From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg,sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet,misc.education,
	misc.kids.health
Subject: Re: Welcome to the Jungle: Kids go Hungry in America
Date: 13 Jun 2005 09:31:42 -0700
Message-ID: <1118680302.738137.187220@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

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


COMMENT:

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

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

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

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

--- Dr. Chanute Malthus

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg,sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet,misc.education,
	misc.kids.health
Subject: Re: Welcome to the Jungle: Kids go Hungry in America
Date: 13 Jun 2005 20:11:15 -0700
Message-ID: <1118718675.427203.318280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

> So what's the solution? Well, within the context of the jungle*, your
> solution may make sense, but if we came out of the jungle, and educated
> 
> the people and decreased poverty by teaching them how to fish, then we
> would see natality rates go down the way they've come down in every
> other first world nation, particularly in Europe and Japan.
> 
> 
> Birth Reduction Measures
> - decrease poverty
> - increase access to health care for infants,
> children, women
> - increase access to family planning services
> - improve status of women
> - education
> - job opportunities
> - increase involvement of men in familyplanning
> and child-rearing
> 
> 
> ==========================


COMMENT:

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

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

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg,sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet,misc.education,
	misc.kids.health
Subject: Re: Welcome to the Jungle: Kids go Hungry in America
Date: 14 Jun 2005 16:07:16 -0700
Message-ID: <1118790436.254434.316600@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

>>Well, the solution is right here...

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

>In general do the above.

COMMENT:

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

http://www.nlsbibliography.org/qtitle.php3?myrow%5B0%5D=3D2369

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

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg,sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet,misc.education,
	misc.kids.health
Subject: Re: Welcome to the Jungle: Kids go Hungry in America
Date: 15 Jun 2005 11:28:02 -0700
Message-ID: <1118860081.993348.92120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

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

COMMENT:

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

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

COMMENT:

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

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg,sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet,misc.education,
	misc.kids.health
Subject: Re: Welcome to the Jungle: Kids go Hungry in America
Date: 15 Jun 2005 15:18:57 -0700
Message-ID: <1118873937.130385.86860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

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

COMMENT:

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

SBH