Wifely Duties by piratenews

BYTE- So really this is all about insurance policies? because you haven't shown that TPTB have a compelling interest in population levels either way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 6:21 PM

Well, no, not just insurance policies. Really any mandatory tax that hits poor families harder than others, or discriminatory policies, or a flawed education system that seals them where they're at. Or heck, really the system in general is the problem, because it only empowers a select group of people, while exploiting everyone else.

I guess if you think I haven't. I've always thought it's pretty self-evident, otherwise why would there even be a movement for population control from high up?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 6:21 PM

Quote:
I know way too many Chinese for this argument to make sense. No offense, but this borders on lunacy.

So do I, and so does Rue, seeing as we work on a daily basis with mainland Chinese, including people whose parents remember the long march, and those who personally survived the Great Leap Forward. I suspect that the people YOU know were never peasants.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 6:23 PM

What is it with you and population control, Byte???? I'm against regressive taxes too, but taxes are taxes, not population control.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:18 PM

DREAMTROVE

Regressive taxes are probably population control, population control is genocide, check the UN charter on genocide.

Want to solve the hunger problem, solve the problem, use science, don't just kill off the population. But it's too fucking obvious that one group is reducing the population of another group, and we're back to rival ape clans hitting each other over the head with sticks.

Just remove the political barriers, apply GMO science, and up the food supply, and the problem will be solved. We've already figured out that our most efficient farming is at 1% the efficiency of that of an ant hill. This means that if we can only be as smart as ants, we can support 1 trillion humans on this earth without tilling a single extra acre of land.

Before the population hits a trillion, several things will happen:

1. Nature will intervene as humans become a primary food source for the ecosystem

2. We will develop revitalization techniques that will turn deserts into farmland

3. We will colonize space.

So, no, there will never be a crushing overpopulation problem: Space is infinite.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 4:29 AM

DT, at the risk of sounding harsh, your prediction is a little bit like PN's predictions. It's easy to wave your hands and say voila!, but in the history of the human species there have only been a few instances of ecological preservation on a mass scale, but MANY instances of suicide by ecocide.

AFA genocide, if you include birth control as a form of genocide.... well, that's just weird.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:12 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

What happened to the initial discussion of "wifely duties"? I wrote this long post in Word responding to the first half of this discussion, but didn't post it when someone's post made me realize the discussion was started LONG ago and the picked up again.

So I'm still thinking in terms of the original topic, not population control, etc.

I guess the only thing I'd have to say about the newer remarks is that all the suggestions are good ones, but purely pie in the sky and in some cases just plain idiocy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:36 AM

Diplomatic of you to not specify, but I know your meaning.

I was thinking this morning, if I were to ever end up in an Orwellian society with transceivers recording everyone, I would spend all my time doodling happy child-like pictures or designs on the screens with dots and slashes. And whenever I was going somewhere, I'd do a sort of funny walk, dance or skip so I just seemed like a happy nutcase with ADD.

And I would always be looking for new dots and slashes.

Such is the life of a conspiracy theorist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 11:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think we'll have to agree to disagree then, because I'm pretty sure that people dying (from poverty or not) is in general a form of population control. What was it Newton said? "A growing ball of flesh, expanding outward at the speed of light?"

If people weren't dying from poverty, those nations would have far higher populations than they do now, unless they experienced one of your demographic transitions... By which they would then fall under other forms of population control we've already covered.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't accept disagreement over facts.

It is a FACT that the poorest nations on earth have the fastest growing populations - not an opinion.

POPULATION GROWTH - which the map shows - takes into account both birth AND death rates - and birth rates ARE far outripping death rates in the poorest countries. Poverty can't be population CONTROL if it makes the poulation grow faster.

That is a FACT. Get used to it.

Byte, I'm quoting from Rue, but this msg is for you. She is right. This is an area that I study and teach about quite a bit. I know that it's counterintuitive, but death by poverty is not a form of population control, and neither are warfare nor massive disease. Many, many studies have shown that the way people respond to the risk of child mortality (when most poverty-related deaths occur) is by having more kids. Warfare and disease produce temporary decreases, but they are almost always followed by massive increases. If you look at population growth in Europe, post WW2 you can see that a huge divot got taken out of the male population (female, too, but to a lesser extent), but pops started growing as soon as the soldiers got home (in a Europe that was destroyed both physically and economically). The Black Deat killed about a third of Europe - and was followed by rapid population growth leading into the Renaissance, the Enlightenment (and ultimately the Industrial Revolution).

