Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people

GS Chandy
Haim posted Jul 25, 2011 7:54 PM:

> Richard Hake Posted: Jul 24, 2011 10:20 PM
>
> >11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
> 1111
> >1. THE SUBJECT OF HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH HAS
> EVIDENTLY
> >NOT ALWAYS BEEN REGARDED AS "OFF TOPIC" FOR PHYSLRNR
> >111111111111111111111111111111111111
> >
> >22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
> 2222
> >2. SOME CARELESS READERS ATTRIBUTE COMMENTS BY HARTE
> &
> >EHRLICH TO HAKE
> >222222222222222222222222222222222222222
>
> Richard,
>
> You respond to people who complain your memo was
> was off topic.  You also respond to people who
> attribute Harte & Erlich's argument to you.  Judging
> by your responses, it seems I am the only one who
> addressed the substance of the article you posted to
> Math-Teach.
>
> The argument is that human population growth is a
> s a problem and there is something wrong with
> American education.  While the first part of the
> argument may be debatable, the second part is
> preposterous.
>
> I look forward to your thoughts on my response to
> to Harte and Erlich.
>
> Haim
> Shovel ready?  What shovel ready?
>
Pardon my obtuseness, but I really fail to understand Haim's remarks on the first part of the argument being "debatable" and the second part being "preposterous".

To my mind, human population growth on earth shares many characteristics with a cancer in a human body.  That it is a serious problem is not debatable at all.  Perhaps it is not as great a problem as over-consumption and wasteful consumption by the human species of available planetary resources (though definitely the over-population significantly contributes to the over-consumption).

I entirely fail to understand why Haim should feel that the second part of the argument is "preposterous".

I'm afraid I also fail to understand Haim's latest 'valedictory': "Shovel ready? What shovel ready?"

I'd be most grateful for any clarifications that may be provided.

GSC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people

Haim-5
GS Chandy Posted: Aug 4, 2011 8:20 AM
>
>Pardon my obtuseness, but I really fail to understand
>Haim's remarks on the first part of the argument
>being "debatable" and the second part
>being "preposterous".
>
>To my mind, human population growth on earth shares many
>characteristics with a cancer in a human body. That it
>is a serious problem is not debatable at all.

   Unless somebody else feels differently.  Then it is debatable.  For example, in your country of over a billion people, I have heard that some Indians are against any kind of population control because one cannot know if the child that is not conceived (or that is aborted) is the next Einstein who would solve the over-population problem and other problems besides.  "Debatable" means, well, debatable;  it does not imply that the other guy, or you, is right.  It just means that the other guy does not agree with you and will put forward an argument.

   If you, GS, were to debate over-population with your compatriots, and convince them all, it would then cease to be debatable, at least in India.

>...
>I entirely fail to understand why Haim should feel that
>the second part of the argument is "preposterous".

   The second part of the argument is this:  world over-population implies there is something wrong with American thinking on the subject and, therefore, something wrong with American education.  Not only do most Americans believe over-population is a problem, they are already doing something about it.  It is patently obvious there is nothing wrong with American thinking on the subject and, therefore, there is nothing wrong with American education, on this subject.  Unless you, or Hake, can put forward some explanation that has escaped me, this part of the argument is flatly preposterous.

   As long as you have brought me to revisit this subject, I will add that over-population has been an issue in American education ever since I can remember.  That Hake should bring it up now, and in the way he did, is to my eyes a blatant effort at panicking the public as a bogus way to extort yet more money for the Education Mafia.  In other words, if they do not have a legitimate cause to fund, they will manufacture an illegitimate one as a way to extort yet more money from the public purse.

   It may not have escaped your notice, GS, that Hake twice failed to respond to my remarks.  This is a very well known technique of the Education Mafia, remarked on by many people on my side of the education debates.  When caught out, the Education Mafia will simply not respond, and move on to the next manufactured crisis, in the hope that their error will be simply forgotten.  If they actually debate the point, you see, not only would they lose the debate, but it would be a very public, very visible loss that would work against them even more than if they simply remained silent.  This approach has been quite effective with the weak-minded.
>
>I'm afraid I also fail to understand Haim's
>latest 'valedictory': "Shovel ready? What shovel ready?"

   GS, being on the internet, MATH-TEACH is open to the world.  Although I speak for none but myself, I feel sure we all welcome participation from whatever quarter it comes.  However, there is no escaping the primarily American character of this cybernetic forum.  "Shovel ready" is an Americanism that I use to make a comment about the American political scene.  It is no reflection on you that you do not understand what, I am sure, is apparent to the Americans in this forum.  There are two parts to the explanation.

   First, major public works projects, like bridge building and highway construction, require a lot of planning, as you can easily imagine.  Such very large projects are usually done in phases.  It sometimes happens that not all phases of a major project can be funded all at once.  Consequently, some states and municipalities may have some plans, sitting on shelves, awaiting funding in order to be implemented.  Such projects are said to be "shovel ready".  I.e., give them the money today, and they are ready to start digging tomorrow.

   Second, early in his administration, in addition to commanding the seas to stop rising, President "Cnut" Obama took a trillion of our dollars, saying he would "jump-start" (another Americanism, perhaps?) the economy by spending it on a myriad of "shovel ready" projects.  Jump-starting the economy was necessary, rebuilding the infrastructure was necessary, and he would do one with the other (at our expense).  That was his explanation.

