Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva - populations discussion
There was a nice half page article about the decline of the hunter population and how that is forcing the state wildlife agencies to suffer underfunding due to decrease in hunter fees. Since the agencies are supposed to manage the wildlife, they no longer have the funds, since all the liberal wienies are against hunting. Also noted that so many urbanized families no longer have hunters who can bring up the next generation of hunters, so less cash for the agencies to spend on helping the animals the hunters went after. Vicious cycle because the hunters funded the same conservation efforts much more effectively than the anti hunters ever could but demanded they be funded. Which leads to man no longer interacting with animals in a natural setting, the animals being acclimated to once more running rampant and populations of prey being unbalanced. Which is good for the sale of ungulate be-gone or deterrents. These keep the pests that were once food from getting into the greenies gardens and munching veggies. Since no hunters are allowed access, there are fewer hunters, and populations grow into former wildlife areas. Prey species explode, and predator species grow with them. Attacking small pets, children, bicyclist, and other recreational users. If we had more hunters there would be fewer problems. Or as my BiL found out yesterday, the hunter can become the hunted really quickly. He was out in a great little area we found over the weekend for bagging a deer. Archery season and we were bummed that the deer were just not to be found as easily as before. He was in wait for a deer, when he became the stalkee of a cougar. Lucky for him he was able to draw on it and there was a cougar wandering about with an arrow for a day. Mr. Puma was a bit too good at finding a place to pass on, and has not been found. On 2 Sep 2007, at 13:01, billr wrote: We have been over this territory about a year ago, but I'll jump in here this time. In general you make some good points. For population discussions you need to remember that in areas with no social safety net children are the only answer to watching yourself starve to death when you can't grow your own food due to age, illness or weather. In terms of the latter, you might also lose a few of the children. Given such choices, and knowing all the girls would be moving to another home and at least some of the boys would die as infants or children would you chose to have only one or two children? 10 kids = 5 of each, and the girls will leave = 5 boys, with perhaps two dying prior to being able to farm. 3 is a 'safe' number as long as there is no warfare and they are willing to stay on the farm instead of moving to the city [doesn't happen much anymore]. Prior to suggesting controls on those who have so many children make sure you would be willing to starve and watch your spouse starve in order to keep the population low. I'll forgo comments on the state of medical care in the 2/3rds of the world that is poor, or the economic history of such regions, but you are certainly correct that it is the relative inequity of access to resources and lifestyle that feed the problem. BillR Jacksonville FL -Original Message- From: archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sep 2, 2007 9:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Subject: Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva From: Tom Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, it's the earn a living argument. In the sub-Sahara, earning a living is probably the equivalent of $300.00 / year or so and most would never come here. The steady flood of immigrants from South of the border has nothing to do with earning a living. It has everything to do with a huge standard of living difference, separated by something as trivial as a border. And the same differences have driven population migrations from the beginning of time. History is full of examples of people moving for a better life, the more recent in this country being the massive immigration from Europe into this country over the past 300 or so years, the gold silver rushes out west and the move westward. If we want to stop immigration from South of the border then we need to figure out a way to improve their economy. --- Whether it's Mexico, India, Africa, China, Malaysia, Turkey, Morroco, or nearly any other third world country; a big problem that no one seems to be able to do anything about is the birth of more people than the countries can support. This drives down the quality of life and their citizens move to richer countries when they can. Should Western industrial nations such as the U.S. permit this migration? First generation immigrants work hard without complaint for low wages, businessmen love
Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva - populations discussion
