REPORT: On Over-population

[webmaster]

Six people just survived the sinking of an ocean vessel. They are afloat in a lifeboat with only enough water for five. On board are a doctor, a carpenter, a nurse, a blind elderly woman, a sailor, and a counselor.

Millions of public school students given this scenario are then asked, "Who should be thrown overboard?" Environmentalists designed this exercise to teach public students to solve problems by "eliminating" excess people.

Jacques Cousteau said, "to stabilize the world population we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say," he admitted, "but it's just as bad not to say it." This Hitlerian sentiment, published in UNESCO Courier in November 1991, is not rare among envirochondriacs.

Britain's Prince Philip, president of the Worldwide Fund for Nature, is quoted by The New American's Robert Lee, Sept. 5, 1994 saying that he would like to be reincarnated as a "killer virus to lower human population levels." Prince HIVlip, perhaps?

How does anyone know there is only enough water for five? Utterly discredited, yet an authority to liberals, is Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich, who has apparently not had a single prediction come true. America, he declared: would have widespread food rationing by the late 70s, would be "literally dying of thirst" by 1984, and would have 65 million famine deaths in the 80s.

Jack Fish, Brighton, Colorado public school teacher, school board member and local columnist insisted on KGOV.com's Bob Enyart Live that the reason for Somalia's famine was their over-population:
Enyart: What is Somalia's population?
Fish: I'm not sure.
Enyart: I'm not asking for an exact number, just to the nearest million.
Fish: I don't know.
Enyart: Well, then, if they are over populated, what is their population density per square mile?
Fish: I don't know.
Somalia's density is 29 people per square mile according to The 1994 World Almanac.
Apocalyptic doomsayers, these enviro-chondriacs flatly invent their facts. Somalia is under-populated, which often does produce famine. Compare Somalia's population density to countries in Western Europe. As a rule of thumb, countries with greater population density have higher standards of living, literacy rates, and life expectancies.

The following numbers indicate the people per square mile for:
Nice Places ------Density-------Lousy Places--------------Density
Austria ----------243-------------Angola--------------------18
Belgium ----------848-------------Bolivi--------------------17
Denmark ----------310-------------Botswana-------------------5
England ----------613-------------Ctrl. Afr. Rep.-----------12
France ----------259-------------Chad----------------------10
Germany ----------583-------------Congo---------------------17
Ireland ----------129-------------Laos----------------------48
Israel ----------605-------------Liberia-------------------64
Italy ----------497-------------Libya----------------------6
Japan ----------830-------------Mozambique----------------50
Luxembourg -------400-------------Namibia--------------------4
Netherlands ------958-------------Niger---------------------16
Poland ----------317-------------Panama--------------------84
Rhode Is.---------848-------------Paraguay------------------31
Spain ------------200-------------Peru----------------------45
Switzerland ------428-------------Russia--------------------22
Athens -------30,237-------------Sudan---------------------29
Boston --------8,172-------------Somalia-------------------29
Paris -------20,185-------------Uruguay-------------------45
Rome -------43,949-------------Venezuela-----------------58
San Fran.-------9,315-------------Zaire---------------------43
Sydney -------10,460-------------Zambia--------------------30
Toronto -------20,420-------------Zimbabwe------------------73

Countries with lower population densities generally have lower standards of living. Notice the scarcity of human beings in the poor nations. Whereas some of the most beautiful places on earth, and certainly the most prosperous and desirable, have tremendously dense populations. Naples, Italy has 48,032 people per square mile and Madrid, Spain has 68,385 ppsm!

In the Far East, Japan, at 830 people per square mile, has a much higher standard of living than countries liberals argue are over-populated such as China, at 315 and India at 700. Taiwan has one of the highest standards of living in the East, with 1,503 people per square mile, with five times the density as those of much lower prosperity on the mainland.

People are assets, not liabilities. Socialists and communists, however, since they must provide for so many helpless dependents, see people as consumers, rather than the producers most are. A few hundred years ago, famine was rampant in North America. Today, with a nearly thousand-fold increase in population, we not only feed ourselves but much of the left-wing world.

If the world's five-billion-plus people went to Colorado for a day, they could fit easily into one speck on the map of Colorado, the 404 square miles of Rocky Mountain National Park. They would not have to squeeze together like sardines, but could stand comfortably. The world's population would double before spilling over into the nearest town.
The sky is falling only in the chicken little minds of the over-population purveyor. Rather than a full house or a crowded lifeboat, an orbiting alien would view our world as nearly empty, as airline passengers can attest.

Paul Ehrlich publicly bet a conservative economist that during the 1980s, natural resources would grow more scarce. Ehrlich choose five minerals to monitor. In 1990, losing the bet, Ehrlich made his wife sign the check, which amounted to over $500. The resources he was sure would become more scarce and therefore more expensive, in reality sold at reduced prices due to their greater availability world-wide.

Even the end-of-the-world prophets admit there is no global food shortage. Famine, like that in the former Soviet Union and in Somalia, results from false ideas, harmful religions and interventionist governments, not from too many people.

The Agricultural Economic Institute at Oxford University has estimated that, with current technology, the world could feed 100 billion people, while it is home to less than one-tenth that number, according to Robert Lee. Rapid progress in agri- and aqua-culture make it impossible to determine the upper limit of our future food supply.

Who do you throw overboard? The sailor, the doctor, the nurse? "No, the old woman is already sick," countless students have decided, "it's her time to go anyway." Planned Parenthood's founder and longtime president Margaret Sanger wrote that the handicapped, including the "blind, deaf, dumb, mute and epileptics," were the "dead weight of human waste." See her Pivot of Civilization, page 112, available through most public libraries.

With that anti-handicapped attitude from Planned Parenthood's founder, it is not surprising that they support killing handicapped unborn children, since they are only "human waste." It is not surprising that Planned Parenthood still gives out awards in Sanger's name.

When people decide that others are better off dead "for their own sake," it is not a far jump to Jacques Cousteau saying they are better off "eliminated" for the good of all. Whatever happened to one-for-all and all-for-one?

Historically, the over-population myth encouraged the brutal slaughter of the French Revolution. Greek philosophers feared the overcrowding of their ancient world. And even further back in time, the Babylonian and Assyrian accounts of the great flood held that, "the gods led by Enlil, agreed to cleanse the earth of an over-populated humanity."

Those who want ultimate control over others have long wielded the over-population myth. Yet 2,800 years ago wise Solomon knew that, "In the multitude of people is the king's honor, but in the lack of people is the destruction of the prince" (Proverbs 14:28).

by Bob Enyart

[webmaster]

A special thanks to Bob for allowing us to post some of his writings!

[Nineveh]

Thank you for posting this webmaster :) and thanks to Mr. Enyart for writing it!

~*~*"we must eliminate 350,000 people per day"*~*~

:shiver:

[webmaster]

Originally posted by Nineveh
Thank you for posting this webmaster :) and thanks to Mr. Enyart for writing it!

