| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 54.1 | | NHASAD::SHERK | I belong! I got circles overme i's | Fri Nov 18 1994 09:36 | 9 |
|
Someday??
The earths human population would be sustainable if cut by a factor
of 10? The number is a wag. Since I hate crowds I'd like to see
it much higher.
Ken
|
| 54.2 | When the pope is a woman | BRUMMY::WILLIAMSM | Born to grep | Fri Nov 18 1994 10:15 | 23 |
| When god chooses a woman as pope we might just be able to get
somewhere.
Actually, the world could sustain a population 100 times higher than it
has now. There are vast tracts of land with nothing on, how many
people could live in your house? Just look at all those wastefull
national parks, forests, golf courses, get them under cultivation. Ban
meat production (especially cattle) and hay presto, its easy. You
got it, so all these new people are alive. But what sort of life?
Would it be worth it? - Personally I doubt it, however no form of
population control can be forced on a population, it has to want it.
Its down to educating people with the options. Afterall, Italy listens
very carefully to what the pope has to say but doesn't have the
massive population growth experienced in the southern hemisphere
catholic countries.
R. Michael - Already chastising himself for these wicked
generalisations.
|
| 54.3 | | GMT1::TEEKEMA | Class Clown & Box Jester...%^) | Fri Nov 18 1994 10:35 | 11 |
|
RE .2 Boy, and I thought I was a radical.......%^(
I don't agree that the earth can sustain in the long term
more people than we have today.
The de-forrestation, polution etc.... will do us in
if we don't stop. I don't think it is a space issue rather
a resource and polution issue.
Can I help chastize you.......??
|
| 54.4 | Why live at all? | BRUMMY::WILLIAMSM | Born to grep | Fri Nov 18 1994 10:54 | 20 |
| Its a quality of life question methinks. What is life for? Some
suggestions seem to be:
There isn't one (gets my vote.)
Make babies and fight for every ecological slot available (Darwinists?)
The greater glory of my God (radical/conservative god heads)
The greater glory of god (liberal/soft god heads)
Watch television (my daughter)
To take control of as much of the available resourses as possible (most
of the right wing neo_thingies lurking in this notes conference.)
Copulate (The bus queue, just down from where I live when ther pubs
have shut.)
something else. (someone else.)
So, why are we here is the first question? I standy the idea that
hugely more numbers of people can be supported if it was the global
will to do it. Alas, if it was the global will we could do many things
but those neo_thingies will try and stop us.
more later, Mike.
|
| 54.5 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Fri Nov 18 1994 12:47 | 16 |
| re: .0
Wars will take care of the excess...always has. In the past, there
were fewer people inhabiting the earth than today, but technology has
paved the way to wipe out the additional people without much of a
problem.
If one pays attention to Revelation (of Jesus Christ), then you may see
the signs being fulfilled before your eyes for a future conflict that
will render the population problem (if one really existed) moot.
If one looks at the nuclear proliferation in countries not supposed to
have nukes, the time bomb of Russia, and the tension in the middle
east, you may see a prelude for WWIII.
-steve (alarmist, and damn proud of it) 8^)
|
| 54.7 | | GMT1::TEEKEMA | Class Clown & Box Jester...%^) | Fri Nov 18 1994 13:03 | 2 |
|
Too late for me...........%^)
|
| 54.8 | Whose revelation again? | BRUMMY::WILLIAMSM | Born to grep | Fri Nov 18 1994 14:10 | 6 |
| Yep, eventually the population will fall, some form of "predation" will
occur. Humanity is not immune to extinction it would just be very very
difficult.
R. mike
|
| 54.9 | | MKOTS3::SCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Nov 18 1994 14:17 | 6 |
| re: .5
So, rather than control the population by peaceful and intelligent
means, you'd rather wait until, disease, famine or war wiped them out?
How humane of you.
|
| 54.10 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Fri Nov 18 1994 15:40 | 3 |
| re: .9
You got that from my apocalyptic note? Sigh.
|
| 54.11 | | AIMHI::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Fri Nov 18 1994 16:48 | 6 |
| Arm the populas! Arm criminals, children,women, even the pope. And one
day a year, all dress in black, with black hoods. And go hunting each
other. Thus it cures the population program, cures the fact that not
enough guns are in the populas's hands, and cures the current
economical slump. Manufacturing of small arms and bullets! What a
deal!:) Who says were not radical?
|
| 54.12 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Less government, stupid! | Fri Nov 18 1994 16:51 | 6 |
|
Wow!!! Deja Vu!!! Didn't some guy named Teekma come screaming into the
box not too long ago with the very same sort of suggestion???
|
| 54.13 | | GMT1::TEEKEMA | Class Clown & Box Jester...%^) | Mon Nov 21 1994 09:04 | 4 |
|
Yeah, hey, that was my idea.............!!!!!!
So I guess it wasn't too far fetched after all ehhhhhh ??
|
| 54.14 | | KAOFS::B_VANVALKENB | | Tue Nov 22 1994 12:16 | 20 |
| population tend to follow standard of living. Although which is cause
and which effect I don't know.
Try to increase the standard of living in third world countries by
offering a formal aide program. Make it a requirement of the aide
program that some form of government regulated birth control be
implimented (ex forced sterilization after x children).
OR
Stop the UN and US from getting involved in everyone elses disputes
and let the foremention war/famine take its course.
Brian V
(make meat consumption illegal....extremely wastefull process)
NOT
|
| 54.15 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Mon Nov 28 1994 14:06 | 35 |
| > population tend to follow standard of living. Although which is cause
> and which effect I don't know.
Countries where the standard of living is very low and child mortality
high tend to have large families (high birthrates) to provide extra
labor and guarantee at least some progeny surviving to take care of
elders in their dotage. Trends in numerous countries over the last
several centuries clearly document that population rates start to go
down a generation or so after standards of living substantially
improve; several threshholds are recognized, the only one I know
offhand is that when average family income exceeds ~$4500/year then
enough of the population is affluent enough to start purchasing major
consumer goods like refrigerators, washing machines, automobiles, etc.
The income average threshhold where countries start seeing lower
birthrates because raising more mouths and educating them costs more
than their labor provides is higher than that. But the studies have
been done to answer your question: clearly, population effects follow
changes in standards of living, not vice versa; in the developing
world, anyway.
> Try to increase the standard of living in third world countries by
> offering a formal aide program. Make it a requirement of the aide
> program that some form of government regulated birth control be
> implimented (ex forced sterilization after x children).
That was the consistent and bipartisan US policy, and we lead the world
in that stance, from the post-war era until the 80's, when Reagan and
the radical right reversed this policy because of the politics of
abortion in the US. 30+ years of progress were erased in less than a
decade; population pressures are hugely worse in most LDCs as a result.
Clinics shut, trained health care personnel lost to other careers, a
right royal screwup.
DougO
|
| 54.16 | Nothing like a little financial/cultural imperialism, eh? | VMSSG::LYCEUM::CURTIS | Dick "Aristotle" Curtis | Thu Dec 01 1994 11:53 | 5 |
| .14, .15:
How Nice.
Dick
|
| 54.17 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Thu Dec 01 1994 12:19 | 4 |
| imperialism to want to help other countries raise their standards of
living? oh, I feel so dirty.
DougO
|
| 54.18 | You sound like a one worlder | VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK | Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly | Thu Dec 01 1994 12:49 | 8 |
| re: Note 54.17 by SX4GTO::OLSON
> imperialism to want to help other countries raise their standards of
> living? oh, I feel so dirty.
Why don't we focus on OUR citizens & neighbors first? How many folks
eat out of garbage cans in your part of town? If you want to help
the rest of the world, which is a noble idea, do it with your own
resources.
|
| 54.19 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Thu Dec 01 1994 17:42 | 1 |
| doom?
|
| 54.20 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Thu Dec 01 1994 19:38 | 32 |
| > If you want to help the rest of the world, which is a noble idea, do
> it with your own resources.
The way I want to "help other countries raise their standards of
living" is to help them up to our standards of education and
availability of birth control; thus, Dick's crack abut 'cultural
imperialism'. I presume I don't have to argue in this country for the
right of all kids to an education and the right of all people to
effective means of birth control. You may disagree, and think that
there are still pockets of the US where the educational system doesn't
effectively guarantee the children an education, and pockets where
access to effective birth control isn't secure; but I think you'll
probably begrudgingly admit that if I want to spend my time supporting
those efforts in countries that need them far more than here, that I
have a justifiable case for so doing; because for the most part, people
here don't disagree about the needs for those things, just the methods
of accomplishing them.
In terms of your cry to do so with my own resources, well, I think it
is in the interests of the US to help people establish the rights
to proper education and to effective means of birth control - because
with those things, they will be equipped to do the work to raise
themselves. They won't need to come illegaly to this land of
opportunity and swarm our borders and cost our taxpayers millions if
they turn their own countries into land of opportunity as well. So a
US role in helping the developing world in these areas is an investment
I think will pay the US back many times over; so I'll argue for it as a
policy choice. Feel free to argue against the ideas, but try to do it
without spittle forming as you sneer "one-worlder" at me.
DougO
|
| 54.21 | | VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK | Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly | Thu Dec 01 1994 22:21 | 78 |
| re: Note 54.20 by SX4GTO::OLSON
> The way I want to "help other countries raise their standards of
> living" is to help them up to our standards of education and
> availability of birth control; thus, Dick's crack abut 'cultural
Who's going to pay for it?
> imperialism'. I presume I don't have to argue in this country for the
> right of all kids to an education and the right of all people to
> effective means of birth control. You may disagree, and think that
> there are still pockets of the US where the educational system doesn't
> effectively guarantee the children an education, and pockets where
> access to effective birth control isn't secure;
We already have public education, last I looked. That's why I agree to
pay tax on my home. It goes to the town. Now if the kids would show
up, and people would quit shoving their agendas into the program and simply
TEACH kids, maybe we'd get our moneys worth. As for "effective birth
control", don't put it where it don't belong. That's about as economical
as it gets.
