Carlos Antunes

"Fred Elbel" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > We, too can have that standard of living in the U.S. when we surpass
    > the one billion mark.

I believe you are being a little bit too pessimistic. Japan has 12 times the
population density of the USA and they are far from having the same living
conditions as people in India have. Note that India's population density is
slighly lower than Japan's. The explanation for their poverty lies, in my
opinion, on decades of socialism, not population density.

Regards,
Carlos Antunes.

Actualgeek

In article , Andrew
wrote:

    > IMO, the moment someone
    > invokes racism, they've lost the argument--they're admitting that they
    > can do no better than name-calling.

Yes, that's why I call them on their racism. They are doing nothing but
using code words, like "illegal" rather than using reason and logic to
make their case.

    > > If you actually loved this country, you'd welcome them with open arms.
    >
    > If you had a brain,

What was that about resorting to name-calling again?

I guess you lost.

Actualgeek

In article ,
Oliver Costich wrote:

    > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 05:50:04 -0800, ActualGeek
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In article ,
    > > Oliver Costich wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:30:12 -0800, ActualGeek
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >In article ,
    > >> > "Squanto" wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> > On the other hand, you block immigration and people stay poor and
    > >> >> > have
    > >> >> > too many kids.
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >> I interpret thine argument as irrational knee-jerk rhetoric unprovable
    > >> >> at
    > >> >> any level.
    > >> >
    > >> >About a billion people in India who had their income doubled in the last
    > >> >20 years disprove your assertion.
    > >>
    > >> It's not hard to double your income when it is dismally low to begin
    > >> with. Is it even in real terms or just inflation?
    > >
    > >And so you would rather reduce their income instead?
    >
    > Is that supposed to be a response? You implied they are better off.
    > Are they really?

Yes.

Graphic Queen

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:31:01 -0800, ActualGeek
wrote:

    >In article , Andrew
    >wrote:
    >> IMO, the moment someone
    >> invokes racism, they've lost the argument--they're admitting that they
    >> can do no better than name-calling.
    >Yes, that's why I call them on their racism. They are doing nothing but
    >using code words, like "illegal" rather than using reason and logic to
    >make their case.
He was talking about you sir. Sheeeeesh!!!!

Graphic Queen
    >> > If you actually loved this country, you'd welcome them with open arms.
    >>
    >> If you had a brain,
    >What was that about resorting to name-calling again?
    >I guess you lost.

Oliver Costich

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:44:40 -0800, ActualGeek
wrote:

    >In article ,
    > Oliver Costich wrote:
    >> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 05:50:04 -0800, ActualGeek
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article ,
    >> > Oliver Costich wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:30:12 -0800, ActualGeek
    >> >> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >In article ,
    >> >> > "Squanto" wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> > On the other hand, you block immigration and people stay poor and
    >> >> >> > have
    >> >> >> > too many kids.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> I interpret thine argument as irrational knee-jerk rhetoric unprovable
    >> >> >> at
    >> >> >> any level.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >About a billion people in India who had their income doubled in the last
    >> >> >20 years disprove your assertion.
    >> >>
    >> >> It's not hard to double your income when it is dismally low to begin
    >> >> with. Is it even in real terms or just inflation?
    >> >
    >> >And so you would rather reduce their income instead?
    >>
    >> Is that supposed to be a response? You implied they are better off.
    >> Are they really?
    >Yes.

Gee. I'm convinced. So they're not poor anymore? When the increases
are 100% of near nothing, it's not impressive and proves nothing. Is
it double net of inflation or don't you know?

Oliver Costich

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:45:39 GMT, "Carlos Antunes"
wrote:

    >"Fred Elbel" wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> We, too can have that standard of living in the U.S. when we surpass
    >> the one billion mark.
    >I believe you are being a little bit too pessimistic. Japan has 12 times the
    >population density of the USA and they are far from having the same living
    >conditions as people in India have. Note that India's population density is
    >slighly lower than Japan's. The explanation for their poverty lies, in my
    >opinion, on decades of socialism, not population density.
    >Regards,
    >Carlos Antunes.