I concur. The kalifornication of rural towns into disneyfied tourist traps is a shame. The urbanites move to tiny towns, buy large estates, build mcmansions and quit growing crops, just providing more idiots to populate the gift stores that line the olde west' main street. Said stores are loaded to the gills with crap made in china for the liberal greenies to decorate the homestead in pseudo country kitsch. They need to commute to these vacation homes in monster SUVs and consume two tanks of fuel just to get there. Then they drive into town and eat at the brew pub (which did make good beer) go to art shows and do the same silly stuff they could have done at home. All the while the local economy is changing to a service and low wage with no future or valuable training for local people. Soon the only jobs become flipping burgers, catering to the bored urbanite, or selling junk. No more farms or orchards to support the feed store or the schools, since once summer is over most of the underage population heads home, or shows up for long weekends. On 2 Sep 2007, at 13:38, Rich Thomas wrote: Problem is, you start elevating the level of living of the other 90%, they are gonna want cars, computers, air conditioning, microwave ovens, washing machines, Playstations, Lombards, etc etc, and then global climate change is going to accelerate because they sure ain't gonna be using PV arrays on the roofs of their Priuses or buying carbon offsets from Algore. (cf. China and India). So, best to keep them down where they are, burning cow dung (no net CO2 inputs!) for fuel. It's best for their future, you know. --R billr wrote: We have been over this territory about a year ago, but I'll jump in here this time. In general you make some good points. For population discussions you need to remember that in areas with no social safety net children are the only answer to watching yourself starve to death when you can't grow your own food due to age, illness or weather. In terms of the latter, you might also lose a few of the children. Given such choices, and knowing all the girls would be moving to another home and at least some of the boys would die as infants or children would you chose to have only one or two children? 10 kids = 5 of each, and the girls will leave = 5 boys, with perhaps two dying prior to being able to farm. 3 is a 'safe' number as long as there is no warfare and they are willing to stay on the farm instead of moving to the city [doesn't happen much anymore]. Prior to suggesting controls on those who have so many children make sure you would be willing to starve and watch your spouse starve in order to keep the population low. I'll forgo comments on the state of medical care in the 2/3rds of the world that is poor, or the economic history of such regions, but you are certainly correct that it is the relative inequity of access to resources and lifestyle that feed the problem. BillR Jacksonville FL -Original Message- From: archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sep 2, 2007 9:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Subject: Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva From: Tom Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, it's the earn a living argument. In the sub-Sahara, earning a living is probably the equivalent of $300.00 / year or so and most would never come here. The steady flood of immigrants from South of the border has nothing to do with earning a living. It has everything to do with a huge standard of living difference, separated by something as trivial as a border. And the same differences have driven population migrations from the beginning of time. History is full of examples of people moving for a better life, the more recent in this country being the massive immigration from Europe into this country over the past 300 or so years, the gold silver rushes out west and the move westward. If we want to stop immigration from South of the border then we need to figure out a way to improve their economy. --- Whether it's Mexico, India, Africa, China, Malaysia, Turkey, Morroco, or nearly any other third world country; a big problem that no one seems to be able to do anything about is the birth of more people than the countries can support. This drives down the quality of life and their citizens move to richer countries when they can. Should Western industrial nations such as the U.S. permit this migration? First generation immigrants work hard without complaint for low wages, businessmen love them, and they help make prosperous countries even more prosperous. However, the second and third generation become industrialized citizens with the same expectations as the general citizenry. The result is an increase of
Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva -populations discussion
Tom wrote:most scientists are now jumping off the global warming band wagon. Actually, the majority of scientist have been undecided or in disagreement with the sky is falling crowd for a long time. The way the initial report was written had a summary written that distorted the findings. Since few are going to spend the time to read the 1200 pg report they depended on the summary which was written *after* a large number of scientiist has signed off on the report. Even that great bastion of Liberal Causes, the BBC, has produced a video called, The Global Warming Scam. It goes thru the evidence step-by-step and rebutes each one. It's usually on the various video providers - If you cannot find it let me know I'll upload it - Larry T (67 MGB, 74 911, 78 240D, 91 300D) www.youroil.net for Oil Analysis and Weber Parts Test Results http://members.rennlist.com/oil PORSCHE POSTERS! youroil.net Weber Carb Info http://members.rennlist.com/webercarbs . - Original Message - From: Tom Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Mercedes Discussion List' mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 7:38 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva -populations discussion In case you've not been following the trends, most scientists are now jumping off the global warming band wagon. And the reason? All agree that the climate is changing but good scientific analysis cannot correlate human activity with climate change. The consensus is moving towards natural climate change, possibly long term cycles in weather that we are just beginning to understand. Also, the two smoking guns have been disproved, or at least disassociated. The first, that the hottest year in history occurred in the last 20 years (1988, from memory?) was disproved this year. NASA just recently reviewed their records discovered that the hottest 2 years were 1930 and 1931. The second, that the greenhouse gas CO2 that's supposed to be causing the whole thing is not in high enough concentration to cause a rise in atmospheric temperature. Unlike oxygen, which is somewhere around 31% (from memory), atmospheric CO2 is in the PPM range. There is also a theory gaining popularity that states that the rise in CO2 is due to CO2 being released from the oceans as they warm. If this is true then the rise in CO2 levels is the results of temperature rise and not the cause for temperature rise. Thanks, Tom Hargrave 256-656-1924 www.kegkits.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Thomas Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 3:38 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva - populations discussion Problem is, you start elevating the level of living of the other 90%, they are gonna want cars, computers, air conditioning, microwave ovens, washing machines, Playstations, Lombards, etc etc, and then global climate change is going to accelerate because they sure ain't gonna be using PV arrays on the roofs of their Priuses or buying carbon offsets from Algore. (cf. China and India). So, best to keep them down where they are, burning cow dung (no net CO2 inputs!) for fuel. It's best for their future, you know. --R billr wrote: We have been over this territory about a year ago, but I'll jump in here this time. In general you make some good points. For population discussions you need to remember that in areas with no social safety net children are the only answer to watching yourself starve to death when you can't grow your own food due to age, illness or weather. In terms of the latter, you might also lose a few of the children. Given such choices, and knowing all the girls would be moving to another home and at least some of the boys would die as infants or children would you chose to have only one or two children? 10 kids = 5 of each, and the girls will leave = 5 boys, with perhaps two dying prior to being able to farm. 3 is a 'safe' number as long as there is no warfare and they are willing to stay on the farm instead of moving to the city [doesn't happen much anymore]. Prior to suggesting controls on those who have so many children make sure you would be willing to starve and watch your spouse starve in order to keep the population low. I'll forgo comments on the state of medical care in the 2/3rds of the world that is poor, or the economic history of such regions, but you are certainly correct that it is the relative inequity of access to resources and lifestyle that feed the problem. BillR Jacksonville FL -Original Message- From: archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sep 2, 2007 9:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Subject: Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva From: Tom Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, it's the earn a living argument. In the sub-Sahara, earning a living
Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva -populations discussion
Anyone interested needs to read the following link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350746/posts Thanks, Tom Hargrave 256-656-1924 www.kegkits.com -Original Message- From: LarryT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 2:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva -populations discussion Tom wrote:most scientists are now jumping off the global warming band wagon. Actually, the majority of scientist have been undecided or in disagreement with the sky is falling crowd for a long time. The way the initial report was written had a summary written that distorted the findings. Since few are going to spend the time to read the 1200 pg report they depended on the summary which was written *after* a large number of scientiist has signed off on the report. Even that great bastion of Liberal Causes, the BBC, has produced a video called, The Global Warming Scam. It goes thru the evidence step-by-step and rebutes each one. It's usually on the various video providers - If you cannot find it let me know I'll upload it - Larry T (67 MGB, 74 911, 78 240D, 91 300D) www.youroil.net for Oil Analysis and Weber Parts Test Results http://members.rennlist.com/oil PORSCHE POSTERS! youroil.net Weber Carb Info http://members.rennlist.com/webercarbs . - Original Message - From: Tom Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Mercedes Discussion List' mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 7:38 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva -populations discussion In case you've not been following the trends, most scientists are now jumping off the global warming band wagon. And the reason? All agree that the climate is changing but good scientific