Medical Forum / General / General / August 2006
Lady Jackson
|
|
Thread rating:  |
imbibe@mindspring.com (David Polewka) - 02 Jul 2006 09:28 GMT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Ward
Barbara Ward
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Barbara Mary Ward (1914 - 1981) was a British economist and writer interested in the problems of developing countries. She urged Western governments to share their prosperity with the rest of the world and in the 1960s turned her attention to environmental questions as well. She was an early advocate of sustainable development before this term became familiar and was well-known as a journalist, lecturer and broadcaster. Ward was adviser to policy-makers in the UK, US and elsewhere. In the last few years of her life she had the title Baroness Jackson of Lodsworth.
Education and early career
Barbara Ward was born in Heworth, Yorkshire on 23 May 1914, but her family soon moved to Felixstowe. Her father was a solicitor with Quaker tendencies, while her mother was a devout Catholic. Their daughter went to a convent school before study- ing in Paris: first at a lycée, then for some months at the Sor- bonne before going on to Germany. Though she had once planned to study modern languages, her interest in public affairs led to a degree course in politics, philosophy, and economics at Somerville College, Oxford University, from which she graduated in 1935.
She did post-graduate work on Austrian politics and economics. After witnessing antisemitism there and in Nazi Germany she began to help Jewish refugees, and mobilise Catholic support for any forthcoming UK war effort, although she had initially been "sympathetic to Hitler".[1] With Christopher Dawson, the historian, as leader and Ward as secretary, the Sword of the Spirit organisation was established to bring together Catholics and Anglicans opposing Nazism. It became a Roman Catholic group whose policies were promoted by the Dublin Review which Dawson edited, and for which Ward wrote regularly.
During the war she worked for the Ministry of Information and travelled in Europe and the US. Partly on the strength of her 1938 book, The International Share-out, Geoffrey Crowther, editor of The Economist, offered her a job. She left the magazine in 1950 having risen to foreign editor, but continued to contribute articles throughout her life. As well as writings on economic and foreign policy, her broadcasts on Christian values in wartime were published as The Defence of the West by Sword of the Spirit. During this time she was also president of the Catholic Women's League and a popular panel member of the BBC programme The Brains Trust which answered listeners' questions. She became a BBC governor in 1946.
After the war Ward was a supporter of the Marshall Plan, of a strong Europe, and of a European free trade area.
International influence, and marriage
In 1950 Barbara Ward married Australian Commander Robert Jackson, an administrator for the UN. Their son Robert was born in 1956, the same year that his father was knighted. Ward continued to use her own name professionally and was not widely known as Lady Jackson. Over the next few years they lived in West Africa and made various visits to India, and these experiences helped form Ward's views on the need for Western nations to contribute to the economic development of poorer countries. For the next two decades both husband and wife travelled a great deal, and eventually their marriage suffered from this.[2] A legal separation was arranged in the early 1970s though Ward, as a Catholic, did not want divorce. In 1976 when she was given a life peerage she used her husband's surname in the title Baroness Jackson of Lodsworth.
Ward had been a frequent public speaker since leaving uni- versity, and by the 1960s her lectures attracted international respect; several lecture series, including some presented in Canada, Ghana and India, were published in book form. Ward spent increasing amounts of time in the US, much of her work there funded by the Carnegie Foundation. In 1957 Harvard gave her an honorary LittD and until 1968 she was a Carnegie fellow there, living for part of each year in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She got to know Adlai Stevenson and John F Kennedy and acted as adviser to various influential policy makers, including Robert McNamara at the World Bank and Lyndon B Johnson, who welcomed her thoughts on his Great Society projects despite her opposition to the Vietnam war. She also influenced James Wolfensohn's thinking on development questions. She had influence in the Vatican, helped set up a pontifical com- mission for justice and peace, and in 1971 was the first woman ever to address a synod of Roman Catholic bishops.
