and come to us voluntarily, wanting to know how we
    have achieved what we have, and how to join in our system.  I'll grant
    you that the politics of gridlock, the politics of liberal/vs/neocon,
    and the confusion of our triumph in the Cold War, have obscured the
    necessary dialogue by which the US should be determining its interests
    and our best policies to achieve them.  I think very little of the
    current leadership or their ability to even comprehend the
    interrelatedness of the policy requirements; they certainly haven't
    done a good job of articulating them for the masses.  But at least
    they've passed NAFTA and GATT, so there's a glimmer of hope that the
    issues are understood.  Now, I'd like to see some progress on world
    population assistance; and less politicking by such obstructionists as
    the Vatican, who apparently couldn't care less about the poverty to
    which they condemn millions of people with their policy, or the ensuing
    wars and misery which ineviatably follow.  The arguments you have
    continued to muster against NAFTA, GATT, and population assistance have
    been countered time and again; the history of the post-war world, so
    starkly drawn, indicates the wisdom of this direction; and the
    isolationism you espouse will only end in protectionist trade wars,
    economic decline, and eventual shooting wars.  We must not come to such
    a pass.
    
    DougO

    Tut, tut.
    
    Looks like some aspects of diversity don't deserve valuing after all.
    
    Dick

    "tut, tut" yourself.  No, I don't value the poverty and ignorance that
    breeds cannon fodder for wars.
    
    DougO

    I haven't read this note either, but I won't let that stop me.
    
    I have the perfect answer.  Buy everybody a gun.
    
    If the libs are right, then population control is a moot point.
    
    If the smart, sexy, intelligent, educated, and heroically endowed
    individuals are right, then crime will cease to exist.  We can spend
    the money saved on population control.

    Yup, only some differences are valuable.
    
    Need a hand shouldering that burden?
    
    Dick

    nah, your type's been wearing morality on the sleeve for far too long,
    Dick, its way past time you got outta the way.
    
    DougO

    	What, Doug, more payback in this topic too?

    Joe, if Dick and I want to exchange pleasantries we need no advice from
    you.
    
    DougO

    	It wasn't advice.  It was a question.  Does the truth hurt?

    'grow up' is not a question, in your title.
    
    DougO

    	Good point.  Now do it.

    As I said, we need no advice from the likes of you.
    
    DougO

    Glad to see you know all about me, white man!
    
    Dick

    The count is now over a dozen since there has been a substantive
    response in the string.  Dick, if you want to discuss the morals of
    cultural imperialism feel free, but your silly little sound bites are
    not discussion; they're just noise.
    
    DougO

    I think you're confusing this august forum with ::FORUM, and I'm
    confusing you with someone interested in a discussion.
    
    I find it quite ironic that what you want to do is precisely what the
    19th century minions of Empah used to do.  I gather that it's only the
    subject matter that makes them wrong and you right.
    
    But do carry on, this country has an image to uphold abroad.
    
    Dick

    > I find it quite ironic that what you want to do is precisely what the
    > 19th century minions of Empah used to do.
    
    What an amusing opinion, now that you've finally consented to share it
    with us, after dancing around it for a week.  Of course what the 19th
    century minions of Empah wanted was control over less advanced (their
    definition) cultures, and the ability to exploit same.  What I would
    like is for poorer countries to improve their standards of living, in
    part by lowering their birthrates.  Perhaps you're using some bizarre
    definition of "precisely" that escapes common usage.
    
    > I gather that it's only the subject matter that makes them wrong and
    > you right.
    
    No, its the motive.  Mine is based on a classic liberal approach to
    securing the greatest good for individuals by increasing the freedom
    they have to influence the course of their lives.  Philosophically its
    an entirely different approach.
    
    > But do carry on, this country has an image to uphold abroad.
    
    Ever the presumptious bumpkin, assuming you've won the game when first
    you deign to join it.  You'll have to address the issues more that
    that, Dick.
    
    DougO

    
    RE: .40
    
    
       > No, its the motive.  Mine is based on a classic liberal approach to
       > securing the greatest good for individuals by increasing the
       > freedom they have to influence the course of their lives.  
       > Philosophically its an entirely different approach.
     
    
      You forgot to add in there somewhere...
    
    "With the governments help..."

    Private and non-profit groups are actively involved in these efforts,
    so no, it isn't just "with the governments help" [sic].  I support the
    Global Fund for Women (see http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/ellens/gfw.html)
    which funds numerous projects in this area, for example.
    