~*~*"we must eliminate 350,000 people per day"*~*~

:shiver: And what is the preferred way of eliminating unwanted people??? click here (http://www.theologyonline.com/photopost/index.php?photo=46)

[Zakath]

Of course there's always Enyart's Shadowgov's preferred way... The Shadowgov way... (http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/international/ap_saudi01012002.htm) ;)

[Nathon Detroit]

Zakath, are you saying you wouldn't want these slimeballs beheaded?????

Did you read the story?The three men ``committed acts of sodomy, married each other, seduced young men and attacked those who rebuked them,'' the statement said.If the men were seducing my children I would sure be the first in line to help with the beheading!

[Zakath]

These particular men? Probably, not knowing the specifics of the case (like the ages of the "young men" - are we talking 15?, 21?, 25?) I think the punishment could be reasonable, but not for the reasons Rev. Enyart would.

While the webmaster was pointing out abortion as an indiscriminate way of reducing the population, I was making a point that the author of the article he cites (Enyart) has his own favored means of population reduction, executing homosexuals. IIRC, the Rev. Enyart describes this view in his novel. In addition, his disciples have stated this many times on this board in the past.

To clarify, I believe that child abusers should be executed no matter what their sexual orientation. Enyart's judges would order the execution of these men because they were homosexual fornicators even if they had not abused children.

[Nathon Detroit]

Zakath states… These particular men? Probably, not knowing the specifics of the case (like the ages of the "young men" - are we talking 15?, 21?, 25?) I think the punishment could be reasonable, but not for the reasons Rev. Enyart would.So, your reasons for authorizing the executions are more “right” than Bob’s?

And what do you base that on?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Nathon Detroit
Zakath states…So, your reasons for authorizing the executions are more “right” than Bob’s?You're trying to put words in my mouth, Nathon. It's not a question of relative rightness, I believe that Rev. Enyart's desire to kill homosexuals because of their sexual orientation is wrong.

BTW, we spent weeks going around about this last fall. Didn't you learn anything then?

And what do you base that on? Because an individual's sexual orientation is not a currently capital crime in the US. In current practice, virtually all capital punishment in the US is reserved for for murderers. In most jurisdictions, sexual orientation is not a crime since it does not possess the two elements essential to a crime: an overt act (actus reus) and criminal intent (mens rea).

The sharia law in the Muslim countries has a different set of rules and I am not all that familiar with their logic behind capital punishment.

[Nathon Detroit]

Zakath states…. You're trying to put words in my mouth, Nathon. It's not a question of relative rightness, I believe that Rev. Enyart's desire to kill homosexuals because of their sexual orientation is wrong. OK, so you believe that Enyarts view that homosexuality is a capital crime is wrong. What do you base that belief on, and why should others agree with you?

You continue… BTW, we spent weeks going around about this last fall. Didn't you learn anything then? I am glad you remember! And I did learn something….. Zakath has a bankrupt worldview!

You continue… Because an individual's sexual orientation is not a currently capital crime in the US. In current practice, virtually all capital punishment in the US is reserved for for murderers. In most jurisdictions, sexual orientation is not a crime since it does not possess the two elements essential to a crime: an overt act (actus reus) and criminal intent (mens rea). But there was a time in this country when homosexuality was a crime, therefore by your logic there was a time when you would have agreed that homosexuality SHOULD be a criminal.

Furthermore…. There are many places still today in where homosexuality IS a capital crime. Are those countries WRONG for having laws that state homosexuality is a capital crime?

[Projill]

OK, so you believe that Enyarts view that homosexuality is a capital crime is wrong. What do you base that belief on, and why should others agree with you?

Because it's ridiculous. Because it's unenlightened. Because it would involve the slaughter of not only myself but also the majority of my friends. Pretty good reasons in my mind. But then I have a bankrupt world view.

I am glad you remember! And I did learn something….. Zakath has a bankrupt worldview!

And you have yet to establish that claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Why didn't you do that last year?

But there was a time in this country when homosexuality was a crime, therefore by your logic there was a time when you would have agreed that homosexuality SHOULD be a criminal.

I have a feeling that if Zak had lived back then he wouldn't have agreed with the law. But I might be wrong. I would have been an abolitionist when it came to that law. Kinda like slavery abolitionists in their "wrong" world view felt about slavery.

Furthermore…. There are many places still today in where homosexuality IS a capital crime. Are those countries WRONG for having laws that state homosexuality is a capital crime?

Yes.

[beanieboy]

Pink Triagles. Hologaust. Gassing. The execution of homosexuals.

That was a good idea? We should be commending Hitler?

[Projill]

Originally posted by beanieboy
Pink Triagles. Hologaust. Gassing. The execution of homosexuals.

That was a good idea? We should be commending Hitler?

No because Hitler was "wrong" and what he did was "evil". Enyart's different because he's "right" and "Godly" TM. :rolleyes:

[Zarathustra]

"OK, so you believe that Enyarts view that homosexuality is a capital crime is wrong. What do you base that belief on, and why should others agree with you?"

Because the basis of freedom is that a person should be able to be left alone to do as they please unless they are harming someone else. Unfortunately, Enyart and his three or four faithful listeners/devotees have never bothered to think through the basis of rights. That's probably because they were all educated in small relegious schools that never taught them how to think critically.

[Nineveh]

Zar, why can't my freedom reserve the right not to have other people's sexuality "in my face"?

"Because the basis of freedom is that a person should be able to be left alone to do as they please unless they are harming someone else."

"Since 1984, in response to the AIDS epidemic, sex establishments in San Francisco have operated under strict guidelines that ban private rooms and require the presence of a monitor to ensure safe sex practices." http://www.actupsf.com/articles_letters/bathhouse/070299.htm

As of the end of the December 2000, 774,467 AIDS cases in the USA had been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)..

Of these,


82% were men,
17% were women
and 1% were children less than 13 years of age;

43% were in whites,
38% in blacks,
18% in Hispanics,
<1% in Asians and Pacific Islanders,
and <1% in American Indians and Alaska Natives;

46% were in men who have sex with men (MSM),
25% in injecting drug users,
11% in persons infected heterosexually, and 1% in persons infected through blood or blood products.

http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm

The biggest catagories here are men who commit sodomy and men who use injected drugs. It appears both are harmful behaviors. To themselves, and others. According to your statement, Zar, shouldn't this be prohibited behavior in a free society?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Nathon Detroit
….But there was a time in this country when homosexuality was a crime, therefore by your logic there was a time when you would have agreed that homosexuality SHOULD be a criminal.First, to my knowledge, homosexuality (the sexual orientation) was never a crime either federally or locally. Sodomy (certain types of sexual activity) was a crime. ;)

OK, so you believe that Enyarts view that homosexuality is a capital crime is wrong. What do you base that belief on, and why should others agree with you? His view is against the law in the country he chooses to live in. If he doesn't like it here, maybe he should go live in a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Furthermore…. There are many places still today in where homosexuality IS a capital crime. Are those countries WRONG for having laws that state homosexuality is a capital crime? [/B]

Let's restate your argument a bit, Nathon. Furthermore... there are many places today where trying to convert people to Christianity is a capital crime. Are those countries WRONG for having laws that state that trying to convert their citizens to what they consider to be a pagan religion is a capital crime?