One of her proposals was that richer countries should commit a certain proportion of their GNP in aid to the developing world, and she also spoke of the need for institutions to enable and manage both 'aid and trade'. This was a practical as well as an ethical concern: Ward believed such policies would encourage stability and peace. She is sometimes called a distributist. [3]
Environmental concerns
Ward started to see a close connection between wealth distribution and conservation of planetary resources. "... the careful husbandry of the Earth is sine qua non for the survival of the human species, and for the creation of decent ways of life for all the people of the world."[4] She used the phrases "inner limits and "outer limits" to refer to the inner limits of the human right to an adequate standard of living and the outer limits of what the Earth can sustain. [5]
In 1966 she published Spaceship Earth and is sometimes said to have coined the phrase, though it had in fact been used before. Not only had her friend Adlai Stevenson made a speech to the UN in 1965 in which he said We travel to- gether, passengers on a little space ship, dependent on its vulnerable reserves of air and soil....[6] but two years before that Buckminster Fuller had published his Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth.
With hindsight, Ward is seen as a pioneeer of sustainable development. She and René Dubos, co-authors of Only One Earth, have been described as "parents" of a concept which "did not know its own name at first".[7] Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet was written for the 1972 UN Stockholm conference on the Human Environment.
Ward's work was rooted in her sense of morality and Christian values. She saw care of the environment and concern for the well-being of all humankind as a "dual responsibility", especially for anyone sharing her religious outlook. [8] At the same time, she believed wealth distribution combined with conservation was essentially a rational policy: We are a ship's company on a small ship. Rational behaviour is the condition of survival. [9]
In 1971 she founded the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), acting as president from 1973 and chairman from 1980.
Later life
Ward had recovered from cancer in the late 1940s thanks, she believed, to the spiritual support of Padre Pio. The illness recurred twenty years later but surgery did not cure her. In 1973 she retired from Columbia University where she had been Schweitzer Professor of Economic Development for the previous five years and went to live in Lodsworth, Sussex. The next year she was made a DBE, and in 1976 a life peer, Baroness Jackson of Lodsworth. She wrote her last book, Progress for a Small Planet, despite her deteriorating health, discussing the "planetary community", dwindling resources used up too fast by wealthy countries, and the needs of poorer parts of the world. It was published in 1979, two years before her death on 31 May 1981. Pope John Paul II sent a Cardinal to represent him at Ward's requiem service. At her own request, she was buried in the graveyard of the local Anglican parish church. . . --
just_ed53spam@yahoo.com - 02 Jul 2006 14:35 GMT > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Ward > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Barbara Mary Ward (1914 - 1981) was a British economist > and writer interested in the problems of developing countries. <snip biography>
WTF is this doing in sci.med?
imbibe@mindspring.com (David Polewka) - 02 Jul 2006 20:08 GMT > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Ward > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > WTF is this doing in sci.med? Technology isn't lifting all boats, but we keep adding more boats! As our numbers increase, there will be more conflicts at all levels -- local, regional, national, international and global -- that wouldn't happen if population were stabilized. It would be much more equitable having each individual fight the flu on his own, rather than waste resources having armies fight each other over resources. By stopping the suppression of influenza, everyone could be on the front lines, instead of just a few good men. . . --
Kent Paul Dolan - 02 Jul 2006 21:03 GMT "imbibe@mindspring.com (David Polewka)" <imbibe@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> WTF is this doing in sci.med? It's a gift from talk.bizarre's drooling drunk two-decades-and-running Usenet troll Pollutka, who's published this lot of rot-brain-emitted drivel letter perfect:
> Technology isn't lifting all boats, but we keep > adding more boats! As our numbers increase, > there will be more conflicts at all levels -- > local, regional, national, international and > global -- that wouldn't happen if population > were stabilized.
> It would be much more equitable having each > individual fight the flu on his own, rather than > waste resources having armies fight each other > over resources. By stopping the suppression of > influenza, everyone could be on the front lines, > instead of just a few good men.
to Usenet 29 times now, if I haven't lost track, without ever bothering to use it to follow up anything where it makes the least bit of sense in context. Not that it makes sense standing alone, either, being merely a recipe for global warfare incited via enduring of plagues forced on the third world by the first world.
HTH
xanthian.
Think: "Killfile!" and be enlightened.
imbibe@mindspring.com (David Polewka) - 02 Jul 2006 22:25 GMT > merely a recipe for global warfare incited via > enduring of plagues forced on the third > world by the first world. It would be impossible to stop suppressing influenza without the cooperation of government and medical communities worldwide! Shows how much thinking you've put into it! Zero! . . --
Kent Paul Dolan - 03 Jul 2006 01:12 GMT >> merely a recipe for global warfare incited via >> enduring of plagues forced on the third world by >> the first world.
