1. There are geographically defined groups in Australia that have higher fertility rates than others: heroine addicts, Northern Territory dwellers, new immigrants from certain countries, women of certain ages, people who live in Cranbourne in Victoria.

2. There is a really simple way to stop interstate and inter-regional migration and that is by limiting building permits at a local level.

Let the local community decide how it wants to live.

This is, incidentally, the way that continental western countries of the EU work at an international level; legal immigrants and citizens have a right to public housing.
But your right to migrate can be limited by the ability of the State to provide you with housing.
In the end, citizenship is about membership of a community.  Usually the bulk of that is determined through blood, but all communities also have rules for accepting adoptees, spouses (generally from outside the immediate community) and immigrants.
In a functioning subsistance society there are rules to limit legal fertility opportunities (by limiting who may marry whom - generally in line with stricter or laxer incest avoidance).  This exerts a mathematical lever on numbers of babies born and would adapt to the carrying capacity of the land.  If a child were born from an unlawful union it would be illegitimate and would not have the right to land.  If contraception and abortion failed, infanticide was next.  A child without land would theoretically die in a subsistence society because it would not have the means to take care of itself.  Generally all societies have some carrying capacity slack, so maybe an illegitimate child would grow up, but they would have to share their mother's land and would live poorly, and would not have enough to marry and would be non-citizens anyway, without the right to marry... etc.  A society that allowed that to happen might start to have a prostitute system, or sell slaves, or soldiers... (called a complex economy :-{)

From these traditions we get town-planning and the right to limit building permits.

In our society, which has had a growing component of landless labor since the 13th century, these methods tend to be overlooked for the more clumsy psychological stigmas that grew up from them - such as disowning a woman who conceived out of wedlock.   We tend to focus on the 'morality' instead of the practicality because we have been taught to see the earth in vague and generalist terms, abstractly,  and our laws and expressions reflect this.

A society which confuses the ability to issue building permits to attract more people with attracting wealth has got things upside down.  A society that does not allow its people to limit the size of their community has abrogated self-government.


Sheila Newman

aditmore@... wrote:

 

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: aditmore@...

To: PublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com

Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 17:12:50 -0500

Subject: Re: [PublicPopForum] New residents 'unwelcome' in growth state  (NewsComAu Article)

 

What about immigration of people who have a lower fertility rate than Australians? like Japanese, Germans, or Russians?

Differentiating on fertility rate is politically impossible here in the US, but is it in OZ?

One reason I oppose limiting internal migration between states is because the internal migrants don't have a higher fertility rate, and in my area it's lower, than the locals.  So to me the newcomers actually have MORE right to be here than the locals.  Right as determined by fertility rate.

Plus in my area we need the newcomer vote if we are ever to fund contraception.

-Al

 

------------------------------------

Good on you, Simon!!  People need to go to the link and provide a comment at the end, else write a letter to the editor  of the Courier Mail - cmletters@...

New residents 'unwelcome' in growth state

From: NewsComAu
December 07, 2009
RESULTS from a Galaxy poll suggest that 60 per cent of Queenslanders want the Government to take steps to limit the state's southeast population growth explosion.

Alternatively, you can copy and paste this link into your browser:
http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland-residents-want-to-cap-population-growth/story-e6frfkvr-1225807542000

Queensland residents want to cap population growth

• By Craig Johnstone and Natalie Gregg
• From: The Courier-Mail
• December 07, 2009 2:33AM

• Increase Text Size
• Decrease Text Size
• Print
• Email
• Share
  • Add to Digg
  • Add to del.icio.us
  • Add to Facebook
  • Add to Kwoff
  • Add to Myspace
  • Add to Newsvine
  • What are these?

Sixty per cent of Queenslanders want a cap on the population growth in the state's southeast, according to a poll / File

• Queenslanders want population cap
• Forecasts of six million "too many"
• Premier has dismissed cap

RESULTS from a Galaxy poll suggest that 60 per cent of Queenslanders want the Government to take steps to limit the state's southeast population growth explosion.

A similar proportion say forecasts of six million southeast Queenslanders by 2050 would be too many.

As the State Government prepares to beef up its population policy credentials, some mayors are protesting that growth is too far ahead of the transport system's ability to cope, The Courier-Mail reports.

Allan Sutherland, the Mayor of the Moreton Bay region, which is expected to absorb an extra 84,000 new homes over the next 20 years, said infrastructure was needed to accommodate growth.

"You can't just keep jamming terracotta roofs all over the place and not improve your transport system," he said.

The poll found that 59 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of the Government working to limit the region's population growth.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

Thirty-five per cent were opposed.

The result was even more emphatic among Labor supporters, with 65 per cent in favour of population limits.

The poll also found that 59 per cent of Queenslanders thought the forecast population of 6 million for southeast Queensland by the middle of the century was too much, with 33 per cent saying it was about right.

Concern over the region's growth has rekindled debate on a population cap for southeast Queensland, despite Premier Anna Bligh and property industry groups dismissing the idea.

Population growth will be a key issue at today's Council of Australian Government meeting and Ms Bligh yesterday announced the involvement of scientist Tim Flannery, demographer Bernard Salt and environmentalist Ian Lowe at next year's South-East Queensland Growth Summit on March 30 and 31.

Ms Bligh said southeast Queensland had more interstate migrants than any other state.

But she said she was yet to see "any sensible or legal way" to cap the population.

"As attractive as a population cap sounds, I think it's misleading to imply to people that such a thing could be done," she said.

The Wells family, who exchanged Yorkshire in the UK for Springfield Lakes, west of Brisbane, are part of the influx that has made southeast Queensland the fastest growing region in the country.

"We came here on holiday in 2002 and said we'll be back - we just loved it," Claire Wells said yesterday.

Mrs Wells said she and husband Shane had poured over pages on the internet devoted to Springfield Lakes and had liked what they'd seen.

"We were even more impressed when we saw it in reality," she said.

The prospect of further growth didn't bother Ms Wells so long as the needs of residents were met.

"There's room for everybody and with growth comes new opportunities," she said.

However, southeast Queensland head of the Sustainable Population Australia lobby group Simon Baltais said there must be a limit.

"Pro-growth lobbyists are ignoring the science . . . at the expense of the general community and the environment," he said.

____________________________________________________________
Cash Loan
Need cash? Click to get a loan.

 

Proof municipal contraception is the ONLY viable way to reduce climate
change.  Led by Sir David Attenborough.


http://www.theage.com.au/world/population-control-best-way-to-cut-emissio
ns-20091203-k8oz.html

http://www.popoffsets.com/

    One problem though is that there is no need to involve the third world
or go beyond local contraception funding.  A thousand dollars of
contraception funding may prevent more births in the third world, but
preventing a local birth prevents more climate change, so it cancells
out, carbon offesett per grand of contraception stays about the same
while local contraception avoids racial targetting and helps the locality
save school taxes, producing local benefits.

Alan
____________________________________________________________
Love Spell
Click here to light up your life with a love spell!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=6NpBcC7vt-D5EWmCGECB3wAAJ1CGX7qxWF\
VIauI0-P2MBq9xAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARwAAAAA=

Health insurance companies in the US are helping climate change by
refusing to cover fertile people, according to ABC News.

ABC News tonight just said that health insurers are demanding sterility
in return for coverage, GOOD IDEA!  This alone might convince me to
oppose US national health care, because private insurace seems suddenly
to know how to save the planet.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Health/women-battle-insurance-industry-dem
and-equal-benefits-premiums/story?id=8838361

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/10/insurance-company-get-ste
rilized-and-well-cover-you.html
____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFoYaoMRDlOGQOTNOm01wqNl8kgVh7\
534EeS1n5BxXn84YhK7ZRPy/

----- Original Message -----

From: aditmore@...

To: PublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com ; alex.fogerty@... ; ChildfreeMs@yahoogroups.com ; childfreesnip@yahoogroups.com ; conscientiousnonprocreators@yahoogroups.com ; overpopulation@yahoogroups.com ; OverpopulationAwareness@yahoogroups.com ; why_breed@yahoogroups.com ; population-growth-migration@yahoogroups.com ; stoppopulationclub@yahoogroups.com ; childfreetown@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 4:32 PM

Subject: [population-growth-migration] Re: [PublicPopForum] Re: Municipal contraception questions.

