| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Maaxx" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2005 03:39:18 PM |
| Object: |
We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or left, you
can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49 vote in the Senate
to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal
Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and conservative Republicans to get
more excited than the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals by
watching their reaction to ANWR.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start tapping
into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take years to get
the crude flowing out of the ground. That means new jobs for Americans who
handle the drilling and build the pipeline to Alaska. It also means that
we're going to acquire more of the substance that powers our economy without
having to pay out our money to less than friendly countries like Saudi
Arabia & Venezuela. Best of all, the oil is in the absolute middle of
nowhere, so we don't have to inconvenience anyone to drill ANWR. To the
right, developing ANWR is all upside, all positive, an idea that is so
fantastic that they can hardly understand how any rational person could
oppose it.
On the other hand, liberals are enraged that it looks like we may be
drilling ANWR. Part of that is because of their free floating hostility to
the oil industry, but their real beef is that ANWR is such a remote area.
Conservatives may consider that a feature, but to liberals it's a bug. The
very fact that it's a godforsaken region that almost no one visits makes it
so rare and valuable to them that it's worth leaving billions of dollars
worth of oil in the ground and forsaking tens of thousands of jobs just in
case someone wants to ever see what the boonies are like in the future. Oh,
and we mustn't forget, they claim that the pipelines, roads, oilmen and
people going back and forth might -- and I say might because this is heavily
disputed -- disturb the animals. The fact that you could make the exact same
argument about every populated area in North America seems lost on them.
Now you tell me: who's looking out for everyday Americans on this issue?
Conservatives who want more jobs & oil for their fellow countrymen or
liberals who are concerned about future back-packing trips for an
infinitesimal percentage of the population and maybe happier caribou and
polar bears, maybe not. That's not a tough call.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 08:35:48 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:20:55 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:40:24 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Japan also has a population crisis on it's hands. You wouldn't think
such a heavily populated nation, with massive crowding, would have a
problem with population decline...but they do...and in a few decades it
will adversely effect their industries, to the risk of them losing
virtually all meaningful industry.
Do you have any idea why that's a stupid argument on so many levels?
There's plenty of evidence to back this up.
It's a stupid argument.
1) You assume that birth rate is constant when anybody with half a
brain knows that birth rate can go up.
2) When there is significant unemployment the country can have a
reduction in population and still have workers for industry.
This would hold true only if this were a unique situation in only a few
places in the world..
You doomsday lunatics really do not live in the real world. The
world's population continues to grow at an increasing rate.
It's not doomsday,
It is not reality.
But it might be racism. A fear that people of color will replace
whites in the world.
This has nothing to do with racism, or fear of people of color.
You wail in fear that whites are not having enough babies and ingnore
completely the fact that other people's are having more than enoough
children.
Unless you're a delusional kook. Most sane people can recognize the
fact that the Earth's carrying capacity for humanity is already at the
limit.
Nowhere near it actually.
Water tables are dropped,
And we have improved technology to supply fresh water.
No, we don't. Making fresh water takes lots of energy which, as it
happens, is also in ever shorter supply.
climate is changing,
Which is well within the parameters of natural climate shift.
It is not. The changes have been rapid and coincide with
industrialization.
fish supplies are
decimated,
At the same time, fish farming is becoming the most common meathod of
providing fish to the market for people to eat.
Except that the fish is often dangerous to eat or the farming requires
that coastal wetlends be decimated.
people are dying of hunger by the tens of thousands daily,
Due to politics, not due to inability to provide food.
The politics of greed?
The world's population is still growing, kook. There are too many
people already.
Only because of those countries where people still breed like fucking
rabbits.
Ah, so it is racism.
Figures.
No, it's economics.
Your statement is all about racism.
In *poor* countries with less educational resources
people are more inclined to reproduce. It has nothing to do with race.
And it also proves that your whining about population decline is
complete garbage.
That's a complete falsehood. US births exceed deaths.
Actually, here in the US, as in a great many countries in the world,
it's dipped below replacement level.
You're full of *****.
Population growth rate: 0.92% (2004 est.) Birth rate: 14.13
births/1,000 population (2004 est.) Death rate: 8.34
deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.) Net migration rate: 3.41
migrant(s)/1,000 population (2004 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#People
A great deal of other data seems to say the CIA fact book is incorrect
here.
More data indicate that you're a delusional kook.