> It would be impossible to stop suppressing > influenza without the cooperation of government Yes, Mr. "we _must_ limit government power"???? One more time, why are YOU proposing giving this kind of power to governments, you dancing blue-butted baboon?
> and medical communities worldwide! Vaccines have limited manufacturies, making it very easy to cut them off at the source, which:
> Shows how much thinking you've put into it! Zero! Yep, Zero. You've been hyping this moron plan of yours for _years_, and have never even bothered to figure out how it would work in practice. But then, you don't have the brains left after all your drinking to plan your way out of a paper bag, so no big surprise there.
HTH
xanthian, clapping time while Pollutka plays the dancing fool.
imbibe@mindspring.com (David Polewka) - 03 Jul 2006 01:32 GMT > > It would be impossible to stop suppressing > > influenza without the cooperation of government > > Yes, Mr. "we _must_ limit government power"???? One > more time, why are YOU proposing giving this kind of > power to governments? Because: Technology isn't lifting all boats, but we keep adding more boats! As our numbers increase, there will be more conflicts at all levels -- local, regional, national, international and global -- that wouldn't happen if population were stabilized! . . --
Kent Paul Dolan - 06 Jul 2006 16:11 GMT >>> It would be impossible to stop suppressing >>> influenza without the cooperation of government
>> Yes, Mr. "we _must_ limit government power"???? >> One more time, why are YOU proposing giving this >> kind of power to governments?
> Because: Technology isn't lifting all boats, but > we keep adding more boats! As our numbers > increase, there will be more conflicts at all > levels -- local, regional, national, international > and global -- that wouldn't happen if population > were stabilized! Sorry, bozo, you've flapped your jaw enough to fly a circle so tight you've gone up your own rectum. That's where you started, four articles upthread.
Moreover, it doesn't answer, but instead does your famous dance of the blue-butted baboon to evade, the question of your hypocrisy.
How can you claim that having government provide affordable, universally accessible, individually chosen birth control technology, a solution to population growth already proved to work well and quickly, is bad "because governments should have only limited power" while at the very same time claiming that governments should be given the _unlimited_ power to forment plagues, misery and death on all of humankind because "we should all take our social planning advice from an alcohol dementia victim who shouts the same moronic message urging immoral and impractical solutions to problems he cannot begin to comprehend, over and over and over"?
The only support you have for your own argument is... your own argument, and it is full of holes.
1) With the possible exceptions of some natives of Papua New Guinea, and certain tribes in the Brazilian jungles, there is _no place on earth_ where modern technology hasn't benefited individual humans. Eskimos hunt whales in motorboats, bushmen wear print tee-shirts, Padagonians wear Nikes.
And even the exceptions have exceptions.
Two Papua New Guinean women doing their daily work in full western garb: http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/34414/c78/ A village-full of same: http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/56b23/
Shavante Indian [Brazilian indiginous tribe] using Buriti sticks to make fire. Buriti is a type of tree that grows in the Amazon forest. Notice the high technology clothing in a low technology society. http://www.un.org/av/photo/brazil/182565.jpg
So, perhaps you'd care to identify these "boats" that you claim are not being lifted by technology, and prove that they are numerous enough to matter in the sense of population controls mattering in their lives?
2) Where technology is most abundant, population levels are _dropping_. Even the US isn't breeding at a replacement rate, what population growth is still occurring is due to immigration.
And why is that? Is the US in the throes of some great, population destroying plague? No. AIDS is the worst thing going, and its effect on population growth is negligible.
Population growth in the US has reversed exactly because birth control technology is widely available and affordable here, allowing couples to _plan_ families, rather than leave survival of some cohort of offspring a prisoner to chance.
Just naturally, if plagues are allowed to run rampant in the US, couples will have to _increase_ family sizes to cater for the odds of losing some children due to plague deaths, and just naturally, as is the case everywhere disease deaths are endemic among the young, couples will _overcompensate_ by having more children than is necessary _on average_, to prevent losing all children due to _worse than average_ deaths due to plagues. The result is that your plan will cause population levels to skyrocket, not drop, by reversing the current decreases in birth rates.
That this highlights your status as a brain-burned moron incapable of thinking through the consequences of what you propose is A Good Thing.
3) Smaller population does not imply end to conflicts. Humankind has had conflicts since our worldwide population was in the tens of thousands, so pretending population control is the One Big Answer to peace on earth is an exercise in idiocy, a skill you display daily.