   Well, nearly two years later, the economy has not been jump-started and the infrastructure has not been rebuilt, although a trillion dollars has evaporated (mainly into the pockets of Barack's friends).  When asked about this, President Cnut responded,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJrdoGxCTzM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTRHkRqIjs4&feature=related

Yes, you saw it with your own eyes:  he laughed.  The worst economy since The Great Depression, nothing has worked out as he promised, a lot of people are really hurting, we are worse off by a trillion dollars, and Barack Hussein Obama laughs about it.

   GS, I hope you now understand my valedictory.

Haim
Shovel ready?  What shovel ready?

------- End of Forwarded Message

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people

GS Chandy
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
Haim posted Aug 4, 2011 9:59 PM:

> GS Chandy Posted: Aug 4, 2011 8:20 AM
> >
> >Pardon my obtuseness, but I really fail to
> understand
> >Haim's remarks on the first part of the argument
> >being "debatable" and the second part
> >being "preposterous".
> >
> >To my mind, human population growth on earth shares
> many
> >characteristics with a cancer in a human body. That
> it
> >is a serious problem is not debatable at all.
>
> Unless somebody else feels differently.  Then it
> it is debatable.  For example, in your country of
> over a billion people, I have heard that some Indians
> are against any kind of population control because
> one cannot know if the child that is not conceived
> (or that is aborted) is the next Einstein who would
> solve the over-population problem and other problems
> besides.  "Debatable" means, well, debatable;  it
> does not imply that the other guy, or you, is right.
> It just means that the other guy does not agree with
> h you and will put forward an argument.
>
I do know the meaning of 'debatable', Haim.  That was not the issue raised, as you probably are fully aware of.
>
> If you, GS, were to debate over-population with
> ith your compatriots, and convince them all, it would
> then cease to be debatable, at least in India.
>
As so often the case with your arguments with me, Haim, you evade the issues raised - should I respond with the fact that there is a sizable population of the US who are strongly against the proposition that "over-population is undesirable"?  Please do check through that post and try and understand the points made there.  

> >...
> >I entirely fail to understand why Haim should feel
> that
> >the second part of the argument is "preposterous".
>
> The second part of the argument is this:  world
> rld over-population implies there is something wrong
> with American thinking on the subject and, therefore,
> something wrong with American education.  Not only do
> most Americans believe over-population is a problem,
> they are already doing something about it.  It is
> patently obvious there is nothing wrong with American
> thinking on the subject and, therefore, there is
> nothing wrong with American education, on this
> subject.  
>
There is, however, much that is wrong with most US citizens' thinking that this planet has an inexhaustible store of energy and other resources that the US (in particular) is free to loot and squander - and the US is bent on squandering yet more!!!  There IS indeed much that is wrong with US education, on this subject (as there is with education in India as well, and probably worldwide, to judge by the way things are at the international level).
>
>Unless you, or Hake, can put forward some
> explanation that has escaped me, this part of the
> argument is flatly preposterous.
>
See above.  

>
> As long as you have brought me to revisit this
> his subject, I will add that over-population has been
> an issue in American education ever since I can
> remember.  That Hake should bring it up now, and in
> the way he did, is to my eyes a blatant effort at
> panicking the public as a bogus way to extort yet
> more money for the Education Mafia.  In other words,
> if they do not have a legitimate cause to fund, they
> will manufacture an illegitimate one as a way to
> extort yet more money from the public purse.
>
I do not know much about what you call Richard Hake's "blatant efforts at panicking the public as a bogus way to extort yet more money for the Education Mafia".  I do know that the US educational system is ineffective (in quite different ways from the Indian educational system's ineffectiveness).  It is entirely clear - from the debates here and at other fora - that the stakeholders who count in US education (including you and your cohorts) do not have the least inkling of what to do to help bring about effectiveness into the US educational system (much like the establishment here in India and even the anti-establishment do not have the least of the required inklings).  

I observe that the 'reformists' (both in the US and here) are at least aware that *some* reform is required - though they do not yet know just what that reform should be and how to go about it.  But such initial awareness is crucial in order for them to take real and effective steps towards reform.

>
> It may not have escaped your notice, GS, that Hake
> ake twice failed to respond to my remarks.  This is a
> very well known technique of the Education Mafia,
> remarked on by many people on my side of the
> education debates.  When caught out, the Education
> Mafia will simply not respond, and move on to the
> next manufactured crisis, in the hope that their
> error will be simply forgotten.  If they actually
> debate the point, you see, not only would they lose
> the debate, but it would be a very public, very
> visible loss that would work against them even more
> than if they simply remained silent.  This approach
> has been quite effective with the weak-minded.
>
It has not escaped my notice that you yourself quite often evade issues when 'debating' with me (and you sometimes even falsify what I may have stated).  So, when you put up the claim that Professor Hake has not responded to your 'remarks' twice, I am afraid that I find it difficult to sympathize with you.  However, let me state in the cause of fair debate that real issues raised (by anyone) should as far as possible be responded to as seriously as they deserve to be.  

I suggest that debating through the mechanism of the 'One Page Management System' (OPMS) would prevent a great many such evasions and falsifications.  I have previously posted a sizable number of documents about the OPMS and its background - and you used to respond by making false claims about what I had stated in my messages and attachments.  I commend the OPMS again to your kind attention to help ensure that Professor Hake would properly respond to your remarks.

