Recently, there's been news about corrupt loans and bailouts, and it's
important. But, from a sustainability standpoint, the true housing
crisis is that more homes are BUILT all the time, far beyond
replacement levels. This is happening daily at the expense of
wilderness, farmland and general elbow room. Who decided this constant
blight upon the land was natural or desirable? It's not just a matter
of NIMBY, it's about respecting physical limits.

NIMBY is a term used to distract from what's really going on. Nobody
should be forced to endure constant crowding, especially of the type
occurring in the American West. Many realize that the shrinkage of
prime land has driven up housing costs, but they still act like it can
go on forever. Money is treated as a resource unto itself, and
literally being cloned in certain professions. See:
http://enough_already.tripod.com/money.htm

The Earth is a finite mass and its surface gets more jammed each day.
A lot of people are making money by charging for land that was once
owned by nobody. The concept of permanent land ownership is purely a
human one. Most species use what they need and pass on, rarely leaving
permanent scars.

Some will tell you that the "wasted" American desert should be filled
with people; just because it might be feasible if enough water was
diverted. The blight of Phoenix, Vegas and L.A. isn't enough for
growth addicts seeking easy cash from land that was once free. A
little smooth talking and they're loaded with false wealth, able to
buy their own mansion in a transaction cycle that keeps on taking from
nature. To hell with frontiers and unbroken vistas. A price tag must
be placed on every piece of usable land that's not spoken for.

Getting to the main point: the big reason these homes get built by the
thousands each day is POPULATION GROWTH. In the U.S. this amounts to
about 3 million more people annually. Worldwide it exceeds 70 million
per year (net gain). If any other species tried to multiply at that
rate, we'd declare a lock-down. But Man doesn't have to play by the
rules of nature; so say the "conservatives."

For comparison, deer are generally considered overpopulated (for
hunting's sake) but they number only about 20 million in America vs.
300 million people, headed toward a possible 500 million by the end of
the century. Each deer also has a much smaller "ecological footprint"
compared to a person. You can barely tell that deer (or most other
animals) exist in satellite views, while human habitation creates
endless scars. Which species is truly overpopulated?

Instead of harping on money and treating land as infinite, people
should question the economic growthism and lack of global birth
control that makes all these structures necessary. It seems that's too
much to ask of the average person, though. They'd rather keep it
shallow, ignore the root cause and whine about mortgages over
cocktails.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/

Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless population growth.

If you belive, if you can live up to your claims, burn your home and
move into the woods. Live under a tree and eat wild berries. It's too
late for your parants to have an abortion, but you can limit your foot
print. It will mean giving up the computer you typed this on, the
power you used to run it. Life as you know it. Or did you mean OTHER
prople should change?

On Aug 16, 8:30 pm, Enough Already wrote:
Recently, there's been news about corrupt loans and bailouts, and it's
important. But, from a sustainability standpoint, the true housing
crisis is that more homes are BUILT all the time, far beyond
replacement levels. This is happening daily at the expense of
wilderness, farmland and general elbow room. Who decided this constant
blight upon the land was natural or desirable? It's not just a matter
of NIMBY, it's about respecting physical limits.

NIMBY is a term used to distract from what's really going on. Nobody
should be forced to endure constant crowding, especially of the type
occurring in the American West. Many realize that the shrinkage of
prime land has driven up housing costs, but they still act like it can
go on forever. Money is treated as a resource unto itself, and
literally being cloned in certain professions. See:http://enough_already.tripod.com/money.htm

The Earth is a finite mass and its surface gets more jammed each day.
A lot of people are making money by charging for land that was once
owned by nobody. The concept of permanent land ownership is purely a
human one. Most species use what they need and pass on, rarely leaving
permanent scars.

Some will tell you that the "wasted" American desert should be filled
with people; just because it might be feasible if enough water was
diverted. The blight of Phoenix, Vegas and L.A. isn't enough for
growth addicts seeking easy cash from land that was once free. A
little smooth talking and they're loaded with false wealth, able to
buy their own mansion in a transaction cycle that keeps on taking from
nature. To hell with frontiers and unbroken vistas. A price tag must
be placed on every piece of usable land that's not spoken for.