Here's numbers from the US National Center for Health Statistics:
Births: 4,091,063 (2003)
Deaths: 2,447,864 (2002)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/popup_us.htm
Now even you should be able to figure out which number is bigger and
what that means.
So *every* source I listed is a delusional kook?
LOL! A bunch of hucksters trying to sell books to racist suckers?
What're the odds?!?
So the UN is a racist huckster? A major Japanese newspaper is a racist
No, you are. Insane, too, because you refuse to accept the facts
which prove you wrong.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 09:53:43 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:35:48 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:20:55 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:40:24 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Japan also has a population crisis on it's hands. You wouldn't
think such a heavily populated nation, with massive crowding,
would have a problem with population decline...but they do...and
in a few decades it will adversely effect their industries, to
the risk of them losing virtually all meaningful industry.
Do you have any idea why that's a stupid argument on so many
levels?
There's plenty of evidence to back this up.
It's a stupid argument.
1) You assume that birth rate is constant when anybody with half a
brain knows that birth rate can go up.
2) When there is significant unemployment the country can have a
reduction in population and still have workers for industry.
This would hold true only if this were a unique situation in only a
few places in the world..
You doomsday lunatics really do not live in the real world. The
world's population continues to grow at an increasing rate.
It's not doomsday,
It is not reality.
But it might be racism. A fear that people of color will replace
whites in the world.
This has nothing to do with racism, or fear of people of color.
You wail in fear that whites are not having enough babies and ingnore
completely the fact that other people's are having more than enoough
children.
Nope. Hell, I pride myself of the "melting pot" that is America. My own
genes are a mix of English, German, Jewish, Native American, and
Black...and that's just as far as I can determine. My own family also has
Greeks, Puerto Ricans, Irish, Scottish, and probably a number that I have
simply lost track of. My brother's dated a Mexican....I'm fine with that.
My sister's dated several black guys, which I'm also fine with. I myself
am not picky when it comes to skin color, although I do find Asians to be
particularly attractive.
Your argument makes no sense when presented with the data.
Unless you're a delusional kook. Most sane people can recognize the
fact that the Earth's carrying capacity for humanity is already at
the limit.
Nowhere near it actually.
Water tables are dropped,
And we have improved technology to supply fresh water.
No, we don't. Making fresh water takes lots of energy which, as it
happens, is also in ever shorter supply.
I never said desalination plants, did I say desalination plants?
climate is changing,
Which is well within the parameters of natural climate shift.
It is not. The changes have been rapid and coincide with
industrialization.
Actually, the evidence can equally support a natural warming trend, that
just happens to coincide with our rise in industrialization. The data
isn't conclusive.
fish supplies are
decimated,
At the same time, fish farming is becoming the most common meathod of
providing fish to the market for people to eat.
Except that the fish is often dangerous to eat
Cite? I'd say that fishfarming is far safer than ocean fish...you never
know what can get into fish at sea, while farmed fish are raised in
controlled conditions.
or the farming requires
that coastal wetlends be decimated.
Cite? Fish farms can be in virtually any location, and often completely
artificial environments. I do not know of any requirement to destroy
coastal wetlands.
people are dying of hunger by the tens of thousands daily,
Due to politics, not due to inability to provide food.
The politics of greed?
No, just politics. Food itself is incredibly cheap.
The world's population is still growing, kook. There are too many
people already.
Only because of those countries where people still breed like fucking
rabbits.
Ah, so it is racism.
Figures.
No, it's economics.
Your statement is all about racism.
How so, since it has absolutely nothing to do with race whatsoever, and I
have no ill will towards other races nor any feeling of superiority
towards other races. Nor have I stated such.
Perhaps your obsession with racism, and your jumping at shadows concerning
it, hides an inner racist nature of your own.
In *poor* countries with less educational resources
people are more inclined to reproduce. It has nothing to do with race.
And it also proves that your whining about population decline is
complete garbage.
How so? I don't see anything here that counters what I said about a
depopulation problem in advanced, industrialized countries.
That's a complete falsehood. US births exceed deaths.
Actually, here in the US, as in a great many countries in the
world, it's dipped below replacement level.
You're full of *****.
Population growth rate: 0.92% (2004 est.) Birth rate: 14.13
births/1,000 population (2004 est.) Death rate: 8.34
deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.) Net migration rate: 3.41
migrant(s)/1,000 population (2004 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#People
A great deal of other data seems to say the CIA fact book is
incorrect here.
More data indicate that you're a delusional kook.
