RE: Genesis

[Dan M]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Pat Mathews
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:21 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: RE: Genesis
> 
> 
> BTW - when you talk about people working longer, don't assume we are all
> leaving the work force early because we want to.While firing people
> because of their age is illegal in the United States, giving them poor
> performance reviews, making their lives miserable, etc can be done and
> often is. 

I learned that about 20 years ago when all but one person in the company
over 50 was laid off when their positions were eliminated.  No one under 50
was laid off.  Since it was not a firing, no reason needed to be given.
Soon after, new jobs with slightly different descriptions were staffed.

But, I'm guessing you are in the 'States, where things are quite different
from Europe.  I am lucky because my boss can't fire me...he can only cut my
hours by decreasing the company's income.  What I hope to do, once my wife
finds her call and we move, is slowly cut my hours down (I'm 55 this
Christmas and everyone will be out of college in 2 years)...but still keep
working a bit through my 70s. I like what I do, and I probably have enough
unique expertise to keep working, say, 5-10 hours/week in my mid-70s.

Dan M. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Genesis

[Pat Mathews]

BTW - when you talk about people working longer, don't assume we are all 
leaving the work force early because we want to. While firing people because of 
their age is illegal in the United States, giving them poor performance 
reviews, making their lives miserable, etc can be done and often is. Older 
workers are expensive, too independent, represent roadblocks in the path of the 
younger generation - and BTW, if the organization can get them out before 
they're fully vested, it can save itself a ton of money.

Bin there dun that, made it to being vested just barely, with the help of a 
staff advocate - who was later transferred to a position where she could do 
less harm or good.

http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/





> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> Subject: RE: Genesis
> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:16:03 -0500
> 
> > 
> > People will have to work longer. As life expectancies continue to
> > increase, retirement age will have to increase too.
> > 
> 
> I understand that, and that's reasonable.  The retirement age for Social
> Security in the US has been moved up from 65 to 67 for folks my age and will
> be 68 for folks a few years younger.
> 
> Germany will absolutely have to get rid of retirement at 55.  But, I've seen
> international studies on aging, and only 3 developed countries (as of 6
> years ago) seemed to be marginally OK with handling the aging of their
> population.  The rest were in various degrees of trouble from big to very
> big.
> 
> Part of it is that, even with advances, we tend to slow down in our 70s, at
> least on average.  We cannot expect the same hours of work of a 75 year old
> as a 30 year old.
> 
> I had been interested in this, so I did three different scenarios.  I have
> results in a number of different forms, but let me just give a couple.
> 
> First, assume Europe's population distribution and a constant life
> expectancy of about 78 years, and the EU fertility rate of 1.5.  We'd get
> the following age distribution:
> 
>   Now   50 years
> <20   21.7%   15.8%
> 20-40 26.8%   19.9%
> 40-60 28.4%   24.3%
> 60-80 18.4%   25.9%
> 80+   4.8%14.0%
> 
> Then I added a 1 year per decade increase in life expectancy.  I got:
> 
> <20   21.7%   14.4%
> 20-40 26.8%   18.2%
> 40-60 28.4%   22.2%
> 60-80 18.4%   25.0%
> 80+   4.8%20.2%
> 
> Finally, I took a long term ZPG society, with the life expectancy increase
> of 1 year per decade.  I got:
> 
> <20   30.4%   24.0%
> 20-40 28.1%   23.4%
> 40-60 23.0%   21.9%
> 60-80 14.0%   19.5%
> 80+   4.6%11.3%
> 
> You see the biggest contributor is the near 30% drop in population per
> generation due to the fertility rate, not the aging of the population
> because people live longer. 
> 
> Dan M. 
> 
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Genesis

[Dan M]

> 
> i was not the one who initiated the scarcity of commodities argument,
> although it is obviously that 3,000 years ago lo tech societies did not
> consume and pollute anywhere near the levels of almost seven billion
> (approaching 6,832,000,000) do today.  prior to the agricultural
> revolution population levels were even lower and humans were "leavers",
> rather than "takers":

But, the carrying capacity of the land was very low for hunter gatherer
societies. People in such societies were, except for brief periods of time,
poor to the point of starvation.  People in such a society had little
control over their lives.  When agriculture can about, particularly in the
fertile crescent, the carrying capacity of the land increased.  Improvements
in technology (e.g. the horse collar and 3 crop rotation) allowed for
significant increases in European population (set back by wars and the Black
Plague).  

Population was not far lower way back when because people restrained from
sex as a result of Earth awareness.  Rather, they helplessly watched their
loved ones die at a very young age.


> 
> > We don't have to go that far back to see the difficulty
> > with that argument.
> > The prices of most commodities had dropped from 1975 (a
> > year books on
> > scarcity, overpopulation, pollution etc. were abundant) to
> > 2000.  With the
> > exception of oil, the price in 2005 of most basic
> > commodities (iron ore,
> > copper, aluminum ore, etc.) were roughly half of what they
> > were two and three decades earlier.
> 
> you should mention that is largely due to increased production, and is
> that adjusted for inflation?~)

Actually, it is due to better technology.  Take iron ore.  The Mesabi range
ran out of high grade iron ore in the '60s, but technology improved to the
point where low grade ore was very economical.  It seems as though you don't
believe that wealth can be created.

 
> what is your connection to zambia?  i lived in tchad in 1979.

I have two foster daughters from Zambia, Neli and Nymbezi.  They came to the
US for college.  My other daughters say that Neli is the daughter that takes
after me, because she is so much like mewe spend hours arguing economics
and politicsenjoying each other's company, while the others leave.

They still have family back home in Zambia, but see themselves as having two
families.  Neli is now fairly independent, having graduated from American
University with a MA in Econ.  Nymbezi is pre-med at TCU (near straight A),
and was thinking about med school in South Africa before her sister Tabita
was hurt in anti-foreigner violence there.

 
> > Poor countries, to first order, are cut out of
> > international trade.  As they
> > become integrated in the world economy (e.g. China and
> > India) the levels of
> > income rise.  Its happened fast enough and soon enough
> > after an oil bust, so
> > that oil prices are high (oil production has a long lead
> > time and cost of
> > setupbut once a well is flowing producing oil is
> > usually a minor part of
> > the cost).  CO2 and mid-East & Venezuelan politics are
> > good reasons to cut
> > oil consumption, but just in terms of resource
> > availabilitywe have
> > plenty of choices for low entropy energy sources for years
> > to come.
> 
> poor countries are NOT cut out of international trade, in fact, they are
> exploited for their labor AND resources...

Well, I have obtained my information from two sources.  First from Neli, who
lived in Zambia when it was one of the poorest countries on the earth.  She
said that they had virtually no trade, and that the EU trade barriers were
devastating to Africa.  Indeed, she's said she'd trade an end to all aid for
free trade.

She has often said she'd love a shoe factory in Zambia, because it allow
people to make so much money by Zambian standardseven at wages that are
called exploitive in the West.  She hopes for a 2 year fellowship with the
World Bank, otherwise she'll go straight for her PhD in econ.  Her dream is
to help build Zambia's economy.

So, that's the perspective from the ground, so to speak.  To first order,
advanced economies only influence was to give aid to the government whose
leaders took it as their own.  We've had long talks into the night about
this, and what possibly could be done to change this.  We strongly agree
that trade is the first step, because it provides money that does not have
to go through dishonest politicians first.

Second, I've looked up the lowest GPD per capita countries on Wikipedia and
their per capita exports (us taking their goods and labor) to see what goes
on in those countries.  The twenty poorest countries, their per capita GDP
and exports are:

1    Zimbabwe   194 126
2    the Congo  302 19
3    Burundi371 7
4    Liberia372 277
5    Guinea-Bissau  487 65
6    Somalia600 29
7    Eritrea659 8
8    Niger  665 16
9   

RE: Genesis

[Dan M]

> 
> People will have to work longer. As life expectancies continue to
> increase, retirement age will have to increase too.
> 

I understand that, and that's reasonable.  The retirement age for Social
Security in the US has been moved up from 65 to 67 for folks my age and will
be 68 for folks a few years younger.

Germany will absolutely have to get rid of retirement at 55.  But, I've seen
international studies on aging, and only 3 developed countries (as of 6
years ago) seemed to be marginally OK with handling the aging of their
population.  The rest were in various degrees of trouble from big to very
big.

Part of it is that, even with advances, we tend to slow down in our 70s, at
least on average.  We cannot expect the same hours of work of a 75 year old
as a 30 year old.

I had been interested in this, so I did three different scenarios.  I have
results in a number of different forms, but let me just give a couple.

First, assume Europe's population distribution and a constant life
expectancy of about 78 years, and the EU fertility rate of 1.5.  We'd get
the following age distribution:

  Now   50 years
<20   21.7% 15.8%
20-40 26.8% 19.9%
40-60   28.4%   24.3%
60-80   18.4%   25.9%
80+ 4.8%14.0%

Then I added a 1 year per decade increase in life expectancy.  I got:

<20   21.7% 14.4%
20-40 26.8% 18.2%
40-60   28.4%   22.2%
60-80   18.4%   25.0%
80+ 4.8%20.2%

Finally, I took a long term ZPG society, with the life expectancy increase
of 1 year per decade.  I got:

<20   30.4% 24.0%
20-40 28.1% 23.4%
40-60   23.0%   21.9%
60-80   14.0%   19.5%
80+ 4.6%11.3%

You see the biggest contributor is the near 30% drop in population per
generation due to the fertility rate, not the aging of the population
because people live longer. 