Getting to the main point: the big reason these homes get built by the
thousands each day is POPULATION GROWTH. In the U.S. this amounts to
about 3 million more people annually. Worldwide it exceeds 70 million
per year (net gain). If any other species tried to multiply at that
rate, we'd declare a lock-down. But Man doesn't have to play by the
rules of nature; so say the "conservatives."

For comparison, deer are generally considered overpopulated (for
hunting's sake) but they number only about 20 million in America vs.
300 million people, headed toward a possible 500 million by the end of
the century. Each deer also has a much smaller "ecological footprint"
compared to a person. You can barely tell that deer (or most other
animals) exist in satellite views, while human habitation creates
endless scars. Which species is truly overpopulated?

Instead of harping on money and treating land as infinite, people
should question the economic growthism and lack of global birth
control that makes all these structures necessary. It seems that's too
much to ask of the average person, though. They'd rather keep it
shallow, ignore the root cause and whine about mortgages over
cocktails.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/

Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless population growth.

"Enough Already" wrote in message
oups.com...
Recently, there's been news about corrupt loans and bailouts, and it's
important. But, from a sustainability standpoint, the true housing
crisis is that more homes are BUILT all the time, far beyond
replacement levels. This is happening daily at the expense of
wilderness, farmland and general elbow room. Who decided this constant
blight upon the land was natural or desirable? It's not just a matter
of NIMBY, it's about respecting physical limits.

NIMBY is a term used to distract from what's really going on. Nobody
should be forced to endure constant crowding, especially of the type
occurring in the American West. Many realize that the shrinkage of
prime land has driven up housing costs, but they still act like it can
go on forever. Money is treated as a resource unto itself, and
literally being cloned in certain professions. See:
http://enough_already.tripod.com/money.htm

The Earth is a finite mass and its surface gets more jammed each day.
A lot of people are making money by charging for land that was once
owned by nobody. The concept of permanent land ownership is purely a
human one. Most species use what they need and pass on, rarely leaving
permanent scars.

Some will tell you that the "wasted" American desert should be filled
with people; just because it might be feasible if enough water was
diverted. The blight of Phoenix, Vegas and L.A. isn't enough for
growth addicts seeking easy cash from land that was once free. A
little smooth talking and they're loaded with false wealth, able to
buy their own mansion in a transaction cycle that keeps on taking from
nature. To hell with frontiers and unbroken vistas. A price tag must
be placed on every piece of usable land that's not spoken for.

Getting to the main point: the big reason these homes get built by the
thousands each day is POPULATION GROWTH. In the U.S. this amounts to
about 3 million more people annually. Worldwide it exceeds 70 million
per year (net gain). If any other species tried to multiply at that
rate, we'd declare a lock-down. But Man doesn't have to play by the
rules of nature; so say the "conservatives."

For comparison, deer are generally considered overpopulated (for
hunting's sake) but they number only about 20 million in America vs.
300 million people, headed toward a possible 500 million by the end of
the century. Each deer also has a much smaller "ecological footprint"
compared to a person. You can barely tell that deer (or most other
animals) exist in satellite views, while human habitation creates
endless scars. Which species is truly overpopulated?

Instead of harping on money and treating land as infinite, people
should question the economic growthism and lack of global birth
control that makes all these structures necessary. It seems that's too
much to ask of the average person, though. They'd rather keep it
shallow, ignore the root cause and whine about mortgages over
cocktails.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/

Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless population growth.


Nature has a way of limiting population growth of most any species. Mankind
has, temporarily, gone beyond that bounds. One way or another, it will
catch up with him. Either slowly in forms of famine and shrinking of
resources; or a major calamity. Nature will fix the aftermath.