[Pilgrimagain]

"Millions of highschool students are given this test."

Says who? Which schools? Is this a real statistic or is it another enyart "illustration?"

Pilgrim

[Zakath]

Perhaps "illusion" would be a more accurate term than "illustration". ;)

[Zarathustra]

Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
"Millions of highschool students are given this test."

Says who? Which schools? Is this a real statistic or is it another enyart "illustration?"

Pilgrim

Yeah I was wondering the same thing.

[Zarathustra]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nineveh
Zar, why can't my freedom reserve the right not to have other people's sexuality "in my face"?


It does. If someone sticks their pillypacker in your face, that's against the law. the problem with right wing wackos is that you think if a gay guy lives on the other side of your city, he's putting it in your face.


The biggest catagories here are men who commit sodomy and men who use injected drugs. It appears both are harmful behaviors. To themselves, and others. According to your statement, Zar, shouldn't this be prohibited behavior in a free society?

No. Ninevah are trying to say you've never committed sodomy?

[Mr. Ben]

Jacques Cousteau said, "to stabilize the world population we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say," he admitted, "but it's just as bad not to say it." This Hitlerian sentiment, published in UNESCO Courier in November 1991, is not rare among envirochondriacs.

So you are proposing that Jacques Cousteau suggested that we kill 350,000 people a day?

How does anyone know there is only enough water for five? Utterly discredited, yet an authority to liberals, is Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich, who has apparently not had a single prediction come true. America, he declared: would have widespread food rationing by the late 70s, would be "literally dying of thirst" by 1984, and would have 65 million famine deaths in the 80s.

Yes, but we all remember what happened to the little boy who cried wolf? A wolf finally did in fact appear.

Jack Fish, Brighton, Colorado public school teacher, school board member and local columnist insisted on KGOV.com's Bob Enyart Live that the reason for Somalia's famine was their over-population:
Enyart: What is Somalia's population?
Fish: I'm not sure.
Enyart: I'm not asking for an exact number, just to the nearest million.
Fish: I don't know.
Enyart: Well, then, if they are over populated, what is their population density per square mile?
Fish: I don't know.
Somalia's density is 29 people per square mile according to The 1994 World Almanac.

Apocalyptic doomsayers, these enviro-chondriacs flatly invent their facts. Somalia is under-populated, which often does produce famine. Compare Somalia's population density to countries in Western Europe. As a rule of thumb, countries with greater population density have higher standards of living, literacy rates, and life expectancies.

Somalia is a DESERT. Shouldn't that perhaps be factored into these statistics somehow. Isn't it odd that those countries that have the highest populations, and the highest standards of living, are also in temperate zones with adequate rainfall suitable for large scale agriculture. Funny how that works out.

The following numbers indicate the people per square mile for:
Nice Places ------Density-------Lousy Places--------------Density
Austria ----------243-------------Angola--------------------18
Belgium ----------848-------------Bolivi--------------------17
Denmark ----------310-------------Botswana-------------------5
England ----------613-------------Ctrl. Afr. Rep.-----------12
France ----------259-------------Chad----------------------10
Germany ----------583-------------Congo---------------------17
Ireland ----------129-------------Laos----------------------48
Israel ----------605-------------Liberia-------------------64
Italy ----------497-------------Libya----------------------6
Japan ----------830-------------Mozambique----------------50
Luxembourg -------400-------------Namibia--------------------4
Netherlands ------958-------------Niger---------------------16
Poland ----------317-------------Panama--------------------84
Rhode Is.---------848-------------Paraguay------------------31
Spain ------------200-------------Peru----------------------45
Switzerland ------428-------------Russia--------------------22
Athens -------30,237-------------Sudan---------------------29
Boston --------8,172-------------Somalia-------------------29
Paris -------20,185-------------Uruguay-------------------45
Rome -------43,949-------------Venezuela-----------------58
San Fran.-------9,315-------------Zaire---------------------43
Sydney -------10,460-------------Zambia--------------------30
Toronto -------20,420-------------Zimbabwe------------------73

Odd how the nice places are almost universally temperate, and the nasty places are almost universally desert, tundra, and rainforest. Hmmm..

Countries with lower population densities generally have lower standards of living. Notice the scarcity of human beings in the poor nations. Whereas some of the most beautiful places on earth, and certainly the most prosperous and desirable, have tremendously dense populations. Naples, Italy has 48,032 people per square mile and Madrid, Spain has 68,385 ppsm!

Enter the term 'carrying capacity'. Oddly enough, this is different for different climates. Whereas some of the more temperate climates (the beautiful places) on earth also happen to be quite amenable to providing the food necessary to sustain their larger populations, other locations do not. With technology, we can improve the carrying capacity of any climate (as we do in the U.S.), but it costs money, and requires technical skill, organization, and political will. Naturally these are also in short supply in areas of the planet where food and other resources are also scarce. Thus the U.S. is replete with an embarassment of riches, while the rest of the world struggles to put together the technical and political institutions to deal with their overburdened and overpopulated deserts.

In the Far East, Japan, at 830 people per square mile, has a much higher standard of living than countries liberals argue are over-populated such as China, at 315 and India at 700. Taiwan has one of the highest standards of living in the East, with 1,503 people per square mile, with five times the density as those of much lower prosperity on the mainland.

Both also have regular rainfall and quite extensive farming. The carrying capacities of these areas is 'not' infinite however, no matter how large they seem to be.

People are assets, not liabilities. Socialists and communists, however, since they must provide for so many helpless dependents, see people as consumers, rather than the producers most are. A few hundred years ago, famine was rampant in North America. Today, with a nearly thousand-fold increase in population, we not only feed ourselves but much of the left-wing world.

Famine was rampant in North America? When?

If the world's five-billion-plus people went to Colorado for a day, they could fit easily into one speck on the map of Colorado, the 404 square miles of Rocky Mountain National Park. They would not have to squeeze together like sardines, but could stand comfortably. The world's population would double before spilling over into the nearest town.
The sky is falling only in the chicken little minds of the over-population purveyor. Rather than a full house or a crowded lifeboat, an orbiting alien would view our world as nearly empty, as airline passengers can attest.

The question is not, "how many more people can we pack on this planet", because the answer to that is probably ten to fifty times the number we have right now. The question is, when you visit the local national forest, do you want it overcrowded with thousands of campers? How much of the existing forest and wildlands do you want to convert to food production? How many different species are enough, and how many should be allowed to quietly go extinct? And how many poor basket case starving surly anti-american hives of terrorism do we really want in the world.