    However, I believe that US long-term interests are also served by
    improving the living standards/reducing the birthrates in LDCs; and
    thus I find it appropriate for the US government to take a leadership
    position on these issues again, as it did for over thirty years after
    WWII, with bipartisan consensus, until the Reagan Administration
    reversed the policy.
    
    DougO

    .40:
    
    Well then, white man, shoulder that burden and get out there and teach
    those poor benighted folk what's best for them!  What are you waiting
    for?  After all, you *know* that (a) I'm assuming I've "won the game",
    that (b) I've just joined it (hey, nobody's ever discussed this sort of
    thing in previous 'Boxes), (c) I "deigned" to join it, (d) I can make
    the cut as a bumpkin without cheating, (e) your arguments are
    irrefutable, and (f) your insults advance your cause.
    
    Dick

    get off the high horse, Dick, or are you pretending the insults
    started from me?  and if you don't even try to refute the arguments,
    yes, they're unrefuted.
    
    DougO

    .44:
    
    Yes, the arguments are unrefuted.
    
    You seem to match your feet well to the footprints of 19th century
    missionaries -- I'm quite impressed.
    
    Dick

    > You seem to match your feet well to the footprints of 19th century
    > missionaries
    
    previously dispatched.  next.
    
    DougO

    Ever the presumptious bumpkin, assuming you've won the game when first
                     U
    you deign to join it.  You'll have to address the issues more that
    that, Dick.                                                      N
    
    -----
    
    OK, the second was an even cheaper shot... |-{:-)
    

    .46:
    
    Soggy dispatch, while mostly legible, lacked strength to support
    assertions.  Waiting for retry.
    
    Dick

    previously dispatched arguments: 19th century etc etc:
    
    from .40:
    
    > Of course what the 19th century minions of Empah wanted was control
    > over less advanced (their definition) cultures, and the ability to
    > exploit same.  What I would like is for poorer countries to improve
    > their standards of living, in part by lowering their birthrates. 
    
    arguments yet to be addressed by Dick, standing unrefuted:
    
    from .42:
    
    > However, I believe that US long-term interests are also served by
    > improving the living standards/reducing the birthrates in LDCs; and
    > thus I find it appropriate for the US government to take a leadership
    > position on these issues again, as it did for over thirty years after
    > WWII, with bipartisan consensus, until the Reagan Administration
    > reversed the policy.
    
    Now, I invited you to do more than take cheap shots, yet you persist 
    in one-liners, ducking the arguments.  Are you really so bankrupt of
    ideas, so unable to engage in substantive discussion?  How sad.
    
    DougO

    
    What is the usual reaction here to criticisms of the USA coming
    from foreigners ?
    
    "Go home whenever you're ready." would sum it up.
    
    Who appointed the USA (a country that does try to control its
    headcount) to tell other countries what to do ?  I've been in
    overpopulated places (try Hong Kong, for example).  There are
    too many people on that island.  But the USA gets no votes, and
    busybodies are practicing a loser's philosophy.
    
    MYOFB, good advice, easy to give, hard to follow.  imho, bb
    

    > Who appointed the USA (a country that does try to control its
    > headcount) to tell other countries what to do ?
    
    wrong question.  How many countries have asked the US for help in this
    area?  Dozens...
    
    DougO

    
    <-------
    
    >How many countries have asked the US for help...
    
    
     Who left us in charge??
    

    
    Yeah, that's what I'd like to know.  Why are we always in charge and
    why is it when anything goes wrong anywhere nutcases burn effigies of
    Uncle Sam and shout "Down with America"?
    
    Cripes.

    It's all a plot.  We are being used (because we are the richest nation
    on earth) by globalists who wish to usher in their globalist order via
    the might of money and arms of the US.  Since we are the leader of the
    free world, who better to lead the unsuspecting masses of the world
    into the thier web of totalitarian government.
    
    And, as with the usual liberal credo they have created, it will all be
    done in the name of "good".
    
    If you doubt my words, look into this thing called the World
    Constitution.  It is written and ready to go...all they need is for the
    nations of the world to sign off on it.  When this happens, the fun
    will begin in earnest.
    
    -steve 

    please take all that to the NWO topic, Steve.
    