> but I think you'll
> probably begrudgingly admit that if I want to spend my time supporting
> those efforts in countries that need them far more than here, that I
> have a justifiable case for so doing; because for the most part, people
> here don't disagree about the needs for those things, just the methods
> of accomplishing them.
I don't begrudgingly admit it, I'll freely admit if you so choose to spend
your time assisting other folks in countries less fortunant than ours
be my guest, go ahead, with your money, or get a corporation to sponsor
you. Totally justifyable. Taking federal tax dollars for in is totally
unconstitutional. I'd love to see someone challenge those programs and
see 'em get dumped.
> In terms of your cry to do so with my own resources, well, I think it
> is in the interests of the US to help people establish the rights
> to proper education and to effective means of birth control - because
> with those things, they will be equipped to do the work to raise
> themselves. They won't need to come illegaly to this land of
> opportunity and swarm our borders and cost our taxpayers millions if
> they turn their own countries into land of opportunity as well. So a
> US role in helping the developing world in these areas is an investment
> I think will pay the US back many times over; so I'll argue for it as a
> policy choice.
Ah, "Our best interest": Rob peter to pay paul. I, along with most everyone
else bust our arss every day to make a living. To raise MY family, and
the fed takes your money and sends it all over the world buying condoms
for kids in Ecudor. As for your "don't come here illegally", Well, we
already have laws that are supposed to prevent that (but they obviously
DON'T work, and they cost us big bux as well). I see no future financial
gain in buying tons of condoms for children in Peru. I DO NOT condone
isolationism. I condone, and EXPECT a LEGAL, clear & logical foreign policy
from our federal government. Building alliances, looking out for our
best interests (oil, unfortunantly, ya... starving kids suffering due to
civil war in Somolia, no, kids screwing like rabbits in Fredonia, no.)
Cruel, but fair. Your argument that our border will be overloaded and
our (imo: illegal federal services) social "safety nets" will be overloaded is
due in part because this country can not properly protect our borders and
because we've made it extremely lucrative to come here (FREE HANDOUTS FOR
SITTING ON YOUR ASS WATCHING ROSEANNE & JERALLDO ALL DAY!!!!).
Who the hell would resist that? This _is_ a land of immigrants. At one
time, folks were willing to come here and bust there arse to get ahead.
Today, it's not that way. Time to fix it, not ship condoms and bribe
money to North Korea.
>Feel free to argue against the ideas, but try to do it
> without spittle forming as you sneer "one-worlder" at me.
I'm sorry, Global Socialist is more appropriate. We need to fix our own
back yard before helping others. Kinda like the drunk who was so
worried about helping his fellow drunks, he didn't have enough strenght
to help himself.
MadMike
|
| 54.22 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Fri Dec 02 1994 11:41 | 26 |
| > Ah, "Our best interest": Rob peter to pay paul. I, along with most
> everyone else bust our arss every day to make a living. To raise MY
> family, and the fed takes your money and sends it all over the world
> buying condoms for kids in Ecudor.
I'd rather the fed take money and spread it around in the effort (which
was *working*, for 30 years, before Reagan trashed it) to teach people
how not to have more kids, than I would we have to send our own kids
off to fight in wars that threaten our vital interests in some
unfortunate corner of the world. We either invest in the stability of
the whole planet, or we send our kids off to die.
> I condone, and EXPECT a LEGAL, clear & logical foreign policy from our
> federal government. Building alliances, looking out for our best
> interests (oil, unfortunantly, ya... starving kids suffering due to
> civil war in Somolia, no, kids screwing like rabbits in Fredonia, no.)
> Cruel, but fair.
Too simple. Half-starved and suffering kids grow up to produce more
kids in poverty and in social systems too crippled to lift themselves
up, destabilizing entire continents and threatening our interests. It
IS logical foreign policy for us to work on global population control.
The border argument is only one of many; avoiding threats from poor
have-nots by helping them turn themselves into haves is the larger one.
DougO
|
| 54.23 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | I'm an orca. | Fri Dec 02 1994 11:49 | 3 |
| So eloquent.
So wrong.
|
| 54.24 | | VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK | Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly | Fri Dec 02 1994 12:31 | 64 |
| re: .22 by DougO
> I'd rather the fed take money and spread it around in the effort (which
"Take fed money and spread it around" is blatant income redistribution.
And wrong.
> was *working*, for 30 years, before Reagan trashed it) to teach people
> how not to have more kids,
I do NOT believe this. To me your "*WORKING*" = Pacify. When you take away
the cookie jar, people naturally will become angry. TOUGH.
> than I would we have to send our own kids
> off to fight in wars that threaten our vital interests in some
> unfortunate corner of the world.
I MAY agree with this phrase, if the rest of your note were true, but it's
not. We can flex military might anywhere in the world to protect our
interests *IF* it is
justifyably so. Take Somalia for example. While I am saddened to see
lots of folks starving there, we have absolutely NOTHING of importance
to gain by helping them, except a warm-&-fuzzy that we "made an effort".
Instead, we see *American* troops being dragged through town. If I were
BillC, I would have flattened that effin place while withdrawing. Actually,
I would have gone home before the carnage started, and stated flatly,
"You know, and I know, that I can kick your ass anytime I want. See ya."
DougO, I think you are a father. I am a father. I would be ABSOLUTELY
RIPSHYTE if I saw my son being dragged through mogidishu (sp?).
> We either invest in the stability of
> the whole planet, or we send our kids off to die.
We are NOT the keepers of the planet. We are the keepers of America.
We actually do piss a lot of people off projecting this global policeman
mentality, and we shouldn't "send our kids off to die" doing it.
If it has to do with our National security, and the CONGRESS agrees to it,
BY CHR**ST WE'RE COMIN' TO TOWN... otherwise, no deal. Look at haiti.
You don't want to drown? Don't set sail. If you do set sail, we'll stop
you and return you. We will (maybe?) educate you in the proper procedure
for entry into this country, but, if you wash up on shore, we'll send you
home.
> Too simple. Half-starved and suffering kids grow up to produce more
> kids in poverty and in social systems too crippled to lift themselves
> up, destabilizing entire continents and threatening our interests. It
That's too bad Doug. If (and it does) occur INSIDE of the USA, we need to
fix it. IMO: it occurs here because we make it too easy to become dependant
upon the system, actually, we make it beneficial. If it happens elsewhere,
well, God Bless America... we musta done something right (in having a
society which works and that maybe others SHOULD follow, but not be forced
or bribed into playing along. After all, Communism fell apart on its own)
> IS logical foreign policy for us to work on global population control.
> The border argument is only one of many; avoiding threats from poor
> have-nots by helping them turn themselves into haves is the larger one.
We can and should be involved in discussion. Someone can present the USA's
opinion in a world forum. But when you start sending money, and dictating
policy and mingling in other peoples business *WE* are out of line and looking
for trouble. I guarantee you we will find it.
MadMike
|
| 54.25 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Fri Dec 02 1994 13:40 | 104 |
| >> was *working*, for 30 years, before Reagan trashed it) to teach people
>> how not to have more kids,
>
> I do NOT believe this. To me your "*WORKING*" = Pacify.
You are merely ignorant of the facts. Check out the history of the
efforts since the end of world war II, lead by the US to help the rest
of the world control population. Numerous developing countries turned
around their soaring birthrates and started the long climb out of
poverty. Those who made it far enough fast enough to continue the
positive trends with sound macroeconomic policies survived the end of
that assistance in the 80's. Many others, who had not, have tumbled
back down the slope; childbirth rates are rising, famines and wars and
droughts and bad governments prolong the instability and threaten our
access to raw materials in numerous places around the globe.
> We can flex military might anywhere in the world to protect our
> interests *IF* it is justifyably so.
Like I said, that is unbelievably costly, in terms of putting American
lives at risk And I'd rather spend the money making it UNNECESSARY.
>> We either invest in the stability of the whole planet, or we
>> send our kids off to die.
>
> We are NOT the keepers of the planet. We are the keepers of America.
> We actually do piss a lot of people off projecting this global
> policeman mentality,
You're the one wants to throw the military weight around. I'd rather
work to preserve our interests in a more constructive way, by investing
in the human capital of those places and building them into our strong
allies and trade partners.
>> up, destabilizing entire continents and threatening our interests.
>
>That's too bad Doug. If (and it does) occur INSIDE of the USA, we
> need to fix it.
Big picture time; we can't defend our interests solely within our own
borders. We are involved with the rest of the world. That
involvement, for mostly economic reasons, has prompted us to intervene
with military force more than 70 times in South and Central America in
just the last century. Your way, to throw military force at it when
security needs dictate, has proven to be too short sighted. We simply
cannot return to splendid isolationism. This was recognized in the
aftermath of WWII, when the western allies joined together in a host of
multinational institutions to cement the relationships between them so
firmly that war would become too risky and too uneconomic to dare. The
GATT, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, the Bretton Woods agreements,
all were intended to provide a framework that the existing developed
heirs to Western Civilization could use to enjoy the benefits of these
growing relationships and which could expand to encompass the ranks of
poorer nations around the globe. And those institutions *have*
functioned in that fashion; the global economy is much more tightly
integrated, numerous nations have finally dragged themselves up out of
endemic poverty, and few nations have dared risk war with the western
democracies in that past fifty years.
> we musta done something right (in having a society which works and
> that maybe others SHOULD follow, but not be forced or bribed into
> playing along. After all, Communism fell apart on its own)
Communism fell apart because in the polarisation of the Cold War, the
strengths of our system were reinforced by the growth of our economic
power in partnership with our allies, while their system couldn't
afford to compete and eventually went bankrupt trying. It fell apart
of its own inherent weaknesses, yes, but only because the free world
became stronger in opposition. Yet the dangers of chaos, bad
macroeconomic policies, and tyranny from powerful states has not ended.