[Indeed, since warfare is practiced among others of the great apes, arguably humankind has been embroiled in conflicts since _before we were human_, making conflicts somehow "natural" to us. Certainly there is little hope of _reducing_ conflict by _increasing_ human misery.]
HTH
xanthian.
imbibe@mindspring.com (David Polewka) - 06 Jul 2006 21:04 GMT > How can you claim that having government provide > affordable, universally accessible, individually > chosen birth control technology, a solution to > population growth already proved to work well and > quickly, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-04-us-population_x.htm
A nation of 300 million
By Haya El Nasser, USA TODAY The USA is closing in on a milestone that seemed unthinkable 25 years ago. Sometime in mid-October, we will become a nation of 300 million Americans. We will then embark on a relatively quick journey to 400 million. Target date: around 2040.
How did this young country get so big so quickly? Immigration, longevity, a relatively high birth rate and economic stability all have propelled the phenomenal growth. The nation has added 100 million people since 1967 to become the world's third-most populous country after China and India. It's growing faster than any other industrialized nation.
The biggest driver of growth is immigration - legal and illegal. About 53% of the 100 million extra Americans are recent immi- grants or their descendants, according to Jeffrey Passel, demo- grapher at the Pew Hispanic Center. Without them, the USA would have about 250 million people today.
The newcomers have transformed an overwhelmingly white population of largely European descent into a multicultural society that reflects every continent on the globe. Some arrived as war refugees. Most came in search of better opportunities in a country that has strong civil rights and a stable economy. Once here, they had babies, which helped the nation maintain a birthrate that is higher than that of Europe and Japan.
For a country that has equated growth with prosperity throughout much of its history, 300 million is prompting soul- searching about everything from the consumption of natural resources and sprawl to border control and traffic jams. The Census Bureau's population clock will hit the momentous number barely a month before midterm elections in which illegal immigration is a volatile issue.
Half of Americans say their communities have grown a lot in the past five years, but more than three-fourths say growth is a minor problem or no problem where they live, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken in early June. Though about a third say growth will become a major issue in their commun- ities, more than half say it will be a major problem for the country as a whole. Almost half attribute population growth to immigrants.
Lee Atkinson, 57, lives in Chesapeake, a city in Virginia's fast- growing Tidewater area near Norfolk and Virginia Beach. "The increase in people is creating an employment problem and increased demand for social services, and I'm not sure that the financial support is there," says Atkinson, owner of an occupational safety consulting company.
He worries that services and infrastructure are not keeping pace with population growth. "Nobody wants to build new highways. Nobody wants to maintain the ones we've got. We don't want to spend any money on it. More people are going to place more demands."
Oddly, most Americans don't have a clue how many people actually live in the USA or how many are expected to. Twenty- nine percent guessed the population at 200 million or less, and 19% put it at 1 billion or more. Twelve percent came within 50 million of guessing correctly.
There might be more awareness by year's end. Hoopla is mounting around the 300 million event. Some baby-food marketers plan to use it in their marketing campaigns. The Census Bureau and leading demographers are fielding calls from media worldwide.
"The world is watching," says William Frey, demographer at the Brookings Institution. He has gotten calls from British broadcasters asking which hospital the 300 millionth American will be born in and from parenting magazines trying to pinpoint the exact day of the event (Frey's estimate is Oct. 17).
Several publications want to know what race and ethnicity No. 300 million is likely to be. There is no way to pinpoint that person because the number is an estimate, not an exact accounting of the population. It could be a newborn. It could be an immigrant entering the country. Speculation abounds.
The USA is alone among industrialized nations in its relatively rapid population increase. The populations in Japan and Russia are expected to shrink almost one-fourth by 2050. Germany, Italy and most European nations are not making enough babies to keep their populations from sliding.
"There's a fertility malaise in (other) industrialized countries," says Carl Haub, senior demographer at the non-profit Population Reference Bureau. "Europe and Japan and South Korea and Taiwan are getting desperate."
Women have to give birth to an average 2.1 babies to offset deaths and keep the population even. The birthrate in Western Europe is 1.6. It's even lower - 1.4 - in Italy, Spain and other southern European countries. France, which has done more to accommodate the needs of working mothers, has the highest rate at 1.9, Haub says.
