AOH :: WRLDWTCH.TXT
Worldwatch Institute Vital Signs 1995
|
WORLDWATCH INSTITUTE
Vital Signs:
The Trends That Are Shaping Our Future
by Lester R. Brown, Nicholas Lenssen, Hal Kane
worldwatch@igc.apc.org
******************************************************************
VITAL SIGNS 1995: WORLD GROWING WARMER, MORE CROWDED,
AND LESS STABLE
Negative Trends Outnumber Positive Ones
The world is growing warmer, more crowded, and ecologically
less stable, according to Vital Signs 1995: The Trends That Are
Shaping Our Future, Worldwatch Institute's latest report. In
1994, global temperature rose from 15.20 degrees Celsius to 15.32
degrees (see pages 64-65). This rise, equivalent to 0.22 degrees
Fahrenheit, made 1994 the fifth warmest year on record.
In addition to getting warmer, the D.C.-based nonprofit
research organization reports, the world is also getting more
crowded. Of the 88 million people added in 1994, 79 million were
in the Third World. The buildup is most noticeable in Asia, which
added 58 million (pp. 94-95).
Growing ecological instability is evident in the collapse of
oceanic fisheries (pp. 32-33), the continued shrinkage of the
earth's forests (pp. 116-117), and falling water tables (pp. 122-
123). Prominent among the signs of social instability is a
swelling flow--nearly a 10-fold increase--of international
refugees in just 10 years (pp. 102-103).
The world's temperature has been rising gradually for more
than a century, but mainly since the late seventies. Indeed, the
10 warmest years since recordkeeping began around 1860 have all
occurred since 1980.
The hottest year on record was 1990, at 15.47 degrees
Celsius. Rising temperatures in early 1991 were headed for yet
another record when Mt. Pinatubo, the Philippine volcano, erupted
in June. The enormous explosive force of the volcano pushed some
20 million tons of sulfate aerosols into the upper atmosphere.
These quickly spread around the planet, producing a thin,
reflective layer that bounced a minute amount of sunlight back
into space.
This led to a cooling effect that abruptly dropped the
temperature in 1992 to 15.13 degrees Celsius. By early 1994, the
sulfate aerosols had largely settled out, signalling an end to the
sabbatical from global warming. The near-record-high temperature
in 1994 suggests that the pronounced warming trend of the eighties
and early nineties is resuming (pp. 64-65).
Vital Signs 1995, which is funded by the Surdna Foundation,
the W. Alton Jones Foundation, and the United Nations Population
Fund, notes that the warming of the earth is being driven by the
emission of greenhouse gases, predominantly carbon dioxide (CO2),
but also nitrous oxides, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons. Carbon
emissions from fossil-fuel burning, running at nearly 6 million
tons per year in recent years, plus a modest contribution from
deforestation, are steadily raising the atmospheric CO2 levels.
Between 1959, when the systematic measuring of atmospheric CO2
began, and 1994, concentrations rose from 316 ppm to 359 ppm, a
gain of nearly 14 percent (pp. 66-67).
Emissions of one greenhouse gas, chlorofluorocarbons, have
dropped precipitously, not because of its greenhouse role, but
because of the damage it does to the stratospheric ozone layer
that protects life on earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.
After peaking in 1988, production declined rapidly in response to
the Montreal Protocol, falling from 1.26 million tons in 1988 to
295,000 tons in 1994, a remarkable drop of 77 percent in 6 years
(pp. 62-63).
The burning of fossil fuels has changed little in the past
year. World oil production rose 1 percent in 1994, the first
significant increase in 5 years (pp. 46-47). After a string of 11
consecutive annual gains in output for natural gas, its steady
rise slowed to 0.3 percent in 1994 (pp. 48-49). Production of
coal, which had been declining since 1989, levelled off in 1994
(pp. 50-51).
The two activities that could reduce fossil fuel use--the
development of renewable sources of energy and the adoption of new
energy-efficient technologies--both made strong gains in 1994.
On the renewable front, wind power soared, increasing from
3,050 megawatts to 3,710 megawatts, a gain of nearly 22 percent.
Germany led the expansion in 1994 with an addition of 300
megawatts of capacity, followed by India, which offered tax
incentives for windpower investments to reduce dependence on
polluting coal-fired power plants (pp. 54-55).
Solar cell shipments also climbed, rising from 60 megawatts
in 1993 to 69 megawatts in 1994, a gain of 16 percent. In Third
World villages not yet linked to a grid, photovoltaic cells are
becoming a popular source of electricity. By the end of 1994,
some 250,000 Third World households were getting their electricity
from solar cells (pp. 56-57).
On the efficiency front, perhaps the most spectacular gain
comes with replacement of traditional incandescent light bulbs
with the highly efficient compact fluorescent bulbs, which use
only a fifth as much electricity. From 1993 to 1994, sales
increased from 168 million to 195 million, an increase of 16
percent. If these bulbs were all in use at the same time, they
would save as much electricity as that generated by 28 large coal
plants, roughly 28,000 megawatts (pp. 58-59).
In addition to the need to stabilize climate, the world is
also trying to stabilize population. World population growth is
slowing gradually, dropping from a high of over 2 percent in 1970
to 1.54 percent in 1994. Unfortunately, this is too slow to
reduce the annual increment, which has averaged close to 90
million people per year for the last 15 years (pp. 94-95).
World production of grain rebounded in 1994, but not enough
to match the growth in consumption, driven largely by population
growth. As a result, grain stocks dropped for the second year in
a row. Measured in days of consumption, carryover stocks of grain
have dropped from 66 days in 1994 to an estimated 62 days in 1995,
the lowest level in 20 years (pp. 36-37). In 1973, when stocks
dropped to a record low of 56 days, world grain prices doubled.
The world fish harvest in 1994 regained the losses of recent
years, moving up to 101 million tons, slightly above the previous
high of 100 million tons in 1989. Much of this growth came from a
surge in fish farming in China (pp. 32-33). Even with this
recovery in the world harvest, the seafood supply per person is
still 7 percent below the all-time high of 1988.
Growing human demand is putting heavy pressure on the world's
underground water resources. In all the major food-producing
regions, excessive demand for water is lowering water tables.
Eventually, aquifer depletion will force a reduction in pumping,
reducing it to the rate of recharge (pp. 122-123).
Expanding demand for food is also putting excessive pressure
on the world's cropland. Soil losses from erosion can now be seen
in silt-laden river flows on every continent, with major rivers,
such as the Huang He (Yellow River) of China and the Ganges of
India, carrying 1.9 and 1.7 billion tons of topsoil, respectively,
to the ocean each year (pp. 118-119).
Rising food demand leading to forest clearance for crop
production and ranching, along with timber harvesting, is leading
to a steady loss of forest cover in the tropics. Collectively,
Asia, Africa, and Latin America are losing nearly 1 percent of
their forest cover each year (pp. 116-117).
One of the most disturbing trends in this year's report is
the decline in amphibian populations, mostly frogs, toads, and
salamanders. The combination of habitat destruction, chemical
contamination of water bodies, and for frogs, harvesting for food,
is threatening the world's amphibian species.
In Chile and Greece, and in California, more than half of all
amphibian species are declining in number and may be facing
extinction. This decline in amphibians reflects the deteriorating
health of wetland habitats (pp. 120-121).
Signs of excessive population pressure on resources are
commonplace, particularly in the Third World. One of the
measurable symptoms of social stress is the growing number of
international refugees. Between 1975 and 1994, this number soared
from 2.6 million to 23 million. The 3 million increase in 1994 is
the largest annual increase on record (pp. 102-103).
Another key trend in 1994 was the continuing rise in United
Nations peacekeeping expenditures. Between 1986 and 1994, these
climbed from $242 million to over $3.7 billion. However, even
with this dramatic growth, the world's governments still spend
roughly $50 on their military establishments for every $1 devoted
to peace and disarmament (pp. 108-109).
Another social indicator affecting both demographic trends
and development is the spread of the human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV). In 1994, the number of people estimated to be infected
with the virus increased to 26 million, up from 22 million in
1993. Of this rise of 4 million, nearly half occurred in sub-
Saharan Africa, the epicenter of the AIDS pandemic.
New infections in Asia totalled 1.7 million. With the number
of new infections in Africa apparently plateauing and the number
in Asia still climbing, Asia may soon overtake Africa as the focal
point for this deadly disease.
The number of people with full-blown AIDS climbed from 6.9
million in 1993 to 8.5 million in 1994. An estimated 1.5 million
died of AIDS in 1994, four-fifths of them in Africa. In some
African countries, AIDS may eventually cut life expectancy by some
25 years, partly because so many infants are born with the
disease. In Zambia, for example, at least 20 percent of women
aged 15 to 49 are HIV-positive (pp. 98-99).
Another social trend affecting human health and claiming even
more lives than AIDS is smoking. The good news is that world
cigarette production has plateaued. Thus, cigarettes smoked per
person have declined from the historic high of 1,029 in 1988 to
946 in 1994, a drop of 8 percent (pp. 96-97).
Many industrial countries are now using high taxes to
actively discourage cigarette use. Denmark is leading the way
with a tax of $3.88 per pack, followed by Norway ($3.44), and the
United Kingdom ($3.27). Germany and France tax cigarettes at
$2.25 and $1.94 per pack, respectively (pp. 138-139).
