"Gary" wrote in message news:YoRZ9.85058$AV4.2912@sccrnsc01...
Another typical attack on the poster.

How about thinking first?
What is 30billion divided by 100million, and who compells the elite to
distribute this money or spend on basics?

The facts are that the dictatorship of Nigeria/Shell have made
billions, not the people, and especially not the poorest ones.

Exactly my point.


Unless i'm mistaken, your point was that Nigeria has received
300Billion over a decaded, and that the amount was meaningful, it
equates to $300 per person, how is that meaningful?





You sound like an idiot, you make idiotic statements, i'm convinced
you're an idiot.

Thank you for your kindness!

Engage your brain before adopting a political stance, just because
most people don't have a clue doesn't mean you must emulate them.

wrote in message
om...
"Gary" wrote in message
news:YoRZ9.85058$AV4.2912@sccrnsc01...
Another typical attack on the poster.

How about thinking first?
What is 30billion divided by 100million, and who compells the elite to
distribute this money or spend on basics?

The facts are that the dictatorship of Nigeria/Shell have made
billions, not the people, and especially not the poorest ones.

Exactly my point.


Unless i'm mistaken, your point was that Nigeria has received
300Billion over a decaded, and that the amount was meaningful, it
equates to $300 per person, how is that meaningful?

I think you should buy a bigger calculator. It's $3,000 per person. This
is significant for a country with a GDP per capita of only $840 especially
when this is tilted to the top 1% of the richest. The unemployment rate is
28% and 45% are living in poverty. BTW, the GDP of the U.S. is $36,000 per
capita. This $300B in Nigeria would be the equivalent of $12T (T is for
trillion).

Besides, this $300B is just ONE part of their economy. It could be a great
kick start to it. But like most third world dictator countries, a few get
all the wealth and the poor suffer and are starved to death and murdered.

Like most left wing liberal nuts like yourselves, you just want to try to
find little holes in sound logic to make your point that big bad west is
causing all the problems in the world. If were not for the U.S. and other
hard working countries, this world would really be a big poluted pit.




You sound like an idiot, you make idiotic statements, i'm convinced
you're an idiot.

Thank you for your kindness!

Engage your brain before adopting a political stance, just because
most people don't have a clue doesn't mean you must emulate them.

Our local Seirra club leader in Northern Colorado also only attacts the
effects of growth. Their main marching-line speaking points are that big
bad builders and governement are building too many buildings and streets,
AND then this causes the people to come here. every single time this guy is
interviewed he says this. The one last week is about building another
reservoir for water. He thinks this will cause more people to come here. I
have news for him, they are already coming and mainly caused by legal and
mostly illegal immigration. Either from people being pushed out from Texas
or CA or coming here directly.

Companies and Governments do not build infrastructure and house if they
don't think the population is growing. If that were the case I could go to
any dead town, buy up all the land for cheap, and start building and wait
for them to come.

I wish the Seirra club would get off their liberal thinking and start using
their great voices for a REAL difference in the enviroment. I love the
outdoors and hate to see them get destroyed just as much as they do, but
current tactic of attacting the effects is just not working.

Gary

"Fred Elbel" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:33:23 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:

Should environmentalists adopt a two-pronged approach to the problems
you
have raised here? Not only should they be looking at population issues,
but
perhaps they should be looking at management and integration issues as
well.
If the population is really going to double in a hundred years, then
maybe
we should be planning on exactly how and where we can put these people
and
the roads and homes that they will require.

Hi, Jeff:

U.S. population growth is not inevitable. In fact, it can be halted
by Congress returning immigration levels to traditional replacement
numbers.

From 1925-1965 we took in about 175,000 per year. Had we maintained
that level, we would have stabilized in a few decades. Now, with a
million legal and 700,000 illegals per year, we're doubling this
century and will continue to grow.