Here's numbers from the US National Center for Health Statistics:
Births: 4,091,063 (2003)
Deaths: 2,447,864 (2002)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/popup_us.htm
Now even you should be able to figure out which number is bigger and
what that means.
So *every* source I listed is a delusional kook?
LOL! A bunch of hucksters trying to sell books to racist suckers?
What're the odds?!?
So the UN is a racist huckster? A major Japanese newspaper is a racist
No, you are. Insane, too, because you refuse to accept the facts which
prove you wrong.
But you said by sources were racist hucksters...these were among my
sources....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 10:18:59 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:35:48 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:20:55 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:40:24 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Japan also has a population crisis on it's hands. You wouldn't
think such a heavily populated nation, with massive crowding,
would have a problem with population decline...but they do...and
in a few decades it will adversely effect their industries, to
the risk of them losing virtually all meaningful industry.
Do you have any idea why that's a stupid argument on so many
levels?
There's plenty of evidence to back this up.
It's a stupid argument.
1) You assume that birth rate is constant when anybody with half a
brain knows that birth rate can go up.
2) When there is significant unemployment the country can have a
reduction in population and still have workers for industry.
This would hold true only if this were a unique situation in only a
few places in the world..
You doomsday lunatics really do not live in the real world. The
world's population continues to grow at an increasing rate.
It's not doomsday,
It is not reality.
But it might be racism. A fear that people of color will replace
whites in the world.
This has nothing to do with racism, or fear of people of color.
You wail in fear that whites are not having enough babies and ingnore
completely the fact that other people's are having more than enoough
children.
Nope.
You whine that the world's population is in decline. When I point out
that it isn't, you whine that it's only those other people who are
having babies.
Unless you're a delusional kook. Most sane people can recognize the
fact that the Earth's carrying capacity for humanity is already at
the limit.
Nowhere near it actually.
Water tables are dropped,
And we have improved technology to supply fresh water.
No, we don't. Making fresh water takes lots of energy which, as it
happens, is also in ever shorter supply.
I never said desalination plants, did I say desalination plants?
Neither did I, moron.
That's a complete falsehood. US births exceed deaths.
Actually, here in the US, as in a great many countries in the
world, it's dipped below replacement level.
You're full of *****.
Population growth rate: 0.92% (2004 est.) Birth rate: 14.13
births/1,000 population (2004 est.) Death rate: 8.34
deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.) Net migration rate: 3.41
migrant(s)/1,000 population (2004 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#People
A great deal of other data seems to say the CIA fact book is
incorrect here.
More data indicate that you're a delusional kook.
Here's numbers from the US National Center for Health Statistics:
Births: 4,091,063 (2003)
Deaths: 2,447,864 (2002)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/popup_us.htm
Now even you should be able to figure out which number is bigger and
what that means.
So *every* source I listed is a delusional kook?
LOL! A bunch of hucksters trying to sell books to racist suckers?
What're the odds?!?
So the UN is a racist huckster? A major Japanese newspaper is a racist
No, you are. Insane, too, because you refuse to accept the facts which
prove you wrong.
But you said by sources were racist hucksters...these were among my
sources....
You're a liar. You did not cite any UN report. You didn't provide
any cite which contradicts the US Census numbers.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 10:38:31 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d280ji$ag0$1@bolt.sonic.net:
You whine that the world's population is in decline.
Nobody said that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 10:55:35 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 04:18:59 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:35:48 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:20:55 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:40:24 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Japan also has a population crisis on it's hands. You wouldn't
think such a heavily populated nation, with massive crowding,
would have a problem with population decline...but they do...and
in a few decades it will adversely effect their industries, to
the risk of them losing virtually all meaningful industry.
Do you have any idea why that's a stupid argument on so many
levels?
There's plenty of evidence to back this up.
It's a stupid argument.
1) You assume that birth rate is constant when anybody with half a
brain knows that birth rate can go up.
2) When there is significant unemployment the country can have a
reduction in population and still have workers for industry.
This would hold true only if this were a unique situation in only a
few places in the world..
You doomsday lunatics really do not live in the real world. The
world's population continues to grow at an increasing rate.
It's not doomsday,
It is not reality.
But it might be racism. A fear that people of color will replace
whites in the world.
This has nothing to do with racism, or fear of people of color.
You wail in fear that whites are not having enough babies and ingnore
completely the fact that other people's are having more than enoough
children.
Nope.
You whine that the world's population is in decline. When I point out
that it isn't, you whine that it's only those other people who are
having babies.