Paul Ehrlich publicly bet a conservative economist that during the 1980s, natural resources would grow more scarce. Ehrlich choose five minerals to monitor. In 1990, losing the bet, Ehrlich made his wife sign the check, which amounted to over $500. The resources he was sure would become more scarce and therefore more expensive, in reality sold at reduced prices due to their greater availability world-wide.

What goes up must come down. There are resources which are underutilize (most of them I suspect even now), those which are utilized at parity, and those which are overutilized. Non-renewable resources such as oil, coal, and natural gas must someday 'run-out'. Even uranium which is used to fuel nuclear reactors will eventually be too costly to mine efficiently. Renewable resources such as refined metals, food, and others will never 'run-out', but become more expensive to recycle as they are utilized by more individuals.

What Ehrlich ignored, and what Enyart seems just and incorrectly to put unquestioned faith in, is our ability to use technology to more efficiently discover and utilize resources. The ability of technology to increase available resources and stretch the ones we have follows the law of diminishing returns. Eventually, some time in the future, additional investments in technology will not be justified by the efficiency they return. When this will be is quite unpredictable, as Ehrlich found to his lasting and well deserved humiliation, but again, this too is as ineluctable as the depletion of non-renewable resources.

Even the end-of-the-world prophets admit there is no global food shortage. Famine, like that in the former Soviet Union and in Somalia, results from false ideas, harmful religions and interventionist governments, not from too many people.

This is certainly true, but running it close to the bone on carrying capacity makes every little bit of political instability, drought, or famine a major disaster. But who wants to live a marginal lifestyl anyway. The best plan is to decide exactly how we want to live, and wisely keep within the limits that would allow us to live that way for a long period of time.

There is one point which I agree with Bob on, people are assets, and there are many benefits to having large numbers of people in cities and towns, contrary to what the tree-huggers may say. But it is wise to remember that somewhere out there there are in fact limits, and it is foolish to assume that they do not exist.

The Agricultural Economic Institute at Oxford University has estimated that, with current technology, the world could feed 100 billion people, while it is home to less than one-tenth that number, according to Robert Lee. Rapid progress in agri- and aqua-culture make it impossible to determine the upper limit of our future food supply.

But who would want to live in that world, I wonder?

Who do you throw overboard? The sailor, the doctor, the nurse? "No, the old woman is already sick," countless students have decided, "it's her time to go anyway." Planned Parenthood's founder and longtime president Margaret Sanger wrote that the handicapped, including the "blind, deaf, dumb, mute and epileptics," were the "dead weight of human waste." See her Pivot of Civilization, page 112, available through most public libraries.

Margaret Sanger wrote many things, but a good idea, like living within ones means, is a good idea no matter what one person one time said or did that has nothing to do with the idea.

With that anti-handicapped attitude from Planned Parenthood's founder, it is not surprising that they support killing handicapped unborn children, since they are only "human waste." It is not surprising that Planned Parenthood still gives out awards in Sanger's name.

When people decide that others are better off dead "for their own sake," it is not a far jump to Jacques Cousteau saying they are better off "eliminated" for the good of all. Whatever happened to one-for-all and all-for-one?

Historically, the over-population myth encouraged the brutal slaughter of the French Revolution. Greek philosophers feared the overcrowding of their ancient world. And even further back in time, the Babylonian and Assyrian accounts of the great flood held that, "the gods led by Enlil, agreed to cleanse the earth of an over-populated humanity."

I very much doubt these claims. However, the violence that comes from religious intolerance, conspiracy mongering and the other evils of society are pretty well understood.

Those who want ultimate control over others have long wielded the over-population myth. Yet 2,800 years ago wise Solomon knew that, "In the multitude of people is the king's honor, but in the lack of people is the destruction of the prince" (Proverbs 14:28).

And thus, Bob ends his missive with both thinly veiled conspiratorial innuendo, and a righteous call to arms.

[Mr. Ben]

About the ambient topic of this thread:

Answer: The price of freedom is... freedom.

[Nineveh]

Zar, the city's largest park is a block from my home. The liberals in their infinite wisdom to curb public indecency of this sort took the stall doors off of the lil boy's restrooms. In my face? I don't take my kid to bath houses so we can avoid this stuff, now I can't take my kid to the public park. I guess my right, and my kids right, and the rest of the people in this town's right not to be exposed to public indecency of this kind is not valid. Homosexuals seem to have more of a right to be disgusting in the public park than my kid has a right to play there without being exposed to sex and/or sexual perversion.

Zar, you said freedom had to do with not/hurting other people. The stats show sodomy and drug use to be the biggest reasons for the new AIDS cases in 2000. I suspect you meant to say, "freedom is the right to hurt others if they want me too."

As for that test, people have been talking about it for years. Much like it was implied I was a liar about CA's curriculum on Islam, I wonder how easy it would be to turn up the info on this test with a google search? I guess it's easy enough to just say it doesn't exist.

Ben, without personal responsability there can be no freedom.

[Zakath]

Eloquent and though-provoking post, Ben. :)

[Pilgrimagain]

As for that test, people have been talking about it for years. Much like it was implied I was a liar about CA's curriculum on Islam, I wonder how easy it would be to turn up the info on this test with a google search? I guess it's easy enough to just say it doesn't exist.

Since you support the statement that the test not only exists but is given to "millions" of highschool students can you show us that this is true. I am sure that particular question exists, infact I have seen something very close to it in certain board games and that book called "Ultimate Questions." But that is a far cry from it being an accepted curriculum for millions of students.

Peace,
Pilgrim

PS or as you say, it might just be easier to simply assert it is true than prove it.

[Nineveh]

You know what? I made the statement over in another thread about the Islam curriculum, so I felt compelled to do the home work to back it up. You don't believe Bob Enyart, so give him a call tonight. If you don't know the number, I guess I could look that up for you :)

[Pilgrimagain]

Well as someone said on another thread...this is a board for debate and so a person should be able to back up a claim and provide souces for assertions and quotes.

I suppose the responsability does not lie with you particularly Ninevah but at least Mr. Enyart should be forthcomming. I must reiterate, in forensics (sp?) or the institution of debate, the responsability for providing source material rests on the person who presents the argument, not the person refuting it.

Simpy put, if one can not offer a source, then the illustration, statistic etc. should not be used otherwise you are simply stating your opinion and are not infact presenting an argument, well a cogent argument anyway. I was called on this myself in these forums and immediately withdrew the example because I could not find the appropriate citation even though I knew that it existed.

Peace,
Pilgrim

PS.

[Zarathustra]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nineveh
Zar, the city's largest park is a block from my home. The liberals in their infinite wisdom to curb public indecency of this sort took the stall doors off of the lil boy's restrooms.

How do you know they were liberals?

In my face? I don't take my kid to bath houses so we can avoid this stuff, now I can't take my kid to the public park.