>
> >
> >I'm afraid I also fail to understand Haim's
> >latest 'valedictory': "Shovel ready? What shovel
> ready?"
>
> GS, being on the internet, MATH-TEACH is open to
> to the world.  Although I speak for none but myself,
> I feel sure we all welcome participation from
> whatever quarter it comes.  However, there is no
> escaping the primarily American character of this
> cybernetic forum.  "Shovel ready" is an Americanism
> that I use to make a comment about the American
> political scene.  It is no reflection on you that you
> do not understand what, I am sure, is apparent to the
> Americans in this forum.  There are two parts to the
> explanation.
>
> First, major public works projects, like bridge
> dge building and highway construction, require a lot
> of planning, as you can easily imagine.  Such very
> large projects are usually done in phases.  It
> sometimes happens that not all phases of a major
> project can be funded all at once.  Consequently,
> some states and municipalities may have some plans,
> sitting on shelves, awaiting funding in order to be
> implemented.  Such projects are said to be "shovel
> ready".  I.e., give them the money today, and they
> are ready to start digging tomorrow.
>
> Second, early in his administration, in addition
> ion to commanding the seas to stop rising, President
> "Cnut" Obama took a trillion of our dollars, saying
> he would "jump-start" (another Americanism, perhaps?)
> the economy by spending it on a myriad of "shovel
> ready" projects.  Jump-starting the economy was
> necessary, rebuilding the infrastructure was
> necessary, and he would do one with the other (at our
> expense).  That was his explanation.
>
> Well, more than two years later, the economy has
> has not been jump-started and the infrastructure has
> not been rebuilt, although a trillion dollars have
> evaporated (mainly into the pockets of Barack's
> friends).  When asked about this, President Cnut
> responded,
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJrdoGxCTzM
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTRHkRqIjs4&feature=rel
> ated
>
> Yes, you saw it with your own eyes:  he laughed.  The
> worst economy since The Great Depression, nothing has
> worked out as he promised, a lot of people are really
> hurting, we are worse off by a trillion dollars, and
> Barack Hussein Obama laughs about it.
>
>    GS, I hope you now understand my valedictory.
>
Thank you, Haim, for your explanation of your new 'valedictory': I have understood it quite clearly.  I have seen and heard the two Facebook clips you have pointed to (and a few of the others linked at the sidebars of those clips).  I agree that they do seem to show an inadequate (perhaps even inappropriate) response by President Obama.

In any case, I am in general agreement that Mr Obama has not effectively tackled some of the issues confronting the USA (which was his remit when he took up the onerous presidency).  

However, it is my belief that he has done rather (even significantly) better than the previous incumbent, GW Bush, in whose presidency most of the current financial problems troubling the US today are rooted.  (A great many of the other problems confronting the US - and the world - today are in fact rooted in the grievous misadventures and miscalculations of GW Bush, War Criminal).

GSC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people

Haim-5
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
GS Chandy Posted: Aug 4, 2011 11:26 PM

>I do know the meaning of 'debatable', Haim. That was not
>the issue raised, as you probably are fully aware of.

GS,

   I take words at face value.  If you meant something else, I wish you would just plainly say so.
>
>There is, however, much that is wrong with most US
>citizens' thinking that this planet has an inexhaustible
>store of energy and other resources...

   That may be true, but the only issue under consideration in this thread---"The world's biggest problem?  Too many people"---is over-population.
>
>It has not escaped my notice that you yourself quite
>often evade issues when 'debating' with me (and you
>sometimes even falsify what I may have stated).

   I am sorry you feel that way.  Not every issue you raise interests me, and maybe I misunderstand you sometimes, but I never intentionally evade you.

>Thank you, Haim, for your explanation of your
>new 'valedictory': I have understood it quite clearly.

  Thank you.

>However, it is my belief that he has done rather (even
>significantly) better than the previous incumbent, GW
>Bush, in whose presidency most of the current financial
>problems troubling the US today are rooted. (A great
>many of the other problems confronting the US - and the
>world - today are in fact also rooted in the grievous
>misadventures and miscalculations of GW Bush, War
>Criminal).

   Clearly not.  As bad as GW Bush was, BH Obama is much worse.  Where Bush spent money unwisely, Obama has spent very much more money more unwisely.  For example, Bush obligated us to the enormous expense of Medicare Part D (prescription drug coverage).  However unwise Part D may be, having spent the money we have prescription drug coverage.  On the other hand, Obama spent a trillion dollars on shovel ready projects, and there are no projects.  

   Another Obama scheme, "Cash For Clunkers", was a program awesome in its stupidity, that cost us several billion dollars.

   Consider wars.  You blame Bush for taking the U.S. into two wars.  Well, Obama believes in the Afghan war and inserted an additional 30,000 soldiers.  While Obama decried the Iraq war, once it started going well, he was happy to take credit for it.  Also, whatever you may think of those two wars, there was a rationale for them.  Obama continues those wars and has now plunged us into two more wars: Libya and Yemen, for which there is no rationale.

   Furthermore, Obama did it deceitfully.  While Bush said, up front, that the "War on Terror" will take a long time, and gave no timetables for ending either the Afghan or Iraq adventures, Obama promised we would be out of Libya in "days not weeks".