Nice little stealth-snip you did there. How about I put back what I said
after "Nope."
Hell, I pride myself of the "melting pot" that is America. My own
genes are a mix of English, German, Jewish, Native American, and
Black...and that's just as far as I can determine. My own family also
has Greeks, Puerto Ricans, Irish, Scottish, and probably a number that
I have simply lost track of. My brother's dated a Mexican....I'm fine
with that. My sister's dated several black guys, which I'm also fine
with. I myself am not picky when it comes to skin color, although I do
find Asians to be particularly attractive.
My mention of those other regions (being third-world nations, an
economic condition having nothing to do with race), was merely to point
out *why* the Earth's overall population is still on the rise. As for my
concern about depopulation, it is merely from a local industries point of
view. Personally, I'd like those third-world countries to catch up,
technology to advance, and the world population as a whole to either
stabalize...or drop down to a more reasonable level...though we are far
from a problem today.
Unless you're a delusional kook. Most sane people can recognize
the fact that the Earth's carrying capacity for humanity is
already at the limit.
Nowhere near it actually.
Water tables are dropped,
And we have improved technology to supply fresh water.
No, we don't. Making fresh water takes lots of energy which, as it
happens, is also in ever shorter supply.
I never said desalination plants, did I say desalination plants?
Neither did I, moron.
No, but you implied them...*****.
That's a complete falsehood. US births exceed deaths.
Actually, here in the US, as in a great many countries in the
world, it's dipped below replacement level.
You're full of *****.
Population growth rate: 0.92% (2004 est.) Birth rate: 14.13
births/1,000 population (2004 est.) Death rate: 8.34
deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.) Net migration rate: 3.41
migrant(s)/1,000 population (2004 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#People
A great deal of other data seems to say the CIA fact book is
incorrect here.
More data indicate that you're a delusional kook.
Here's numbers from the US National Center for Health Statistics:
Births: 4,091,063 (2003)
Deaths: 2,447,864 (2002)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/popup_us.htm
Now even you should be able to figure out which number is bigger
and what that means.
So *every* source I listed is a delusional kook?
LOL! A bunch of hucksters trying to sell books to racist suckers?
What're the odds?!?
So the UN is a racist huckster? A major Japanese newspaper is a racist
No, you are. Insane, too, because you refuse to accept the facts
which prove you wrong.
But you said by sources were racist hucksters...these were among my
sources....
You're a liar. You did not cite any UN report.
I cites sites which cites the UN.
You didn't provide any
cite which contradicts the US Census numbers.
I provided plenty of data.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 12:12:06 AM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
You doomsday lunatics really do not live in the real world. The
world's population continues to grow at an increasing rate.
It's not doomsday,
It is not reality.
But it might be racism. A fear that people of color will replace
whites in the world.
This has nothing to do with racism, or fear of people of color.
You wail in fear that whites are not having enough babies and ingnore
completely the fact that other people's are having more than enoough
children.
Nope.
You whine that the world's population is in decline. When I point out
that it isn't, you whine that it's only those other people who are
having babies.
Nice little stealth-snip you did there. How about I put back what I said
after "Nope."
How about you admit that you're full of ***** about the human
population?
Unless you're a delusional kook. Most sane people can recognize
the fact that the Earth's carrying capacity for humanity is
already at the limit.
Nowhere near it actually.
Water tables are dropped,
And we have improved technology to supply fresh water.
No, we don't. Making fresh water takes lots of energy which, as it
happens, is also in ever shorter supply.
I never said desalination plants, did I say desalination plants?
Neither did I, moron.
No, but you implied them...*****.
You are the one who first mentioned technology to supply fresh water.
So the UN is a racist huckster? A major Japanese newspaper is a racist
No, you are. Insane, too, because you refuse to accept the facts
which prove you wrong.
But you said by sources were racist hucksters...these were among my
sources....
You're a liar. You did not cite any UN report.
I cites sites which cites the UN.
No, you stupid liar, you did not. You cited an OPINION which made
UNSUPPORTED claims about a FUTURE U.N. report.
You didn't provide any
cite which contradicts the US Census numbers.
I provided plenty of data.
Liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 04:38:35 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:12:06 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
You are the one who first mentioned technology to supply fresh water.
True, but there are far more ways to supply fresh water than the methods
which take up huge amounts of energy...like desalination.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 08:39:05 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
So *every* source I listed is a delusional kook?