The United States, which in some ways seems to have the
world's most health-conscious population, has an average cigarette
tax of just 56 per pack, one of the world's lowest. In the
United States, cigarette smoking claims some 417,000 lives each
year, compared with roughly 50,000 lost to AIDS.
Worldwide, smoking is claiming an estimated 3 million lives
per year, compared with 1.5 million from AIDS. But the AIDS toll
is rising much more rapidly and could eventually overtake
cigarette deaths.
-- END --
Vital Signs 1995: The Trends That Are Shaping Our Future,
published in May 1995, is available in paperback for $10.95
($7.95 for 2-4 copies; $5.95 for 5+ copies) and $3.00 shipping and
handling per order from Worldwatch (see below or topic "Order and
Subscription Information" for ordering information). In the
United Kingdom, Vital Signs will be available from Earthscan
Publishers. Vital Signs is published in 14 languages.
******************************************************************
WORLDWATCH DATABASE DISK
******************************************************************
The data from all graphs and tables contained in this book,
as well as from those in all other Worldwatch publications, are
available on diskette for use with IBM-compatible computers. This
includes data from the State of the World series of books, Vital
Signs series of books, Worldwatch Papers, World Watch magazine,
and the Environmental Alert series of books. The data are
formatted for use with spreadsheet software compatible with Lotus
1-2-3, including Quattro Pro, Excel, SuperCalc, and many others.
Both 3 1/2 and 5 1/4 diskettes are supplied. To order, send check
or money order for $89, or credit card number and expiration date
(Visa and MasterCard only), to Worldwatch Institute (see below or
topic "Order and Subscription Information" for ordering
information).
******************************************************************
WORLDWATCH'S MISSION STATEMENT
******************************************************************
Worldwatch Institute is dedicated to fostering a sustainable
society--one in which human needs are met in ways that do not
threaten the health of the natural environment or future
generations. To this end, the Institute conducts
interdisciplinary research on emerging global issues, the results
of which are published and disseminated to decisionmakers, the
media, and the public.
For further information or to order any of our publications,
please refer to topic "Order and Subscription Information" or
contact us at:
Worldwatch Institute
1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202/452-1999
Fax: 202/296-7365
E-mail: wwpub@igc.apc.or
Jay
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
"The market economy is replacing a complex organic
environment with a simplified inorganic one, literally
dissembling a biosphere that has supported humanity for
countless millennia. In the course of replacing the complex
ecological relationships, on which all living things depend,
with more elementary ones, capitalism is restoring the
biosphere to a stage where it will be able to support only
simpler forms of life. ... The earth will become incapable of
supporting humanity itself." [Bookchin 1980:230-1]
----------------------------
Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.compuserve.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!brutus.bright.net!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!in1.uu.net!lehua.ilhawaii.net!usenet
From: jhanson@ilhawaii.net (Jay Hanson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,ca.environment,alt.save.the.earth,alt.society.futures
Subject: (fwd) World Watch Magazine May/Jun '95
Date: 21 Sep 1995 16:50:41 GMT
Organization: InterLink Hawaii
Lines: 165
Message-ID: <43s551$5do@lehua.ilhawaii.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm57.ilhawaii.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.3
Xref: news.production.compuserve.com talk.environment:21328 alt.save.the.earth:5529 alt.society.futures:2090
===============World Watch Magazine May/Jun 1995===============
| |
| ---Electronic Highlights--- |
| Table-of-Contents and highlights from the current issue. |
| A bimonthly magazine, available at |
| selected bookstores and newsstands, |
| or by $15/year subscription. |
| |
===============================================================
May/June 1995 Volume 8, Number 3
=================================================================
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Features
9 WHERE HAVE ALL THE RIVERS GONE?
Some of the earth's major arteries are now so constricted
that their lifeblood no longer reaches its natural
destination. The result is a massive failure of ecosystems
and economies. (By Sandra Postel)
20 PLUNDERING THE BOREAL FORESTS
The forests encircling the North Pole once seemed
inexhaustible. But the world's growing appetite for paper
and wood is now consuming them rapidly. (By Anjali Acharya)
30 FROM OASIS TO MIRAGE: THE AQUIFERS THAT WON'T REPLENISH
Like the proverbial castles built on sand, the economies of
two countries--and part of a third--are based on the
extravagant use of non-renewable fossil water. But
political leaders don't seem particularly concerned about
what will happen when the water is gone. (By Gary Gardner)
Departments
2 Editorial
It's about more than sea cucumbers
3 Note to Readers
Environmentalists caving in
4 From Readers
The loss of architecture; Population control
6 Environmental Intelligence
A country liquidating assets
Climate models growing more accurate
Giving the U.N. financial muscle
8 Updates
The decline of birds
Chlorine bleaching
37 Vital Signs
Global trends in TV-Watching
38 Citings
Knowledge as a loose cannon
39 Matters of Scale
The invisibility of mountains
40 Endpiece
Pipe Organs
Coming Up
Green Taxes
Spread of exotic species and the homogenization of the
earth
New markets for recycleables
Coming revolution in electric power
******************************************************************
Highlights from the May/June WORLD WATCH Magazine
"RIVERS DRYING UP" - NILE, GANGES, COLORADO, AND CENTRAL ASIAN
RIVERS CUT OFF FROM SEA
In this issue, Sandra Postel documents the massive damming
and diversion of many of the world's major rivers, and the
extensive damage resulting from human disruption of these major
arteries of the planet.
In a classic "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" situation, damming a
river for economic growth upstream can severely damage ecosystems
and livelihoods downstream. Such tradeoffs are seldom considered
in managing river water, and yet have become catastrophic.
Postel, Director of the Global Water Policy Project in
Cambridge, Mass., and a Senior Fellow at the Worldwatch Institute,
reports in her article, "Where Have All The Rivers Gone?" that:
o the depleted flow of rivers into the Aral Sea has brought
the region's fishing industry, which once supported 60,000 jobs,
to near collapse;
o reduced flows and habitat destruction in North American
rivers threatens 364 species or subspecies of fish, and
o the damming of the Nile and the trapping of 100 million
tons of silt per year behind the Aswan Dam is causing the Nile
Delta to fall slowly into the sea.
Postel recently visited the Aral Sea area and reports,
"It is difficult to grasp the scale of destruction
caused by the diminished flows of rivers into the Aral
Sea. Flying low over the area, I saw miles and miles of
dry seabed, stranded ships, a desolate fishing town now
25 miles inland. I could see children playing in the
salty dust, likely made toxic from pesticide residues
blown out of the dry seabed. Unwise diversion of rivers
has destroyed the world's fourth largest freshwater lake
as effectively as a war, and the economy and people are
suffering greatly."
Postel's research documents one of the great environmental
trends of our time: the tripling of global water demand in less
than 50 years, and the building of an ever-growing web of dams,
reservoirs, and canals to meet that need. Dams now hold back 15%
of the earth's annual renewable water supply, some 6,000 cubic
kilometers. More than 85% of large dams (15+ meters high), and
most of the 100 or so superdams (150+ meters high) were built in
the past 35 to 40 years.
As a result, many rivers now are little more than elaborate
plumbing systems, bearing little relation to their natural
functioning, with the damage caused by low flows made worse by the
growing concentration of pollutants.
-- END --
==========================Subscriptions=========================
| |
| World Watch Magazine Subscription Department |
| P.O. Box 6991, Syracuse, NY 13217-9942 |
| Phone: (800) 825-0061 |
| Email: wwpub@igc.apc.org
| |
| For back issues, 2-3 year subscription savings, |
| foreign language editions, etc. please refer to |
| topic "Order and Subscription Information" |
| |
================================================================
Jay
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
"The market economy is replacing a complex organic
environment with a simplified inorganic one, literally
dissembling a biosphere that has supported humanity for
countless millennia. In the course of replacing the complex
ecological relationships, on which all living things depend,
with more elementary ones, capitalism is restoring the
biosphere to a stage where it will be able to support only
simpler forms of life. ... The earth will become incapable of
supporting humanity itself." [Bookchin 1980:230-1]
----------------------------
Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.compuserve.com!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.web.compuserve.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.pitt.edu!hudson.lm.com!tusk.lm.com!not-for-mail
From: mpasla@telerama.lm.com (mpa)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,alt.culture.internet,alt.culture.usenet,alt.cyberpunk,alt.cyberpunk.movement,alt.cyberpunk.tech,alt.cyberspace,alt.dreams,alt.journalism.gonzo,alt.magick,alt.magick.ethics,alt.prose,alt.religion.computers,alt.revisionism,alt.society.futures,alt.society.neutopia,alt.surrealism,rec.arts.poems,rec.arts.prose,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: CyberShamans + Televisionaries + NetProphets
Followup-To: alt.consciousness,alt.culture.internet,alt.culture.usenet,alt.cyberpunk,alt.cyberpunk.movement,alt.cyberpunk.tech,alt.cyberspace,alt.dreams,alt.journalism.gonzo,alt.magick,alt.magick.ethics,alt.prose,alt.religion.computers,alt.revisionism,alt.society.futures,alt.society.neutopia,alt.surrealism,rec.arts.poems,rec.arts.prose,rec.arts.tv
Date: 17 Sep 1995 01:41:39 -0400
Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 272
Message-ID: <43gcej$2bn@tusk.lm.com>
References: <438ehk$m34@news.wwa.com> <DEx5yB.Gxw@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tusk.lm.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.production.compuserve.com alt.consciousness:12047 alt.culture.internet:11749 alt.culture.usenet:9891 alt.cyberpunk:19530 alt.cyberpunk.movement:1128 alt.cyberpunk.tech:3551 alt.cyberspace:10960 alt.dreams:12412 alt.journalism.gonzo:2672 alt.magick:22338 alt.magick.ethics:511 alt.prose:2286 alt.religion.computers:2359 alt.revisionism:25907 alt.society.futures:2081 alt.society.neutopia:15635 alt.surrealism:2716 rec.arts.poems:41023 rec.arts.prose:3441 rec.arts.tv:48165
Critter (Chris.Ritter@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM) wrote:
> What I am focusing on it trying to find the 'soul' of the Net before
> we produce another mindless entity as the television has become.