- -----------------------
http://abcnews.go.com/International/libya-crisis-obama-moammar-gadhafi-ultimatum/story?id=13164938
March 18, 2011
President Obama told a bipartisan group of members of Congress today that he expects the U.S. would be actively involved in any military action against Libya for "days, not weeks," after which he said the U.S. would take more of a supporting role, sources tell ABC News.
- ---------------------

Months later, we are still in Libya, for reasons known only to Obama, himself.  Strangely little is said about the Yemen war.

   GS, you have repeatedly branded GW Bush a war criminal.  Gratify us with your intellectual honesty and admit that Barack Hussein Obama is an even bigger war criminal.

   I could go on, but my hands down favorite is what Obama is doing with NASA, a subject closer to our hearts, in this forum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlcNUq77_LM

So Barack Obama appointed Charles Bolden to head NASA, and charged him with three tasks:

(1) re-inspire children;
(2) expand international relationships;  and
(3) help Muslims feel good about their historic contributions to science and engineering.

Even the al Jazeera intervewier was mystified by the presence of Charles Bolden.  Nothing, absolutely nothing the bumbling GW Bush ever said or did even comes close to this slack-jawed stupidity.  

Haim
Shovel ready?  What shovel ready?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people

jk@israeliteknight.com
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
Wow.

NO wonder Congress shut down NASA.

What an IDIOT.
 
Even Gibbs denied that Obama tasked him with using NASA to "reach out to" or praise Islam.

If so, Bolden is not simply an IDIOT, he's a LIAR.

AND he's clearly cut from the same cloth as our friend Cheri here:

http://carrefoursagesse.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/converting-gre-verbal-scores-to-iqs#comment-496

"I just took the GRE last week in Dallas. I had two weeks to study. I am 55 years old and I’m a black woman. I graduated magna cum laude at 51 years old. And, I scored 530 on the verbal. 350 on the quantitative but I never was good at math and it’s all I needed for graduate school. One more thing–years ago I got a 27, 28 and 29 on the ACT. Scored in the top 5% of the nation in Englsh. 17 in math brought the composite to 24. I’m just saying. Now, as you were 'oh racist one…'"

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people

Kirby Urner-5
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 5:20 AM, GS Chandy <[hidden email]> wrote:
 
>Pardon my obtuseness, but I really fail to understand >Haim's remarks on the first part of the argument being
>"debatable" and the second part being "preposterous".

>To my mind, human population growth on earth shares many
>characteristics with a cancer in a human body.  That it
>is a serious problem is not debatable at all.  Perhaps it
>is not as great a problem as over-consumption and
>wasteful consumption by the human species of available
>planetary resources (though definitely the over-
>population significantly contributes to the over-
>consumption).


Misanthropy is not the only attitude to take.  

Humans have capabilities you wouldn't have guessed from their early beginnings, unless you had seen the phenomenon on some other planet before.

The general trend seems to be for population growth to level off when security for one's offspring and self are attained, meaning you don't need multiple children for insurance that at least a couple will live long enough to support children and the elderly.

Women then choose lifestyles where they don't have to surrender so many years to pregnancy and childbirth.  They enter professions etc.

Providing security has a lot to do with the availability of electricity.  Much comes with that (its a parameter with which many trends are bundled).

That's why a global electrification group such as GENI (geni.org) touts itself as having an answer for over-crowding.  

"Do what we're advocating and your population pressures will go down" is their attitude.

Currently, mathematics and geography are somewhat divorced and the various graphs that overlay the earth, the networks of wires, transportation routes (old and new), other infrastructure, are mostly not studied.
 
> I entirely fail to understand why Haim should feel that the second part of the argument is "preposterous".

> I'm afraid I also fail to understand Haim's latest 'valedictory': "Shovel ready? What shovel ready?"

That's another supposed jab at the USG's latest recovery plan, a classic C + I + G government spending initiative.  "Shovel ready" was one of the slogans.

I used it in some development proposals here:

http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2009/02/shovel-ready.html

Check out this book from OSCON by the way, part of a series.  You could see this as consistent with my "toontown" initiative in math education:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5988218440/in/set-72157627166240377

Kirby
 

> I'd be most grateful for any clarifications that may be
> provided.
>
>GSC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people

GS Chandy
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
Haim posted Aug 5, 2011 11:47 AM:

> GS Chandy Posted: Aug 4, 2011 11:26 PM
>
> >I do know the meaning of 'debatable', Haim. That was
> not
> >the issue raised, as you probably are fully aware
> of.
>
> GS,
>
> I take words at face value.  
>
Do you?  Interesting: see below.

>
>If you meant
> ant something else, I wish you would just plainly say
> so.
> >
> >There is, however, much that is wrong with most US
> >citizens' thinking that this planet has an
> inexhaustible
> >store of energy and other resources...
>
> That may be true, but the only issue under
> der consideration in this thread---"The world's
> biggest problem?  Too many people"---is
> over-population.
>
> >
> >It has not escaped my notice that you yourself quite
>
> >often evade issues when 'debating' with me (and you
> >sometimes even falsify what I may have stated).
>
> I am sorry you feel that way.  Not every issue you
> you raise interests me, and maybe I misunderstand you
> sometimes, but I never intentionally evade you.
>
My claim was that you often evade issues when 'debating' with me (AND that you sometimes even falsify what I may have stated).

