Bob LeChevalier wrote:
- quote -

They still have the teeth on but can't bite, just for smiling.

The situation is Latin America is different though where women are
caught up between Catholicism, brainwashing TV, machismo, poverty...

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris[at]ix.netcom.com> wrote:
- quote -

Irrelevant. The birth rate dropped as a result of education and
prosperity, not as a result of the Catholic teeth being pulled.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab[at]lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

gehayw[at]hotmail.com wrote:
- quote -

I'll take your question, nice and simple... Latins may be taking over
America, but America is taking over Latin America. So in the end
America is victim of her own policies. Immigration is the result of
imposing the "American way of life" through puppet governments south of
the border. It's a failure, and that's the root of the problem.

The immigration problem can only get worse if we ignore that.

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
- quote -

What are Mormons?

- quote -

Latin women are undereducated (brainwashed beyond hope by cheap soap
operas) and under the influence of the Church. Only a revolution can
change that.

- quote -

Catholics, who is theory have similar religious doctrines. <<

COMMENT:

It took the Catholics 500 years+ and the reformation to have their
authoritarian teeth pulled. Can we wait that long for the Mormons and
Wahabists? Looking at the math, I think not.

SBH

gehayw[at]hotmail.com wrote:
- quote -

Yes.

- quote -

No.
--
lojbab lojbab[at]lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris[at]ix.netcom.com> wrote:
- quote -

Except that both Hispanic and Mormon fertility has dropped
significantly.

Not as much as other groups, but there is no reason to believe that
Mormons won't eventually have almost as low fertility as European
Catholics, who is theory have similar religious doctrines.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab[at]lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
- quote -

Which all begs the thorny but obvious question. Do certain ethnic and
religious groups have the moral right to "take over", without firing a
shot, simply by outbreeding the majority population? Should breeding
"rights" be somehow restricted or equalized so that no one group has an
advantage over the other? Realize that this is controversial but high
time that someone said something.

- quote -


COMMENT:

Every country has groups of ABNORMAL people. Groups of zealots,
fundamentalists--- in the Islamic world, the wahabists. Your analogy
is bad: my metaphor is more like talking about the Amish to prove the
car will never take hold EVERYWHERE. Which it won't, QED.

- quote -


COMMENT:

Yes, overall, on average. And more importantly, we have every reason to
think this is only temporary, because it's not universal. Unless the
decrease in natality applies to EVERY SINGLE SUBGROUP within a country,
it doesn't take Einstein to predict what then must happen eventually.
The subgroups it doesn't apply to, will soon grow and crowd the others
out, and then you're back to the original state. With the Amish, it
doesn't matter if they never accept cars, because they aren't replacing
other groups with lower fertility rates. But with Hispanics in
California and Mormons in Idaho and Utah, it's a very different matter.
And there's no limit in sight.

SBH

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
- quote -

And what Mormons got to do with NORMAL people? It's like talking about
the Amish to prove the car will never take hold.

Every single country where LIBERAL education has been applied has seen
a dramatic reduction in natality rates.

"A women's educational level is the best predictor of how many children
she will have, according to a new study from the National Center for
Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The
study, based on an analysis of 1994 birth certificates, found a direct
relationship between years of education and birth rates, with the
highest birth rates among women with the lowest educational
attainment."

http://library.adoption.com/Pregnanc...le/4753/1.html

Finally , a race to combat the Jewish takeover.

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris[at]ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1118790436.254434.316600[at]g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

COMMENT:

You are NOT listenening. All these things happened in Utah, and
fertility rates climbed in the 1970's while everywhere else they went
down. Presently non-Mormon fertility rate is 2.4 children per young
woman, whereas for Mormons it is 4.4. Now that doesn't sound like a
lot, but all those kids are expected to survive to adulthood and repeat
the cycle, which puts the actual population increase rate at third
world levels. Mormon women are not uneducated and they are not
powerless. Utah is economically doing very well. Mormons simply believe
in a religious idea which disagrees with yours. Argument does no good
in such situations.

http://www.nlsbibliography.org/qtitl...ow%5B0%5D=2369

Since one counterexample is enough to wipe out an argument, I think
that pretty much does it for you. Thanks for playing. Get back to us
when you've sucessfully applied your program to Utah. THEN you can
start on the Muslim fundamentalists, but don't let that keep you.
Mormons first. Show us how it works.