Not as bad as India, but most Japanese would consider the typical US 2
bedroom apartment as wildly luxurious. They live in very tiny spaces
and actually live, on average, well below the US standard. Go take a
look. Also check out Hong Kong while you're in the neighborhood. Sever
population density issues. If you said "excuse me" everytime yon
bumped someone, you'd be hoarse in an hour.

THe other issue that's being missed is the rate of population growth.
Other resources and services have to be able to grow at the rate of
population to sustain a standard of living, and that's simply not the
case under the current immigration pattern of importing the poor.

Carlos Antunes

"Oliver Costich" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Not as bad as India, but most Japanese would consider the typical US 2
    > bedroom apartment as wildly luxurious. They live in very tiny spaces
    > and actually live, on average, well below the US standard.

I believe the discussion is about carrying capacity, not about lifestyle.
The fact is that the Japanese are not dying of starvation or any other kind
of thirld world disease which means that, even with 12 times the population
density of the USA, they are able to live their lives reasonably well. And
certainly way better than India.

Regards,
Carlos Antunes.

Oliver Costich

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:34:21 -0500, Tiny Human Ferret
wrote:

    >Koen Robeys wrote:
    >> "Fred Elbel" wrote in message
    >>
    >>
    >>>European countries have stopped growing for the most part. They have
    >>>generally eradicated poverty and have uniform and good standards of
    >>>living.
    >>>It does appear that growth is the only way to *cause* poverty.
    >>
    >>
    >> About a year ago, I started to read several books about economic history.
    >> They all share one starting point. Everywhere, everybody has always been
    >> very poor. The reason is an extension from biology. A population grows to
    >> the point where deaths and births are in equilibrium. That point is a point
    >> of intense population pressure, violence, illness and the like. Just above
    >> starvation.
    >>
    >> In all periods of all human history and in all places, we humans shared this
    >> picture. Therefore, poverty as we define it, appears to be an almost
    >> universal feature of humanity, if not life.
    >Almost universal. However, the exception is quite a notable one; the sylvan
    >natives of North America. Food and game was so abundant here that poverty as
    >we conceive it was non-existant. Certainly there was some want and
    >privation, but that was partly because the technical level was so low... and
    >that technical level was so low because there wasn't much of a need to
    >develop it.
    >>
    >> Then the question becomes: what caused the fact that at some point in time,
    >> for a limited (as yet) number of people, and on a limited surface of the
    >> planet, people broke through the "just above starvation" point?
    >Plague. As near as anyone can tell, it was always plague.

A little pestilence didn't hurt.