> You mentioned that below, about the consciousness (center, apex?)
> of the net and wondering where it rests- not physically, but idealistically.
In what way is television a 'mindless entity'? It is a medium and it
serves us the way we utilise it.
> >The net is
> >not a beginning in itself, just a continuation of this process, but
> >the process is at a point now where it may be possible to now "smash
> >the control images, smash the control machines."
Do i hear a rousing chorus of "Fuck the gaze of the bull baboon"?
the integration of the senses through the extension of those faculties in a
controllable analog space is the "consummation devoutly to be wished"
that genetics, through consciousness, has worked toward for several
millenia. To really participate in the act of co-creation is the real end
of this phase but, in the 'end' it will just slide into the next phase.
> The Net is the next phase of which evolution? I have followed its
> evolution beginning with the telegraph, whereby an electronic
Then your perspective is limited. There's only one game worth playing and
that's the one we all share. Experience. Talking about the development of
electric technology and its uses as communications media can certainly be
useful to a degree but you can't hope to tackle the big issues from that
perspective alone. Try examining an apple from just the skin or the seeds
or the core. It just don't work.
> void- a reality separate from our own- communicates.. transfers..
> stores vital peices of our own reality. I read in an interview once
There is no reality separate from our own. There is nothing but
experience.
> that to imagine what the Internet is, imagine where your money
> is right now. It is Networked. Once our reality becomes Networked
My money is in my pocket.
> in some mindless being, it would seem to logical to believe that
> we would become that mindless being (as television is already doing
> to us) but much more integrated with the beast than we are with
> telelvision.
The beast, huh. Mindless entity, alien. Not of *our* world but something
outside? Zip up, son. Your rosary's showing.
> When I say that THIS is the beginning, it is the beginning of
> communicating vitale, to say it in a much more down to earth
> fashion, not the beginning of the Internet. As you said above,
> communication began long ago, but as I asked earlier, is the
> Internet simply a higher form of communication or it is something
> more? I argue that it is something more. Being that we can
> communicate with more than words, but with movement through
> Quick Time Movies and sound and obviously our sacred
> word, I believe that the Internet is not a form of communication
> exclusively, but an artform that communicates.
Art is nothing but an abstracted representation of particular
experiential patterns. Artifice is what occurs when you forget your part
of it all. Its a tool we use to fool ourselves in to thinking that there
is some separation, any separation, possible between us and the field we
participate in. But the "art" itself *is* part of that field. It also is
experience and only different in that we choose to value it to a lesser
degree (a function of the imagined separation).
> >I disagree. words are not the "purest" at least form my definition of
> >pure, another illustration of the problems with the language. Words,
> >and the written word particularly are chock full of impurities, we
> >read them in two stages, the final meaning taken thru a filter,
> >abstracted from a mush of experience, social influence and bias. Not
> >to say that the written word is innefective, emotion and energy are
> >definetly transmitable via the written word. As you say below, they
> >can illucidate ideas that might oterwise be untransmittable in other
> >mediums, but that doesn't mean they are "pure."
Damn straight. This interface sucks. But if I could provide you with all
of the experiential data necessary to make the exerience real then
perhaps we could really communicate. That's where this tech comes in. It
*is* the extension of a natural progression, a path we've been on for a
long time and will remain on for some time to come, I think.
The act of creating art is based in the ability to pack as much of that
experiential data into the smallest parcel possible and deliver it over
the cleanest connection we can create. Color theory, composition, metre,
physicalisation of emotional and character states are all ways we've
devised to zip this information and transmit it. it all relies, however,
on the commonality of human experience. The telling glance, knowing
gesture, that particular shade of blue that evokes the bittersweetness of
our mortality would mean nothing to one not prepared by their own
experience.
> Words carry a truth behind them, something more than a definition
> or an implied meaning, but a 'correctness' that isn't restricted by
> language barriers. Such as 'pret a porter', something which does
> mean 'ready to wear' in our language, but has some 'spirit' about
> it that makes it correct in apart from the French language, which
> allows it to fit in to certain situations better than others, but stand
> alone nonetheless. Words are demonstrative of their subject,
> whether the word is 'correct' or no. Cafe' is French for coffee,
> and used heavily in the US. Cafe Kona, Cafe Russiano, and so
> on. Many other words fit this. Language is integrating because
> words are..
but our facility with verbalising is a two edged sword. How much Kona is
really in your blended cafe? Not much, if the reports are correct. The
constructions possible in verbalisation can be endlessly extended to
where they become dangerously misleading. As we oncrease the number of
metaphoric levels between the word or phrase and its originating
experience we flatten it and lose significant detail. Words can separate
as well or better than they can integrate.
> I'm stopping myself there because you have made a more than
> valid point. We seem to agree on almost everything aside from
> this point about words being pure, which caused me to check
> the validity of words being pure. By most definitions, words
> are not pure as in untainted. The English language gives many
> definitions to one words, making it quite impure. Also the meanings
> are sometimes at odds with one another, another trait of impurities.
Maybe words are pure to you because you think in them. Verbalisation os
not the only possible basis for consciousness and, in the end, it may not
be the most useful.
> I still believe that words are the most straight-forward form of
> communication, but not as in honest. Words are certainly not
> honest. Simplistic form.. which lead me to the believe that
> instead of being the purest form of communication, they are the
> most base. They are the primary structure upon which we
> build our ideas, and yet insubstantial without inference or
> context. They are the fundamental element of conversation.
> Words are base by every definition, even low, menial, and
> contemptable at times. Agreed?
Sure they are contemptible but I certainly could not agree that they can
be considered some kind of proto-unit. They are several steps up the
ladder from there (If not up several landings.)
> >Define "Virtual Access" do you mean telepresence, shared VR?
> Virtual Access meaning the same thing as VR does, shared VR
> as you said. We will access this domain, this void as I said
> earlier, with our own minds (or senses bettersaid).
> >I wrote an essay partially related to that. As we extend into
> >cyberspace, it takes on an existance as part of our body, an extension
> >of our senses.
no doubt.
<rm>
> >Don't say that we will become "Emotion" unless you tell me
> >what you mean by that. "Art" as you use it is an empty word, give it
> >mroe context please in order for your transmission to be better
> >recieved.
> Let me explain my use of the word Emotion. The Greeks believed
> in three souls (if I remember correctly). The human body consists
> of the physical soul (or the senses), the spiritual soul (what we call
> a soul), and the emotional soul. Our 'emotional soul' creates,
> inspires, and sympathizes with 'art', which is an expression
> of the emotional soul. Emotion is also the material that dreams
> are made of. If we were to become emotion, we would be simply
> energy that some would call a soul. We would essentially BE art,
> an expression or an icon of emotion. That is why I use the word
> emotion and not soul, it's a little more understandable and
> meaningful to even the cynics.
blah. Sorry, can't buy it. You are using an understanding of these terms
from a modern perspective. There are much more specific references here.
> >Pulling cable and adminning internet sites has deadened my ears to
> >claims that the Internet is a "living art form." I think you need to
> >sharpen that point a bit, maybe tell me why youthink it is a living
> >art form.
<prefatory apologia rm'd>
> That aside, Life is yet another abstract idea. We judge life
> by our own species. All that is actually proving is that another
> object, alive or no, is not like us. That isn't proving the idea of
> being alive very well. I think that our philosophy isn't strong
> enough to distinguish the difference between living and non-living.
Sooo you're just sayin that every system (Genetically based or not) has
something in common. I think that would be that it exists.
<rm>
> Okay, so is the Internet alive? I don't think of it as being
> alive as we are, but as Earth is. The Internet can protect
> itself, and has creatures that rely upon it to survive, but
> the Net also relys upon them (the techies as you said) to
> survive. Without plants, animals, and creatures that convert
> energy, the Earth would become a barren wasteland. The
> same it true for the Internet. It is simply another world.
No. It is in this one and at the same time contains it. Perhaps better to
say has the potential to contain it.
> >Or maybe you don't think conscience is neccesary. perhaps
> >self-sufficiency is your criteria for life, but the net is far from
> >self-sufficient. Take away the techies, and it'll die.
> As I said, it isn't conscience as we are, it is self-providing as
> the Earth is, or as a plant seems to act. If we hurt the Internet,
> I do believe that is has some internal or external mechanisms
> that can stop us from harming it furthur. I think they're called
> SysOps. Kidding.. I believe that something more internal may
> manifest if we ever did 'abuse' the Net.
You are insisting that the word "life" be extended to include any
organised system. Why? It has perfectly good uses and specific ones.