SBH

- quote -

COMMENT:

You are NOT listenening. All these things happened in Utah, and
fertility rates climbed in the 1970's while everywhere else they went
down. Presently non-Mormon fertility rate is 2.4 children per young
woman, whereas for Mormons it is 4.4. Now that doesn't sound like a
lot, but all those kids are expected to survive to adulthood and repeat
the cycle, which puts the actual population increase rate at third
world levels. Mormon women are not uneducated and they are not
powerless. Utah is economically doing very well. Mormons simply believe
in a religious idea which disagrees with yours. Argument does no good
in such situations.

http://www.nlsbibliography.org/qtitl...ow%5B0%5D=2369

Since one counterexample is enough to wipe out an argument, I think
that pretty much does it for you. Thanks for playing. Get back to us
when you've sucessfully applied your program to Utah. THEN you can
start on the Muslim fundamentalists, but don't let that keep you.
Mormons first. Show us how it works.

SBH

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:

- quote -

Well, the solution is right here...

- quote -

In general do the above. Educate, empower women, reduce poverty, not by
giving them the welfare fish, but teaching them how to fish, and I'm
thinking here of an element conspicuosly absent in today's economy: THE
COOPERATIVES. Make kibbutz-style coops available to all people who wish
to cooperate and live a decent life. There's no issue of unemployment,
poverty, lack of healthcare or overpopulation in kibbutz.

As for immigrants, there's no solution other than developing their
countries, not along the lines dictated by the rich nations, but along
the lines of the most successful societies and economies in the world.
I know it sounds idealist--or revolutionary, but that's what I think it
would take.

Here's my proposal...

'Utopia is the necessity to get over and break the barriers of the
established order.' (http://www.spinninglobe.net/cousteau.htm)

A ROAD TO FREEDOM (UNLIKE RUSSIA'S)

Why not build a new system? That offers PROSPERITY, SOCIAL JUSTICE and
FREEDOM; that discards the defects of both Communism and Capitalism;
and that places the system at the service of the human being, and not
the other way around. Why not HUMANISM?

Naturally, education and health care should be the maximum priorities;
they should be free -or affordable, in the case of higher education-
and accessible to all. Education should emphasize the learning of
English -or Esperanto, if we all ever agree on it- and literacy... in
computers. Likewise, culture and sports should receive special
attention (for example, adopting the affordable child-care centers; in
general, we would have much to learn from the Scandinavian model). A
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY, that includes competition and
cooperation, would create a healthy competition, and it would allow to
satisfy the material and human needs of all. (In this way, the
cooperative enterprises would be forced to become more efficient, while
capitalist enterprises would be forced to become more humane; we would
have much to learn from the Israeli kibbutz [non-profit cooperatives];
and from the industrial cooperatives of Mondragon, in the Basque
Country [a "workers capitalism"].) We should seek full employment (for
instance, by creating jobs in the construction of the transportation
infrastructure; but, if unemployment persists, the work time could be
reduced). Public transportation should be A1. (The city of Curitiba, in
Brazil, offers us a functional model of transportation; bicycle lanes
should be implemented along all major streets.) The homeless, who now
occupy our better parks, should be incorporated into light but
necessary duties, like picking up litter, in exchange for a decent
wage; there should be no homeless. (Again, Curitiba is a model on
this.) Junk food should have a warning label (just like cigarettes),
particularly the one destined to children, and also be taxed to
subsidize healthy alternatives. Housing should be available at popular
prices. (Prefabricated multifamily units can help accomplish this; the
movement of "new urbanism" can provide them with a sense of community
and quality of life, say by having abundant green areas.) Public
corruption should be treated as "public enemy No.1." TV and radio
should be independent of Big Business and the State. (This is due to
two reasons: culturally, because the ratings make bad programs become
"good"... for business; and, politically, because whoever has power
over the media... will be in power; however, people should be able to
watch anything on video and cable; the BBC offers us and example of an
independent media.) The "Free Press" should be democratized, so that,
among other things, the censorship of the opinions of the public is
eradicated. Politics should become cheaper to avoid its control by
powerful groups (for example, offering free time on TV to the
candidates; we would have much to learn from the political model of
Switzerland [in particular, its political decentralization and its
opportunity to "vote with your feet" between cantons]). Politicians
should live in the worst area they represent. Nevertheless, we should
never follow neither anything nor anyone -including myself- blindly.
And, of course, everything can be improved. Something to think about:
While the prohibition of drugs has been largely ineffective and costly
(in money, lives, crime), regulated legalization -like that of Holland-
can be a better solution to both addiction and crime. And living free
from fear of crime should be treated as a basic need of society. In
general, our policy should be that of "teaching them how fish," not of
"giving them the fish." The final form of this system would be
determined by the acceptance of the people themselves: Each and
everyone of these proposals should be submitted to referendum. And, the
basis of everything else: We should learn to live, not FROM, but WITH
Nature. This would amount to COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLE.

more...