But it is all too easy to simply accomodate growth and pay only lip
service to the root cause. A case in point is the Sierra Club. They
do not even *acknowledge* the fact that mass immigration is driving
U.S. population to double this century. Thus activists get caught up
in the frenzy of protecting one threatened area after another - trying
to put out the fire as it jumps from tree to tree instead of focusing
on the burning forest.





Fred Elbel
Why population stabilization is important:
http://www.ecofuture.org/populat.html

I don't think you are getting it Jeff. Without immigration we would have
had a steady and probably declining population around 2015. Our current
citizens do not reproduce enough to replace thier own population. Most
industrialized nations do not. The only reason that the net housing count
is going up is because of immigration. You make it sound like a crime to
have natural borned kids in our country. we need more of this with our
values and cultures and less of the immigration with there homeland values
and culture. I kind of like this coutry that was built of God and hard work
and plan to pass it on to my FOUR great American girls.

Gary
"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
...

"Fred Elbel" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:32:55 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:
...until [immigration reduction] happens, we are facing huge problems.

Hi, Jeff:

Yes, I have to agree.


If we manage to shut down all illegal immigration tomorrow, we will
still
have a very large bubble of population to work through.

Let me point that illegal immigration is certainly a component of the
problem. But *legal* immigration alone is a million per year and
needs to be reduced in order to achieve U.S. population stabilization.



Well, we have a couple that marries and buys a home. They crank out 3 or 4
kids. The kids grow up and get married and buy homes, Mom & Dad still need
their home, now each of the kids needs one, so we need another 1.5 ~ 2
homes
(they marry other people's kids, so we can halve the demand). These
couples
have another 3 kids, and so need another 1.5 homes. Now, we are getting to
the level where Grandma and Grandpa begin to not need a home anymore, and
that old home can be recycled to the next generation of demand. In this
case
we still need another half of a home for future generations. So, we still
need new homes for many decades to come, and the problem I see is that we
are not making adequate progress in meeting the demand curve of
infrastructure and satisfying the need to protect and preserve at the same
time. Indeed, we are protecting and preserving at the expense of meeting
infrastructure demands.

As an illustration, in my community we have several thousand new homes
along
a rural highway. The highway was designed for well under 3000 trips per
day,
but it now carries over 3000 trips per hour. We need a fresh look at
infrastructure demands while protecting and preserving at the same time.
The
difficulty is meeting these two goals simultaniously, however if we are
going to build several thousand homes, we may as well build the roads
because the environment is trashed anyway. There are conflicting goals in
the various levels of government, the result is that we get new homes
without consideration of road requirements, but we can't get new roads
because of the environmental rules. Well, if we can't get the roads, why
can
we have the new homes?



I see the issue as not being as simple as reducing numbers, we also
need
to
develop long range strategies that integrate our demands for growth
with
our
needs to preserve habitat. We need policies that protect and preserve
by
changing the way we do things so that those things are more
environmentally
sound. We have to get away from the idea that any plan is inherently
bad
and
can never be made good enought to satisfy contradictory goals of
growth
and
preservation.

I understand your point and I don't disagree.

What I tried to point out before is that often individuals or
organizations will focus only on the symptoms (growth management) as
opposed to the root problem (population growth).



I thank you for your rational discussion. We need a more balanced approach
to both sides of the issues, we need to reduce future growth projections
while dealing with today's real grwoth problems. Growth reduction will not
appear for decades to come, perhaps only one decade, but in the mean time,
we have growth issues facing us today that are not being met with rational
thought processes.




We have to adopt a strategy that accepts the idea that growth
is going to happen, so let's do it responsibly and minimze the
impacts.

To an extent. But it is a slippery slope between acknowledging that
growth will happen as opposed to believing that growth is inevitable.
The latter becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.



In my community, it has already happened. We must deal with it now after
it
has already happened, but we should have (or could have) planned ahead ten
years ago and avoided some of the very problems that we are facing. If we
had taken a regional approach to development instead of the apparent
piece-meal approach that we seem to be taking, then we could have forseen
where the homes were going to go and built the roads ahead of time, then
backfilled the homes. The result would have been that today, we would have
smooth flowwing traffic and identified places that would be preserved. The
county is finally looking at this issue in the very manner that I am
suggesting.