I have (in the post to which you are responding and elsewhere) provided instances of where you have evaded issues.  As to whether these evasions were intentional or otherwise, I am not the best judge - you should be that.

You have time and time again falsified what I have claimed about OPMS (see brief explanation below).  As to whether this was "intentional" or otherwise, I leave that to you to decide.

>
> >Thank you, Haim, for your explanation of your
> >new 'valedictory': I have understood it quite
> clearly.
>
>   Thank you.
>
> >However, it is my belief that he has done rather
> (even
> >significantly) better than the previous incumbent,
> GW
> >Bush, in whose presidency most of the current
> financial
> >problems troubling the US today are rooted. (A great
>
> >many of the other problems confronting the US - and
> the
> >world - today are in fact also rooted in the
> grievous
> >misadventures and miscalculations of GW Bush, War
> >Criminal).
>
> Clearly not.  As bad as GW Bush was, BH Obama is
> is much worse.  
>
That's your opinion (and I'm sure it, with possible modifications, is the opinion of a great many others).  My opinion is otherwise (and I'm sure that a great many people would share my opinion).  In other words, this is a "debatable" issue.  

However, the conventional form of debate (which we are using at this forum) is entirely inadequate for effective debate.  What happens is - as has been demonstrated time and time again right here (and in most conventional debates) is that the conventional debate only serves to reinforce each faction in its own opinion - and the debate goes nowhere at all.

I have several times at this forum discussed a more effective form of debate, namely using the 'One Page Management System' (OPMS) approach, which comprises of various steps:

1) Articulating an appropriate 'Mission'

2) Asking participants specific trigger questions about the 'Mission' that helps focus on the issue(s) of debate.  I have provided instances of the kind of trigger questions that are appropriate in a great many cases.

3) Recording the responses of participants in the form of simple "elements".  Instances have been provided in a great many cases.  Invariably, in the past, you have gotten hung up at this point and have falsely claimed that OPMS consists of constructing elements and is therefore utter nonsense.  You have ignored (whether intentionally or not) the several other steps that follow this 'elicitation of elements' from participants in the debate.

4)  The simple elements elicited from participants in the debate have to be 'modeled' to reflect the (often varying) perceptions of just how participants may feel each element "contributes to" or "hinders" each other and the agreed Mission.  The models represent the 'mental models' of participants relating to various aspects of the issue(s) of debate - these models generally will reflect the differences in perceptions, but in general will enable participants to understand more clearly the underlying systems in which the issue(s) of debate are embedded.  When adequate clarity is gained all round (and significant enhanced clarity is gained in many cases), then participants are often able to create 'consensus models' on the issues of debate.

There are some other steps, mostly relating to means to enable participants to gain better understanding of the issues that they are debating.
 
In attachments to many of my previous messages I have provided a sizable amount of documentation about the processes recommended for effective debate.  The documentation is generally geared to enable people with high-school education to understand.  If you have failed to understand that documentation geared to the level of high-school students, further clarification can possibly be provided - but definitely not if you make false claims about the documentation.

You have invariably, in past discussions, entirely ignored Step Nos. 3 and subsequent steps (and my several explanations of these steps) AND also all the documentation provided, and you have falsely claimed that OPMS consists of making foolish lists of elements and nothing else; this has been your very consistent claim.  As to whether you have consistently written these falsehoods "intentionally" or otherwise, I leave the matter to your best judgment.  

GSC

>Where Bush spent money unwisely,
> Obama has spent very much more money more unwisely.
> For example, Bush obligated us to the enormous
> s expense of Medicare Part D (prescription drug
> coverage).  However unwise Part D may be, having
> spent the money we have prescription drug coverage.
> On the other hand, Obama spent a trillion dollars on
> n shovel ready projects, and there are no projects.  
>
> Another Obama scheme, "Cash For Clunkers", was a
> s a program awesome in its stupidity, that cost us
> several billion dollars.
>
> Consider wars.  You blame Bush for taking the U.S.
> .S. into two wars.  Well, Obama believes in the
> Afghan war and inserted an additional 30,000
> soldiers.  While Obama decried the Iraq war, once it
> started going well, he was happy to take credit for
> it.  Also, whatever you may think of those two wars,
> there was a rationale for them.  Obama continues
> those wars and has now plunged us into two more wars:
> Libya and Yemen, for which there is no rationale.
>
> Furthermore, Obama did it deceitfully.  While Bush
> ush said, up front, that the "War on Terror" will
> take a long time, and gave no timetables for ending
> either the Afghan or Iraq adventures, Obama promised
> we would be out of Libya in "days not weeks".
>
> - -----------------------
> http://abcnews.go.com/International/libya-crisis-obama
> -moammar-gadhafi-ultimatum/story?id=13164938
> March 18, 2011
> President Obama told a bipartisan group of members of
> Congress today that he expects the U.S. would be
> actively involved in any military action against
> Libya for "days, not weeks," after which he said the
> U.S. would take more of a supporting role, sources
> tell ABC News.
> - ---------------------
>
> Months later, we are still in Libya, for reasons
> known only to Obama, himself.  Strangely little is
> said about the Yemen war.
>
> GS, you have repeatedly branded GW Bush a war
> war criminal.  Gratify us with your intellectual
> honesty and admit that Barack Hussein Obama is an
> even bigger war criminal.
>
> I could go on, but my hands down favorite is what
> hat Obama is doing with NASA, a subject closer to our
> hearts, in this forum:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlcNUq77_LM
>
> So Barack Obama appointed Charles Bolden to head
> NASA, and charged him with three tasks:
>
> (1) re-inspire children;
> (2) expand international relationships;  and
> (3) help Muslims feel good about their historic
> contributions to science and engineering.
>
> Even the al Jazeera intervewier was mystified by the
> presence of Charles Bolden.  Nothing, absolutely
> nothing the bumbling GW Bush ever said or did even
> comes close to this slack-jawed stupidity.  
>
> Haim
> Shovel ready?  What shovel ready?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people

