FACTS:

[1] Places with less disease, more education and higher average
lifespans
have underpopulation issues.

[2] Places torn by war, disease and death have *overpopulation*
issues.

CONCLUSIONS:

If you really care about a sustainable future, you should work to
reduce disease and increase education, especially in the areas that
need it the most.

We've tried eugenics and facism, and forced resource limitations via
communism. Both have failed thus far.

Both sides (facists and communists) say that they were never really
"tried correctly". And I see that.

I also see the facts [1] and [2], and I am not so blind that I don't
see the answer to a sustainable future staring me in the face.

Erik Aronesty writes
FACTS:

[1] Places with less disease, more education and higher average
lifespans
have underpopulation issues.

[2] Places torn by war, disease and death have *overpopulation*
issues.

CONCLUSIONS:

If you really care about a sustainable future, you should work to
reduce disease and increase education, especially in the areas that
need it the most.

We've tried eugenics and facism, and forced resource limitations via
communism. Both have failed thus far.

Both sides (facists and communists) say that they were never really
"tried correctly". And I see that.

I also see the facts [1] and [2], and I am not so blind that I don't
see the answer to a sustainable future staring me in the face.

Note:

1) Happens in well developed and wealthy countries.
2) In poor underdeveloped countries.

Conclusion: increase world wealth.

Problem: this increases world pollution.

But then, overpopulation increases removal of wild areas.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Conclusion: increase world wealth.
Problem: this increases world pollution.

True, increasing health without fostering women's liberation,
education and freedom does not help the problem.

To address a these global, environmental issues, one must embark on a
holistic solutions.

Erik Aronesty writes
Conclusion: increase world wealth.
Problem: this increases world pollution.

True, increasing health without fostering women's liberation,
education and freedom does not help the problem.

health? where did that come from?

However if you meant wealth, notice that women are more highly regarded,
more equal, and earn more in wealthy countries. As countries get
wealthier, so the women become more important.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

True, increasing health without fostering women's liberation,
education and freedom does not help the problem.

health? where did that come from?

Common sense. I didn't see where you got "wealth" from. Balanced
population is about equality, freedom, consensus, and participation -
not "wealth".

As countries get wealthier, so the women become more important.

Not if the country gets "wealthier" via income disparity. WE need a
new definition of the "wealth" of a country. Perhaps the average
income of the bottom 10%? IE: If the top 1% continue to get wealthy,
and the rest remain the same, then you don't necessarily get a
corresponding boost in women's rights.

Although money can be seen as a "vote", wealth is a red herring.
Freedom is about improving the technology of consensus, not increasing
wealth. Overpopulation is a result of restrictions in freedom and
resources.

Of course, the problem is that our existing systems of consensus favor
extremist and authoritatian views.

Special interests who prosper in the existing plurality system will
not advocate one that arrives at broader consensus. And the broad
population have not forcibly advocated one that arrives at broader
consensus, since they don't have extreme views.

http://www.approvalvoting.org/

Another way of putting is: statisticians, thus far, are lousy
activists.

True, increasing health without fostering women's liberation,
education and freedom does not help the problem.

health? where did that come from?

Common sense. I didn't see where you got "wealth" from. Balanced
population is about equality, freedom, consensus, and participation -
not "wealth".

As countries get wealthier, so the women become more important.

Not if the country gets "wealthier" via income disparity. WE need a
new definition of the "wealth" of a country. Perhaps the average
income of the bottom 10%? IE: If the top 1% continue to get wealthy,
and the rest remain the same, then you don't necessarily get a
corresponding boost in women's rights.

Although money can be seen as a "vote", wealth is a red herring.
Freedom is about improving the technology of consensus, not increasing
wealth. Overpopulation is a result of restrictions in freedom and
resources.

Of course, the problem is that our existing systems of consensus favor
extremist and authoritatian views.

Special interests who prosper in the existing plurality system will
not advocate one that arrives at broader consensus. And the broad
population have not forcibly advocated one that arrives at broader
consensus, since they don't have extreme views.

http://www.approvalvoting.org/

Another way of putting is: statisticians, thus far, are lousy
activists.