 

I don't know about Australia, but in the US, public school use is not an underclass welfare thing, but reaches well into the middle class and beyond in some areas.  The local funding structure that makes this possible also means that elite towns can run some fairly elite schools within the public system.  Also in the US, the welfare class already has some access to subsidized contraception under title ten and some state programs, though many don't know it.  Larger, local subsidies would bring in more working and middle class access as well as improve quality and convenience by increasing clinic hours and locations, and knowledge through advertising;  plus the ability I described of going beyond free into paid contraception like Project Prevention:

http://www.projectprevention.org/
        I thought Australia was a nation with a public health service, which I once assumed covered contraception, but I was once told that contraception is not covered by public health in Canada.  Also, I was told that in Australia, school and child care funding is not so local as in the US, which makes the immediate local budgetary return, and with it the funding source, less apparent.  To produce the savings which can then form the funding, you need to control the level of government that funds schools and child care.  If this is a larger level of government, then controlling one is a more difficult political prospect.  It also helps economically if that is not the same level of government that funds retirement, as it isn't in the USA.  Thus the budgetary counterclaim becomes moot as here, retirement is a federal problem, not a local one.

        As for doubting a strong correlation between contraception funding and fertility rates, I'm sure they exist, try here:

http://www.guttmacher.org/

But I don't really want to bother proving it because I consider it a safe assumption.

-Al

 

--------------------------------

Interesting concept. I personally would like to see research into the addition and/or removal of subsidies on contraceptives and if it has an effect on the fertility rate for that year. Knowing the answer to this would open many possibilities, such as providing free contraceptives to those on social welfare since they are statistically the most likely to have the most children and most likely to have the problem children that you talk about, due to many well documented psychological effects of growing up in a welfare family.


- Alex

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:32 AM, <aditmore@juno.com> wrote:

Municipal contraception is intended as a beginning, not an end, but a
first step to set precedents which, once set, become easier and easier
for more and more levels of government to follow, including the feds and
UN eventually, as the local benefits become obvious to everyone.  It is a
way to get the ball rolling.  The strategy revolves around the political
problem of how do we get there from here.  It is not intended to cover
everyone, just to cover someone as preferable to covering no one.  Just
as one state broke the dam on gay marriage, for others to follow, one
town can break the dam on serious contraception funding.
As for eligibility, contraception is so cost-effective, that a town can
afford to fund contraception considerably beyond it's residents, for
anyone who might potentially move in and use local public school or
childcare taxes.  Normally I would expect the free or subsidized price
contraception to be given out to anyone who is physically within the town
at that moment.  Though negatively priced contraception, where the town
pays people to take it like Project Prevention:
http://www.projectprevention.org/
might have to be limited to town residents depending on the budget
situation, or one level up, meaning town funding for county residents,
county funding for state residents, state funding for national residents,
and/or national funding for world residents (as in the current USAID
funding), or perhaps continental residents, as in NAU or OAS, or EU.
Basically, as the ability to pay for itself depends on public school
eligibility and saving the money many times over in school and child
services, eligibility for contraception would be tied to potential
eligibility for the school or child services that it prevents.
So what I am saying is that it is still cheaper for the taxpayers of a
town to fund contraception for everyone in the county, one level up, than
for town taxpayers to fund public school for just the town children
produced by the absence of such funding.  This being justified by the
significant likelyhood that a county resident family with children might
move into the town and use municipal child services and that chance times
the cost of child services still exceeding the cost of contraception.
       This is intended as a response to the reality that serious global
and national contraceptive funding is a political pipe dream because
supporters are in the minority and are thus helpless.  But supporters are
not necessarily a minority in every town, city, county, and state,
especially with current political migration and especially with political
migration which could be purposefully accelerated.
-Alan

-------------------------
I don't see how municipal contraception can work. For one thing, everyone
does not live in a municipality. A significant number of people do not
live in any town. Another thing is that what sort of residency
requirements will be in place to get contraceptives from that town/city?
If someone has just moved there and does not yet qualify for free
contraception, they end up with babies. Some people and classes of people
are very mobile, so would frequently end up being "caught without". Or,
various municipalities "buying from the lowest bidder" and getting things
which outright do not work. Municipalities currently have an incentive to
have as many people COUNTED as living in them as possible to get federal
and state funds.

I think the contraceptives should be provided by national or
international groups - to ALL. It should be something which cannot be
easily stopped, forgotten, or run out of - such as vasectomy, tubal
ligation, or at least implants.

Enforcement for irresponsible breeding should be enforced locally. Your
neighbors are the best people to know if you've got an unregistered
screeming baby, not someone thousands of miles away. Your neighbors and
local police and courts are the ones who know if there is a giant family
of unsupervised children drinking, vandalizing, robbing, assaulting while
their egg and sperm doners fail to guide these children.

Perhaps what should be required is to put up a significant bond to cover
the damage these children will directly do, as well as having the
would-be breeder pay for a license. The license would cover such things
as parent training, evaluation as to WHY someone wants a child,
background checks, inspection of the physical premises where the child
will be. Perhaps to then pay a tax as well - similar to a "Nuisance tax".
The collected taxes and fees could then fund or partially fund
contraception.

Plastic nappies should be outright banned worldwide for their
environmental impact! If somebody doesn't want to wash poopy diapers,
that person doesn't want to take care of a baby.

Beth

--- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, aditmore@... wrote:
>
> Breeders deserve every torture I can imagine including an overpopulated
> future.  There's no torture not deserved by those who scorn municipal
> contraception and insist on breeding or who deny overpopulation.  The
> only innocent are the wildlife and the nonbreeder children of the
> overpopulating scum.
> Antiabortion breeder Moos are already dropping like flies in places
like
> Darfur and Somalia, and I'm not sorry, and won't become sorry when
> similar conditions come here.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.childfree?hl=en
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/childfreetown/
> -Al
>
> -------------------------------------
> I rethought all of it and put it out on my website:
> http://cynics4bettertomorrow.org/worldfuture.html
>
>
> Cynical Future
>
> I am quite cynical of there even being any sort of tomorrow. The world
> "we will leave our children" is such that I would not dream of putting
> someone I loved - or even someone I disliked - into it.

____________________________________________________________
Culinary Arts Schools
Earn your Culinary Degree at a college near you. Get info and apply!

Municipal contraception is intended as a beginning, not an end, but a
first step to set precedents which, once set, become easier and easier
for more and more levels of government to follow, including the feds and
UN eventually, as the local benefits become obvious to everyone.  It is a
way to get the ball rolling.  The strategy revolves around the political
problem of how do we get there from here.  It is not intended to cover
everyone, just to cover someone as preferable to covering no one.  Just
as one state broke the dam on gay marriage, for others to follow, one
town can break the dam on serious contraception funding.
As for eligibility, contraception is so cost-effective, that a town can
afford to fund contraception considerably beyond it's residents, for
anyone who might potentially move in and use local public school or
childcare taxes.  Normally I would expect the free or subsidized price
contraception to be given out to anyone who is physically within the town
at that moment.  Though negatively priced contraception, where the town
pays people to take it like Project Prevention:
http://www.projectprevention.org/
might have to be limited to town residents depending on the budget
situation, or one level up, meaning town funding for county residents,
county funding for state residents, state funding for national residents,
and/or national funding for world residents (as in the current USAID
funding), or perhaps continental residents, as in NAU or OAS, or EU.
Basically, as the ability to pay for itself depends on public school
eligibility and saving the money many times over in school and child
services, eligibility for contraception would be tied to potential
eligibility for the school or child services that it prevents.
So what I am saying is that it is still cheaper for the taxpayers of a
town to fund contraception for everyone in the county, one level up, than
for town taxpayers to fund public school for just the town children
produced by the absence of such funding.  This being justified by the
significant likelyhood that a county resident family with children might
move into the town and use municipal child services and that chance times
the cost of child services still exceeding the cost of contraception.
         This is intended as a response to the reality that serious global
and national contraceptive funding is a political pipe dream because
supporters are in the minority and are thus helpless.  But supporters are
not necessarily a minority in every town, city, county, and state,
especially with current political migration and especially with political
migration which could be purposefully accelerated.
-Alan

-------------------------
I don't see how municipal contraception can work. For one thing, everyone
does not live in a municipality. A significant number of people do not
live in any town. Another thing is that what sort of residency
requirements will be in place to get contraceptives from that town/city?
If someone has just moved there and does not yet qualify for free
contraception, they end up with babies. Some people and classes of people
are very mobile, so would frequently end up being "caught without". Or,
various municipalities "buying from the lowest bidder" and getting things
which outright do not work. Municipalities currently have an incentive to
have as many people COUNTED as living in them as possible to get federal
and state funds.

