The problem with the poor is they breed like sewer rats. And because of medical advances more of them live and keep on breeding. It's the same problem in Africa and Asia. Out of control breeding by the poor. In Africa I read somewhere that sex is the number 1 "extra-curricular" activity. Since these poor people can't afford entertainment, they start fornicating with whoever is next to them. You need to give them free birth control pills.
Well perhaps we agree on something. I have been in jungles not just the amazon. I also suspect that if there is warming, the reason the earth may not be healing itself is because of the decimation of trees and jungles and the mismanagement of forests. But all of my suspicions are just that suspicions. I have spoken with too many old surfers who have lived the waves in southern CA since 60s who can tell you about the cycles of warmth and cold and drought and rain we have gone through. And these guys are environmentalists. They have lived the earth much more than this current crop of scientists and you should hear about the large waves and storms of 60s. And the flat spells. Now apparently the waves are back. (I no longer live in San Diego).
. August 17, 2006 SouthAmerica: Overpopulation is at the root of the problem in various areas of the world. I wrote an article about this subject that was published in July 2000. In Brazil the people who can afford the least to have children â the complete destitute â is the group who has a lot of children. The poorest group of society is the one that is reproducing the most. In Brazil we can put some blame on this problem in the Catholic Church â a very influential institution in Brazilian society. (Not long ago 90 percent of the Brazilian population was catholic â even tough things changed a little, Brazil still is the country with the largest number of Catholics in the world.) In Africa, they have even a bigger problem than in Brazil. In Africa they have a large number of illiterate people and the problem is compounded by the fact that they have various civil wars going on, and many people are cut off from normal communications channels. It is very hard in many cases for many African governments to communicate with its own population. Here is what I said on that article that I mentioned: "Brazil started the century in 1900 with a total population of 17 million people. Brazil ended the century with an estimated total population of 170 million people. When the population of a country grows ten fold during a period of 100 years, that country is asking for social trouble, as is happening in Brazil. It does not matter which system a country has: capitalism, communism, or socialism; this magnitude of population growth is a prescription for disaster. "Today some people wonder why there is so much crime in Brazil and why its civil system is breaking down. People look for simplistic answers to the problems. They consider drugs, or something else, as the reason for the breakdown. However, the obvious reason ( population explosion ) is never understood as being the cause of the problems. "In the United States, Americans built an economic system in which the economy has to grow, grow and grow, and can't be allowed to stagnate. Growth, growth, and more growth is the mindset of Americans. The United States had only five million people around 1800, when its Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted and put into effect. The United States population had increased to 76 million people by 1900, but they had new lands, which they had bought or conquered since 1800. The United States could still afford to continue growing at that point in its history." Today there are many studies estimating the optimum population the United States can support based on its resources, wealth, location, environmental considerations and type of economic structure. "Among these studies is one by David and Marcia Pimentel, professors at Cornell University. They suggest the United States should aim at a population of less than 100 million people. University of Maryland professor Robert Costanza reaches a more pessimistic estimate of 85 million people." Based on the various studies it seems that up to 150 million people can be an acceptable limit of population for the United States. Above this number Americans are looking for trouble. The United States reached the 151 million people mark in 1950; by 1970 the US had increased its population to over 200 million people. The country again increased its population to an estimated 275 million people by the year 2000. Is it really surprising that the prison population started exploding in the United States since 1970, after the optimum population for this country of 150 million continued growing in numbers? With the accelerated advances in technology and automation which we have today in the United States, the optimum population for the United States probably should be reduced to an even lower amount of people. Maybe the country should not have a population larger than 120 million people. Most people don't understand and don't give much thought to the power of geometric progression (exponential growth) and its effect on population growth. For example, to show the power of exponential growth, in the 1980's more than 10 million legal and illegal immigrants arrived in the United States. This group of people will grow in numbers to approximately 25 million people by the year 2035. To give another example, the estimated 25 million total legal and illegal immigrants who came to the United States during the 20-year period from 1980 to 2000, will grow to approximately 60 million people by the year 2040. Government officials and the business community only think of their immediate needs of keeping labor costs down. They never think about the consequence of a growing population on future generations and its impact on the future of the country. Governments such as the United States and Brazil have learned nothing from the past. They brought slaves from Africa to accommodate their needs a long time ago, never giving much thought about the consequences of their actions on future generations. Today the United States is making the same mistake again regarding its immigration policies. The US is still letting one million people immigrate to the US per year, even though today the United States has a population of 275 million people; a number which is probably double the optimum population. The limit to population growth in Brazil If we do the same type of analysis for Brazil, we might come to a similar result. Brazil probably should not have a population larger than 80 to 100 million people as its limit. Today, Brazil might have twice the population which could be considered an optimum and desirable number of people for the country based on its natural resources, size, location, type of economy, etc. Population explosion is, in my opinion, the most important problem in Brazil. It is the cause of all other problems in Brazil today, including poverty and destitution for a large segment of the population, drugs, crime, corruption, etc.â Source: July 2000 â âOverpopulatedâ http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/6963/73/ .