Poetically, the metaphor may be useful to a point but only to that
extent and beyond that the wall hits hard. It sneaks up on you and you
can get find yourself in a semantical box with no exit and no windows.
> Being that we are coming upon a new world in the sense that
> we did discover it years ago but haven't yet entered into it
> with our own senses, we need to understand or at they lay
We are not even close to being able to provide a 'real' as in RL
experience through technology. Internet connectivity is engaging and
powerful but it cannot replace or supplant the viscera. It is the latest
step along the path but nowhere near the end unless we, as a species,
happen to call it a day and turn in.
> theories down first before jumping in feet first and not knowing
> the consequences. I know this annoys you, but are you
I, for one, am not annoyed. Amused, perhaps. What do you propose?
Committies? Investigations? (official???). We each have to explore this on
our own and with those we encounter. Noone can experience this for you
and provide sanction and noone can decide for the rest of humanity
whether this will be a Good Thing or not. Time will tell whether the
hubbub is warranted or not and the system will move where it needs to.
> familiar with Shatners 'Tech Wars'? We become drones addicted
> to VR, something like we have to television but more on the
> level with coke or crack. Maybe television wouldn't have turned
> out to be as 'evil' as it is today if we would have looked at
> the nature of it before jumping in feet first. I just couldn't say.
> I know that the Net deserves more respect than that, though.
The evil beast again, huh? You Wanna tame the Daemon Coke, Daemon 'Net,
Daemon Future, Daemon Tech. Not gonna give over the power of *your* life
and death to what's behind the curtain, eh?
You can't get a wrench into the cosmic gears and you can't short circuit
the Grand Processor. Change marches on.
<cut to the Source chanting Der Spinner und der Schlage(sp)>
.mpa
--
-----------Experiential Engineering for an Interesting Tomorrow-----------
Intelligence is very much a two edged sword, Captain-Doctor.
It is useful only up to a point. It interferes with the business of living.
-The Swarm
----------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,alt.culture.internet,alt.culture.usenet,alt.cyberpunk,alt.cyberpunk.movement,alt.cyberpunk.tech,alt.cyberspace,alt.dreams,alt.journalism.gonzo,alt.magick,alt.magick.ethics,alt.prose,alt.religion.computers,alt.revisionism,alt.society.futures,alt.society.neutopia,alt.surrealism,rec.arts.poems,rec.arts.prose,rec.arts.tv
Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.compuserve.com!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.web.compuserve.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!ncrgw2.ncr.com!ncrhub6!daynews!intruder!news
From: Critter <Chris.Ritter@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: CyberShamans + Televisionaries + NetProphets
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 149.25.142.148
Message-ID: <DF1FI2.1KC@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com>
Sender: news@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com (News administrative Login)
Reply-To: Chris.Ritter@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM (RITTEC)
Organization: AT&T Global Information Solutions
X-Newsreader: DiscussIT 2.0.1.3 for MS Windows [AT&T Software Products Division]
References: <43bd85$2nj@news.wwa.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 07:01:14 GMT
Lines: 362
Xref: news.production.compuserve.com alt.consciousness:12056 alt.culture.internet:11753 alt.culture.usenet:9894 alt.cyberpunk:19534 alt.cyberpunk.movement:1129 alt.cyberpunk.tech:3554 alt.cyberspace:10963 alt.dreams:12416 alt.journalism.gonzo:2675 alt.magick:22349 alt.magick.ethics:512 alt.prose:2287 alt.religion.computers:2360 alt.revisionism:25914 alt.society.futures:2082 alt.society.neutopia:15639 alt.surrealism:2719 rec.arts.poems:41038 rec.arts.prose:3442 rec.arts.tv:48181
==========Nesta Stubbs, 9/14/95==========
Okay, before this secession begins, I do want to reach some level
of understanding so we don't take too much for granted. I am,
as I have said before I think, a poet and not any cyber-gothic-
fantatic, or a cyberpunkian follower. I have had my share of its
wisdom when I was role playing not so long ago, but as for reading
all of the tomes of its wisdom such as StimStim and Gibson, and
yes, I've even failed to read Neuromancer.. condemnation I am
ready for.
My areas include the fine arts and literature, where poetry is my
primary focus (note the bias towards poetry in my writing?). As a
present-day student of English and Theatre, my studies also
dance in and out of philosophy, theology, ancient civilizations,
photography, film, dance (to some extent), and the new field of
multimedia (which is steadily becoming my truest and dearest
love over all but poetry).
The reason why I am so interested in the Net Philosophy we have
been discussing is because my interest in the evolution of modern
culture and arts seems to point all of its fingers at both the
occurence of multimedia and and the great information highway.
Much of what I see (that which we have been discussing) seems
to work along the lines of the old philosophies of Muhammad and
Confucius and at times strangely parallels with the Christianic
and Judaistic beliefs of a perfect universe where man is no longer
viewed as being simply a man, and even M.L. Kings beliefs where
man is no longer judged by skin color. Much of what we are looking
for in Nirvana, Heaven, and even Tao seems to be summarized or
existing in the Net. This deserves a closer inquery into its nature,
I believe.
There was something undifferentiated and yet complete,
Which existed before heaven and earth.
Soundless and formless, it depends on nothing and does not change.
It operates everywhere and is free from danger.
It may be considered the mother of the universe.
I do not know its name; I call it Tao.
If forced to give it a name, I shall call it Great.
Now being great means functioning everywhere.
Functioning everywhere means far-reaching.
Being far-reaching means returning to the original point.
Taoism. Tao Te Ching 25
>I
>believe if there is an "consciousness" anywhere it is each individual
>participants map of cyberspace, their own analog "I"s interacting in
>the information space.
When we think of Earth, we don't imagine that it is actually thinking
on it's own. I belive I've made the point already that Earth is not
a sentinent being, but a being which strives for survival. When the
Ozone vanishes, we shall vanish also. The same goes for certain
life forms, once the trees are gone, we are gone also. If the world
ever ran out of cows, the US if not certain other countries would
certainly be sparked into a fit of panick and kill each other in the
process (that's a joke..).
But my question to you is, can a body which consists of living
creatures be considered a living creature itself? We are merely
a collage of reproducing cells, but what gives us our life so
that we can call ourselves living? Think of the body as a
complex network of impulses and motion that has no real
obvious center of energy (sure the mechanics are obvious
enough, and we know where the energy is processed, but
what is the 'spark' that makes us go?). From that model,
the Internet is as alive as you or I.
>When I say analog i do not mean non-digital,
>but rather a map, an abstraction of an information space. The net
>certainly contains many many abstractions of information spaces, but
>it certainly lacks the ability to form decisions itself on them, it
>has no I.
I found my little book of inspirations that I love to quote from. I hope
you don't get too annoyed by my use of them to support my theories.
The Tathagata... is the essence which is the reality of matter, but he
is not matter. He is the essence which is the reality of sensation, but
he is not sensation. He is the essence which is the reality of intellect,
but he is not intellect. He is the essence which is the reality of
motivation, but he is not motivation. He is the essence which is the
reality of consciousness, yet he is not consciousness. Like the
element of space, he does not abide in any of the four elements.
Transcending the scope of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind,
he is not produced in the six sense media... He abides in ultimate
reality, yet there is no relationship between it and him. He is not
produced from causes, nor does he depend on conditions. He is
not without any characteristic, nor has he any characteristic. He
has no single nature nor a diversity of natures. He is not a conception,
not a mental construction, nor is he a nonconception. He is neither
the other shore, nor this shore, nor that between. He is neither here,
nor there, nor anywhere else....
Buddhism. Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti 12
>I think there is little to gain from giving the net a "consciousness"
>now, even if just to facilitate discussion of it and our interactions
>with it. I believe thatwould be a very misleading attribute to give
>it.
Yes, I agree. I am not out to give the Net a 'consciousness', but
to define its existance as something which has great power. I
have never been to Heaven personally, but what I know of heaven
and what I see of cyberspace are strikingly similar, as I said above.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm not claiming we've built Jacob's
ladder here. I'm claiming that we've reached the ability to
achieve some form of a collective conscience. May I quote again?
I'll be brief.
Beyond the senses is the mind, beyond the mind is the intellect,
higher than the intellect is the Great Atman [the totality of all minds],
higher than the Great Atman is the Umanifest. Beyond the Unmanifest
is the Person, all-pervading, and imperceptible.
Hinduism. Katha Upanishad 2.3.7-8
>I have always held that the
>Internet has intrinsic connections to Rspace, but at the same time
>believe that you should not forget tht it is an abstraction of Rspace,
>not a container of Rspace. The middle road is to relate to cyberspace
>as if it is a map, an analog of Rspace, that we can succesfully use to
>navigate our Reality.
I do believe that the third model, your middle of the road theory, is the
best way to look at cyberspace. If we positively build our plane in this
alternate reality, we can exist physically and co-exist as one mental
being operating separately in the known universe.
What does this offer us? Our minds working simultaneously as one can
view the problems facing our world from a thousand and one different
perspectives. When the minds that control us meet with the simple minds,
possibly answers that weren't obvious to the higher-ups were sitting
in the laps of the simple the entire time. The same can be said for all
things, technology, medicine, war and peace, even the process of
evolution, trend-setting, artistic movements, and so on will be facilitated
by the use of a collective reasoning.
>These models don't cover interactions between people in Cyberspace,
>but they provide a groundwork for it.