Economically, you can't stagnate or shrink the population size and expect
economic growth. You can't make enough people care enough to contribute to
such a manual fix to overpopulation (limiting birthrate to 2 per couple over
many, many generations). It will have to happen on its own.
Dave

on 8/16/2007 11:30 PM Enough Already said the following:
snip
Getting to the main point: the big reason these homes get built by the
thousands each day is POPULATION GROWTH. In the U.S. this amounts to
about 3 million more people annually. Worldwide it exceeds 70 million
per year (net gain). If any other species tried to multiply at that
rate, we'd declare a lock-down. But Man doesn't have to play by the
rules of nature; so say the "conservatives."

Blame it on medicine. Whenever a pandemic disease shows up, they try to
find a way to cure it.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Aug 16, 11:30 pm, Enough Already wrote:

I've done my part. I'm childless and bought a 50-year-old house
rather than
a brand new one.

Cindy Hamilton

wrote in message
oups.com...
If you belive, if you can live up to your claims, burn your home and
move into the woods. Live under a tree and eat wild berries. It's too
late for your parants to have an abortion, but you can limit your foot
print. It will mean giving up the computer you typed this on, the
power you used to run it. Life as you know it. Or did you mean OTHER
prople should change?


I always tell people who think there's too many people to, "Be my guest, you
go first!", but the hypocrites NEVER oblige.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
"Enough Already" wrote in message


Nature has a way of limiting population growth of most any species.
Mankind has, temporarily, gone beyond that bounds.

Hardly.

Humankind has been more propsperous and healthy than at anytime in history.

One way or another, it will catch up with him. Either slowly in forms of
famine and shrinking of resources; or a major calamity.

Yeah, right. Paul Erlich pronouned the same thing and wound up looking like
an idiot.

Nature will fix the aftermath.

Economically, you can't stagnate or shrink the population size and expect
economic growth.

Population demographics has very little to do with it. A small free-market
nation will always outproduce a large (or small) fascistic one.

You can't make enough people care enough to contribute to such a manual
fix to overpopulation (limiting birthrate to 2 per couple over many, many
generations). It will have to happen on its own.

It already is in a sense. Mark Styen has note that, outside the Muslim
segments, all populations are heading for rapid decrease. This is only a
factor if the next generations are expected to bail out older generations
and their profligit welfare/nanny states.

"Cindy Hamilton" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 16, 11:30 pm, Enough Already wrote:

I've done my part. I'm childless and bought a 50-year-old house
rather than
a brand new one.


Don't feed the psychopathic troll.

"Dave" wrote in message
...

You can't make enough people care enough to contribute to such a manual
fix to overpopulation (limiting birthrate to 2 per couple over many, many
generations). It will have to happen on its own.

Haven't the Chinese addressed this very issue by mandating a very limited
(one?) birthrate. Oh, right; they're godless commies!
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

Dave wrote:

Nature has a way of limiting population growth of most any species. Mankind
has, temporarily, gone beyond that bounds. One way or another, it will
catch up with him. Either slowly in forms of famine and shrinking of
resources; or a major calamity. Nature will fix the aftermath.

Economically, you can't stagnate or shrink the population size and expect
economic growth. You can't make enough people care enough to contribute to
such a manual fix to overpopulation (limiting birthrate to 2 per couple over
many, many generations). It will have to happen on its own.
Dave

What evidence do you have that mankind has "gone beyond that bounds?"

Matt

"Dave in Houston" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

You can't make enough people care enough to contribute to such a manual
fix to overpopulation (limiting birthrate to 2 per couple over many, many
generations). It will have to happen on its own.

Haven't the Chinese addressed this very issue by mandating a very limited
(one?) birthrate. Oh, right; they're godless commies!
--
NuWave Dave in Houston


Get the facts. Its a 2 surviving birth limit. And its NOT voluntary.
Dave

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
"Enough Already" wrote in message


Nature has a way of limiting population growth of most any species.
Mankind has, temporarily, gone beyond that bounds.

Hardly.

Humankind has been more propsperous and healthy than at anytime in
history.

One way or another, it will catch up with him. Either slowly in forms of
famine and shrinking of resources; or a major calamity.

Yeah, right. Paul Erlich pronouned the same thing and wound up looking
like an idiot.

Nature will fix the aftermath.