analysis cannot correlate human activity with climate change. The consensus is moving towards natural climate change, possibly long term cycles in weather that we are just beginning to understand. Also, the two smoking guns have been disproved, or at least disassociated. The first, that the hottest year in history occurred in the last 20 years (1988, from memory?) was disproved this year. NASA just recently reviewed their records discovered that the hottest 2 years were 1930 and 1931. The second, that the greenhouse gas CO2 that's supposed to be causing the whole thing is not in high enough concentration to cause a rise in atmospheric temperature. Unlike oxygen, which is somewhere around 31% (from memory), atmospheric CO2 is in the PPM range. There is also a theory gaining popularity that states that the rise in CO2 is due to CO2 being released from the oceans as they warm. If this is true then the rise in CO2 levels is the results of temperature rise and not the cause for temperature rise. Thanks, Tom Hargrave 256-656-1924 www.kegkits.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Thomas Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 3:38 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva - populations discussion Problem is, you start elevating the level of living of the other 90%, they are gonna want cars, computers, air conditioning, microwave ovens, washing machines, Playstations, Lombards, etc etc, and then global climate change is going to accelerate because they sure ain't gonna be using PV arrays on the roofs of their Priuses or buying carbon offsets from Algore. (cf. China and India). So, best to keep them down where they are, burning cow dung (no net CO2 inputs!) for fuel. It's best for their future, you know. --R billr wrote: We have been over this territory about a year ago, but I'll jump in here this time. In general you make some good points. For population discussions you need to remember that in areas with no social safety net children are the only answer to watching yourself starve to death when you can't grow your own food due to age, illness or weather. In terms of the latter, you might also lose a few of the children. Given such choices, and knowing all the girls would be moving to another home and at least some of the boys would die as infants or children would you chose to have only one or two children? 10 kids = 5 of each, and the girls will leave = 5 boys, with perhaps two dying prior to being able to farm. 3 is a 'safe' number as long as there is no warfare and they are willing to stay on the farm instead of moving to the city [doesn't happen much anymore]. Prior to suggesting controls on those who have so many children make sure you would be willing to starve and watch your spouse starve in order to keep the population low. I'll forgo comments on the state of medical care in the 2/3rds of the world that is poor, or the economic history of such regions, but you are certainly correct that it is the relative inequity of access to resources
Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva -populations discussion
I read that some of the early scientists who signed on are suing to have thier names remvoed from the report. Ed 300E On 03/09/07, LarryT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom wrote:most scientists are now jumping off the global warming band wagon. Actually, the majority of scientist have been undecided or in disagreement with the sky is falling crowd for a long time. The way the initial report was written had a summary written that distorted the findings. Since few are going to spend the time to read the 1200 pg report they depended on the summary which was written *after* a large number of scientiist has signed off on the report. Even that great bastion of Liberal Causes, the BBC, has produced a video called, The Global Warming Scam. It goes thru the evidence step-by-step and rebutes each one. It's usually on the various video providers - If you cannot find it let me know I'll upload it - Larry T (67 MGB, 74 911, 78 240D, 91 300D) www.youroil.net for Oil Analysis and Weber Parts Test Results http://members.rennlist.com/oil PORSCHE POSTERS! youroil.net Weber Carb Info http://members.rennlist.com/webercarbs . - Original Message - From: Tom Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Mercedes Discussion List' mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 7:38 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva -populations discussion In case you've not been following the trends, most scientists are now jumping off the global warming band wagon. And the reason? All agree that the climate is changing but good scientific analysis cannot correlate human activity with climate change. The consensus is moving towards natural climate change, possibly long term cycles in weather that we are just beginning to understand. Also, the two smoking guns have been disproved, or at least disassociated. The first, that the hottest year in history occurred in the last 20 years (1988, from memory?) was disproved this year. NASA just recently reviewed their records discovered that the hottest 2 years were 1930 and 1931. The second, that the greenhouse gas CO2 that's supposed to be causing the whole thing is not in high enough concentration to cause a rise in atmospheric temperature. Unlike oxygen, which is somewhere around 31% (from memory), atmospheric CO2 is in the PPM range. There is also a theory gaining popularity that states that the rise in CO2 is due to CO2 being released from the oceans as they warm. If this is true then the rise in CO2 levels is the results of temperature rise and not the cause for temperature rise. Thanks, Tom Hargrave 256-656-1924 www.kegkits.