    DougO

    But it fit in so nicely here...I even got a decent cue for once.  8^)

FOR RELEASE: December 6, 1994
Contact: Susan Lang
Office: (607) 255-3613

INCREASED FOOD PRODUCTION DOES NOT RELIEVE MALNUTRITION,
CORNELL STUDY FINDS

        ITHACA, N.Y. - Producing more food does not necessarily result in
less malnutrition in developing countries, according to a recent Cornell
University analysis of Ethiopia.  In fact, some of the highest malnutrition
rates are in the "greenest" regions.
        Cornell researchers found high levels of chronic malnutrition in bad,
food-deficient and food-surplus regions in Ethiopia.  Despite significant
investments in agricultural production in some regions, the nutritional
status of children has worsened in all regions in the past decade, the
researchers found.
        This comes as a great surprise to policy makers in Ethiopia and
elsewhere who view inadequate food production as a major reason for
malnutrition.
        One primary reason for the persistent malnutrition is that women in
these "green" regions may spend time farming at the expense of using health
services, preparing food and feeding their children, said David Pelletier,
Cornell associate professor of nutrition policy in the Division of
Nutritional Sciences' Food and Nutrition Policy Program.  This illustrates
how, contrary to popular view, malnutrition is far more complex than simply
a lack of food.
        "We have found that chronic malnutrition is clearly not restricted
to drought-prone areas and that neither regional food supplies nor
household food production are major predictors for malnutrition," Pelletier
said.  "In fact, at least half of the most 'food secure' households studied
suffer from chronic malnutrition.  Such findings are not unique to
Ethiopia."
        Although malnutrition can result from extreme food shortages,
Pelletier said that decades of research have shown that it is more often
the result of feeding children too infrequently or inadequately, combined
with infectious disease, which can prevent the body from utilizing
nutrients.  Even if food is plentiful in a community, children may be
malnourished if their mother is so busy in the fields, for example, that
she does not feed them often enough or prepare nutrient-rich foods.
        The findings were presented to the government of Ethiopia in June
1993 and are to be published in the journal Food Policy in 1995.  Although
international nutrition researchers have widely accepted this more complex
view of malnutrition for years, Pelletier said his group was instrumental
in presenting this view to high level policy makers in Ethiopia.
        "They were astounded and skeptical when we reported high
malnutrition rates in even the greenest regions of Ethiopia," he said.
"The food bias view of malnutrition is common among policy makers in many
countries."
        Pelletier assisted the National Technical Committee in Nutrition
Surveillance in conducting a national rural nutrition survey in Ethiopia in
1992 which covered 15,156 households with at least one child aged 6 months
to 5 years.  Interviewers collected data on food, agricultural and economic
characteristics, infant and child feeding practices, morbidity, growth and
nutritional status of children, and household demographics.  Results were
compared with a 1983 national survey conducted at about the same time of
year.
        "Despite heavy investments in agricultural productivity in certain
regions, rates of malnutrition among children increased in many areas,"
Pelletier reported.  In Arsi, for example, where the heaviest agricultural
development investments have been made in the past decade, the prevalence
of malnutrition increased more than in any other area studied.
        "The trade-offs in the use of women's time mean that policies that
attempt to maximize household food security may actually harm nutritional
status or have no beneficial effect if they compromise the quality of
childcare or result in less use of health services," Pelletier said.
        Thus, although money may be poured into a region for agriculture,
such support may do nothing to relieve the malnutrition in the area,
Pelletier pointed out.
        Pelletier seeks to find ways to help policy makers better
understand the multiple causes of malnutrition and to find ways to
integrate nutritional considerations into the planning and implementation
of policies and programs directed toward agricultural productivity and
economic development.
        Examples include bringing health services, water and fuel closer to
rural communities, making credit services more accessible to women and
organizing communal daycare arrangements.
        The Ethiopia project was supported by the Inter-Agency Food and
Nutrition
Surveillance Program of the United Nations, with participation from FAO,
UNICEF and WHO.
-30-

Blaine P.  Friedlander, Jr. /Senior Science Writer
Cornell News Service
840 Hanshaw Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
Office:   (607) 255-3290
Fax:   (607) 257-6397 fax
E-mail:   bpf2@cornell.edu  