We need to continue to develop the framework of free traders which has
brought low our powerful foes in the past, in order to continue to
resist the dangers of the present and the future.
> We can and should be involved in discussion. Someone can present the
> USA's opinion in a world forum. But when you start sending money, and
> dictating policy and mingling in other peoples business *WE* are out
> of line and looking for trouble. I guarantee you we will find it.
We do not dictate policy. We provide assistance to programs that we
think will work to reinforce our objectives. Other countries look to
us for leadership, and come to us voluntarily, wanting to know how we
have achieved what we have, and how to join in our system. I'll grant
you that the politics of gridlock, the politics of liberal/vs/neocon,
and the confusion of our triumph in the Cold War, have obscured the
necessary dialogue by which the US should be determining its interests
and our best policies to achieve them. I think very little of the
current leadership or their ability to even comprehend the
interrelatedness of the policy requirements; they certainly haven't
done a good job of articulating them for the masses. But at least
they've passed NAFTA and GATT, so there's a glimmer of hope that the
issues are understood. Now, I'd like to see some progress on world
population assistance; and less politicking by such obstructionists as
the Vatican, who apparently couldn't care less about the poverty to
which they condemn millions of people with their policy, or the ensuing
wars and misery which ineviatably follow. The arguments you have
continued to muster against NAFTA, GATT, and population assistance have
been countered time and again; the history of the post-war world, so
starkly drawn, indicates the wisdom of this direction; and the
isolationism you espouse will only end in protectionist trade wars,
economic decline, and eventual shooting wars. We must not come to such
a pass.
DougO
|
| 54.26 | Ooh, education! Kipling had a phrase for it. | VMSSG::LYCEUM::CURTIS | Dick "Aristotle" Curtis | Tue Dec 06 1994 22:48 | 5 |
| Tut, tut.
Looks like some aspects of diversity don't deserve valuing after all.
Dick
|
| 54.27 | but it seems that you do. | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Dec 07 1994 11:37 | 4 |
| "tut, tut" yourself. No, I don't value the poverty and ignorance that
breeds cannon fodder for wars.
DougO
|
| 54.28 | | ODIXIE::CIAROCHI | One Less Dog | Thu Dec 08 1994 15:01 | 9 |
| I haven't read this note either, but I won't let that stop me.
I have the perfect answer. Buy everybody a gun.
If the libs are right, then population control is a moot point.
If the smart, sexy, intelligent, educated, and heroically endowed
individuals are right, then crime will cease to exist. We can spend
the money saved on population control.
|
| 54.29 | Why, it's different, it must be ... | VMSSG::LYCEUM::CURTIS | Dick "Aristotle" Curtis | Fri Dec 09 1994 13:06 | 5 |
| Yup, only some differences are valuable.
Need a hand shouldering that burden?
Dick
|
| 54.30 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Fri Dec 09 1994 15:12 | 4 |
| nah, your type's been wearing morality on the sleeve for far too long,
Dick, its way past time you got outta the way.
DougO
|
| 54.31 | Grow up, eagle scout. | CSC32::J_OPPELT | I'm an orca. | Fri Dec 09 1994 16:00 | 1 |
| What, Doug, more payback in this topic too?
|
| 54.32 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Fri Dec 09 1994 17:18 | 4 |
| Joe, if Dick and I want to exchange pleasantries we need no advice from
you.
DougO
|
| 54.33 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | I'm an orca. | Fri Dec 09 1994 18:11 | 1 |
| It wasn't advice. It was a question. Does the truth hurt?
|
| 54.34 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Fri Dec 09 1994 18:55 | 3 |
| 'grow up' is not a question, in your title.
DougO
|
| 54.35 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | I'm an orca. | Fri Dec 09 1994 19:23 | 1 |
| Good point. Now do it.
|
| 54.36 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Mon Dec 12 1994 11:32 | 3 |
| As I said, we need no advice from the likes of you.
DougO
|
| 54.37 | I guess a short fuse is a side effect of omniscience | LYCEUM::CURTIS | Dick "Aristotle" Curtis | Tue Dec 13 1994 15:55 | 3 |
| Glad to see you know all about me, white man!
Dick
|
| 54.38 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Dec 14 1994 13:41 | 6 |
| The count is now over a dozen since there has been a substantive
response in the string. Dick, if you want to discuss the morals of
cultural imperialism feel free, but your silly little sound bites are
not discussion; they're just noise.
DougO
|
| 54.39 | Habet manifeste? | LYCEUM::CURTIS | Dick "Aristotle" Curtis | Wed Dec 14 1994 17:44 | 10 |
| I think you're confusing this august forum with ::FORUM, and I'm
confusing you with someone interested in a discussion.
I find it quite ironic that what you want to do is precisely what the
19th century minions of Empah used to do. I gather that it's only the
subject matter that makes them wrong and you right.
But do carry on, this country has an image to uphold abroad.
Dick
|
| 54.40 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Dec 14 1994 18:24 | 26 |
| > I find it quite ironic that what you want to do is precisely what the
> 19th century minions of Empah used to do.
What an amusing opinion, now that you've finally consented to share it
with us, after dancing around it for a week. Of course what the 19th
century minions of Empah wanted was control over less advanced (their
definition) cultures, and the ability to exploit same. What I would
like is for poorer countries to improve their standards of living, in
part by lowering their birthrates. Perhaps you're using some bizarre
definition of "precisely" that escapes common usage.
> I gather that it's only the subject matter that makes them wrong and
> you right.
No, its the motive. Mine is based on a classic liberal approach to
securing the greatest good for individuals by increasing the freedom
they have to influence the course of their lives. Philosophically its
an entirely different approach.
> But do carry on, this country has an image to uphold abroad.
Ever the presumptious bumpkin, assuming you've won the game when first
you deign to join it. You'll have to address the issues more that
that, Dick.
DougO
|
| 54.41 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Wed Dec 14 1994 18:52 | 13 |
|
RE: .40
> No, its the motive. Mine is based on a classic liberal approach to
> securing the greatest good for individuals by increasing the
> freedom they have to influence the course of their lives.
> Philosophically its an entirely different approach.
You forgot to add in there somewhere...
"With the governments help..."
|
| 54.42 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Dec 14 1994 19:25 | 13 |
| Private and non-profit groups are actively involved in these efforts,
so no, it isn't just "with the governments help" [sic]. I support the
Global Fund for Women (see http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/ellens/gfw.html)
which funds numerous projects in this area, for example.
However, I believe that US long-term interests are also served by
improving the living standards/reducing the birthrates in LDCs; and
thus I find it appropriate for the US government to take a leadership
position on these issues again, as it did for over thirty years after
WWII, with bipartisan consensus, until the Reagan Administration
reversed the policy.
DougO
|
| 54.43 | I used to think him different, but here's YAUA | LYCEUM::CURTIS | Dick "Aristotle" Curtis | Thu Dec 15 1994 09:33 | 11 |
| .40:
Well then, white man, shoulder that burden and get out there and teach
those poor benighted folk what's best for them! What are you waiting
for? After all, you *know* that (a) I'm assuming I've "won the game",
that (b) I've just joined it (hey, nobody's ever discussed this sort of
thing in previous 'Boxes), (c) I "deigned" to join it, (d) I can make
the cut as a bumpkin without cheating, (e) your arguments are
irrefutable, and (f) your insults advance your cause.
Dick
|
| 54.44 | oho, seems a bit thin skinned | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Thu Dec 15 1994 11:40 | 5 |
| get off the high horse, Dick, or are you pretending the insults
started from me? and if you don't even try to refute the arguments,
yes, they're unrefuted.
DougO
|
| 54.45 | Shoe fits you pretty well, you might as well lace it up | LYCEUM::CURTIS | Dick "Aristotle" Curtis | Fri Dec 16 1994 08:38 | 8 |
| .44:
Yes, the arguments are unrefuted.
You seem to match your feet well to the footprints of 19th century
missionaries -- I'm quite impressed.
Dick
|
| 54.46 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Fri Dec 16 1994 11:54 | 6 |
| > You seem to match your feet well to the footprints of 19th century
> missionaries
previously dispatched. next.
DougO
|
| 54.47 | Nabbing some plump errata in .40 :-) | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | SERVE<a href="SURF_GLOBAL">LOCAL</a> | Sat Dec 17 1994 16:40 | 9 |
| Ever the presumptious bumpkin, assuming you've won the game when first
U
you deign to join it. You'll have to address the issues more that
that, Dick. N
-----
OK, the second was an even cheaper shot... |-{:-)
|
| 54.48 | Unexpectedly weak, even for these hard times in the 'Box | LYCEUM::CURTIS | Dick "Aristotle" Curtis | Sun Dec 18 1994 22:07 | 6 |
| .46:
Soggy dispatch, while mostly legible, lacked strength to support
assertions. Waiting for retry.
Dick
|
| 54.49 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Mon Dec 19 1994 12:12 | 25 |
| previously dispatched arguments: 19th century etc etc:
from .40:
> Of course what the 19th century minions of Empah wanted was control
> over less advanced (their definition) cultures, and the ability to
> exploit same. What I would like is for poorer countries to improve
> their standards of living, in part by lowering their birthrates.
arguments yet to be addressed by Dick, standing unrefuted:
from .42:
> However, I believe that US long-term interests are also served by
> improving the living standards/reducing the birthrates in LDCs; and
> thus I find it appropriate for the US government to take a leadership
> position on these issues again, as it did for over thirty years after
> WWII, with bipartisan consensus, until the Reagan Administration
> reversed the policy.
Now, I invited you to do more than take cheap shots, yet you persist
in one-liners, ducking the arguments. Are you really so bankrupt of
ideas, so unable to engage in substantive discussion? How sad.