I think the contraceptives should be provided by national or
international groups - to ALL. It should be something which cannot be
easily stopped, forgotten, or run out of - such as vasectomy, tubal
ligation, or at least implants.

Enforcement for irresponsible breeding should be enforced locally. Your
neighbors are the best people to know if you've got an unregistered
screeming baby, not someone thousands of miles away. Your neighbors and
local police and courts are the ones who know if there is a giant family
of unsupervised children drinking, vandalizing, robbing, assaulting while
their egg and sperm doners fail to guide these children.

Perhaps what should be required is to put up a significant bond to cover
the damage these children will directly do, as well as having the
would-be breeder pay for a license. The license would cover such things
as parent training, evaluation as to WHY someone wants a child,
background checks, inspection of the physical premises where the child
will be. Perhaps to then pay a tax as well - similar to a "Nuisance tax".
The collected taxes and fees could then fund or partially fund
contraception.

Plastic nappies should be outright banned worldwide for their
environmental impact! If somebody doesn't want to wash poopy diapers,
that person doesn't want to take care of a baby.

Beth

--- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, aditmore@... wrote:
>
> Breeders deserve every torture I can imagine including an overpopulated
> future.  There's no torture not deserved by those who scorn municipal
> contraception and insist on breeding or who deny overpopulation.  The
> only innocent are the wildlife and the nonbreeder children of the
> overpopulating scum.
> Antiabortion breeder Moos are already dropping like flies in places
like
> Darfur and Somalia, and I'm not sorry, and won't become sorry when
> similar conditions come here.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.childfree?hl=en
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/childfreetown/
> -Al
>
> -------------------------------------
> I rethought all of it and put it out on my website:
> http://cynics4bettertomorrow.org/worldfuture.html
>
>
> Cynical Future
>
> I am quite cynical of there even being any sort of tomorrow. The world
> "we will leave our children" is such that I would not dream of putting
> someone I loved - or even someone I disliked - into it.
____________________________________________________________
Obama Raises Pell Grants
Get Your Degree with Government Grants and Scholarships!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=3wsIhM8m71joHMavdI2RPAAAJ1CGX7qxWF\
VIauI0-P2MBq9xAAQAAAAFAAAAAPx3OT4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABI2RwAAAAA=

link to contraception environmentally cost-effective article
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090731132916.htm



ps: sorry if this is a repeat, but I don't know which groups already have
this link and which don't.
____________________________________________________________
Human Resource Training
Complete an accredited human resources degree, 100% online. Free info!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=V5wBb-VHByboaVzmTwahPQAAJ1CGX7qxWF\
VIauI0-P2MBq9xAAQAAAAFAAAAAEa2Mz4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASIwAAAAA=

 

Once the first page went by with no mention of contraception, I lost interest.  This is not how to protect the planet.

-Alan

 

----------------------------------

[Attachment(s) from Sheila Davis included below]

this from Worldwatch's Lester Brown - brilliant - my thoughts exactly!

 

Sheila
**********************************************************************
Sheila Davis
Ph: (07) 5530-6600
Mobile: 0423-305-478 (out of range at home)
48 Swanson Place Neranwood  Qld  4213
**********************************************************************

 

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

____________________________________________________________
Earn an IT Degree
Browse the leading online schools offering 170 technology degrees!

Hi Alan,

 

I oppose the smoking ban also, because of liberty, but, I believe smokers can bankrupt social security much faster by paying smokers medical bills....

 

If the world really is over populated, instead of unmanaged, then those so adamantly opposed to people having children, should get out there and educate the people who are doing the uncontrolled breeding.   Print fliers on recycled paper explaining to them what they've done to your planet...   You could also open abortion clinics and fund them with donations from like minded non-breeders, I'm sure the money would flow in like a river! 

 

But, wouldn't it be better for cutting down the population if social security were to go bankrupt, then when everyone gets old, sick, and poor from medical bills they could just kill themselves!   They would have no children to miss them when they're gone... 

 

Go after those who are really procreating uncontrollably, first and you'll solve the problem much quicker!

 

Ron Leonard

 

----- Original Message -----

From: aditmore@...

To: Fisherla@... ; cecil@... ; bpostelle@... ; yelton221@... ; opinionator@... ; bbc@... ; Martin.Nesbitt@... ; greens@... ; Marc.Basnight@... ; pseibert@... ; saveourslopes@... ; billrussell@... ; Susanf@... ; rcape@... ; jandavis@... ; Newmanasheville@... ; mayorbellamy@... ; commissioner@... ; ray.bailey@... ; hollyj@... ; bill.stanley@... ; carol.peterson@... ; PublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com ; childfreetown@yahoogroups.com ; Americans_Against_illegal_Aliens@yahoogroups.com ; childfreesnip@yahoogroups.com ; conscientiousnonprocreators@yahoogroups.com ; overpopulation@yahoogroups.com ; overpopulation2@yahoogroups.com ; OverpopulationAwareness@yahoogroups.com ; population-growth-migration@yahoogroups.com ; stoppopulationclub@yahoogroups.com ; Why_breed@yahoogroups.com ; ChildfreeMs@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 5:28 PM

Subject: smoking bans harm environment

I oppose the NC-HB2 restaurant smoking ban, as well as helmet and seat belt laws and any other nannystate "safety" regulations, because the resulting population increase would destroy the environment and bankrupt social security.

-Alan Ditmore, Leicester

 

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:36:47 -0400 "Lynn Tennant (Rep. Fisher)" <Fisherla@...> writes:

	Representative Susan Fisher N. C. House of Representatives Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 (919) 715-2013   April 3, 2009
The Raleigh Report   From the Office of Representative Susan C. Fisher   The House had a particularly busy week, considering legislation to protect health, boost our state health insurance plan and improve our education system.   I am pleased with the progress we are making in these difficult times. There is little money to spend on new initiatives, but we continue to look for efficiencies and ways to improve the services the state offers. Some of these will come through the policies we are considering.   The bill we approved to limit smoking in public and in workplaces would limit exposure to secondhand smoke and the health problems with which it is associated. Our hope is that this change in the law would lower health care costs for many people. The bill now goes to the Senate.   We also elected new members to the University of North Carolina Board of Governors and remembered the late Reps. John Brown and Ted Kinney as part of a very full week.   As always, I welcome your comments and suggestions, and I hope that you will contact me if I can be of any assistance.   Education   An act to make science safer in public schools has been unanimously approved in the House. One of the measures in the bill (HB 42) would direct each local board of education to certify to the State Board of Education that its high school and middle school science laboratories are equipped with appropriate personal protective equipment for students and teachers. The bill now goes to the Senate.   Gifted students under the age of 16 could continue to attend community colleges under a bill (HB 65) that would re-enact a law that expired last September. The bill has moved through the House and is now in the Senate. The bill would also allow for students under the age of 14 to enroll in a Learn & Earn online course through a community college for college credit if that student has received appropriate approval. The intent of the bill is to serve the bright young people of North Carolina who want to get a head start on their college education.   Members of the House elected eight members to the board that directs policy for the 16 campuses of the University of North Carolina system. Three of the eight members elected on Wednesday are new to the Board. The new members are Bill Daughtridge, a Rocky Mount businessman and former House member; Walter Davenport, a Raleigh accountant and trustee chairman at Elizabeth City State University; and James Deal Jr., a Boone attorney and trustee at Appalachian State University. The five re-elected members are Fred Mills Sr., a Raleigh construction executive; Dudley Flood, a public speaker and educational consultant from Raleigh; Charles Mercer Jr., a Raleigh attorney; Dr. Al Roseman, an endodontist from Wilmington; and our own David Young, an Asheville business owner and chairman of the state Democratic Party.   Health   Legislation that would require more disclosure of medical malpractice judgments or settlements has received approval in the House and now heads to the Senate. The bill (HB 703) would require all physicians and physician assistants who are licensed or applying for licensure to report medical malpractice judgments or settlements to the North Carolina Medical Board. The board is now authorized to publish the information within the confines of medical and legal ethics.   Smoking would be banned in restaurants and workplaces that employ or serve people under 18 years of age under a proposed law that has come through the House (HB 2). If the bill is approved in the Senate, North Carolina would join 35 other states with some sort of smoking ban. During several hours of debate on the bill, proponents argued that the smoking ban would improve the overall health of North Carolinians and limit unwanted exposure to dangerous secondhand smoke. Opponents of the bill claim that it infringes upon personal property rights of both individuals and business owners.   Economic Recovery   North Carolina's House and Senate Committees on Economic Recovery met this week to discuss tax provisions and transportation expenditures in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). ARRA is the federal stimulus package set in motion by President Obama to address the national economic downturn. North Carolina will receive about $6.1 billion from the recovery package to help with our own economic recovery efforts.  For more information on how the act will affect North Carolina, please visit the website at: www.ncrecovery.gov.   Environment   On Tuesday I attended the bill signing at the Old House Chamber in the State Capitol where Governor Perdue signed a bill that establishes Grandfather Mountain State Park (SB 89). North Carolina's newest state park is made up of about 2,500 acres of undeveloped land spanning Watauga, Avery and Caldwell counties. This spring, the state will formally purchase the land from the family of Hugh Morton, who developed the area as a tourist attraction in the 1950s. The purchase includes the nature center and a "mile-high" swinging bridge near Boone. The park will also include 12 miles of trails.   Notes   On Wednesday, members of the NC House honored former House member John Walter Brown with House Joint Resolution (HJR 53). During his tenure in the General Assembly, John Walter Brown served as chair of the Committee on Agriculture and made significant contributions as a member of several other committees, including Finance, State Government, Transportation, and Wildlife Resources. Among his other accomplishments is helping to establish the prestigious School of Veterinary Science at North Carolina State University. John Walter Brown died on November 20, 2008 at the age of 90. He represented Wilkes, Alexander and Yadkin Counties for 13 terms.   On Thursday, members of the NC House formally honored the memory of former House member Theodore James "Ted" Kinney with House Joint Resolution (HJR 224). For 21 years, Ted Kinney served his country as an active member of the United States Army. During his tenure in the General Assembly, Ted Kinney made contributions as Chair of the Committee on Military, Veterans, and Indian Affairs and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Justice and Public Safety, and as a member of several other committees, including Education and Transportation. He was also active in his community and served as executive director of the Cape Fear Community Development Corporation and chair of the Fayetteville Human Services Commission. Theodore James "Ted" Kinney died on November 2, 2008 at the age of 76 from complications relating to diabetes. He represented Cumberland County for three terms.    Please remember that you can listen to each day's session, committee meetings and press conferences on the General Assembly's website at www.ncleg.net. Once on the site, select "audio," and then make your selection - House Chamber, Senate Chamber, Appropriations Committee Room or Press Conference Room.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
Click now to save big on brand name luggage.

 

Plus this is very interesting in terms of political alignments, appealing
to culturally liberal hawks.
-Al

http://gayrights.change.org/actions/view/investigate_violence_toward_lgbt
_citizens_of_iraq
____________________________________________________________
Get the healthy glow without the harmful rays! Click now for great sunless
tanning!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTF0TqGFrEDh4z9GYkYlntSd9SslIOL\
ua3dYgpyqgXB6gWm12wUVTy/

	Representative Susan Fisher N. C. House of Representatives Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 (919) 715-2013   April 3, 2009
The Raleigh Report   From the Office of Representative Susan C. Fisher   The House had a particularly busy week, considering legislation to protect health, boost our state health insurance plan and improve our education system.   I am pleased with the progress we are making in these difficult times. There is little money to spend on new initiatives, but we continue to look for efficiencies and ways to improve the services the state offers. Some of these will come through the policies we are considering.   The bill we approved to limit smoking in public and in workplaces would limit exposure to secondhand smoke and the health problems with which it is associated. Our hope is that this change in the law would lower health care costs for many people. The bill now goes to the Senate.   We also elected new members to the University of North Carolina Board of Governors and remembered the late Reps. John Brown and Ted Kinney as part of a very full week.   As always, I welcome your comments and suggestions, and I hope that you will contact me if I can be of any assistance.   Education   An act to make science safer in public schools has been unanimously approved in the House. One of the measures in the bill (HB 42) would direct each local board of education to certify to the State Board of Education that its high school and middle school science laboratories are equipped with appropriate personal protective equipment for students and teachers. The bill now goes to the Senate.   Gifted students under the age of 16 could continue to attend community colleges under a bill (HB 65) that would re-enact a law that expired last September. The bill has moved through the House and is now in the Senate. The bill would also allow for students under the age of 14 to enroll in a Learn & Earn online course through a community college for college credit if that student has received appropriate approval. The intent of the bill is to serve the bright young people of North Carolina who want to get a head start on their college education.   Members of the House elected eight members to the board that directs policy for the 16 campuses of the University of North Carolina system. Three of the eight members elected on Wednesday are new to the Board. The new members are Bill Daughtridge, a Rocky Mount businessman and former House member; Walter Davenport, a Raleigh accountant and trustee chairman at Elizabeth City State University; and James Deal Jr., a Boone attorney and trustee at Appalachian State University. The five re-elected members are Fred Mills Sr., a Raleigh construction executive; Dudley Flood, a public speaker and educational consultant from Raleigh; Charles Mercer Jr., a Raleigh attorney; Dr. Al Roseman, an endodontist from Wilmington; and our own David Young, an Asheville business owner and chairman of the state Democratic Party.   Health   Legislation that would require more disclosure of medical malpractice judgments or settlements has received approval in the House and now heads to the Senate. The bill (HB 703) would require all physicians and physician assistants who are licensed or applying for licensure to report medical malpractice judgments or settlements to the North Carolina Medical Board. The board is now authorized to publish the information within the confines of medical and legal ethics.   Smoking would be banned in restaurants and workplaces that employ or serve people under 18 years of age under a proposed law that has come through the House (HB 2). If the bill is approved in the Senate, North Carolina would join 35 other states with some sort of smoking ban. During several hours of debate on the bill, proponents argued that the smoking ban would improve the overall health of North Carolinians and limit unwanted exposure to dangerous secondhand smoke. Opponents of the bill claim that it infringes upon personal property rights of both individuals and business owners.   Economic Recovery   North Carolina’s House and Senate Committees on Economic Recovery met this week to discuss tax provisions and transportation expenditures in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). ARRA is the federal stimulus package set in motion by President Obama to address the national economic downturn. North Carolina will receive about $6.1 billion from the recovery package to help with our own economic recovery efforts.  For more information on how the act will affect North Carolina, please visit the website at: www.ncrecovery.gov.   Environment   On Tuesday I attended the bill signing at the Old House Chamber in the State Capitol where Governor Perdue signed a bill that establishes Grandfather Mountain State Park (SB 89). North Carolina’s newest state park is made up of about 2,500 acres of undeveloped land spanning Watauga, Avery and Caldwell counties. This spring, the state will formally purchase the land from the family of Hugh Morton, who developed the area as a tourist attraction in the 1950s. The purchase includes the nature center and a “mile-high” swinging bridge near Boone. The park will also include 12 miles of trails.   Notes   On Wednesday, members of the NC House honored former House member John Walter Brown with House Joint Resolution (HJR 53). During his tenure in the General Assembly, John Walter Brown served as chair of the Committee on Agriculture and made significant contributions as a member of several other committees, including Finance, State Government, Transportation, and Wildlife Resources. Among his other accomplishments is helping to establish the prestigious School of Veterinary Science at North Carolina State University. John Walter Brown died on November 20, 2008 at the age of 90. He represented Wilkes, Alexander and Yadkin Counties for 13 terms.   On Thursday, members of the NC House formally honored the memory of former House member Theodore James “Ted” Kinney with House Joint Resolution (HJR 224). For 21 years, Ted Kinney served his country as an active member of the United States Army. During his tenure in the General Assembly, Ted Kinney made contributions as Chair of the Committee on Military, Veterans, and Indian Affairs and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Justice and Public Safety, and as a member of several other committees, including Education and Transportation. He was also active in his community and served as executive director of the Cape Fear Community Development Corporation and chair of the Fayetteville Human Services Commission. Theodore James “Ted” Kinney died on November 2, 2008 at the age of 76 from complications relating to diabetes. He represented Cumberland County for three terms.    Please remember that you can listen to each day’s session, committee meetings and press conferences on the General Assembly’s website at www.ncleg.net. Once on the site, select "audio," and then make your selection – House Chamber, Senate Chamber, Appropriations Committee Room or Press Conference Room.