    
    	I'm sorry but unless I missed a note some where, youre all missing
    the point.  We all want to live forever hence, the need to stop life
    before it happens, lottery........I know that sounds harsh but let's
    just say that I we have a lottery every year, to say who can have a
    child and who can not.  It's not a new idea, we all have heard it
    before, so what's the problem, Americans are to self ritous.  We, or
    they tend to feel that it is there natural right to do what ever they
    please and never mind the repercussions.  So I submit this, have a
    lottery, but there must be certain quota's to meet to have the child.
    First, financial status=must meet a set amount, at to day's economy
    say, $40,000 a year. Next, the said party should be married, and if not
    and would like to apply for the lottery must at least make enough money
    to support the child in a proper manner.  Also, DNA of a good lot is
    necessary, birth defects that run in the family will be a cause for
    removal from the lottery.  
    	Ok, if I have offended people out there, I would just like to say
    this, I would not like to see this implemented. Though if there were to
    come a need for population control this would be what I would recomend.
    	Now, the people that do not qualify for the lottery can adopt, if
    they are financialy secure and meet the first requirement, or maybe an
    income of less.
    	Children that are born illegaly, well, I don't know, we could say
    that they belong to the state and that they are forced to participate
    in school till they are 18, and they must be watched.  
    	In implementing this program, the population would drop the economy
    would improve, and poor, homelessness, and crime should decrease.  At
    least that's my opinion, only because I think that people would
    appreciate there children more, and the children would appreciate life,
    and knowledge more.
    
    	Again, I hope I have not offended to many people, this is only an
    idea.
    
    	LG:(

> We all want to live forever

Speak for yourself.

    
      re, .58 - clearly unconstitutional - the SCOTUS would throw it
     out 9-0, liberals and conservatives together.
    
      If you actually want the government controlling procreation, you
     need to convince an overwhelming majority of the population.
    
      Forget it, won't happen in your life.
    
      bb

    Wasn't there a short story called, "The Lottery", where somebody from
    the town would get bumped off every year?  The danger I see in lottery
    drawings is that it can be used for anything, including something like
    the short story.  You bring this opinion up but what it is in actuality
    is a eugenics program similar to the likes of Margaret Sanger.  A
    lottery would surely rid us of the human weeds and malcontents in the
    world.
    
Z    In implementing this program, the population would drop the economy
Z    would improve, and poor, homelessness, and crime should decrease.
    
    Not necessarily true.  When the babyboomers become senior citizens you
    will find the labor market to be a coveted source for the business
    owner if technology stays current.  Ironic as it sounds, a business
    will fail if it doesn't have the resources to operate, namely, people.
    
    -Jack

    >Wasn't there a short story called, "The Lottery", where somebody from
    >the town would get bumped off every year? 
    
     Yup. Read it in grade school. One person got, like, stoned, man.

    Re: .58, LG
    
    This was a joke right!

    re: .58
    
    And the future tax base will come from where?  SS is already doomed to
    failure due to the fact that the ratio of those who pay into this
    program to those who receive benefits is already down to around 3/1. 
    Within 10-20 years, it will be 1.5/1, if current trends hold.
    
    [And this is just one example.]
    
    
    -steve

    
    >A lottery would surely rid us of the human weeds and malcontents in
    >the world.
    
    Do you think this is a problem?
    
    

    >A lottery would surely rid us of the human weeds and malcontents in
    >the world.
        
 ZZ   Do you think this is a problem?
    
    What, the fact that there are human weeds or the concept of a lottery?  
    Since I lean more toward pro life, I have no problem at all with
    anybody.  Poverty is not a choice for a child.
    
    Do I have a problem with the concept of eugenics?  Absolutely which is
    why I harp on the abortion debate often.
    
    -Jack

    
    You don't believe in survival of the fittest?
    
    

>    You don't believe in survival of the fittest?

    Survival of the fittest is always a given.  The problem is given the
    societial structure, what group of people wind up being the fittest? 

    The current structure favors the genes of my high-school drop-out
    brother-in-law and welfare baby-factory sister who dropped two kids
    around the age of 20 over my genes because I waited until after college
    and career establishment (around 30).

    Society, through the welfare state, has already altered the course of
    natural selection.  Given the expanding population of kids with kids I
    would say that society so far has been pretty inept in influencing the
    natural selection process.

    -- Dave

 ZZ    You don't believe in survival of the fittest?
    
    Oh absolutely, but only in certain contexts.  Very astute of you to
    throw this at me, considering I have used the phrase.
    
    In the business world for example, survival of the fittest is
    appropriate.  In the scholastic world, survival of the fittest is
    appropriate which is why I find the lunatics who support outcome based
    education to have an agenda...dummying up the kids and what not.
    
    I believe every person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit
    of happiness.  Unlike our humanist friends, I don't make distinctions
    between people being human weeds or non human weeds.
    
    -Jack

>    I believe every person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit
>    of happiness.  Unlike our humanist friends, I don't make distinctions
>    between people being human weeds or non human weeds.

