Overpopulation, serious political and economical problems

[Greg Bernhardt]

Is anyone reading this book? I am thinking about getting it

The Coming Population Crash: and Our Planet's Surprising Future
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0807085839/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[brainstorm]

Without evidence, I'm not willing to accept that a society can be highly educated and still be poor. I don't think that has ever happened and the course of human development seems to imply it can't be that way.

Wealth and poverty are culturally relative to a large extent. There are certain material bases for wealth, such as good nutrition, good protection from the elements, access to good health and longevity. But beyond that, wealth is largely symbolic, defined by status-attribution and class/caste hierarchies.

The division of people into classes brings with it differentiation in culture and skills such that certain people get prescribed some forms of work and others are free to do more desirable work or even simply consume a leisurely lifestyle.

Education and technological advances make it possible to accomplish more with less labor, and therefore they make it possible for larger numbers of people to enjoy more free time and consume more non-essential goods and service, but that also requires more labor, which in turn requires a larger class of workers/servants.

So, yes, education does reduce poverty but in doing so it also increases the need for a larger class of servants and workers to provide the wealth and status that is enjoyed by those with the privilege to do so. Reduction of poverty is the dream of wealth without servitude and hard labor but it is not ultimately possible unless the privileged give up the privilege of having other people perform the labor needed to supply them with the myriad goods and services that makes their wealthy lifestyle what it is.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Well, no need to worry given the way education is going. I believe it's currently around the, "You got a perty mouth boy!" level. :yech:

 

[brainstorm]

Well, no need to worry given the way education is going. I believe it's currently around the, "You got a perty mouth boy!" level. :yech:

I disagree. I think the media developments of the 20th century vastly increased basic cultural literacy, with most people gaining a wide variety of vicarious experiences through TV, radio, and print. Now, internet has added new dimensions. What you are referring to, I think, is the tendency for people to be overwhelmed by their cultural knowledge and retract into traditional expressions of culture to seek protection from the cosmopolitanism they have discovered to feel threatening. Education and culture can have peculiar effects.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I disagree. I think the media developments of the 20th century vastly increased basic cultural literacy, with most people gaining a wide variety of vicarious experiences through TV, radio, and print. Now, internet has added new dimensions. What you are referring to, I think, is the tendency for people to be overwhelmed by their cultural knowledge and retract into traditional expressions of culture to seek protection from the cosmopolitanism they have discovered to feel threatening. Education and culture can have peculiar effects.

I was being sarcastic as hell, to be fair (quoting Deliverene is a hint there). I see this as a little bit of knowledge being dangerous, and confusing. For all that people can be educated, sometimes they dont' want it. The result however, is the same: willfull ignorance and misinformation: Texas publishing creationism alongside evolution.

Hell, you have to know how and where to look online or that vast library is spread so thin that you may be fatally misinformed by the time you get to a real source. Look at PF! Look at how many cranks and genuinely confused people come through here. People are RETREATING from the world because it isn't what they thought it was, or wanted it to be. There are too many people, and the bell curve meeans that we're getting a majority in the MIDDLE.

Some people, are too stupid to learn, or want to learn. Others are too afraid of what they learn, or the need to keep an open yet skeptical mind. This is with 6 billion on the planet... how the hell are we going to teach and mange 9 billion?! Yes, more people have access to more information than ever before, and more misinformation, manipulation, and fear. Given how we behave as societies, I'm not seeing a vast improvemnt. We're literally choking ourselves to death through breeding, and we don't have the wit or will to stop it. What more needs to be said in the end?

EDIT: A question: In a world where every person didn't have the ability to "Weigh in" on saaaaay, fetal stem cell research... would the research have been crippled for so long? How much does public outrage and kneejerk reaction, prejudice and fear allow them to halt progress that has USUALLY been free of public scrutiny? What is the effect of say... Deepak Chopra vs. Stephen Hawking? People have access to both, but one is essentially hacking into their heads for cash, and the other is a hero to some, a curiosity to others, but to most is "The dude in the chair with the robot voice and the black hole book, right?"

 

[brainstorm]

I was being sarcastic as hell, to be fair (quoting Deliverene is a hint there). I see this as a little bit of knowledge being dangerous, and confusing. For all that people can be educated, sometimes they dont' want it. The result however, is the same: willfull ignorance and misinformation: Texas publishing creationism alongside evolution.

Hell, you have to know how and where to look online or that vast library is spread so thin that you may be fatally misinformed by the time you get to a real source. Look at PF! Look at how many cranks and genuinely confused people come through here. People are RETREATING from the world because it isn't what they thought it was, or wanted it to be. There are too many people, and the bell curve meeans that we're getting a majority in the MIDDLE.

Some people, are too stupid to learn, or want to learn. Others are too afraid of what they learn, or the need to keep an open yet skeptical mind. This is with 6 billion on the planet... how the hell are we going to teach and mange 9 billion?! Yes, more people have access to more information than ever before, and more misinformation, manipulation, and fear. Given how we behave as societies, I'm not seeing a vast improvemnt. We're literally choking ourselves to death through breeding, and we don't have the wit or will to stop it. What more needs to be said in the end?

EDIT: A question: In a world where every person didn't have the ability to "Weigh in" on saaaaay, fetal stem cell research... would the research have been crippled for so long? How much does public outrage and kneejerk reaction, prejudice and fear allow them to halt progress that has USUALLY been free of public scrutiny? What is the effect of say... Deepak Chopra vs. Stephen Hawking? People have access to both, but one is essentially hacking into their heads for cash, and the other is a hero to some, a curiosity to others, but to most is "The dude in the chair with the robot voice and the black hole book, right?"

Your pain and fear come across in your post. Your mind will probably never let you do it, but you should try to refocus on the micro level instead of relating everything that upsets or disappoints you to the idea of global population, which does not exist simultaneously in time or space except to the extent that they connect through translocal media and economic trade networks. If anyone is "choking through breeding," it is not the people concerned with overpopulation, who are usually choking through anxiety of imagined threats from a relatively isolated position of privilege far away from "the breeders."

Fetal stem cell research is treasured in popular media for a reason. It combines those two most sensational of topics relevant to everyone alive: birth and death. It is the myth of vampirism: eternal youth through consumption of others' blood. It is a point of battle between Christians and atheists insofar as Christians accept suffering and death as sources of spiritual liberation and atheists reject spiritual liberation as a cheap substitute for alleviation of suffering and death.