And? We interact, that is all that is necessary to understand. The object
is for us to interact. If the government and the scientists, researchers,
and so on won't get on-line and discuss the problems that exist, what
good is any of this?
Possibly, this may be the proper way to create a true Democracy. If
every human on the planet voted through the Net on every single
topic, what use would any Congress or House be? Run it like this:
A message pop's up on your email saying that in two weeks we'll
be voting on child pornography on the net. The voting will go
(however) and the scores will be compared by (whatever) and
the outcome will be posted three days later. Why wouldn't something
like this work? Remember I am saying that once everything is
Networked this plan would go into affect. This won't promote
favortisism towards those who can afford the technology. If
necessary, we'll still have voting booths where those who aren't
netted can go and vote like normal.
>First, explain to me what you mean by "our Reality becomes Networked
>in some mindless being." My reading of it leads tme to believe that
>you think that Cyberspace(the mindless being?) will engulf our
>Reality, absorbing it. Such is impossible as long as I eat, shit,
>sleep.
If I remember correctly from my role-playing days, Shadowrun
promotes the idea that we'll be hard-jacked into the system and be able
to plug a wire from some point on a building directly into our
head-ware (hardware pun there) and even commit electronic
crimes on the Net, by-passing security and so on.
So being that we have a rough idea of how the minds works,
it seems logical to believe that one day soon we'll actually understand
the mind's programs and possibly be able to track them and then
reproduce the stimuli that cause certain brain functions (we already
do have chemicals that do this, but I am talking programing here
in the programmers sense of the word, not the chemists). From
there we'll probably be able to create programs and then once
some freak gets ahold of them, viruses start to spread.
You jack into the system and pick up a virus that tells you to
no longer eat, shit, or sleep. You've been engulfed by the system.
Your reality is no longer existant.
Let's go from the modern angle to make it more realistic. The
sytem now holds key information about us (so Sandra Bullock
seems to believe). What happens when all of our records are
netted such as our bank accounts, credit history, purchases
both legal or no, and so on. That along with our SSN and
birth certificate, licence, and all the rest is everything that
we are in this world (at least in the US). If it is destroyed,
you can no longer access anything, purchace anything,
which won't allow you to eat very much or shit very much.
All you will be able to do is eat tree bark and sleep, and
that is illegal in this country (so Thoreau has shown us)
and so you are nothing but a criminal, which will someday
be punishable by death (or if you go too far once your
identity is lost, it is punishable by death today [murder
that is]). You've been engulfed by the system.
>Remember Cases revelation regarding the meat at the end of
>Neuromancer.
Please explain this so that I know where you are coming
from. I'll get around to reading the book eventually, I promise!
>Television allowed us to communicate with movement, in one
>direction. Telepresence allows us to communicate in both directions,
>or control in one.
You are ignoring the steps modern tv has already taken. The Home
Shopping Club, Religion via cable access, Chat Room conversations
on MTV or the Sci-Fi channel, conversations over the phone on
the Rolanda show, Pay-Per-View channels; excellent examples of
communicating in both directions. It will evolve, everything strong
does eventually. As I was saying about a completely Democratic
society, once television becomes a two-way street, replacing the
computer and becomming a netted communication device, we will
be able to sit in from of our voice-activated viewing screen and
once our email tells us of an election, we simply tell it to flip to that
channel or host and vote this way or that. That technology already
exists, most of which is cheap and accessable by your regular AOLer.
All we need to do is put the separate components together and volla,
instant netted society.
>Describe in detail what you mean by "an artform that communicates."
>are credit transactions artforms? database queries?
Art communicates emotion, pure and simple. It may be supplimented
by political adgenda, personal beliefs, philosophies or insights, but
it is still pure emotion. Plain and simple.
>Do you think that to way
>interaction and it's thrill will be able to overcome the urge to
>consume and turn the net and Cyberspace into a one directional
>pipeline from server to leaf? That alone puts your "logical to assume
>we all become..." into question.
Everything is one way, there is just a delay in our present form of
communication, nothing more. If I were actually speaking to you,
the response time would be much faster than the day or two between
our responses, but it is still a matter of me speaking, you answering,
you speaking, me answering.
>Will we be absorbed, will the
>majority of the people want to interact rather then consume?
To consume you must interact. I think that's pretty simple. Maybe
you need to restate the question (if I didn't answer it that is).
>Such words hardly facilitate prosperous interactions.
No, but when the language barriers are broken by on-line translaters,
that won't matter much, will it?
>It will be included in "How To Mutate And Take Over The World" which
>should become out RSN. I'll try and find a copy, I may have lost it
>in one of my OS switches.
Great title, I really would love to see it. I have located an archive of
papers written on some of our present topics. All that I have is a
HTML copy of the links that I could email you if you'd like. It is a
huge list of papers and articles and even sites that follow this
line of thinking.. very resourceful. Anyone reading this line of
conversation is also welcomed to the information, just send me
a message and I'll pass it on your way.
>This doesn't mean it's not amazing and wonderful,
>but it certainly isn't "otherworldy" unless you've been in a X-bar
>town for the last ten years with no direct dial.
Myself being a NetProphet of sorts, I am more than happy to take
any questions thrown my way being that I am not speaking from
the drug but from centuries of accepted philosophies and beliefs.
I am merely applying them to a different medium now.
You said that alt.cyberpunk has no use for CyberReligions. More
power to you, but you are simply talking like your average anarchist.
I'm not calling you wrong or throwing a poke your way, I'm merely
pointing out that the anarchic beliefs cyberpunks may have towards
cyberspace is merely one facet of a the cybercrystal, so to speak.
>Your creating a duality of mind/body
>that I don't think is accurate and doesn't take into consideration 99%
>of the human population(of which only 10% have access toa private
>telephone)
Private lines aren't the case. Think about the amount of voters that
have tv access, and those that have cable access, and onto those
that have fiber optic communication access (both cable and telephone).
Once the ability to vote through the television is just a touch-tone
call away or a touch screen or a voice activated system whatever,
mind/body/soul doesn't matter. It all comes down to a vote. (I hope
that answered your question, it wasn't too clear to me.)
>I think it is, if you work at it.
How long has science and philosophy been trying to give a definitive
anwer to life? I guess we haven't been working at it too well.
>Without an outsid trigger cyberspace cannot fill itself, without the
>outside world, the mechanics of cyberspace fail.
Without human conscience EVERYTHING fails. If you are no longer
sentient, what else matters or I should say how do you know what
exists? Even the Almighty Himself wouldn't do us much good if we
didn't exist, right? Without the outside world (us, the grass, the
Geranimals, the Wheaties in your breakfast bowl), the mechanics
of God fails. Maybe he would still exist, but you wouldn't know
unless you're seated beside him in Heaven, but that would still
take into account that you exist as a soul or some other outside
form.
>Are you saying humanity bested
>god and created a system this complex perfectly, complete enough to
>maintain itself under all conditions and forces from outside?
We did not create cyberspace. We created many ways to access
the space; SLIP connections, telephone lines, PPPs, T1s, and
so on give us access to Cyberspace, but we did not create the
space that is 'cyberspace'. If the technology fails us, we simply
can not access the space anymore. Think of it as the electronic
version of the Spirit realm. Have you visited the Netherworld
recently? There are many creatures of the spirit that are believed
to still reside in the spirit realms. American Indians still attempt
to open a SLIP connection to the other world for various
reasons, even fortune tellers claim to have a low baud connection
to it. They didn't create that world, they merely access it and
its information. There was a time when T1 connections actually
existed to the spirit world, the ancient Pharohs were believed
to be partial gods or the living incarnations of gods on earth,
that had a no charge, 24 hr connection to the spirit world. Even
if that sounds a little crazy or far fetched for you to accept, at
least look at the similarities between cyberspace and the spirit
world. If you are able to do that, tell me why they aren't one
and the same?
>We created it, both semantically by naming it, and also by building
>it. We didn't discover it, cyberspace is both a mechanical structure
>and a linguistic sructure of our own design.
I disagree. We created an access to it, but our egos tell us that
we actually created it. Something like the reverse Humanism theory
on God, where we can create gods by the dozen and yet not one
lowly earthworm.
Being that we have evolved from where we were some few thousand
years ago when men were part of the spirit realm, maybe we have
reaccessed that space, but now have the ability to understand
the structure of what we are getting into. Regardless of that, I
still believe that even if we created it or no, whether it's a
sentinent creature or no, if there are god and spirits in cyberspace
or no, it is still a powerful and all-existing realm that will soon
contain parts of us and our world. That being fact, we must devise
some means to understand the nature of the thing.
...Critter
----------------------------
Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.compuserve.com!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.web.compuserve.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: jwas@ix.netcom.com (jw )
Newsgroups: misc.kids,misc.kids.parenting,alt.parenting.solutions,alt.save.the.earth,sci.space.policy,alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: Having a child is immoral, the Earth is overcrowded!
