Originally Posted by Skabungus

ZPG is a concept trumped up by well to do westerners who suffer the dual dilusions that A) humankind is the top of the food chain and, B) that we're smart enough to engineer the demise of the planet by over feeding, over populating our own kind.

We humans are not at the top of the food chain alone. We share that spot with dogs. Limits to the most basic resources are self-evident, and before things get deadly, they get nasty.

Rest assured, there are natural limiting factors that serve to reduce the population of any species that gets out of hand. These natural limiting factors will come in to play when any population reaches an unsustainable levels.

Of course. When optimism about the prospects of children decline, then so do birthrates. Look at what happened in Russia in recent years as the Soviet infrastructure, shabby as it was, broke down. Look at the birth rates in the United States during the Great Depression; apparently many late-wave Lost and early-wave GI couples thought that Silent kids wouldn't have it so good as adults. How wrong they were!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Look at the birth rates in the United States during the Great Depression; apparently many late-wave Lost and early-wave GI couples thought that Silent kids wouldn't have it so good as adults. How wrong they were!

I rather doubt the choice to have fewer children reflects parent's beliefs about their children's prospects. I think it has more to do with the parents current reality. If you have no income you might not want another mouth to feed.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

In recent years the fat-cats of America have shown few qualms about imposing economic uncertainty upon the working people -- not only blue-collar proles but also the middle class.

Have fat cats ever shown any qualms of this sort?

There's huge money to be made from crack-the-whip management and Shylock financing.

If so then these should be pursued by corporate management--that's their job.

Corporate America has ...allowed gigantic salaries for some business executives

This makes no sense. High-paid business executives are Corporate America. They don't allow themselves to be paid highly. They pay themselves what they believe they are worth--which is a lot.

In their ideal, food stamps would be unnecessary; starvation would be a viable alternative for failing to work at the terms that our ruling elite offers.

For hard-core libertarian types, yes.

Capitalism offers prosperity to workers to the extent that employers compete for workers. We no longer have a free-enterprise economy; we have a fascist economy.

Employers rarely actually compete for workers. The idea that labor exists in a "pool", like a commodity, isn't really a good description of the way employment works. More often, employers offer jobs at a rate they are willing/can afford to pay. If they don't get enough new employees they often decide to do without. That is, not undertake the expansion they had in mind, or changing the way they manage the business so as to get more out of the people they have. Of course, if new workers create a very profitable condition, they might repost the job with a higher wage/salary, but this is a lot less common than one would think based on concepts of labor as a commodity that follows supply and demand curves.

It's beliefs like this that contribute to the problems you describe. The problem isn't that corporations manipulate the government, unions and private organizations do this too. The problem is that the Right has been more successful than the Left in recent decades because they have made a better political case.

The Right gains when they get market-based memes into the public's head. When they get people to believe that the economic problems they perceive occur because we don't have a sufficiently pure form of free-enterprise. From such beliefs come nostrums such as deregulate, let the market decide, and so forth. Historically when such ideas were current in the culture (as they have been in recent decades) economic inequality has been high. The two go together.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Are you kidding, approaching a door with the intent of killing kids could result in a liberals death at the hands of a conservative.

Are you saying that only liberals would have that intent, or only conservatives would care about defending kids, or that if a conservative would happen to kill a kid, a liberal must die as payment....oh, never mind.

I won't bother with the rest of the idiotic drivel in this post, and I'm sure there will be more whining about so-called "liberal values" coming shortly.

Whatever. Have fun with that in your little threesome. I'm done.

Originally Posted by zilch

... I'll admit, I'm a bit clueless on this one. Anybody wanna clue me in here?

She has to provide a little space between her and the Master to avoid the label of succubus.

And what is my claim that is the basis of my pretension?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Are you saying that only liberals would have that intent, or only conservatives would care about defending kids, or that if a conservative would happen to kill a kid, a liberal must die as payment....oh, never mind.

I won't bother with the rest of the idiotic drivel in this post, and I'm sure there will be more whining about so-called "liberal values" coming shortly.