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Thomas Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 3:38 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva - populations discussion Problem is, you start elevating the level of living of the other 90%, they are gonna want cars, computers, air conditioning, microwave ovens, washing machines, Playstations, Lombards, etc etc, and then global climate change is going to accelerate because they sure ain't gonna be using PV arrays on the roofs of their Priuses or buying carbon offsets from Algore. (cf. China and India). So, best to keep them down where they are, burning cow dung (no net CO2 inputs!) for fuel. It's best for their future, you know. --R billr wrote: We have been over this territory about a year ago, but I'll jump in here this time. In general you make some good points. For population discussions you need to remember that in areas with no social safety net children are the only answer to watching yourself starve to death when you can't grow your own food due to age, illness or weather. In terms of the latter, you might also lose a few of the children. Given such choices, and knowing all the girls would be moving to another home and at least some of the boys would die as infants or children would you chose to have only one or two children? 10 kids = 5 of each, and the girls will leave = 5 boys, with perhaps two dying prior to being able to farm. 3 is a 'safe' number as long as there is no warfare and they are willing to stay on the farm instead of moving to the city [doesn't happen much anymore]. Prior to suggesting controls on those who have so many children make sure you would be willing to starve and watch your spouse starve in order to keep the population low. I'll forgo comments on the state of medical care in the 2/3rds of the world that is poor, or the economic history of such regions, but you are certainly correct that it is the relative inequity of access to resources and lifestyle that feed the problem. BillR Jacksonville FL -Original Message- From: archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent
Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva - populations discussion
We have been over this territory about a year ago, but I'll jump in here this time. In general you make some good points. For population discussions you need to remember that in areas with no social safety net children are the only answer to watching yourself starve to death when you can't grow your own food due to age, illness or weather. In terms of the latter, you might also lose a few of the children. Given such choices, and knowing all the girls would be moving to another home and at least some of the boys would die as infants or children would you chose to have only one or two children? 10 kids = 5 of each, and the girls will leave = 5 boys, with perhaps two dying prior to being able to farm. 3 is a 'safe' number as long as there is no warfare and they are willing to stay on the farm instead of moving to the city [doesn't happen much anymore]. Prior to suggesting controls on those who have so many children make sure you would be willing to starve and watch your spouse starve in order to keep the population low. I'll forgo comments on the state of medical care in the 2/3rds of the world that is poor, or the economic history of such regions, but you are certainly correct that it is the relative inequity of access to resources and lifestyle that feed the problem. BillR Jacksonville FL -Original Message- From: archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sep 2, 2007 9:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Subject: Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva From: Tom Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, it's the earn a living argument. In the sub-Sahara, earning a living is probably the equivalent of $300.00 / year or so and most would never come here. The steady flood of immigrants from South of the border has nothing to do with earning a living. It has everything to do with a huge standard of living difference, separated by something as trivial as a border. And the same differences have driven population migrations from the beginning of time. History is full of examples of people moving for a better life, the more recent in this country being the massive immigration from Europe into this country over the past 300 or so years, the gold silver rushes out west and the move westward. If we want to stop immigration from South of the border then we need to figure out a way to improve their economy. --- Whether it's Mexico, India, Africa, China, Malaysia, Turkey, Morroco, or nearly any other third world country; a big problem that no one seems to be able to do anything about is the birth of more people than the countries can support. This drives down the quality of life and their citizens move to richer countries when they can. Should Western industrial nations such as the U.S. permit this migration? First generation immigrants work hard without complaint for low wages, businessmen love them, and they help make prosperous countries even more prosperous. However, the