Dan M. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Charlie Bell]

On 31/07/2008, at 4:31 AM, Dan M wrote:
>
> Given the fact that Europe is showing resistance to the idea of  
> significant
> additional immigration of non-Europeans, and that Japan has long  
> held racial
> purity as important, I wonder who will take care of all the baby  
> boomers as
> they enter their 70s, 80s and 90s, when the working population  
> continues to
> shrink drastically.

People will have to work longer. As life expectancies continue to  
increase, retirement age will have to increase too.

Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[William T Goodall]

On 30 Jul 2008, at 20:41, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

> William T Goodall quoted:
>>
>> "The provisional Total Fertility Rate (TFR) for 2007 gives an
>> average  of 1.91 children per woman in England and Wales. This is an
>> increase  from 1.86 in 2006 and is the sixth consecutive annual
>> increase from a  low point in 2001 where the TFR was 1.63. The last
>> time the TFR  exceeded 1.91 was 34 years ago in 1973 when it was  
>> 2.00.
>>
>> The number of live births in England and Wales increased for the
>> sixth  successive year in 2007. "
>>
> The scary thing is that, probably, those 0.5 extra kids are
> muslims...
>

Actually mostly children of Polish and other Eastern European  
immigrants and Catholic.

Borscht  Maru

-- 
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

Debunking bullshit is a thankless task.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Alberto Monteiro]

William T Goodall quoted:
> 
> "The provisional Total Fertility Rate (TFR) for 2007 gives an 
> average  of 1.91 children per woman in England and Wales. This is an 
> increase  from 1.86 in 2006 and is the sixth consecutive annual 
> increase from a  low point in 2001 where the TFR was 1.63. The last 
> time the TFR  exceeded 1.91 was 34 years ago in 1973 when it was 2.00.
> 
> The number of live births in England and Wales increased for the 
> sixth  successive year in 2007. "
> 
The scary thing is that, probably, those 0.5 extra kids are
muslims...

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis

[Jon Louis Mann]

> > > Dan M wrote:
> > >> There is no evidence that, if the United
> States decided
> > >> to fade away as continental Europe is doing,
> instead of
> > >> having a ZPG birth rate, (...) 

> we're looking at a
> Europe that will be shrinking, roughly, 30% per generation.
> We see birth
> rates exceeding death rates in countries like Germany,
> France, and Italy
> now. Of course, we're also seeing that in Japan.
> Given the fact that Europe is showing resistance to the
> idea of significant
> additional immigration of non-Europeans, and that Japan has
> long held racial
> purity as important, I wonder who will take care of all the
> baby boomers as
> they enter their 70s, 80s and 90s, when the working
> population continues to
> shrink drastically.  
> Dan M.

this baby boomer was astute enough to see this coming and took advantage of 
opportunities to buy land and sck away a nest egg.  before medicare becomes 
overwhelmed i will cash everything in, move to oregon, and sign up with alcor.  

the real question is who will take care of vanishing species on the land, 
oceans and air, and their habitats?
http://www.parade.com/hot-topics/0807/can-our-oceans-survive.html
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[William T Goodall]

On 30 Jul 2008, at 19:31, Dan M wrote:

>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- 
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of William T Goodall
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:30 AM
>> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Genesis
>>
>>
>> On 30 Jul 2008, at 15:46, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>>
>>> Dan M wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is no evidence that, if the United States decided
>>>> to fade away as continental Europe is doing, instead of
>>>> having a ZPG birth rate, (...)
>>>>
>>> Brazil is fading away too. Last count is 1.8 births/female.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Below the UK and France but well above Thailand (1.5) and South Korea
>> (1.1).
>>
>> Patterns Maru
>
> It's an interesting topic.  The CIA factbook has estimates for 2008
> (estimates most likely based on 2007 and 2006 data) at
>
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127ra
> nk.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3yur88
>
> It has the UK at 1.6, falling below Brazil.which it gives at 1.86.
>
> The UK number may not be an outlandish estimate because the UN has  
> the UK at
> 1.7 between 2000 and 2005.  I'm not arguing with Brazil's number,  
> but it
> does represent a big drop from 2000-2005: (2.35).

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=369

"The provisional Total Fertility Rate (TFR) for 2007 gives an average  
of 1.91 children per woman in England and Wales. This is an increase  
from 1.86 in 2006 and is the sixth consecutive annual increase from a  
low point in 2001 where the TFR was 1.63. The last time the TFR  
exceeded 1.91 was 34 years ago in 1973 when it was 2.00.

The number of live births in England and Wales increased for the sixth  
successive year in 2007. "

Not the CIA Maru

-- 
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit  
atrocities." ~Voltaire.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis

[Jon Louis Mann]

> From: Dan M 
> > > > What's wicked about bringing children
> > > into the world that you have the
> > > resources to support and nurture?
> > > Doug
 
> > it's wicked because it creates even more
> scarcity among other children
> > in undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the
> resources to
> > support and nurture.  would you suggest that we forbid
> anyone too poor from having children?
> > jon

> Going with your logic, with scarcity of commodities being
> the cause of
> poverty, shouldn't people have been much richer 3000
> years ago, at the time
> that the earth's resources were barely touched?

i was not the one who initiated the scarcity of commodities argument, although 
it is obviously that 3,000 years ago lo tech societies did not consume and 
pollute anywhere near the levels of almost seven billion (approaching 
6,832,000,000) do today.  prior to the agricultural revolution population 
levels were even lower and humans were "leavers", rather than "takers":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_(novel)

> We don't have to go that far back to see the difficulty
> with that argument.
> The prices of most commodities had dropped from 1975 (a
> year books on
> scarcity, overpopulation, pollution etc. were abundant) to
> 2000.  With the
> exception of oil, the price in 2005 of most basic
> commodities (iron ore,
> copper, aluminum ore, etc.) were roughly half of what they
> were two and three decades earlier.

you should mention that is largely due to increased production, and is that 
adjusted for inflation?~)

> Even oil fell into that pattern, falling below $10/barrel
> in 1998 on the
> spot market, and averaging around 11 for the year ($15 in
> today's dollars).
> Resources were abundantly available for poor countries, at
> low prices. 
> Some Asian countries started to develop, but sub-Sahara
> Africa remained in
> poverty.  Zambia, which I have a very close connection to,
> actually suffered
> because the drop in the value of their main export
> (copper). 

what is your connection to zambia?  i lived in tchad in 1979.

> Poor countries, to first order, are cut out of
> international trade.  As they
> become integrated in the world economy (e.g. China and
> India) the levels of
> income rise.  Its happened fast enough and soon enough
> after an oil bust, so
> that oil prices are high (oil production has a long lead
> time and cost of
> setupbut once a well is flowing producing oil is
> usually a minor part of
> the cost).  CO2 and mid-East & Venezuelan politics are
> good reasons to cut
> oil consumption, but just in terms of resource
> availabilitywe have
> plenty of choices for low entropy energy sources for years
> to come.

poor countries are NOT cut out of international trade, in fact, they are 
exploited for their labor AND resources...

> There is no evidence that, if the United States decided to
> fade away as
> continental Europe is doing, instead of having a ZPG birth
> rate, that poor
> people (eg those in sub-Sahara Africa) would benefit.

GOOD!~)
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Genesis

[Dan M]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of William T Goodall
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:30 AM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Genesis
> 
> 
> On 30 Jul 2008, at 15:46, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> 
> > Dan M wrote:
> >>
> >> There is no evidence that, if the United States decided
> >> to fade away as continental Europe is doing, instead of
> >> having a ZPG birth rate, (...)
> >>
> > Brazil is fading away too. Last count is 1.8 births/female.
> >
> 
> 
> Below the UK and France but well above Thailand (1.5) and South Korea
> (1.1).
> 
> Patterns Maru

It's an interesting topic.  The CIA factbook has estimates for 2008
(estimates most likely based on 2007 and 2006 data) at

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127ra
nk.html

http://tinyurl.com/3yur88

It has the UK at 1.6, falling below Brazil.which it gives at 1.86.  

The UK number may not be an outlandish estimate because the UN has the UK at
1.7 between 2000 and 2005.  I'm not arguing with Brazil's number, but it
does represent a big drop from 2000-2005: (2.35).  

But, with the EU, on the whole at 1.5 and Russia at 1.4, we're looking at a
Europe that will be shrinking, roughly, 30% per generation.  We see birth
rates exceeding death rates in countries like Germany, France, and Italy
now. Of course, we're also seeing that in Japan.

Given the fact that Europe is showing resistance to the idea of significant
additional immigration of non-Europeans, and that Japan has long held racial
purity as important, I wonder who will take care of all the baby boomers as
they enter their 70s, 80s and 90s, when the working population continues to
shrink drastically. 

Dan M. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis

[Jon Louis Mann]

> >> Dan M wrote:
> >> There is no evidence that, if the United States
> decided
> >> to fade away as continental Europe is doing,
> instead of
> >> having a ZPG birth rate, (...)
> >>
> > Brazil is fading away too. Last count is 1.8
> births/female.

