Originally Posted by Mikebert

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.

Interesting. So do you think they were probably just having less sex?

Originally Posted by The Rani

My feeling is that nature will allow us to dominate the planet until She grows tired of us, and then we are OUT like the dinosaurs. How, when, and why this will happen is a mystery, and it certainly won't be changed by our own efforts to reduce and/or control our numbers.

Some fundamentalist Christians believe there's no reason to protect the environment, since the Rapture is going to take them into heaven before too long, and the earth will be ravaged by Satan and his minions for a thousand years.

God will tire of His wayward people, or Nature will tire of her people, and then we're out. Arbitrarily.

This is why people use the word "nihilism" when referring to what they see as your philosophy. And you're certainly free to embrace it if you wish. But don't expect that a lot of people on this forum are going to go along with don't-give-a-shittery and imposed helplessness. I think they sense some real ugliness underlying the snark and the glibness.

Nihilism is what brought us Hitler. Hopeful people reject that kind of demogoguery. Hope brings us people like Dr. King and Mahatma Gandhi.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

I fear I have an unrecognized ignorance of Blue Zone coastal cuisine! Help!!!

Ah, Mr. Saari, you have give me my first big laugh in many a day! Thank you!!

Originally Posted by The Pervert

Virgil dodged all my comments. Darn. I was really hoping the flattering comparison to an arquebus might at least elicit some reaction.

1. I tried a Google search on conjone to little effect. Is the border of which you post that which lies between this world and madness?

2. I fear for your next, and shudder at your past attempts, at social intercourse of the more physical sort. I think that a refresher course in metaphorical anatomy might be in order.

You have been most flattering in comparing my orchiometricity to an harquebus; but, you have been most inaccurate. Here and here are more paleo-appropriate examples. They could contain that which would be expelled from my "harquebus" which while also refined and archaic-looking as the rest of my person are more closely metaphoric.

If there are to be any more little Michigander Lambs to be added to that better flock; you might wish that Mr. Alexander or Mr. Skabungus explain things about which part does what, or perhaps some our more martial posters could instruct:

"This is my "harquebus*"! My "harquebus*" is my friend. My "harquebus*" is to be charged from the higher "powder flask" and the lower "shot flask" before it goes to propulsion and projectile...


Of course you will be instructed in terms* more coincident with reality. big-game rifle or derringer as the case might be.


3. I post at the now sad remains of The New Pantagruel and at the 2Blowhards from time to time. I use my given name at these and other sites.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Even on the off chance that you're actually trying to provide me with some insight, and not just being a bitch yourself, the INTP stuff has convinced me that you guys are lousy assessors of other peoples emotions, motivations, and intentions.

Well, for what it's worth, I'm not an INTP.

I'm telling you what I think of your behavior. Behavior often reflects attitude. I don't like the attitude that your snarky behavior represents. I believe it reflects a lot of what is wrong with this society.

I came to this forum because I was interested in generational cycles and concerned about an upcoming Fourth Turning, particularly after the 9/11 attacks. I found some good discussions here. I also found people that I looked forward to hearing from on a regular basis, because I thought they were interesting, provocative, and generous with their time.

I have learned a hell of a lot about history, theology, social psychology, the military, philosophy, and numerous other topics both small and large. That's why I keep coming back.

I don't like watching political differences deteriorate into partisan spats. I don't enjoy watching our Constitution get shredded by a political mindset that uses fear to employ authoritarian methods on its citizenry. I don't enjoy being mocked because I happen to be a liberal/progressive/civil libertarian/rational/hopeful Christian who speaks out on injustice.

To the extent that you join in with (or egg on) the crowd that employs these methods, not because you necessarily agree with them, but because you have some other agenda (and I'll leave it to you to describe what that agenda might be), you lose my respect and whatever positive feelings I may have had toward you at some point (and I did have them in the beginning).

Those are my emotions, motivations, and intentions.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Why, I haven't said stupid crap or anything shameful for that matter. Are you claiming that you're not a liberal Bush hater? Are you claiming that your intellect or knowlege is somehow much clearer or better informed than mine?