 

 

 

First, people can't usually breed in prison and to that extent prison is
good until such time as chemical castration of criminals becomes
politically viable.  Second, France is increasing social services like
schools in order to INCREASE fertility, third, I won't be blackmailed by
breeders.  Fourth, it is only ONE very specific and budgetarily tiny
fraction of education, contraceptive and overpopulation education, that
reduces fertility, and that can be done through PSAs, not budget busting
education in general, and fifth, Russia's fertility rate declined during
an economic crisis in which public schools were cut, as did the US in the
1930s.
You have reverse causality correlation.  High fertility rates cause bad
schools, not visa versa.
         Oh and lastly, Public schools are one of the few breeder
subsidies that can be attacked on the local level in towns where
overpopulation activists are most concentrated, the ONLY way the
overpopulation movement can be politically viable when political
minorities get nothing.  If 49.9% of the voters, in a nation OR TOWN,
believe in overpopulation, the effect on policy is zero if not negative
due to contrarian reaction.  Therefore we must relocate into local
majorities and cut schools, in which case hopefully we won't have
breeders for neighbors anyway.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/childfreetown/
-Al

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:51:02 -0000 "e> writes:
> Here's the reason that it makes sense for everyone to fund public
> education.  Some states used to determine how much prison space they
> needed based on literacy rates or graduation rates because these
> were such good indicators of how many people were likely to commit
> crimes.  (I don't know if they still do this and I'm too busy to
> research that right now.)  There is a direct correlation between
> lack of education and criminal behavior of all types.  Thus, it
> benefits me to educate my neighbor's kid so that he or she doesn't
> one day break into my house.  Public education is necessary because
> most people would not be able to afford a private school for their
> children.  Even when you account for the money they'd save in
> property taxes or other taxes that fund education, they still would
> pay much more.  This would price people out of education and lead to
> a host of other problems.  Moreover, people are statistically more
> likely to have large families if they are less educated.  For every
> degree that a person holds, there is a statistical decline in the
> number of children that he or she will have.  This means that public
> education gives school access to a large percentage of the
> population, decreases those people's chances of committing crimes,
> and decreases the number of children that they will produce.  Add to
> that the fact that teenagers, particularly girls, are far less
> likely to engage in sex when they've had sex education, at school,
> that includes discussion of diseases, prevention, pregnancy, etc.
> It is purely in my own interest that I pay such taxes.  Pragmatism,
> plain and simple. :)
>
> --- In ChildfreeMs@yahoogroups.com, aditmore@... wrote:
> >
> > A deadbeat is a deadbeat regardless of what society generally
> excepts.
> > -Al
> >
> > On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:00:26 -0000 "speedwalkie" <speedwalkie@...>
> > writes:
> > > I don't think a parent utilizing public schools is a "deadbeat".
>  Our
> > > society generally accepts the existence and expense of public
> > > education.  It's a default assumption that parents will send
> their
> > > children to public schools.
> > >
> > > What isn't generally assumed is that a parent will abdicate his
> home
> > > responsibilities, which include feeding and providing a home for
> his
> > > own offspring.  Ignoring that responsibility, and not actively
> > > ensuring someone else assumes that responsibility makes a parent
> a
> > > deadbeat.
> > >
> > > --- In ChildfreeMs@yahoogroups.com, aditmore@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Of course anyone who sends their kids to public schools is a
> > > deadbeat
> > > > because they are having children and letting childless peoples
>
> > > taxes help
> > > > them with childcare and education.  This is greatly
> > > underreported.
> > > > -Al
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:46:28 -0000 "speedwalkie"
> > > <speedwalkie@>
> > > > writes:
> > > > > Most of society dislikes deadbeat parents, but I think this
>
> > > makes my
> > > > > point even stronger.  These deadbeats know that they are
> doing
> > > > > something society dislikes.  They know that their offspring
> and
> > > the
> > > > > other parent of the offspring will harbor negative feelings
>
> > > toward
> > > > > them for being deadbeats.  They also know they should feel
> an
> > > > > obligation toward the children they created.  Yet, despite
> all
> > > that,
> > > > > the deadbeats apparently dislike the experience of
> parenthood so
> > >
> > > > > much, they actively try to extricate themselves from it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Among the reasons I dislike deadbeats is they seem to want
> the
> > > > > spoils of childfreedom without the downfalls.  Nobody nags
> them
> > > to
> > > > > have children, or tells them they're selfish not to have
> > > children,
> > > > > because they do already have them.  They get to continue
> their
> > > > > genetics, which is important to many people (not me).
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, it's also pretty common for these deadbeats to
> try to
> > >
> > > > > come back into their offsprings' lives once they reach
> adulthood
> > > and
> > > > > all the hard work and expense of rearing children are no
> longer
> > >
> > > > > needed.  How convenient.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In ChildfreeMs@yahoogroups.com, Leslie Litzenberg
> > > > > <lslitzenberg@> wrote:
> > > > > > I have no sympathy whatsoever for deadbeat parents.� I
> > > > > understand their lack of maternal or paternal feelings, but
> I
> > > don't
> > > > > understand how you can walk away from a legal, moral and
> social
> > >
> > > > > obligation, or fight so hard to� avoid it.
> > > > > > �
> > > > > > Leslie
> > > > >
> > > > >
____________________________________________________________
Turn your concept into reality. Click for professional signage solutions.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTOAPbbQa8HcA1TEK6FNT4tBUHxwdSd\
MYvJ79xQdX7TNf1HRhc92sI/

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "mm
To: ChildfreeMs@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 03:57:43 -0000
Subject: [ChildfreeMs] New York Times Article "Does Having Children Make
You Unhappy?"
Message-ID: <gr1d3n+t9tf@egroups.com>

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/why-does-anyone-have-childr
en/

April 1, 2009

Does Having Children Make You Unhappy?
By Lisa Belkin

Children do not bring happiness. In fact more often they seem to bring
unhappiness. That is the conclusion of one academic study after the next
— and there are so many that it makes one wonder if researchers kept
trying, hoping for a different result.

In the April edition of the online Journal of the British Psychological
Association, researcher Nattavudh Powdthavee, of the University of York
in Great Britain (whose own academic work concludes that there is no
difference between the life satisfaction levels of parents and
non-parents) summarizes the existing studies:

Using data sets from Europe and America, numerous scholars have found
some evidence that, on aggregate, parents often report statistically
significantly lower levels of happiness (Alesina et al., 2004), life
satisfaction (Di Tella et al., 2003), marital satisfaction (Twenge et
al., 2003) and mental well-being (Clark & Oswald, 2002) compared with
non-parents.