    Then should people on death row be allowed to procreate?

    -- Dave

 ZZ    Then should people on death row be allowed to procreate?
    
    No...are they???  

    Ted Bundy fathered a daughter while on death row.

.69>    I believe every person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit
.69>    of happiness.  Unlike our humanist friends, I don't make distinctions
.69>    between people being human weeds or non human weeds.

.71> ZZ    Then should people on death row be allowed to procreate?
.71>    No...are they???  
    
    Am I making too big of a leap in thinking that people on death row are
    human weeds?

    -- Dave

 ZZ   Ted Bundy fathered a daughter while on death row.
    
    Then this is a problem with the penal code.

    
    HAR!
    

    Just because I'm against condemned people procreating doesn't mean I
    classify them as human weeds.  I believe the only right a condemned
    person has is to learn how he/she may inherit eternal life...since this
    is really the only thing that matters.
    
    -Jack

So you think it's OK to use unwilling condemned prisoners in medical
experiments?

    wasn't ted bundy a product of the sexual revolution?

    I'm getting con-fuuuused!  AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Getting?

    RE: .76

>    Just because I'm against condemned people procreating doesn't mean I
>    classify them as human weeds.  

    Maybe I'm missing something in the definition.  Isn't a "weed"
    something that you yank out of your garden and let die so that it
    doesn't impact the rest of your plants in the garden?  Wouldn't a human
    weed be someone that you yank out of society and let die so that s/he
    won't impact the rest of the humans?

    -- Dave

 Z   Wouldn't a human
 Z      weed be someone that you yank out of society and let die so that
 Z  s/he    won't impact the rest of the humans?
    
    No.  Some see Capitol Punishment in this way...equating it to shooting
    a rabid dog.  I don't see it like that.  I see Capitol punishment as
    a way of meting out justice.  It has nothing to do with the rest of
    society or any such thing.  It can be a tool of deterrent for society
    but nothing more.  
    
    -Jack

    
    How do you feel about Capitle Punishment?    ;^)
    

  Capitol Punishment:  Send them to congress.  A fate worse than death.
    

I'm in favor of capitol punishment.  Somebody oughta spank all those
naughty congresscritters.

    
      "survival of the fittest" is a tautology, because we say the fittest
     are those that survive.  i.e., Intel x86 is the fittest architecture,
     Windows the fittest OS.  It is a sign of your unfitness if geology
     dunks your island, making all of your species extinct.
    
      So it's just "those that survive, survive".
    
      bb

>Intel x86 is the fittest architecture,
>     Windows the fittest OS.  It is a sign of your unfitness if geology

    It probably is just playing with words and their definitions, but ...

    I would contend that Intel & Windows were the "fittest" to take over
    the desktop, but only because the environment that spawned them:  IBM's
    name & clout for business, Microsoft's marketing jugernaught, perceived
    openess, lack of nimble competition (the Macintosh may have been a
    superior being on a one-to-one comparisson, but the Macintosh didn't
    reproduce itself fast enough and has been breed into a minority
    position)

    Beta was superior to VHS.  Sony didn't market it right.  The little
    beast (Beta) didn't have enough to eat (movies released in Beta format)
    and the speicies basically went extinct.

    -- Dave

>   The little beast (Beta) didn't have enough to eat (movies released in 
>   Beta format) and the speicies basically went extinct.

I'll remember this when the Indiana Jones crowd comes, seeking to poach
my two VCR's and the Camcorder.

>                 -< Ya mean they're worth somethin' finally? >-

    Just because it's rare doesn't mean it's of any value.  I have a
    totally worthless "fat" Mac that is proabably as close (if not closer)
    to extinction as your Beta machines (although there are more
    evolutionary descendents of the Mac than of the Beta, my Mac is
    incapable of interacting or interfacing with it's modern day
    descendents and therefore is doomed).

    -- Dave

!!!



I'll bet you're absolutely fascinating in person!

    I thought this was a debate of population ethics.....besides beta
    sucks!
    
    	-LG

    time to reawaken this note.
    
    Population control is easy... quit making offspring!
    
    boy, how some people can take the easiest things and 'em SO
    difficult...

    
    That would necessitate men learning to control their sperm rather than
    letting it fly with impunity.
    
    Wouldn't want that.  Oh no.
    

	Or men could be gay. :-)

    
    There is that.
    
    8^)
    
    

    I thought you had a hot date tonite?
    
    watch out for flying spermazoa...
    