What does this have to do with homosexuals?

I guess my right, and my kids right, and the rest of the people in this town's right not to be exposed to public indecency of this kind is not valid.

Oh so it's not against the law in your town? Interesting.

Homosexuals seem to have more of a right to be disgusting in the public park than my kid has a right to play there without being exposed to sex and/or sexual perversion.

Could you quote me the penal code that says this?

Zar, you said freedom had to do with not/hurting other people. The stats show sodomy and drug use to be the biggest reasons for the new AIDS cases in 2000. I suspect you meant to say, "freedom is the right to hurt others if they want me too."

No you have the right to hurt yourself all you want. At least you should be able to. We don't in this country because it's run by a bunch of Puritans.

As for that test, people have been talking about it for years. Much like it was implied I was a liar about CA's curriculum on Islam, I wonder how easy it would be to turn up the info on this test with a google search? I guess it's easy enough to just say it doesn't exist.

Aren't you the one who also insists the liberal media is covering up a proven link between abortion and breast cancer? Forgive me for not trusting your sources

You didn't answer my question. Are you really trying to claim you've never committed sodomy?

[Zarathustra]

Originally posted by Nineveh
You know what? I made the statement over in another thread about the Islam curriculum, so I felt compelled to do the home work to back it up. You don't believe Bob Enyart, so give him a call tonight. If you don't know the number, I guess I could look that up for you :)

This is how Bob gets his followers to get the phones lit up. I guess this settles it. Ninevah believes the great Bob-O, so it must be true.

[Zarathustra]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
Well as someone said on another thread...this is a board for debate and so a person should be able to back up a claim and provide souces for assertions and quotes.

She's provided all the source she needs. Bob said it. She believes it.

I suppose the responsability does not lie with you particularly Ninevah but at least Mr. Enyart should be forthcomming.

Especially since he started the thread. Of course he's not going to debate anyone in a forum where he doesn't control the censor button.

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by webmaster
Six people just survived the sinking of an ocean vessel. They are afloat in a lifeboat with only enough water for five. On board are a doctor, a carpenter, a nurse, a blind elderly woman, a sailor, and a counselor.

Millions of public school students given this scenario are then asked, "Who should be thrown overboard?" Environmentalists designed this exercise to teach public students to solve problems by "eliminating" excess people.

by Bob Enyart

Let me get this straight.
Environmentalists teach public school kids how to solve problems by eliminating people?

And what do private schools teach? To just pick the homosexual?

If a public school were to actually use this scenario, I am guessing it is to teach kids that the person that they think is the most expendable, may actually be the most useful, and in trying to eliminate one, they realize the value of all.

But then again, I went to publik skool.

[beanieboy]

How exactly would one go about enforcing the illegalization of homosexuality? Put up cameras in everyone's house? I mean, who knows if Mr. and Mrs. Jones aren't closeted homosexuals. No one would be above suspicion.

There's another doubleplus good idea. We could call it "sex crime."

[Pilgrimagain]

Hey cameras! Yeah...we could have live webcasts from everyones bedrooms everynight just to make sure proper missionary work was going on! Think of all the converts!

peace,
Pilgrim

[Nineveh]

I remember reading about the test questions a few years ago. If you feel so strongly Bob is a liar, and you don't call him on it, there is nothing I can do about it.

The reason I ignored your question the first time was because I think it is highly inappropriate to ask a married woman to talk about sex in a public Christian forum. Why did you even ask? What role does my marriage play in 82% of new AIDS cases being male in 2000? What other activities of my intimate married life would refute 46% of the new AIDS cases in 2000 were male/male sodomy related? How would answering your chatroomesque question negate 25% of the new AIDS cases in 2000 being attributed to intravenous drug use? You are right, I don't understand your logic.

Zar, the reason you don't believe me is not for lack of evidence. If you want to call me a liar, please don't beat around the bush. Point it out to me. I like to know when I am in error, so I can rectify it. I recall the court case was in France where the relation between breast cancer and abortion is or was being waged.

[Pilgrimagain]

I am not at all saying that Bob is a liar...I am just saying that if you post something as fact that is not verafiable you may be overstepping a bit.

there is something you can do about it. You represent his argument on this as your own which means you also must beleive this curiculm to be wide spread. You must have a reason for believing this. If it is simply because Bob said so then that is one thing. It won't carry much wait however. But if you really believe it is as wide spread as it is then you must be able to point to somewhere I can see it. And again, since this is you point to make, it is your responsability to do the foot work, not mine. And you are right, if you can't give citations then it will be very easy for me or anybody to simply treat it as if it is not fact. Indeed it would not only be easy, it would be appropriate. That's the rules of cogent debate. Sorry.

By the way...just a personal aside...I too believe that todays environmentalists tend to be a bit alarmist. But then again, maybe they need to be.

Peace,
Pilgrim

[Zarathustra]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nineveh
The reason I ignored your question the first time was because I think it is highly inappropriate to ask a married woman to talk about sex in a public Christian forum. Why did you even ask? ]/b]

Because you claim that sodomy should be against the law. Or is it just homosexual sodomy you have a problem with? You brought up the sex issue. You're the one who seems a obsessed with it.

[b]What role does my marriage play in 82% of new AIDS cases being male in 2000? What other activities of my intimate married life would refute 46% of the new AIDS cases in 2000 were male/male sodomy related? How would answering your chatroomesque question negate 25% of the new AIDS cases in 2000 being attributed to intravenous drug use? You are right, I don't understand your logic.

Because sodomy is sodomy no matter whether it's hetreosexual or homosexual. AIDS is increased through anal sex because of the tearing factor which would apply to both men and women. It is increased through oral sex because of cancer sores and other things sores that occur in the mouth so it isn't homosexuality that you're facts support but non-vaginal sex.

Zar, the reason you don't believe me is not for lack of evidence. If you want to call me a liar, please don't beat around the bush.

Naive and foolish would be better terms.

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Zakath
Eloquent and though-provoking post, Ben. :) Eloquent and though-provoking post, Bob/webmaster. ;)

[Nathon Detroit]

Beinie writes… How exactly would one go about enforcing the illegalization of homosexuality? Put up cameras in everyone's house? Ya know I have heard others say this exact statement regarding several topics. I really think its a lame argument. When something is illegal does that mean the authorities necessarily go looking for it? Do we put camera’s in people’s houses looking for murderers or pedophiles???? Yet in houses is where the majority of these types of crimes happen. Along with dozens of other types of lessor crimes.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Nathon Detroit
Eloquent and though-provoking post, Bob/webmaster. ;)
Aww, c'mon Nathon. The least you could have done to honor your hero was come up with an original complement instead of recyling text from this poor, dumb atheist. ;)

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Nathon Detroit
... Do we put camera’s in people’s houses looking for murderers or pedophiles???? Yet in houses is where the majority of these types of crimes happen. Along with dozens of other types of lessor crimes.Don't forget churches! Many incidents of pedophilia occur in churches.