And it is not just the years of active parenting that tamp down
happiness, Powdthavee writes:

There is also evidence that the strains associated with parenthood are
not only limited to the period during which children are physically and
economically dependent. For example, Glenn and McLanahan (1981) found
those older parents whose children have left home report the same or
slightly less happiness than non-parents of similar age and status. Thus,
what these results are suggesting is something very controversial — that
having children does not bring joy to our lives.

Which leads to the seminal question — why does anyone have children in
the first place? If, statistically and on average, parents are no
happier, and many are less happy, then those without children, then what
are all these baby showers about?

Is it because we see others struggle, but we figure it won't be as much
of a struggle for us? Because we focus on the upside — the coos and the
smiles and the little chubby cheeks? Powdthavee believes we do "delude"
ourselves to an extent when choosing parenthood:

There is a widespread belief in every human culture that children bring
happiness. When people are asked to think about parenthood — either
imagining future offspring or thinking about their current ones — they
tend to conjure up pictures of healthy babies, handsome boys or
gorgeous-looking girls who are flawless in every way. This is the case
even when the prospective parents know that raising a child will be
painstakingly difficult; they tend to think quite happily about
parenthood, which is why most of them eventually leap into it.

And are these rose-colored blinders somehow fitted for us by nature?
There are theories about that, too, Powdhavtee writes:

Why do we have such a rosy view about parenthood? One possible
explanation for this, according to Daniel Gilbert (2006), is that the
belief that "children bring happiness" transmits itself much more
successfully from generation to generation than the belief that "children
bring misery." The phenomenon, which Gilbert says is a
"super-replicator," can be explained further by the fact that people who
believe that there is no joy in parenthood – and who thus stop having
them — are unlikely to be able to pass on their belief much further
beyond their own generation. It is a little bit like Darwin's theory of
the survival of the fittest. Only the belief that has the best chance of
transmission — even if it is a faulty one — will be passed on.

Maybe though, it is because we are not "deluded" at all; perhaps see
clearly that parenting is hard, but there are moments — enough of them —
to make it worth it. Powdhatvee explores that idea, but concludes that
what we see as "enough of them" is probably a bit of a delusion in
itself. Follow along here, it's a little complicated, but worth it:

It is, if you like, like winning a lottery. We may be incredibly happy at
first if we win £1,000,000 from the National Lottery. But soon enough
that money will go into our bank account or into our other extravagant
spending sprees in the forms of nice cars or a big house in the country,
most of which, after having got them, we do not spend a lot of time
thinking about everyday (see, for example, Kahneman et al., 2006).
However, because the experience of winning the lottery is so salient to
us — perhaps partly because it is such a rare event — if we are asked to
think about it again, we are likely to exaggerate the value that it
brings.

It is, on the other hand, much more likely that we as parents will end up
spending a large chunk of our time attending to the very core process of
child care such as, "Am I going to be able to pick up David from his
school in time?" or"`How do I stop Sarah from crying?" Most of these
negative experiences are a lot less salient than the positive experiences
we have with our kids, which is probably why we tend not to think about
them when prompted with a question of whether or not children bring us
happiness. Nevertheless, it is these small but more frequent negative
experiences, rather than the less frequent but meaningful experiences,
that take up most of our attention in a day. It should therefore come to
no surprise to us that these negative experiences that come with
parenthood will show up much more often in our subjective experiences,
including happiness and life satisfaction, than activities that are,
although rewarding, relatively rare.

Powdhatvee has no children. But don't assume that he has rationally and
scientifically decided not to have them. To the contrary he wrote this
essay (which has been generating angry headlines in British newspapers,
such as "Children don't make you happy…says an expert who doesn't have
any") to explore why, in spite of the research, he does want to be a
parent. He plans to ask his girlfriend's father for his "blessing" any
day now, he writes, and then the couple want to have children, "hopefully
one girl and one boy."

Why did you decide to have children? Are you happier than before they
were born? And was "happiness" even one of the reasons on your decision
tree?





------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



Purify your water with professional water treatment. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTK8PIU4z58Bmu3aWFWBpZZFm5QkxxI\
iWJPEXX7XvLCeo4BVu9sPmg/

In vitro fertilization, like seat belt laws, destroy the environment by
aggravating overpopulation and between them could easily more than undo
the environmental benefits of associated contraceptive coverage.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Universal_coverage_First_look_a
t_the_disaster_in_Massachusetts_011109.html#comments

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mandatory-health-ins
urance.asp

http://libertyasheville.ning.com/group/healthfreedom/forum/topic/show?id=
2590514%3ATopic%3A4549

I'm glad the WE article singles out in vitro fertilization because that
just annihilates the environment and could more than make up for the
environmental benefits of contraceptive coverage. Seat belt laws, smoking
and transfat bans etc. also harm the environment by aggravating
overpopulation.
If the Obama healthcare plan is going to cover IVF then I am definately
and actively opposed!!
NO MORE OCTOMOMS!!!
____________________________________________________________
Click here for pool floats, toys, sports, and water games.  Great products and
service.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTHY42SEgw8lcIRL41319srkhQmeJBH\
nU3tDK3gP0Yq4rgKwjHi02c/

https://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=top-10-myths-about-sustainability&pa
ge=4

please log in and comment on the site.

Sustainability "myth" #9 is absolutely inaccurate and dishonest on the
part of scientific American and on your part for linking to it.
Population related consumption can be reduced in 9 months, 2 months if
prenatal care related energy consumption is included, which is easily as
fast a "time scale" as any alternative energy or efficiency scheme.
Population is also why smoking helps the environment and automotive air
bags harm it.
-Alan Ditmore
____________________________________________________________
Get a Business Credit Card. Click Here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFF0u0e0SgKg52od20fWy29wMzGc4a\
N7r6ofVSNBboQu63Z0dMmXm/

Call for tougher land clearing laws

BY ROSSLYN BEEBY
SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT REPORTER

26/03/2009 1:00:00 AM

Federal environment laws must be overhauled to toughen controls on land clearing and impose tighter restrictions on ministerial powers, a Senate report says.

It warns current laws are failing to deal with the ''devastating impact'' of land clearing across Australia, including an accelerated rate of species loss. The report raises concerns about the inability to challenge ministerial decisions on development approvals, endangered species listings or recovery plans for threatened plants and wildlife.

Co-director of the Australian National University's centre for climate law, Andrew Macintosh, has also questioned the cost-effectiveness of the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which was passed in 1999 and amended in 2006.

In a new book to be published later this year, he estimates the annual cost of administering the Act may have blown out to $30 million well above the Government's published estimate of $13 million.

''To justify such a large administrative expense, along with the associated compliance costs, there should be clear evidence of positive improvements in environmental outcomes,'' Dr Macintosh said.

He said the Act had limited application to land clearing and climate change two of the biggest threats to biodiversity and little effort had been made by the Federal Government to monitor compliance and enforce relevant laws.

The Senate report says several submissions to the inquiry investigating the Act's effectiveness suggested it ''does not actually protect or require protection of anything'' and falls short of meeting Australia's international obligations under the World Heritage agreement.

Submissions to the inquiry suggested developers were exploiting a loophole in the Act, breaking up big projects into smaller components to play down their total environmental impact.

As a result, Australia's native plants and animals faced ''a death of a thousand cuts'' as piecemeal developments progressively eroded remaining habitat, the report said.

The Senate committee was also concerned that ''ministerial discretion'' and delays in assessing threatened species listings ''are undermining the credibility of the nomination and listing process''.

The report recommends the Government ''consider including a land clearing trigger in the Act'', but in additional comments appended to the report, the Australian Greens have urged a tougher stance.

In a joint statement, Senator Rachel Siewert and Senator Scott Ludlum said the Act had ''effectively bureaucratised the protection of the environment and the conservation of biodiversity producing a moribund box-ticking approach''.

Australian Conservation Foundation spokeswoman Amy Hankinson said Australia was '' long overdue for strong laws that grapple with land clearing''.

She said it remained a major environmental threat and was Australia's fourth largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

A spokesman for federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said the issue of new triggers for the Act ''including greenhouse and land clearing'' were within the terms of reference for a statutory review of the Act, currently being conducted by former ANU chancellor Allan Hawke.