    {ping!} {whiz!} {ZOOM!}

    I'm happy all the time, but that won't stop a population increase.:')_
    -ss
    

    > I'm happy all the time, but that won't stop a population increase.:')_
    
    I'm happy too; sometimes (depending on certain events occurring) I get
    REAL happy, and fall asleep with a BIG smile on my face. Clutching my
    Theodore Bear. In my footed jammies. etc etc etc.

    certain events?
    -ss																																

    Theodore bear?
    -ss

| <<< Note 54.96 by BSS::PROCTOR_R "Pnut butter & quiver sandwich pleeze!" >>>

| I thought you had a hot date tonite?
| watch out for flying spermazoa...
| {ping!} {whiz!} {ZOOM!}

	Hey, who has a date with Superman? 

    
    I said I had a date, I didn't say when 8^).
    
    With my track record, that could be anytime from last night to 1998 8^).
    

	Speaking of superman... anyone hear that Margo Kidder was found in Glen
something or another (CA) disoriented? She also had two front teeth knocked
out. This doesn't sound good.


Glen

    i'd hate to be this guy when Superman finds out.

Margot.  NNTTM.  A Canadian, I believe, born in Yellowknife.  Shawn, how
about a filmography?

    
      Actually, population control in the USA is well handled by our
     census bureau.
    
      bb

    .96
    
    spermatozoa.
    
    nnttm.

                        Biographical information for
                               Margot Kidder

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real name
     Margaret Ruth Kidder

Date of birth (location)
     17 October 1948, Yellowknife, Northwest Terr., Canada

Spouse
     John Heard (? - ?)

Other works
     CD-ROM game "Under a Killing Moon": as Bartender

Notable Guest Appearances
     "Murder, She Wrote" (1984), as Dr. Ellen Holden (2/93)

                               Margot Kidder

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actress filmography

       1. Never Met Picasso (1996)
       2. Bloodknot (1995)
       3. Young Ivanhoe (1995) (TV) .... Laday Margarite
       4. Beanstalk (1994)
       5. Henry & Verlin (1994) .... Mabel
       6. Maverick (1994) .... Mary Margaret
       7. One Woman's Courage (1994) (TV) .... Stella Jenson
       8. Phantom 2040: The Ghost Who Walks (1994) (TV) (voice) ....
          Rebecca Madison
       9. Pornographer, The (1994) .... Irene
      10. Florida, La (1993) .... Vivy Lamori
      11. To Catch a Killer (1992) (TV) .... Rachel Grayson
      12. Mob Story (1990)
      13. White Room (1990) .... Madelaine X

      14. Body of Evidence (1988) (TV) .... Carol Dwyer
      15. Miss Right (1988)
      16. "Shell Game" (1987)TV Series .... Dinah/"Jenny Jerome"
      17. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) .... Lois Lane
      18. Vanishing Act (1986) (TV) .... Chris Kenyon
      19. Glitter Dome, The (1985) (TV) .... Willie
      20. Keeping Track (1985) .... Mickey Tremaine
      21. Little Treasure (1985) .... Margo
      22. Picking Up the Pieces (1985) (TV)
      23. Louisiana (1984) (TV) .... Virginia Tregan
          ... aka Louisiane (1984) (TV)
      24. Superman III (1983) .... Lois Lane
      25. Trenchcoat (1983) .... Mickey Raymond
      26. Heartaches (1981) .... Rita Harris
      27. Shoot the Sun Down (1981)
      28. Some Kind of Hero (1981)
      29. Superman II (1980) .... Lois Lane
      30. Willie and Phil (1980) .... Jeannette Sutherland

      31. Amityville Horror, The (1979) .... Kathy Lutz
      32. Mr. Mike's Mondo Video (1979)
      33. Superman (1978) .... Lois Lane
          ... aka Superman: The Movie (1978)
      34. 92 in the Shade (1975) .... Miranda
      35. Black Christmas (1975) .... Barb
          ... aka Silent Night, Evil Night (1975)
          ... aka Stranger in the House (1975)
      36. Great Waldo Pepper, The (1975) .... Maude
      37. Reincarnation of Peter Proud, The (1975) .... Marcia Curtis
      38. Gravy Train, The (1974) .... Margue
          ... aka Dion Brothers, The (1974)
      39. Honky Tonk (1974) (TV)
      40. Quiet Day in Belfast, A (1974)
      41. Sisters (1973) .... Danielle Breton
      42. Bounty Man, The (1972) (TV) .... Mae
      43. "Nichols" (1971)TV Series .... Ruth
      44. Suddenly Single (1971) (TV)
      45. Quackser Fortune Has A Cousin in the Bronx (1970) .... Zazel

      46. Gaily, Gaily (1969) .... Adeline

>> Date of birth (location)
>>      17 October 1948, Yellowknife, Northwest Terr., Canada
    
    Hmmm, I didn't know she was that old... that would have made her
    about 30 in the first Superman movie.
    