One thing you should understand is that there are people who aren't stupid, who still see the ideologies of anti-reproduction and stem-cell rejuvenation as terrors. They believe that having children and families is good and they distrust medical technologies that are related to derivation from fetal tissue. Maybe you would have more success in promoting your point of view if you stepped outside of it for a little while and looked at it through the eyes of others - and while you're at it try giving some thought to why religion and family are appealing. You might avoid getting brainwashed and even come up with some cultural reforms that support your point of view without totally alienating them in theirs.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Your pain and fear come across in your post. Your mind will probably never let you do it, but you should try to refocus on the micro level instead of relating everything that upsets or disappoints you to the idea of global population, which does not exist simultaneously in time or space except to the extent that they connect through translocal media and economic trade networks. If anyone is "choking through breeding," it is not the people concerned with overpopulation, who are usually choking through anxiety of imagined threats from a relatively isolated position of privilege far away from "the breeders."

Fetal stem cell research is treasured in popular media for a reason. It combines those two most sensational of topics relevant to everyone alive: birth and death. It is the myth of vampirism: eternal youth through consumption of others' blood. It is a point of battle between Christians and atheists insofar as Christians accept suffering and death as sources of spiritual liberation and atheists reject spiritual liberation as a cheap substitute for alleviation of suffering and death.

One thing you should understand is that there are people who aren't stupid, who still see the ideologies of anti-reproduction and stem-cell rejuvenation as terrors. They believe that having children and families is good and they distrust medical technologies that are related to derivation from fetal tissue. Maybe you would have more success in promoting your point of view if you stepped outside of it for a little while and looked at it through the eyes of others - and while you're at it try giving some thought to why religion and family are appealing. You might avoid getting brainwashed and even come up with some cultural reforms that support your point of view without totally alienating them in theirs.

You are right about the pain and fear brainstorm, and usually I do just what you describe. Sometimes however, it's a little difficult to keep perspective in these matters, and accept the lack of control intrinsic in the human condition. I've met people who are willing to discuss these matters reasonably (you're clearly such a person), but they are few and far between.

It's difficult to be aware of both micro and macro suffering, when you genuinely feel for people, and other animals. Part of the problem is that these issues have become so polarized that many people don't even want to consider that there isn't a clear moral answer. I want to live in the privelage you describe... I don't want to lose what I have, even as I recognize that what I have is more than I need, and wasteful.

In the end, I refuse to accept that there is one right answer to this... I would rather be afraid and in pain than, as you say, be brainwashed (even by myself). After so many years of trying to communicate with people through "brute force" (not violence), subtlety, and direct honesty... it's tiring. Sometimes, I don't live up to my own standards, and being human it's very hard not to demonize faceless masses which, in the end, I'm a part of.

I used to have exactly the issues you describe: As a kid I was a devout atheist, for no reason. I still don't believe in anything, but I no longer have faith in nothing either. I'm agnostic, and skeptical, and too often I'm harsh. I don't believe that morality is absolute, but I wish to act morally. I live with contradiction and dissonance to avoid clinging to an extreme as so many do, for comfort and a sense of belonging.

Often, this allows me to be diplomatic, and see points of view that I would otherwise never consider. Sometimes, I don't bear so well with the load and I return to older patterns of behaviour... my comfort in essence... in a feeling of SOME kind of certainty. I recognize, even as I'm doing it, how pointless it is to simply lash out at people. That said, I'm only human too, and while I'm not a child or a teen, I'm not a wise old man either. I'm just trying to get by in a world that makes very little sense, filled with people who fundamentally confuse me with their hatreds and prejudice. The fact that there are so many good and interesting people (bright AND dim) who have something to offer is a comfort, and a scourge.

On a less personal and perhaps more relevant note, although I felt it worth aknowledging your insight, overpopulation truly is killing us. I don't mean to say that wer're about to run out of space to put people, or food. Hell, there is fairly decent technology being tested now which will scale with population growth to produce food, recover phosphorus from waste, etc. That said, we're wiping out species of plant animal and other so quickly we can't keep track of the loss. One of our most basic drives is survival and reproduction, and to take that from someone is monstrous. The alternative is universal public awareness of the problem... and I just cannot imagine that happening.

What I CAN imagine, is that fear you talked about being VERY real in some regions. If you need water, it doesn't matter if desalination plants exist if you depend on a river which is polluted, or divererted, or "overshared". Wars are fought over this, from the individual level onwards to nations. More people also means more hosts for lethal disease, or more people at a ground-zero for an earthquake, or volcano, or any other of a hundred natual disasters. This means that we need to respond to these people's plight, or leave them to die or be homeless, or simply suffer.

Yes, we could take a radical turn towards some kind of enlightened self-interest, but I don't think that the world is that "flat" (to quote Thomas Friedman) yet. Finally... these people want good lives, and they can say just how well people are living, and how they got that money and power. How do you tell people that their aspirations are out of reach (for most), but for no better reason than luck of the draw and expect peace?

Culture isn't universal, it's different everywhere you go. How you reform such a thing, for so many is hard to imagine. How do you steer people in the face of politicians and clever businessmen/women who use fear as a goad? How do you convince people who are your equal in their humanity that your culture is superior or necessary? How do you know that what you're doing then, isn't simple tyranny?

Finally, why is a family and religion comforting...
I see the two as very different, but connected in at least two points; a religion IS an extended family, just like being a firefighter or a soldier or a Tea-Partier or a Mason. It's a way to belong to people who (presumably) share your cultural values, and perhaps a similar upbringing. It's a way to sequester oneself from the reality that we're so spoiled for choice it can be paralytic. Family can do the same things, but it's also a continuation of one's genetic line, and an expectation of stablity in an unstable world. Both provide real comfort for people who believe in them, and frankly it's the nature of life to procreate. It's satisfying to eat, or sleep, and it's satisfying to fall in love, and form a (hopefully) lasting union with someone.

People are social animals, who want to feel connected to other people, and sharing what are perceived as core beliefs is deeply comforting. The comfort is real, but it stems from an illusion. If you have experienced enough of life, and are able to access information through libraries (brick & mortar and online) it is hard to accept those comforting illusions. People lose faith in their government, their churches/temples, and their spouses/lovers. Then you're left with a shell which is no longer a comfort, but a hinderence to clear thought. If you enter a relationship with the understanding of what you're gettng, and offering... it's better than flitting from fantasy to fantasy.