GS Chandy
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
Kirby Urner posted Aug 6, 2011 3:06 AM:

> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 5:20 AM, GS Chandy
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
> >Pardon my obtuseness, but I really fail to
> understand >Haim's remarks on the first part of the
> argument being
> >"debatable" and the second part being
> "preposterous".
>
> >To my mind, human population growth on earth shares
> many
> >characteristics with a cancer in a human body.  That
> it
> >is a serious problem is not debatable at all.
>  Perhaps it
> >is not as great a problem as over-consumption and
> >wasteful consumption by the human species of
> available
> >planetary resources (though definitely the over-
> >population significantly contributes to the over-
> >consumption).
>
>
> Misanthropy is not the only attitude to take.  
>
I wouldn't describe my attitude expressed in the quotation above as "misanthropy".  Verging towards the pessimistic with regard to human futures on the planet, but not misanthropic at all.
>
> Humans have capabilities you wouldn't have guessed
> from their early beginnings, unless you had seen the
> phenomenon on some other planet before.
>
I agree entirely.  It was (I believe) precisely to help enable these capabilities to be realized on the ground that the late John N. Warfield created his developments in 'systems science'.  It was precisely with such an aim in mind that I developed the OPMS based on and developing from Warfield's work.
>
> The general trend seems to be for population growth
> to level off when security for one's offspring and
> self are attained, meaning you don't need multiple
> children for insurance that at least a couple will
> live long enough to support children and the elderly.
>
I agree entirely.  But is such a development about to come before we fall into the 'abyss' ahead of us?  I don't know - I am torn between pessimism and optimism on this issue.  
>
> Women then choose lifestyles where they don't have to
> surrender so many years to pregnancy and childbirth.
>  They enter professions etc.
>
Indeed.  We are seeing that a lot in India.  But is progress fast enough?  I believe not.
>
> Providing security has a lot to do with the
> availability of electricity.  Much comes with that
> (its a parameter with which many trends are bundled).
>
> That's why a global electrification group such as
> GENI (geni.org) touts itself as having an answer for
> over-crowding.  
>
The underlying global problem is there ARE a huge number of useful solutions available in every area, every field - but rarely do they ever come to be used effectively at the levels at which such solutions would significantly "contribute to" the resolution of global issues.  Or, the resolutions become tangled up with various other system issues.  Here's a relevant example: In India we have, over the past several decades, been growing enough foodgrains and etc to feed all our people. We have a fairly significant food surplus every year.  

But our societal systems have not developed so that those foodgrains would reach the people most in need.  About 40% of India's children are malnourished - many of them very severely.  In 2009-10, we lost several score thousands of tons of foodgrains secured by our 'public distribution' systems were lost to rodents and spoilage - because our public distribution systems did not have in place suitable storage facilities!!!  I've recently seen reports that such a situation is now developing again - but even today our 'systems' are entirely unable to arrive at a satisfactory resolution of the issue.  (I'm sure you can find on Google the debate that occurred and is going on now.  You will surely find much of interest there - and much that will validate my underlying thesis about the ineffectiveness of the systems we have in place.  At a different level, in different areas of concern, the systems in the USA are quite as incompetent as those we have in India.

The irony is that very simple, inexpensive developments can ensure that such cruel wastages do not occur (in India); that the incompetent educational systems in the US that are of concern can be significantly changed.  But those simple developments are very, very rarely adopted in society!!!)

>  
> "Do what we're advocating and your population
> pressures will go down" is their attitude.
>
> Currently, mathematics and geography are somewhat
> divorced and the various graphs that overlay the
> earth, the networks of wires, transportation routes
> (old and new), other infrastructure, are mostly not
> studied.
>  
Actually, the underlying issue is that the systems we have in place (including most governmental systems, sub-systems and instruments) are largely divorced from the real needs of the people those systems are expected to serve.  

Changing attitudes that must come before the systems can be effectively modified/newly developed is an EXTREMELY difficult task indeed, I've discovered - and that is a major factor for my pessimistic outlook.  (However, despite this pessimism, I am still hopeful - which may be a contradiction in terms, of course).