Economically, you can't stagnate or shrink the population size and expect
economic growth.

Population demographics has very little to do with it. A small free-market
nation will always outproduce a large (or small) fascistic one.

You can't make enough people care enough to contribute to such a manual
fix to overpopulation (limiting birthrate to 2 per couple over many, many
generations). It will have to happen on its own.

It already is in a sense. Mark Styen has note that, outside the Muslim
segments, all populations are heading for rapid decrease. This is only a
factor if the next generations are expected to bail out older generations
and their profligit welfare/nanny states.




Capitalism is based on more. Of the more, more consumers is part of the
equation to continue its growth. It is also the basis for Social Security.
If there's not more, the consumer contribution must increase both for
consumer goods and Social Security. Its the same thing.

To reduce such a needed contribution in a stagnant or reducing population,
total purchase of consumer goods in dollars must decrease as well as Social
Security benefits.

Economics 101.
Dave

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

Nature has a way of limiting population growth of most any species.
Mankind has, temporarily, gone beyond that bounds. One way or another,
it will catch up with him. Either slowly in forms of famine and
shrinking of resources; or a major calamity. Nature will fix the
aftermath.

Economically, you can't stagnate or shrink the population size and expect
economic growth. You can't make enough people care enough to contribute
to such a manual fix to overpopulation (limiting birthrate to 2 per
couple over many, many generations). It will have to happen on its own.
Dave

What evidence do you have that mankind has "gone beyond that bounds?"

Matt

If you don't see it now, you never will.
Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Get the facts. Its a 2 surviving birth limit. And its NOT voluntary.

That's why I rely on you, Dave.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

"Dave" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
"Enough Already" wrote in message


Nature has a way of limiting population growth of most any species.
Mankind has, temporarily, gone beyond that bounds.

Hardly.

Humankind has been more propsperous and healthy than at anytime in
history.

One way or another, it will catch up with him. Either slowly in forms
of famine and shrinking of resources; or a major calamity.

Yeah, right. Paul Erlich pronouned the same thing and wound up looking
like an idiot.

Nature will fix the aftermath.

Economically, you can't stagnate or shrink the population size and
expect economic growth.

Population demographics has very little to do with it. A small
free-market nation will always outproduce a large (or small) fascistic
one.

You can't make enough people care enough to contribute to such a manual
fix to overpopulation (limiting birthrate to 2 per couple over many,
many generations). It will have to happen on its own.

It already is in a sense. Mark Styen has note that, outside the Muslim
segments, all populations are heading for rapid decrease. This is only a
factor if the next generations are expected to bail out older generations
and their profligit welfare/nanny states.




Capitalism is based on more. Of the more, more consumers is part of the
equation to continue its growth.

Ummm...no.

It is based on expanding production; the number of participants is damn near
irrelevant. (Think: rising boat, not # of boats).

It is also the basis for Social Security. If there's not more, the
consumer contribution must increase both for consumer goods and Social
Security. Its the same thing.

??? you talking about?


To reduce such a needed contribution in a stagnant or reducing population,
total purchase of consumer goods in dollars must decrease as well as
Social Security benefits.

Economics 101.

Econ 101 according to whom (or rather, what school?)

"Dave" wrote in message
...
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

Nature has a way of limiting population growth of most any species.
Mankind has, temporarily, gone beyond that bounds. One way or another,
it will catch up with him. Either slowly in forms of famine and
shrinking of resources; or a major calamity. Nature will fix the
aftermath.

Economically, you can't stagnate or shrink the population size and
expect economic growth. You can't make enough people care enough to
contribute to such a manual fix to overpopulation (limiting birthrate to
2 per couple over many, many generations). It will have to happen on
its own.
Dave

What evidence do you have that mankind has "gone beyond that bounds?"

Matt

If you don't see it now, you never will.

Your knowledge of history is about on par with your knowledge of Econ. IOW,
completely FOS.

Ah...these public schools!!!

"Dave" wrote in message
...
"Dave in Houston" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

You can't make enough people care enough to contribute to such a manual
fix to overpopulation (limiting birthrate to 2 per couple over many,
many generations). It will have to happen on its own.