The downside is that... it all wears you down, and we all have buttons. For me, people hurting each other, and animals for the sake of survival, ideology, greed, desperation, and sometimes sociopathy... is my button. It's unfortunate that some of the most destructive people are least able to appreciate the damage they cause (W. Bush for instance), and then people who support them can be equally difficult to reach. Yes, there are great people in the world, and it's worth living for them, and for the sake of life itself. That doesn't make me immune from losing my cool out of sheer frusteration accumulated over years of seeing people DECIDE (whether they're aware or not) to coose a set view, and not leave it. I've got a friend who's dying because of his faith, and I don't mean that figuratively. I'm not going to get into details, but to attack their faith and convince them to live would be to attack a central part of who he is. It's not possible, without breaking the man... so he's going to die, slowly and painfully because he needed comfort and certainty more than he wants to open his mind to other possibilities. He's not stupid, but he's still killing himself in the end.

I understand him, and I understand why he's doing this. I know he WANTS to live, but I also know that he doesn't want to live under some circumstances; for me, that's a Persitant Vegitative State, for him, it's a transplant. I honestly understand him, and it just hurts me more. So... sometimes I don't handle it as well as I should, but I never claimed to be a saint.

 

[brainstorm]

From your post, you sound like a very deeply thoughtful person who is caught between skepticism in many things and strong conviction and uncritical assumptions in others. I think your honesty and concern are strengths no matter how much I may disagree with you on certain ideas and attitudes. I could respond in length to so many things from your post but I'm just going to choose one paragraph:

The downside is that... it all wears you down, and we all have buttons. For me, people hurting each other, and animals for the sake of survival, ideology, greed, desperation, and sometimes sociopathy... is my button. It's unfortunate that some of the most destructive people are least able to appreciate the damage they cause (W. Bush for instance), and then people who support them can be equally difficult to reach. Yes, there are great people in the world, and it's worth living for them, and for the sake of life itself. That doesn't make me immune from losing my cool out of sheer frusteration accumulated over years of seeing people DECIDE (whether they're aware or not) to coose a set view, and not leave it.

I can just tell you that overpopulation concerns were something I was not able to reflect on as a damaging ideology for a long time because I was not aware that it was an ideology at all. People who are in no direct danger still react to the imagery of overpopulation as if it were a direct threat. To me this is a type of macro-obsession where people get overwhelmed with interpreting the details of their everyday experiences, often because of the analytical complexity they interpolate into them. As a result they come to desire simplicity and peace of mind, but they can't distinguish simplicity of mind from simplicity of material/social environment and so they blame the world they perceive and the "masses" of people for their feeling of being overwhelmed by them. As you said, there are cultural and resource fixes to prevent most if not all the problems blamed on "overpopulation" but it's harder to see that there are also cognitive fixes for the problem of being overwhelmed by globalism and its discontents.

Part of your frustration, I think, is caused by your feeling that you have to carry the weight of the world in all its complexity. It may help you to realize that every individual, yourself included, is the center of a relatively limited subset of global humanity. The irony of that, however, is that the amount of information you receive at your node contains everything necessary to generate the feeling of being bombarded by the global everything that is accessible to your mind through media, analytical interpolation of personal experiences, etc. You're mind's ability to synthesize and make connections between knowledge from diverse sources is what produces the effect that you experience of "choking on population." It is not a material problem but a subjective one. It's like when people are exposed to excessive amounts of propaganda of espionage and begin to suspect everyone of being a spy. I'm not saying that you're particularly insane, because it is a common condition, but I think it is a condition of common insanity.

I think it would help you to realize your position of relative security and stability as not being directly or even indirectly threatened. How does the saying go, "nothing to fear but fear itself." Then, if you still want to study and address global, local, or glocal problems, go ahead, but try to be more critical about identifying how much of the problem is perceived by you because of media and how much is direct experience. Also try to become conscious of how your direct experiences are colored by interpolation of knowledge derived from media. Then do some thought experiments to examine how you might interpolate your everyday experiences differently if you thought about them differently because you had been exposed to different media texts or otherwise. I'm not saying that you should erase your interpolative RAM drive completely - just be more mindful of how it works and how its possible to be tricked into interpreting immediate events according to mediated frameworks. To give an extreme example, think of people who panicked during the War of the Worlds broadcast in which Martians were supposedly invading Earth. If someone had simply questioned the media with reference to direct experience, they would have questioned that anyone was invading, much less Martians. Then there are the people who see a UFO and think its secret military activity or alien beings. It's just a UFO because it's unidentified and flying; interpolating it beyond that is speculative.

I hope you don't consider this advice insulting. I'm really not trying to say you're crazy; just that when people AREN'T crazy, they are often the most susceptible to interpolating legitimate media imagery into their immediate reality in a way that conflates direct reality with mediated reality.

 

[Frame Dragger]

From your post, you sound like a very deeply thoughtful person who is caught between skepticism in many things and strong conviction and uncritical assumptions in others. I think your honesty and concern are strengths no matter how much I may disagree with you on certain ideas and attitudes. I could respond in length to so many things from your post but I'm just going to choose one paragraph:



I can just tell you that overpopulation concerns were something I was not able to reflect on as a damaging ideology for a long time because I was not aware that it was an ideology at all. People who are in no direct danger still react to the imagery of overpopulation as if it were a direct threat. To me this is a type of macro-obsession where people get overwhelmed with interpreting the details of their everyday experiences, often because of the analytical complexity they interpolate into them. As a result they come to desire simplicity and peace of mind, but they can't distinguish simplicity of mind from simplicity of material/social environment and so they blame the world they perceive and the "masses" of people for their feeling of being overwhelmed by them. As you said, there are cultural and resource fixes to prevent most if not all the problems blamed on "overpopulation" but it's harder to see that there are also cognitive fixes for the problem of being overwhelmed by globalism and its discontents.