Germany, where leaving children in day care is not socially embraced, is proposing a family allowance that would pay mothers 67% of their partner's net income up to 1,800 euros ($2,304) a month for up to a year after childbirth.
The USA would hardly grow in the next 50 years except for Hispanic immigrants, who have a higher birthrate than non- Hispanic whites. White women, who give birth to 56% of the children born here, have an average 1.85 babies. Blacks average about two and Asians 1.9. Hispanics have 2.8. The overall birthrate is slightly above two - just below replacement levels.
When the U.S. population was at 200 million in 1967, women had an average of three children and the government expected the population to hit 300 million as early as 1990. By the 1980s, the birthrate had tumbled and government estimates projected that the country wouldn't get there until the 2020s. The flow of immigrants turned those projections on their heads.
Why would a country want more babies? For industrialized nations, numbers mean economic and cultural power. To remain globally competitive, countries need workers. In addition to in- jecting innovation in the workplace, the young help meet the needs of the elderly through the taxes they pay, Haub says.
The nation is getting older as the oldest boomers turn 60 this year. People also are living longer. Since 1970, life expectancy at birth jumped about seven years to a record 77.9 years. The share of the population age 65 or older grew from 9.9% to 12.4%. The median age is up from 28.1 to 36.2 years.
Some experts argue that more people cause more problems. Brian Dixon, director of government relations for Population Connection, a grass-roots advocacy group formerly called Zero Population Growth, says the challenges for nations facing little growth or actual declines aren't as difficult as those confronting the USA.
"Figuring out a pension system has to be easier than dealing with the health crisis of polluted air or how we're going to address increases in childhood asthma," he says. "Is there going to be enough open space, enough parkland, enough housing, enough jobs? What does it mean for our quality of life?"
Immigration should not be viewed as a domestic issue, Dixon says. "Immigration is really foreign policy," he says. "What can the U.S. do to ease problems in the developing world that drive people to leave?" The goal, he says, should be to keep people in their native lands.
The United States all but shut its door to immigrants in the 1920s after a record wave of immigration that lasted about 30 years. The Depression and World War II followed. Then baby boomers were born from 1946 to 1964, arriving in a mostly white country that had very few recent immigrants.
Everything changed when President Johnson signed the Immi- gration and Naturalization Act of 1965. The policy opened U.S. shores to the Third World. "That was probably the single most important demographic event of the last 50 years," Haub says.
The act had less to do with attracting more immigrants than keeping immigration laws in line with the civil rights movement. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were designed to stop racial and ethnic discrimination -- inherent in the country's past immigration laws, which set quotas based on national origins. After 1965, race, religion, color and national origin were disregarded.
The end of the Vietnam War brought Asian refugees. In 1964, the United States ended the bracero program, which had allowed Mexican farmworkers to come to this nation to work and return home. By 1970, the Mexican economy had nosedived and more Mexicans came to stay - many illegally. Without the influx, Passel says, diversity would never have reached current levels: 15% Hispanic and 5% Asian compared with 5% Hispanic and 1% Asian in 1970.
"Our growth, were it not for that, would be barely enough to keep population constant," says Joel Darmstadter, senior fellow at Resources for the Future, a non-partisan research group that specializes in natural resources and the environment. His research shows that prosperity puts more pressure on natural resources than sheer population growth.
"It's not immigrants who are going to buy those expensive houses in Phoenix or Tucson," Darmstadter says. "To view immigration as the heavy in the problems of water use or energy use is a copout."
It's difficult to imagine the country running out of space when there is open desert as far as the eye can see 30 minutes south or west of Phoenix.
The town of Maricopa, Ariz., is a dot in the breathtaking expanse of the Sonoran Desert. Not long ago, farmer Kelly Anderson, its first mayor, could rumble down state Highway 347 in his tractor, meet a buddy and hang out in the middle of the two-lane road for a chat and a beer without disrupting traffic.
Now, growth is galloping toward it across hundreds of square miles of arid soil, cotton fields and cattle feed lots. Maricopa's population has quadrupled since 2000 to more than 17,000. It's expected to reach 116,000 -Phoenix was that size in the early 1950s - by 2010 and top 300,000 by 2025.
Non-native palm trees appear on the horizon in every direction, a telltale sign of approaching subdivisions. Tanker trucks douse construction sites with water to dampen dust stirred up by bulldozers, a reminder of the natural resources gobbled up by growth.
