Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / August 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Lady Jackson

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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?
.
.
--
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.