Part of your frustration, I think, is caused by your feeling that you have to carry the weight of the world in all its complexity. It may help you to realize that every individual, yourself included, is the center of a relatively limited subset of global humanity. The irony of that, however, is that the amount of information you receive at your node contains everything necessary to generate the feeling of being bombarded by the global everything that is accessible to your mind through media, analytical interpolation of personal experiences, etc. You're mind's ability to synthesize and make connections between knowledge from diverse sources is what produces the effect that you experience of "choking on population." It is not a material problem but a subjective one. It's like when people are exposed to excessive amounts of propaganda of espionage and begin to suspect everyone of being a spy. I'm not saying that you're particularly insane, because it is a common condition, but I think it is a condition of common insanity.

I think it would help you to realize your position of relative security and stability as not being directly or even indirectly threatened. How does the saying go, "nothing to fear but fear itself." Then, if you still want to study and address global, local, or glocal problems, go ahead, but try to be more critical about identifying how much of the problem is perceived by you because of media and how much is direct experience. Also try to become conscious of how your direct experiences are colored by interpolation of knowledge derived from media. Then do some thought experiments to examine how you might interpolate your everyday experiences differently if you thought about them differently because you had been exposed to different media texts or otherwise. I'm not saying that you should erase your interpolative RAM drive completely - just be more mindful of how it works and how its possible to be tricked into interpreting immediate events according to mediated frameworks. To give an extreme example, think of people who panicked during the War of the Worlds broadcast in which Martians were supposedly invading Earth. If someone had simply questioned the media with reference to direct experience, they would have questioned that anyone was invading, much less Martians. Then there are the people who see a UFO and think its secret military activity or alien beings. It's just a UFO because it's unidentified and flying; interpolating it beyond that is speculative.

I hope you don't consider this advice insulting. I'm really not trying to say you're crazy; just that when people AREN'T crazy, they are often the most susceptible to interpolating legitimate media imagery into their immediate reality in a way that conflates direct reality with mediated reality.

I never consider good advice, given clearly and with no malice to be insulting. I also know enough to be aware that I'm not insane, but perhaps "traumatized" would be a valid description. You're right, and I already am painfully aware that I can only control those things which do. It's been a long time since I thought that facing a (real or perceived) grim reality was anything but destructive. In short, I take "Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes also into you." (Friedrich Nietzsche) VERY seriously.

As for the notion of Overpopulation as an ideology, the problem is that it's both a local reality for some, and a kind of basic panic unrelated to reality. There is little that is as difficult as separating a frightening reality from a terrifying mass-fantasy. I will say this: outside of a discussion on the matter, I don't concern myself with overpopulation, global warming/cooling/etc... or any of the other myriad issues over which my control is limited to living my life.

As for my personal position in life being threatened, you're absolutely right, but I've also traveled a great deal, and seen the other extremes. For the record, I'm not talking about a jaunt to Cancun when I was 21 (which I didn't do anyway), but Guatemala in the early 90's after (yet another) mini-pogrom. I've seen how closely people in relative comfort live to people with (real example) a woman dying on the street from syphilis (third stage), and that was not bad by some comparisons I've also seen. Unfortunately I saw much of this when I was young, and those things make an impression for a lifetime, regardless of how much reason one applies to them.

The kicker is... I have compassion. It's not just a matter of selfishly wanting what I have, but also empathy for people I've seen, slat-ribbed dogs I gave my food to, etc... and that doesn't go away. In short, this is why I tend NOT to watch news, and get my information directly... well... it's also pure crap now, and designed to induce fear. As you say however, short of a several stiff courses of ECT on "high" there is no erasing even portions of the old drive.

As for the rest, we're each burdened with what complexity we can grasp and, as you so rightly said, interpolate, interpret, predict, guess, and fear. As for fearing fear itself, that is good, but there are other things to fear: the manner of your death and those you care for, the fear in some other people which is not tempered by reason OR compassion, people who profit (in every way) from fear, the loss of freedom for yourself and others... etc.

Frankly, I've long since recognized that the media uses fear as a simple goad to stay connected to more media! That said, I'm only human, and sometimes the reality is grim too, even if it isn't apocalyptic. I'm much more sad than I am afraid, and some of that is simple: Take Haiti for instance: Why did that earthquake kill so many? There are of course, a number of reasons, but the biggest is: There are a LOT of people in a SMALL area. See earthquakes in China, or here. Yes, it's still a matter of scale, but they are real people with families and friends.

Now, does this mean I watched coverage of it? No, hell no. Does it mean that I found it impossible to shut away knowledge of what that kind of trauma does to people? No again. Consider then, how frightening it is to realize just how VERY local one's reach is, barring extreme success or donation of TIME as well as money. I'm not that selfless either, because I DO like my life.

That said... we are causing a mass extinction of other species, and while that is not unnatural, it's no less grim. We may very well manage to kill ourselves as our growing population reasonably aspires to have such luxuries as... a low infant mortality rate, some clean water, and maybe a bit less Malaria. So... skepticism, and conviction, but uncritical?... I don't think so. I do sometimes fail to meet by own expectations and make broad generalizations that are clearly untrue (people are stupid, being an example from this thread), but I'm aware of that, even as an old defensive reflex activates.

It is hard not to homogenize people who want to enforce their views of the world on you, or to demonize them. Motivations have many commonalities (M.I.C.E. for example), but they are still fundamentally individual. One cannot reason with a "mass", and of course, that is a defense in and of itself. If I "can't" than I don't "have to". I fear people like me, who grew up too quickly for no better reason than their own heads, but who lack "honesty and concern". I fear people who are so deeply ideological that they are unwilling or unable to consider other views.

Above all I fear the people who use that fear as a lever to move whole populations, and I fear myself for being someone who could do that as well. That brings me back to Nietzsche... I don't believe that you can wield fear as a tool without becoming afraid and insular, anymore than you can lie constantly and trust others. Overpopulation is very relative, but one way or another I fear the human and natural response to the reality or perception of it.

THAT said... I'm not ruled by fear, but I'm aware of the lessons of history. Nobody is easier to manipulate than someone who is terrified, and no one is more beloved than someone who delivers you from that same fear. A larger population + Information tech = Power. Power that isn't good or bad, but just is. Reasonable people respect and fear power that dwarfes them. Remember in what contexts that talk of fearing fear has been used... they are not happy ones.

In the end, it's mostly sadness for others, and empathy which I try to keep on "low", but is nonetheless, present... which I experience. The flipside of that, is anger, which I also try to control. The natural middle which the mind flees to, is generalization. Is it any wonder that people who were already primed with fear, became terrified by WoTW? I wouldn't be in the streets in that situation (big "S" Skepticism)... I wouldn't be afraid of martians, I would be TERRIFIED of the people who DID react. I think the application of that to modern situations is also applicable.