Whatever. Have fun with that in your little threesome. I'm done.

I can understand the weariness derived from the chorus of homespun un-wisdom, but I've come to appreciate the duet of our opera's straight man and the soubrette. One needs only to focus less on the absurdities put forth by the Master and the all-is-relative teasing of the soubrette, and focus more on the evoked elegance by those that bother to respond.

Much can be learned from the latter (even if one might be a tad of pretentious jerk!). I think the secret is that is why they, the duet, are both here. Something cries out deep within their depths for some enlightenment. They fight it but they can't turn away.

With the right perspective, it can be fun to watch.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Have fat cats ever shown any qualms of this sort?

In some times they have gotten away with far less of it.

If so then these should be pursued by corporate management--that's their job.

Profitability without principle is the norm for mobsters, fascists, and slave masters -- which tells about the moral level at which our economic elite operates.

This makes no sense. High-paid business executives are Corporate America. They don't allow themselves to be paid highly. They pay themselves what they believe they are worth--which is a lot.

Those executives are deputies of shareholder interests -- often rapacious institutions.

Employers rarely actually compete for workers. The idea that labor exists in a "pool", like a commodity, isn't really a good description of the way employment works. More often, employers offer jobs at a rate they are willing/can afford to pay. If they don't get enough new employees they often decide to do without. That is, not undertake the expansion they had in mind, or changing the way they manage the business so as to get more out of the people they have. Of course, if new workers create a very profitable condition, they might repost the job with a higher wage/salary, but this is a lot less common than one would think based on concepts of labor as a commodity that follows supply and demand curves.

It's beliefs like this that contribute to the problems you describe. The problem isn't that corporations manipulate the government, unions and private organizations do this too. The problem is that the Right has been more successful than the Left in recent decades because they have made a better political case.

Countervailing power is at times the only defense that people have against the worst tendencies of the powerful of any type.

The Right gains when they get market-based memes into the public's head. When they get people to believe that the economic problems they perceive occur because we don't have a sufficiently pure form of free-enterprise. From such beliefs come nostrums such as deregulate, let the market decide, and so forth. Historically when such ideas were current in the culture (as they have been in recent decades) economic inequality has been high. The two go together.

This time it has gone far beyond free markets -- it has gone to the level of fascistic corporatism -- the idea that prosperity depends upon the impoverishment of the masses for the indulgence of elites who are seen as "special".

Originally Posted by playwrite

I can understand the weariness derived from the chorus of homespun un-wisdom, but I've come to appreciate the duet of our opera's straight man and the soubrette. One needs only to focus less on the absurdities put forth by the Master and the all-is-relative teasing of the soubrette, and focus more on the evoked elegance by those that bother to respond.

Much can be learned from the latter (even if one might be a tad of pretentious jerk!). I think the secret is that is why they, the duet, are both here. Something cries out deep within their depths for some enlightenment. They fight it but they can't turn away.

With the right perspective, it can be fun to watch.

I find they don't have the attention span to handle a post bigger than a sound byte. Two paragraphs is the limit, whether they are reading or attempting to write. Still, they expose the raw nerves of a certain type of conservative. Doublethink isn't as easy as it looks. Thus, they do expose the flaws in the thinking of the status-quo crowd, occasionally suggesting topics that are worthy to be touched upon.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I can understand the weariness derived from the chorus of homespun un-wisdom, but I've come to appreciate the duet of our opera's straight man and the soubrette. One needs only to focus less on the absurdities put forth by the Master and the all-is-relative teasing of the soubrette, and focus more on the evoked elegance by those that bother to respond.

Much can be learned from the latter (even if one might be a tad of pretentious jerk!). I think the secret is that is why they, the duet, are both here. Something cries out deep within their depths for some enlightenment. They fight it but they can't turn away.

With the right perspective, it can be fun to watch.

I, for one, will strive to enjoy that evoked elegance you mention above.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I find they don't have the attention span to handle a post bigger than a sound byte. Two paragraphs is the limit, whether they are reading or attempting to write. Still, they expose the raw nerves of a certain type of conservative. Doublethink isn't as easy as it looks. Thus, they do expose the flaws in the thinking of the status-quo crowd, occasionally suggesting topics that are worthy to be touched upon.