DougO
|
| 54.50 | n-o-o-b.... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Mon Dec 19 1994 12:19 | 14 |
|
What is the usual reaction here to criticisms of the USA coming
from foreigners ?
"Go home whenever you're ready." would sum it up.
Who appointed the USA (a country that does try to control its
headcount) to tell other countries what to do ? I've been in
overpopulated places (try Hong Kong, for example). There are
too many people on that island. But the USA gets no votes, and
busybodies are practicing a loser's philosophy.
MYOFB, good advice, easy to give, hard to follow. imho, bb
|
| 54.51 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Mon Dec 19 1994 12:44 | 7 |
| > Who appointed the USA (a country that does try to control its
> headcount) to tell other countries what to do ?
wrong question. How many countries have asked the US for help in this
area? Dozens...
DougO
|
| 54.52 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Mon Dec 19 1994 12:52 | 8 |
|
<-------
>How many countries have asked the US for help...
Who left us in charge??
|
| 54.53 | vent | POWDML::LAUER | Had, and then was | Mon Dec 19 1994 12:58 | 6 |
|
Yeah, that's what I'd like to know. Why are we always in charge and
why is it when anything goes wrong anywhere nutcases burn effigies of
Uncle Sam and shout "Down with America"?
Cripes.
|
| 54.54 | yeah, I know, I'm in rare form today... | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Mon Dec 19 1994 15:20 | 15 |
| It's all a plot. We are being used (because we are the richest nation
on earth) by globalists who wish to usher in their globalist order via
the might of money and arms of the US. Since we are the leader of the
free world, who better to lead the unsuspecting masses of the world
into the thier web of totalitarian government.
And, as with the usual liberal credo they have created, it will all be
done in the name of "good".
If you doubt my words, look into this thing called the World
Constitution. It is written and ready to go...all they need is for the
nations of the world to sign off on it. When this happens, the fun
will begin in earnest.
-steve
|
| 54.55 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Mon Dec 19 1994 15:25 | 3 |
| please take all that to the NWO topic, Steve.
DougO
|
| 54.56 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Mon Dec 19 1994 17:39 | 1 |
| But it fit in so nicely here...I even got a decent cue for once. 8^)
|
| 54.57 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Jan 31 1995 11:09 | 89 |
| FOR RELEASE: December 6, 1994
Contact: Susan Lang
Office: (607) 255-3613
INCREASED FOOD PRODUCTION DOES NOT RELIEVE MALNUTRITION,
CORNELL STUDY FINDS
ITHACA, N.Y. - Producing more food does not necessarily result in
less malnutrition in developing countries, according to a recent Cornell
University analysis of Ethiopia. In fact, some of the highest malnutrition
rates are in the "greenest" regions.
Cornell researchers found high levels of chronic malnutrition in bad,
food-deficient and food-surplus regions in Ethiopia. Despite significant
investments in agricultural production in some regions, the nutritional
status of children has worsened in all regions in the past decade, the
researchers found.
This comes as a great surprise to policy makers in Ethiopia and
elsewhere who view inadequate food production as a major reason for
malnutrition.
One primary reason for the persistent malnutrition is that women in
these "green" regions may spend time farming at the expense of using health
services, preparing food and feeding their children, said David Pelletier,
Cornell associate professor of nutrition policy in the Division of
Nutritional Sciences' Food and Nutrition Policy Program. This illustrates
how, contrary to popular view, malnutrition is far more complex than simply
a lack of food.
"We have found that chronic malnutrition is clearly not restricted
to drought-prone areas and that neither regional food supplies nor
household food production are major predictors for malnutrition," Pelletier
said. "In fact, at least half of the most 'food secure' households studied
suffer from chronic malnutrition. Such findings are not unique to
Ethiopia."
Although malnutrition can result from extreme food shortages,
Pelletier said that decades of research have shown that it is more often
the result of feeding children too infrequently or inadequately, combined
with infectious disease, which can prevent the body from utilizing
nutrients. Even if food is plentiful in a community, children may be
malnourished if their mother is so busy in the fields, for example, that
she does not feed them often enough or prepare nutrient-rich foods.
The findings were presented to the government of Ethiopia in June
1993 and are to be published in the journal Food Policy in 1995. Although
international nutrition researchers have widely accepted this more complex
view of malnutrition for years, Pelletier said his group was instrumental
in presenting this view to high level policy makers in Ethiopia.
"They were astounded and skeptical when we reported high
malnutrition rates in even the greenest regions of Ethiopia," he said.
"The food bias view of malnutrition is common among policy makers in many
countries."
Pelletier assisted the National Technical Committee in Nutrition
Surveillance in conducting a national rural nutrition survey in Ethiopia in
1992 which covered 15,156 households with at least one child aged 6 months
to 5 years. Interviewers collected data on food, agricultural and economic
characteristics, infant and child feeding practices, morbidity, growth and
nutritional status of children, and household demographics. Results were
compared with a 1983 national survey conducted at about the same time of
year.
"Despite heavy investments in agricultural productivity in certain
regions, rates of malnutrition among children increased in many areas,"
Pelletier reported. In Arsi, for example, where the heaviest agricultural
development investments have been made in the past decade, the prevalence
of malnutrition increased more than in any other area studied.
"The trade-offs in the use of women's time mean that policies that
attempt to maximize household food security may actually harm nutritional
status or have no beneficial effect if they compromise the quality of
childcare or result in less use of health services," Pelletier said.
Thus, although money may be poured into a region for agriculture,
such support may do nothing to relieve the malnutrition in the area,
Pelletier pointed out.
Pelletier seeks to find ways to help policy makers better
understand the multiple causes of malnutrition and to find ways to
integrate nutritional considerations into the planning and implementation
of policies and programs directed toward agricultural productivity and
economic development.
Examples include bringing health services, water and fuel closer to
rural communities, making credit services more accessible to women and
organizing communal daycare arrangements.
The Ethiopia project was supported by the Inter-Agency Food and
Nutrition
Surveillance Program of the United Nations, with participation from FAO,
UNICEF and WHO.
-30-
Blaine P. Friedlander, Jr. /Senior Science Writer
Cornell News Service
840 Hanshaw Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
Office: (607) 255-3290
Fax: (607) 257-6397 fax
E-mail: [email protected]
|
| 54.58 | It will come to pass. | FABSIX::L_GARDNER | | Wed Dec 13 1995 04:31 | 35 |
|
I'm sorry but unless I missed a note some where, youre all missing
the point. We all want to live forever hence, the need to stop life
before it happens, lottery........I know that sounds harsh but let's
just say that I we have a lottery every year, to say who can have a
child and who can not. It's not a new idea, we all have heard it
before, so what's the problem, Americans are to self ritous. We, or
they tend to feel that it is there natural right to do what ever they
please and never mind the repercussions. So I submit this, have a
lottery, but there must be certain quota's to meet to have the child.
First, financial status=must meet a set amount, at to day's economy
say, $40,000 a year. Next, the said party should be married, and if not
and would like to apply for the lottery must at least make enough money
to support the child in a proper manner. Also, DNA of a good lot is
necessary, birth defects that run in the family will be a cause for
removal from the lottery.
Ok, if I have offended people out there, I would just like to say
this, I would not like to see this implemented. Though if there were to
come a need for population control this would be what I would recomend.
Now, the people that do not qualify for the lottery can adopt, if
they are financialy secure and meet the first requirement, or maybe an
income of less.
Children that are born illegaly, well, I don't know, we could say
that they belong to the state and that they are forced to participate
in school till they are 18, and they must be watched.
In implementing this program, the population would drop the economy
would improve, and poor, homelessness, and crime should decrease. At
least that's my opinion, only because I think that people would
appreciate there children more, and the children would appreciate life,
and knowledge more.
Again, I hope I have not offended to many people, this is only an
idea.
LG:(
|
| 54.59 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Dec 13 1995 07:34 | 4 |
| > We all want to live forever
Speak for yourself.
|
| 54.60 | fantasy, politically | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Dec 13 1995 09:45 | 10 |
|
re, .58 - clearly unconstitutional - the SCOTUS would throw it
out 9-0, liberals and conservatives together.
If you actually want the government controlling procreation, you
need to convince an overwhelming majority of the population.
Forget it, won't happen in your life.
bb
|
| 54.61 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Dec 13 1995 09:52 | 17 |
| Wasn't there a short story called, "The Lottery", where somebody from
the town would get bumped off every year? The danger I see in lottery
drawings is that it can be used for anything, including something like
the short story. You bring this opinion up but what it is in actuality
is a eugenics program similar to the likes of Margaret Sanger. A
lottery would surely rid us of the human weeds and malcontents in the
world.
Z In implementing this program, the population would drop the economy
Z would improve, and poor, homelessness, and crime should decrease.
Not necessarily true. When the babyboomers become senior citizens you
will find the labor market to be a coveted source for the business
owner if technology stays current. Ironic as it sounds, a business
will fail if it doesn't have the resources to operate, namely, people.
-Jack
|
| 54.62 | by the rest of the townsfolk | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | smooth, fast, bright and playful | Wed Dec 13 1995 09:56 | 4 |
| >Wasn't there a short story called, "The Lottery", where somebody from
>the town would get bumped off every year?
Yup. Read it in grade school. One person got, like, stoned, man.
|
| 54.63 | | DASHER::RALSTON | screwiti'mgoinhome.. | Wed Dec 13 1995 10:11 | 3 |
| Re: .58, LG
This was a joke right!
|
| 54.64 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Dec 13 1995 10:13 | 11 |
| re: .58
And the future tax base will come from where? SS is already doomed to
failure due to the fact that the ratio of those who pay into this
program to those who receive benefits is already down to around 3/1.
Within 10-20 years, it will be 1.5/1, if current trends hold.