Haven't the Chinese addressed this very issue by mandating a very limited
(one?) birthrate. Oh, right; they're godless commies!
--
NuWave Dave in Houston


Get the facts. Its a 2 surviving birth limit. And its NOT voluntary.

I believe I used a derivative of the word "mandate," Dave. As in NOT
voluntary though to your credit, you picked up right away that I was unsure
of the maximum number.
Nothing gets by you, Dave.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
oups.com...
If you belive, if you can live up to your claims, burn your home and
move into the woods. Live under a tree and eat wild berries. It's too
late for your parants to have an abortion, but you can limit your foot
print. It will mean giving up the computer you typed this on, the
power you used to run it. Life as you know it. Or did you mean OTHER
prople should change?


I always tell people who think there's too many people to, "Be my guest, you
go first!", but the hypocrites NEVER oblige.

And how many kids will you have during your lifetime?

Bob

Dave wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

Nature has a way of limiting population growth of most any species.
Mankind has, temporarily, gone beyond that bounds. One way or another,
it will catch up with him. Either slowly in forms of famine and
shrinking of resources; or a major calamity. Nature will fix the
aftermath.

Economically, you can't stagnate or shrink the population size and expect
economic growth. You can't make enough people care enough to contribute
to such a manual fix to overpopulation (limiting birthrate to 2 per
couple over many, many generations). It will have to happen on its own.
Dave
What evidence do you have that mankind has "gone beyond that bounds?"

Matt

If you don't see it now, you never will.
Dave

Ok, I understand that you have no evidence. I was guessing that was the
case.

Matt

"Bob F" wrote in message
. ..

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
oups.com...
If you belive, if you can live up to your claims, burn your home and
move into the woods. Live under a tree and eat wild berries. It's too
late for your parants to have an abortion, but you can limit your foot
print. It will mean giving up the computer you typed this on, the
power you used to run it. Life as you know it. Or did you mean OTHER
prople should change?


I always tell people who think there's too many people to, "Be my guest,
you go first!", but the hypocrites NEVER oblige.

And how many kids will you have during your lifetime?

And what the hell does that have to do with anything?

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
(snip)
I always tell people who think there's too many people to, "Be my guest,
you go first!", but the hypocrites NEVER oblige.

And how many kids will you have during your lifetime?

And what the hell does that have to do with anything?

If you have to ask, explanations will likely be pointless. Look up 'carrying
capacity'.

(Standard disclaimer- I am not one of those wacko 'childfree' zealots. I
like kids, and replacements have to come from somewhere. But now that most
of us do NOT live on farms and need to breed our own help, and now that 1
kid in 3 or so DOESN'T die by age five, well, maybe 'replacements' should be
the term people keep in mind. 2.3 kids per breeding couple or so will assure
population doesn't go down. Maybe a little higher to take into account the
people like me that never succeeded in reproducing. I am one kid out of 8,
with 7 surviving. Families that large make no economic or ecological sense
any more. My sisters that did have kids had 2 each, so the genetic line will
go on.)

aem sends...

In article 9HKxi.441286$p47.374263@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, says...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
(snip)
I always tell people who think there's too many people to, "Be my guest,
you go first!", but the hypocrites NEVER oblige.

And how many kids will you have during your lifetime?

And what the hell does that have to do with anything?

If you have to ask, explanations will likely be pointless. Look up 'carrying
capacity'.

(Standard disclaimer- I am not one of those wacko 'childfree' zealots. I
like kids, and replacements have to come from somewhere. But now that most
of us do NOT live on farms and need to breed our own help, and now that 1
kid in 3 or so DOESN'T die by age five, well, maybe 'replacements' should be
the term people keep in mind. 2.3 kids per breeding couple or so will assure
population doesn't go down. Maybe a little higher to take into account the
people like me that never succeeded in reproducing.

IIRC, a birth rate of 2.2/female is the replacement rate, which
includes "people like you" and deaths before childbearing age.