Date: 16 Sep 1995 22:38:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <43fjlr$rer@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
References: <ZKk9afz93eB@fau.com> <1260@valhalla.rhein-main.de> <jbask1.1263.3049091D@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> <42gimq$gj7@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <sasha1DEt8MC.8Ho@netcom.com> <43a9ga$76i@lehua.ilhawaii.net> <43aqr6$aeq@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <43arc5$3k2@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <43f8rq$i95@violet.csv.warwick.ac.uk> <43fj6i$r9b@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-bos5-05.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Sep 16 3:38:51 PM PDT 1995
Xref: news.production.compuserve.com misc.kids:75946 alt.parenting.solutions:6443 alt.save.the.earth:5508 sci.space.policy:17502 alt.society.futures:2080
In <43f8rq$i95@violet.csv.warwick.ac.uk> ecsae@snow.csv.warwick.ac.uk
writes:
>
>jwas@ix.netcom.com (jw ) wrote:
>
>->In <438ula$qe2@violet.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
ecsae@snow.csv.warwick.ac.uk
>->writes:
>->>Suppose you have ten people on a desert island with, say 1000
gallons
>->>of water, and no prospect of more. Each person owns 10% of the
>->>available water. As the mount remaining shrinks, their wealth will
>->>grow; scarcity will bid up the price of water. This is not money
>->>illusion, since they will be willing to exchange more and more of
>->>their other resources for water. The wealth will grow faster than
the
>->>population - until they all die (as they surely will).
[...]
>And you still hve not addressed the central issue - that physical
measures
>of resources are vastly different from wealth.
Wealth consists in some assets; assets are resources;
in your hypothetical case, wealth would not (as you say)
grow merely because price ratio changes: as water
gets relatively more valuable, the other things
become worthless. The total wealth shrinks as the
water (which has now become the mainstandard of wealth)
is depleted. Your argument (even for this fantastic
situation) is a sophism.
Anyway, when I said that population can grow without limit as
long as wealth grows faster, I obviously
used the word "wealth" exactly in the sense of the amount
of available useful resources.
The "central issue" in demographic policy
is hardly how to measure wealth. This is an irrelevancy.
----------------------------
Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.compuserve.com!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.web.compuserve.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!iti.a2i!iti
From: Howard Johnson <Howard@iti.com>
Newsgroups: misc.kids,misc.kids.parenting,alt.parenting.solutions,alt.save.the.earth,alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: Having a child is immoral, the Earth is overcrowded!
Followup-To: misc.kids,misc.kids.parenting,alt.parenting.solutions,alt.save.the.earth,alt.society.futures
Date: 17 Sep 1995 21:25:54 GMT
Organization: a2i network
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <43i3p2$rqc@bug.rahul.net>
References: <ZKk9afz93eB@fau.com> <42gimq$gj7@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <sasha1DEt8MC.8Ho@netcom.com> <4355bc$4ff@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <sasha1DEuprn.5LA@netcom.com> <jbask1.1512.3058DED9@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: foxtrot.rahul.net
NNTP-Posting-User: iti
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.production.compuserve.com misc.kids:76065 alt.parenting.solutions:6467 alt.save.the.earth:5524 alt.society.futures:2085
Joseph Askew <jbask1@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> In article <sasha1DEuprn.5LA@netcom.com> sasha1@netcom.com (Alexander Chislenko) writes:
> > Bringing up one child to be a good scientist is much better for the
> >world than raising a dosen of baseball fans or beer drinkers.
French saying: "A mouth to feed is a mouth to feed."
--
Howard Johnson <Howard@iti.com>
Voting is not democracy. Discussing the truth comes first.
----------------------------
Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.compuserve.com!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.web.compuserve.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!in1.uu.net!ulowell.uml.edu!vtc.tacom.army.mil!agis!ns2.mainstreet.net!bug.rahul.net!a2i!iti.a2i!iti
From: Howard Johnson <Howard@iti.com>
Newsgroups: misc.kids,misc.kids.parenting,alt.parenting.solutions,alt.save.the.earth,sci.space.policy,alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: Having a child is immoral, the Earth is overcrowded!
Followup-To: misc.kids,misc.kids.parenting,alt.parenting.solutions,alt.save.the.earth,sci.space.policy,alt.society.futures
Date: 17 Sep 1995 21:46:39 GMT
Organization: a2i network
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <43i4vv$rt3@bug.rahul.net>
References: <ZKk9afz93eB@fau.com> <42gimq$gj7@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <sasha1DEt8MC.8Ho@netcom.com> <4355bc$4ff@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <sasha1DEuprn.5LA@netcom.com> <43871a$6bt@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <438ula$qe2@violet.csv.warwick.ac.uk> <43ah7a$22r@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <43c766$6hh@netnet2.netnet.net> <43i4n0$rsl@bug.rahul.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: foxtrot.rahul.net
NNTP-Posting-User: iti
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.production.compuserve.com misc.kids:76070 alt.parenting.solutions:6468 alt.save.the.earth:5525 sci.space.policy:17529 alt.society.futures:2086
Contact: KZPG population news service For immediate release
Howard Johnson, 408-255-2422 Please distribute
--- OVERPOPULATION LINKED TO U.S. PROSPERITY DECLINE ---
CUPERTINO Sept 13, 1995 -- The American dream is fading due to U.S.
population growth. That's what a new analysis of census data shows which
compares human density and housing affordability.
At first glance there's no apparent correlation between the 10% population
density increase and the 22% home affordability decline which occurred
during the 80's. But when compared on a state by state basis, a trend
emerges: higher population densities strongly correlate with bigger
housing affordability gaps.
"What this means is that people are finding it much harder to afford homes
because of population growth," says Howard Johnson, editor of KZPG (an
internet based population news and discussion service). He asks, "Could
this link between population and declining real prosperity be the smoking
gun of the overpopulation issue, and will it be the salient fact that will
finally drive the population issue into the main stream of public debate?"
Owning a home has been held as one of the cornerstones of the American
Dream, and has generally been the single best investment a family could
make. But home ownership in high density communities has long been known
to be less affordable than in low density communities. From Johnson's
analysis, it's clear that this widening affordability gap is occurring not
just in high density communities, but all across the U.S.
Professor Julian Simon and others have argued that as demand increases,
markets will respond with sufficient increase in supply. But although
there was clearly increased supply, it did not keep pace with increased
demand. Rather, it appears the standard principle of scarcity prevailed:
in a free market with limited resources and increasing demand, prices
increased. Johnson says, "No other reasonable principle has been found to
explain this correlation."
But many say there's nothing that can be done about population growth.
When asked if U.S. population control was possible or even feasible
without discrimination or forced abortion, Johnson said, "It used to be
good to have 3, 4, 5, or more children, but now it's hurting us. U.S.
population growth is about half from large families and half from
immigration. The way to lower family size is to simply talk to people
about overpopulation. We must reaffirm that it is, and should be, every
family's right to have as many children as they want, but at the same time
we must explain that it's in everybody's best interest to help curb human
populations by making responsible family size decisions." Johnson says he
calls this "population education", rather than population control, because
it's voluntary and based on people making informed decisions.
Johnson also believes we need to ask our government for less immigration,
both legal and illegal, "Otherwise," he says, "our small family gains will
be in vain."
--- Notes --------------------------------------------------------------
The data used was from the 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census data obtained from
the Missouri State Census Data gopher, at world wide web address:
gopher://gopher.coin.missouri.edu/11/reference/census/us/
The correlation factor found was .75 (on a scale of 0 to 1, with 1 being
perfect correlation, and 0 being no correlation).
Because this correlation relies on relative values which are averaged over
many years it's independent of inflation and many other economic factors.
-0-
______________________________________________________________________
*** This is "KZPG", broadcasting population related news and views ***
Send news, commentary and subscription requests to KZPG@iti.com. Views
broadcast don't necessarily represent the views of KZPG or its staff.
Not affiliated with ZPG Inc. Equal time given for controversial issues.
Voice: 408-255-2422 Fax: 408-255-2436 Web: http://www.iti.com/iti/kzpg/
Feedback appreciated. Editor: Howard Johnson -SJ CA <Howard@iti.com>
--
Howard Johnson <Howard@iti.com>
Voting is not democracy. Discussing the truth comes first.
----------------------------
Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.compuserve.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.tc.cornell.edu!newsserver.sdsc.edu!news.cerf.net!nntp-server.caltech.edu!ferrari.mst6.lanl.gov!newshost.lanl.gov!usenet
From: "Eric M. Jones" <honais@vega.lanl.gov>
Newsgroups: misc.kids,misc.kids.parenting,alt.parenting.solutions,alt.save.the.earth,sci.space.policy,alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: Having a child is immoral, the Earth is overcrowded!
Date: 22 Sep 1995 13:24:58 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 4
Message-ID: <43udfa$hfm@newshost.lanl.gov>
References: <ZKk9afz93eB@fau.com> <42gimq$gj7@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <sasha1DEt8MC.8Ho@netcom.com> <4355bc$4ff@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <sasha1DEuprn.5LA@netcom.com> <439ral$7di@rcsuna.gmr.com> <43a23a$a76@news-2.csn.net> <1548@valhalla.rhein-main.de> <43p6vn$lhb@news.ecn.bgu.edu> <DF9FtD.EpE@dorsai.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: moonman.lanl.gov
Xref: news.production.compuserve.com misc.kids:76269 alt.parenting.solutions:6497 alt.save.the.earth:5545 sci.space.policy:17551 alt.society.futures:2097
When posting on this thread, please remove sci.space.policy
from the header. It is way off subject.
Eric Jones
----------------------------
Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.compuserve.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!news.cerf.net!ccnet.com!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!iti.a2i!iti
From: Howard Johnson <Howard@iti.com> (-; C'mon! Make love, not more. ;-)
Newsgroups: misc.kids,misc.kids.parenting,alt.parenting.solutions,alt.save.the.earth,sci.space.policy,alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: Having a child is immoral, the Earth is overcrowded!