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1

So what's the solution? Well, within the context of the jungle*, your
solution may make sense, but if we came out of the jungle, and educated

the people and decreased poverty by teaching them how to fish, then we
would see natality rates go down the way they've come down in every
other first world nation, particularly in Europe and Japan.


Birth Reduction Measures
· decrease poverty
· increase access to health care for infants,
children, women
· increase access to family planning services
· improve status of women
- education
- job opportunities
- increase involvement of men in familyplanning
and child-rearing


===========================


COMMENT:

You're being way over-optomistic. The need to limit child-bearing is an
idea, and no idea is 100% infectious. If you select against people who
don't think having lots of children is a good idea, you'll simply
select FOR any OTHER group who does not share your reasoning, or who
cannot understand it. That group will then expand until it begins to
take up all resources, and there you are again. Such groups are rapidly
doing just this in countries which have full jus soli citizenship, like
Canada and the US. The trend has been somewhat slowed in European
countries where naturalization is harder, and babies born in the
countries don't have automatic citizenship rights unless one parent is
a citizen (you mention Japan and Italy, in both of which this is true).
In Germany that parent must be the mother! In France, the child has to
apply for citizenship, and there's no automatic granting of it. And so
on. But this sort of thing only slows the tide. Eventually, even
developed Western countries which have changed their demographics by
changing their social status of women, will be over-run by
unassimilated internal groups which have a *different* idea of the
proper role of women, and who simply breed faster because they want to,
like the Mormons. Of which there are bound to be several in each
country. There is no way around this, except by eventual use of force
to stop it. If you can think of one, I'm all ears.

Again, please answer my argument that no argument persudes everybody.
In this case, your idea of population control by gentle suasion MUST do
so, or else it is doomed by evolution. I therefore flatly declare your
"solution" ultimately unworkable, prima facie. Sorry. I wish it were
otherwise.

SBH

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
- quote -

At first I thought you were one of those hardcore conservatives, but
then noticed you are a thinking person... Yep, both Conservatives and
Liberals are wrong! But remember it isn't that there's no food, it's
that resources are being dilapidated someplace else, say like Saturn!!!

So what's the solution? Well, within the context of the jungle*, your
solution may make sense, but if we came out of the jungle, and educated
the people and decreased poverty by teaching them how to fish, then we
would see natality rates go down the way they've come down in every
other first world nation, particularly in Europe and Japan.

Birth Reduction Measures
· decrease poverty
· increase access to health care for infants,
children, women
· increase access to family planning services
· improve status of women
- education
- job opportunities
- increase involvement of men in familyplanning
and child-rearing

http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~ddiresta/bil101/Lec08.pdf

*COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1

- quote -

situation." <<


COMMENT:

If kids go hungry in America, it's because their addicted and zoned out
parents have spent the money on drugs, and/or forget to feed them. More
money for the parents does not help this.

It's not clear where we spend the money to fix this. We already put a
lot of these parents in jail, and the result, is that foster parents
who now abuse the children. Orphanages have been suggested, but
liberals don't like them. They'd rather have their illusions.

Without a spay-neuter program for cats and dogs, you get too many cats
and dogs, and some of them will starve and be in poor shape. This is
why we have animal control, and (if necessary) animal euthanasia.

If you don't like the idea of human control and human euthanasia, I
might suggest that you think about putting some of the money toward
human population control. Yes, I know that conservatives don't like
this. However, the alternative is starving children. They can always
breed faster than you can feed them. This is a law of nature, and you
can no more change it than you can change the tides by decree.

--- Dr. Chanute Malthus

"Some pediatricians worry that cuts in welfare aid proposed in
President George W. Bush's 2006 budget will only exacerbate the
situation."

While spaceships go up and explore the planets out there for signs of
life, life itself is ignored back on planet Earth. It reminds me of a
certain lion...