I've told my classes many a time that the second best way to control population growth in the third world would be to send them GatorAde. (The leading cause of child mortality is diarrhea - keep 'em hydrated and they recover just fine). I should point out that the best way is to send girls to high school - education of women has a bigger effect on population growth rates than any other factor.

Mortality has been shown over and over not to be a brake on population growth. The opposite is true.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 11:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Byte, you have simply not made a case that the wealthy have any compelling interest- one way or another- on population size or growth.

Thanks Prof. The idea that poverty, war and disease are some sort of conspiracy by the wealthy to control population growth is

Oh, and BTW- if is IS a conspiracy, then we're stupid enough to go along with it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:32 PM

Wait, though, this still doesn't seem to disprove that the death rate in impoverished nations isn't being directly contributed to by the richer nations, or that this isn't intentional, motivated by a desire to exploit the population. This only shows that humans compensate for a high death rate, which causes them to bounce back when the death rate declines.

To disprove it you have to show me one of a few things. That the European/American (and capitalist) focus in the global economy has not directly contributed to the economic state of these populations, that our neglect of giving aid to certain poor populations is not intentional, or that we don't want to exploit them.

The first one would probably be the easiest. The other two require speculation for either side of the argument.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:51 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Byte, the part that you keep missing is that you've been saying that the GOAL of high death rates is to control population growth. In your mind, the whole purpose of inducing poverty is to kill people. We've long since agreed that poverty is deliberate, and death results from extreme poverty. Where we disagree is that high death reates are a goal.

Let me analogize: If we eat beef and kill cattle, does that mean our purpose in killing cows is to control their population? Or is their death simply a side-effect of some other purpose?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:53 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Byte

Many have said that capitalists exploit people.

Many have said that in the quest for higher profit margins, the death of hundreds, thousands, even millions, is not a problem.

What we are taking issue with is your claim that the 'owners' are concerned enough about too many people that they are deliberately using poverty for the sole purpose of reducing numbers.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 1:08 PM

Or keeping them in check. Originally, I started out thinking the sole goal was to reduce numbers, which probably still is the end goal, because this is the stated goal of people who want population control. Reduced numbers to decrease strain on the environment and resources.

But your facts have made me begin to consider that possibly for now they may only be controlling the RATE of population growth, keeping it not negative, but low. And by low, I mean lower than it normally would be. Relative to more developed nations, the poor nations still have a high population growth.

So right now I'm interested in whether or not we can prove or disprove that there is interference, and if it is or isn't intentional.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 2:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Proving that capitalists are conspiring to control population growth rates requires a lot of supposition about their motivations. Because you're starting out with the assumption that they give a sh*t, but I'm still not seeing how they have a vested interest in lowering the population and therefore raising the standard of living. In fact, quite the opposite.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 2:16 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... because this is the stated goal of people who want population control."

You are making many, many assumptions:

1) all people who want population reduction want it for the same reasons
2) all people who want population reduction are 'owners'
3) the 'owners' have the means to carry out a global scheme solely aimed at reducing the population to some optimum (unspecified) number
4) you know what their motivations are
5) you know what their means are
6) their means actually work

and several others I haven't thought of yet, I'm sure.

I hope you can undertsand why we're skeptical of your proposals.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 3:09 PM

BNW

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Wait, though, this still doesn't seem to disprove that the death rate in impoverished nations isn't being directly contributed to by the richer nations,

Hi. Lurk a lot, don't post much.

Generally, doesn't a conspiracy need to be proved, rather than a lack of conspiracy?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 3:56 PM

Quote:
a vested interest in lowering the population and therefore raising the standard of living.

For themselves and their peers, who they expect to make into the next round, so to speak.

Quote:
In fact, quite the opposite.

For everyone else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 3:58 PM

Quote:
I hope you can undertsand why we're skeptical of your proposals.

Sure I do. Doesn't make it any less what my impressions and observations are. But the thing about observations, they depend on perspective. You obviously see this differently than I do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 4:00 PM

Quote:
Generally, doesn't a conspiracy need to be proved, rather than a lack of conspiracy?

Doesn't seem to be stopping them, and I'm learning a lot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 4:12 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm confused. Who is 'them' ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 4:31 PM

BNW

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Generally, doesn't a conspiracy need to be proved, rather than a lack of conspiracy?

Doesn't seem to be stopping them, and I'm learning a lot.

I was referring to your argument. "You can't prove there's not a conspiracy, so there must be one" is not very compelling.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 4:57 PM

Quote:
I was referring to your argument. "You can't prove there's not a conspiracy, so there must be one" is not very compelling.