> Below the UK and France but well above Thailand (1.5) and
> South Korea  
> (1.1). 
> Patterns Maru 
> William T Goodall

The US paid me to have my two sons (in the form of tax deductions) while people 
who don't have any kids have to pay higher taxes...
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[William T Goodall]

On 30 Jul 2008, at 15:46, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

> Dan M wrote:
>>
>> There is no evidence that, if the United States decided
>> to fade away as continental Europe is doing, instead of
>> having a ZPG birth rate, (...)
>>
> Brazil is fading away too. Last count is 1.8 births/female.
>


Below the UK and France but well above Thailand (1.5) and South Korea  
(1.1).

Patterns Maru

-- 
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit  
atrocities." ~Voltaire.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Genesis

[Alberto Monteiro]

Dan M wrote:
> 
> There is no evidence that, if the United States decided
> to fade away as continental Europe is doing, instead of
> having a ZPG birth rate, (...)
>
Brazil is fading away too. Last count is 1.8 births/female.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Genesis

[Dan M]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jon Louis Mann
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 2:39 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Genesis
> 
> > > What's wicked about bringing children into the
> > world that you have the
> > resources to support and nurture?
> > Doug
> 
> it's wicked because it creates even more scaricities among other children
> in undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the resources to
> support and nurture.  would you suggest that we forbid anyone too poor
> from having children?
> jon

Going with your logic, with scarcity of commodities being the cause of
poverty, shouldn't people have been much richer 3000 years ago, at the time
that the earth's resources were barely touched?

We don't have to go that far back to see the difficulty with that argument.
The prices of most commodities had dropped from 1975 (a year books on
scarcity, overpopulation, pollution etc. were abundant) to 2000.  With the
exception of oil, the price in 2005 of most basic commodities (iron ore,
copper, aluminum ore, etc.) were roughly half of what they were two and
three decades earlier.

Even oil fell into that pattern, falling below $10/barrel in 1998 on the
spot market, and averaging around 11 for the year ($15 in today's dollars).
Resources were abundantly available for poor countries, at low prices.

Some Asian countries started to develop, but sub-Sahara Africa remained in
poverty.  Zambia, which I have a very close connection to, actually suffered
because the drop in the value of their main export (copper). 

Poor countries, to first order, are cut out of international trade.  As they
become integrated in the world economy (e.g. China and India) the levels of
income rise.  Its happened fast enough and soon enough after an oil bust, so
that oil prices are high (oil production has a long lead time and cost of
setupbut once a well is flowing producing oil is usually a minor part of
the cost).  CO2 and mid-East & Venezuelan politics are good reasons to cut
oil consumption, but just in terms of resource availabilitywe have
plenty of choices for low entropy energy sources for years to come.

There is no evidence that, if the United States decided to fade away as
continental Europe is doing, instead of having a ZPG birth rate, that poor
people (eg those in sub-Sahara Africa) would benefit.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Wayne Eddy]

- Original Message - 
From: "Kevin B. O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: Genesis


> Wayne Eddy wrote:
>> Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see 
>> how
>> Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular
>>
>> problem.

> I'm thinking that causing massive instability in the major oil producing
> region might have something to do with it. When you add in determined
> opposition to any form of conservation, I think most of it is covered.

That may have pushed up oil prices by $20 a barrel or so, but it has nothing 
to do with the underlying problem of finite oil supplies and growing world 
demand.  If anything it might turn out to be a positive - forcing the world 
to consider its energy future a few years earlier than otherwise.

I reckon a hike in the price of oil is trival compared to the deaths and 
maiming of thosands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the 
name of non-existant weapons of mass destruction.

And, I still want to no what global catastrophe Jon was talking about!

Regards,

Wayne.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Kevin B. O'Brien]

Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> Kevin B. O'Brien wrote:
>   
>>> Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but
>>> I don't see how Bush or Cheney for all their failings can
>>> be blamed for that particular problem.
>>>   
>> I'm thinking that causing massive instability in the major oil 
>> producing region might have something to do with it. When you add in 
>> determined opposition to any form of conservation, I think most of 
>> it is covered.
>>
>> 
> Removing one megalomaniac old dictator and his two psychopath heirs
> is _causing_ massive instability? I think it's the other way: it's
> _preventing_ massive instability.
>   
There is a certain stability in the grave, to be sure. But I don't think 
that is what most people want.
> And what are those two idiots doing, that the oil price fell down
> so much in the past weeks? They should strike Iran right now!
>   
Those two idiots, with able assistance from Republicans in Congress, 
have managed to screw up the American economy so badly that demand is 
falling. That does have the effect of putting downward pressure on gas 
prices, which should be received with great joy by all the Americans who 
lost their jobs, their homes, ...

Regards,

-- 
Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Linux User #333216

"The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in  jail; if it 
were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence." - 
H.L. Mencken
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Kevin B. O'Brien]

Doug Pensinger wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
>
>   
>> Wayne Eddy wrote:
>> 
>>> Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see
>>>   
>> how
>> 
>>> Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular
>>>
>>> problem.
>>>   
>> I'm thinking that causing massive instability in the major oil producing
>> region might have something to do with it. When you add in determined
>> opposition to any form of conservation, I think most of it is covered.
>>
>> Let's not forget a total lack of vision when it comes to energy policy.
>> 
>
> Doug
Agreed. And after I posted it I thought more carefully about it, and 
decided that I really had to add disastrous fiscal policy leading to a 
plummeting dollar. That not only has driven up oil prices (in dollar 
terms), but has led OPEC countries to start the move away from selling 
in dollars to other currencies, like the Euro.

Regards,

-- 
Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Linux User #333216

May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. - Dwight 
D. Eisenhower
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Alberto Monteiro]

Kevin B. O'Brien wrote:
>
>> Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but
>> I don't see how Bush or Cheney for all their failings can
>> be blamed for that particular problem.
>
> I'm thinking that causing massive instability in the major oil 
> producing region might have something to do with it. When you add in 
> determined opposition to any form of conservation, I think most of 
> it is covered.
> 
Removing one megalomaniac old dictator and his two psychopath heirs
is _causing_ massive instability? I think it's the other way: it's
_preventing_ massive instability.

And what are those two idiots doing, that the oil price fell down
so much in the past weeks? They should strike Iran right now!

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Doug Pensinger]

Kevin wrote:

> Wayne Eddy wrote:
> > Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see
> how
> > Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular
> >
> > problem.
> I'm thinking that causing massive instability in the major oil producing
> region might have something to do with it. When you add in determined
> opposition to any form of conservation, I think most of it is covered.
>
> Let's not forget a total lack of vision when it comes to energy policy.

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Kevin B. O'Brien]

Wayne Eddy wrote:
> Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see how 
> Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular 
>
> problem.
I'm thinking that causing massive instability in the major oil producing 
region might have something to do with it. When you add in determined 
opposition to any form of conservation, I think most of it is covered.

Regards,

-- 
Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Linux User #333216

"Men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all the other 
alternatives." -- Abba Eban
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 11:52 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Wayne Eddy wrote:

>- Original Message -
>From: "Jon Louis Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" 
>Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 11:40 AM
>Subject: Genesis
>
>
> > it may well come to that, bruce, or the problem may be solved by the
> > collapse of civilization.  either way, it serves us right for letting
> > things get out of hand... i feel no pity for the heartland of america that
> > allowed monsters like bush and cheney lead us into an impending worldwide
> > collapse.  the irony is that many of those who benefited from that
> > malignant government will be prepared to survive the collapse.
> > jon
>
>Which impending worldwide collapse?
>
>Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see how
>Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular
>problem.
>
>Surely there are quite few nice people in the heartland of America that are
>worth your pity?


I know quite a few nice people who live here in flyover country.  Of 
course, some might think the main reason they deserve pity is because 
they truly believe in God and as a result try to live according to 
the Golden Rule and other things Jesus said in the scriptures . . .


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Wayne Eddy]

- Original Message - 
From: "Jon Louis Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" 
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 11:40 AM
Subject: Genesis


> it may well come to that, bruce, or the problem may be solved by the 
> collapse of civilization.  either way, it serves us right for letting 
> things get out of hand... i feel no pity for the heartland of america that 
> allowed monsters like bush and cheney lead us into an impending worldwide 
> collapse.  the irony is that many of those who benefited from that 
> malignant government will be prepared to survive the collapse.
> jon

Which impending worldwide collapse?

Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see how 
Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular 
problem.

Surely there are quite few nice people in the heartland of America that are 
worth your pity?