[Jaltus]

Zak,

What kind of churches and can you use statistics to back it up?

Remember, many cases that happen in churches are given the "air time" on TV, but that does not mean the rate is higher or even comparable to tohter institutions (no, I don't have one in mind, just making a point).

[Nineveh]

Zar, 46% were in men who have sex with men (MSM), 25% in injecting drug users. I dunno how much more clear it can be.

Ok, so I'm naive and foolish, but lacking the evidence, I'm not a liar.

Pilgrimagain,
I didn't call Bob a liar, you did. Well, in your own beat-around-the-bush-non-offensive way. I read the article about 5+ years ago, in what could have been one or more of several publications I was reading at the time. I tend to think it was about IPS in Indiana, and the gripe from parents was enough to make it stop. I could be wrong on the reference, though. No, I didn't put it in a "in case I get called a liar" file. I didn't write the story citing the info, so I didn't think it worth filing anywhere but in my mental "oh gee, another pullik skool folly" file. You don't have to believe me. No one said you did. You can call me a liar on this, but I don't care enough about it to stare at hours of microfiche at the library to exhonorate myself. Beanieboy called me on a nurse's testimony, I provided the link to the federal hearings. Someone else called me on the Islamic curriculum in California, so I provided the links to various sources. So far I have tried to present the truth with references. But like I said, if it bothers you this badly that you think I should pour over hours of materials from years ago for a reference to a story I didn't write, I got better things to do. It would be easier to settle the matter if you just emailed Bob at kgov@aol.com, you can even tell him not to read it on the air so he won't get any publicity or whatever zar thinks he would get, but you will get your reference or absolute proof Bob is lying.

[Pilgrimagain]

What kind of churches and can you use statistics to back it up?

Well just for starters the people in Boston are in an uproar right now over the Catholic churches seeming reluctance to remove a known pedofile from youth ministry positions in the diocese. Here in Detroit there is an on going investigation into allegations of a family of ministers at a local free church. I hear of this stuff all the time. I would be interested to see statistics though to see how prevalent it is.

Peace,
Pilgrim

[Pilgrimagain]

Ok, I emailed Bob to do your foot work for you...let's see what happens.

Peace,
Pilgrim

[Nathon Detroit]

Zakath says… Aww, c'mon Nathon. The least you could have done to honor your hero was come up with an original complement instead of recyling text from this poor, dumb atheist. I just had to get in on some of that “back patting”.

You continue… Don't forget churches! Many incidents of pedophilia occur in churches.Good point, and don’t you think those pedophiles should be executed?

[Nineveh]

: Laughing : See? I got KGov's address wrong !!

KGOVLive@aol.com

Next time, check out your own facts. Please note my bottom signature. Good luck :) Let us know what you find out?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Zak,

What kind of churches and can you use statistics to back it up?

Remember, many cases that happen in churches are given the "air time" on TV, but that does not mean the rate is higher or even comparable to tohter institutions (no, I don't have one in mind, just making a point). My use of "many" was referring to precisely those cases that get air time and, based on personal experience in the ministry, a significant number of others that are swept under the rug. The pedophilia and abuse problem is so bad for the Anglicans that one diocese in Canada was forced to the brink of bankruptcy due to lawsuits. (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59293-2001Dec5)

My point in bringing churches into the discussion is that folks like our Enyartians tend to gloss over or ignore completely the grievous sins of the Christian clergy while vigorously and vocally condemning the non-Christian laity.

There's plenty of blame to go around. Sexual dysfunction is a universal human condition.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Nathon Detroit
Good point, and don’t you think those pedophiles should be executed?After proper trial and conviction, yes.

[Mr. Ben]

Ninevah,

Ben, without personal responsability there can be no freedom.

Freedom is a double edged sword. If you're a student of history, you are probably aware that liberal democracies or republics and open societies haven't had a great deal of longevity throughout the ages.

The dynamism of the United States, and its position in the world I think can be directly attributed to the level of personal freedom and free expression it encourages in its citizens. Unfortunately, if you are going to profit from the benefits of freedom, you're also going to have to accept it's bad points.

Specifically, when you encourage free expression and differing views, you are going to find that there will be folks who disagree with you. Not only that, but some of these folks, by any measure, will be wrong headed and engage in behavior or promote views that you believe to be (and may indeed actually be) wrong. However, in these cases you must ask yourself, is it worth it to attempt to compel these individuals to tow the line, or will my attempts to force these individuals to behave in a way acceptable to you will both fail to convert them to my way of thinking and at the same time decrease the positive benefits of free expression for everyone.

Amost everyone in a diverse society such as we live in probably feels that there are large groups of people who, if they had their way, they would compel to behave differently. Christians, liberals, fundamentalists moslems, atheists, etc. If we were to allow any of these groups to compel any of the others to conform in their personal and private lives or public attitudes to another groups rules, we wouldn't really have freedom.

The Taliban, with it's shariah, imposed a monochromatic intellectually, economically, and even spiritually bankrupt system on their entire country. Do you really think it was worth the torture, the destruction of personal liberty, and creativity and industry of the Afghan people to ensure that adulterers were given the proper public executions Islam demands.

[Nineveh]

Ben,

I've dragged this thread way off topic as it is. If you are asking me if the taliban is good, no. But I don't think going deeper into how I believe the lack of personal responsability will be the downfall of our nation would be a good idea on this thread :)

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Nathon Detroit
Beinie writes…Ya know I have heard others say this exact statement regarding several topics. I really think its a lame argument. When something is illegal does that mean the authorities necessarily go looking for it? Do we put camera’s in people’s houses looking for murderers or pedophiles???? Yet in houses is where the majority of these types of crimes happen. Along with dozens of other types of lessor crimes.

MINE is a lame argument?

Cain kills Abel - in his house. The police won't be looking into this? That as long as Cain minds his own business, he will easily get away with murder?

Now, Adam and Steve live together, and never seem to have girlfriends, and seem to like each other a lot, as well as a fabulous garden, and only 1 bedroom. You are suggesting that the police should - what? The same thing they would do with someone who is murdered? Present them with a search warrant to see if the adults are engaging in consensual sex? Spend countless man hours watching their every move, or doing stake outs in front of their house? "1 Adam 12, we have a neighbor reporting suspicion of sexual activity between two men at a residence on Rice Street." "We'll be right there!" Neeeener neeeener.

Whew. And the world was safe once again.

My argument is not lame. I want to know how they would enforce it. They aren't going to turn each other in. So how do you proprose illegalizing consensual sex between two adults in the privacy of your own home? What, other than Big Brother, would work? Word of mouth? Have you read the Crucible?

You need hard evidence to convict people of crimes. I want to know how one would go about collecting that evidence.

I would also like to know why. If we argue AIDS, then we have to look at the fact that it can be spread through heterosexual sex. Does that mean we should illegalize all sex?