There is nothing to fear, but the people who are ruled by it, and those who rule with it. Remember what Voltaire said? "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you committ atrocities." I'm not afraid of someone with brown skin and a beard blowing me out of the sky... I'm afraid of the people who sent them, and mostly of the people on my end of things who divert resources fighting what are mostly phantoms. We're fighting terrorists by terrifying our populace unreasonably? Well, it's good for some business, but it's doing real damage to how people view the world.

So, I suspect that, as you say, we probably have deep philosophical and practical disagreements, but for what it's worth, I wish you had been there to give me this advice about 20 years ago. I'm not insulted in the slightest, and your intent is clearly beneficent. Just in case I've given you the impression that this represents the totality of who I am, let me reassure you that it is only in the fairly limited context of intellectual discussions. At any other time, I simply recognize that I'm human, with a human's scope and ability to effect events locally or globally. Mostly I concern myself with friends, family, and animals.

 

[mheslep]

Mark Steyn, author of a book on immigration and the clash of civilizations, interview http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=MjE5OTdmOTc2N2IzZWI0NmI1Y2FjZDVlNTEzYzJmYTU=" .
Some of the claims I found striking:

• Birthrate of ethnic Europeans: 1.3
• States like Germany, Japan have upside down family trees: four grandparents, two parents (children of grandparents), one child.
• Birthrate of Moslem immigrants to Europe (rough estimate): 3.5
• 40% of German female university graduates are childless.

 

[brainstorm]

Mark Steyn, author of a book on immigration and the clash of civilizations, interview http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=MjE5OTdmOTc2N2IzZWI0NmI1Y2FjZDVlNTEzYzJmYTU=" .
Some of the claims I found striking:

• Birthrate of ethnic Europeans: 1.3
• States like Germany, Japan have upside down family trees: four grandparents, two parents (children of grandparents), one child.
• Birthrate of Moslem immigrants to Europe (rough estimate): 3.5
• 40% of German female university graduates are childless.

How are Muslims not ethnic Europeans? Europe is a continent and Islam is a religion. Why wouldn't you compare Christian Europeans with Muslim Europeans, if you're making a comparison. Also, "net population growth" means immigration - emigration + birth rate. There are always people emigrating and immigrating in any region. That's why I prefer to talk about "migration" rather than "immigration" or "emigration," since those make reference to arbitrary regional boundaries instead of individuals who migrate in a variety of ways all the time.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Yeah, and Germany isn't exactly "immigrant heaven" either...

 

[mheslep]

How are Muslims not ethnic Europeans?

Immigrant Muslims are by definition not ethnic Europeans:
ethnic: pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.
There are some two millennia of culture caught up in the definition of ethnic European.

Europe is a continent and Islam is a religion. Why wouldn't you compare Christian Europeans with Muslim Europeans, if you're making a comparison.

Muslim <> Islam

Also, "net population growth" means immigration - emigration + birth rate. There are always people emigrating and immigrating in any region. That's why I prefer to talk about "migration" rather than "immigration" or "emigration," since those make reference to arbitrary regional boundaries instead of individuals who migrate in a variety of ways all the time.

Immigration rates and birth rates of the immigrants are not the same in any region. The point is within a couple of generations, if the current rates hold, there won't be much of an ethnic Europe left.

 

[mheslep]

Yeah, and Germany isn't exactly "immigrant heaven" either...

Meaning what? Germany doesn't have many, or German immigrants have a difficult time in the society, what?

 

[Frame Dragger]

Meaning what? Germany doesn't have many, or German immigrants have a difficult time in the society, what?

Meaning precisely what I said... I don't believe clarification will lead to anything, but a fight. A better question might be:

why does THIS:

The point is within a couple of generations, if the current rates hold, there won't be much of an ethnic Europe left.

matter? Am I to understand you have a particular vision of how European ethnicity should be defined/controled? What does ANY of this have to do with overpoplation?

Your equivocation of "muslim immigrants" with an actual RACIAL group, is silly. One is a religion, the other is not. You could be a muslim immigrant from the UK, or you could be from Iran... your statistics are not illuminating in that regard. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to see a point in your statements other than the kind of anti-islamic hysteria much of western europe (and the USA to be fair) is engaged in.

 

[brainstorm]

Immigrant Muslims are by definition not ethnic Europeans:
ethnic: pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.
There are some two millennia of culture caught up in the definition of ethnic European.

When it comes to discourse aimed at increasing the inertia of ethnic identity through historiography, etc., Europe is certainly full of it. I don't know why I bother to try to explain repeatedly how all these discourses of ethnic history, culture, identity, etc. all have a propaganda function of creating group solidarity and, ultimately war - because people who buy into it are constantly at war in their heads anyway.

Europe is just land. Anyone could go or leave that land in the absence of all the institutionalization and gatekeeping. Ethnicity is an individual cultural identity. Yes, people utilize their ethnic identity as a basis for bonding together with others for various reasons, but ultimately individuals think, feel, and act as individuals individually. Groupists hate that because they can't stand to take responsibility for their own choices and they're desperately afraid of being singled out from the collectivities they imagine themselves as part of all the time.

That said, Islam is no different than Christianity, Judaism, or secular nationalism in terms of cultures practiced in Europe. The difference with Islam is that it has been racialized the way Judaism was prior to WWII (and still is, actually). Christianity is under attack by secular nationalism/socialism as backward (and now pedophilic), but it is not racialized the way Muslims and Jews are. Ironically, I've read some current critique of Islam that it's not a religion because it's an entire way of life - this is ironic because it is how many people view national socialist culture. Let's just say that Europe has some problems with territorialism and conflict.

Muslim <> Islam

Immigration rates and birth rates of the immigrants are not the same in any region. The point is within a couple of generations, if the current rates hold, there won't be much of an ethnic Europe left.

Trying to stir up an ethnic war, are you? In a couple of generations, EU integration will hopefully be to the point where regional territorialism of ethnic nation-states is no longer an issue. People will hopefully be able to continue preserving ethnic and language diversity, but the will to cling to geographical territory will hopefully lesson.