Regards,

Wayne. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 08:01 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:


> > So if its a numbers game, how do you "win" by not
> > having children?
>
>actually you lose by having too many children and overpopulating the planet...
>
> > > the argument you should be forwarding is that affluent
> > societies stop
> > > consuming so much and put more revenues into an
> > "enlightened' educational
> > > system and a global social agenda that would eliminate
> > wars over resources.
>
> > I agree with that argument.  But if I don't have kids
> > and get them to
> > believe what I believe, who the f__k is going to believe
> > when I pass?  Do
> > you think you and I are going to change everyone else's
> > mind in the next few
> > years?
>
>no, but neither is realistic to expect "enlightened" advocates to 
>change any minds.  better to focus on solutions that have a chance 
>of working.  you can't assume that the force of numbers can always 
>outweigh the power of ideas.  if that were the case we would never 
>have progressed beyond the dark ages.  it is far easier to change 
>the world now than it was during feudal times.
>
> > > there has always been a gap between the haves and have
> > nots with those at
> > > the bottom providing the labor and resources for those
> > at the top.  if they
> > > were really so enlightened they would prohibit the
> > very greed that enables
> > > them to provide for more spoiled brats and share the
> > wealth with the
> > > oppressed workers of the world, so they would not have
> > to breed more
> > > children in order to survive.
>
> > * If you look at the pre-bush history of the US I'm
> > pretty sure you'll find a
> > trend towards more haves and fewer have-nots. *  And
> > you'll find that we were
> > the envy of the world in many respects; that people wanted
> > to come here or,
> > that they wanted to emulate our society.  That we use far
> > more than our
> > share of the world's resources is a problem, but the
> > fact that we were one
> > of several nations that were aware of the environmental
> > problems that we're
> > facing was a positive.  Unfortunately, because of poor
> > leadership, we've
> > lost our way.
>
>you ahve got to be kidding, the bush/cheney abberration has widened 
>the gap between haves and have nots far more than under clinton.


Isn't that exactly what he said?  (See the first sentence.)



> > But I digress.  My real point is that I can only do so much
> > in my lifetime,
> > but I can help to shape the future by raising good kids and
> > by helping them
> > to raise good kids.  Refusing to do so as some sort of
> > righteous statement
> > is ultimately self-defeating.
> > Doug
>
>i have sired two sons and endeavoured to teach them the consequences 
>of overpopulation and greed.  i won't be around to see what happens 
>to their generation as a result of the legacy of materialism they 
>have inherited.



. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis 1:28

[Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro]

Jon Louis Mann wrote:
>
> "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
> and replenish the earth, and subdue it."  surely you don't believe that
> gawd created man to have dominion over every living thing that moves on the
> earth?
>
OTOH, if this command should be taken _literally_, then it already
has been fulfilled. Man _was_ fruitful, replenished the earth and
subdued it. Now it's the time to stop!

Alberto the hypocrite
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis

[Jon Louis Mann]

> I might.  There, I said it.
> If our species were made up entirely of individuals who
> approached  
> decisions, especially important ones like whether it's
> wise to  
> reproduce, with as much thought toward collective benefit
> as  
> individual gratification, I wouldn't suggest that.  But
> this species  
> has proven time and time again that the majority of its
> individuals  
> do, in fact, act only on a motivation of immediate
> self-gratification  
> and very often completely counter to collective benefit,
> even in the  
> case of driving a population explosion that continuously
> paces or  
> exceeds our best efforts at meeting demands for basic
> necessities such  
> as food and shelter, and in the case of creating gross
> inequities in  
> wealth that make virtual Olympic god-kings out of the
> wealthiest one  
> percent or so, and exploit and starve large numbers of
> other people in  
> the poorest parts of the world.
> And one big factor of this is a perceived "right to
> reproduce" that is  
> common to most cultures, our own included, that makes it
> seem  
> abhorrent to place any restrictions on how many children
> any family  
> may have.  China has its back farther up against the wall
> than many  
> other countries, and even with its massive population and
> the strains  
> on its natural resources, it has to fight the perception
> that its one- 
> child-per-family policy is some sort of assault on its
> citizens' civil  
> rights.
> Yes, if I were to become "dictator of the world",
> placing restrictions  
> on who was and was not allowed to have children would be on
> the  
> table.  I'd likely be despised and hated for it, but
> I'd still at  
> least consider it, if only to give us some fighting chance
> of a  
> managed population decrease.  Reduce the earth's
> population to 1-2  
> billion or so, with the knowledge we now have of
> agriculture and food  
> production, and earth becomes close to a utopia.
> The only exceptions I would make would be for people
> willing to help  
> terraform and colonize other habitable bodies in the solar
> system.   
> I'm pretty sure Mars' surface could be terraformed
> to the point where  
> people could live and produce food there without life
> support, with  
> the right approach to releasing the CO2 locked up in the
> regolith and  
> using a series of introduced plant species to convert the
> CO2 to  
> breathable oxygen and jump-start biosphere growth.  With a
> controlled  
> population reduction, the economy could probably support a
> pretty  
> massive spaceflight/colonization initiative.

it may well come to that, bruce, or the problem may be solved by the collapse 
of civilization.  either way, it serves us right for letting things get out of 
hand... i feel no pity for the heartland of america that allowed monsters like 
bush and cheney lead us into an impending worldwide collapse.  the irony is 
that many of those who benefited from that malignant government will be 
prepared to survive the collapse.  
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis

[Jon Louis Mann]

> I agree with Doug.
> If people only raised the number of children they were able
> to support & 
> nuture  AND everyone one was in a position to know that
> number AND if 
> everyone was able to ensure they didn't have more than
> that number, we would 
> end up with the appropriate world population, and far less
> suffering.
> What's more a lot of people are probably well off today
> because their 
> parents and grand parents made good decisions about the
> number of offspring 
> they could support.
> Regards,
> Wayne.

if only people who could afford to reproduce did, who would do all the work?  
certainly not paris hilton!~)  

the present generation of young adults have a sense of entitlement and 
completely different work ethic than my parents who survived the depression and 
came from large families.  

my granfather needed every one of his surviving children to work the farm in 
olds, alberta, canada.  the house he built for his family at the end of the 
19th century is now a historical monument.

my father helped build the grand coulee dam and worked two jobs most of his 
adult life.  you do not see this sort of work ethic from today's kids who often 
live in their parents' basement and spend their disposable income on fashion, 
video games, and entertainment, etc.

after i served in the navy my youth was misspent pursuing sex, drugs and rock & 
roll.  gas was cheap and the power of the dollar made it possible for me to 
work six months after college and save enough to travel the world for three 
years.  then i fathered a child in 1972 and suddenly woke up to the 
responsibility of adulthood.  that responsibility was all i could handle until 
my son was grown.  at 36 he still has not fathered a child.
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Bruce Bostwick]

On Jul 26, 2008, at 6:38 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

> At 03:09 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
>
>> If our species were made up entirely of individuals who approached
>> decisions, especially important ones like whether it's wise to
>> reproduce, with as much thought toward collective benefit as
>> individual gratification,
>
>
>
> Perhaps that would be easier if reproduction were not so strongly
> linked to gratification . . .
>
>
> . . . ronn!  :)

You do have a point there.  :)

(Although the gratification need not necessarily be linked to  
reproduction.  Modern technology can sometimes  be very helpful in  
that regard.)

"This is an amazing honor. I want you to know that I spend so much  
time in the world that is spinning all the time, that to be in the no- 
spin zone actually gives me vertigo." -- Stephen Colbert during an  
interview on FOX News, The O'Reilly Factor

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis

[Jon Louis Mann]

> So if its a numbers game, how do you "win" by not
> having children?

actually you lose by having too many children and overpopulating the planet...

> > the argument you should be forwarding is that affluent
> societies stop
> > consuming so much and put more revenues into an
> "enlightened' educational
> > system and a global social agenda that would eliminate
> wars over resources.

> I agree with that argument.  But if I don't have kids
> and get them to
> believe what I believe, who the f__k is going to believe
> when I pass?  Do
> you think you and I are going to change everyone else's
> mind in the next few
> years?

no, but neither is realistic to expect "enlightened" advocates to change any 
minds.  better to focus on solutions that have a chance of working.  you can't 
assume that the force of numbers can always outweigh the power of ideas.  if 
that were the case we would never have progressed beyond the dark ages.  it is 
far easier to change the world now than it was during feudal times.

> > there has always been a gap between the haves and have
> nots with those at
> > the bottom providing the labor and resources for those
> at the top.  if they
> > were really so enlightened they would prohibit the
> very greed that enables
> > them to provide for more spoiled brats and share the
> wealth with the
> > oppressed workers of the world, so they would not have
> to breed more
> > children in order to survive.

> If you look at the pre-bush history of the US I'm
> pretty sure you'll find a
> trend towards more haves and fewer have-nots.  And
> you'll find that we were
> the envy of the world in many respects; that people wanted
> to come here or,
> that they wanted to emulate our society.  That we use far
> more than our
> share of the world's resources is a problem, but the
> fact that we were one
> of several nations that were aware of the environmental
> problems that we're
> facing was a positive.  Unfortunately, because of poor
> leadership, we've
> lost our way.

you ahve got to be kidding, the bush/cheney abberration has widened the gap 
between haves and have nots far more than under clinton.

> But I digress.  My real point is that I can only do so much
> in my lifetime,
> but I can help to shape the future by raising good kids and
> by helping them
> to raise good kids.  Refusing to do so as some sort of
> righteous statement
> is ultimately self-defeating.
> Doug

i have sired two sons and endeavoured to teach them the consequences of 
overpopulation and greed.  i won't be around to see what happens to their 
generation as a result of the legacy of materialism they have inherited.