There must be ways that we can manage the growth of our cities until
we
figure out a way to curtail the population explosion that we are
facing.

I suggest we focus on growth management *while* we curtail the
population explosion.

Other than that, we are in agreement.



I can accept that. This is how we adopt the two pronged approach, we
manage
the growth and direct it to places that are virtual wastelands from the
perspective of trying to preserve and protect postage stamp sized parcels
in
the middle of massive development, and preserve the places where postage
stamp sized developement among massive tracts worth preserving. We try to
figure out ways to curtail the population explosion at the same time, but
there is still the huge bubble working its way through the developement
cycles that we need to accomodate.



Your position also seems to not reduce the population growth, to
relocate
the growth to other areas. I don't appreciate how this helps the
planet,
yet
I can see how it might help the USA.

I don't quite get your point. Stabilizing U.S. population is
necessary if we are to preserve what's left of our environment and
natural resources. In order to stabilize U.S. population, immigration
numbers must be reduced to traditional, sustainable levels.

Isn't there a slight double standard with the USA says people can't come
here because it spoils our countryside, but those people can remain at
home
and spoil other countrysides?



In addition, there about 150 or so other countries that need to
stabilize their populations, too. Great strides are being made by
many countries to reduce their fertility. But more help is needed and
it is incumbent upon developed countries to help developing countries
with family planning assistance, education, etc.

Unfortunately our president just cut off all funding to the UN Family
Planning Assistance program.


That seems to be a giant step backwards, further pressuring us to manage
the
expected growth we will be having here over the next few decades.
Basically,
if we can't reduce the population, then we need innovative methods of
getting all of those people a place to live and a road to drive on to get
to
work.

"Gary" wrote in message
news:QJ9_9.96382$AV4.3368@sccrnsc01...
I don't think you are getting it Jeff. Without immigration we would have
had a steady and probably declining population around 2015. Our current
citizens do not reproduce enough to replace thier own population. Most
industrialized nations do not. The only reason that the net housing count
is going up is because of immigration. You make it sound like a crime to
have natural borned kids in our country. we need more of this with our
values and cultures and less of the immigration with there homeland values
and culture. I kind of like this coutry that was built of God and hard
work
and plan to pass it on to my FOUR great American girls.

Gary
Well, we are always going to have people within our own country move from
one region to another. So, there will be housing demand in the desitination
regions while a housing surplus develops in the origin regions. I happen to
live in a destination region, and we need to do things differently than the
standard Sierra Club idea. I also happen to live in a region where people
come to because homes are affordable, but the jobs are 45 miles away. The
problem is that these 45 miles take in excess of two hours to navigate on
most days. The reason for the problem is that the roads were designed for
less than half of the current level of traffic. We have roads in my region
that were deisgned for 3000 cars per day when they probably had less than
300, but now they have over 3000 per hour during most of the daylight hours.

I maintain that there are two problems to solve, the immediate problem is to
deal with the population we have today, and the growth we expect to have
over the next 10 to 20 years. Then, we try to figure out at the same time,
how to keep the population explosion from extending beyond that 10 to 20
year time frame. The idea is that if we have growth that we manage to
curtail eventually, we will still need the infrastructure to support the
levels that we attain before we get the other issues under control. To
tackle either problem exclusive of the other problem is a recipe for
disaster.

"Gary" wrote in message
news:uy9_9.93477$6G4.12304@sccrnsc02...
Our local Seirra club leader in Northern Colorado also only attacts the
effects of growth. Their main marching-line speaking points are that big
bad builders and governement are building too many buildings and streets,
AND then this causes the people to come here. every single time this guy
is
interviewed he says this. The one last week is about building another
reservoir for water. He thinks this will cause more people to come here.
I
have news for him, they are already coming and mainly caused by legal and
mostly illegal immigration. Either from people being pushed out from
Texas
or CA or coming here directly.