    Most of today's celebs are younger than me, and I don't even know
    who most of them are, so it's okay with me that Kidder is a few years
    older.  :-)
    
    Chris

    
    
>> Date of birth (location)
>>      17 October 1948, Yellowknife, Northwest Terr., Canada
    
   Wow, I'm exactly one year older than her.
    
    ed

I've seen quite a few of her early movies.  I think I've seen all of the
following:

      34. 92 in the Shade (1975) .... Miranda
      35. Black Christmas (1975) .... Barb
      37. Reincarnation of Peter Proud, The (1975) .... Marcia Curtis
      41. Sisters (1973) .... Danielle Breton
      45. Quackser Fortune Has A Cousin in the Bronx (1970) .... Zazel

In "Sisters" she plays a Siamese twin who gets revenge on the surgeon
who killed her sister when he separated them.  If I remember correctly,
Brian DePalma directed.  Her costar in "Quackser Fortune" was Gene Wilder,
who played an Irish gatherer of horse manure.  Thomas McGuane wrote/directed
"92 in the Shade" and I believe she had a kid by him.

    
    	"Black Christmas" is the only 1 of those that I've seen.
    

    According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the
    Census, the total population of the World, projected to 4/24/96 at 
    2:24:04 PM is: 
    
    
    			5,757,446,930
    

    According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of
    the United States, projected to 4/24/96 at 2:26:18 PM is: 
    
    				
    				264,696,415
    

    
    	Ummm, "projected to"??
    
    	Did they just count everybody yesterday, and calculate this
    	number based on that answer?
    
    	Regardless, that's a whole bunch of people.
    

    >	Ummm, "projected to"??
    
     It's impossible to know with any certainty the population of the
    world. Unless you kill everybody in it.

    
    	Yes, I realize that, although I'm not sure that I would have
    	worded it quite that well.  8^)
    
    	I'll ask another question ... when was it projected from?
    	And what's the formula?
    

    I believe they take census numbers and factor in what they figure to be
    average birth rates and subtract average death rates for various
    discrete populations that they can model, and add 'em up.

    >I'll ask another question ... when was it projected from?
    >And what's the formula?
    
    The world population estimates and projections used to produce these
    figures were developed by the International Programs Center based on 
    analysis of available census data and data on fertility, mortality, and 
    migration. The analysis is perfomed separately for the 227 countries or 
    areas of the world with a population of 5,000 or more. 
    
    The World midyear population and event estimates result from an 
    aggregation of the figures for the individual countries and areas. The 
    intermediate population estimates are based on a linear interpolation 
    between successive midyear population figures. World events for different 
    units of time are computed based on the number of months, days, hours,
    minutes, or seconds in the given year. 
    
    Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. 
    
                   

    World Vital Events Per Time Unit: 1996
    
     (Figures may not add to totals due to rounding)
    -------------------------------------------------
                                              Natural
    Time unit       Births      Deaths       increase
    -------------------------------------------------
    Year       133,349,664   53,756,732    79,592,932 
    Month       11,112,472    4,479,728     6,632,744 
    Day            364,343      146,876       217,467 
    Hour            15,181        6,120         9,061 
    Minute             253          102           151 
    Second             4.2          1.7           2.5 
    -------------------------------------------------
    
    
    

    >   I'll ask another question ... when was it projected from?
    >   And what's the formula?
    
    	I dunno what the projection is, but the formula is simple.
    
    
    ingredients:
    	- 1 bottle of cheap wine.
    	- 1 romantical dinner
    	- 1 grandiflora rose
    	- 1 mz_deb (when she ain't grumpy)
    	- 1 set of manly charm/wit/manners
    
    	- combine the ingredients. toss lightly. turn down lights. turn on 
    	  manly charm/wit/manners. 
    
    	- add nine months.
    
    	- POOF! (sorta) instant child.
    
    	- subtract 18 years from your life for raising, rearing, weaning,
    	  etc.
    
    

Proctor, you're really gambling with your life there.