As this happens, it should be easier for Muslims or any other religious/ethnic minority to integrate into the diversity. Hopefully EU social-economic politics will also find a way to be less fortress-like, which would make it easier to have better global social-economic integration that will allow people to migrate freely among all continents without fear of ethnic discrimination or culture/language loss. People tell me this is an unrealistic dream whenever I tell them about it, but in truth ethnic-nationalism and social-authoritarianism are unrealistic dreams in that they have proven unsustainable at so many levels, from individual-psychological to economics to ethnic conflicts.

There simply has to be evolution where people can preserve language, culture, and ethnic identity without separatism, economic exploitation, discrimination, war, etc.

Attempting to police reproduction on a per-ethnicity basis is only going to increase ethnic conflict and hatred and make multiethnic integration more painful.

 

[Frame Dragger]

When it comes to discourse aimed at increasing the inertia of ethnic identity through historiography, etc., Europe is certainly full of it. I don't know why I bother to try to explain repeatedly how all these discourses of ethnic history, culture, identity, etc. all have a propaganda function of creating group solidarity and, ultimately war - because people who buy into it are constantly at war in their heads anyway.

Europe is just land. Anyone could go or leave that land in the absence of all the institutionalization and gatekeeping. Ethnicity is an individual cultural identity. Yes, people utilize their ethnic identity as a basis for bonding together with others for various reasons, but ultimately individuals think, feel, and act as individuals individually. Groupists hate that because they can't stand to take responsibility for their own choices and they're desperately afraid of being singled out from the collectivities they imagine themselves as part of all the time.

That said, Islam is no different than Christianity, Judaism, or secular nationalism in terms of cultures practiced in Europe. The difference with Islam is that it has been racialized the way Judaism was prior to WWII (and still is, actually). Christianity is under attack by secular nationalism/socialism as backward (and now pedophilic), but it is not racialized the way Muslims and Jews are. Ironically, I've read some current critique of Islam that it's not a religion because it's an entire way of life - this is ironic because it is how many people view national socialist culture. Let's just say that Europe has some problems with territorialism and conflict.



Trying to stir up an ethnic war, are you? In a couple of generations, EU integration will hopefully be to the point where regional territorialism of ethnic nation-states is no longer an issue. People will hopefully be able to continue preserving ethnic and language diversity, but the will to cling to geographical territory will hopefully lesson.

As this happens, it should be easier for Muslims or any other religious/ethnic minority to integrate into the diversity. Hopefully EU social-economic politics will also find a way to be less fortress-like, which would make it easier to have better global social-economic integration that will allow people to migrate freely among all continents without fear of ethnic discrimination or culture/language loss. People tell me this is an unrealistic dream whenever I tell them about it, but in truth ethnic-nationalism and social-authoritarianism are unrealistic dreams in that they have proven unsustainable at so many levels, from individual-psychological to economics to ethnic conflicts.

There simply has to be evolution where people can preserve language, culture, and ethnic identity without separatism, economic exploitation, discrimination, war, etc.

Attempting to police reproduction on a per-ethnicity basis is only going to increase ethnic conflict and hatred and make multiethnic integration more painful.

You try to explain because you genuinely care, and realize that it's good for you as well as those you try to teach. Others can read this and draw their own conclusions as well. I must say, the notion of an "ethnic europe" is a fantasy of particularly mad-men (Hitler springs to mind), and nationalists seeking to get votes. What is Europe if not a history of genetic, cultural, etc... drift?!

Hell, if you look at Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, they all follow similar historical patterns: Conquest, Legalism, Schism, Reform. That Christianity and Islam are on different points on that progress doesn't change history. Christianity is dealing with Reform in my view, and Islam is stuck between Legalism and Schism. When people (yes, I'm looking at you mheslep) being to single out cultures and religions, and speak of ethnicity as something to be LOST... red flags go up in my mind.

EDIT: It seems clear that the cultural heritage of many civilations outlast the civilations themselves. What is Cuneform if not a perfect example? What is it that people are so afraid of LOSING, rather than GAINING?! Genetically, and culturally drift and mix is critical to maintaining a healthy population, and as you say brainstorm, it has to be our evolution.

 

[brainstorm]

EDIT: It seems clear that the cultural heritage of many civilations outlast the civilations themselves. What is Cuneform if not a perfect example? What is it that people are so afraid of LOSING, rather than GAINING?! Genetically, and culturally drift and mix is critical to maintaining a healthy population, and as you say brainstorm, it has to be our evolution.

Don't underestimate the fear of cultural and language loss. The pope celebrated the US as the culture of the hyphen, saying that ethnic conflict was reduced by people simply hyphenating one or more ethnic identities with "American" after it. In practice, however, there is a strong culture of language-diversity resistance. Many people consider English the only language of the US, which they view as an ethnic nation despite the whole free republic idea. Not that such people are winning, it's just that they resist learning multiple languages and using them for everyday life. I think there was even a court case that established a precedent that employees can be terminated for failing to switch to English when their manager tells them to. I suppose it is rude if someone asks you to switch to a language they can understand and you refuse, but I just don't see linguistic innovation going on like entire workplaces having Spanish day or something like that where everyone communicates only in Spanish for one day a week. Obviously this would slow down communication a lot for people at first, but after practicing for a while, I bet it would become a good way to combine work with language practice.

So, you're right - people should be focussed on gaining instead of losing, but the gaining should be done in practice - which would promote the maintaining (instead of losing) for others who are concerned with loss.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Please keep this thread in a productive state, thank you.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Please keep this thread in a productive state, thank you.

Ok, granted your's is a serious post, but... in bold... is that a joke re: overpopulation, or just an incredibly funny coincidence?

 

[Kerrie]

Wow, a lot of good info here, but shouldn't this be a philosophical thread?

Has there been any research done on the correlation of immunizations and population growth? Not that we want to ever consider discontinuing them, but it seems that since we have advanced medically, population has increased tremendously. So, although I agree with Russ's statement of education, it almost seems like it has contributed to the problem. Perhaps further education of course could get the rate under control. Also, since we are living longer because of medical advances, population doesn't decline as quickly as it once did (obviously).

 

[brainstorm]

Wow, a lot of good info here, but shouldn't this be a philosophical thread?

Yes, it should actually because population politics contain philosophical and ethical assumptions embedded in the science, the main one being that it is human quantity that threatens ecology and natural resources instead of quality and way of life. The tenet left undiscussed is whether people can change the way they live to prevent resource and ecological depletion instead of simply reducing population (growth).