    >Look, you posited an equilibrium, above. Don't think of it so much as an
    >equilibrium as a sort of trope. Population changes are, until extremely
    >recently, historically cyclic. Population builds, and overpopulates, and
    >then crashes. The only thing that historically has "raised the crash
    >barrier" is innovation. For instance, once people started doing seed
    >agriculture, they could more easily provide for the winter, could raise more
    >children, etc; the population builds, etc. Once the population is
    >sufficiently large, it may become nationalized rather than tribalized, and
    >we see militarism on a scale which permits dominating or leisure classes.
    >But you're right, if you average it all out, poverty is the mean.
    >But use my favorite example, that of Roma. Towards the end of the long
    >decline of the Empire in the East, the Empire in the West had decayed into
    >feudalism and almost no technical advances occurred, mostly because the
    >population was so large that it was always much less expensive to throw
    >additional slaves/peons at any job than it would have been to apply technology.
    >But along came the Black Death, which practically depopulated parts of
    >Europe. In some places, there were so few humans that the forests began to
    >regenerate, topsoil renewed itself, and almost anyone who wished to live in
    >the woods could. But for those who didn't want to live in the woods, there
    >was a shortage of manpower in the cities. This promoted development of
    >technology... which in many cases improved individual productivity so much
    >that when the population began to rise again, it was possible to have many
    >more people living before that trope of poverty was approached.
    >We see a similar pattern in North America after the American Revolution,
    >when the vast prairies became accessible, largely due to the massive
    >population crash in the natives due to Cortes importation of smallpox, which
    >killed about 24 out of 25 natives within a century of its introduction.
    >Technology at this point was advancing steadily but when McCormick
    >introduced the mechanical harvester, two men could do the work of twelve,
    >and when Chicago exploded upon the world concurrent with the introduction of
    >effective railroads, the American heartland became the breadbasket of the
    >world.
    >But in both of these cases, the single factor that raised the average
    >lifestyle far above poverty was a massive population crash. In the case of
    >the medieval crash, the forms of governance persisted and rather than the
    >wealth being distributed rather equitably as in North America, wealth was
    >concentrated into power for the rulers. We see this pattern emerging in
    >America, at last; poverty -- though a rather genteel poverty with many
    >socialist trappings redistributing wealth, though increasingly less so -- is
    >growing, and as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Furthemore, the
    >proportions of those on the lowest end of the economic spectrum are
    >increasing, while the wealthiest seem to reproduce the least.
    >Until at last in the modern day...
    >>
    >> Something made for much larger productivity, and the strongly increased
    >> wealth made once again for stabilization of the population. Only it no
    >> longer did so by starvation and violence, but because educated mothers
    >> limited the number of offspring. This was the European situation as you
    >> describe it. The pattern has since been repeated in some, but not very many,
    >> other parts of the world.
    >>
    >> So in my opinion we are not looking or the cause of poverty, because poverty
    >> is near-universal. What we are looking for is the factor, or the set of
    >> factors, that set in motion such an increase in wealth, that populations
    >> stabilized for reasons different from what we in general call "poverty".
    >Well, the cause of poverty is always overpopulation. If the population is
    >small in contrast to the amount productive environment, there can be no
    >poverty. This is the parable of the Garden, as it were; if you can just go
    >pick your food off of the nearest tree, you're never hungry. If the trees
    >are all picked bare, you must fight for a tree of your own, and guard it
    >jealously. From theft comes property, as populations rise.
    >Poverty could be defined as a dearth of resources, or, too many people and
    >not enough resources. If the population is low enough so that there is
    >always plenty, there will be no poverty other than that which is created by
    >human agency, such as hoarding by the rulers, etc.
    >I don't want to sound like a Marxist, but seriously, if you wanted to have
    >an ideal situation for people, you would have a relative few people with an
    >abundance of resources, and as little government as possible. This was the
    >situation in the US up until the late 19th century. If you combined adequate
    >resources with a low population and high levels of technology, and the sort
    >of semi-anarchist traditional legal/civil forms of (for instance) the
    >Icelanders, you could possibly have a very durable society where there was
    >enough of everything for everyone, without government overtaxing of the rich
    >or repression of the poor.

Oliver Costich

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:40:05 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:

    >"ActualGeek" wrote in message news:ActualGeek->
    >> Your hatred of chicanos is sad. They are an opportunity for america,
    >> not a threat.
    >Chicanos are Mexican Americans, first generation or later. They are not
    >immigrants.
    >> If you actually loved this country, you'd welcome them with open arms.
    >If they are new immigrants, they can not be Chicanos
    >> But instead you pretend your irrational hatred of chicano people is
    >> "patriotism".
    >Back to definition: you are using a term that means "Americans born in
    >America of Mexican descent" to describe illegal immigrants. Chicanos are, by
    >definition, legal at birth. Illegals, are, by definition, lawbreakers.
    >For a "geek" you have a bad grasp of language. And politics.

And economics, sociology, history, and intellectual integrity.

D. Long

x-no-archive: yes
"Carlos Antunes" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Oliver Costich" wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > Not as bad as India, but most Japanese would consider the typical US 2
    > > bedroom apartment as wildly luxurious. They live in very tiny spaces
    > > and actually live, on average, well below the US standard.
    > >
    > I believe the discussion is about carrying capacity, not about lifestyle.
    > The fact is that the Japanese are not dying of starvation or any other kind
    > of thirld world disease which means that, even with 12 times the population
    > density of the USA, they are able to live their lives reasonably well. And
    > certainly way better than India.

Americans don't live that way, and we certainly won't stand
for living that way as a result of immigration.