What's happening in once-remote Maricopa is replicated across the country. The USA is getting more crowded - 83 persons per square mile in 2004 vs. 70.3 in 1990 - but it's far less dense than other nations such as France (287), China (361), Germany (609) and Japan (835). Arizona is getting denser: 50.5 in 2004 vs. 32.3 in 1990. That's still far less than other parts of the country, including California (230), Pennsylvania (277) and New Jersey (1,173).
Some regions haven't been touched by the nation's population surge. Parts of states in the Great Plains have suffered popu- lation losses and bemoan the exodus of their young. Nebraska's density (22.7) and North Dakota's (9.2) have barely budged this decade.
"We're still using a fraction of the national space," says Robert Lang, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech. "By 2050, the settled space will be more developed. A lot of places are literally out of land. ... They're having to go up rather than out, but there'll still be the Great Plains and vast stretches of the Inter- mountain West."
Fueled by a sunny climate, plentiful land and cheaper housing, fast and furious growth has been a fact of life around Phoenix for decades.
Maricopa, Casa Grande, Goodyear, Buckeye and other small towns on the edge of the metro area are going through the same kind of boom that transformed closer-in suburbs such as Chandler and Glendale from specks on the map in 1970 to cities whose populations top 200,000 today.
"I've lived in northeast Pennsylvania, and declining growth is worse than rapid growth," says Jack Tomasik, planning director for the Central Arizona Association of Governments. "But rapid growth definitely has its drawbacks."
The boomtowns hope to create the infrastructure needed to sustain growth, something they've seen some bigger neighbors struggle with. That's why Buckeye, Goodyear, Litchfield Park and Avondale joined forces and put up money to speed the widening of I-10, the first time Arizona communities have done such a thing, Buckeye Mayor Bobby Bryant says. They're drafting plans to lure jobs and businesses, not just housing, a delicate balance because retail and employers won't come until enough people live there.
"You need to accept growth," Casa Grande Mayor Charles Walton says. "It's coming whether you want it or not."
Yet a future of whirlwind growth nags at him. He worries that it ultimately will harm the quality of life of future generations.
"I think I can tolerate it in my lifetime," he says, "but I feel very sorry for my grandchildren. . . --
Kent Paul Dolan - 06 Jul 2006 21:24 GMT >> How can you claim that having government provide >> affordable, universally accessible, individually >> chosen birth control technology, a solution to >> population growth already proved to work well and >> quickly,
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-04-us-population_x.htm Once again, moron, you shovelware something you failed to read or comprehend. Now go through the parts I've culled out for you, READ IT, and realize how thoroughly it highlights the idiocy of your contention that the world _needs_ plagues to control population growth.
Just as I've told you time and again, the US population is only growing because of immigration, the rest of the highly industrialized world is facing population shortfalls. Only poverty and disease foment heavy population growth, and do it for two reasons obvious on their face:
1) Parents need children as their equivalent in those nations of social security in the US and other industrialized nations.
2) Where disease runs rampant, parents need _lots_ of children to assure that at least a few survive to adulthood to serve point "1".
Grow a brain, or put on a muzzle, but shut up until you have something to say that isn't stupidity incarnate.
HTH
xanthian.
-> The USA is alone among industrialized nations in -> its relatively rapid population increase. The -> populations in Japan and Russia are expected to -> shrink almost one-fourth by 2050. Germany, Italy -> and most European nations are not making enough -> babies to keep their populations from sliding.
-> "There's a fertility malaise in (other) -> industrialized countries," says Carl Haub, senior -> demographer at the non-profit Population Reference -> Bureau. "Europe and Japan and South Korea and -> Taiwan are getting desperate."
-> The USA would hardly grow in the next 50 years -> except for Hispanic immigrants, who have a higher -> birthrate than non- Hispanic whites. White women, -> who give birth to 56% of the children born here, -> have an average 1.85 babies. Blacks average about -> two and Asians 1.9. Hispanics have 2.8.
-> tHE OVERALL BIRTHRATE IS SLIGHTLY ABOVE TWO - -> JUST BELOW REPLACEMENT LEVELS.
-> When the U.S. population was at 200 million in -> 1967, women had an average of three children and -> the government expected the population to hit 300 -> million as early as 1990. By the 1980s, the -> birthrate had tumbled and government estimates -> projected that the country wouldn't get there -> until the 2020s. The flow of immigrants turned -> those projections on their heads.