Has there been any research done on the correlation of immunizations and population growth? Not that we want to ever consider discontinuing them, but it seems that since we have advanced medically, population has increased tremendously. So, although I agree with Russ's statement of education, it almost seems like it has contributed to the problem. Perhaps further education of course could get the rate under control. Also, since we are living longer because of medical advances, population doesn't decline as quickly as it once did (obviously).

Yes, sociology textbooks describe a demographic transition that occurs when the majority of deaths occur from childhood diseases and malnutrition to old-age diseases, heart-disease, etc.

The big problem with any kind of social engineering is preferences for some social identities over others. When population growth is problematized, it is usually blamed on certain ethnicities over others. I have also read of female foetuses being aborted where people are concerned with limiting their family size. This kind of preference causes a kind of war mentality, I think, where targeted ethnicities feel under threat and resolve to reproduce more to avert extinction as a result of pressure to reduce their numbers. Likewise there is the problem that some ethnicities have a majority or otherwise privileged position which population control would help them maintain.

It's easy for majority populations to say it is fair for everyone to limit their family size to 2 children to avert overal population growth, but doing so ensures that minorities remain minorities. So you can't really get around population control having political effects, even when your concern is only resource and ecological sustainment.

 

[John Galaor]

I can see a problem in encouraging development in poor countries that are growing very fast. The scarcity of resources. Then main resources to develop in a modern sense are the fossil fuels. Those who have fossil fuels have some possibility of developing but not the others
To develop in the modern sense is to consume a lot of energy. This energy is needed to produce more food and to transport to the places where are lying most of the population that had fled from the countryside. Then, the rate of breeding in poor countries is instinctive. In the past there were some ways of controlling excess population one was social limitations, forbidding some social categories to breed as happened in Europe. Slaves, servants, religious people and soldiers, were not allowed to breed. Then, there were frequent wars among neighbor populations, or nations, that trimmed farther the excess population.
Then, on a strict Malthusian criterion, we would not need to worry of any excess population because once the population would exceed some mark, it would pay the consequences. Then this cynical approach seems a little harsh and unkind. Mostly because such a big global turbulence could burst with such a might that can even reach us. And we will be paying the consequences of these troubles.

But even if developed countries can look as they have not population growth, they are increasing their consumption of energy. Then this is a form of growth that can have undesired consequences. I am not mentioning the global warming, for this would not be our more demanding challenge in the future.

These links with graphics you posted, do not look alarming at all.

Compared with the population curve of the Chineses, the rest look as insignificant trifles. But they are not. These curves look flat, compared with China. But if you put the most populated nations out of the graphic, you can see a lot of small countries that had been growing too fast.
The reasons to be alarmed are a few. While the planet population since year 1 CE to the year 1,800 multiplied by 4.23, the population has multiplied by seven in the last two hundred and ten years. And the population growth of the planet population was an average of 0.08 % during 1,800 years. While in the past 210 years the average growth has been 0.9%
John Galaor

 

[John Galaor]

Population research is always painful because it carries with it the implication of population controls. It's no wonder that one post has already mentioned "extermination." No one likes being targeted for "population control" in the supposed interest of everyone else.

That said, there are resource problems and social problems that emerge from infrastructure and land use patterns. It's important to distinguish between population as a cause directly, though, and culture as a mitigating factor between individuals and resources.

Whenever anyone complains about overpopulation, the first thing I ask them is if they drive. Driving creates traffic and stresses infrastructure by allowing relatively few individuals to travel per unit-width road. Also, the large cargo-capacity of many vehicles encourages people to consume more, which stimulates waste and resource depletion and waste over a wider supply-chain range.

I don't know how many more people could live sustainably if everyone or at least most people would give up their cars and bike or walk for transportation, but I imagine it would be manyfold. When the conflict is between a luxury like traffic-reduction and a human right like having children, it seems clear to me that one person's human rights shouldn't be constrained for another person to drive everywhere all the time.

There are plenty of ways to maintain luxuries like driving while reducing their everyday usage levels. Rental cars can be used and insurance companies could make it easier for people to share cars. Businesses and residences can move closer to each other. That's not an easy task, but I think it will be a slowly evolving social-geographical pattern that creates more freedom for population growth far into the future.

This is the peaceful alternative to doomsday scenarios of war and famine typical of traditional Malthusian population forecasting.

Even if we are consuming a lot of energy, the western people and western ooffshoots, the ideal of most people in the world is to achieve western people standards. This is clearly not the a possibility. For that we are too many people.

But even the problem of growth has several dimensions. It is clear that as an animal species in a limited planet, growth cannot be not forever. There would be a moment that too many people in the planet would be an absurd hypothesis.

Lets figure the following argument.
Some people had told me, 0.9% of growth a year is not that much growth. This is the growth average of planet population in the last 200 years.
Then we can do some maths to found out if this is a real problem or not.
1) It is estimated that the population of the planet in the year 1 CE was 230 million people. Now we are 7 billion. That is a multiplication by 30.43
What is the average rate between both dates?
Well, lest calculate: Log 30.43/2010=7.38(10^-4)
Then, 10^7.064(10^-4)= 1.0017 then the rate of growth was 0.17% a year

2) What would mean, that the "normal" growth of 0.9% was substained since the year 1?
Let's calculate 230 millions * 1.009^2010 = 230 millions * 66.26 millions,
that is 1.5 (10^16) persons. That is 100 persons/per sq. meter, on the solid surface of the earth, including all hot deserts, frozen deserts and mountain ranges.
--------
Then, in the long range, a growth of 0.9% a year, cannot be considered a normal growth. Then Malthus was right.
Let's asume how many people would be if a growth of 0.17% a year would be possible sustained in the long range.
Let's imaging 7 thousand years from now on at 0.17% a year
7 billion (7*10^9) * 1.0017^7000= 1.02 (10^15) We would be 6.8 persons per sq. meter. Then, even this modest growth of 0.17% a year is too much.

Lets figure, that the growth is just 0.1% a year.
7 billion *1.001^7000= 7.65 (10^12) or more than thousand times the present population.