David Lloyd-Jones

D. Long wrote:

    >x-no-archive: yes
    >"Carlos Antunes" wrote in message
    >news:[email protected].
    >>I believe the discussion is about carrying capacity, not about lifestyle.
    >>The fact is that the Japanese are not dying of starvation or any other kind
    >>of thirld world disease which means that, even with 12 times the population
    >>density of the USA, they are able to live their lives reasonably well. And
    >>certainly way better than India.
    >>
    > Americans don't live that way, and we certainly won't stand
    >for living that way as a result of immigration.
    >
Japanese live in many ways better than Americans do. They live longer,
and in better health. They have a full and satisfying culture which is
admired throughout the world, even as we realise that a great deal of it
is Chinese in origin. America, by contrast, has only one slim sliver of
an American culture, i.e. jazz. Well two: jazz and advertising.

To the extent that the American way of life has improved in recent years
it has to some extent been through the adoption of Japanese innovations.
Quality work, which is both good for the consumer and more satisfying
for the worker, was a Puritan virtue in the America of 200 years ago --
but in our time it is an idea that has been re-introduced from Japan.
Quality design, to the extent that it is not Scandinavian, is largely
American by way of Japan.

The physical comfort of America is very largely the physical
productivity of Japanese industry.

Oh, yeah, and how does America balance the books every night? Recently
America has been kept afloat by yuan and won and renminbi, but they're
on top of the base that has has kept the whole operation afloat for the
last generation: the Japanese yen.


-dlj.

Juan Jose

On 20/2/03 2:39 AM, in article [email protected], "David
Lloyd-Jones" wrote:

    > D. Long wrote:
    >
    >> x-no-archive: yes
    >> "Carlos Antunes" wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected].
    >>
    >>> I believe the discussion is about carrying capacity, not about lifestyle.
    >>> The fact is that the Japanese are not dying of starvation or any other kind
    >>> of thirld world disease which means that, even with 12 times the population
    >>> density of the USA, they are able to live their lives reasonably well. And
    >>> certainly way better than India.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >> Americans don't live that way, and we certainly won't stand
    >> for living that way as a result of immigration.
    >>
    >>
    > Japanese live in many ways better than Americans do. They live longer,
    > and in better health. They have a full and satisfying culture which is
    > admired throughout the world, even as we realise that a great deal of it
    > is Chinese in origin. America, by contrast, has only one slim sliver of
    > an American culture, i.e. jazz. Well two: jazz and advertising.
    >
    > To the extent that the American way of life has improved in recent years
    > it has to some extent been through the adoption of Japanese innovations.
    > Quality work, which is both good for the consumer and more satisfying
    > for the worker, was a Puritan virtue in the America of 200 years ago --
    > but in our time it is an idea that has been re-introduced from Japan.
    > Quality design, to the extent that it is not Scandinavian, is largely
    > American by way of Japan.
    >
    > The physical comfort of America is very largely the physical
    > productivity of Japanese industry.
    >
    > Oh, yeah, and how does America balance the books every night? Recently
    > America has been kept afloat by yuan and won and renminbi, but they're
    > on top of the base that has has kept the whole operation afloat for the
    > last generation: the Japanese yen.
    >
    >
    > -dlj.
    >
America is shit compared to many places (e.g., healthcare in Scandanavia,
social safety net in Canada, infrastructure maintenance in Australia,
culture and freedoms of Europe, innovations in Asia, etc.).

Did you know that less than 10% of Americans have passports and only a
minority of those that do use them. Thus, Americans get their worldview
from corporate media conglomerates (who are not at all biased). Americans
are the stupidest, most ignorant people around.

Juan Jose

On 20/2/03 2:19 AM, in article [email protected], "D.
Long" wrote:

    > x-no-archive: yes
    > "Carlos Antunes" wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> "Oliver Costich" wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>>
    >>> Not as bad as India, but most Japanese would consider the typical US 2
    >>> bedroom apartment as wildly luxurious. They live in very tiny spaces
    >>> and actually live, on average, well below the US standard.
    >>>
    >>
    >> I believe the discussion is about carrying capacity, not about lifestyle.
    >> The fact is that the Japanese are not dying of starvation or any other kind
    >> of thirld world disease which means that, even with 12 times the population
    >> density of the USA, they are able to live their lives reasonably well. And
    >> certainly way better than India.
    >
    > Americans don't live that way, and we certainly won't stand
    > for living that way as a result of immigration.
    >
    >
Americans stand for anything, they are like sheep (hell 3/4 of the 11/9
planes made their "final destination" without any complaints). They do not
protest anything, they are cowards!