You have them to a tee.

It's worth remembering what the Evil One said of propaganda:

that it is best kept simple even (or especially!) at the expense of truth so that it can appeal to the most simple-minded and superficial people. (not an exact translation of one of the more readable passages of Mein Kampf, so it's probably better than the original!)

... That's not to say that I accuse either of being fascists, let alone Nazis. But they are potential dupes because of their superficiality. But it's worth remembering that core reality is more likely to be found in a study of the likes of Ludwig Wittgenstein (ironically, at one time a classmate one of you-know-whom) or Bertrand Russell -- who did not write in sound bites. Both are worth reading, mind you, especially for conservatives.

Reality, whether physical reality or human nature, doesn't reduce easily to soundbites. If knowledge were so simple, then we wouldn't need education beyond the elementary level.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Anyway, zilch, it's pretty simple.

Oh is it? (see Pb "simple" post above)

Human attempts to self-regulate population growth simply will not work. The most basic biological drive for all living creatures is reproduction. It's just the way we're made.

By this logic, there would be no vegetarians, or AA. Self dicipline? reason?

No matter how much "education" we do, people are going to have unprotected sex and end up with babies.

here we agree, it is common sense. Hense the "voluntary/education" route and not the "enforcement" strawman route, which I think is pretty far-fetched (for America at least.)

Originally Posted by The Rani

Ha ha, that's a good one! By YOUR logic, there would be no fat people, and Pinky would have been, like, a normal dude instead of a 12-steppin freakazoid.

sick. and this person calls herself a doctor?

I'm a bit disappointed by the way some members gang up on The Rani. It seems like people are trying to cut deep. I don't know why, either.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I'm a bit disappointed by the way some members gang up on The Rani. It seems like people are trying to cut deep. I don't know why, either.

You think it might have something to do with playing with double-edged swords?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Dude, or dudette or whatever you are, I have a lot of sympathy for real addicts and people who try to get help with changing their lives. I DON'T have any for jerks who advertise themselves as addicted flame warriors as an excuse for beating up on other people. Especially people on the internet who are perceived "enemies," and blamed for being the cause of all their problems, despite being complete strangers.

your attitude toward fat people is what's sick.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Dude, or dudette or whatever you are, I have a lot of sympathy for real addicts and people who try to get help with changing their lives. I DON'T have any for jerks who advertise themselves as addicted flame warriors as an excuse for beating up on other people. Especially people on the internet who are perceived "enemies," and blamed for being the cause of all their problems, despite being complete strangers.

Unless, of course, you meant "sick" in a good way, like the hip little Millies all do. In that case ....

XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO

Your Majesty:

This may be a crushing blow to your ego, but you are not the source of all my problems.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Human attempts to self-regulate population growth simply will not work. The most basic biological drive for all living creatures is reproduction. It's just the way we're made. No matter how much "education" we do, people are going to have unprotected sex and end up with babies.

People have been regulating their fertility since the dawn of time. The most recent example of this is the demographic transition during the 19th century when fertility in the US and Western Europe fell precipitously.

Based on data I happen to have[1,2] it looks like crude birth rate (CBR) in the US fell from 65 births per 1000 persons per year in 1800 to about 32 births/1000/yr in 1900.

This was long before modern birth control yet fertility dropped like a rock.

In the 20th century CBR fell to about 19 in the 1930's, rose to about 25 in the 1950's and then down to about 15 in the 1970's, with a very modest rise to about 16 in the early 1990's. Today it's around 14.

So it seems to me that 19th century American women achieved a greater reduction in their fertility than have modern women despite their lack of protection.

1. Ansley Cole and Melvin Zelnik, "New Estimates of Fertility and Population in the United States", Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963

2. National Center for Health Statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/...annvol1_01.pdf)

Originally Posted by The Rani

Anyway, zilch, it's pretty simple. Human attempts to self-regulate population growth simply will not work. The most basic biological drive for all living creatures is reproduction. It's just the way we're made. No matter how much "education" we do, people are going to have unprotected sex and end up with babies.

On the other hand, "natural law," or whatever you want to call it, actually works really well. If people don't have enough resources to feed their kids, they either use birth control, or their kids don't make it to adulthood. Or, if resources are plentiful and the population booms, eventually the resources run out and the population dies off.

This is a theory made popular by a Bible thumper, named Thomas Malthus. It's been pretty much discredited of late.

Anyway, I was confused about the you "got a similar response from zilch." I don't recall ever having discussed population problems with you before. But I do remeber some stuff we talked about in my long forgotten Military Draft v. Abortion Rights thread.

Originally Posted by sean '90

We support the right of people to have a family b/c God declared all life to be sacred.

Conclusions from that statement:

1. Quit eating meat. Some sacred cow, lamb (even if not the Lamb of God), pig, must die so that you can indulge upon that tasty steak, hamburger, lamb chop, or ham. Also -- you will have to refrain from eating less-sentient creatures like chickens, turkeys, fish, crabs, lobsters, clams, scallops, calamari...

2. Destroy the fly-swatter, as it will tempt you from killing something sacred. Face it: a fly is a magnificent piece of architecture in the animal world. It is as much God's creation as is you.

3. Should a mosquito ever alight upon you, then you must let it get its drink of blood from you. She (the biting mosquitoes are females with little skeeters to breed) has as much right to existence as you, no matter how distressing she might be.

4. Remove the flea collars from your cats and dogs. After all, the lowly flea is as much part of God's creation as the precious kitty-cat or pooch. Don't let them be de-wormed; parasitic worms have rights, too.

5. In fact, ditch the cats and the dogs. They are killers -- cats, especially, but the dog is not far from being a cat as a killer.

6. Got a bacterial infection? Then avoid antibiotics. Those bacteria (antibiotics do not work on viruses) have a right to life, too. If you get a cut, then don't wash it with soap and water that rinse away germs, let alone do something so pro-death as to treat the cut with hydrogen peroxide.

7. Should you be in bear country, don't keep a gun. The bear has an inherent right to you and your children as meals. Drug traffickers or convicted sex offenders nearby? Using a gun to protect yourself from such marauders proves that you place yourself in a privileged position against crooks. After all, some rapist who wants your daughter has a right to life far greater than your daughter's right to dignity.

Sure, this is all satire, but be careful about your premises -- and the consequences of simplistic blanket statements.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Are you saying that only liberals would have that intent, or only conservatives would care about defending kids, or that if a conservative would happen to kill a kid, a liberal must die as payment....oh, never mind.

I won't bother with the rest of the idiotic drivel in this post, and I'm sure there will be more whining about so-called "liberal values" coming shortly.

Whatever. Have fun with that in your little threesome. I'm done.

Kiff, you really didn't have to dig very deep to grasp the meaning. Liberals probably aren't the type who would enter a house and kill folks, it appears to go against their/your religion or moral beliefs, so to speak. Plus, the liberals appear to place themselves pretty high in the social spectrum and value, entering a house with an intent to kill involves a willingness to place ones own life at risk or in harms way. Liberals don't appear to have the willingness to place their precious lives at risk or harms way. So, my response to the poster was hah, hah, I'm not to concerned about liberals murdering folks. The possibilities are higher that a liberal change, meddle or mess with something important and end creating a mega crisis or something.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I'm a bit disappointed by the way some members gang up on The Rani. It seems like people are trying to cut deep. I don't know why, either.

OK, so you don't have any more social skills than I do. People 'gang-up' on Suj because she invites it. If no one is poking her in the ribs, she'll rachet-up the rhetoric until some one does. Everyone reacts differently to that. She pisses-off Kiff to no end, and PS doesn't take to her very well either. In both cases, I think the feelings and flaming are mutual. Anyway, she seems to enjoys it, at least some of us seem to enjoy it.