You have written copious nonsense in this Forum, including your characterization of liberals as one-dimensional "Bush-haters". George W. Bush has done much to earn the contempt of many people to the right of what most of us consider "liberal", such as violate norms of the Presidency that George Washington established and that Abraham Lincoln and FDR never overstepped even in the direst times. "Signing statements". Outing Valerie Plame because her husband dared tell the truth. Allowing Karl Rogue to become a de factoParty Boss. Looking the other way or acquiescing to the K-Street Project and to the Abramoff scandal. Lying about WMDs in Iraq to start a war and in Iran to create the danger of an even nastier war.

Good cause exists for genuine conservatives to distance themselves from this corrupt, despotic, dishonest, devious, and incompetent administration. They will get a new chance to re-establish what the word "conservative" means in 409 days, when it can no longer be tied so intimately with Ge4orge Worthless Bush.

So, are you saying the liberal is now the slug and the conservative who put on the liberal hat is viewed as the lion? What would your opinion be of Webb, if Webb were to flip on his old Republican hat?

That has yet to happen. Senator Webb has more political leverage as a Democrat than he could possibly have as a Republican -- at least until 2009.

But that said, we may be seeing the demise of the Republican Party in the sense that people in the 1810's saw the demise of the Federalists and the 1850's saw the demise of the Whigs. The GOP will likely to continue to win elections in which the candidate has something legitimate to offer that makes party affiliation irrelevant. That means those who won their political office last century (which will be a declining number) and those who win as a protest against incompetence or extremism among Democrats.

It is only 330 days until Election Day, 2008. To avoid further decline, the GOP must re-invent itself. If it fails to reinvent itself within ten years it will die as the party of corruption and, dictatorship. Conservatives will continue to win elections where the local political culture and interests are conservative -- but they will do so as Democrats for the first few years as the Republican Party dies. In short, the real action will be in the Primaries.

As for the word "slug" referring to human low-life -- I will save that word in politics for those who betray the principles on which our political system was founded. Like Karl Rogue.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You and I got along just fine until I pointed out that the Bush-bashing was getting old.

We haven't really gotten along since before the 2004 election.

Then, all of a sudden, I was linked with the "enemy," and people started attacking me personally. For a while, I felt a need to defend myself, but eventually I thought, fuck it, these people aren't listening anyway, might as well forget it.

As I saw it, you were adopting many of the stereotypes that the Bush supporters were using to describe liberals. Do you honestly believe those stereotypes, or are you just jerking people around for the hell of it?

If you don't buy it, and you'd rather keep looking for my "agenda," go right ahead. But I promise you it will be like tilting at windmills.

Right now I'm just looking for an honest answer.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Guess what, I don't have an agenda. I'm apolitical, as you have said yourself.

So is Justin '77. In spades.

But he gave you some feedback on a liberal-bashing comment you made a few days ago, and you blew him off.

On some level I think Justin gives a shit. I can't say with much certainty that you do.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Not inconsistent with the idea of "natural law" at all, whether the drop in fertility was intentional, or due to other factors (poor nutrition, illness, etc.)

There is no evidence that it was do to poor nutrition or illness. It is true that stature decreased in the first decades of the 19th century, but it then recovered and went higher in the late 19th and first half of the 20th century.

If fertility is not something that can be regulated easily, how can the age at first marriage be high, the incidence of out-of-wedlock births be simultaneously low (as was the case in the first third of the 20th century) and stature be rising (indicating improved nutrition) all at the same time?

The only explanation for this state of affairs is that woman simply were not having children when very young and most fertile. There were apparently ways to do this which did not require modern forms of birth control.

Indeed, studies of the demographic transition (which has happened in other countries more recently than it happened in the West) shows that the best predictor for population-average fertility is the average education level of women. It would seem that as women's options to do productive things besides having children increase, women have fewer children, presumably because they are doing these other things.

This idea not only fits the facts, but it makes sense too.

It explains why poorer/less educated women tend to have larger families than wealthier/better educated woman.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Are you really this stupid?

If you read down the thread you quoted, you'll see that I did respond to Justin's comment.

Yeah. You blew him off (as I saw it). You wanted to read a partisan agenda into that dispute, and you wanted to use more inflammatory language than you really needed to. That's the difference I see.