[And this is just one example.]
-steve
|
| 54.65 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Tummy Time | Wed Dec 13 1995 11:05 | 7 |
|
>A lottery would surely rid us of the human weeds and malcontents in
>the world.
Do you think this is a problem?
|
| 54.66 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Dec 13 1995 11:21 | 13 |
| >A lottery would surely rid us of the human weeds and malcontents in
>the world.
ZZ Do you think this is a problem?
What, the fact that there are human weeds or the concept of a lottery?
Since I lean more toward pro life, I have no problem at all with
anybody. Poverty is not a choice for a child.
Do I have a problem with the concept of eugenics? Absolutely which is
why I harp on the abortion debate often.
-Jack
|
| 54.67 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Tummy Time | Wed Dec 13 1995 11:29 | 4 |
|
You don't believe in survival of the fittest?
|
| 54.68 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Wed Dec 13 1995 11:45 | 16 |
| > You don't believe in survival of the fittest?
Survival of the fittest is always a given. The problem is given the
societial structure, what group of people wind up being the fittest?
The current structure favors the genes of my high-school drop-out
brother-in-law and welfare baby-factory sister who dropped two kids
around the age of 20 over my genes because I waited until after college
and career establishment (around 30).
Society, through the welfare state, has already altered the course of
natural selection. Given the expanding population of kids with kids I
would say that society so far has been pretty inept in influencing the
natural selection process.
-- Dave
|
| 54.69 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Dec 13 1995 12:31 | 15 |
| ZZ You don't believe in survival of the fittest?
Oh absolutely, but only in certain contexts. Very astute of you to
throw this at me, considering I have used the phrase.
In the business world for example, survival of the fittest is
appropriate. In the scholastic world, survival of the fittest is
appropriate which is why I find the lunatics who support outcome based
education to have an agenda...dummying up the kids and what not.
I believe every person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. Unlike our humanist friends, I don't make distinctions
between people being human weeds or non human weeds.
-Jack
|
| 54.70 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Wed Dec 13 1995 12:48 | 7 |
| > I believe every person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit
> of happiness. Unlike our humanist friends, I don't make distinctions
> between people being human weeds or non human weeds.
Then should people on death row be allowed to procreate?
-- Dave
|
| 54.71 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:20 | 3 |
| ZZ Then should people on death row be allowed to procreate?
No...are they???
|
| 54.72 | He married himself to his girlfriend in court, then she visited... | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:21 | 1 |
| Ted Bundy fathered a daughter while on death row.
|
| 54.73 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:25 | 11 |
| .69> I believe every person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit
.69> of happiness. Unlike our humanist friends, I don't make distinctions
.69> between people being human weeds or non human weeds.
.71> ZZ Then should people on death row be allowed to procreate?
.71> No...are they???
Am I making too big of a leap in thinking that people on death row are
human weeds?
-- Dave
|
| 54.74 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:29 | 3 |
| ZZ Ted Bundy fathered a daughter while on death row.
Then this is a problem with the penal code.
|
| 54.75 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Sparky Doobster | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:30 | 3 |
|
HAR!
|
| 54.76 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:30 | 6 |
| Just because I'm against condemned people procreating doesn't mean I
classify them as human weeds. I believe the only right a condemned
person has is to learn how he/she may inherit eternal life...since this
is really the only thing that matters.
-Jack
|
| 54.77 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:32 | 2 |
| So you think it's OK to use unwilling condemned prisoners in medical
experiments?
|
| 54.78 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | with no direction home... | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:35 | 1 |
| wasn't ted bundy a product of the sexual revolution?
|
| 54.79 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:37 | 1 |
| I'm getting con-fuuuused! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
|
| 54.80 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:38 | 1 |
| Getting?
|
| 54.81 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:39 | 12 |
| RE: .76
> Just because I'm against condemned people procreating doesn't mean I
> classify them as human weeds.
Maybe I'm missing something in the definition. Isn't a "weed"
something that you yank out of your garden and let die so that it
doesn't impact the rest of your plants in the garden? Wouldn't a human
weed be someone that you yank out of society and let die so that s/he
won't impact the rest of the humans?
-- Dave
|
| 54.82 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:46 | 11 |
| Z Wouldn't a human
Z weed be someone that you yank out of society and let die so that
Z s/he won't impact the rest of the humans?
No. Some see Capitol Punishment in this way...equating it to shooting
a rabid dog. I don't see it like that. I see Capitol punishment as
a way of meting out justice. It has nothing to do with the rest of
society or any such thing. It can be a tool of deterrent for society
but nothing more.
-Jack
|
| 54.83 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Sparky Doobster | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:47 | 3 |
|
How do you feel about Capitle Punishment? ;^)
|
| 54.84 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:47 | 2 |
| Capitol Punishment: Send them to congress. A fate worse than death.
|
| 54.85 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:48 | 2 |
| I'm in favor of capitol punishment. Somebody oughta spank all those
naughty congresscritters.
|
| 54.86 | meaningless phrase | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:49 | 9 |
|
"survival of the fittest" is a tautology, because we say the fittest
are those that survive. i.e., Intel x86 is the fittest architecture,
Windows the fittest OS. It is a sign of your unfitness if geology
dunks your island, making all of your species extinct.
So it's just "those that survive, survive".
bb
|
| 54.87 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Wed Dec 13 1995 13:57 | 18 |
| >Intel x86 is the fittest architecture,
> Windows the fittest OS. It is a sign of your unfitness if geology
It probably is just playing with words and their definitions, but ...
I would contend that Intel & Windows were the "fittest" to take over
the desktop, but only because the environment that spawned them: IBM's
name & clout for business, Microsoft's marketing jugernaught, perceived
openess, lack of nimble competition (the Macintosh may have been a
superior being on a one-to-one comparisson, but the Macintosh didn't
reproduce itself fast enough and has been breed into a minority
position)
Beta was superior to VHS. Sony didn't market it right. The little
beast (Beta) didn't have enough to eat (movies released in Beta format)
and the speicies basically went extinct.
-- Dave
|
| 54.88 | Ya mean they're worth somethin' finally? | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Dec 13 1995 14:01 | 5 |
| > The little beast (Beta) didn't have enough to eat (movies released in
> Beta format) and the speicies basically went extinct.
I'll remember this when the Indiana Jones crowd comes, seeking to poach
my two VCR's and the Camcorder.
|
| 54.89 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Wed Dec 13 1995 14:08 | 10 |
| > -< Ya mean they're worth somethin' finally? >-
Just because it's rare doesn't mean it's of any value. I have a
totally worthless "fat" Mac that is proabably as close (if not closer)
to extinction as your Beta machines (although there are more
evolutionary descendents of the Mac than of the Beta, my Mac is
incapable of interacting or interfacing with it's modern day
descendents and therefore is doomed).
-- Dave
|
| 54.90 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Dec 13 1995 14:10 | 5 |
| !!!
I'll bet you're absolutely fascinating in person!
|
| 54.91 | beta? | FABSIX::L_GARDNER | | Sun Dec 17 1995 21:10 | 4 |
| I thought this was a debate of population ethics.....besides beta
sucks!
-LG
|
| 54.92 | duh... | BSS::PROCTOR_R | Smarmy THIS!!! | Tue Apr 23 1996 20:40 | 6 |
| time to reawaken this note.
Population control is easy... quit making offspring!
boy, how some people can take the easiest things and 'em SO
difficult...
|
| 54.93 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | High Maintenance Honey | Tue Apr 23 1996 21:44 | 6 |
|
That would necessitate men learning to control their sperm rather than
letting it fly with impunity.
Wouldn't want that. Oh no.
|
| 54.94 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Tue Apr 23 1996 21:46 | 3 |
|
Or men could be gay. :-)
|
| 54.95 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | High Maintenance Honey | Tue Apr 23 1996 21:49 | 6 |
|
There is that.
8^)
|
| 54.96 | | BSS::PROCTOR_R | Pnut butter & quiver sandwich pleeze! | Tue Apr 23 1996 23:58 | 5 |
| I thought you had a hot date tonite?
watch out for flying spermazoa...
{ping!} {whiz!} {ZOOM!}
|
| 54.97 | | BSS::SMITH_S | | Tue Apr 23 1996 23:59 | 3 |
| I'm happy all the time, but that won't stop a population increase.:')_
-ss
|
| 54.98 | | BSS::PROCTOR_R | Pnut butter & quiver sandwich pleeze! | Wed Apr 24 1996 00:01 | 5 |
| > I'm happy all the time, but that won't stop a population increase.:')_
I'm happy too; sometimes (depending on certain events occurring) I get
REAL happy, and fall asleep with a BIG smile on my face. Clutching my
Theodore Bear. In my footed jammies. etc etc etc.
|
| 54.99 | | BSS::SMITH_S | | Wed Apr 24 1996 01:37 | 2 |
| certain events?
-ss
|
| 54.100 | | BSS::SMITH_S | | Wed Apr 24 1996 01:38 | 2 |
| Theodore bear?
-ss
|
| 54.101 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Wed Apr 24 1996 07:35 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 54.96 by BSS::PROCTOR_R "Pnut butter & quiver sandwich pleeze!" >>>
| I thought you had a hot date tonite?
| watch out for flying spermazoa...
| {ping!} {whiz!} {ZOOM!}
Hey, who has a date with Superman?
|
| 54.102 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | High Maintenance Honey | Wed Apr 24 1996 09:47 | 5 |
|
I said I had a date, I didn't say when 8^).
With my track record, that could be anytime from last night to 1998 8^).
|
| 54.103 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Wed Apr 24 1996 09:59 | 8 |
|
Speaking of superman... anyone hear that Margo Kidder was found in Glen
something or another (CA) disoriented? She also had two front teeth knocked
out. This doesn't sound good.