I am one kid out of 8,
with 7 surviving. Families that large make no economic or ecological sense
any more. My sisters that did have kids had 2 each, so the genetic line will
go on.)

I'm one in four. Our average is 2 (my wife an I have one and one
brother with three).

--
Keith

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
(snip)
I always tell people who think there's too many people to, "Be my
guest, you go first!", but the hypocrites NEVER oblige.

And how many kids will you have during your lifetime?

And what the hell does that have to do with anything?

If you have to ask, explanations will likely be pointless. Look up
'carrying capacity'.

Is it all you can do is barf back what your teachers told you?

Your evidently have no clue what the true carrying capacity of the earth is,
what it's been or what it will be.

When all you can do is "barf back", it's a common shortcoming.



(Standard disclaimer- I am not one of those wacko 'childfree' zealots. I
like kids, and replacements have to come from somewhere. But now that
most of us do NOT live on farms and need to breed our own help, and now
that 1 kid in 3 or so DOESN'T die by age five, well, maybe 'replacements'
should be the term people keep in mind. 2.3 kids per breeding couple or so
will assure population doesn't go down. Maybe a little higher to take into
account the people like me that never succeeded in reproducing. I am one
kid out of 8, with 7 surviving. Families that large make no economic or
ecological sense any more. My sisters that did have kids had 2 each, so
the genetic line will go on.)

aem sends...

aem is utterly clueless and totally incapable of understanding the DYNAMIC
nature of the world and human capacity, particularly human capacity for
creativity and production.

When all you can do is look at static models, the real. dynamic world is
incomprehensible. That lack of ability is becoming more problematic with the
brickbrained nature of the contemporary school systems.

Thanks, but we do not need virtual retards to tell us how the world works
and how it sucks based on their adolesent levels of comprehension.

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article 9HKxi.441286$p47.374263@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, says...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
(snip)
I always tell people who think there's too many people to, "Be my
guest,
you go first!", but the hypocrites NEVER oblige.

And how many kids will you have during your lifetime?

And what the hell does that have to do with anything?

If you have to ask, explanations will likely be pointless. Look up
'carrying
capacity'.

(Standard disclaimer- I am not one of those wacko 'childfree' zealots. I
like kids, and replacements have to come from somewhere. But now that
most
of us do NOT live on farms and need to breed our own help, and now that 1
kid in 3 or so DOESN'T die by age five, well, maybe 'replacements' should
be
the term people keep in mind. 2.3 kids per breeding couple or so will
assure
population doesn't go down. Maybe a little higher to take into account
the
people like me that never succeeded in reproducing.

IIRC, a birth rate of 2.2/female is the replacement rate, which
includes "people like you" and deaths before childbearing age.

I am one kid out of 8,
with 7 surviving. Families that large make no economic or ecological
sense
any more. My sisters that did have kids had 2 each, so the genetic line
will
go on.)

I'm one in four. Our average is 2 (my wife an I have one and one
brother with three).

And both of you miss the crucial points.

Typical.

In article ,
says...

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article 9HKxi.441286$p47.374263@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, says...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
(snip)
I always tell people who think there's too many people to, "Be my
guest,
you go first!", but the hypocrites NEVER oblige.

And how many kids will you have during your lifetime?

And what the hell does that have to do with anything?

If you have to ask, explanations will likely be pointless. Look up
'carrying
capacity'.

(Standard disclaimer- I am not one of those wacko 'childfree' zealots. I
like kids, and replacements have to come from somewhere. But now that
most
of us do NOT live on farms and need to breed our own help, and now that 1
kid in 3 or so DOESN'T die by age five, well, maybe 'replacements' should
be
the term people keep in mind. 2.3 kids per breeding couple or so will
assure
population doesn't go down. Maybe a little higher to take into account
the
people like me that never succeeded in reproducing.

IIRC, a birth rate of 2.2/female is the replacement rate, which
includes "people like you" and deaths before childbearing age.

I am one kid out of 8,
with 7 surviving. Families that large make no economic or ecological
sense
any more. My sisters that did have kids had 2 each, so the genetic line
will
go on.)