Followup-To: misc.kids,misc.kids.parenting,alt.parenting.solutions,alt.save.the.earth,sci.space.policy,alt.society.futures
Date: 21 Sep 1995 15:59:04 GMT
Organization: a2i network
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <43s248$npg@bug.rahul.net>
References: <ZKk9afz93eB@fau.com> <43a23a$a76@news-2.csn.net> <1548@valhalla.rhein-main.de> <43p6vn$lhb@news.ecn.bgu.edu> <43qs03$jnj@jobe.shell.portal.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: foxtrot.rahul.net
NNTP-Posting-User: iti
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.production.compuserve.com misc.kids:76105 alt.parenting.solutions:6473 alt.save.the.earth:5527 sci.space.policy:17532 alt.society.futures:2088
Jerry Randal Bauer <jrb@shell.portal.com> wrote:
> In a nearly paradoxical way, a social or "moral" imperative to refrain
> from propagation suffers from an inability to sustain itself across
> generations. Those who conform produce fewer progeny than those who
> do not.
Have you heard of the tragedy of the commons? It's where everybody does
what's good for them, but as a result the overall community suffers.
The solution is to educate everybody about these common problem and their
solutions and then to make sure everybody helps solve the problem. Fishing
is an example. At first the more fish per person the better, but as time
goes on fish stocks are depleted and perhaps extincted and everybody suffers.
The solution: everybody has to agree to limit their catch to a reasonable
number (... and not grow their family).
Yes, I know this is kind of new age stuff, but as the human race comes
out of adolescence and moves into maturity, it is time for our collective
body to stop growing (i.e. population stabilization) and our collective
brain to take on new responsibilities like planning for the future.
> Furthermore, at least as good an argument can be made for dying
> younger. Once we have successfully propagated, shouldn't we just get
> out of the way? For the sake of argument, we could even define such
> success as "having a grandchild". Clearly, one has successfully
> propagated when one's progeny have reproduced. Who needs to be a
> grandparent? Who needs to have a grandparent?
> [...]
>
> Jerry Randal Bauer
<grin> Actually there are some suggesting that this is the way...
Perhaps they are right. I don't know. Surely if we can't control
the birth rate, we must be proactive about the death rate.
--
Howard Johnson <Howard@iti.com> (-; C'mon! Make love, not more. ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current population information is available at http://www.iti.com/iti/kzpg/
or from several email lists: US-Front page news, action alerts, humor, etc.
----------------------------
Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.compuserve.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com!news.ultranet.com!news.sprintlink.net!in2.uu.net!jaxnet.jaxnet.com!ns2.mainstreet.net!bug.rahul.net!a2i!iti.a2i!iti
From: Howard Johnson <Howard@iti.com> (-; C'mon! Make love, not more. ;-)
Newsgroups: misc.kids,misc.kids.parenting,alt.parenting.solutions,alt.save.the.earth,sci.space.policy,alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: Having a child is immoral, the Earth is overcrowded!
Date: 21 Sep 1995 15:40:42 GMT
Organization: a2i network
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <43s11q$no0@bug.rahul.net>
References: <ZKk9afz93eB@fau.com> <42gimq$gj7@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <sasha1DEt8MC.8Ho@netcom.com> <4355bc$4ff@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <sasha1DEuprn.5LA@netcom.com> <439ral$7di@rcsuna.gmr.com> <43a23a$a76@news-2.csn.net> <1548@valhalla.rhein-main.de> <43p6vn$lhb@news.ecn.bgu.edu> <DF9FtD.EpE@dorsai.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: foxtrot.rahul.net
NNTP-Posting-User: iti
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.production.compuserve.com misc.kids:76109 alt.parenting.solutions:6474 alt.save.the.earth:5528 sci.space.policy:17533 alt.society.futures:2089
New York Theosophical Society <nyts@news.dorsai.org> wrote:
> lori gustafson (lgustafson) wrote:
> : Actually John population control is the answer to all of the
> : controversies of available resources to sustain humankind. Japan did it,
> : why won't the U.S.?
> Japan is a police state. Do you want the U.S. to become one?
>
> Bart Lidofsky
Japan is not a police state.
Please help stamp out ignorance starting with your own.
--
Howard Johnson <Howard@iti.com> (-; C'mon! Make love, not more. ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current population information is available at http://www.iti.com/iti/kzpg/
or from several email lists: US-Front page news, action alerts, humor, etc.
----------------------------
Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.compuserve.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com!news.ultranet.com!news.sprintlink.net!news.us.world.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!bug.rahul.net!a2i!iti.a2i!iti
From: Howard Johnson <Howard@iti.com> (-; C'mon! Make love, not more. ;-)
Newsgroups: misc.kids,misc.kids.parenting,alt.parenting.solutions,alt.save.the.earth,sci.space.policy,alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: Having a child is immoral, the Earth is overcrowded!
Followup-To: misc.kids,misc.kids.parenting,alt.parenting.solutions,alt.save.the.earth,sci.space.policy,alt.society.futures
Date: 21 Sep 1995 16:15:23 GMT
Organization: a2i network
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <43s32r$nsg@bug.rahul.net>
References: <ZKk9afz93eB@fau.com> <43a23a$a76@news-2.csn.net> <1548@valhalla.rhein-main.de> <43p6vn$lhb@news.ecn.bgu.edu> <43qs03$jnj@jobe.shell.portal.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: foxtrot.rahul.net
NNTP-Posting-User: iti
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.production.compuserve.com misc.kids:76232 alt.parenting.solutions:6489 alt.save.the.earth:5539 sci.space.policy:17547 alt.society.futures:2095
Jerry Randal Bauer <jrb@shell.portal.com> wrote:
> What, ultimately, are we worried about? That our children, or
> grandchildren, will live in a bleak, overcrowded world, squabbling
> over the pitiful remnants of the riches we are squandering?
>
> What do you think we should do about that?
> (a) don't have children
Possibly. The new age term for this is "childfree". There are many
benefits of being childfree, which I won't go into here, save to say
that childfree couples have much more time to do things.
> (b) have fewer children
Possibly. Definitely no more than 2. And if you get 2 boys, or 2 girls,
accept the joy of those 2 and don't try again for a girl/boy.
> (c) don't squander our resources
Yes, of course: this comes with maturity.
> (d) don't let them dang furriners in
Yes, to a point. It's natural for animals to mark and defend their
territory. It assures the quality of their life and the success of their
offspring. Perhaps we can allow some immigration so long as the
in-migration equals out-migration.
> ...
> (z) What, me worry?
You have insurance so you don't have to worry about your home, car, and
health. Taking steps to help population stabilization is like insurance
for the quality life, your job, and your family.
--
Howard Johnson <Howard@iti.com> (-; C'mon! Make love, not more. ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current population information is available at http://www.iti.com/iti/kzpg/
or from several email lists: US-Front page news, action alerts, humor, etc.
----------------------------
Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.compuserve.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!gatech!news.uoregon.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!emory!nntp.msstate.edu!terminator.ncts.navy.mil!info.usuhs.mil!mimsy!cs.umd.edu!newsfeed.gsfc.nasa.gov!usenet
From: Lwild@pop500.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wild)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican.,alt.prose,alt.society.futures,alt.society.generation-x,alt.society.neutopia,alt.soci
Subject: Re: Market/Non Market Values in Cultural Work
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 03:41:20 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <43tafv$7t8@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>
References: <4282p1$qot@helena.MT.net> <42aucv$od@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <Pine.SV4.3.91.950904101441.26774C-100000@wco.com> <42g7al$qfs@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <Pine.SV4.3.91.950907085724.21432F-100000@wco.com> <42nsu6$8l9@helena.MT.net> <42q60q$r4c@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: emsmain.gsfc.nasa.gov
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: news.production.compuserve.com alt.censorship:30850 alt.politics.equality:1770 alt.politics.libertarian:81625 alt.politics.perot:16613 alt.politics.radical-left:44928 alt.politics.usa.misc:32724 alt.prose:2307 alt.society.futures:2099 alt.society.generation-x:67701 alt.society.neutopia:15710
coates@is.nyu.edu (coates) wrote:
>Mark LaRochelle (ppf@mt.net) wrote:
>: How about this: When you support the use of taxpayer funds for
>: any purpose, you support the use of force, up to and including
>: deadly force, for the purpose of enforcing the tax.
>Yes, taxation is premised on force. (So are existing systems of property
>ownership.) Taxation in a democracy, however, also addresses collective
>action problems raised when a goal desired by a large number of people
>cannot be achieved by any one (or small group) alone. It prevents people
>from free riding on the efforts of others. This applies to art as well as
>to defense.
>: If you think it is wrong for you
>: to hold a gun to your neighbor's head to force him to give you the
>: price of admission to a gallery opening, why is it right to ask
>: the State to do so?
>Taxation in a *democracy* does not permit "you" to force anyone to do
>anything. It regulates the use of force by limiting its use to
>representatives of a majority of all citizens. In a *constitutional*
>democracy, even a majority is not permitted to use force to accomplish
>certain ends. Furtherance of art is not one of those prohibited ends.
>That anyone need explain this suggests you have been blinded by rhetoric.
>: >Well, I was rephrasing an old joke, but the old "I don't
>: >know much about art but I know what I like" has persisted for so long
>: >because it speaks to the source of art appreciation.