On 9/17/03 6:30 PM, in article
, "Erik Aronesty"
wrote:

FACTS:

[1] Places with less disease, more education and higher average
lifespans
have underpopulation issues.

[2] Places torn by war, disease and death have *overpopulation*
issues.

CONCLUSIONS:

If you really care about a sustainable future, you should work to
reduce disease and increase education, especially in the areas that
need it the most.

We've tried eugenics and facism, and forced resource limitations via
communism. Both have failed thus far.

Both sides (facists and communists) say that they were never really
"tried correctly". And I see that.

I also see the facts [1] and [2], and I am not so blind that I don't
see the answer to a sustainable future staring me in the face.

I don't quite catch the connection to ag here. I guess statement 1
flows in part from having enough to eat. Modern farming is one thing that
frees people to do other things like research for disease cures. It lets
people build cars, computers and all those other things that have let
society advance. It helps free people from having to worry about the next
meal.
U.S. consumers spend about 10% of their disposable income on food. About
20% of that goes to the farmer. That lets people buy all the other things
that make life better.

Dean




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On 9/17/03 6:30 PM, in article
, "Erik Aronesty"
wrote:

FACTS:

[1] Places with less disease, more education and higher average
lifespans
have underpopulation issues.

[2] Places torn by war, disease and death have *overpopulation*
issues.

CONCLUSIONS:

If you really care about a sustainable future, you should work to
reduce disease and increase education, especially in the areas that
need it the most.

We've tried eugenics and facism, and forced resource limitations via
communism. Both have failed thus far.

Both sides (facists and communists) say that they were never really
"tried correctly". And I see that.

I also see the facts [1] and [2], and I am not so blind that I don't
see the answer to a sustainable future staring me in the face.

I don't quite catch the connection to ag here. I guess statement 1
flows in part from having enough to eat. Modern farming is one thing that
frees people to do other things like research for disease cures. It lets
people build cars, computers and all those other things that have let
society advance. It helps free people from having to worry about the next
meal.
U.S. consumers spend about 10% of their disposable income on food. About
20% of that goes to the farmer. That lets people buy all the other things
that make life better.

Dean




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Erik Aronesty writes
True, increasing health without fostering women's liberation,
education and freedom does not help the problem.

health? where did that come from?

Common sense. I didn't see where you got "wealth" from. Balanced
population is about equality, freedom, consensus, and participation -
not "wealth".

Maybe, but what comes first?
Countries seem to become more equal, free, have more concensus (dunno
about participation) the wealthier they become. More likely they all
have to improve together if they are to improve at all.

As countries get wealthier, so the women become more important.

Not if the country gets "wealthier" via income disparity.

Typically where the differences are *extreme* there are not enough
hyper-wealthy to offset the huge numbers of 'very poor'.

WE need a
new definition of the "wealth" of a country. Perhaps the average
income of the bottom 10%?

The middle 80% would be a better guide.

IE: If the top 1% continue to get wealthy,
and the rest remain the same, then you don't necessarily get a
corresponding boost in women's rights.

If the top 1% continue, then the effect is only 1% overall.
Ie, it's very small.

Although money can be seen as a "vote", wealth is a red herring.
Freedom is about improving the technology of consensus, not increasing
wealth.

Freedom is the ability to do what you want within your limitations.

Overpopulation is a result of restrictions in freedom and
resources.

Hardly. Population reductions in highly authoritarian states has been
quite successful (eg russia and china). In the former it was primarily
due to restricted wealth, and the latter restricted freedom. The other
parameters, however, improved.

It's certainly true in both these (and elsewhere in asia) that education
was seen as a means of increasing wealth, and there are quite strong
limitations on how many children you can properly educate to high school
level. Heck, the wife may have to go out to work (and so cannot have too
many kids). Once education becomes a real possibility for increased
wealth, population growth tends to drop. There are many examples from
the industrial revolution in the UK, onwards.

Of course, the problem is that our existing systems of consensus favor
extremist and authoritatian views.

Que?

Special interests who prosper in the existing plurality system will
not advocate one that arrives at broader consensus. And the broad
population have not forcibly advocated one that arrives at broader
consensus, since they don't have extreme views.

A balance is required. I would say the UK (and indeed other countries)
are not far off some reasonable balance.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.