So relax, have a virtual beer and she may even hand out a few of the hugs and kisses thingees.

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is the second time you've said this, and it's total bullshit. I say what I think, and you guys don't like it, but you can't come up with any other response than "flaming." Matt happens to see it clearly, because he's not in the middle of it.

If you are claiming that you don't instigate flame wars, then feel free make what ever assinine statements you wish, and we'll just ignore you. OK?

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Kiff, you really didn't have to dig very deep to grasp the meaning. Liberals probably aren't the type who would enter a house and kill folks, it appears to go against their/your religion or moral beliefs, so to speak. Plus, the liberals appear to place themselves pretty high in the social spectrum and value, entering a house with an intent to kill involves a willingness to place ones own life at risk or in harms way. Liberals don't appear to have the willingness to place their precious lives at risk or harms way. So, my response to the poster was hah, hah, I'm not to concerned about liberals murdering folks. The possibilities are higher that a liberal change, meddle or mess with something important and end creating a mega crisis or something.

You are such a frickin moron. We may have come to tolerate the seemingly endless chicken hawk sewage about the need for other people to fight wars, but it is not acceptable for chicken shits to denigrate countless numbers of people who put their lives on the line every day not just in the military but in police and fire departments around the country and that just so happen to have liberal political views. With a clear majority of our population having liberal views on many political issues today (including around 2/3's that now have "liberal views" on the Iraq occupation), how can you make such a stupid assertion that none of them are capable of putting their lives on the line? Do you ever even stop to think before you speak or type?

How about these vets, the Fighting Dems, that decided to run as liberals?

http://www.democrats.org/page/conten...dems/nominees/

including Tammy Duckworth who lost both legs when her helicopter was shot down



Are you trying to tell me she didn't put her ass on the line?

I know this will bring Rani to your rescue once again, but I don't care -- you are about the biggest asshole there is on the forum. I just hope you run in to this guy some day and mouth off with your backassward crap about liberals -


That Nam medaled Marine is more than capable of rippin off your conjones and sticking them down your punk ass throat.

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is the second time you've said this, and it's total bullshit. I say what I think, and you guys don't like it, but you can't come up with any other response than "flaming." Matt happens to see it clearly, because he's not in the middle of it.

Hmmm. So, if *I* say what *I* think, and you do not like it...hmmm. Gotta think about that.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Kiff, you really didn't have to dig very deep to grasp the meaning. Liberals probably aren't the type who would enter a house and kill folks, it appears to go against their/your religion or moral beliefs, so to speak.

Sure, liberals are all cowards devoid of any convictions once danger appears. Like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Like Sophie Scholl, one of numerous martyrs of conscience in the Third Reich. Irony is intended here, in case you missed it.

We liberals want a world in which killing people is not only abominable but also unnecessary. That's best achieved not by forcing people into cowed compliance with heartless, rapacious elites but instead by establishing principles of justice that first seem daring -- and then self-evident.

Plus, the liberals appear to place themselves pretty high in the social spectrum and value, entering a house with an intent to kill involves a willingness to place ones own life at risk or in harms way.

Unless entering a house with intent to kill is in the legitimate service of the military in a kill-or-be-killed scenario, entering a house to kill one of the occupants is unconscionable. Sure, we excuse cops who fire back in self defense at a would-be cop-killer... what is wrong is that someone is putting the life of a cop in inappropriate risk irrespective of political connotations. The cop as a rule would rather make an arrest.

If we liberals see our own lives as particularly valuable it is because we see human life itself as inherently precious. Only those who see life as precious would risk their lives for another. Those who see others as expendable act very differently; if they risk their lives, then they are in it for adventure or gain. Such people take chances with others' lives.

Liberals don't appear to have the willingness to place their precious lives at risk or harms way. So, my response to the poster was hah, hah, I'm not to concerned about liberals murdering folks. The possibilities are higher that a liberal change, meddle or mess with something important and end creating a mega crisis or something.

We liberals more choose to not put others' lives in harm's way. That solves uncountable problems before they could ever happen, and that is even more important.