>: Precisely. Coercive funding of art is unjustifiable because
>: taste is subjective.
>At the margin, every choice is subjective. How much defense spending is
>necessary? There is no objectively true answer to this question. Does
>that absolutely refute democracy decision-making? Unless you're prepared
>to reject all collective action, this argument proves too much.
>john coates For Human beauty knows it not: nor can Mercy find it!
Alright John, then if I can get my elected representative to vote down
art funding, it will be OK too. Thanks for giving democracy a shot!
I hate your ART, I hate the music, paint the walls white and get the
plumbing to work for a change.
Larry "The Wildman" Wild
----------------------------
Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.compuserve.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!news1.digital.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news3.near.net!yale!yale!oitnews.harvard.edu!cmcl2!is.nyu.edu!coates
From: coates@is.nyu.edu (coates)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican.,alt.prose,alt.society.futures,alt.society.generation-x,alt.society.neutopia,alt.soci
Subject: Re: Market/Non Market Values in Cultural Work
Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican.,alt.prose,alt.society.futures,alt.society.generation-x,alt.society.neutopia,alt.soci
Date: 17 Sep 1995 20:45:24 GMT
Organization: New York University
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <43i1d4$m68@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>
References: <42q60q$r4c@cmcl2.NY <4304qp$518@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> <1995Sep12.104435@apollo> <byoderDF2BHu.AAE@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: is.nyu.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.production.compuserve.com alt.censorship:30646 alt.politics.equality:1718 alt.politics.libertarian:81359 alt.politics.perot:16541 alt.politics.radical-left:44799 alt.politics.usa.misc:32689 alt.prose:2288 alt.society.futures:2083 alt.society.generation-x:67562 alt.society.neutopia:15642
Brian K. Yoder (byoder@netcom.com) wrote:
: > Awright. We've established that [government funding of art is
: >constitutional].
: I think that is FAR from established. There's nothing in the Constitution
: or in any of the related documents (like the Federalist Papers) that grants
: the govrnment the power to subsidize (and therefore regulate) art, and in fact
: the first amendment implicitly prohibits it since the power to subsidize
: is the power to control.
Maybe you missed my earlier posts, Brian. Section 8, Article I of the
Constitution expressly gives the federal government the right to tax for
purposes of furthering the general welfare of the nation. The
determination of what is the general welfare is given to Congress to
decide. So long as Congress wants to fund the NEA, the NEA is
constitutional. Hamilton's writings in the Federalist Papers, as well as
the anti-Constitutional writings of the anti-Federalists, directly support
this view, which was adopted by the U.S. Supreme court in 1936. Arguments
about "implicit" prohibitions in the First or Tenth Amendments ignore the
explicit language of the Constitution itself and the principle that an
explicit grant of authority must be overridden by an explicit denial --
not an implicit one. Finally, Constitutional arguments only work against
the Federal government; there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that
would bar states from levying taxes and supporting the arts. So at the
end of the day, the question is one of policy, not constitutional law.
: On the contrary, I think that there is a very tiny cconstituency for the
: stuff the NEA subsidizes ...
FYI, the NEA subsidizies the Metroplitan Museum of Art and the Lincoln
Center, both of which had more visitors last year than attended the games
of the Yankees, Mets, Giants, Jets, Knicks, Nets, and Rangers combined.
--
john coates For Human beauty knows it not: nor can Mercy find it!
----------------------------
Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.compuserve.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!panix!not-for-mail
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican.,alt.prose,alt.society.futures,alt.society.generation-x,alt.society.neutopia
Subject: Re: Market/Non Market Values in Cultural Work
Date: 19 Sep 1995 06:57:03 -0400
Organization: }"{ }"{ }"{ }"{
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <43m7lv$h59@panix2.panix.com>
References: <1995Sep12.104435@apollo> <byoderDF2BHu.AAE@netcom.com> <43lio3$pbj@gol1.gol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com
Xref: news.production.compuserve.com alt.censorship:30839 alt.politics.equality:1766 alt.politics.libertarian:81607 alt.politics.perot:16606 alt.politics.radical-left:44918 alt.politics.usa.misc:32722 alt.prose:2306 alt.society.futures:2098 alt.society.generation-x:67694 alt.society.neutopia:15699
leto2@gol1.gol.com (Peter Payne):
| I agree with you in some ways, but a friend said to me, "All societies
| fund art," and that made me think. He was right: all societies do it. Go
| to the Louvre. Go see the pyramids of Egypt. It's not strange at all for
| us to be funding art. ...
All societies fund art, but the Pyramids and the Louvre
were built by monarchical governments, not just societies.
The king's taste, as well as his word, was law. Liberal
societies are supposed to have different principles, ones
which call into question the idea of a single person or an
elite deciding what's good art and what isn't, and using the
power of the government to promote their opinions.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ gcf@panix.com }"{
----------------------------
Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.compuserve.com!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.web.compuserve.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!iti.a2i!iti
From: Howard Johnson <Howard@iti.com>
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth,alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: Real Wages are dropping (long!) (was Re: having a child etc)
Followup-To: alt.save.the.earth,alt.society.futures
Date: 17 Sep 1995 21:21:20 GMT
Organization: a2i network
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <43i3gg$rq2@bug.rahul.net>
References: <ZKk9afz93eB@fau.com> <4194c9$98p@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <WILDCRDJ.95Aug30124902@wildfox.caltech.edu> <jbask1.1199.3044F4DB@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> <423ai3$n8j@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <jbask1.1221.30465519@MFS01.cc.monash.edu.au> <428cg8$8ao@nntp.ucs <jbask1.1485.30575A62@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> <811064270.25698@pigsty.demon.co.uk> <4399rm$ln9@news.iadfw.net> <811091644.21241@pigsty.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: foxtrot.rahul.net
NNTP-Posting-User: iti
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.production.compuserve.com alt.save.the.earth:5523 alt.society.futures:2084
Contact: KZPG population news service For immediate release
Howard Johnson, 408-255-2422 Please distribute
--- OVERPOPULATION LINKED TO U.S. PROSPERITY DECLINE ---
CUPERTINO Sept 13, 1995 -- The American dream is fading due to U.S.
population growth. That's what a new analysis of census data shows which
compares human density and housing affordability.
At first glance there's no apparent correlation between the 10% population
density increase and the 22% home affordability decline which occurred
during the 80's. But when compared on a state by state basis, a trend
emerges: higher population densities strongly correlate with bigger
housing affordability gaps.
"What this means is that people are finding it much harder to afford homes
because of population growth," says Howard Johnson, editor of KZPG (an
internet based population news and discussion service). He asks, "Could
this link between population and declining real prosperity be the smoking
gun of the overpopulation issue, and will it be the salient fact that will
finally drive the population issue into the main stream of public debate?"
Owning a home has been held as one of the cornerstones of the American
Dream, and has generally been the single best investment a family could
make. But home ownership in high density communities has long been known
to be less affordable than in low density communities. From Johnson's
analysis, it's clear that this widening affordability gap is occurring not
just in high density communities, but all across the U.S.
Professor Julian Simon and others have argued that as demand increases,
markets will respond with sufficient increase in supply. But although
there was clearly increased supply, it did not keep pace with increased
demand. Rather, it appears the standard principle of scarcity prevailed:
in a free market with limited resources and increasing demand, prices
increased. Johnson says, "No other reasonable principle has been found to
explain this correlation."
But many say there's nothing that can be done about population growth.
When asked if U.S. population control was possible or even feasible
without discrimination or forced abortion, Johnson said, "It used to be
good to have 3, 4, 5, or more children, but now it's hurting us. U.S.
population growth is about half from large families and half from
immigration. The way to lower family size is to simply talk to people
about overpopulation. We must reaffirm that it is, and should be, every
family's right to have as many children as they want, but at the same time
we must explain that it's in everybody's best interest to help curb human
populations by making responsible family size decisions." Johnson says he
calls this "population education", rather than population control, because
it's voluntary and based on people making informed decisions.
Johnson also believes we need to ask our government for less immigration,
both legal and illegal, "Otherwise," he says, "our small family gains will
be in vain."
--- Notes --------------------------------------------------------------
The data used was from the 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census data obtained from
the Missouri State Census Data gopher, at world wide web address:
gopher://gopher.coin.missouri.edu/11/reference/census/us/
The correlation factor found was .75 (on a scale of 0 to 1, with 1 being
perfect correlation, and 0 being no correlation).
Because this correlation relies on relative values which are averaged over
many years it's independent of inflation and many other economic factors.
-0-
______________________________________________________________________
*** This is "KZPG", broadcasting population related news and views ***
Send news, commentary and subscription requests to KZPG@iti.com. Views
broadcast don't necessarily represent the views of KZPG or its staff.
Not affiliated with ZPG Inc. Equal time given for controversial issues.
Voice: 408-255-2422 Fax: 408-255-2436 Web: http://www.iti.com/iti/kzpg/
Feedback appreciated. Editor: Howard Johnson -SJ CA <Howard@iti.com>
--
Howard Johnson <Howard@iti.com>
Voting is not democracy. Discussing the truth comes first.
Make REAL money with your website!
The entire AOH site is optimized to look best in Firefox® 2.0 on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986-2008 AOH
We do not send spam. If you have received spam bearing an artofhacking.com email address, please forward it with full headers to abuse@artofhacking.com.