I'm one in four. Our average is 2 (my wife an I have one and one
brother with three).

And both of you miss the crucial points.

What, that you're an idiot, pretending to be human?

Typical.

'Tis true, at least on the Usenet.

--
Keith

--
Keith

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article 9HKxi.441286$p47.374263@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, says...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
(snip)
I always tell people who think there's too many people to, "Be my
guest,
you go first!", but the hypocrites NEVER oblige.

And how many kids will you have during your lifetime?

And what the hell does that have to do with anything?

If you have to ask, explanations will likely be pointless. Look up
'carrying
capacity'.

(Standard disclaimer- I am not one of those wacko 'childfree' zealots.
I
like kids, and replacements have to come from somewhere. But now
that
most
of us do NOT live on farms and need to breed our own help, and now
that 1
kid in 3 or so DOESN'T die by age five, well, maybe 'replacements'
should
be
the term people keep in mind. 2.3 kids per breeding couple or so will
assure
population doesn't go down. Maybe a little higher to take into account
the
people like me that never succeeded in reproducing.

IIRC, a birth rate of 2.2/female is the replacement rate, which
includes "people like you" and deaths before childbearing age.

I am one kid out of 8,
with 7 surviving. Families that large make no economic or ecological
sense
any more. My sisters that did have kids had 2 each, so the genetic
line
will
go on.)

I'm one in four. Our average is 2 (my wife an I have one and one
brother with three).

And both of you miss the crucial points.

What, that you're an idiot, pretending to be human?

The idiot is the jerkoff you see in the mirror. You can buffalo your
braindead peers, but you're way out of your league.

Try learning how the real world works rather than sucking the
teachers/handlers dick.

Are you even remotely familiar with world-wide demographics the past 50
years? Doubtful.


Typical.

'Tis true, at least on the Usenet.

--
Keith
Learn some history (not the public skool variety), learn some economics (not
the Marxist variety), learn something about production, creativity and real
demographics.

In other words: Get a clue.

Or, I suppose you could just keep demonstrating your real ignorance.

Or you could just respond like the typical children, mimicking what your
handlers want to hear and understanding nothing.

In fact, I expect more of yours and "aem" (who can't even abbreviate his
name) churlish drivel.

At least you don't make idiots of yourselves in a open form like Paul Erlich
did.

I think its great that all the Uber-Liberals are not having kids.
Pretty soon it will just be conservatives, and normal people will be
able to reclaim San Fransisco from the tree huggers.

Hey, how much energy was waisted by posting these blogs? Maybe the
zero population zealots can get Al Gore to jet in for his new movie -
"An Inconvient Child".

In article ,
says...

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article 9HKxi.441286$p47.374263@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, says...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
(snip)
I always tell people who think there's too many people to, "Be my
guest,
you go first!", but the hypocrites NEVER oblige.

And how many kids will you have during your lifetime?

And what the hell does that have to do with anything?

If you have to ask, explanations will likely be pointless. Look up
'carrying
capacity'.

(Standard disclaimer- I am not one of those wacko 'childfree' zealots.
I
like kids, and replacements have to come from somewhere. But now
that
most
of us do NOT live on farms and need to breed our own help, and now
that 1
kid in 3 or so DOESN'T die by age five, well, maybe 'replacements'
should
be
the term people keep in mind. 2.3 kids per breeding couple or so will
assure
population doesn't go down. Maybe a little higher to take into account
the
people like me that never succeeded in reproducing.

IIRC, a birth rate of 2.2/female is the replacement rate, which
includes "people like you" and deaths before childbearing age.

I am one kid out of 8,
with 7 surviving. Families that large make no economic or ecological
sense
any more. My sisters that did have kids had 2 each, so the genetic
line
will
go on.)

I'm one in four. Our average is 2 (my wife an I have one and one
brother with three).

And both of you miss the crucial points.

What, that you're an idiot, pretending to be human?

The idiot is the jerkoff you see in the mirror. You can buffalo your
braindead peers, but you're way out of your league.

Obviously I'm not in your league, fortunately.