-> Everything changed when President Johnson signed -> the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. -> The policy opened U.S. shores to the Third World. -> "That was probably the single most important -> demographic event of the last 50 years," Haub -> says.
-> By 1970, the Mexican economy had nosedived and -> more Mexicans came to stay - many illegally. -> Without the influx, Passel says, diversity would -> never have reached current levels: 15% Hispanic -> and 5% Asian compared with 5% Hispanic and 1% -> Asian in 1970.
-> "Our growth, were it not for that, would be barely -> enough to keep population constant,"
-> "I've lived in northeast Pennsylvania, and -> declining growth is worse than rapid growth,"
-> "You need to accept growth," Casa Grande Mayor -> Charles Walton says. "It's coming whether you want -> it or not."
imbibe@mindspring.com (David Polewka) - 07 Jul 2006 04:59 GMT > > http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-04-us-population_x.htm > > Once again, moron, you shovelware something you > failed to read or comprehend. Now go through the > parts I've culled out for you, READ IT, and realize...
> -> "You need to accept growth," Casa Grande Mayor > -> Charles Walton says. "It's coming whether you want > -> it or not." Here, you dropped this:
Yet a future of whirlwind growth nags at him. He worries that it ultimately will harm the quality of life of future generations.
"I think I can tolerate it in my lifetime," he says, "but I feel very sorry for my grandchildren. . . --
Kent Paul Dolan - 07 Jul 2006 05:06 GMT [Usual blue-butted baboon dance around the issues that everything he proposes is not merely morally wrong, not merely unworkable, but also unnecessary, and that once again, he's posted the proof _himself_ because he had no clue what he was shovelwaring.]
Here, you dropped this:
http://www.gluemeat.com/archives/001476.html
HTH
xanthian.
imbibe@mindspring.com (David Polewka) - 07 Jul 2006 22:21 GMT > >Here, you dropped this: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.gluemeat.com/archives/001476.html La - la - lalala - let's live for to-dayyyyyy And doan wor-ry, 'bout to-morrowwwww - heyyyy . . --
Kent Paul Dolan - 08 Jul 2006 02:13 GMT > La - la - lalala - let's live for to-dayyyyyy > And doan wor-ry, 'bout to-morrowwwww - heyyyy Right. Watching your mind rot away from alcoholic dementia, and realizing you'll never survive to be as old as I am now, you might as well sing your dancing blue-butted baboon song of happiness.
Now, since you're a big fan of offing the no longer useful, and since you've obviously run screaming into that status yourself, I hope you'll arrange for the nice folks at the Chapel Hill local news rag to post your post-suicide obituary here, so we can all do a little jig of despair in your honor.
xanthian.
David James Polewka - 06 Aug 2006 18:03 GMT >Yep, Zero. You've been hyping this moron plan of >yours for _years_, and have never even bothered to >figure out how it would work in practice. How about the path we're on now? How is that going to work in practice? . . ========================= "Endeavor to persevere" =========================
imbibe@mindspring.com (David Polewka) - 04 Jul 2006 09:31 GMT > to Usenet 29 times now, if I haven't lost track, It'll probably take 1000 times before it penetrates that thick head of yours! You're about as dense as a neutron star! Maybe you could get some help from Robert Shelton. Just email him your list of grand achievements, and I'll bet he'll fling his doors open to you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_N._Shelton
Robert N. Shelton (born 1948), is currently the president of the University of Arizona. Before beginning his position on 1 July 2006, he served as the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His starting salary at Arizona is reportedly $550,000.
An expert in condensed matter physics, he received his B.S. from Stanford University and his M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of California, San Diego.
> without ever bothering to use it to follow up > anything where it makes the least bit of sense in > context. Not that it makes sense standing alone, > either, being merely a recipe for global warfare > incited via enduring of plagues forced on the third > world by the first world. // u l i e n - 04 Jul 2006 05:52 GMT <imbibe@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:1151867306.604644.85170@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Ward >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > everyone could be on the front lines, instead of just a few good men. > . I hope the world solves its problems, just so I can see Polewka with egg on his face.
--
imbibe@mindspring.com (David Polewka) - 06 Jul 2006 09:20 GMT > I hope the world solves its problems, just so I > can see Polewka with egg on his face. Are you praying, too, or just hoping? . . --
|
|
|