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis 1:28

[Jon Louis Mann]

> I would love to see a summary of the good & evil deeds
> that the "best & 
> brightest" have been responsible for over the years
> and contrast that with 
> the deads of the "worst & dimmest", but it
> hasn't been done and I suspect it 
> is impossible to do.
> What justification do you have for your assertion?  I
> don't think Hitler or 
> Pol Pot or Idi Amin would be classified as "best &
> brightest", do you?
> Regards,
> Wayne. 

i believe someone already explained how that was exemplified by america's 
involvement in vietnam.  

there are many other examples of how u.s. foreign policy has been an instrument 
of evil, maybe not on a level with alexander, julius caesar, stalin, mao, or 
pol pot, et al, but certainly not altruistic as claimed by bushco and company.  

cetainly savage barbariansm such as idi amin and hitler, consider themselves to 
be the best and the brightest as they engage in genocide.
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 07:12 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
> > >are you suggesting it is rational to have more
> > enlightened
> > >children to balance those who are raised by cults and
> > jihadists,
> > >etc.?  the mormons and various religious cults may not
> > have taken
> > >over the world, but they are still growing and doing a
> > hell of a lot of damage
>
> > Specify "damage."
> > . . . ronn!  :)
>
>religious cults that charge their flock to multiply in order to 
>fulfill some principle ordained by a deity are committed to 
>expanding population growth at an exponential rate that will have 
>drastic effects on the planet as a whole.  anyone who promotes that 
>sort of irresponsibility withour regard for other species of plant 
>and animal life irritate me no end.  what makes homo sapiens so 
>special that they have the right to destroy each other and other 
>species as well?
>jon


See my response to Wayne.  Clearly YM does V.


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis

[Jon Louis Mann]

> >are you suggesting it is rational to have more
> enlightened 
> >children to balance those who are raised by cults and
> jihadists, 
> >etc.?  the mormons and various religious cults may not
> have taken 
> >over the world, but they are still growing and doing a
> hell of a lot of damage

> Specify "damage."
> . . . ronn!  :)

religious cults that charge their flock to multiply in order to fulfill some 
principle ordained by a deity are committed to expanding population growth at 
an exponential rate that will have drastic effects on the planet as a whole.  
anyone who promotes that sort of irresponsibility withour regard for other 
species of plant and animal life irritate me no end.  what makes homo sapiens 
so special that they have the right to destroy each other and other species as 
well?
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 05:44 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote:

>To be honest, I think the only real solution is a world government that has
>the power and the resources to correct severe problems.
>
>If one nation tries to do it alone, their motivations might be questioned
>and for good reason (see Iraq).



I know I sure wouldn't have wanted Saddam Hussein and his sons and 
other relatives and cronies running the world the way they ran Iraq.


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 03:55 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:

>there has always been a gap between the haves and have nots with 
>those at the bottom providing the labor and resources for those at 
>the top.  if they were really so enlightened they would prohibit the very greed


As the hot dog vendor said to the Zen master 
: "Change comes only from within."


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 03:09 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote:

>If our species were made up entirely of individuals who approached
>decisions, especially important ones like whether it's wise to
>reproduce, with as much thought toward collective benefit as
>individual gratification,



Perhaps that would be easier if reproduction were not so strongly 
linked to gratification . . .


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 02:35 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:


> > I just don't see it happening according to their
> > script.  Of those 8 or 10,
> > how many are going to follow their parent's ideology
> > lock step?  How many
> > will rebel and provide a backlash?  How isolated can they
> > remain in a
> > society changing as rapidly as ours?
> >
> > Mormons have practiced something similar to this ideology
> > for over a hundred
> > years; are they taking over the world?
> >
> > In any case, what are we going to do about it?  Tell them
> > they can't have
> > babies?  Force them to educate their kids the way we think
> > they should?
> >
> > What we really need is for responsible, intelligent,
> > enlightened people to
> > stop making excuses for _not_ having children.
> >
> > Doug
>
>are you suggesting that it is rational to have more enlightened 
>children to balance those who are raised by cults and jihadists, 
>etc.?  the mormons and various religious cults may not have taken 
>over the world, but they are still growing and doing a hell of a lot of damage



Specify "damage."


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Doug Pensinger]

Jon wrote:

>
> the problem, doug, is that many undeveloped nations rich in resources are
> governed by despots who need to maintain an ignorant population in poverty
> so they can continue to use the wealth for their own purposes.  when
> advanced societies enable this so they can continue their global trade
> advantage it is simply the new colonialism.
>
> how can you say we can't help the ver countries we are exploiting with our
> resources? it would only be just if advanced countries jointly used
> sanctions and other incentives to forve ALL oppressive governments to
> provide for their people.


Because if we just send them resources 1) there's no assurance that they
will receive them via a layer of corrupt bureaucrats and 2) even if they do
receive those resources it teaches them nothing about how they can sustain
themselves.

Please understand that I am not opposed to humanitarian relief; I'm very
much in favor of it, but it is not a long term solution.

>
> what do you believe can be done to catalyze human rights in those
> countries; pre-emptive attacks?


To be honest, I think the only real solution is a world government that has
the power and the resources to correct severe problems.

If one nation tries to do it alone, their motivations might be questioned
and for good reason (see Iraq).

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis 1:28

[Doug Pensinger]

Bruce wrote:

>
> That's another matter entirely than restricting childbirth.  That's a
> value distinction as to who is more or less entitled to reproduce.
>
> And on that, I will agree with you, that some parents are probably
> better candidates to reproduce the species than others.  But, as a
> member of the species yourself, are you prepared for the
> responsibility of making that choice for every would-be parent on
> earth?


Absolutely not, but I had the wherewithal to make that decision for myself.



>  And would you be prepared to defend your decisions against the
> inevitable challenges and explain why you made the decision the way
> you did in every case?  (It's a safe bet that any decision along those
> lines will be challenged, no matter what you do, either by the parents
> themselves if you say no to them, or by other parents if you say yes
> and they're not satisfied that you made a fair decision.)
>
> There's merit to granting birth-privileges to the best and the
> brightest, in the most basic analysis.  It's the execution of the
> concept where the very devil is in the details.  And it ultimately
> comes down to trusting someone to make a fair decision .. which is
> itself a very non-trivial problem.
>

I don't see very much merit there.  That sounds like eugenics to me.  All
I'm saying is that if I believe I'm capable of raising good kids then it
does not benefit society for me to decide not to do so.  The corollary being
that if you're capable of raising good kids and you decide not  to because
you think bringing another person into the world is harmful, I think you're
fooling yourself and depriving the world of a good people.

These are personal decisions, not to be dictated by religions or
governments.  If I were president of the world, I'd endeavor to set a good
example.  8^)

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis 1:28

[Wayne Eddy]

From: "Jon Louis Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> unfortunately, throughout history, it is the "the best and the brightest" 
> who have perpetrated evils on the poor and downtrodden.  there have been 
> exceptions, but over and over again governments and religions have used 
> their ideology or dogma to justify exploitation in the name of spreading 
> civilization.
> again i ask, what gives any one the right to determine whose agenda is 
> enlightened?  what gives any religious schism the right to dictate 
> reproduction, and/or a monopoly on values, ethics, or morality?
> jon

I would love to see a summary of the good & evil deeds that the "best & 
brightest" have been responsible for over the years and contrast that with 
the deads of the "worst & dimmest", but it hasn't been done and I suspect it 
is impossible to do.

What justification do you have for your assertion?  I don't think Hitler or 
Pol Pot or Idi Amin would be classified as "best & brightest", do you?

Regards,

Wayne. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Wayne Eddy]

- Original Message - 
From: "Bruce Bostwick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> The only exceptions I would make would be for people willing to help
> terraform and colonize other habitable bodies in the solar system.
> I'm pretty sure Mars' surface could be terraformed to the point where
> people could live and produce food there without life support, with
> the right approach to releasing the CO2 locked up in the regolith and
> using a series of introduced plant species to convert the CO2 to
> breathable oxygen and jump-start biosphere growth.  With a controlled
> population reduction, the economy could probably support a pretty
> massive spaceflight/colonization initiative ..

I'd like to see Mars colonised too, but it is not a solution to 
overpopulation.
I can't see it ever being possible to send people to Mars at a faster rate 
than they are being born.

Regards,

Wayne. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Doug Pensinger]

Jon  wrote:

>
>
> it is a numbers game, doug, and as long as it continues the planet will
> suffer. it is not realistic to suggest that enlightened people will save the
> planet by breeding.  people who are able to enjoy the fruits of their wealth
> are not about to invest in breeding units of labor when it is not necessary,
> unless they are doing it to spread their dogma.


So if its a numbers game, how do you "win" by not having children?

>
> the argument you should be forwarding is that affluent societies stop
> consuming so much and put more revenues into an "enlightened' educational
> system and a global social agenda that would eliminate wars over resources.


I agree with that argument.  But if I don't have kids and get them to
believe what I believe, who the f__k is going to believe when I pass?  Do
you think you and I are going to change everyone else's mind in the next few
years?

>
> there has always been a gap between the haves and have nots with those at
> the bottom providing the labor and resources for those at the top.  if they
> were really so enlightened they would prohibit the very greed that enables
> them to provide for more spoiled brats and share the wealth with the
> oppressed workers of the world, so they would not have to breed more
> children in order to survive.
>

If you look at the pre-bush history of the US I'm pretty sure you'll find a
trend towards more haves and fewer have-nots.  And you'll find that we were
the envy of the world in many respects; that people wanted to come here or,
that they wanted to emulate our society.  That we use far more than our
share of the world's resources is a problem, but the fact that we were one
of several nations that were aware of the environmental problems that we're
facing was a positive.  Unfortunately, because of poor leadership, we've
lost our way.