 

Sheila
**********************************************************************
Sheila Davis
Ph: (07) 5530-6600
Mobile: 0423-305-478 (out of range at home)
Box 199, Mudgeeraba  Qld  4213
**********************************************************************

 

 

With regard to population and greenhouse gases, as suggested by Jennie below, we have been pushing this line, quite a bit.  In fact a whole group of us, led by Tom Gosling, were active in writing a submission to include in the Climate Action Group's submission to the government, specifically addressing population.

 

please find attached - called Draft 3 because it's to go into the 3rd draft of the paper, but this is the final version we sent in.

 

perhaps this should go on the SPA website.

 

Sheila Davis

---

From: PopForum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PopForum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jennie Epstein
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 8:02 PM
To: PopForum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PopForum] Letter re Mark O'Connor's culumn

Maybe we could push this line a bit?

 

Jennie

 

Population growth

Anonymous. The Advertiser. Adelaide, S. Aust.: Mar 9, 2009. pg. 16

 

Full Text (160  words)

((C) Copyright Nationwide News Pty Limited)

MARK O'Connor's column (The Advertiser, 3/3/09) describes some of the problems caused by population growth. The Federal Government's recent White Paper on reducing greenhouse emissions, or "carbon pollution reduction", shows that with a projected population growth of 45 per cent from 1990 to 2020, the Government's proposed target of 5-15 per cent emissions reductions from year 2000 levels by 2020 (as a first move to achieving a 60 per cent reduction by 2050) would involve 34-41 per cent reductions in per capita emissions for every Australian.

What the paper doesn't show is that with no population growth, the per capita reductions needed would only be 5-15 per cent and if population was reduced by 5-15 per cent over the same period, the per capita reduction needed would be zero.

This shows that one of the main drivers of greenhouse emissions is population growth. Much of the effort to reduce emissions should be aimed at stopping this growth. B.M. DINHAM, Hawthorn.

 

 

 

http://www.nbc33tv.com/features/33md/33md-march-11-2009

The evidence seems anecdotal so far but hard numbers should come out
soon.  Is anyone finding hard numbers already?
____________________________________________________________
Click here to compare prices and features on point of sale systems.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTEHA9L4IAIRbjPvytQJXSdQYO4f6We\
A8ZbRiGOKUSJ8M3LkCKDEhq/

Unlike the plagues of the dark ages, or contemporary diseases which

we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation

is solvable with means we have discovered and with resources we

possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution,

but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and the

education of the billions who are its victims.” – Speech, 5 May 1966

Source citation:

Abstract:

--------- Forwarded message ----------



== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 8 2008 7:48 am
From: rock-a-day johnny



Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have
learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and
support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you
said
"in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to
share
that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to
defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus
18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements
of
God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female,
provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him
myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I
don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may ! not approach the altar of God if I have
a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around
their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27.
How
should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to
curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the
trouble of
getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with
people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable
expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.
--
If guns are  out-lawed. Only the Out-laws & politicians will have guns.
____________________________________________________________
Dreaming of getting away?  Click here for an island experience in Hawaii.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nKLOlL9OJ11aZ3f36F65TX7BP8uoV\
CC7rNWMDcS87FHkYnv/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/childfreetown/

http://rantarama.wordpress.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
An Environmentalist Wants to Make Babies
February 27, 2008 by rantarama
I’m a committed environmentalist and my family does all it can to reduce
our ecological footprint. I won’t go into details, but we’re walking the
talk as fast as we can. I’m especially worried because I have two
children. I worry about the future all the time.

The problem is, I want to have another baby. Oh, to have a little one at
my breast and FEEL that sense of well being, that you are all this little
baby needs or wants in the world. I want those feelings again.

Oh, they were such good … such amazingly good feelings. Maybe Gaia has
these feelings, too. Will Gaia understand how important it is for me to
respond to these feelings, even if She is burdened with another little
homo sapien? Yes, I know that by 2050 there will be 10 billion of us
swarming over Her once-healthy body, all looking for that loving teat.
But I’m sure She’ll understand. She must know how great it feels to be a
Mother.

Before our species destroyed her youth and vitality, She felt the same
way about us. I’m sure of it. She’s the most important thing in the world
to our species. We need Her, just like my baby will need me. Gaia can’t
help but be a Mother, and neither can I.

As a Mother who’s environmentally aware, I know all about ecological
footprints and carrying capacity. But because I’ll be raising my baby the
right way, the green way, she’ll be special. Because of our lifestyle,
her footprint will be much, much smaller than the average irresponsible
parent’s child. She’ll grow up to reject materialism, car culture, and
the lure of the mall. I’m sure of it.

It probably won’t matter, though, because those evils of modern culture
probably won’t exist by the time she’s a teenager. There probably won’t
be any green space left or healthy food to eat, but our yard is pretty
darn big for a new subdivision. I’m sure we can make a super garden and
grow enough food in that space behind the house once we move the
barbecue.

We could put a garden on top of the double garage! That would double our
growing space! Anyway, it won’t matter that the new baby won’t have the
opportunities that Joe and I had. I mean, she and the other kids can live
at home as long as they want to.

I’m raising the kids to be kind, responsible and peace-loving adults who
will understand that, even though our generation polluted the earth and
the water, it wasn’t our fault. We had to– it was called Progress. And
I’ll be raising a child who can meet the challenge of adapting to a hot,
unpredictable climate. For example, today we bought a canvas bag to carry
home our groceries, and tomorrow … no more bottled water!

You know, some people say the world doesn’t need any more of us. Well, if
you’re talking about Chinese and Indians who reproduce like rabbits, I
can sure see that argument! But this baby will be raised by an educated,
environmentally-aware mother who cares deeply about the future and who
only uses phosphate-free detergent and organic makeup remover. My kids
are part of the solution! Just like me.

I’ve been visiting these peak oil web sites lately and those guys do have
a point. In a world with scarce and expensive oil, well, there won’t be
much industry or finance, and so my kids probably won’t need to get a
university education. I sure hope some kind of government survives– we’re
going to need a police force to keep the apartment dwellers from raiding
my garden!

Anyway, I think it’ll do the kids some good to learn real meaningful
work, close to land, using solid, honourable tools like hoes, shovels and
pitchforks.

I feel bad that Little Betsey will have to give up her ballerina dreams,
and Joe Jr. probably won’t need that electric guitar he’s been pestering
me for. Although, unless the kids can get a hold of some land they’ll end
up working for either the military or the local landowner. And I wouldn’t
want that. Although, in the army they’ll at least get two meals a day. I
wish mom and dad hadn’t sold the farm and bought that condo in Florida.
The kids could have used that land.

You know, we can’t agonize about the future all the time. Children are
our hope for the future. My child could be the one who solves the
problems of mankind! She might invent space-travel technology that will
allow us to colonize planets around Alpha Centauri. Or invent microbes
that consume plastic, radioactive waste, and used diapers.

My baby could grow up to be the President who finally enforces meaningful
penalties for polluters and emissions standards for cars. (Did I tell you
we finally traded in the Suburban for a Prius? But I still can’t give up
the Volvo.) Maybe she’ll be the next great spiritual leader who will
inspire people worldwide to be peaceful and learn acceptance of the new,
harsher reality. She’ll find a way to deal with malaria, TB, SARS, ebola,
dysentry, malnutrition, infertility, infant mortality in a holistic,
spiritual context. So I always stay positive. Babies represent hope for
the future. And they will need as much hope as they can get.

Did you know that George Monbiot’s wife had a baby? I’m so happy for her!
I wonder if David Suzuki’s wife went to her baby shower? Apparently Mrs.
Monbiot was reassured by a fellow environmentalist who said it was fine
to have one or two children if you lived carefully. “It’s all about
limiting your emissions,” he said.

Maybe she’ll end up having three, like me! She could afford it, since her
husband must be making a lot of money selling those books about global
warming. I read in Canadian Geographic that the average Canadian emits
9.1 tonnes of CO2 annually. But I can purchase carbon offsets for as
little as $5.50 per tonne. That works out to only $455 a year to make my
baby carbon-neutral! We can afford that, even on Joe’s wages!