That is should be illegal is lame. There is nothing to support how it harms another that can't equally be said of heterosexuals. That it upsets you is not "harm," any more than making being athiest should be illegal because it makes you uncomfortable. Comparing homosexuality - sex between two consenting adults - to murder - one killing another against their will - or pedophilia - an adult engaging in sex with a child through trickery, threat, and manipulation - is lame.

Then again, most of us understand the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia.

[KurtPh]

I remember when first listened to Mr. Enyart agrgue that overpopulation was not a problem. It was in, I think, August of 1998 when he responded to a caller who wished to discuss the issue of overpopulation. What follows is my response to his analysis (much of which can be found in the report posted). Now, keep in mind, I was much younger, so my rhetorical skills are not quite as keen as they are now ;).


I was listening to your programme Friday night when the subject of overpopulation came up. You contend that overpopulation is a myth. I do not agree with you. There are a number of points which I want to discuss. Since an emotional appeal will likely fall upon deaf ears, and I will be categorised as a "stupid liberal", I will try instead to appeal to your sense of logic.

I would first like to state that you were not completely honest with your young caller when you used the example of Israel in dismissing overpopulation. He stated that Somalia, while not overpopulated in the sense that people could not move, was overpopulated in the sense that there were more people than could be supported by the land. You countered him by stating that Israel, also once barren, was made to bloom through the hard work of its citizens. You are correct that respect; it is a credit to the Israeli people that they were able to make the land productive once more. However you did leave out one critical reason why Israel was able to make the desert bloom while the Somalis could not, and at this moment can not, do the same. The people of Israel have benefited from a great deal of economic support from the United States and Europe. Such support is not afforded to Somalia, which only receives support in emergency food aid. Israel is also much wealthier than Somalia. The GNP of Somalia per capita is $131 US 1n 1993 while that of Israel is $13 920. When one has the money, it is not as difficult to alter one's environment so that it might support a larger population. Perhaps if Somalia received the same economic aid, then their GNP would rise to a level that they to could follow the example of Israel, but this aid is not forth coming. You might wish to mention that you left out that important piece of information out when you discussed overpopulation on Friday's programme.

You are also correct in stating that much of the debate about overpopulation has had racist undertones, at least in the past. There may even still be an element of that racism still among us; I've listened to racist radio programmes which describe the people of developing countries as a "tumour" which needs to be cut out in order for the "white race" to thrive. With speech such as that, it is no wonder people such as yourself and those in the developing nations are suspicious of those advocating a decline in births. Most of the current thoughts on the subject see overpopulation as a symptom of a larger problem, poverty. In many developing nations, families are large because children act as primary wage earners. Many children are needed so that a family can be supported. Another problem is the high infant mortality rate. Women have more children because they know many will die before their second birthday from diseases that have all but disappeared in the west. Finally, the status of women plays an important part in how many children will be born to a family. In developing countries, poor women have no access to education, marry sooner, and, thus, begin having children sooner.

Rather than addressing over population as the problem, we must begin to look at the real problem of poverty. A number of things should, in fact must, be done in order to right this problem. The west which has often exploited the developing nations to enrich themselves, must in the form of economic aid (with no strings attached) assist the developing nations to attain a higher standard of living. One thing that also can be done is to look at the status of women. By providing access to education (which often raises the marriage age) and access to family planning (which I know that you do not agree with), women will have fewer children. Fertility also decreases when women work and receive wages outside the home. With greater affluence, children will have less of a role in the labour market. Finally, the availability of pensions allows elder citizens to live without relying on children for support (thus, they have fewer children).

I doubt that you will agree with me. I only hope you will not dismiss what I said without first giving it some thought. Perhaps the problem of over population could best be shown through a true story. Easter Island was once covered by trees and had few other resources when it was first colonised. Indigenous to the Island were a few insect, two types of lizards, a few sea fish, and no mammals. The colonisers brought with them chickens, rats, and sweet potatoes (likely yams). The climate was to severe to grow most of the food they were used to, but the potatoes grew well and, along with the chickens, were their main diet. At first, only 20-50 people colonised the island. The population increased due to natural increase and some immigration which occurred for a few hundred years. The basic unit was the extended family which eventually formed into lineages and clans. They revered their ancestors, and the clan chiefs organised spiritual sites where the large Moui (statues) were erected on Ahu (alters) to venerate important ancestors. Eventually, 300 Ahu were created, holding between 1 and 12 Moui each. At one time, Easter Island could have been considered to be the most advanced Polynesian society. However, the way the people moved their statues provide clues as to why their society collapsed. By 1550, the population of the island acheived a maximum of 7000 people, but it soon began to decline. In order for the statues to be moved to their sites, the people cut down trees to act as rollers (the people provided the energy). As the island became less forested, the soil started to become degraded through erosion and salt water. Crop yields began to decrease. At this point, clan competition increased. More statues were built, more trees cut down, more soil degradation occurred. Though the soil would not support potatoes as it once did, the chickens were unaffected and became the primary food on the island. Rival clans would try to steal each other’s chickens, resulting in warfare. Finally, the last tree must have been cut. The people could not build their statues, could not build or heat their homes. Nor could they build boats to leave the island. They were, for better or worse, trapped on the island. Perhaps because of anger or as part of the clan warfare which was occurring, the statues were toppled. The population declined, the foundation of society shattered. Clan warfare increased for scarce resources. Slavery became common and there is evidence that cannibalism took place. Europeans in the 1700s saw a few toppled statues; all were toppled by the 1800s. The population was finally and definitively decimated by European disease and their enslavement. Today, there are only a handful of islanders who can trace their origin back to those people who created the greatest Polynesian civilisation, then destroyed it.

The moral of this tale is that, like Easter Island, the Earth is also an island, but on a larger scale. Though seemingly limitless, the resources of Earth are also finite. And like those on Easter Island, the Earth is the only home we have.


Any comments? I think that Ben deals with the issue of carrying capacity, but I have yet to see any response to it, as such.

[Pilgrimagain]

Mr. Enyart replyed to my email today in regards to which highschools are teaching this curriculum.

Mr. Enyart was not able to spend the time researching specific highschools. He told me that his assumption of "Millions" came from his own experience and conversations with people over the years. He recalled that he himself had this question posed to him back in the sixties and that over the years several people confirmed to him in personal conversation that they had much the same thing.

I suppose I can respect his assumptions as he was not in formal debate. I would still be interested to know if those assumptions can be supported with hard facts.

Peace,
Pilgrim

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
[B]Mr. Enyart replyed to my email today in regards to which highschools are teaching this curriculum.

Mr. Enyart was not able to spend the time researching specific highschools.
Translation: He hasn't the faintest idea which schools use this and which don't.
He told me that his assumption of "Millions" came from his own experience and conversations with people over the years.Anecdotal evidence is very, very subjective. Bob's only in his early forties. Since, according to his website, he became a Christian in 1973, how many hundreds (thousands?) of people do you suppose Bob has discussed this topic with over the last 29 years?