    That's ok, Gerald. It's apparently not worth very much.

    agagagagagagagagag

    rat hole:
    
    what is the current price for a human body (based on chemical content)?
    
    my life in human terms is *obviously* priceless. 
    

    >my life in human terms is *obviously* priceless. 
    
     Only if you change your last name and rush to Sotheby's.

    <---------------heeheeheeheeheeheehee

    96 cents.

    
    
    
    
    				8^o
    
    
    

    re: .123
    
    This is NOT population CONTROL!!   :)

    
    If Bobbo thinks I'd go along with that, I'd kill him.  That's
    population control 8^).
    
    

Copulation pun troll?

    >  If Bobbo thinks I'd go along with that, I'd kill him.  That's
    >  population control 8^).
    
    
    Do I detect a slight negativity here?
    
    As in "what part of NO don't you understand?"

    According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of
    the United States, projected to 8/2/96 at 9:38:39 AM is:
    
    			265,410,647

    Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out later.

Boy, if I had my assault rifle right now, they'd all be dead.

(c) 1996, Ken Roberts, reproduced here with permission

    Well, here's a depressing thought... if there were some kind of
    global catastrophe, e.g. an incoming asteroid like Hays always
    watched out for, that wiped out 99% of the human population,
    then that would be an unspeakable tragedy to be sure, and yet
    there would still be about 60,000,000 people left, which is
    certainly enough to carry on.
    
    Chris

    Funny thing about all this is that the fast majority of birth rate
    happening now is in the  undeveloped countries.  Eventually
    the population pressure will cause them to push into the relatively
    richer and more spacious developed countries, thus relieving the
    developed countries of both their space and their richness.
    
    Unless the developed countries do something about it, which so far they
    seem to have no will to do.
    
    Interesting situation coming up in the next few decades.
    

    re: .141
    
    Well, if they're the "fast majority" it's no wonder their
    birth rate keeps going up.... :-)

    I cut the offending finger off.  Maybe wan't muke se miny typos niw

    According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the
    Census, the total population of the World, projected to 8/2/96 at 
    2:09:35 PM EDT is" 
    
    			5,779,105,759
    
    

    According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of
    the United States, has increased 1295 persons since at 9:38:39 AM.
    
                    

    
    	260 or so per hour?  4 or so per minute?
    
    	We're regular breeding machines over here, aren't we?
    

>    	We're regular breeding machines over here, aren't we?

Speak fer yourself.

    
      Well actually no, Shawn.  The bulk of the increase is people
     sneaking in over the borders, or through airports.  We do not
     have zero population growth, but breeding is a smaller factor.
    
      bb

| <<< Note 54.146 by BUSY::SLAB "Crazy Cooter comin' atcha!!" >>>


| We're regular breeding machines over here, aren't we?

	Thank God you're not one of them! We don't need little baby slabs
running around! :-)

    
    	[You have left me no choice but to respond in kind]
    
    
    	And we're lucky that you're also not 1 of them ... We don't need
    	any more little sh*** running around.
    
    	8^)
    

	I don't have to be a breeder to have the runs. :-)

    Most life forms seem to breed as prolifically as they can until they
    run into some natural limit like shortage of necessities for sustaining
    life, or a natural enemy.  Many things even kill off each other when
    they get too crowded.  Starvation seems to be a very popular limiting
    factor for those without natural enemies, including some human
    sub-populations.
    
    So for the so-called developed countries, the civilized world, what is
    going to be the limiting factor for our population growth?
    
    Any ideas out there?

    I'm with Phil.  A disaster of global proportions will reset the clock.

| <<< Note 54.145 by GENRAL::RALSTON "Only half of us are above average!" >>>

| According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of
| the United States, has increased 1295 persons since at 9:38:39 AM.

	Then why are so many people worried about the population #'s when they
talk about gays being together??? :-)  

    RE: .141

>    ... fast [sic] majority of birth rate
>    happening now is in the  undeveloped countries.  
>    
>    Unless the developed countries do something about it, which so far they
>    seem to have no will to do.

    The developed countries are doing something about it.  The United
    States has already instituted the following programs:
        --  Army
        --  Navy
        --  Air Force
        --  Marines
        --  Coast Guard
        --  Border Patrol    

    <--  :-)  
    
    True enough, but Republican social policies and Democratic monetary
    policies ought to be more effective than the Army, Nave, Air Force, 
    Marines, and Coast Guard at discouraging immigration -- in fact they 
    are pretty discouraging to everyone.   :-)