LOL! A bunch of hucksters trying to sell books to racist suckers?
What're the odds?!?
So the UN is a racist huckster?
You didn't cite the UN, you racist *****. You cited pro-liars and
religious kooks. The US Census Bureau actually counts the US
population and according to them, you're full of *****. The US
populaiton is still growing. More people are born in the US than die
in the US every year.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 09:19:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:39:05 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
You didn't cite the UN, you racist *****. You cited pro-liars and
religious kooks.
I cited newspapers which cited UN reports. Asswipe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 10:19:38 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:39:05 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
You didn't cite the UN, you racist *****. You cited pro-liars and
religious kooks.
I cited newspapers which cited UN reports.
You're a liar, *****. You cited an article which made claims about
a future UN report. Claims which are completely unsupported.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 05:49:32 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.26.15.52.53.237821@NOSPAM.liamslider.com:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 06:54:01 +0000, Maaxx wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d22uie$qsi$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
which means in the coming decades they will
have to cut programs or raise taxes. That coupled with a population
that will decrease at least 35% in the next 40 years does not bode
well for Europe.
Immigration is booming there, is it not?
Not enough to maintain the population level.
Once again you show yourself to be full of *****. There are more that
enough people willing to emigrate to Europe to make up for any
population shortages.
Wrong again. Immigration to Europe will not sustain the population
level there. Over the next few decades, the population of Europe will
fall while the population in the United States will continue to rise.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1291056
By 2040, perhaps earlier, the United States will overtake Europe in
population.
Japan also has a population crisis on it's hands. You wouldn't think
such a heavily populated nation, with massive crowding, would have a
problem with population decline...but they do...and in a few decades it
will adversely effect their industries, to the risk of them losing
virtually all meaningful industry.
Yes, this is true. Japan currently has a population of about 127,000,000.
By 2050 it is suspected to drop to 99,000,000.
The US too, *would* be in population decline if it weren't for
immigration into the country.
This may not be true in a few years. The US fertility rate has been rising
since the 1980s and is at 2.07. The population replacement rate is at 2.1
births per woman; below this rate populations will not grow through
reproduction. The US fertility rate is expected to exceed 2.1 over the
next decade. Compare this to the European Union, whose fertility rate is
1.48.
All those immigrants that some people hate for "stealing American jobs"
are what's keeping this country's industries running.
I don't see a problem with immigration if they come here legally.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 08:43:26 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.26.15.52.53.237821@NOSPAM.liamslider.com:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 06:54:01 +0000, Maaxx wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d22uie$qsi$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
which means in the coming decades they will
have to cut programs or raise taxes. That coupled with a population
that will decrease at least 35% in the next 40 years does not bode
well for Europe.
Immigration is booming there, is it not?
Not enough to maintain the population level.
Once again you show yourself to be full of *****. There are more that
enough people willing to emigrate to Europe to make up for any
population shortages.
Wrong again. Immigration to Europe will not sustain the population
level there. Over the next few decades, the population of Europe will
fall while the population in the United States will continue to rise.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1291056
By 2040, perhaps earlier, the United States will overtake Europe in
population.
Japan also has a population crisis on it's hands. You wouldn't think
such a heavily populated nation, with massive crowding, would have a
problem with population decline...but they do...and in a few decades it
will adversely effect their industries, to the risk of them losing
virtually all meaningful industry.
Yes, this is true. Japan currently has a population of about 127,000,000.
By 2050 it is suspected to drop to 99,000,000.
The US too, *would* be in population decline if it weren't for
immigration into the country.
This may not be true in a few years.
It's not true now.
The US fertility rate has been rising
since the 1980s and is at 2.07. The population replacement rate is at 2.1
births per woman;
"Population replacement rate" and "fertility rate" are not the same
thing.
The US fertility rate is expected to exceed 2.1 over the
next decade. Compare this to the European Union, whose fertility rate is
1.48.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 10:05:31 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d27r0d$3nv$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.26.15.52.53.237821@NOSPAM.liamslider.com:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 06:54:01 +0000, Maaxx wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d22uie$qsi$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
which means in the coming decades they will
have to cut programs or raise taxes. That coupled with a
population that will decrease at least 35% in the next 40 years
does not bode well for Europe.
Immigration is booming there, is it not?
Not enough to maintain the population level.
Once again you show yourself to be full of *****. There are more
that enough people willing to emigrate to Europe to make up for any
population shortages.