He recalled that he himself had this question posed to him back in the sixties and that over the years several people confirmed to him in personal conversation that they had much the same thing.Since, according to his website, he was born in 1959, Bob wouldn't have even been in gradeschool until 1965. So "in the sixties" comprised first through fifth grades for him. That's a pretty darn good memory. In addition, I'd like to see how he extrapolates conversations with "several people" into "millions" of students. :rolleyes:

I suppose I can respect his assumptions as he was not in formal debate. Good for you, Pilgrim. To me it sounds like typical media puffery.

I would still be interested to know if those assumptions can be supported with hard facts.So would many of us. But, as you found out, "hard facts" do not seem to be St. Bob the Broadcaster's strong point. :rolleyes:

[Pilgrimagain]

He recalled that he himself had this question posed to him back in the sixties and that over the years several people confirmed to him in personal conversation that they had much the same thing.

I feel I need to correct myself....Mr. Enyart did not say "high"school in his reply. He simply said "school."

Oh yea, Zak, I am in agreement with your last post...I was just trying to practice a little more civility than I have in the past on that last post.

Peace,
Pilgrim

[firechyld]

I thought this might interest some, although it doesn't really push the argument either way.

It does, however, give you a sense of perspective about the issue.

Clicky for world Population clock (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/clock.html). Little window pops up. Watch the numbers tick. :)

firechyld

[KurtPh]

We went over the issue of over-population a number of times on these forums. The last time, a poster by the moniker of KZ tried to take me to task for stating that there was a problem with overpopulation. You wouldn't believe the things he came up with. For example, he tried to make the claim that the Earth could support between 100 and 500 billion people. I really miss him. He made things really entertaining for a while.

[firechyld]

Oh come on.... No-one has anything to say about the clock? Look at the clock, people!

firechyld (fan of the clock)

[Pilgrimagain]

Funny thing about that clock...it's number is always getting bigger...there is no indication that people are dying as well.

Peace,
Pilgrim

[Zakath]

The Census ticker is all guesswork based on mathematical constructs (growth models). No one has yet produced an accurate count of the earth's human population.

(Pilgrim, if you already know the rest, please forgive me for being needlessly didactic. - Z :))

Why does it only go up?
The graphic display has been set to show net change only, not individual births and deaths.

So, as long as the birth rate outstrips the death rate, the ticker goes up. If the death rate increases and gets closer to the birth rate, the ticker will still go up, but at a slower rate. The same thing will occur if the birth rate decreases.

Only when the death rate exceeds the birth rate will the ticker go down.

[firechyld]

*nods*

Exactly. If you watch it, you'll see that it occasionally pauses before climbing to the next number. The algorithm takes into account the statistical world death rate... this is estimated growth after the births cancelled out by the deaths have been removed from the equation.

firechyld (still backing the clock)

[KurtPh]

Upwards and onwards...

Much to the detriment of our planet, I'm afraid.

[firechyld]

The clock had me speechless when I first saw it. I just sat there, gazing in awe and something akin to fear, watching the little numbers tick up so quickly....

firechyld

[Knight]

Originally posted by KurtPh
Upwards and onwards...

Much to the detriment of our planet, I'm afraid. I am curious Kurt what steps would you take to stop that clock?

[KurtPh]

I bet you want to me to say abortion and birth control, right?

Well, yes, but only if it isn't compelled.

There are a number of ways that the birth rate can be slowed down and, perhaps, made to decline to a more sustainable level without releying on abortion or artificial birth control methods. You might even agree with a few of 'em.

1. Better access to health care to limit child mortality rates (one will have fewer children if one is certain they will live past the age of 2 years old).

2. Access to education and the labour market for women. Women who have higher levels of education and are working often marry later in life and, thus, tend to have fewer children.

3. Access to pensions and a more equitible distribution of wealth. This could be as simple as western nations paying fair market prices for consumer goods and staples (your coffee might be a bit more expensive). One wouldn't need to have children to work as primary wage earners in poor families.

These are just a few recommendations that I would impliment if I were king of the world. Currious to know if you agree with any of them, or at least in part?

[KurtPh]

Could I surmise that your failure to respond means that you agree with me? Boy, that would be a first. :D

[Projill]

I'm ready to break open the bubbly. :D

[KurtPh]

I Am the Champion!
I Am the Champion!
I Am the Champion....
Of the World!!!!
(Or at leas this particular thread ;) )

Still waiting....

[Projill]

*prepares the party favors* :D

[KurtPh]

Hail to the Chief, baby!
:D

[firechyld]

*hands out novelty hats*

It can't be a party without novelty hats. :)

firechyld

[Knight]

Kurt says...These are just a few recommendations that I would impliment if I were king of the world. Currious to know if you agree with any of them, or at least in part?Hmmmm nope. No agreement here. Sorry!

[KurtPh]

Originally posted by Knight
Kurt says...Hmmmm nope. No agreement here. Sorry!

Aw, come on, ND/Knight. I'm certain you have reasons. Why not share 'em?

[Projill]

That reminds me, I have to go to the booze barn some time tonight and pick up some hootch. (Yes, this is how unrefined some of my friends and I speak on occassion...we are Oklahomans.)

[KurtPh]

Knight? Hello?

[Projill]

Maybe he's sleeeeeping. ;)

[KurtPh]

Hey Lucey? You have some 'splaining to do.

[KurtPh]

Knight? I know you're out there. You don't have ANYTHING to say other than "Hmmmm nope. No agreement here. Sorry!"?

[beanieboy]

You say that like you are expecting a straight answer, or any answer, for that matter.

The point is to complain, and raise your head and scream, "come quickly, lord jesus", not to find solutions to problems, silly. Become heavenly minded, and you won't worry about being no earthly good. Darn kids.

[Projill]

I quite enjoy it when they "forget" about a thread. If I forget about a thread (seeing as how I'm an idiot with a short term memory that would indicate I once did drugs regularly) I encourage people to remind me. You never see a whole lot of xtians on here encouraging others to remind them of their threads.

[KurtPh]

Well, I know I do it as well. Sometimes I forget, other times I simpley don't have time to respond in the detail that's required. Also, as I sometimes am away for a few weeks, posting only sporatically, I do often forget what I was talking about earlier. For example, I have yet to go back to the thread started by Jeff under the moniker Nolies to continue where we left off.

[Projill]

I'd completely forgotten about that thread. NoLies was Jeff? Typical. :rolleyes:

[KurtPh]

Originally posted by Projill
I'd completely forgotten about that thread. NoLies was Jeff? Typical. :rolleyes:

Again, I'm giving him the benifit of the doubt here. This was at a time when he was having problems logging in so he wnt through a few web monikers before being able to return as Jefferson.

[Freak]

Bob did an outstanding job with this issue.