I don't believe I've said that they CAN'T disprove my theory. I have full faith that rue and sig could disprove everything I say if they wanted to. I just felt like only one side of the argument was being focused on, a side that I thought I had already conceded, and I wanted to see their response to the other side.

I also don't recall if I said there MUST be one. I've only been saying what I think and observe. I'm fully aware I have very little evidence on my side.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 5:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm confused. Who is 'them' ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

If you mean this:

Quote:
Quote:
Generally, doesn't a conspiracy need to be proved, rather than a lack of conspiracy?

Doesn't seem to be stopping them, and I'm learning a lot.

Then I meant you and Sig, in that you want to disprove my statements. And I am learning a lot from you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 6:08 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
December 13, 2008
TIMES READ: 34351

Damn! Horny surfers.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Byte, you have simply not made a case that the wealthy have any compelling interest- one way or another- on population size or growth.

Thanks Prof. The idea that poverty, war and disease are some sort of conspiracy by the wealthy to control population growth is

Oh, and BTW- if is IS a conspiracy, then we're stupid enough to go along with it.

Signy, your use of the head-smashing icon is all too appropriate. I figuratively bash my head (not so dumb as to actually bash it!) about the totally irrational ways that humans react to population issues. Ye gods I wish that this supposedly rational species Homo sapiens could actually think....

But I do try to push them in that direction (i.e., thinking).

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 9:34 PM

yep.....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 5:22 AM

Changing thread title back to original, as per recent agreement among members on thread title changing.

Also, I am being characterized as unthinking.

Lovely.

Not once have I argued that resource management is not important and necessary, not once have I argued that environmental impact shouldn't be considered. Not once have I even argued with the facts as presented, I have accepted them as truth. I have only said that I think there is some danger of abuse with state sponsored population control, and explained how I think it's happening even now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 7:02 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Byte

Some years ago there were a number of threads that ended up discussing what is the nature of proof, and what is the nature of reality.

In the end, no one can really know the absolute truth, b/c even 'I think, therefore, I am' is unprovable. And no one can actually logically prove anything either b/c in order to do that, you'd have to examine everything in the universe for all time to determine there was not even one instance where something was false. (It's why scientists propose the 'null hypothesis' and attempt to disprove it. B/c all you have to do is find one instance where something isn't true to disprove it. Certainly an easier task than examining the entire universe to check if something is true.)

So, regarding your claim that either SignyM or I could 'prove' anything - it's not possible. Not just for us, but for anyone.

BUT, generally speaking, Occam's Razor is a good start to any of our flawed understandings of the world around us.

Your proposals about population control have not a shred of hard data to support them and much hard data which indicates they are not true. Instead, you have to resort to ever more complicated and self-contradictory suppositions on top of other suppositions to maintain them. (For example, you seem to think that TPTB are smart enough to control the entire world's population, but too stupid to know that poverty drives it up.)

The simplest and therefore most likely explanation for poverty is that it is the result of systematic concentration of wealth. And not a deliberate scheme invoked to specifically to control population.

I mentioned that this topic seemed volatile to you and where some of the drive to believe as you do may be coming from (distrust of TPTB and fear of infringement on personal decisions). But in this case your emotions are misleading you. I hope you can remove yourself from your emotion-driven and already established beliefs and find a more objective viewpoint. B/c being a conspiracy theorist and chasing after things which are not true is, in the end, far less productive and satisfying than having a realistic and productive relationship to the world.

***************************************************************

BTW - may I suggest you read the book 'Emotions Revealed' ? While this book is about how to read facial expressions (and the work is the basis for the TV show 'Lie to Me') the author spends almost the entire book examining the role of emotions in general, of the specific emotions he discusses, and of their effect on our perceptions (among other topics).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 7:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
totally irrational ways that humans react to population issues. Ye gods I wish that this supposedly rational species Homo sapiens could actually think....

Not you, Byte. Humans in general.

I find that you, personally, are thoughtful, intellectually and emotionally honest, and downright nice. Which is why I'm discussing the topic with you. (If you were PN or O2B, I can guarantee this conversation wouldn't have even been started.)

This kinda goes to the Animal Intelligence thread. We humans are very clever. Good at teaching- and learning- abstract ideas which may have little resemblance to everday experience. The ability to think about electrons is the same ability that gives us human rights, capitalism, angels, demons, and god. We are even MORE clever at rationalizing what is essentially irrational decision-making. And we have - as a species- almost no ability to understand and manipulate our basic impulses. Which is why we breed like rabbits, with no thought for the future.

ETA: I just wanted to add something which may more properly belong in Animal Intelligence but also has a bearing here.