Then, the question is not the right of individuals, the right of the whole human species. Any arbitrary family can have as many as ten children, if the other people not not have as many. Is an statistical question. The rational aim is to achieve zero growth, or even sometime into the future, a negative growth for some centuries, until is achieved the correct density of population in this planet that must be quite different. It is not the same thing the density of population in Antarctic, the Sahara, Siberia, Nepal than in Maryland, or California. To my opinion, in the near future, most developed nations are already overpopulated, even if you reduce the consumption of energy to a 10 or 5% of the present.

For the concept overpopulation can not be a single number. It must be a varied one, depending on the reserves of energy, and other resources, like rainfall, temperature, etc.
John Galaor

 

[John Galaor]

I wasn't saying that there is or isn't a correlation between global warming and global population growth. I was pointing out that when people think in macro-theories like these, their attention tends to shift away from their behavior and power as individuals in everyday life. Furthermore, they forget that in order for population control to be attempted, some individuals have to make an attempt to exercise power/control over other individuals, which brings rights into question, and is a form of repressive violence. I wonder if people realize they are arguing in the direction of repressive violence in this thread. It's easy to forget when you frame it as a macro-scale issue where the lives of individuals become little more than pixels making up a bigger picture.

The main problem is the "traditional doctrine" that the nations that have more young people to sacrifice in a war has the most probabilities of success. Some nations actually are preparing themselves for this sacrifice, and their growth is not impeded.
Now I remember the times of British Empire, it was against the law promoting birth control, of abortion. Even an alternative to heterosexual sex, like homosexuality was also punished with severe penalties.
Then, contemplating these concepts, still in vigor in many countries, mostly Islamics, we can predict that the solution to this problem would be Malthusian. It is by means of war, mostly than famine. This would push us into a global thermonuclear war, that is the most sure way for the western nation to achieve a survival ration of 25%

Them, with some degree of liberalism, liberalism on sexual customs, only a small fraction of couples would be breeding. And we would have to protect economically with money to make it workable. In all the nations that have liberal laws and women working, the growth is not a problem. The Swedish government has to introduced protections for women with children, and the he population growth rose significantly.

Then, liberal societies would not have a problem with growth. It is the nations in which the women are slaves of their husbands, that have high rates of growth.

And these traditional customs would not change unless occurs a dramatic upheaval in this planet. Then the future is gloomy.
John Galaor

 

[brainstorm]

Then, contemplating these concepts, still in vigor in many countries, mostly Islamics, we can predict that the solution to this problem would be Malthusian. It is by means of war, mostly than famine. This would push us into a global thermonuclear war, that is the most sure way for the western nation to achieve a survival ration of 25%

I believe that this is the implicit forecast of the "Noah's Arc" approach taken to immigration by national governments in which proportional representation in immigration quotas are established to promote maximum global diversity among the residents of any given region. Probably, if at some point those who control nuclear arsenals come to the conclusion that global population growth is unsustainable with regard to the economic cultures of resource-utilization, they will elect to reset global population with an agreed upon topography of elimination. It would be very sad if they chose to do this, because I think there are ample opportunities to transform resource-utilization in a way that makes it possible for vast increases in population to live sustainably, if nothing else through muiti-generational interstellar transit.

Still, if overpopulation discourse continues to the point where those who control nuclear arsenals get sufficiently spooked, there is indeed a good chance that they will elect to eliminate a large proportion of Earth's inhabitants. I would love to convince them that there are less harsh methods to employ that restrict resource consumption in order to allow more personal choice in family-size, but probably some failed eugenics policy of fertility-repression will be attempted before it is discovered that people have found loopholes to allow large families to escape detection. I wondered, actually, during the time when mountains were being bombed under the assumption that Bin Ladin could have built livable cave-systems inside them how many people globally could successfully live in underground dwellings. Many cities have incredibly deep underground networks for transit, etc. but who is to say that similar underground networks haven't been established as urban metropolises in various remote places unconnected with any superterrainian city? If that were the case, these cities would be insulated against nuclear attack, so how would you then use nuclear bombing to reduce world population?

This is all such unpleasant, macabre theorizing. Wouldn't it be nicer to strategize ways for MORE population to be sustained through better more efficient use of resources?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Lets figure the following argument.
Some people had told me, 0.9% of growth a year is not that much growth. This is the growth average of planet population in the last 200 years.
Then we can do some maths to found out if this is a real problem or not.

Hey, kids! Can you find the omitted variable bias in the above?

 

[John Galaor]

Reply to message #86 of Brainstorm

Some complex problems we are contemplating. I cannot answer them.

It is evident a first sight that growth, with a little of math insight, that we can not go indefinitely this way for it would cause many problems.
I had pointed some math arguments in my exposition on message # 84

On the other hand, excess population has been traditionally the mother lode of most wars, and most famine crisis. It is just a speculation of my own.

To me, a nation that keeps his population growing on high ratios during several decades is planning some war, or fearing some war. Or their leaders do not care of the future of their nations.

Then, to me, it seems very unlikely that the ratio of growth between year 1 and year 1,800 were as regular as the average value results, 0.08% a year. Average value only means an average, not the ordinary condition of growth on most nations. What I am trying to say is that, nations all over the world had been growing at rates of 0.9% a year or higher, for some time, till a new war of a famine, explodes in their faces. Then, the case of the famines is special, for it breastfeed anarchy and many small armies raise up looking for food, and assaulting farmers and agriculturist centers who have food stored.
The result of these troubles are wars that produce more famine and deaths that the famine itself. It is enough a drop as small as 20 % in food production to have a sort of civil war.

So far we had not witnessed this so far, making of Malthus a stupid prophet, because we had been consuming growing amounts of fossil fuels in the past 150 years. But even then, Most of the wars in 19 and 20 centuries I presume that were due to some form of overpopulation. I have not solid data to prove this point. It is an intuition. If we look carefully we can found the data that I am suggesting.
John Galaor

 

[John Galaor]

To dear GRGreathouse

I will be glad if you pointed yourself.
Year 1,800 estimated population of the planet 1 billion.
Year 2010 July, estimated population of the planet 7 billions.
We can calculate the estimated growth in the period by doing some calculations

RG (rate of Growth) in % per year must be...

(10^(log7/210)-1)*100 = 0.0093*100= 0.93

I don't think there is here any bias. What is your comment?
John Galaor

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't think there is here any bias.

Really? You can't think of a MAJOR explanatory variable over that period?