Try learning how the real world works rather than sucking the
teachers/handlers dick.

Wow, you are an idiot, in a league of your own.

Are you even remotely familiar with world-wide demographics the past 50
years? Doubtful.

Clueless, at that.

Typical.

'Tis true, at least on the Usenet.

--
Keith
Learn some history (not the public skool variety), learn some economics (not
the Marxist variety), learn something about production, creativity and real
demographics.

Totally clueless.

In other words: Get a clue.

You first, comrade.

Or, I suppose you could just keep demonstrating your real ignorance.

Kepp going. I'm having fun with your cluelessness.

Or you could just respond like the typical children, mimicking what your
handlers want to hear and understanding nothing.

Still...

In fact, I expect more of yours and "aem" (who can't even abbreviate his
name) churlish drivel.

Speaking of which, have you actually read what you spew?

At least you don't make idiots of yourselves in a open form like Paul Erlich

You misspelled "Matt Barrow".

--
Keith

I came in late on this conversation. Who is winning?



--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

wrote:
I think its great that all the Uber-Liberals are not having kids.
Pretty soon it will just be conservatives, and normal people will be
able to reclaim San Fransisco from the tree huggers.

Hey, how much energy was waisted by posting these blogs? Maybe the
zero population zealots can get Al Gore to jet in for his new movie -
"An Inconvient Child".


More appropriate would be "An Inconvenient Politician"

Matt

In article , willshak@
00hvc.rr.com says...

I came in late on this conversation. Who is winning?

I am. He won't even say what his issue is so his posting is a total
waste of his time. I'm just sitting in a hotel room happy to waste
his time (mine is already wasted, sitting in a hotel room .

--
Keith

wrote in message
ps.com...
I think its great that all the Uber-Liberals are not having kids.
Pretty soon it will just be conservatives, and normal people will be
able to reclaim San Fransisco from the tree huggers.

Hey, how much energy was waisted by posting these blogs? Maybe the
zero population zealots can get Al Gore to jet in for his new movie -
"An Inconvient Child".

Did Jerry Falwell have any kids? I mean any that survived?

"willshak" wrote in message
...

I came in late on this conversation. Who is winning?


Those who don't advocate suicide.

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , willshak@
00hvc.rr.com says...

I came in late on this conversation. Who is winning?

I am. He won't even say what his issue is

The issue is that you don't have the slighest grasp of population trends or
demographics.

so his posting is a total
waste of his time.

A waste of time in that I'm evidently trying to flesh out coherrent
arguments from a primitive , tribalistic mind.

I'm just sitting in a hotel room happy to waste
his time (mine is already wasted, sitting in a hotel room .

Your mind seems wasted, too.

As such, [PLONK]

In article ,
says...

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , willshak@
00hvc.rr.com says...

I came in late on this conversation. Who is winning?

I am. He won't even say what his issue is

The issue is that you don't have the slighest grasp of population trends or
demographics.

Again, you won't enter the conversation. Your only purpose is to
call people, you haven't a clue about, names.

so his posting is a total
waste of his time.

A waste of time in that I'm evidently trying to flesh out coherrent
arguments from a primitive , tribalistic mind.

You're doing nothing of the kind. You refuse to discuss, only
insult.

I'm just sitting in a hotel room happy to waste
his time (mine is already wasted, sitting in a hotel room .

Your mind seems wasted, too.

You're the one with the mental problems, as you're showing.

As such, [PLONK]

Run away! It's all you can do when you're shown to be an empty
shirt.

I told you folks that I was winning. Assholes like Matt Barrow are
easy pickings. All you need is a few minutes to pop the over-
inflated ego.



--
Keith

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
ps.com...
I think its great that all the Uber-Liberals are not having kids.
Pretty soon it will just be conservatives, and normal people will be
able to reclaim San Fransisco from the tree huggers.

Hey, how much energy was waisted by posting these blogs? Maybe the
zero population zealots can get Al Gore to jet in for his new movie -
"An Inconvient Child".

Did Jerry Falwell have any kids? I mean any that survived?

Dunno, did your parents?

--
Keith