HOW THE LION BENEFITS FROM THE LITTLE ANIMALS' POVERTY

One day all the little animals went up to the King of the Jungle and
complained about their poverty, and in particular about the fact that
every time, during the dry season, they had to travel long distances to
drink the precious fluid, and demanded a WATER WELL be built for
them... They cited how the resources that they contributed to the
kingdom were wasted in WARS and EXTRAVAGANT PROJECTS to the tastes of
the King... He, however, replied with all kinds of excuses: the lack of
resources, that it wasn't a matter of him not wanting it, but that it
was a matter of "priorities" --which was one of his favorite words...

Meanwhile, an Owl --who had very good eyes-- had been observing life in
the jungle, and thought this way: "Every time there's a dry season the
little animals must come to the little dirty waterhole where the Lion
waits for them... Had they been well fed and strong, he would have had
to run after them and even risk resistance. And, more importantly, the
little animals are forced to fight the Lion's wars as the quick way out
of poverty..."

And that's how the Owl landed an important --and well paid-- post in
the brand new Astronomy Department created by the King of the Jungle
--to the effect of exploring life in other planets...

Moral: "It is no use fixing our minds on higher things if we ignore
what is going on around us." (Moral of 'The Astronomer,' by Aesop...
http://www.fairytalescollection.com/...Astronomer.htm)

***

More babies, young kids going hungry in US

BALTIMORE, United States (AFP) - Increasing numbers of young American
children are showing signs of serious malnourishment, fueled by a
greater prevalence of hunger in the United States, while,
paradoxically, two-thirds of the US population is either overweight or
obese.

In 2003, 11.2 percent of families in the United States experienced
hunger, compared with 10.1 percent in 1999, according to most recent
official figures, released on National Hunger Awareness Day held this
year on Tuesday, June 7.

Some pediatricians worry that cuts in welfare aid proposed in
President George W. Bush's 2006 budget will only exacerbate the
situation. By contrast Bush plans to keep tax cuts for more affluent
sectors of the population, they note.

In the working class port city of Baltimore, Maryland, Dr. Maureen
Black, a pediatrician, sees numbers of underweight babies in her clinic
specialized in infant malnutrition located in one of the poorer areas.

"In the first year of life, children triple their birth weight," said
Black, "and if children do not have enough to eat during those very
early very times, you first see that their weight will falter and then
their height will falter."

"If their height falters enough and they experience stunting under age
two, they are then at risk for academic and behaviour problems" at
school, said Black.

Dr. Deborah Frank, a professor of pediatrics at Boston University's
School of Medicine, who also runs a specialised clinic for malnourished
babies, has similar concerns.

"We are seeing more and more very young babies under a year of age
which is a particular concern because they are most likely to die of
under nutrition, and also their brains are growing very very rapidly,"
said Frank, in a telephone interview.

"A baby's brain increases 2.5 times in size in the first year of life,"
she says, adding that if the baby fails to get the nutritional building
blocks he or she needs for the brain to develop, a child can have
lifelong difficulties in behaviour and learning.

But infant-child protection centers do not exist in the United States,
unlike it other countries, such as France, which makes children below
the age of three or four years old somewhat invisible to authorities,
laments Frank. "They don't come to my clinic until they are already
quite underweight.

"Recently I have been alarmed because we are getting more children who
are so ill that they go to hospital rather than they come to the clinic
first" a situation which, in 20 years of practising medicine, Frank had
seen reverse.

Some children in the United States occasionally look like the
malnourished children we see in some parts of Africa, however, welfare
programs targeting society's poorest ensures that problem is generally
avoided, the pediatricians say.

Paradoxically, malnutrition is not always due to lack of food -- rather
to the quality of the food being consumed.

"People often ask me how many children go to bed hungry. The answer is
the parents work very hard so they don't go to bed feeling hungry. The
parents try to fill the baby up with french fries and soda pop," said
Frank.

In some areas, green vegetables and fruit are impossible to buy -- even
in a can, because there may be no supermarket. Moreover, such items are
costly.

"What happens in America is -- what seems bizarre -- that some of the
recommendations that we give to families to prevent underweight of
children are the same as we give to prevent overweight," said Black.
"We recommend families not to give their children junk food."

In some families, eating junk food will mean one child is obese while
the other is underweight, said Black. "The first will eat junk food and
nothing else, the second will eat junk food and everything else."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050612...n_050612223253

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://committed.to/justiceforpeace