GSC

>
> > I entirely fail to understand why Haim should feel
> that the second part of the argument is
> "preposterous".
>
> > I'm afraid I also fail to understand Haim's latest
> 'valedictory': "Shovel ready? What shovel ready?"
>
> That's another supposed jab at the USG's latest
> recovery plan, a classic C + I + G government
> spending initiative.  "Shovel ready" was one of the
> slogans.
>
 

> I used it in some development proposals here:
>
> http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2009/02/shovel-ready.htm
> l
>
> Check out this book from OSCON by the way, part of a
> series.  You could see this as consistent with my
> "toontown" initiative in math education:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5988218440/i
> n/set-72157627166240377
>
> Kirby
>  
>
> > I'd be most grateful for any clarifications that
> may be
> > provided.
> >
> >GSC

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people

Kirby Urner-5
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 3:02 AM, GS Chandy <[hidden email]> wrote:

<< snip >>
 
> Misanthropy is not the only attitude to take.
>
> I wouldn't describe my attitude expressed in the
> quotation above as "misanthropy".  Verging towards the
> pessimistic with regard to human futures on the planet,
> but not misanthropic at all.
>

For clarity, here's a misanthropic view (don't get me
wrong, I like this Youtube and share it frequently, even
though my Coffee Shops Network's philosophy is
philanthropic):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osUiUaNOo2s
 
>> Humans have capabilities you wouldn't have guessed
>> from their early beginnings, unless you had seen the
>> phenomenon on some other planet before.
>>

> I agree entirely.  It was (I believe) precisely to help
> enable these capabilities to be realized on the ground
> that the late John N. Warfield created his developments
> in 'systems science'.  It was precisely with such an aim
> in mind that I developed the OPMS based on and developing
> from Warfield's work.


'Systems science' has gone in many directions.  On
mathfuture, we're looking at at least one of those
branches.  

Here at Portland State University, we still have a
lingering systems science PhD program.

In my writing 'systems science' mixes with 'general
systems theory' and is used to muscle aside Economics as
the monopolistic discipline when it comes the bread and
butter issues, investment banking etc.

Economics, the discipline, deserves real competition.

> The general trend seems to be for population growth
> to level off when security for one's offspring and
> self are attained, meaning you don't need multiple
> children for insurance that at least a couple will
> live long enough to support children and the elderly.
>

> I agree entirely.  But is such a development about to
> come before we fall into the 'abyss' ahead of us?  I
> don't know - I am torn between pessimism and optimism
> on this issue.

People can sit around passively and fatalistically hoping
something good happens.  Some education systems promote a
more activist response.

The USA used to be cram packed with activist "can do"
types who had all kinds of DIY (do it yourself) skills.

Since the advent of television, there's been an across the
board dumbing down to where the "mindless consumer" is
more your typical denizen of the Lower48.  

Much closer to the Eloi of H.G. Wells fame.

There are moves to counter this trend, starting with the
root problem:  television programming too exclusively in
the hands of the greedy-stupid (almost synonyms), the
idiocrats.

>
>> Women then choose lifestyles where they don't have to
>> surrender so many years to pregnancy and childbirth.
>>  They enter professions etc.
>>
> Indeed.  We are seeing that a lot in India.  But is
> progress fast enough?  I believe not.
>

Thinking nationalistically, one nation at a time, is not
necessarily an optimal or intelligent approach.  

There's just the one biosphere.  

More Russians seem to get that, probably because of the
way the language is wired.
 
>> Providing security has a lot to do with the
>> availability of electricity.  Much comes with that
>> (its a parameter with which many trends are bundled).
>>
>> That's why a global electrification group such as
>> GENI (geni.org) touts itself as having an answer for
>> over-crowding.
>


> The underlying global problem is there ARE a huge number
> of useful solutions available in every area, every field  
> - but rarely do they ever come to be used effectively at
> the levels at which such solutions would significantly
> "contribute to" the resolution of global issues.  Or,the
> resolutions become tangled up with various other system
> issues.  Here's a relevant example: In India we have,
> over the past several decades, been growing enough  
> foodgrains and etc to feed all our people. We have a
> fairly significant food surplus every year.

Yes, we inherit a lot of misinformation and awkward /
dorky reflex-conditioning from past generations.  

Some of that conditioning made good sense at the time
perhaps, but now you've just got a lot of idiocy spewing
forth from the mouths of "know it alls" a lot of the time.

That's partly why I look for systems theory people and
recruit from places like PSU (e.g. John Driscoll, Nate
etc.), where the dangerous blinders of hyper-
specialization have done less to destroy thinking
capacity.

For the most part, universities have encouraged hyper-
specialization, meaning their analysis and published
output is a far cry from what's really needed.

That's partly why think tanks have stepped in to supply
policy-makers with more big picture thinking.  

It should be the universities, but they've done so much to
render themselves irrelevant.

Useful movie touching on this 'The Power of Nightmares'
(aired on the BBC, is on Youtube):

http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

>But our societal systems have not developed so that those
>foodgrains would reach the people most in need.  About >40% of India's children are malnourished - many of them
> very severely.  In 2009-10, we lost several score  thousands of
> tons of foodgrains secured by our 'public distribution'
> systems were lost to rodents and spoilage - because our
> public distribution systems did not have in place
> suitable storage facilities!!!  I've recently seen
> reports that such a situation is now developing again -
> but even today our 'systems' are entirely unable to
> arrive at a satisfactory resolution of the issue.  (I'm
> sure you can find on Google the debate that occurred and
> is going on now.  You will surely find much of interest
> there - and much that will validate my underlying thesis
> about the ineffectiveness of the systems we have in  
> place.  At a different level, in different areas of
> concern, the systems in the USA are quite as incompetent > as those we have in India.