But I digress.  My real point is that I can only do so much in my lifetime,
but I can help to shape the future by raising good kids and by helping them
to raise good kids.  Refusing to do so as some sort of righteous statement
is ultimately self-defeating.

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Wayne Eddy]

- Original Message - 
From: "Jon Louis Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" 
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 5:38 AM
Subject: Genesis


>> > What's wicked about bringing children into the
>> world that you have the
>> resources to support and nurture?
>> Doug
>
> it's wicked because it creates even more scaricities among other children 
> in undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the resources to 
> support and nurture.  would you suggest that we forbid anyone too poor 
> from having children?
> jon

I agree with Doug.

If people only raised the number of children they were able to support & 
nuture  AND everyone one was in a position to know that number AND if 
everyone was able to ensure they didn't have more than that number, we would 
end up with the appropriate world population, and far less suffering.

What's more a lot of people are probably well off today because their 
parents and grand parents made good decisions about the number of offspring 
they could support.

Regards,

Wayne.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis 1:28

[Jon Louis Mann]

> Doug Pensinger wrote:
> > It's not just a numbers game.  If you have the opportunity to bring
> > a child
> > into the world that has a reasonable chance to make a positive
> > contribution,
> > there are few arguments not to do so.  The world doesn't just need
> > fewer
> > people; it needs more people that can make a positive contribution
> > and fewer
> > whose lives will ultimately be fruitless (not to mention miserable).

> That's another matter entirely than restricting childbirth.  That's a
> value distinction as to who is more or less entitled to reproduce.

> And on that, I will agree with you, that some parents are probably
> better candidates to reproduce the species than others.  But, as a
> member of the species yourself, are you prepared for the
> responsibility of making that choice for every would-be parent on
> earth?  And would you be prepared to defend your decisions against the
> inevitable challenges and explain why you made the decision the way
> you did in every case?  (It's a safe bet that any decision along those
> lines will be challenged, no matter what you do, either by the parents
> themselves if you say no to them, or by other parents if you say yes
> and they're not satisfied that you made a fair decision.)

> There's merit to granting birth-privileges to the best and the
> brightest, in the most basic analysis.  It's the execution of the
> concept where the very devil is in the details.  And it ultimately
> comes down to trusting someone to make a fair decision .. which is
> itself a very non-trivial problem.

> "There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
> little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
> price only are this man's lawful prey." -- John Ruskin

unfortunately, throughout history, it is the "the best and the brightest" who 
have perpetrated evils on the poor and downtrodden.  there have been 
exceptions, but over and over again governments and religions have used their 
ideology or dogma to justify exploitation in the name of spreading civilization.
again i ask, what gives any one the right to determine whose agenda is 
enlightened?  what gives any religious schism the right to dictate 
reproduction, and/or a monopoly on values, ethics, or morality?
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis 1:28

[John Garcia]

On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Bruce Bostwick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> On Jul 26, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
> > It's not just a numbers game.  If you have the opportunity to bring
> > a child
> > into the world that has a reasonable chance to make a positive
> > contribution,
> > there are few arguments not to do so.  The world doesn't just need
> > fewer
> > people; it needs more people that can make a positive contribution
> > and fewer
> > whose lives will ultimately be fruitless (not to mention miserable).
>
> That's another matter entirely than restricting childbirth.  That's a
> value distinction as to who is more or less entitled to reproduce.
>
> And on that, I will agree with you, that some parents are probably
> better candidates to reproduce the species than others.  But, as a
> member of the species yourself, are you prepared for the
> responsibility of making that choice for every would-be parent on
> earth?  And would you be prepared to defend your decisions against the
> inevitable challenges and explain why you made the decision the way
> you did in every case?  (It's a safe bet that any decision along those
> lines will be challenged, no matter what you do, either by the parents
> themselves if you say no to them, or by other parents if you say yes
> and they're not satisfied that you made a fair decision.)
>
> There's merit to granting birth-privileges to the best and the
> brightest, in the most basic analysis.  It's the execution of the
> concept where the very devil is in the details.  And it ultimately
> comes down to trusting someone to make a fair decision .. which is
> itself a very non-trivial problem.
>
> "There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
> little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
> price only are this man's lawful prey." -- John Ruskin
>
>
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
>

Everytime I hear the phrase "best and the brightest" I think of David
Halberstram and Vietnam

john
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis

[Jon Louis Mann]

> Jon  wrote:
> > it's wicked because it creates even more
> scaricities among other children
> > in undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the
> resources to support
> > and nurture.

> Bulls__t.   The problems in underdeveloped nations will be
> ameliorated when
> their people become more educated.  We could deprive
> ourselves of resources
> and send the proceeds directly to those nations and it
> wouldn't do a bit of
> good.  They have to be able to pull themselves up. 
> Whatever we can do to
> catalyze that, we should do. 
>  would you suggest that we forbid anyone too poor from
> having children?

> > Of course not.
> Doug

how can i possibly refute the bovine excrement argument?

the problem, doug, is that many undeveloped nations rich in resources are 
governed by despots who need to maintain an ignorant population in poverty so 
they can continue to use the wealth for their own purposes.  when advanced 
societies enable this so they can continue their global trade advantage it is 
simply the new colonialism. 

how can you say we can't help the ver countries we are exploiting with our 
resources? it would only be just if advanced countries jointly used sanctions 
and other incentives to forve ALL oppressive governments to provide for their 
people.  
jon

what do you believe can be done to catalyze human rights in those countries; 
pre-emptive attacks?


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis 1:28

[Bruce Bostwick]

On Jul 26, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:

> It's not just a numbers game.  If you have the opportunity to bring  
> a child
> into the world that has a reasonable chance to make a positive  
> contribution,
> there are few arguments not to do so.  The world doesn't just need  
> fewer
> people; it needs more people that can make a positive contribution  
> and fewer
> whose lives will ultimately be fruitless (not to mention miserable).

That's another matter entirely than restricting childbirth.  That's a  
value distinction as to who is more or less entitled to reproduce.

And on that, I will agree with you, that some parents are probably  
better candidates to reproduce the species than others.  But, as a  
member of the species yourself, are you prepared for the  
responsibility of making that choice for every would-be parent on  
earth?  And would you be prepared to defend your decisions against the  
inevitable challenges and explain why you made the decision the way  
you did in every case?  (It's a safe bet that any decision along those  
lines will be challenged, no matter what you do, either by the parents  
themselves if you say no to them, or by other parents if you say yes  
and they're not satisfied that you made a fair decision.)

There's merit to granting birth-privileges to the best and the  
brightest, in the most basic analysis.  It's the execution of the  
concept where the very devil is in the details.  And it ultimately  
comes down to trusting someone to make a fair decision .. which is  
itself a very non-trivial problem.

"There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a  
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider  
price only are this man's lawful prey." -- John Ruskin


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis

[Jon Louis Mann]

> It's not just a numbers game.  If you have the
> opportunity to bring a child
> into the world that has a reasonable chance to make a
> positive contribution,
> there are few arguments not to do so.  The world
> doesn't just need fewer
> people; it needs more people that can make a positive
> contribution and fewer
> whose lives will ultimately be fruitless (not to mention
> miserable).

> Only if the rest of us decide we are saving the planet by
> _not_ breeding.
> 8^)
> Doug

it is a numbers game, doug, and as long as it continues the planet will suffer. 
 it is not realistic to suggest that enlightened people will save the planet by 
breeding.  people who are able to enjoy the fruits of their wealth are not 
about to invest in breeding units of labor when it is not necessary, unless 
they are doing it to spread their dogma.  

the argument you should be forwarding is that affluent societies stop consuming 
so much and put more revenues into an "enlightened' educational system and a 
global social agenda that would eliminate wars over resources.  

there has always been a gap between the haves and have nots with those at the 
bottom providing the labor and resources for those at the top.  if they were 
really so enlightened they would prohibit the very greed that enables them to 
provide for more spoiled brats and share the wealth with the oppressed workers 
of the world, so they would not have to breed more children in order to survive.
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis

[Jon Louis Mann]

> Jon wrote:
> > are you suggesting that it is rational to have more
> enlightened children

> Yes.

> > to balance those who are raised by cults and
> jihadists, etc.?

> I don't know about balancing anything, but I do believe
> that the more
> "enlightened" people are, the better off we'll
> all be.

cheap trick to split the question and distort the context, doug.  who 
determines what is enlightened?  you, me, the jihadists, the christians, the 
zionists, OR the buddhists?  do you really want to engage in a birthrate race 
based on who has the material wealth to provide for more greedy consumers 
versus say islamic ascetics who will blow up oil tankers and poison the 
environment to get their way?

> > the mormons and various religious cults may not have
> taken over the world,
> > but they are still growing and doing a hell of a lot
> of damage...   we can't
> > stop them from breeding, but we can intervene when
> there is child and
> > spousal abuse.
 