He and I agree almost completely on ethical issues, and I seem to remember a "liberal-bashing" comment that he made one time where you completely misinterpreted what he had written.

That certainly may have occurred. In that case, I feel comfortable asking him for clarification because I know he'll take me seriously.

If you somehow see a vast difference, it is probably coming from somewhere within yourself.

Would that make it invalid?

I'll invite others to chime in as they might. FWIW.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I'll invite others to chime in as they might. FWIW.

I don't see he who carpents crickets as apolitical at all. He seems a-national and even anti-statist. These are not indifferentist stances by any means. There are politics practiced in every schoolyard and place of manufacture.

He may tend toward a Taoist ideal, but, the Children of Men tug at him from every side and from bottom and top on a daily basis by way of politics. He has escaped our primaries and our general election, but he still contemns them from afar. This as political as an affection for King Numbers or the hatred of the Electors exhibited by other T4Ters.

I think he would like to enlarge the understanding of terms such as government, the state, the nation, the voluntary association, the relationship of power in their myriad ways. Whether such expansion is inclusively Liberal or varietally Conservative or a different beast altogether, it is yet a political animal.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Sorry about the "stupid" comment.

Okay.

I'm just amazed sometimes when you completely miss things that are staring you right in the face. Justin's comment that you misinterpreted before was about "magical thinking," and you right away assumed that he was talking about me, when actually he was talking about Obama.

Was that back when we were talking about Obama and his statements about Pakistan?

The "magical thinking" phrase didn't sit well with me, because I interpreted that as "wishful thinking." That's not something that rational adults do. And Justin was addressing rational adults at the time. I wish he could have found a better term.

Well, maybe he'll find his way here and we can talk about it some more.

Y'all should be proud of yourselves anyway -- as far as politics go, I've been less interested in primary silly season than I ever have before. The problems in our system go so deep that I just can't get excited about the superficialities of the candidates.

It's strictly issues and process for me right now, not personality.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

I don't see he who carpents crickets as apolitical at all. He seems a-national and even anti-statist. These are not indifferentist stances by any means. There are politics practiced in every schoolyard and place of manufacture.

He may tend toward a Taoist ideal, but, the Children of Men tug at him from every side and from bottom and top on a daily basis by way of politics. He has escaped our primaries and our general election, but he still contemns them from afar. This as political as an affection for King Numbers or the hatred of the Electors exhibited by other T4Ters.

I think he would like to enlarge the understanding of terms such as government, the state, the nation, the voluntary association, the relationship of power in their myriad ways. Whether such expansion is inclusively Liberal or varietally Conservative or a different beast altogether, it is yet a political animal.

Thank you.

I believe you've explained why I enjoy conversing with him.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Thank you, Mr. Saari, for reminding us all that there is a lot more to politics than "liberal vs. conservative," and that refusing to take sides in this artificially dualisitc debate is not at all equivalent to "not giving a shit."

We're still stuck on the issue of what the implications are of a philosophy that believes that "Nature" is eventually going to tire of us humans and make us disappear, like the dinosaurs.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

So is Mustang. I'm beginning to think it's not about politics, but personality.

Indeed. All of us are hard-wired, and find our way to political positions that match our pre-dispositions.

Plus, INTP is the signature group for geekdom. And this *is* the Internet, is it not?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I see Lieberman as an Orthodox Jew first and an American second. He has more in common with the Likkud Party than he ever did with the Dems. Israel is Lieberman's defining issue. He will gladly sell his soul on anything else, if Israel is kept safe and supplied with all the waepons it needs ... and left to her own devices, of course.

I think the word you are looking for is "traitor". Jonathan Pollard, the illegal transfer of nuclear materials to Izzyland are examples.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

...He has escaped our primaries and our general election, but he still condemns them from afar. This as political as an affection for King Numbers or the hatred of the Electors exhibited by other T4Ters.

Curse you!!!

Originally Posted by Kiff

The "magical thinking" phrase didn't sit well with me, because I interpreted that as "wishful thinking." That's not something that rational adults do. And Justin was addressing rational adults at the time. I wish he could have found a better term.

Sort of surprising. Depending on the level of bar you set for 'rational' (and Spock-as-minimum is pretty unreasonable, afaiac), it seems fair to me to say that many mostly-rational adults engage in magical thinking.

I base this opinion on my many encounter with adults who I am disinclined to label irrational. It is ultimately, however, a matter of taste, and nothing else. If someone else chose to state that magical thinking was categorically something that rational adults did not do, and that therefore rational adults were vanishingly few and far between, that would be an equally appropriate way to go.

---------------

Continuing my asides, the mad-busy has kicked into high gear. Friday my guys laid in the first frame pieces for what will be the first truck off our line. From perhaps twenty seconds after that point (that is, after however long we spent looking at the two C-rails laying on their fixture and thinking, "cool", and turned to find the first of the pieces that would actually put them together) it has been nonstop chaos. We worked through Saturday as well, and as of the end of today, have succeeded in finishing (almost) the first, and easiest part of an seven-part (plus six sub-assemblies) process.
Actually -- and I make a point to keep reminding myself of this as I and most of the rest of the crew dig through pallets of boxes of small parts -- this is pretty much to be expected, and so far it's honestly going pretty well. Parts management (and over 2000 different kinds of parts go into what we're doing, and we received enough in shipments all at once to make twenty-four trucks; round numbers, 1 million pieces) is always the first, second, third, and most constantly ongoing headache of manufacture. The fact that, after a day and a half of mostly-fruitless digging and steadily-increasing chaos and disorder, the Russian minds have finally been convinced to give up their self-made ideas for how this should be done and start just doing what I tell them we need to do hints that the wasted time has all been worthwhile.
We very well may have something driveable (with another six right behind it, and then so on) in the third week of December. Between now and the I'll be lucky to get to T4T another three times...

Originally Posted by The Rani

Thank you, Mr. Saari, for reminding us all that there is a lot more to politics than "liberal vs. conservative," and that refusing to take sides in this artificially dualisitc debate is not at all equivalent to "not giving a shit."

Thank you, Rani. This may be the first time i've witnessed an honest respose from you about anything.

(of couse i'm just an INTP; a habitual analyzer who nevertheless, somehow is lousy at interpreting others intentions or motivations.)

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

We're still stuck on the issue of what the implications are of a philosophy that believes that "Nature" is eventually going to tire of us humans and make us disappear, like the dinosaurs.

Don't worry, Kiff...the nihilism is only a philosophy of convienence. It's an escape clause that is employed in order to never have to take sides, or explain one's decisions or opinions.

If the chips were down, i bet Rani would still 'have your back' and mine.

whoops, i probably just horribly misread her (again)

In preindustrial Europe, the nuclear family was common, premarital sex was high, and the number of illegitimate births was low. The reason? Traditional community controls in the peasant villages. If you had premarital sex, you had to marry the woman you got pregnant. Otherwise, the local lord, the clergy, the village elders, and your family would do....something.

Conservatives are friendly to the environment. Divorce has just been proven to have a negative effect on the environment. God gave us dominion over the Earth. So we have certain responsibilities towards the Earth, just like monarchs have certain responsibilities towards their realms and their subjects.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I base this opinion on my many encounter with adults who I am disinclined to label irrational. It is ultimately, however, a matter of taste, and nothing else. If someone else chose to state that magical thinking was categorically something that rational adults did not do, and that therefore rational adults were vanishingly few and far between, that would be an equally appropriate way to go.

Rational people under stress can certainly revert to pre-rational thinking (that's actually the term I was trying to come up with earlier). Consistent coolness under pressure is a relatively rare trait, as you point out.

I am trying to get at something beyond rationality. It's not magic, it's just something deeper than enlightened self-interest.

We very well may have something driveable (with another six right behind it, and then so on) in the third week of December. Between now and the I'll be lucky to get to T4T another three times...

Understood, and thanks for dropping in.

Originally Posted by 13rian

Don't worry, Kiff...the nihilism is only a philosophy of convienence. It's an escape clause that is employed in order to never have to take sides, or explain one's decisions or opinions.

If the chips were down, i bet Rani would still 'have your back' and mine.

I can always hope -- and frankly, I've been through so much crap this year that it would be nice to bury the hatchet.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, I think I heard this somewhere before. Women who spend their time at college and/or working have less time to raise families.

But to be able to do this women need to be able to control their fertility--something you implied was not feasible without effective birth control, at least for most people. You compared it to refraining from overeating, which is a poor analogy.

Yet the evidence is that controlling fertility was indeed possible and indeed commonly practiced in the pre-1960 era.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, I think I heard this somewhere before. Women who spend their time at college and/or working have less time to raise families.

Of course. It's a basic fact. To have a gigantic progeny a girl (at 15 or younger, she is still a child, so it's not a male-chauvinist term in this context) must start early -- very early. That's possible where girls have few roles outside of farm labor, domestic work, and spousehood. That corresponds to those cultures in which education is lowest, especially for girls.

Twenty children? Barring multiple births, that's almost one child a year for twenty years. That's pushing things -- but by age 35 her health might give out for reasons other than having had too many children, particularly in countries in which education is least -- for example, atrocious access to healthcare... like ten physicians for a population of a million... and perhaps poor nutrition. So she starts popping out children at age 15 and has 20 children by age 44. That's one child every 1.5 years. (I have done genealogical research -- I have seen it on Census reports!) Children are seen as future farm workers or bread-winners (the latter if the parents are physical wrecks from hard labor and long hours in the early-industrial world).

Suppose that a high school education is a norm, and males prefer that their wives be somewhat educated. As a rule she stays in school until age 18... which means that she has 'given up' three years of fertility, or two children. But she also finds more in life than having children because of models of female behavior that aren't having two children every three years. Children better spaced are more likely to survived -- and more education means higher taxes to support it. It also means better opportunities... and children become greater financial burdens.

So it's one child every four years, so that reduces the maximum brood to ten. But -- she's also more likely to say no to the later ones. In her 26 years of active fertility she can have as many as seven... still high.

If she goes to college and gets a BA degree before she gets the MRS degree, then her active fertility is reduced to about 22 years. She's likely to get a job that uses her education to some extent -- even if it is as a clerical worker (in view of the diminishing returns on education in America). Children get more expensive. Educated people tend to be more indulgent and perfectionistic with their children... with sundry and costly enrichments (music lessons, clothes, travel, organizational activities, sporting goods, toys, books, records, video, cable TV)...

Guess what happens if she gets an advanced degree? A masters' ordinarily takes at least two, and a PhD at least four.

So if she is twenty-eight when she finishes her schooling and he internship, look at what she has done with her years of potential fertility? She may not have wasted them; she has put them to some other use. Perhaps she has stationed herself in life so that she does more nurturing of children or promoting their learning than she could do as the mother of a large family.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

To have a gigantic progeny a girl (at 15 or younger, she is still a child, so it's not a male-chauvinist term in this context) must start early -- very early. That's possible where girls have few roles outside of farm labor, domestic work, and spousehood.

Have you actually researched this? My understanding is that having children at 15 or younger was less common than it is today, except, perhaps, for Medieval nobility.

Twenty children? Barring multiple births, that's almost one child a year for twenty years. That's pushing things --

It certainly is. How many women have 20+ children? Very few. Mostly those who have remained healthy (and fertile) up to their mid-40's and/or who tend to have twins. Also if children don't survive and so are not nursed it certainly possible to have more than one pregnancy in a single year. Do you have some of the genealogical record in your files? At what age did the women start having kids and how old were they when they finished?

So she starts popping out children at age 15 and has 20 children by age 44. That's one child every 1.5 years. (I have done genealogical research -- I have seen it on Census reports!) Children are seen as future farm workers or bread-winners (the latter if the parents are physical wrecks from hard labor and long hours in the early-industrial world).

Demographic data I have seen suggests that teen pregnancies were not common in recent centuries before the 20th. Most mothers started to have children well into their 20's, long after menarche.

This post contains some of what I complain about posts by the Rani and Justin. It is not an unthinking post. Rather it reflects a lack of knowledge much as do Justin's and the Rani's posts about climate change and how science works.