Wrong again. Immigration to Europe will not sustain the population
level there. Over the next few decades, the population of Europe will
fall while the population in the United States will continue to rise.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1291056
By 2040, perhaps earlier, the United States will overtake Europe in
population.
Japan also has a population crisis on it's hands. You wouldn't think
such a heavily populated nation, with massive crowding, would have a
problem with population decline...but they do...and in a few decades
it will adversely effect their industries, to the risk of them losing
virtually all meaningful industry.
Yes, this is true. Japan currently has a population of about
127,000,000. By 2050 it is suspected to drop to 99,000,000.
The US too, *would* be in population decline if it weren't for
immigration into the country.
This may not be true in a few years.
It's not true now.
No it isn't. Without immigration, a fertility rate of 2.07 will result in
a population decrease in the long run.
The US fertility rate has been rising since the 1980s and is at 2.07.
The population replacement rate is at 2.1 births per woman;
"Population replacement rate" and "fertility rate" are not the same
thing.
I never said they were. The population replacement rate is a fertility
rate of 2.1 children per woman.
2.1 children per woman includes 2 children to replace the parents, with
one-tenth of a child extra to make up for the mortality of children and of
women who do not reach the end of their reproductive years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 10:38:37 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in
Maaxx wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
which means in the coming decades they will
have to cut programs or raise taxes. That coupled with a
population that will decrease at least 35% in the next 40 years
does not bode well for Europe.
Immigration is booming there, is it not?
Not enough to maintain the population level.
Once again you show yourself to be full of *****. There are more
that enough people willing to emigrate to Europe to make up for any
population shortages.
Wrong again. Immigration to Europe will not sustain the population
level there. Over the next few decades, the population of Europe will
fall while the population in the United States will continue to rise.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1291056
By 2040, perhaps earlier, the United States will overtake Europe in
population.
Japan also has a population crisis on it's hands. You wouldn't think
such a heavily populated nation, with massive crowding, would have a
problem with population decline...but they do...and in a few decades
it will adversely effect their industries, to the risk of them losing
virtually all meaningful industry.
Yes, this is true. Japan currently has a population of about
127,000,000. By 2050 it is suspected to drop to 99,000,000.
The US too, *would* be in population decline if it weren't for
immigration into the country.
This may not be true in a few years.
It's not true now.
No it isn't. Without immigration, a fertility rate of 2.07 will result in
a population decrease in the long run.
And still the number of births exceeds the number of deaths in the
USA by about 1.2 million people a year.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 10:56:06 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2am4d$f76$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Maaxx wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
which means in the coming decades they will
have to cut programs or raise taxes. That coupled with a
population that will decrease at least 35% in the next 40 years
does not bode well for Europe.
Immigration is booming there, is it not?
Not enough to maintain the population level.
Once again you show yourself to be full of *****. There are more
that enough people willing to emigrate to Europe to make up for
any population shortages.
Wrong again. Immigration to Europe will not sustain the population
level there. Over the next few decades, the population of Europe
will fall while the population in the United States will continue
to rise.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1291056
By 2040, perhaps earlier, the United States will overtake Europe in
population.
Japan also has a population crisis on it's hands. You wouldn't think
such a heavily populated nation, with massive crowding, would have a
problem with population decline...but they do...and in a few decades
it will adversely effect their industries, to the risk of them
losing virtually all meaningful industry.
Yes, this is true. Japan currently has a population of about
127,000,000. By 2050 it is suspected to drop to 99,000,000.
The US too, *would* be in population decline if it weren't for
immigration into the country.
This may not be true in a few years.
It's not true now.
No it isn't. Without immigration, a fertility rate of 2.07 will result
in a population decrease in the long run.
And still the number of births exceeds the number of deaths in the
USA by about 1.2 million people a year.
Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself on fertility rates and
population replacement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 11:35:52 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The US too, *would* be in population decline if it weren't for
immigration into the country.
This may not be true in a few years.
It's not true now.
No it isn't. Without immigration, a fertility rate of 2.07 will result
in a population decrease in the long run.
And still the number of births exceeds the number of deaths in the
USA by about 1.2 million people a year.
Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself on fertility rates and
population replacement.
You add 1.2 million people to a population every year and what you end
up with is more people. Not fewer. No amount of whining on your part
will alter that.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
29 Mar 2005 09:57:04 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2apfo$jch$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
The US too, *would* be in population decline if it weren't for
immigration into the country.
This may not be true in a few years.