Tiny Human Ferret

Tim Worstall wrote:
    > Fred Elbel wrote in message news:...
    >
    >>On 18 Feb 2003 00:35:28 -0800, [email protected] (Tim Worstall) wrote:



    >>One of the main reasons for continued population growth in countries
    >>with high fertility (children per woman) is population momentum, where
    >>today's children grow up to have their own children. Even after
    >>fertility is reduced to replacement level fertility (2.1 children per
    >>woman), it takes a genration (approximately 70 years) to achieve an
    >>actual reduction in population numbers.
    >
    >
    > Quite. So whatever is done about population growth will take 70 years
    > or so to work through the system. And current projections ( before the
    > new UN figures ) are that within 70 years we will be seeig a falling
    > world population.

I am not entirely sure that either of you is looking at the same planet on
which I live.

Previous UN estimates of population growth rates apparently didn't properly
account for the rate of HIV infection in Africa. Aside from the population
growth-rate changes produced merely by the rapid spread of AIDS, there would
also be "secondary die-off" due to parents dying and being unable to raise
their children well enough to survive on their own, deaths due to
disruptions in the social fabrics, etc -- _presumably_ the new UN figures
will correct this error. However, we also presume that if such corrections
were calculated into the new figures, we presume that those calculations
didn't include President Bush's proposed massive aid package to Africa,
where he will INSANELY pass out huge amounts of anti-viral drugs to the
already infected, rather than SANELY passing out very large numbers of
condoms and sex-education to prevent new infections. Then again, if his goal
was to keep the infected alive as long as possible to spread the infections
further, his plan might not be entirely insane, just evil and a genuinely
nasty bit of corporate-welfare to the pharmaceutical industry.

In any case, world population will probably start actually falling only due
to something as global as the Spanish Influenza Pandemic of the 1910s.

> And the new figures are expected to emphasise that,
    > indeed bring the total itself down, and the reduction date forward.
    > So, whatever it is that we have to do, or did have to do, in order to
    > start this 70 year process, we have already done.

We had better wait to see those new figures before we start deciding this...


    > In one sense you are correct, in that peak population has not been
    > reached. In another, truer, sense, you are wrong. If, because of
    > population momentum, it is at minimum a 70 year process, and we see
    > the peak in 50 years, followed by decline, then we have already done
    > what is necessary. Nicht War ?

The decline may be due to unexpected illness, or other factors of which we
have no present understanding. Realistically, _nobody_ can predict much
beyond 2025, _other_ than that if people keep breeding as they have done
through history, at the current rates, we will have far too many people by
2050.


    > To look at it slightly differently. It's a 70 year process as you say.
    > So whatever we do now will not impact until 2070. Yet peak is 2050.
    > Followed by decline. So we´ve already done whatever it was that we
    > needed to do, right ?

If you're saying "everything will be all okay anyway, so we can relax now
and stop working", I disagree. This is the point where we have to work the
hardest. Pretend that we are the legendary Sisyphus and we have finally got
the giant rock almost to the top of the hill. This is when we must be most
careful, because at the complex crest of the cusp, there is a much larger
selection of ways for the boulder to roll away from us.




--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle

Tiny Human Ferret

ActualGeek wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Fred Elbel wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Here's an explanation of exponential growth with graphs and charts:
    >>Exponential Growth and The Rule of 70
    >>http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/facts/exponential70.html
    >
    >
    > Its amazing the things you can get when you just blindly project a
    > current trend out to the future!
    >
    > Like a guy who gets home from the hospital with a newborn projecting
    > that he'll have 365 kids at that point next year!
    >
    >
    >>Again, "development" is a more fitting term than "growth".
    >
    >
    > Yes, try redefining words so your argument makes sense. It doesn't
    > work.

He's not redefining words.

He is choosing a term more appropriate to the discussion.

If he said "growth doesn't mean growth, it means development", that would be
redefining words.

Again, you misapply your own special dictionary to criticize others who are
knocking the props, correctly, out from under the shambled stack of cards
that you think of as your edifice of ideology.



--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle