[Mxsmanic]

Chuck writes:

What are your opinions on LENR development in Italy and Greece?

If LENR really works, it might be interesting, but I have not been following
it closely. Even if it does work, we'll have to wait for all the old
scientists to die before it will be accepted by the mainstream.

I don't see the connection with Italy and Greece. Neither country has produced
anything useful since the fall of the Roman Empire.

[Frank Stearns]

Mxsmanic writes:

snips

I'm still scratching my head here. Who decides?

Probably government authorities, as in China.

China is a good model?

Are you advocating a centralized planet-wide authority?

Individual countries can take the same actions.

Akin to herding cats. Not that I don't mind a bit of healthy chaos, but if you want
the scheme to "work", everybody needs to play. I am not advocating anything of the
sort, I hasten to add, but am pointing out the reality.


While given the potential of some problems, this might seem attractive. The
problem is, who is so noble that you could give them such complete power and
control?

What's so special about it? We issue licenses for driving and piloting and
practicing law or medicine. Why not license parents? The future of
civilization depends on how we raise children, so it's very ironic that
parenthood is totally unregulated, whereas we worry about licensing
cosmetologists who will have no lasting effect on anything.

I used to think much along the same lines, but not so much any more as I've gotten a
bit older and hopefully wiser.

Seems to me your proposal breaks on these very broad lines: static commerce and
services (and the regulation thereof), vs. the state-sanctioned imposition of moral
and ethical standards on children.

On the latter you can offer some education and counciling (but oh so carefully), and
policing best you can.

But if the state takes an active role in shaping children, once again we're faced
with fallible man dictating and molding to current fads and trends; and these might
wind up being a complete mess later on.

One extreme but useful example: Hitler Youth. Besides that one, we've already been
through multiple flavors of this to different degrees, on a much more narrow scope
than what you seem to propose. Things often haven't worked as expected. Say,
for example, the self-esteem movement pushed to absurd limits, or the generation
before that which pushed "complete freedom" on the children when they as yet hadn't
even assembled any basic tools for their "free exploration."


Every time something like this is tried, it fails, rather badly.

It's working in China.

The scary thing is that I don't think you're kidding.


I'd rather face enviro problems than live in a totalitarian setting, no matter
how well intentioned. But you might perhaps prefer otherwise.

Regulation does not equate to totalitarianism.

Agreed if the regulation is for commerce (and even then regulation needs refinement
and simplification as much as possible, with as *little* as possible, but that often
doesn't happen because unto the regulators goes the power, and power corrupts, ad
nauseam).

Possbily complete disagreement when the "regulation" is for steering thought and
behavior, even when well-intentioned.

Instead, in a "free" society we have set some basic boundaries, hopefully
established on tested and tried standards (some religious, some secular), that
mostly have to do with whether you harm someone else, and varying levels of societal
sanction based on the harm you've caused. (Yes, yes, many injustices in many
directions with the current system but it might be the best we have at the moment.)

You might say, well, your rotten kids cause me harm by taking finite resources!

Really? Which specific kid took which specific resource? We are a very, very long
way from that and in the meantime, I don't mind those kids. And crazy as they might
make me at times, it's okay because among that crowd might be the next great artist,
scientist, or engineer, whose unique existence and actions later in life will
benefit us all. Be assured that different backgrounds, different experiences,
different innate gifts will keep the "soup" churning and interesting.

(And yes, there will be future criminals as well, but we deal with them
specifically, doing what we can to also broadly understand genetic and environmental
factors that made them that way. We've missed on those before, but we get
incrementally better; for example, anti-psychotic meds for those with proven medical
problems where the drug is of undisputed benefit to that individual.)

But if by state edict you homogenize things too much, you've got nothing; you've got
stagnation and death on many levels.

I prefer to avoid that bleakness.

And now, a double-wrist-slap for being completely off topic. But now I gotta go plan
the Bluegrass album which starts tracking in June.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Mxsmanic]

Frank Stearns writes:

China is a good model?

For managing population, yes.

Akin to herding cats. Not that I don't mind a bit of healthy chaos, but if you want
the scheme to "work", everybody needs to play. I am not advocating anything of the
sort, I hasten to add, but am pointing out the reality.

Parental licensing will never be implemented for metaphysical reasons, so it's
mainly a thought experiment. But it would be a very good idea.

Seems to me your proposal breaks on these very broad lines: static commerce and
services (and the regulation thereof), vs. the state-sanctioned imposition of moral
and ethical standards on children.

Most societies treat children as property, and the proof of this is that they
allow anyone and everyone to have kids, no matter how unsuitable the
prospective parent might be. If societies and people really cared about the
welfare of children, they'd exert a lot more control over who could and
couldn't reproduce. In practice, though, nobody cares about providing a
suitable environment for the child. Children are treated like furniture.

But if the state takes an active role in shaping children, once again we're faced
with fallible man dictating and molding to current fads and trends; and these might
wind up being a complete mess later on.

Somebody has to look out for the children. If you impose no restrictions on
parents, then you grant no rights to children, i.e., they are property.

One extreme but useful example: Hitler Youth.

Hitler Youth had nothing to do with licensing parents, but it does bear out
Godwin's law.

Besides that one, we've already been
through multiple flavors of this to different degrees, on a much more narrow scope
than what you seem to propose.

Where?

The scary thing is that I don't think you're kidding.

I'm not. And China had to do something about its exploding population. Now if
only India would do the same. As well as all other countries with high rates
of population increase.

Possbily complete disagreement when the "regulation" is for steering thought and
behavior, even when well-intentioned.

Nobody is talking about steering thought. Behavior is steered regularly and
extensively in all societies, even the "free" ones.

You might say, well, your rotten kids cause me harm by taking finite resources!

Kids you don't have cannot be rotten.

Really? Which specific kid took which specific resource? We are a very, very long
way from that and in the meantime, I don't mind those kids. And crazy as they might
make me at times, it's okay because among that crowd might be the next great artist,
scientist, or engineer, whose unique existence and actions later in life will
benefit us all. Be assured that different backgrounds, different experiences,
different innate gifts will keep the "soup" churning and interesting.

The reality is that you fear being told that you cannot have children. The
children themselves are property in your mind. That's how most people feel,
although they become very indignant when this is pointed out to them.

[Mxsmanic]

Jeff Henig writes:

Ferrari, Lamborghini. Counselor Troy.

I was thinking in terms of science, culture, technology, industry, etc.

Italy has a few modest "industries," but I can't think of anything for Greece.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jeff Henig writes:

Ferrari, Lamborghini. Counselor Troy.

I was thinking in terms of science, culture, technology, industry, etc.

I find Gina Lollobrigida very cultural, personally.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chuck[_10_]]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 18:54:32 +0000 (UTC), "Robin K. Banks"
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:50:01 -0500, Chuck wrote:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 04:25:43 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

William Sommerwerck writes:

Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?

No, I'm describing reality. There are no magic alternative power sources
that can replace or even significantly supplement fossil fuels and
nuclear. Not politically correct, but true.


What are your opinions on LENR development in Italy and Greece?

Boy that takes me back. Wouldn't that be nice if it were repeatable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer


The E-cat project in Italy claims that they will have workable units
this year and the Greek company working on a similar device in 2013.
Chuck

[Mxsmanic]

Chuck writes:

The E-cat project in Italy claims that they will have workable units
this year and the Greek company working on a similar device in 2013.

I'll believe that when I see it. More because of my doubts about Italian and
Greek engineering than about any doubts I might have about LENR.

[Mxsmanic]

Jeff Henig writes:

I get that. But car companies are technological, no?

Yes, but it's a very mature technology.

Also, Enrico Fermi.

He was a glaring exception to the rule.

I had to go look Greece up. Nothing recognizable, but they have a few
top-notch engineers and scientists.

There are brilliant people in every country. The problem is the culture, not
the people within it. The country has gone from a world center for things like
philosophy and math to a forgotten backwater that produces olive oil and
accommodates drunken young tourists.

[Mxsmanic]

Jeff Henig writes:

Oh, except of course for Counselor Troy. I was in love with her back in the
day.

She was cute, but she's old now. And she was an exception to the rule, too.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

I find Gina Lollobrigida very cultural, personally.

She did much to keep Italy in the spotlight, many decades ago. But she's 84
now. And she had a penchant for wearing Vulcan eye make-up, which did not
enhance her appearance.

[Frank Stearns]

Mxsmanic writes:

Frank Stearns writes:

China is a good model?

For managing population, yes.

Many brutal regimes are pretty good at this, yes -- at least for a while. Not a
place I'd want to live, however.

snips

Seems to me your proposal breaks on these very broad lines: static commerce and
services (and the regulation thereof), vs. the state-sanctioned imposition of moral
and ethical standards on children.

Most societies treat children as property, and the proof of this is that they
allow anyone and everyone to have kids, no matter how unsuitable the

That "proof" seems something of a stretch...

prospective parent might be. If societies and people really cared about the
welfare of children, they'd exert a lot more control over who could and
couldn't reproduce. In practice, though, nobody cares about providing a
suitable environment for the child. Children are treated like furniture.

Such an absolute statement is untrue. Some might feel this way, but many
more certainly do not.

If your supposition were widely true, humankind would have died out long ago.


But if the state takes an active role in shaping children, once again we're faced
with fallible man dictating and molding to current fads and trends; and these might
wind up being a complete mess later on.

Somebody has to look out for the children. If you impose no restrictions on
parents, then you grant no rights to children, i.e., they are property.

This seems like a rather sideways statement.

In fact, there are many societal restrictions on parents, starting with out-and-out
child abuse in all its forms, and fanning out from there.

And in most instances (at least in the USA), the local Child Services arm of the
government can remove children from a household on a whim -- often this is good,
occasionally errors are made -- but the legal weight (typically through a state
advocate) is generally with the child.

One extreme but useful example: Hitler Youth.

Hitler Youth had nothing to do with licensing parents, but it does bear out
Godwin's law.

The point is still valid, that of monolithic conditioning of an entire generation
that "the leader" (or state) is great; no diverse thought allowed. That was the
point of the reference.

Besides that one, we've already been
through multiple flavors of this to different degrees, on a much more narrow scope
than what you seem to propose.

Where?

I named two with poor results involving child rearing fads of decades past: the
self-esteem movement and the "all freedom" movement before that. Go back decade by
decade and you'll find still more child-rearing fads that were pretty silly. And
that was the point: falling into the trap of whatever a current fad might be, and
in so doing at the state level removing parental common sense from the picture.

The scary thing is that I don't think you're kidding.

I'm not. And China had to do something about its exploding population. Now if
only India would do the same. As well as all other countries with high rates
of population increase.

Again, I used to feel that way, but no longer. Wholesale blind reproduction? No, of
course not. Education, certainly, even free (or cheap) birth control. But draconian
laws? Not at all. Not needed now, perhaps not for a long time, perhaps never.


Possbily complete disagreement when the "regulation" is for steering thought and
behavior, even when well-intentioned.

Nobody is talking about steering thought. Behavior is steered regularly and
extensively in all societies, even the "free" ones.

Behavior and thought are rather closely linked. Control one, you influence the
other, particularly if harsh sanctions are in place for not following directions.

You might say, well, your rotten kids cause me harm by taking finite resources!

Kids you don't have cannot be rotten.

Really? Which specific kid took which specific resource? We are a very, very long
way from that and in the meantime, I don't mind those kids. And crazy as they might
make me at times, it's okay because among that crowd might be the next great artist,
scientist, or engineer, whose unique existence and actions later in life will
benefit us all. Be assured that different backgrounds, different experiences,
different innate gifts will keep the "soup" churning and interesting.

The reality is that you fear being told that you cannot have children. The
children themselves are property in your mind. That's how most people feel,
although they become very indignant when this is pointed out to them.

Discussions are great, disagreements are great, but please do not -- repeat -- do
not make assumptions such as you just made.

I do not have children, and at this point in my life never will. Whether or not that
was an error I don't know; might never know.

Fear of *not* having them? That's thigh-slapping humorous.

I can tell you that at one time I shuddered at the thought of having any such
creatures running around my person, and often dreaded visiting friends who had kids.

But a funny thing happened; those little monsters grew into bright young people; a
few of them are today doing remarkable work in science and engineering. I'm casually
helping some early 20-somethings with audio engineering and have found it deeply
gratifying to see how quickly they've caught on, and how there is some hope for the
industry.

There is no fear, there is no "ownership."

And in fact, in broader circles, I've never seen any sense of "child owership" by
parents.

I can't speak for parents directly, but what I've observed is a deep dedication to
/protecting/ their young ones until they're able to care for themselves.

While of course there are exceptions, most of the parents I've come to know have
these things in common: a deep love and devotion to their children, and deep hope
and longing that their kids will do well in all aspects of their lives, and become
their own persons, with their own minds. Often these parents take great delight in
lively discussions and interactions with the new individuals they've created and
nurtured -- but they're deeply happy that the kids are unique individuals and not
clones of something.

There's absolutely nothing about "ownership."

Have you not had the opportunity to interface with many different families to see
first-hand how this usually works?

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Mxsmanic]

Frank Stearns writes:

Many brutal regimes are pretty good at this, yes -- at least for a while.

But China is not in that category. Families are limited to one child. Nobody
is being executed as surplus population.

Not a place I'd want to live, however.

Perhaps not today. But China is planning to become the dominant world power in
the future, so there's no telling what might happen. Politically, change can
come quickly, especially for countries that have rather authoritarian
governments.

Unfortunately, if China became more democratic, the population controls would
fall by the wayside, and the population would explode. Eventually, war,
famine, and pestilence would result, as always.

That "proof" seems something of a stretch...

If you allow anyone to reproduce, then clearly you do not care about the
competence of parents, and if you don't care about the competence of parents,
you don't care about the rights and welfare of children. And if you don't care
about the rights and welfare of children, you're treating them as property.

Societies have done this throughout recorded history. It's not going to
change. The desire of people to have children is given infinite priority over
the welfare and rights of the children thus produced. They are like livestock.

Such an absolute statement is untrue. Some might feel this way, but many
more certainly do not.

Whenever anyone proposes restricting parenthood so that children can be
guaranteed competent parents, the cries of violent indignation that
immediately arise prove that nobody really cares about the children. Everyone
wants an absolute right to reproduce no matter how ill-suited he might be to
raising children.

If your supposition were widely true, humankind would have died out long ago.

No, because there are always good parents, and even mediocre or terrible
parents can raise children who live to adulthood. Propagation of the species
is easy.

This seems like a rather sideways statement.

No, it's simply logic. If one side has unlimited rights, the other side has
none.

In fact, there are many societal restrictions on parents, starting with out-and-out
child abuse in all its forms, and fanning out from there.

But nobody prevents incompetent parents from having kids in the first place.
Once they have and abuse the kids, the damage is done.

And in most instances (at least in the USA), the local Child Services arm of the
government can remove children from a household on a whim -- often this is good,
occasionally errors are made -- but the legal weight (typically through a state
advocate) is generally with the child.

See above.

The point is still valid, that of monolithic conditioning of an entire generation
that "the leader" (or state) is great; no diverse thought allowed. That was the
point of the reference.

That has nothing to do with licensing parents, either.

I named two with poor results involving child rearing fads of decades past: the
self-esteem movement and the "all freedom" movement before that.

That has nothing to do with parental licensing.

Again, I used to feel that way, but no longer. Wholesale blind reproduction? No, of
course not. Education, certainly, even free (or cheap) birth control. But draconian
laws? Not at all. Not needed now, perhaps not for a long time, perhaps never.

There's nothing draconian about limiting people to a single child.

Behavior and thought are rather closely linked. Control one, you influence the
other, particularly if harsh sanctions are in place for not following directions.

So maybe driver's licensing should be eliminated. Maybe licensing of all kinds
should be eliminated. Right?

Discussions are great, disagreements are great, but please do not -- repeat -- do
not make assumptions such as you just made.

It's a deduction, rather than an assumption.

Fear of *not* having them? That's thigh-slapping humorous.

It is ubiquitous.

There is no fear, there is no "ownership."

Most parents behave like pet owners some or all of the time.

I can't speak for parents directly, but what I've observed is a deep dedication to
/protecting/ their young ones until they're able to care for themselves.

Most parents make a lot of mistakes in their quest to "protect" their
offspring, especially in extreme situations, and particularly if they are
incompetent, as many are to some degree.

While of course there are exceptions, most of the parents I've come to know have
these things in common: a deep love and devotion to their children ...

They are devoted to their children, not to the people who occupy that
position. There is quite a difference.

Have you not had the opportunity to interface with many different families to see
first-hand how this usually works?

Regularly, and it has only reinforced my conclusions.

[John Williamson]

Mxsmanic wrote:
Frank Stearns writes:

Many brutal regimes are pretty good at this, yes -- at least for a while.

But China is not in that category. Families are limited to one child. Nobody
is being executed as surplus population.

Apart from the millions of "surplus", mostly female foetuses which are
aborted every year. And the children who are abandoned to die when the
parents can't afford another child.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mxsmanic]

John Williamson writes:

Apart from the millions of "surplus", mostly female foetuses which are
aborted every year.

Abortion is a fact of life everywhere. The preference for male children is a
cultural problem, not an imposition by the state (which tries to discourage
this). The imbalance of the sexes is already causing a problem.

And the children who are abandoned to die when the parents can't
afford another child.

This isn't state policy, either, and it can happen even without restrictive
birth control policies.

[Mxsmanic]

Jeff Henig writes:

Dude, I had some of the worst parents known to man. I'm here, I turned out
okay, and I find your position on parenting revolting.

If you had been born to better parents, you'd be even more okay. And you
probably wouldn't think my name is Dude.

I'd much rather be here than not, thank you very much.

You'd be here either way, just with different parents.

[Sean Conolly]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
In the UK, there were a couple of papers published and quoted in the
popular scientific press back in the 70s? or 80s? quoting a statistical
relationship between lead in the bloodstream and academic performance.
They never made the mainstream media, as far as I remember. It was
certainly one of the factors mentioned here in support of removing lead
from petrol.

That part of the cause and effect I think is pretty well accepted. But how
much of the lead exposure was from petrol and how much from other sources
like paint? Even if the numbers went down over time, where are the subjects
who were exposed to only one form of lead pollution?

Sean

[Sean Conolly]

"PStamler" wrote in message
...
I hate getting involved in discussions like this, because they turn
into ill-informed venting sessions quickly. But, amid all the talk
about the problems with the environment being the result of population
increase, let me introduce a well-known equation from the
environmental world, one which I think was first promulgated by Paul
Ehrlich and popularized by Barry Commoner (incidentally, Ehrlich and
Commoner couldn't stand one another, so their agreement on this idea
is noteworthy).

The equation is this:

Delta P = Delta H * Delta C * Delta T

Delta P is the change in the amount of a Pollutant; Delta H is the
change in the population of Humans, Delta C is the change in per
capita Consumption of a product, and Delta T is the "technological
factor" -- the change in how much pollution is produced per unit
consumed. So for lead from gasoline, for example:

Say the population of a country increases by 50% over a couple of
decades, and the number of passenger miles they put on their cars
increases by 80% as affluence increases and more people own cars.
Meanwhile there's no technological change in the amount of lead a car
puts out per passenger mile.

In those circumstances, by the equation:

Delta P = 1.5 * 1.8 * 1.0 = 2.7

So lead emissions will increase by a factor of 2.7,; some of the
increase is due to population increase, some due to the increased
consumption of passenger miles in cars.

Now let's say that cars are redesigned to provide 1.5 * the gas
mileage -- that is to say, for each passenger mile they use 1/1.5
times as much gas. Assuming the gas remains leaded, that means they're
putting out 1/1.5 times as much lead per passenger mile, so Delta T =
0.666. Now:

Delta P = 1.5 * 1.8 * 0.6666 = 1.8

By a technological change (better gas mileage), your pollutant will
only increase by a factor of 1.8 times instead of 2.7 times.

My point? That to understand environmental problems it's important to
look at all three factors. How many people are there, how much
economic good do they consume (in this case passenger miles), how much
crud is produced per unit of economic good. To improve the situation,
it's possible to work on any of the three factors; often working on
the Delta T technological factor is the most cost-effective and least
disruptive. In our example, improve the mileage and you cut the lead
emission. Redesign car engines so they're run on lead-free gasoline,
and Delta T becomes zero and you're not putting lead into the
environment from car tailpipes anymore.

It's possible to mess with the other factors too, but harder.
Population growth tends to self-limit in countries that have undergone
the "demographic transition", which typically happens when infant and
child death rates fall to the extent that there's no longer a need to
have eight children to ensure that one will survive to support you in
your old age. But that's a slow and cumbersome mechanism. Likewise,
the consumption of passenger miles can be changed by altering zoning
and tax laws to make residential neighborhoods closer to workplaces a
financially attractive choice -- but again, that tends to be slow and
unwieldy, though worth pursuing as a long-run effort. Redesigning a
car motor only takes a couple of years, and the auto manufacturers
have now made them run quite well without leaded gas, thank you.

You can run this kind of analysis on a surprising number of
environmental questions and get useful results, as long as you keep a
clear eye on what the economic good really is, and what the
technological factors are. For example, you can cut down on pollutant
emissions from power plants by forcing people to only run their AC
five days a week (Delta C = 0.71 -- the economic good is cool air), or
you can improve the air conditioner so it requires only half as much
electricity (and thus half as much power-plant-generated crud), making
Delta T 0.5. Simpler, more effective, and you don't make people
miserable two nights a week (says I in St. Louis where it was 91
degrees F. at 7 pm tonight). Often all three avenues (fewer people,
less consumption, less polluting products) offer room for improvement,
but the last-mentioned is the easiest and cheapest to achieve.

All well and good, but it fails to factor in (1) finite resources and (2)
the economic cost of producing those resources into product.

We have a finite amount of land to produce food, and less if we try to
reserve land for nature. So we can use knowledge and technology to produce
more food on the same land, but at a higher cost. The problem is that the
ever expanding poor can't afford that food, and will simply start farming
the best they can in the reserved areas. The economics are simple: you can't
provide food and water to all if it costs more that the gross economic value
of all (even if it you give to the poor, someone still has to pay for it).

Now consider that we have to cover a population which is expanding
exponentially with those finite resources like land for food and fresh
water. To supply those people you need continuing exponetial increase in
production, and at exponentially decreasing costs. And you need it for all
of the basic needs of food, water, and shelter - at the same time - or the
system breaks down.

I don't care where you think the line might be, there will be a point where
the costs will simply surpass the collective economic capactiy. Maybe it's
50B, maybe 100B or 200B, but it will be reached, and at this growth rate not
as far off as you might think.

But actually I don't see that really happening. Long before then people will
do what people have always done and start excuding groups from 'resource
insurance', and those people will either fight or die. As it has always
been - war, famine, and disease will curb growth numbers somewhat, but never
to zero growth.

The one certain casualty will be the natural world: people are not going to
let themselves die to protect the rain forest, and the people who are not
dying are probably not going to commit genocide to protect it either. Any
place on the planet that will support simple human existance will be
overrun, until there are simply no unexploited resources left.

Or at least until civilization completely collapses and we have a near
extinction event for the human species. Only then will we go back to a state
of near-zero population growth, and a somewhat altered natural environment
will again spread across the earth.

So to sumarize, yes I firmly believe that over-population is by far the
greatest threat to the environment, when you look at the big picture. You
simply cannot support infinitly expanding consumption with finite resources.

Sean

[Mxsmanic]

Jeff Henig writes:

You've not spent much time around Californians, have you? Dude is a generic
word that no longer carries a generically male connotation, and it's been
this way for at least 25 years.

But it's not my name.

But it wouldn't be the same me. Nature/nurture, and all that rot...

Actually it _would_ be the same you. You never change. Only the circumstances
change. All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.

[None]

"Mrs Maniac" wrote in message
...
Jeff Henig writes:
Dude, I had some of the worst parents known to man. I'm here, I turned
out
okay, and I find your position on parenting revolting.
If you had been born to better parents, you'd be even more okay.

An interesting display of hypocrisy from an asshole who pretends
he doesn't believe in using insults in the newsgroups. More evidence
of trollery, although the evidence already presented is conclusive.

And you
probably wouldn't think my name is Dude.

I'd much rather be here than not, thank you very much.

You'd be here either way, just with different parents.

Dude, your name is "Mrs. Maniac". We all know that, dude.
Now, please continue to regale us with tales of how the real
world doesn't fit with your simpleton oversimplifications, and
how you're too stupid to read a book. I think maybe you're the
one who could have used better parents, Dude.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Jeff Henig writes:

You've not spent much time around Californians, have you? Dude is
a generic word that no longer carries a generically male connotation,
and it's been this way for at least 25 years.

But it's not my name.

But it wouldn't be the same me. Nature/nurture, and all that rot...

Actually it _would_ be the same you. You never change. Only the
circumstances change. All the world's a stage, and all the men and
women merely players.

"They have their exits and their entrances."

Isn't it about time you made your exit? Or at least an entr'acte, for some
thoughtful self-criticism?

[Trevor]

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
...
So to sumarize, yes I firmly believe that over-population is by far the
greatest threat to the environment, when you look at the big picture. You
simply cannot support infinitly expanding consumption with finite
resources.

Well said, now can you please convince the politicians. Ours see no
contradiction in simultaneously providing baby bonuses AND introducing
carbon taxes :-(

Trevor.

[Mxsmanic]

William Sommerwerck writes:

Isn't it about time you made your exit? Or at least an entr'acte, for some
thoughtful self-criticism?

No. Isn't it about time you discussed the topic, rather than me? If you can't
stop thinking about me, you can join my fan club, this this newsgroup isn't
it.

[Mxsmanic]

None writes:

An interesting display of hypocrisy from an asshole who pretends
he doesn't believe in using insults in the newsgroups.

I was simply extrapolating his own argument. If he turned out okay with
terrible parents, then presumably he'd turn out even more okay with good
parents.

Dude, your name is "Mrs. Maniac".

My pseudonym on Usenet is Mxsmanic.

[None]

"Mrs. Maniac" wrote in message
...
None writes:

An interesting display of hypocrisy from an asshole who pretends
he doesn't believe in using insults in the newsgroups.

I was simply extrapolating his own argument. If he turned out okay with
terrible parents, then presumably he'd turn out even more okay with good
parents.

Sure, blame your insult on him. That's pretty sackless, Dude!

Dude, your name is "Mrs. Maniac".

My pseudonym on Usenet is Mxsmanic.

Sure. whatever you say, Dude.

[Frank Stearns]

Jeff Henig writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:

I was simply extrapolating his own argument. If he turned out okay with
terrible parents, then presumably he'd turn out even more okay with good
parents.

The problem here is that you're not taking free will into account. I
*choose* to be a net producer in society. I am not simply a one dimensional
product between two people.

Part of the human spirit is overcoming our environment. I might not be the
strong person I am without having had to fight and scrap and overcome all
of those hurdles. True, I'd rather not have had those hurdles, but I'm at
peace with them now.

There was a child born a few years back to a woman out of wedlock, one of
several such from this unmarried woman. He was born with a disease that
would eventually leave him deaf. His mom was abusive and was unlicensed by
the state. According to your argument, this child should not have been
born.

Congrats, Mxsmanic, you just killed Beethoven.


Well said, Jeff; many others throughout history fit that bill as well. (Perhaps I
was too subtle for some in earlier posts on this thread, but I was nipping at the
heels of the ideas you put so well above..... Eugenics: just be sure to leave home
/without/ it.)

Many of us carry some fault or another that in a 1-dimensional, literal,
reductionist point-of-view would have us tossed aside, when in fact we carry far
more in society than our weight. (Just one example, with an audio connection...
a client brought in an amazing guitarist -- he had a compelling tone and technique.
Then I looked closely when he came into the control room for a playback: two missing
fingers; congenital.)

And, while perhaps not the best thing to seek intentionally, adversity can be a
great teacher and catalyst.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

William Sommerwerck writes:

Isn't it about time you made your exit? Or at least an entr'acte,
for some thoughtful self-criticism?

No. Isn't it about time you discussed the topic, rather than me? If
you can't stop thinking about me, you can join my fan club, this this
newsgroup isn't it.

OK, to the bit-bucket you go Mr. Alias. The real people here post under
their real name anyway.

Regards

Peter Larsen

[Mxsmanic]

Jeff Henig writes:

The problem here is that you're not taking free will into account. I
*choose* to be a net producer in society. I am not simply a one dimensional
product between two people.

But with better parents, you might have made different choices, and you
certainly would have had many different choices to make.

Part of the human spirit is overcoming our environment.

Yes. Many people deliberately choose difficult environments for an
incarnation, seeing it as a learning experience. This is why there will never
be a parental licensing scheme: it would diminish the choices available to
those choosing to incarnate.

I might not be the
strong person I am without having had to fight and scrap and overcome all
of those hurdles. True, I'd rather not have had those hurdles, but I'm at
peace with them now.

Most likely you chose your parents, for precisely the reasons you state.

There was a child born a few years back to a woman out of wedlock, one of
several such from this unmarried woman. He was born with a disease that
would eventually leave him deaf. His mom was abusive and was unlicensed by
the state. According to your argument, this child should not have been
born.

Yes. I see no reason to impose hardship upon children simply because the
selfishness of their incompetent parents must be given absolute priority.

The child could have been born into better circumstances.

However, for metaphysical reasons to which I've just alluded, no parental
licensing scheme is ever likely to be put into effect. Have you never wondered
why something that is so essential to the species remains completely
unregulated?

Congrats, Mxsmanic, you just killed Beethoven.

He could have been born into other families with similar characteristics, not
necessarily abusive or unpleasant ones. Our ultimate choice is not always our
first choice, anyway.

[Mxsmanic]

Jeff Henig writes:

All I was really trying to get at is that a family is not a mathematical
equation. It's not as simple as the input of two people equaling the output
of one--the child. There are variables there that cannot be accounted for,
such as desire and free will.

The solution to the overpopulation bomb will likely be arrived at by one
who eugenists want to eliminate. That's just how it usually plays out, with
simple irony.

Solving the population problem and ensuring that children have competent
parents are two entirely different things. The former can be managed by simply
restricting reproduction across the board. The latter requires selective
licensing of parents or some similar system.

There are some people born into difficult circumstances who do well.
Statistically, though, most of them do poorly, as one might expect. And
allowing incompetent parents to inflict so much suffering and deprivation upon
their innocent offspring is morally very questionable.

[Mxsmanic]

Jeff Henig writes:

And now you've hit the ultimate trolling hotbutton, religion.

Not religion. Metaphysics.

In any case, religion is not the ultimate hot button. Americans have several:
sex, violence (including guns), religion, and drugs.

Dunno if you did it on purpose, that's not my point. But from here, the
waters get much choppier. You sure you want to go down this road?

It's a road I know well.

[Tom McCreadie]

Dunno if you did it on purpose, that's not my point. But from here, the
waters get much choppier. You sure you want to go down this road?

It's a road I know well.

Then I just hope you didn't have chronic colds from wet feet :-)
Jeff, go easy on the mixed metaphors.