It's not true now.
No it isn't. Without immigration, a fertility rate of 2.07 will
result in a population decrease in the long run.
And still the number of births exceeds the number of deaths in the
USA by about 1.2 million people a year.
Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself on fertility rates and
population replacement.
You add 1.2 million people to a population every year and what you end
up with is more people. Not fewer. No amount of whining on your part
will alter that.
I see you have yet to educate yourself. It takes time for population to
start declining.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
29 Mar 2005 10:52:53 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The US too, *would* be in population decline if it weren't for
immigration into the country.
This may not be true in a few years.
It's not true now.
No it isn't. Without immigration, a fertility rate of 2.07 will
result in a population decrease in the long run.
And still the number of births exceeds the number of deaths in the
USA by about 1.2 million people a year.
Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself on fertility rates and
population replacement.
You add 1.2 million people to a population every year and what you end
up with is more people. Not fewer. No amount of whining on your part
will alter that.
I see you have yet to educate yourself. It takes time for population to
start declining.
Especially when it keeps growing.
It's basic math: You keep adding to a number and it gets bigger.
It never gets smaller.
Perhaps you can explain to everybody how the US population will
decline when there is a net 1.2 million people being added each
year.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 12:32:55 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2dbb5$mth$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
The US too, *would* be in population decline if it weren't for
immigration into the country.
This may not be true in a few years.
It's not true now.
No it isn't. Without immigration, a fertility rate of 2.07 will
result in a population decrease in the long run.
And still the number of births exceeds the number of deaths in the
USA by about 1.2 million people a year.
Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself on fertility rates
and population replacement.
You add 1.2 million people to a population every year and what you end
up with is more people. Not fewer. No amount of whining on your part
will alter that.
I see you have yet to educate yourself. It takes time for population to
start declining.
Especially when it keeps growing.
It's basic math: You keep adding to a number and it gets bigger.
It never gets smaller.
Except when those numbers get smaller each year. I see you have not read
up on fertility rates and population increases. Why do you insist on being
ignorant?
Perhaps you can explain to everybody how the US population will
decline when there is a net 1.2 million people being added each
year.
It won't because of immigration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 05:10:48 AM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2dbb5$mth$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The US too, *would* be in population decline if it weren't for
immigration into the country.
This may not be true in a few years.
It's not true now.
No it isn't. Without immigration, a fertility rate of 2.07 will
result in a population decrease in the long run.
And still the number of births exceeds the number of deaths in the
USA by about 1.2 million people a year.
Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself on fertility rates
and population replacement.
You add 1.2 million people to a population every year and what you end
up with is more people. Not fewer. No amount of whining on your part
will alter that.
I see you have yet to educate yourself. It takes time for population to
start declining.
Especially when it keeps growing.
It's basic math: You keep adding to a number and it gets bigger.
It never gets smaller.
Except when those numbers get smaller each year.
Which only slows the rate of growth. It doesn't turn growth into
decline.
Perhaps you can explain to everybody how the US population will
decline when there is a net 1.2 million people being added each
year.
It won't because of immigration.
You're not answering the question. There is a net 1.2 million people
being added each year separate from imigration. How does the
population decline when more people are born than die every year?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 09:09:04 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2e1fo$cpn$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2dbb5$mth$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
The US too, *would* be in population decline if it weren't for
immigration into the country.
This may not be true in a few years.
It's not true now.
No it isn't. Without immigration, a fertility rate of 2.07 will
result in a population decrease in the long run.
And still the number of births exceeds the number of deaths in the
USA by about 1.2 million people a year.
Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself on fertility rates
and population replacement.
You add 1.2 million people to a population every year and what you
end up with is more people. Not fewer. No amount of whining on
your part will alter that.
I see you have yet to educate yourself. It takes time for population
to start declining.
Especially when it keeps growing.
It's basic math: You keep adding to a number and it gets bigger.
It never gets smaller.
Except when those numbers get smaller each year.
Which only slows the rate of growth. It doesn't turn growth into
decline.
Eventually it will turn into a decline. The phenomenon will happen in
China. Currently the Chinese population is growing, but due to its One
Child policy, within the next 30 years China's population with start to
decrease.
Perhaps you can explain to everybody how the US population will
decline when there is a net 1.2 million people being added each
year.
It won't because of immigration.
You're not answering the question. There is a net 1.2 million people
being added each year separate from imigration. How does the
population decline when more people are born than die every year?