second and third generation become industrialized citizens with the same expectations as the general citizenry. The result is an increase of citizens, usually poor, in the industrial nations, who do not work hard for low wages without complaint. Often unemployed and poorly educated, they become a liability instead of an asset to the country. Usually, as in Mexico, the population exceeds the ability of the arable land to support them, so even if Mexico should suddenly become a well organized democratic country instead of an oligarchy of wealthy families (Carlos Slim of Mexico has recently become the richest man in the world); the constant increase in population would still lead Mexicans to immigrate to the U.S. Population increase seems to be a major worldwide problem which no one knows the answer to. Historically the answer was the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: War, Famine, Pestilence, and Death. Science has eliminated famine, pestilence, and early death in much of the worlds population. Unless someone comes up with a better solution, it looks like the remaining Horseman, War, might be the eventual result. Not a good solution IMO. Gerry ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva - populations discussion
Problem is, you start elevating the level of living of the other 90%, they are gonna want cars, computers, air conditioning, microwave ovens, washing machines, Playstations, Lombards, etc etc, and then global climate change is going to accelerate because they sure ain't gonna be using PV arrays on the roofs of their Priuses or buying carbon offsets from Algore. (cf. China and India). So, best to keep them down where they are, burning cow dung (no net CO2 inputs!) for fuel. It's best for their future, you know. --R billr wrote: We have been over this territory about a year ago, but I'll jump in here this time. In general you make some good points. For population discussions you need to remember that in areas with no social safety net children are the only answer to watching yourself starve to death when you can't grow your own food due to age, illness or weather. In terms of the latter, you might also lose a few of the children. Given such choices, and knowing all the girls would be moving to another home and at least some of the boys would die as infants or children would you chose to have only one or two children? 10 kids = 5 of each, and the girls will leave = 5 boys, with perhaps two dying prior to being able to farm. 3 is a 'safe' number as long as there is no warfare and they are willing to stay on the farm instead of moving to the city [doesn't happen much anymore]. Prior to suggesting controls on those who have so many children make sure you would be willing to starve and watch your spouse starve in order to keep the population low. I'll forgo comments on the state of medical care in the 2/3rds of the world that is poor, or the economic history of such regions, but you are certainly correct that it is the relative inequity of access to resources and lifestyle that feed the problem. BillR Jacksonville FL -Original Message- From: archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sep 2, 2007 9:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Subject: Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva From: Tom Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, it's the earn a living argument. In the sub-Sahara, earning a living is probably the equivalent of $300.00 / year or so and most would never come here. The steady flood of immigrants from South of the border has nothing to do with earning a living. It has everything to do with a huge standard of living difference, separated by something as trivial as a border. And the same differences have driven population migrations from the beginning of time. History is full of examples of people moving for a better life, the more recent in this country being the massive immigration from Europe into this country over the past 300 or so years, the gold silver rushes out west and the move westward. If we want to stop immigration from South of the border then we need to figure out a way to improve their economy. --- Whether it's Mexico, India, Africa, China, Malaysia, Turkey, Morroco, or nearly any other third world country; a big problem that no one seems to be able to do anything about is the birth of more people than the countries can support. This drives down the quality of life and their citizens move to richer countries when they can. Should Western industrial nations such as the U.S. permit this migration? First generation immigrants work hard without complaint for low wages, businessmen love them, and they help make prosperous countries even more prosperous. However, the second and third generation become industrialized citizens with the same expectations as the general citizenry. The result is an increase of citizens, usually poor, in the industrial nations, who do not work hard for low wages without complaint. Often unemployed and poorly educated, they become a liability instead of an asset to the country. Usually, as in Mexico, the population exceeds the ability of the arable land to support them, so even if Mexico should suddenly become a well organized democratic country instead of an oligarchy of wealthy families (Carlos Slim of Mexico has recently become the richest man in the world); the constant increase in population would still lead Mexicans to immigrate to the U.S. Population increase seems to be a major worldwide problem which no one knows the answer to. Historically the answer was the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: War, Famine, Pestilence, and Death. Science has eliminated famine, pestilence, and early death in much of the worlds population. Unless someone comes up with a better solution, it looks like the remaining Horseman, War, might be the eventual result. Not a good solution IMO. Gerry ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email
Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva - populations discussion
In case you've not been following the trends, most scientists are now jumping off the global warming band wagon. And the reason? All agree that the climate is changing but good scientific analysis cannot correlate human activity with climate change. The consensus is moving towards natural climate change, possibly long term cycles in weather that we are just beginning to understand. Also, the two smoking guns have been disproved, or at least disassociated. The first, that the hottest year in history occurred in the last 20 years (1988, from memory?) was disproved this year. NASA just recently reviewed their records discovered that the hottest 2 years were 1930 and 1931. The second, that the greenhouse gas CO2 that's supposed to be causing the whole thing is not in high enough concentration to cause a rise in atmospheric temperature. Unlike oxygen, which is somewhere around 31% (from memory), atmospheric CO2 is in the PPM range. There is also a theory gaining popularity that states that the rise in CO2 is due to CO2 being released from the oceans as they warm. If this is true then the rise in CO2 levels is the results of temperature rise and not the cause for temperature rise. Thanks, Tom Hargrave 256-656-1924 www.kegkits.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Thomas Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 3:38 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva - populations discussion Problem is, you start elevating the level of living of the other 90%, they are gonna want cars, computers, air conditioning, microwave ovens, washing machines, Playstations, Lombards, etc etc, and then global climate change is going to accelerate because they sure ain't gonna be using PV arrays on the roofs of their Priuses or buying carbon offsets from Algore. (cf. China and India). So, best to keep them down where they are, burning cow dung (no net CO2 inputs!) for fuel. It's best for their future, you know. --R billr wrote: We have been over this territory about a year ago, but I'll jump in here this time. In general you make some good points. For population discussions you need to remember that in areas with no social safety net children are the only answer to watching yourself starve to death when you can't grow your own food due to age, illness or weather. In terms of the latter, you might also lose a few of the children. Given such choices, and knowing all the girls would be moving to another home and at least some of the boys would die as infants or children would you chose to have only one or two children? 10 kids = 5 of each, and the girls will leave = 5 boys, with perhaps two dying prior to being able to farm. 3 is a 'safe' number as long as there is no warfare and they are willing to stay on the farm instead of moving to the city [doesn't happen much anymore]. Prior to suggesting controls on those who have so many children make sure you would be willing to starve and watch your spouse starve in order to keep the population low. I'll forgo comments on the state of medical care in the 2/3rds of the world that is poor, or the economic history of such regions, but you are certainly correct that it is the relative inequity of access to resources and lifestyle that feed the problem. BillR Jacksonville FL -Original Message- From: archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sep 2, 2007 9:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Subject: Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva From: Tom Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, it's the earn a living argument. In the sub-Sahara, earning a living is probably the equivalent of $300.00 / year or so and most would never come here. The steady flood of immigrants from South of the border has nothing to do with earning a living. It has everything to do with a huge standard of living difference, separated by something as trivial as a border. And the same differences have driven population migrations from the beginning of time. History is full of examples of people moving for a better life, the more recent in this country being the massive immigration from Europe into this country over the past 300 or so years, the gold silver rushes out west and the move westward. If we want to stop immigration from South of the border then we need to figure out a way to improve their economy. --- Whether it's Mexico, India, Africa, China, Malaysia, Turkey, Morroco, or nearly any other third world country; a big problem that no one seems to be able to do anything about is the birth of more people than the countries can support. This drives down the quality of life and their citizens move to richer countries when they can. Should Western industrial nations such as the U.S. permit this migration? First generation immigrants work hard without complaint