Right.  You've got Peruvian cultures that've depended for
centuries on Quinoa, but now that the North American
gringo economy has discovered the protein-rich food
source, the world price is being bid up.  When something
gets really valuable, the tendency is to seize the control
of agricultural lands from those least able to defend
themselves and turn over production to whatever vogue cash
crop.  This leads to malnourishment and poverty.

Some ecosystems are more protective.  For example, Bhutan
in the Himalayas has no diplomatic relations with the US
and is on its guard against entrepreneur developers who
would start the destructive process of making this Kingdom
merely a playground for the rich and spoiled, like has
been done to so many other pristine vistas.

Bhutanese are not about to start displacing their
households to make room for another Club Med owned and
operated by some French conglomerate.  India is far more
vulnerable to exploitation from overseas.
 
> The irony is that very simple, inexpensive developments > can ensure that such cruel wastages do not occur (in
> India); that the incompetent educational systems in the
> US that are of concern can be significantly changed. But
> those simple developments are very, very rarely adopted
> in society!!!)
>

Helping new curricula take root in North America is an
ongoing process, with a long history of experiments, some
more successful than others.  

We have a lot of ethnicities here, including non-
monogamous non-nuclear family groups with a strong
religious heritage.

Freedom of speech and the division of church and state
means we don't have to kowtow to any "state religion".  

The novus order seclorum makes it easy for Quakers, for
example, to teach their own they way they wish.

Its not every learning center where you'll hear one of the
teachers inveighing against the "gringo economy" or
mocking English-speaking university eggheads for being too
specialized to matter much.  

Western analytic philosophy gets a special helping of
ridicule, given how self-marginalizing its practitioners.

Given our Friends meetinghouse though (a center of
learning), that's what you'll sometimes hear, with younger
folks chiming in and debating.

"Young" is a relative term as Satya is like 42 and
Lindsey, the former Computer Science Corporation manager,
just turned 36 -- I posted some pix from her birthday
party at the Blue House to my Flickr account recently.

 
> "Do what we're advocating and your population
> pressures will go down" is their attitude.
>
> Currently, mathematics and geography are somewhat
> divorced and the various graphs that overlay the
> earth, the networks of wires, transportation routes
> (old and new), other infrastructure, are mostly not
> studied.
>

Actually, the underlying issue is that the systems we have
in place (including most governmental systems, sub-systems
and instruments) are largely divorced from the real needs
of the people those systems are expected to serve.

Yes, and the discipline of Economics is not as clear on
the whys and wherefores of that as it could be.

If I were helping recruiting a new CEO for CSN for example
(I actually have no problem with our current guru), and
all I saw was a lot of economics on her or his resume, but
no systems theory, I'd likely move on to a next candidate.
 

> Changing attitudes that must come before the systems can
> be effectively modified/newly developed is an EXTREMELY
> difficult task indeed, I've discovered - and that is a
> major factor for my pessimistic outlook.  (However,
> despite this pessimism, I am still hopeful - which may
> be a contradiction in terms, of course).


> GSC


I think universities might one day restore their
reputations and stop coming across as such scammy and
smarmy.  

I tend to blame academia for the nastiness of the world.  
Ivory Towerites tend to talk of "the real world" as
someplace far away.

I'm glad we're diverting a lot of the top talent away from
this swamp of over-specialization for the time being.  

The "doctor of philosophy" degree has been corrupted,
thanks to the death of "white man" philosophy
(Wittgenstein was alive to observe its last stages prior
to death).

This is not a big crisis though.  There are plenty of
cultures and ethnicities well positioned to pick up the
slack, including some with military aspects.  

Quakers tended to get along with the military in the early
days and that hasn't changed a lot in some circles.

Like I told Melody over beers the other day, don't think
badly of me just because you see me hanging out with a lot
of officers and ex-officers.  I've worked with the police
too (I told her the story).  Goes with the territory.

Kirby
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people

Robert Hansen
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
GS Wrote...

"However, the conventional form of debate (which we are using at this forum) is entirely inadequate for effective debate. What happens is - as has been demonstrated time and time again right here (and in most conventional debates) is that the conventional debate only serves to reinforce each faction in its own opinion - and the debate goes nowhere at all."

Bull Shit

I have greatly enhanced by ability to teach during this debate. Getting to the essence of things is critical. I suggest you open your eyes to what is happening here. You have entirely missed the progress made here.

Bob Hansen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people

Haim-5
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
GS Chandy Posted: Aug 6, 2011 4:26 AM  
>
>My claim was that you often evade issues when 'debating'
>with me (AND that you sometimes even falsify what I may
>have stated).

GS,

Unless you have redefined "falsify" to mean "disagree", you cannot produce a single example of my falsifying anything you have written. On the other hand, I disagree with much of what you write in this forum.

In the matter of OPMS, specifically, you cannot show where you have written "up" and I claim you wrote "down", or anything like that. I have looked at your OPMS documentation, and I have come to conclusions, about OPMS, different from yours. Is this what you mean by "falsification"?

Unless you can produce a concrete example of falsification by me (something different from an honest mistake or a difference of opinion), you need to stop your scurrilous accusation, or you should be made to stop by the list owner.

Haim
Shovel ready? What shovel ready?