Companies and Governments do not build infrastructure and house if they
don't think the population is growing. If that were the case I could go
to
any dead town, buy up all the land for cheap, and start building and wait
for them to come.


Well, if you went into a ghost town, wouldn't you wonder why it was a ghost
town in the first place? If nobody wanted to live there, then you could
build thousands of homes, and still nobody would want to live there. If, on
the other hand, you went into a housing market that was vibrant and robust,
and built your thousand new homes, then you would probably make out pretty
good on your investment.

Now, over time, those that bought your new homes in the vibrant and robust
community will be followed by others that want to live in a vibrant and
robust community. The new arrivals will want to get from one side of town to
the other, or maybe from one community to another, so interconnecting roads
will be required or traffic congestion will result. Eventually, there will
be demands on the water supply, electric supply, natural gas supply the
list goes on, that will need to be addressed.

The real issue before the SC, and maybe the real challenge, is the need to
provide these things in an environmentally sound manner. Is it right to
completely shut down project after project, or shouldn't the goal be to
anticipate what problems a project might cause, then mitigate them. Some
projects are so utterly poor that there is no way to make them work well
from an environmental standpoint, and these should be stopped at every
opportunity. Some projects are fundamentally good projects that need some
rework to eliminate some offensive aspect; these should be allowed to
proceed with the reworks that may be required. For example, maybe a road
through a wilderness is problematic because it blocks migratory routes, so
we raise the roadbed and put bridges and tunnels under it so the migratory
routes can be preserved. In this way, we can meet the demands of people
while accomodating the needs of the habitat.

People don't move into an area because there is infrastructure, they move
there because they like the community and the surrounding areas. They
discover afterwards that they are part of an underlying problem of the lack
of infrastructure.

Oh come on not that one! I am from the USA tribe.

This argument ignores the concept of "nation". There was no such thing as
the political entity known as the American nation until the Founding Fathers
created it in 1776. Furthermore, there are not grades of citizenship. One is
either a citizen of this country, or one is not. We are not more or less
citizens of the United States based on the number of generations preceding
us on these shores.

And, particularly, we are not more or less citizens of this country based on
our skin color or ethnicity.

Because my ancestors immigrated to this continent 5 or 6 generations ago
does not make me a "truer American" than someone who took the Oath of
Allegience yesterday. Nor are Indians "truer Americans" than I simply
because their ancestors immigrated before mine did.

Just like the Comanche's came in and created a private hunting empire that
covered the western half of Oklahoma, all of central and western Texas,
eastern New Mexico, and southwest Kansas, with part of Southeastern Colorado
by driving off and killing all the other tribes, the Europeans came in and
drove the Indians away. This is how every nation was built, by invasion and
conquering. No current culture is inocent when this who was here first.

This is a very unless argument.

wrote in message
...


Are you a native american? What tribe?



On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:26:08 GMT, in alt.rec.hiking "Gary"
wrote:

I don't think you are getting it Jeff. Without immigration we would have
had a steady and probably declining population around 2015. Our current
citizens do not reproduce enough to replace thier own population. Most
industrialized nations do not. The only reason that the net housing
count
is going up is because of immigration. You make it sound like a crime to
have natural borned kids in our country. we need more of this with our
values and cultures and less of the immigration with there homeland
values
and culture. I kind of like this coutry that was built of God and hard
work
and plan to pass it on to my FOUR great American girls.

Gary
"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
...

"Fred Elbel" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:32:55 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:
...until [immigration reduction] happens, we are facing huge
problems.

Hi, Jeff:

Yes, I have to agree.


If we manage to shut down all illegal immigration tomorrow, we will
still
have a very large bubble of population to work through.

Let me point that illegal immigration is certainly a component of the
problem. But *legal* immigration alone is a million per year and
needs to be reduced in order to achieve U.S. population
stabilization.