> Yes we can and we should, but that has little to do with
> what I'm arguing. 
> Doug

you know full well that it has everything to do with the kind of fanatics that 
use ruligion and the bible as a justification for patriarchy.   these are the 
people you want to breed because they have the wherewithal to provide for their 
offspring and educate them to proselytize their faith.  the birthrate race will 
prove to be just as destructive as the arms race.
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Doug Pensinger]

Jon  wrote:

>
> it's wicked because it creates even more scaricities among other children
> in undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the resources to support
> and nurture.


Bulls__t.   The problems in underdeveloped nations will be ameliorated when
their people become more educated.  We could deprive ourselves of resources
and send the proceeds directly to those nations and it wouldn't do a bit of
good.  They have to be able to pull themselves up.  Whatever we can do to
catalyze that, we should do.

 would you suggest that we forbid anyone too poor from having children?


>
> Of course not.

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Doug Pensinger]

 Jon wrote:

>
> are you suggesting that it is rational to have more enlightened children


Yes.


> to balance those who are raised by cults and jihadists, etc.?


I don't know about balancing anything, but I do believe that the more
"enlightened" people, the better off we'll all be.


> the mormons and various religious cults may not have taken over the world,
> but they are still growing and doing a hell of a lot of damage...   we can't
> stop them from breeding, but we can intervene when there is child and
> spousal abuse.


Yes we can and we should, but that has little to do with what I'm arguing.

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis

[Bruce Bostwick]

On Jul 26, 2008, at 2:38 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote:

>>> What's wicked about bringing children into the
>> world that you have the
>> resources to support and nurture?
>> Doug
>
> it's wicked because it creates even more scaricities among other  
> children in undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the  
> resources to support and nurture.  would you suggest that we forbid  
> anyone too poor from having children?
> jon

I might.  There, I said it.

If our species were made up entirely of individuals who approached  
decisions, especially important ones like whether it's wise to  
reproduce, with as much thought toward collective benefit as  
individual gratification, I wouldn't suggest that.  But this species  
has proven time and time again that the majority of its individuals  
do, in fact, act only on a motivation of immediate self-gratification  
and very often completely counter to collective benefit, even in the  
case of driving a population explosion that continuously paces or  
exceeds our best efforts at meeting demands for basic necessities such  
as food and shelter, and in the case of creating gross inequities in  
wealth that make virtual Olympic god-kings out of the wealthiest one  
percent or so, and exploit and starve large numbers of other people in  
the poorest parts of the world.

And one big factor of this is a perceived "right to reproduce" that is  
common to most cultures, our own included, that makes it seem  
abhorrent to place any restrictions on how many children any family  
may have.  China has its back farther up against the wall than many  
other countries, and even with its massive population and the strains  
on its natural resources, it has to fight the perception that its one- 
child-per-family policy is some sort of assault on its citizens' civil  
rights.

Yes, if I were to become "dictator of the world", placing restrictions  
on who was and was not allowed to have children would be on the  
table.  I'd likely be despised and hated for it, but I'd still at  
least consider it, if only to give us some fighting chance of a  
managed population decrease.  Reduce the earth's population to 1-2  
billion or so, with the knowledge we now have of agriculture and food  
production, and earth becomes close to a utopia.

The only exceptions I would make would be for people willing to help  
terraform and colonize other habitable bodies in the solar system.   
I'm pretty sure Mars' surface could be terraformed to the point where  
people could live and produce food there without life support, with  
the right approach to releasing the CO2 locked up in the regolith and  
using a series of introduced plant species to convert the CO2 to  
breathable oxygen and jump-start biosphere growth.  With a controlled  
population reduction, the economy could probably support a pretty  
massive spaceflight/colonization initiative ..

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed  
and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless  
series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H.L. MENCKEN


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis 1:28

[Doug Pensinger]

Jon wrote:

>
> "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
> and replenish the earth, and subdue it."  surely you don't believe that gawd
> created man to have dominion over every living thing that moves on the
> earth?
>
> it is not a sacrifice, doug, it is a duty to the planet.  no righteous
> deity would justify destroying habitates to accommodate human expansion.
>  even by reducing materialism and careful husbanding (no pun intended) of
> resources, we are destroying habitats at a prodigious rate just to feed over
> six billion hungry humans.


It's not just a numbers game.  If you have the opportunity to bring a child
into the world that has a reasonable chance to make a positive contribution,
there are few arguments not to do so.  The world doesn't just need fewer
people; it needs more people that can make a positive contribution and fewer
whose lives will ultimately be fruitless (not to mention miserable).


> sure the planet can sustain higher human populations, but there is a limit.
> surely we have already reached the point where your deity would say that
> enough is enough.


Not my deity, no matter which one you're referring to.

>
> responsible, enlightened people are too rational to compete in the
> birthrate race, but they still hold the upper hand in the arms race.
>
> as the various fundamentalist schisms succeed in their over population
> goals they'll continue to war against the heretics, and those who leave the
> fold.   people have a right to breed irresponsibly, but at some point it is
> going to bite us all in the buttocks!~)


Only if the rest of us decide we are saving the planet by _not_ breeding.
8^)

Doug

>
>
>
>
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
>
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis

[Jon Louis Mann]

> > What's wicked about bringing children into the
> world that you have the
> resources to support and nurture?
> Doug

it's wicked because it creates even more scaricities among other children in 
undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the resources to support and 
nurture.  would you suggest that we forbid anyone too poor from having children?
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis

[Jon Louis Mann]

> I just don't see it happening according to their
> script.  Of those 8 or 10,
> how many are going to follow their parent's ideology
> lock step?  How many
> will rebel and provide a backlash?  How isolated can they
> remain in a
> society changing as rapidly as ours?
> 
> Mormons have practiced something similar to this ideology
> for over a hundred
> years; are they taking over the world?
> 
> In any case, what are we going to do about it?  Tell them
> they can't have
> babies?  Force them to educate their kids the way we think
> they should?
> 
> What we really need is for responsible, intelligent,
> enlightened people to
> stop making excuses for _not_ having children.
> 
> Doug

are you suggesting that it is rational to have more enlightened children to 
balance those who are raised by cults and jihadists, etc.?  the mormons and 
various religious cults may not have taken over the world, but they are still 
growing and doing a hell of a lot of damage...   we can't stop them from 
breeding, but we can intervene when there is child and spousal abuse.
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis 1:28

[Jon Louis Mann]

> Julia wrote:
> > Would you consider some excuses to be reasonable?

> Of course.  The one I think is lame, though, is that they
> are somehow saving
> the planet by deciding not to have children.
> > And, if responsible, enlightened people are having
> children, at what point
> > do they get to decide how many is enough?
> Of course I'm not proposing that anyone be forced to do
> anything.  I just
> think that the idea that a couple is being more responsible
> by _not_ having
> children is pure bulls__t unless there are real mitigating
> circumstances; if
> you don't have the means or the temperament or even the
> desire to have
> children.
> I just don't want to hear that there is some beneficent
> altruistic sacrifice
> being made.
> Doug

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and 
replenish the earth, and subdue it."  surely you don't believe that gawd 
created man to have dominion over every living thing that moves on the earth?

it is not a sacrifice, doug, it is a duty to the planet.  no righteous deity 
would justify destroying habitates to accommodate human expansion.  even by 
reducing materialism and careful husbanding (no pun intended) of resources, we 
are destroying habitats at a prodigious rate just to feed over six billion 
hungry humans.  

sure the planet can sustain higher human populations, but there is a limit. 
surely we have already reached the point where your deity would say that enough 
is enough.  

responsible, enlightened people are too rational to compete in the birthrate 
race, but they still hold the upper hand in the arms race.

as the various fundamentalist schisms succeed in their over population 
goals they'll continue to war against the heretics, and those who leave the 
fold.   people have a right to breed irresponsibly, but at some point it is 
going to bite us all in the buttocks!~)
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

SCOUTED: Queer Eye meets Genesis 1

[Dave Land]

Folks,

The New Yorker: Shouts & Murmurs, "Intelligent Design" by Paul Rudnick

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/shouts/050926sh_shouts

Dave

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis Space Probe Fails to Deploy Chute, Slams into Earth

[Travis Edmunds]

http://space.com/news/genesis_captured_040908.html
DUGWAY PROVING GROUND, UTAH -- A NASA spacecraft spun out of control and 
crashed into the Utah desert this morning, putting a disastrous end to a 
years-long mission to bring back samples of the Sun.

The probe was supposed to deploy a parachute and be snagged by a helicopter 
for safe recovery.

The capsule, carrying tiny particles from the solar wind that scientists 
were eager to study for the first time, was half buried in the sandy surface 
and "appeared to be intact," said a NASA mission controller.

Closer inspection showed the flying-saucer-shaped ship had cracked in two, 
however.

100 mph impact
Genesis and its solar cargo slammed into the ground at about 100 mph, said 
Chris Jones, a spokesperson for NASA. The space agency did not immediately 
provide any detail on the expected condition of the probe's contents, but 
scientists are optimistic there will be some particles to recover.

"We've lost something," said Roger Wines, science team flight payload leader 
from Los Alamos National Laboratory. "Now we'll have to analyze the pieces."

Since its launch in August 2001, the $264 million Genesis mission flew to a 
point just under one million miles (1.5 million kilometers) from Earth. The 
spacecraft deployed collectors for 850 days to "soak up the Sun" -- 
entrapping particles carried into space by a constantly streaming "solar 
wind," for return to Earth.