I have a veiw of the human brain as something like a ladder: It contains all of the functions of the more "primitiv" versions- the brainstem and cerebellum, the deep gray matter of the thalamus and the hippocampus, and the cortex or gray matter, which sits like icing on the cake. JUST BECAUSE we have extra gray matter with superior folding doesn't mean that the more primtive versions disappeared. Oh, no. There they are... taking in sensory input, creating associations, making memories, calculating status, motivating action.... we don't acknowledge it, but it's there.

Let me give you and example: Here I am, typing away. The topic excites me, I like communicating with you. But... on the other end of the scale, I'm at work, on break, my time is limited. I kinda have to go to the bathroom. People around me are talking. But it isn't until my nose itches that my wet computer tips to the other side: I am impelled to get up and go pee. The curious thing is that my leg-controlling motor cortex lights up before I've even consciously "decided" to get up. Such are humans.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 7:24 AM

I built my arguments on the facts you have presented, my interpretation is the only thing that's different. I haven't argued with your facts, once.

I did not say prove, I said disprove. I said you could disprove anything that I have to say. I said that I think you could do so easily, because you have more access to facts, because you've had probably around ten extra years to study them. The facts you have presented did disprove that the methods I have suggested are causing population reduction, but I am not convinced that they disprove my statements that population reduction is an end goal.

Occam's Razor, as I'm aware of it's use, is about not making assumptions beyond NECESSITY. I think any assumptions I've made have been essential to my argument. Also, in regards to the simplest explanation clause, the common interpretation is that if the conclusion is the same, the simplest explanation is best. Our conclusions in this matter do not appear to be the same.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 7:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one.

"... but I am not convinced that they disprove my statements that population reduction is an end goal."

That's where Occam's Razor comes in. Whenever we cite a fact that does disprove your ideas, you comes up with an even more complicated reason why it's really true.

And, UUhhhm, there is quite a bit more to your proposal than this. You propose that TPTB of a certain type want to reduce populations to some optimum number (enough to exploit, not too many to control) to optimize THEIR economic benefit. However, not being able to enter their minds, none of us can do anything but suppose their intentions.

What we CAN do is examine the facts for logical consistency with your schema. If they really DO wish to control population size to their economic benefit, and they really DO have enough power to do that, and they really ARE smart enough to plan and execute such a scheme - then they are doing a remarkably bad job of it.

There are other problems with your proposals which I don't have time to discuss now, but I hope this discussion continues.

Also, I added some things to my post, so you may wish to look back.

I hope to see you on the other side !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 7:58 AM

The other side? >_> <_< Are we moving?

I'll see if I can find where the additions are.

I've seen Occam's razor applied before to compare contrasting conclusions and choose the one with the simplest explanation... But as I understand it, the original context of the use of Occam's razor was in observations of the natural world, where the conclusion was generally the same, but the explanations/hypotheses about the conclusion were at odds.

EDIT:

Yeah, I admit that the basis of my arguments are founded mostly on distrust for corporate entities, the very rich, and their government cronies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 11:04 AM

FREMDFIRMA

While refraining from comment to avoid throwing wrenches in the discussion, I *am* observing this with interest, much like Siggy, the topic and resultant exploration of why we view or believe things a certain way holds particular fascination.

Just didn't want y'all to think I was pointedly ignoring, much as not wanting to be a loose cannon on your deck cause it's so *interesting* as it is.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 2:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Changing thread title back to original, as per recent agreement among members on thread title changing.

Also, I am being characterized as unthinking.

Lovely.

Not once have I argued that resource management is not important and necessary, not once have I argued that environmental impact shouldn't be considered. Not once have I even argued with the facts as presented, I have accepted them as truth. I have only said that I think there is some danger of abuse with state sponsored population control, and explained how I think it's happening even now.

Byte, if you took my comment as being aimed at you, please rest assured that it wasn't. I apologize for the unintended offense. As Syg pointed out, you are thoughtful and articulate. My comment was aimed at our species as a whole (and I include myself, heaven only knows I've done plenty of irrational things). As individuals, we often do behave rationally (though obviously not always), but in groups we tend to do much worse. I'm sure you can think of many examples. As for my comment on teaching people to think, I don't do that at all here - I only correspond with people who have demonstrated that they can, whether I agree with them or not. I don't even read messages from people who clearly can't. But in the real world, that's part of my job, and I work hard at it (sometimes with results, sometimes not so much!). In any case, I meant you no offense at all and I enjoy your comments (even when I don't agree with them.........)

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 6:47 PM