Anyway, I think it’s selfish not to have another child. For me to the
deny the world the joy of creation because of my own fears is wrong. I
will be brave and bring another beautiful perfect creature into the
world!

Tags: babies, environment, environmentalists, foot print, global warming,
over population
Posted in Society | No Comments »

My concern here is that these sound like the writings of a few experts
rather than the kind of popular support that can produce a bandwagon
effect, political momentum, in internet chatrooms.
-Alan

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:41:26 -0000 "gaiawatch"
<jbarker@...> writes:
> Dear Alan Ditmore,
>
> Your interesting e-mail of 22 November 2007. I had wanted to respond
>
> earlier but numerous urgent tasks have prevented this until now.
> You comment that in the internet discussion of China's one-child
> policy and overpopulation, Chinese contributions seem to be missing.
>
> This could be because Chinese contributions are usually in Chinese,
> as you suggest.
>
> However, type into Google: China Population Information and Research
>
> Center, then if you click on an article, close the little language
> box that comes up and you will be able to read articles in English.
>
> Of course the internet is not the only medium where population
> issues
> are discussed, and much has been published on China's population in
> paper form, including by Chinese people living in China, some
> working
> in Chinese universities. See Peng Xizhe and Guo Zhigang (2000) "The
> changing population of China"  Blackwell
> ISBN (hardback) 0 631 20191 2
> ISBN (paperback) 0 631 20192 0.
>
> The Chinese have rightly recognised the importance of the one-child
> policy in reducing population growth in China and the world, while
> recognising that there are population policy problems to be
> addressed
> (e.g. with the ageing population). Here is a quote from one of the
> articles at the above web site:
>
> "China's one-child policy has successfully reined in its population
> growth and helped prevent 300 million births -- about the size of
> the
> U.S. population -- postponing the arrival of 1.3 billion population
> by four years.
> However, Cai said, it is necessary for China to make a proper
> readjustment of its current population policy when a reasonable
> population structure becomes more important than the pressure
> brought
> by population growth."
>
> You will also find interesting Zeng Yi (2007) "Options for fertility
>
> policy transition in China" Population and Development Review volume
>
> 33, issue 2, pages 215-246.
>
> While not the subject of your e-mail, I would like to point out that
>
> the massive reduction in birth rate in China did not start with the
> introduction of the one- child policy, but started as the result of
> earlier adopted policies as the references I have given above will
> show. See also Therese Hesketh, Li Lu and Zhu Wei Xing ( 2005) "The
> effect of China's One-Child Family Policy after 25 Years" The New
> England Journal of Medicine volume 353 pages 1171-1176.
>
> Finally, another useful book is Judith Banister (1987) "China's
> changing population" Stanford University Press.
>
> Best wishes,
> John Barker, Gaia Watch
>
>

Dear Alan Ditmore,

Your interesting e-mail of 22 November 2007. I had wanted to respond
earlier but numerous urgent tasks have prevented this until now.
You comment that in the internet discussion of China's one-child
policy and overpopulation, Chinese contributions seem to be missing.
This could be because Chinese contributions are usually in Chinese,
as you suggest.

However, type into Google: China Population Information and Research
Center, then if you click on an article, close the little language
box that comes up and you will be able to read articles in English.

Of course the internet is not the only medium where population issues
are discussed, and much has been published on China's population in
paper form, including by Chinese people living in China, some working
in Chinese universities. See Peng Xizhe and Guo Zhigang (2000) "The
changing population of China"  Blackwell
ISBN (hardback) 0 631 20191 2
ISBN (paperback) 0 631 20192 0.

The Chinese have rightly recognised the importance of the one-child
policy in reducing population growth in China and the world, while
recognising that there are population policy problems to be addressed
(e.g. with the ageing population). Here is a quote from one of the
articles at the above web site:

"China's one-child policy has successfully reined in its population
growth and helped prevent 300 million births -- about the size of the
U.S. population -- postponing the arrival of 1.3 billion population
by four years.
However, Cai said, it is necessary for China to make a proper
readjustment of its current population policy when a reasonable
population structure becomes more important than the pressure brought
by population growth."

You will also find interesting Zeng Yi (2007) "Options for fertility
policy transition in China" Population and Development Review volume
33, issue 2, pages 215-246.

While not the subject of your e-mail, I would like to point out that
the massive reduction in birth rate in China did not start with the
introduction of the one- child policy, but started as the result of
earlier adopted policies as the references I have given above will
show. See also Therese Hesketh, Li Lu and Zhu Wei Xing ( 2005) "The
effect of China's One-Child Family Policy after 25 Years" The New
England Journal of Medicine volume 353 pages 1171-1176.

Finally, another useful book is Judith Banister (1987) "China's
changing population" Stanford University Press.

Best wishes,
John Barker, Gaia Watch

Short of a tax, I think it is very politically viable to cut baby
subsidies like childcare, playgrounds, and public schools and transfer
the public funds to contraception, especially in selected municipalities.
	 This is why I think I will be voting for Tom Tancredo for President
instead of Clinton.  I just watched the Democratic debates and most of
the Republican one and the Dems never once mentioned contraception or
overpopulation, but every one repeatedly advocated parental subsidies.
This makes Tancredo, with his fiscal conservativism, bottom line
attitude, and anti immigration priority the clear overpopulation
candidate.
-A

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:28:42 -0800 "Les U. Knight" <les@...>
writes:
> The trouble with economic disincentives, as Doris said, is that they
> only affect lower income couples -- the wealthy will breed as much
> as
> they want. Due to discrimination, ethnic minorities in many
> societies
> are also the ones without as much money.
>
> Economic incentives also only appeal to people with lower incomes,
> but it would be a free choice to take advantage of it or not.
> Appropriate and affordable contraceptive methods made available to
> all would be fair. Economically disadvantaged folks are more likely
> to take advantage of free services rather than go to their doctors,
> but all couples should have access.
>
> We might figure out how to structure a punitive and rewarding tax
> system to improve birth rates, but the concept is a long way from
> being acceptable. 15% favor a baby tax, so maybe eliminating the
> baby
> bounty, or at least limiting it to two offspring, might be
> acceptable
> in the near future.
>
> Alan, you wrote:
> >The overpopulation movement is simply not in a position where we
> can
> >afford to be fair. <
>
> The overpopulation movement is inherently unfair to people and
> planet. Slowing, stopping, and reversing this movement gains the
> potential for more equitable resource distribution, though it won't
> be automatic.
>
> Those of us who want to increase awareness of human overpopulation
> and propose solutions can't afford to alienate potential converts by
>
> callously disregarding fairness.
>
> An increasing shortage of justice is likely as our population
> density
> increases. This is no excuse for injustice in methods for improving
> our density.
>
> Reproductive freedom, including access to free reproductive health
> care for all is still successfully resisted by powerful interests
> such as the Bush administration, the Vatican, and fundamentalist
> sects of both Christians and Muslims. A lack of condom distribution
> in Africa and removing the US contribution to UNFPA are examples.
>
> However, I think a majority of people would agree with the goal of
> allowing and providing every couple who doesn't want to conceive the
>
> means to not do so. Promoting contraception as a means to preventing
>
> abortion also increases acceptability. A vocal minority claims that
> blastocysts are people too, and so oppose contraception, but there's
>
> no pleasing some people.
>
>  From a public relations perspective, we need to take the high
> ground
> -- righteous ways that people can agree with -- in order to be
> effective. If our opponents are the ones arguing for less freedom,
> we
> have a philosophical advantage. Many of the anti-VHEMT blogs I read
> attempt to paint us as ecofascists who are using any excuse to
> control the population. I don't use the term "population control"
> for
> VHEMT's goal because that's what we already have in the form of
> reproductive fascism.
>
>  From a personal perspective, I have no interest in promoting
> anything
> that's not as fair as circumstances permit. The ends don't justify
> the means -- the means are the end.
>
> Les
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>