Glen
|
| 54.104 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Wed Apr 24 1996 11:23 | 1 |
| i'd hate to be this guy when Superman finds out.
|
| 54.105 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Apr 24 1996 11:30 | 2 |
| Margot. NNTTM. A Canadian, I believe, born in Yellowknife. Shawn, how
about a filmography?
|
| 54.106 | problem solved | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Apr 24 1996 12:03 | 5 |
|
Actually, population control in the USA is well handled by our
census bureau.
bb
|
| 54.107 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Wed Apr 24 1996 12:49 | 5 |
| .96
spermatozoa.
nnttm.
|
| 54.108 | For Gerald et al | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Great baby! Delicious!! | Wed Apr 24 1996 13:10 | 21 |
|
Biographical information for
Margot Kidder
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real name
Margaret Ruth Kidder
Date of birth (location)
17 October 1948, Yellowknife, Northwest Terr., Canada
Spouse
John Heard (? - ?)
Other works
CD-ROM game "Under a Killing Moon": as Bartender
Notable Guest Appearances
"Murder, She Wrote" (1984), as Dr. Ellen Holden (2/93)
|
| 54.109 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Great baby! Delicious!! | Wed Apr 24 1996 13:11 | 63 |
|
Margot Kidder
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actress filmography
1. Never Met Picasso (1996)
2. Bloodknot (1995)
3. Young Ivanhoe (1995) (TV) .... Laday Margarite
4. Beanstalk (1994)
5. Henry & Verlin (1994) .... Mabel
6. Maverick (1994) .... Mary Margaret
7. One Woman's Courage (1994) (TV) .... Stella Jenson
8. Phantom 2040: The Ghost Who Walks (1994) (TV) (voice) ....
Rebecca Madison
9. Pornographer, The (1994) .... Irene
10. Florida, La (1993) .... Vivy Lamori
11. To Catch a Killer (1992) (TV) .... Rachel Grayson
12. Mob Story (1990)
13. White Room (1990) .... Madelaine X
14. Body of Evidence (1988) (TV) .... Carol Dwyer
15. Miss Right (1988)
16. "Shell Game" (1987)TV Series .... Dinah/"Jenny Jerome"
17. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) .... Lois Lane
18. Vanishing Act (1986) (TV) .... Chris Kenyon
19. Glitter Dome, The (1985) (TV) .... Willie
20. Keeping Track (1985) .... Mickey Tremaine
21. Little Treasure (1985) .... Margo
22. Picking Up the Pieces (1985) (TV)
23. Louisiana (1984) (TV) .... Virginia Tregan
... aka Louisiane (1984) (TV)
24. Superman III (1983) .... Lois Lane
25. Trenchcoat (1983) .... Mickey Raymond
26. Heartaches (1981) .... Rita Harris
27. Shoot the Sun Down (1981)
28. Some Kind of Hero (1981)
29. Superman II (1980) .... Lois Lane
30. Willie and Phil (1980) .... Jeannette Sutherland
31. Amityville Horror, The (1979) .... Kathy Lutz
32. Mr. Mike's Mondo Video (1979)
33. Superman (1978) .... Lois Lane
... aka Superman: The Movie (1978)
34. 92 in the Shade (1975) .... Miranda
35. Black Christmas (1975) .... Barb
... aka Silent Night, Evil Night (1975)
... aka Stranger in the House (1975)
36. Great Waldo Pepper, The (1975) .... Maude
37. Reincarnation of Peter Proud, The (1975) .... Marcia Curtis
38. Gravy Train, The (1974) .... Margue
... aka Dion Brothers, The (1974)
39. Honky Tonk (1974) (TV)
40. Quiet Day in Belfast, A (1974)
41. Sisters (1973) .... Danielle Breton
42. Bounty Man, The (1972) (TV) .... Mae
43. "Nichols" (1971)TV Series .... Ruth
44. Suddenly Single (1971) (TV)
45. Quackser Fortune Has A Cousin in the Bronx (1970) .... Zazel
46. Gaily, Gaily (1969) .... Adeline
|
| 54.110 | A sure sign of rapidly advancing age | DECWIN::RALTO | Bananas in Pajamas?? | Wed Apr 24 1996 13:30 | 11 |
| >> Date of birth (location)
>> 17 October 1948, Yellowknife, Northwest Terr., Canada
Hmmm, I didn't know she was that old... that would have made her
about 30 in the first Superman movie.
Most of today's celebs are younger than me, and I don't even know
who most of them are, so it's okay with me that Kidder is a few years
older. :-)
Chris
|
| 54.111 | | SUBSYS::NEUMYER | Your memory still hangin round | Wed Apr 24 1996 14:17 | 8 |
|
>> Date of birth (location)
>> 17 October 1948, Yellowknife, Northwest Terr., Canada
Wow, I'm exactly one year older than her.
ed
|
| 54.112 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Apr 24 1996 14:33 | 14 |
| I've seen quite a few of her early movies. I think I've seen all of the
following:
34. 92 in the Shade (1975) .... Miranda
35. Black Christmas (1975) .... Barb
37. Reincarnation of Peter Proud, The (1975) .... Marcia Curtis
41. Sisters (1973) .... Danielle Breton
45. Quackser Fortune Has A Cousin in the Bronx (1970) .... Zazel
In "Sisters" she plays a Siamese twin who gets revenge on the surgeon
who killed her sister when he separated them. If I remember correctly,
Brian DePalma directed. Her costar in "Quackser Fortune" was Gene Wilder,
who played an Irish gatherer of horse manure. Thomas McGuane wrote/directed
"92 in the Shade" and I believe she had a kid by him.
|
| 54.113 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | A Momentary Lapse of Reason | Wed Apr 24 1996 14:41 | 3 |
|
"Black Christmas" is the only 1 of those that I've seen.
|
| 54.114 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Apr 24 1996 15:24 | 7 |
| According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the
Census, the total population of the World, projected to 4/24/96 at
2:24:04 PM is:
5,757,446,930
|
| 54.115 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Apr 24 1996 15:26 | 6 |
| According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of
the United States, projected to 4/24/96 at 2:26:18 PM is:
264,696,415
|
| 54.116 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | A Parting Shot in the Dark | Wed Apr 24 1996 15:26 | 8 |
|
Ummm, "projected to"??
Did they just count everybody yesterday, and calculate this
number based on that answer?
Regardless, that's a whole bunch of people.
|
| 54.117 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Hudson chainsaw swingset massacre | Wed Apr 24 1996 15:28 | 4 |
| > Ummm, "projected to"??
It's impossible to know with any certainty the population of the
world. Unless you kill everybody in it.
|
| 54.118 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | A Parting Shot in the Dark | Wed Apr 24 1996 15:30 | 7 |
|
Yes, I realize that, although I'm not sure that I would have
worded it quite that well. 8^)
I'll ask another question ... when was it projected from?
And what's the formula?
|
| 54.119 | Population Stats | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Apr 24 1996 15:35 | 264 |
|
countries area in km� growth population
rate mid-1995 est.
Afghanistan 647,500 2.45% 17,317,124
Albania 28,750 1.21% 3,414,825
Algeria 2,381,740 2.34% 28,547,743
American Samoa 199 3.90% 57,145
Andorra 450 3.27% 66,093
Angola 1,246,700 2.67% 10,065,767
Anguilla 150 0.64% 7,045
Antarctica 14,000,000 0.00% 0
Antigua & Barbuda 440 0.51% 65,332
Argentina 2,766,890 1.13% 34,296,217
Armenia 29,800 1.23% 3,565,321
Aruba 193 0.66% 65,429
Ashmore & Cartier 5 0.00% 0
Australia 7,686,850 1.41% 18,331,886
Austria 83,850 0.55% 7,998,753
Azerbaijan 86,600 1.50% 7,799,260
Bahamas 13,940 1.62% 277,423
Bahrain 620 3.01% 603,639
Baker Island 1 0.00% 0
Bangladesh 144,000 2.35% 128,090,002
Barbados 430 0.18% 256,461
Bassas da India 0 0.00% 0
Belarus 207,546 0.34% 10,440,377
Belgium 30,510 0.23% 10,086,145
Belize 22,960 2.42% 214,058
Benin 112,620 3.33% 5,519,889
Bermuda 50 0.78% 61,476
Bhutan 47,000 2.33% 1,779,519
Bolivia 1,098,580 2.31% 7,897,309
Bosnia - Herzegovina 51,233 0.72% 4,684,487
Botswana 600,370 2.53% 1,393,383
Bouvet Island 58 0.00% 0
Brazil 8,511,965 1.35% 160,881,977
Territory 60 0.00% 0
British Virgin Islands 150 1.22% 13,260
Brunei 5,770 2.77% 292,895
Bulgaria 110,910 -0.39% 8,765,680
Burkina Faso 274,200 2.83% 10,421,821
Burma 678,500 1.88% 45,109,408
Burundi 27,830 2.34% 6,268,325
Cambodia 181,040 4.41% 10,717,687
Cameroon 475,440 2.90% 13,512,828
Canada 9,976,140 1.28% 28,473,859
Cape Verde 4,030 3.03% 435,817
Cayman Islands 260 4.35% 32,349
Central African 622,980 2.23% 3,212,067
Chad 1,284,000 2.13% 5,583,447
Chile 756,950 1.54% 14,165,845
China 9,596,960 1.10% 1,203,525,741
Christmas Island 14 -2.44% 1,902
Clipperton Island 7 0.00% 0
Cocos (Keeling) 14 -0.53% 587
Colombia 1,138,910 1.83% 36,229,077
Comoros 2,170 3.54% 548,762
Congo 342,000 2.44% 2,506,707
Cook Islands 240 1.18% 19,224
Coral Sea Islands 3 0.00% 0
Costa Rica 51,100 2.38% 3,421,540
Cote d'Ivoire 322,460 3.50% 14,796,360
Croatia 56,538 0.07% 4,701,289
Cuba 110,860 1.00% 11,174,640
Cyprus 9,250 0.94% 736,862
Czech Republic 78,703 0.16% 10,424,653
Denmark 43,070 0.23% 5,199,932
Djibouti 22,000 2.70% 424,151
Dominica 750 1.31% 89,153
Dominican Republic 48,440 1.86% 7,971,564
Ecuador 283,560 2.07% 10,898,014
Egypt 1,001,450 2.30% 60,689,475
El Salvador 21,040 2.04% 5,870,361
Equatorial Guinea 28,050 2.60% 420,660
Eritrea 121,320 3.46% 3,711,110
Estonia 45,100 0.52% 1,625,408
Ethiopia 1,127,127 3.46% 60,741,366
Europa Island 28 0.00% 0
Faeroe Islands 1,400 0.67% 48
Falkland Islands 12,170 2.43% 2,049
Fiji 18,270 0.95% 771,258
Finland 338,145 0.37% 5,087,755
France 547,030 0.48% 58,117,632
French Antarctic 7,781 0.00% 0
French Guiana 91,000 4.42% 145,144
French Polynesia 3,941 2.26% 219,859
Gabon 267,670 1.45% 1,155,516
Gambia, The 11,300 3.07% 988,441
Gaza Strip 380 3.56% 757,024
Georgia 69,700 0.85% 5,729,289
Germany 356,910 0.40% 81,412,352
Ghana 238,540 3.12% 17,762,420
Gibraltar 7 0.53% 30,159
Glorioso Islands 5 0.00% 0
Greece 131,940 0.95% 10,665,368
Greenland 2,175,600 0.84% 57,479
Grenada 340 0.24% 94,226
Guadeloupe 1,780 1.67% 436,164
Guam 541 2.53% 153,795
Guatemala 108,890 2.63% 11,002,962
Guernsey 64 1.02% 64,653
Guinea 245,880 2.46% 6,549,243
Guinea Bissau 36,120 2.38% 1,124,132
Guyana 214,970 -0.68% 724,043
Haiti 27,750 1.68% 6,600,049
Holy See 0 1.15% 829
Honduras 112,090 2.80% 5,463,820
Hong Kong 1,040 -0.06% 5,546,670
Hungary 93,030 -0.07% 10,311,777
Iceland 103,000 0.88% 266,323
India 3,287,590 1.86% 937,013,196
Indonesia 1,919,440 1.61% 203,636,601
Iran 1,648,000 3.49% 67,901,859
Iraq 437,072 3.73% 20,631,897
Ireland 70,280 2.60% 3,631,014
Israel 20,770 2.68% 5,186,367
Italy 301,230 0.20% 58,254,276
Jamaica 10,990 0.96% 2,579,528
Jan Mayen 373 0.00% 0
Japan 377,835 0.32% 125,507,342
Jarvis Island 5 0.00% 0
Jersey 117 0.70% 86,602
Johnston Atoll 3 0.00% 0
Jordan 89,213 3.57% 4,102,408
Juan de Nova 4 0.00% 0
Kazakhstan 2,717,300 0.65% 17,380,242
Kenya 582,650 3.18% 29,139,064
Kingman Reef 1 0.00% 0
Kiribati 717 2.03% 79,583
Korea North 120,540 1.86% 23,496,046
Korea South 98,480 1.05% 45,556,372
Kuwait 17,820 8.67% 1,976,707
Kyrgyzstan 198,500 1.56% 4,771,289
Laos 236,800 2.86% 4,836,477
Latvia 64,100 0.50% 2,762,745
Lebanon 10,400 1.81% 3,685,522
Lesotho 30,350 2.52% 1,992,989
Liberia 111,370 3.37% 3,073,190
Libya 1,759,540 3.73% 5,245,626
Liechtenstein 160 1.32% 30,396
Lithuania 65,200 0.76% 3,877,245
Luxembourg 2,586 1.04% 406,181
Macau 16 1.44% 491,984
Macedonia 25,333 0.91% 2,234,147
Madagascar 587,040 3.20% 13,857,696
Malawi 118,480 -0.95% 9,639,546
Malaysia 329,750 2.32% 19,730,366
Maldives 300 3.64% 261,173
Mali 1,240,000 2.66% 9,355,406
Malta 320 0.84% 370,083
Man, Isle of 588 1.07% 72,770
Marshall Islands 181 3.87% 56,090
Martinique 1,100 1.21% 397,755
Mauritania 1,030,700 3.14% 2,261,860
Mauritius 1,860 0.95% 1,127,612
Mayotte 375 3.80% 96,534
Mexico 1,972,550 1.97% 94,018,379
Micronesia (Fed.St. of) 702 0.37% 120,444
Midway Islands 5 0.00% 450
Moldova 33,700 0.40% 4,490,892
Monaco 2 0.93% 31,288
Mongolia 1,565,000 2.62% 2,493,666
Montserrat 100 0.36% 13,047
Morocco 446,550 2.16% 29,175,874
Mozambique 801,590 6.06% 18,397,168
Namibia 824,290 3.46% 1,651,222
Nauru 21 1.42% 10,142
Navassa Island 5 0.00% 0
Nepal 140,800 2.43% 21,553,321
Netherlands 37,330 0.63% 15,464,818
Netherlands Antilles 960 0.40% 186,744
New Caledonia 19,058 1.83% 184,312
New Zealand 268,680 0.61% 3,409,673
Nicaragua 129,494 2.74% 4,209,258
Niger 1,267,000 3.49% 8,936,362
Nigeria 923,770 3.13% 101,161,248
Niue 260 -3.66% 1,855
Norfolk Island 35 1.69% 3,102
Northern Mariana Is. 477 3.04% 51,520
Norway 324,220 0.41% 4,332,692
Oman 212,460 3.46% 1,759,855
Pakistan 803,940 2.87% 132,554,167
Palau (Pac.Is.TT) 458 1.84% 11,202
Palmyra Atoll 12 0.00% 0
Panama 78,200 1.98% 2,682,074
Papua New Guinea 461,690 2.32% 4,294,370
Paracel Islands ? 0.00% 0
Paraguay 406,750 2.80% 5,359,992
Peru 1,285,220 1.90% 24,100,369
Philippines 300,000 1.97% 71,184,237
Pitcairn 47 0.00% 52
Poland 312,680 0.35% 38,790,293
Portugal 92,080 0.36% 10,561,886
Puerto Rico 9,104 0.13% 3,806,943
Qatar 11,000 2.84% 527,569
Reunion 2,510 2.07% 666,517
Romania 237,500 0.02% 23,185,636
Russia 17,075,200 0.21% 149,923,179
Rwanda 26,340 2.90% 8,616,846
St.Helena 410 0.32% 7,022
St.Kitts & Nevis 269 0.59% 40,236
St.Lucia 620 0.52% 145,754
St.Pierre & Miquelon 242 0.79% 7,055
St.Vincent & Grenadines 340 0.76% 115,874
San Marino 60 1.01% 24,242
Saudi Arabia 1,960,582 3.30% 18,797,501
Senegal 196,190 3.10% 9,001,661
Serbia / Montenegro 102,350 n.a. 10,700,000
Seychelles 455 0.88% 72,634
Sierra Leone 71,740 2.61% 4,750,843
Singapore 633 1.19% 2,893,022
Slovakia 48,845 0.51% 5,431,560
Slovenia 20,296 0.23% 1,976,536
Solomon Islands 28,450 3.46% 399,356
Somalia 637,660 1.35% 6,757,005
South Africa 1,221,040 2.63% 45,086,385
South Georgia & Sandwich 4,066 0.00% 0
Spain 504,750 0.24% 39,397,327
Spratly Islands 5 0.00% 0
Sri Lanka 65,610 1.09% 18,229,560
Sudan 2,505,810 2.38% 30,120,196
Suriname 163,270 1.54% 429,514
Svalbard 62,049 -2.84% 2,832
Swaziland 17,360 3.18% 965,765
Sweden 449,964 0.58% 8,828,912
Switzerland 41,290 0.83% 7,098,432
Syria 185,180 3.83% 15,457,172
S�o Tom� & Principe 960 2.63% 140,603
Taiwan 35,980 1.00% 21,511,990
Tajikistan 143,100 2.72% 6,158,064
Tanzania 945,090 2.56% 28,702,442
Thailand 514,000 1.36% 60,319,336
Togo 56,790 3.61% 4,408,606
Tokelau 10 -1.35% 1,948
Tonga 748 0.80% 105,840
Trinidad & Tobago 5,130 1.10% 1,342,608
Tromelin Island 1 0.00% 0
Tunisia 163,610 1.84% 8,887,577
Turkey 780,580 2.07% 63,440,588
Turkmenistan 488,100 2.04% 4,076,498
Turks & Caicos Islands 430 2.97% 13,386
Tuvalu 26 1.74% 10,174
Uganda 236,040 2.69% 20,393,207
Ukraine 603,700 0.06% 51,878,108
United Arab Emirates 75,581 5.06% 2,932,225
United Kingdom 244,820 0.29% 58,303,592
United States 9,372,610 1.02% 263,373,283
Uruguay 176,220 0.75% 3,222,993
Uzbekistan 447,400 2.17% 23,099,615
Vanuatu 14,763 2.36% 174,012
Venezuela 912,050 2.22% 21,018,476
Vietnam 329,560 1.85% 74,456,424
Virgin Is 352 -0.76% 96,263
Wake Island 7 0.00% 0
Wallis & Futuna 274 1.15% 14,313
West Bank 5,860 2.90% 1,486,905
Western Sahara 266,000 2.52% 217,564
Western Samoa 2,842 2.37% 208,835
Yemen 527,970 3.31% 11,472,576
Zaire 2,345,410 3.20% 44,049,888
Zambia 752,610 2.96% 9,459,965
Zimbabwe 390,580 1.32% 11,119,870
total 149,584,015 - 5,735,308,997
|
| 54.120 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | life is no beer commercial | Wed Apr 24 1996 15:35 | 3 |
| I believe they take census numbers and factor in what they figure to be
average birth rates and subtract average death rates for various
discrete populations that they can model, and add 'em up.
|
| 54.121 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Apr 24 1996 15:40 | 19 |
| >I'll ask another question ... when was it projected from?
>And what's the formula?
The world population estimates and projections used to produce these
figures were developed by the International Programs Center based on
analysis of available census data and data on fertility, mortality, and
migration. The analysis is perfomed separately for the 227 countries or
areas of the world with a population of 5,000 or more.
The World midyear population and event estimates result from an
aggregation of the figures for the individual countries and areas. The
intermediate population estimates are based on a linear interpolation
between successive midyear population figures. World events for different
units of time are computed based on the number of months, days, hours,
minutes, or seconds in the given year.
Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
|
| 54.122 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Apr 24 1996 15:43 | 17 |
| World Vital Events Per Time Unit: 1996
(Figures may not add to totals due to rounding)
-------------------------------------------------
Natural
Time unit Births Deaths increase
-------------------------------------------------
Year 133,349,664 53,756,732 79,592,932
Month 11,112,472 4,479,728 6,632,744
Day 364,343 146,876 217,467
Hour 15,181 6,120 9,061
Minute 253 102 151
Second 4.2 1.7 2.5
-------------------------------------------------
|
| 54.123 | simple, eh? | BSS::PROCTOR_R | Pnut butter & quiver sandwich pleeze! | Thu Apr 25 1996 11:56 | 24 |
| > I'll ask another question ... when was it projected from?
> And what's the formula?
I dunno what the projection is, but the formula is simple.
ingredients:
- 1 bottle of cheap wine.
- 1 romantical dinner
- 1 grandiflora rose
- 1 mz_deb (when she ain't grumpy)
- 1 set of manly charm/wit/manners
- combine the ingredients. toss lightly. turn down lights. turn on
manly charm/wit/manners.
- add nine months.
- POOF! (sorta) instant child.
- subtract 18 years from your life for raising, rearing, weaning,
etc.
|
| 54.124 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 25 1996 11:58 | 1 |
| Proctor, you're really gambling with your life there.
|
| 54.125 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | life is no beer commercial | Thu Apr 25 1996 12:03 | 1 |
| That's ok, Gerald. It's apparently not worth very much.
|
| 54.126 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Apr 25 1996 12:03 | 1 |
| agagagagagagagagag
|
| 54.127 | | BSS::PROCTOR_R | Pnut butter & quiver sandwich pleeze! | Thu Apr 25 1996 12:04 | 6 |
| rat hole:
what is the current price for a human body (based on chemical content)?
my life in human terms is *obviously* priceless.
|
| 54.128 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | life is no beer commercial | Thu Apr 25 1996 12:09 | 3 |
| >my life in human terms is *obviously* priceless.
Only if you change your last name and rush to Sotheby's.
|
| 54.129 | | BSS::PROCTOR_R | Pnut butter & quiver sandwich pleeze! | Thu Apr 25 1996 12:11 | 1 |
| <---------------heeheeheeheeheeheehee
|
| 54.130 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Apr 25 1996 12:17 | 1 |
| 96 cents.
|
| 54.131 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | High Maintenance Honey | Thu Apr 25 1996 12:21 | 8 |
|
8^o
|
| 54.132 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Apr 25 1996 12:37 | 3 |
| re: .123
This is NOT population CONTROL!! :)
|
| 54.133 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | High Maintenance Honey | Thu Apr 25 1996 12:38 | 5 |
|
If Bobbo thinks I'd go along with that, I'd kill him. That's
population control 8^).
|
| 54.134 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 25 1996 14:15 | 1 |
| Copulation pun troll?
|
| 54.135 | | BSS::PROCTOR_R | Pnut butter & quiver sandwich pleeze! | Thu Apr 25 1996 16:45 | 7 |
| > If Bobbo thinks I'd go along with that, I'd kill him. That's
> population control 8^).
Do I detect a slight negativity here?
As in "what part of NO don't you understand?"
|
| 54.136 | Update | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Aug 02 1996 10:39 | 4 |
| According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of
the United States, projected to 8/2/96 at 9:38:39 AM is:
265,410,647
|
| 54.137 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 02 1996 11:42 | 1 |
| Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out later.
|
| 54.138 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Fri Aug 02 1996 11:46 | 3 |
| Boy, if I had my assault rifle right now, they'd all be dead.
(c) 1996, Ken Roberts, reproduced here with permission
|
| 54.139 | Does the military calculate stuff like this too? | DECWIN::RALTO | Jail to the Chief | Fri Aug 02 1996 12:29 | 8 |
| Well, here's a depressing thought... if there were some kind of
global catastrophe, e.g. an incoming asteroid like Hays always
watched out for, that wiped out 99% of the human population,
then that would be an unspeakable tragedy to be sure, and yet
there would still be about 60,000,000 people left, which is
certainly enough to carry on.
Chris
|
| 54.140 | what about the Mine Shaft Gap? | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Fri Aug 02 1996 12:31 | 1 |
|
|
| 54.141 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 02 1996 13:21 | 11 |
| Funny thing about all this is that the fast majority of birth rate
happening now is in the undeveloped countries. Eventually
the population pressure will cause them to push into the relatively
richer and more spacious developed countries, thus relieving the
developed countries of both their space and their richness.
Unless the developed countries do something about it, which so far they
seem to have no will to do.
Interesting situation coming up in the next few decades.
|
| 54.142 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Fri Aug 02 1996 14:25 | 4 |
| re: .141
Well, if they're the "fast majority" it's no wonder their
birth rate keeps going up.... :-)
|
| 54.143 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 02 1996 14:58 | 1 |
| I cut the offending finger off. Maybe wan't muke se miny typos niw
|
| 54.144 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Aug 02 1996 15:09 | 7 |
| According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the
Census, the total population of the World, projected to 8/2/96 at
2:09:35 PM EDT is"
5,779,105,759
|
| 54.145 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Aug 02 1996 15:13 | 4 |
| According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of
the United States, has increased 1295 persons since at 9:38:39 AM.
|
| 54.146 | | BUSY::SLAB | Crazy Cooter comin' atcha!! | Fri Aug 02 1996 15:16 | 5 |
|
260 or so per hour? 4 or so per minute?
We're regular breeding machines over here, aren't we?
|
| 54.147 | familiarity breeds | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Fri Aug 02 1996 15:17 | 3 |
| > We're regular breeding machines over here, aren't we?
Speak fer yourself.
|
| 54.148 | not since Roe v. Wade | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Aug 02 1996 15:19 | 6 |
|
Well actually no, Shawn. The bulk of the increase is people
sneaking in over the borders, or through airports. We do not
have zero population growth, but breeding is a smaller factor.
bb
|
| 54.149 | | BIGQ::SILVA | quince.ljo.dec.com/www/decplus/ | Fri Aug 02 1996 15:23 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 54.146 by BUSY::SLAB "Crazy Cooter comin' atcha!!" >>>
| We're regular breeding machines over here, aren't we?
Thank God you're not one of them! We don't need little baby slabs
running around! :-)
|
| 54.150 | | BUSY::SLAB | Crazy Cooter comin' atcha!! | Fri Aug 02 1996 15:25 | 9 |
|
[You have left me no choice but to respond in kind]
And we're lucky that you're also not 1 of them ... We don't need
any more little sh*** running around.
8^)
|
| 54.151 | | BIGQ::SILVA | quince.ljo.dec.com/www/decplus/ | Fri Aug 02 1996 15:33 | 3 |
|
I don't have to be a breeder to have the runs. :-)
|
| 54.152 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 02 1996 15:50 | 11 |
| Most life forms seem to breed as prolifically as they can until they
run into some natural limit like shortage of necessities for sustaining
life, or a natural enemy. Many things even kill off each other when
they get too crowded. Starvation seems to be a very popular limiting
factor for those without natural enemies, including some human
sub-populations.
So for the so-called developed countries, the civilized world, what is
going to be the limiting factor for our population growth?
Any ideas out there?
|
| 54.153 | gaia | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Aug 02 1996 15:53 | 1 |
| I'm with Phil. A disaster of global proportions will reset the clock.
|
| 54.154 | | BIGQ::SILVA | quince.ljo.dec.com/www/decplus/ | Fri Aug 02 1996 15:54 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 54.145 by GENRAL::RALSTON "Only half of us are above average!" >>>
| According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of
| the United States, has increased 1295 persons since at 9:38:39 AM.
Then why are so many people worried about the population #'s when they
talk about gays being together??? :-)
|
| 54.155 | :^) | HIGHD::FLATMAN | [email protected] | Fri Aug 02 1996 21:26 | 16 |
| RE: .141
> ... fast [sic] majority of birth rate
> happening now is in the undeveloped countries.
>
> Unless the developed countries do something about it, which so far they
> seem to have no will to do.
The developed countries are doing something about it. The United
States has already instituted the following programs:
-- Army
-- Navy
-- Air Force
-- Marines
-- Coast Guard
-- Border Patrol
|
| 54.156 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 05 1996 09:51 | 7 |
| <-- :-)
True enough, but Republican social policies and Democratic monetary
policies ought to be more effective than the Army, Nave, Air Force,
Marines, and Coast Guard at discouraging immigration -- in fact they
are pretty discouraging to everyone. :-)
|
| 54.157 | | TUXEDO::GASKELL | | Wed Aug 28 1996 15:36 | 6 |
| 54.158 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 28 1996 15:45 | 1 |
| 54.159 | | OTOOA::BERNARD | Peace through Superior Fire Power | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:17 | 23
|