Under blue sky and nearly cloudless conditions here, a mini-squadron of 
three helicopters took off at about 11:25 a.m. ET, heading to 10,000 feet to 
await the arrival of the descending capsule.

All appeared to be going well.
Out of control
When the helicopters lifted off, Genesis was above the atmosphere, roughly 
halfway between the United States and Hawaii, screaming toward the planet.

A few minutes before Noon ET powerful radar and visual instruments here at 
the Test and Training Range spotted the Genesis capsule sliding through the 
atmosphere over the western part of the country. The probe was spinning 15 
times a minute, looking like an out-of-control garbage can or some space 
boulder as it flew in at high speed.

"I just had a big pit in my stomach," Wines said of watching Genesis plummet 
toward the ground.

Live video taken from the surface followed the probe all the way down, while 
NASA officials noted that the parachute had not opened, as planned.

The helicopter crews, including a Hollywood stunt pilot, were to spot the 
capsule and latch onto it with a long hook. Instead, they landed near the 
crash site to inspect the damage. But NASA engineers feared the explosive 
for the parachute might still be alive and ready to fire, so the crews were 
advised to keep a safe distance.

"That presents a safety hazard to recovery crews," Jones said.
Hopes dashed?
Scientists hoped the solar samples, considered among the most primordial 
bits of the solar system available, would help them unravel mysteries 
surrounding the formation of the nine planets and the central star they 
orbit.

Being the first U.S. sample-return mission since Apollo 17 moonwalkers 
brought back lunar material in 1972, Genesis was to be a trailblazer for a 
similar effort, the NASA Stardust mission. Stardust is slated to make a Utah 
parachute landing on January 15, 2006.

A slogan spotted on one of the mission control computers at the Utah ground 
facility this morning proved prophetic. It read, "Genesis: Utah or Bust."
=

-Travis "should have named it Icarus" Edmunds
_
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen 
Technology. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: [Brin] Genesis of Glory Season

[J. van Baardwijk]

At 19:20 24-12-2002 -0500, William Taylor wrote:


Has there been a long past Brin-L discussion on the origination and
development of the idea behind Glory Season?


I don't remember us having *that* discussion, but we did once upon a time 
start a chapter-by-chapter analysis of first _The Practice Effect_ and then 
_Glory Season_. We finished the former, but never finished the latter...


Jeroen "Architectus Tabularium" van Baardwijk


LEGAL NOTICE:
By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies 
(both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, 
and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative 
consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: [Br!n] Genesis of Glory Season

[Medievalbk]

In a message dated 12/24/2002 7:07:06 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> At 08:10 PM 12/24/02 -0500, William Taylor wrote:
>  >Well behaved but not shaved.
>  
>  I plan to shave before the family arrives tomorrow.
>  
>  Whether I will qualify as "well behaved" remains to be seen . . .
>  
>  --Ronn! :)

The remains to be seen are in the sink if you forget to clean up after 
yourself.

After getting hundreds of little spots of blood while shaving, I went to 
tweezers or hot wax when I can afford it.  My beard had a natural pull to it. 
Shaving would sting for hours. Nothing electric ever made me look like I had 
tried to shave at all.

Mustache and goatee in the style of the wrestler that always looses to Bugs 
Bunny.


So there.

William Taylor
--
And no known 
Native American
ancestors.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: [Br!n] Genesis of Glory Season

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 08:10 PM 12/24/02 -0500, William Taylor wrote:

Well behaved but not shaved.




I plan to shave before the family arrives tomorrow.

Whether I will qualify as "well behaved" remains to be seen . . .




--Ronn! :)

I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon.
I never dreamed that I would see the last.
--Dr. Jerry Pournelle


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: [Br!n] Genesis of Glory Season

[Medievalbk]

In a message dated 12/24/2002 5:34:56 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> DEMONIC MALES: APES AND THE ORIGINS OF HUMAN VIOLENCE by Richard
>  Wrangham & Dale Peterson.

...which is also the topic of a song in Princess Ida, one that existed 
well before the play as a Bab Ballad.

--don't forget to change the [Brin] to [Br!n] as we start to intellectually 
wander.

William Taylor
---
Well behaved but not shaved.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: [Brin] Genesis of Glory Season

[just john]

>Now I'm rereading Glory Season.
>

I think I'll do the same, once I've finished my current Marcus Didius Falco
mystery.

My recollection of the book makes me suspect that the "science fiction"
part of the story (as opposed to structural and literary sources you talk
about) was rooted in an attempted solution to the quandary raised in books
like DEMONIC MALES: APES AND THE ORIGINS OF HUMAN VIOLENCE by Richard
Wrangham & Dale Peterson.  IE: How could civilization survive, given
primate nature, especially male primate nature?

Glory Season's solution: Change human nature.
---
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://just-john.com/cn/rfe.shtml *
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

[Brin] Genesis of Glory Season

[Medievalbk]

The first time I read a book through, I seem to do it for the story.

The second time I read a book, I pay more attention to the words.

I missed or didn't give notice to the Tolkien references the first time 
through the Jijo novels.

[Note: There are 51 copies of The Lord of the Rings for sale by Tolkein via 
addall.com]

Now I'm rereading Glory Season.

Few authors rarely want to hear that old question, "Where do you get your 
ideas?"

Has there been a long past Brin-L discussion on the origination and 
development of the idea behind Glory Season?

I accuse our good Dr. Brin of getting the first gleamings of the idea as a 
reaction or challenge to a bad review of Gilbert & Sullivan.

I know; I've read that review somewhere myself.

If you put The Grand Duke and Utopia Unlimited into a separate category, then 
Princess Ida becomes the least popular G&S play for staging nowadays. It is 
in three acts, and it has a now somewhat dated theme of the education and 
separate society of women.

They play resolves it's main point of conflict in this text:

But pray reflect-
If you enlist all women in your cause,  
And make them all abjure tyrannic Man,  
The obvious question then arises, “How  
Is this Posterity to be provided?”  

Princess.   I never thought of that! 


Ah, but I think our good Dr. Brin did just that.

The Peripatetic? 

I don't think I have ever heard this word being used unless it was in plural 
form and followed by "of long haired esthetics."

Renna exits the ship and is met by Iolanthe.

I expected those cavalry troops in glittering cuirasses and helmets to be 
dressed in red and yellow, which of course are primary colors.  I would like 
to believe that Dr. Brin thought of adding this to their description, then 
dropped it as being just a bit too obvious.

And for every Gilbert & Sullivan reference found, there is probably another 
one there that I've missed.

I reject Glory Season's Afterword notion that the story idea began with a 
contemplation of Lizards. That's just our good Dr. Brin's conscious mind 
working.

The Id wanted to tell W. S. Gilbert, "Oh yeah? Well"

---  Any thoughts?

I don't expect Dr. Brin to give an answer soon, if he does so at all. It's 
only us unmarried old fogies that have nothing special to do on Christmas Eve 
and Christmas Day.

In fact I expect that if his household celebrates Christmas, about five hours 
from now our good Dr. Brin is going to be busy moving the couch to get at 
that one bolt that slipped out of his hand and bounced off of his knee.

Or did he buy the bike already assembled?

William Taylor

Tucson did have a White Christmas
--about 15 years ago.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genesis (Was Re: Evolution vs. Creation)

[Julia Thompson]

Anyone else notice the irony in the subject line?  :)

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Genesis (Was Re: Evolution vs. Creation)

[Deborah Harrell]

Nice thread creep, by-the-bye!  :)

--- Reggie Bautista wrote:
> Deborah Harrell wrote:
> >
> > > That was a really good concert, BTW - when they
> played
> > > 'Driving The Last Spike' (well, I _think_ that's
> the title! :D) the entire stadium was vibrating.
> > > In fact, that album (OK - CD) is one of my
> favorites.  

> Julia replied:
> >You remember all the titles correctly.  :)  I'm
> fond of that album as well.
> 
> I like Genesis, but I think that album is the
> weakest of the Genesis albums 
> made by Collins, Banks and Rutherford.  I like
> "Dreaming While You Sleep" 
> and "Driving the Last Spike," but overall the album
> doesn't compare to the 
> rest of the stuff put out by Genesis during that
era.

I don't really know what else they put out at the
time; my other Genesis albums are 'abacab' (not my
favorite) and 'Invisible Touch' (remember the biting
"Land of Confusion" video?), so I'll have to defer to
your expertise as "a Genesis fan(atic) from way back!"
 :)

 
> I have yet to meet anyone who prefers the
> post-Collins Genesis...

No, they don't have the synergy that the 'old' group
did, as you pointed out.  Still, I did like the song
"Calling All Stations," but I have to admit that that
was an alienated 'doom & gloom' time for me.

I _was_ going to say that I really liked Peter
Gabriel's rendition of the theme song from "Balto"
("Reach For The Light"), but I think it's actually by
Steve Winwood. ;o

Sync The Boys Maru  ;)

_
µðÁöÅ» Ä«¸Þ¶ó¿Í Âû¶± ±ÃÇÕ- ¾ßÈÄ! »çÁø
http://kr.photos.yahoo.com/
Ä£±¸µé°ú ÇÔ²² ¹Ù²ãº¸¼¼¿ä. - ¾ßÈÄ! ¸Þ½ÅÀú
http://kr.messenger.yahoo.com/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l