If the fertility rate stays below the replacement level of 2.1, as the
population ages the birth rate will gradually decrease and will be
exceeded by the death rate. The lower the fertility rate the faster this
will happen. It is already happening in countries like Germany, Italy, and
Japan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 09:53:51 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
You add 1.2 million people to a population every year and what you
end up with is more people. Not fewer. No amount of whining on
your part will alter that.
I see you have yet to educate yourself. It takes time for population
to start declining.
Especially when it keeps growing.
It's basic math: You keep adding to a number and it gets bigger.
It never gets smaller.
Except when those numbers get smaller each year.
Which only slows the rate of growth. It doesn't turn growth into
decline.
Eventually it will turn into a decline.
What model of cystal ball do you use and does Amazon carry them?
Perhaps you can explain to everybody how the US population will
decline when there is a net 1.2 million people being added each
year.
It won't because of immigration.
You're not answering the question. There is a net 1.2 million people
being added each year separate from imigration. How does the
population decline when more people are born than die every year?
If the fertility rate stays below the replacement level of 2.1, as the
You're still not answering the question.
How does the population decline when more people are born than die
every year?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
31 Mar 2005 11:21:32 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2fs8e$pn2$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
You add 1.2 million people to a population every year and what you
end up with is more people. Not fewer. No amount of whining on
your part will alter that.
I see you have yet to educate yourself. It takes time for
population to start declining.
Especially when it keeps growing.
It's basic math: You keep adding to a number and it gets bigger.
It never gets smaller.
Except when those numbers get smaller each year.
Which only slows the rate of growth. It doesn't turn growth into
decline.
Eventually it will turn into a decline.
What model of cystal ball do you use and does Amazon carry them?
Perhaps you can explain to everybody how the US population will
decline when there is a net 1.2 million people being added each
year.
It won't because of immigration.
You're not answering the question. There is a net 1.2 million people
being added each year separate from imigration. How does the
population decline when more people are born than die every year?
If the fertility rate stays below the replacement level of 2.1, as the
You're still not answering the question.
How does the population decline when more people are born than die
every year?
It's in the section you snipped. Now I must assume you that you really
have no interest in any explaination.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
01 Apr 2005 12:33:59 AM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Perhaps you can explain to everybody how the US population will
decline when there is a net 1.2 million people being added each
year.
It won't because of immigration.
You're not answering the question. There is a net 1.2 million people
being added each year separate from imigration. How does the
population decline when more people are born than die every year?
If the fertility rate stays below the replacement level of 2.1, as the
You're still not answering the question.
How does the population decline when more people are born than die
every year?
It's in the section you snipped.
So now you resort to lying rather than answer the question.
Coward.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 10:39:11 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:53:51 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
What model of cystal ball do you use and does Amazon carry them?
It's called mathematics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 11:34:20 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
What model of cystal ball do you use and does Amazon carry them?
It's called mathematics.
No, it isn't. It's called *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 12:51:38 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:09:04 +0000, Maaxx wrote:
Eventually it will turn into a decline. The phenomenon will happen in
China. Currently the Chinese population is growing, but due to its One
Child policy, within the next 30 years China's population with start to
decrease.
Plus the fact that the vast majority of those "one child" children have
been male....oops.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 12:48:44 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:32:55 +0000, Maaxx wrote:
Except when those numbers get smaller each year. I see you have not read
up on fertility rates and population increases. Why do you insist on being
ignorant?
He's not ignorant, he's stupid. I've tried explaining the details to him,
he can't comprehend him. He's not uninformed (the definition of ignorant),
he's just plain *dumb* that's all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 05:11:45 AM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:32:55 +0000, Maaxx wrote:
Except when those numbers get smaller each year. I see you have not read
up on fertility rates and population increases. Why do you insist on being
ignorant?
He's not ignorant, he's stupid. I've tried explaining the details to him,
You're a lying *****. You CANNOT explain how, with 4.3 million
births and 3 million deaths every year, the US population is supposed
to be in decline.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 09:18:26 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2e1hh$cql$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:32:55 +0000, Maaxx wrote:
Except when those numbers get smaller each year. I see you have not
read up on fertility rates and population increases. Why do you insist
on being ignorant?
He's not ignorant, he's stupid. I've tried explaining the details to
him,
You're a lying *****. You CANNOT explain how, with 4.3 million
births and 3 million deaths every year, the US population is supposed
to be in decline.
Nobody claimed that. Try to pay attention.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