. November 6, 2006 SouthAmerica: I have to repeat my original posting on this thread, and I believe more than ever that: I donât know why the American mainstream media wastes so much time covering a bunch of potential democratic presidential candidates for the 2008 US presidential election. In my opinion, no one will be able to beat Al Gore during the primaries â I am sure that he will be the Democratic Party candidate in 2008. At this point, it is just a matter of deciding who will be on the ticket with Al Gore. Since I posted the above info various candidates have dropped out of the race or have eliminated themselves for other reasons such as John Kerry. I wonder why the US mainstream media is wasting so much time about Barak Obama. I have nothing against him personally. He has most of the credentials to become a presidential candidate, butâ¦.. I can see someone called Bob Herbert (being a presidential candidate) - I am using Bob Herbertâs name just as an example since he is a black man and he is a columnist for The New York Times. Bob Herbert is a name that Americans can associate with. But when you announce here is Barak Obama - most people would expect to see someone such as a "Zulu Chief" showing up, and not a potential candidate for president of the United States. I canât see the people from many states in the United States voting for a candidate called Barak Obama. Barak Obamaâs name eliminates him from the list of potential democrat presidential candidates. For him to have any chance in the future to run for US president â first he has to change his name to Joe Lewis, Bob Herbert, Chris Ford, John Adams or something that most Americans can relate to. With a name of Barak Obama he has a better chance of becoming president of the Congo than president of the United States. ****** PS: Regarding Hillary Clinton I am sure that she will not be in the democratic presidential ticket in 2008 - even as the VP. She is a good senator for New York and she can be re-elected a number of times in future years â and if the democrats become the majority party in 2008 she would be in the running to become the majority leader in the senate after the 2008 elections. The real question is who will be with Al Gore in the democratic presidential ticket in 2008? .
I think your smoking too much of S.America's main crop!! Hillary will run... its now or never...if a Dem got elected ( like Gore or Kerry) she'd not only have to wait but support them in the next election...She'd be pushing 80 8 years from now! Also....Kerry wants it soo bad...Gore im not so sure of.....And more importantly, the Dems still haven't forgiven him for Losing to GW in 2000....talk all you want about the vote count in Florida...But thats BS...Coming off as the incumbent, 8 years as VP, economy and market prosperity....HOW in gods name can you lose? he's nto a likeable guy to most of America...heck, he didn't;t even carry his home state! I woudl look for Edwards, Kerry, Hilary to duke it out with a couple small fries.
Kerry, Gore, Hillary and Edwards wiil be the favorites going out. Kerry will never make it past Iowa. Gore will fall soon after. The battle will be between Hillary and Edwards. The powers that be will try to get Hillary to fall on her sword for the good of the party. If she does, Edwards wins the election. If not, the Republicans win with McCain.
So, to add on what Dddoo, Pabst, ZZ say -- Gore deals now with the two women in his life - his spouse and Hillary. He agrees to one term with the wife who is not keen on him running according to things I've read in the backwash. Hillary goes on as VP and then launches in 012. He has to deal with this by summer 07 anyway I would think. To one of the other posts on his weight - - he definetly needs to lose 30 pounds. As for the Trial Lawyers, they change their name to American Association For Justice after the election in two days. Interesting what your father said about Gore Claywilk. I have heard similar things said about Bill Bradley and William Cohen in the past.
Kerry -- no chance Gore -- no chance Clinton -- perhaps I'd put my hard earned on a young up-and-comer a la Obama... the baby boomers are simply running low on street cred in Dem circles... That is if Tom Carcetti chooses not to run (ha ha).
There is no way in chance a man named "Obama" will be elected in the next race....call it what you will, but middle america and the sun belt would never buy it..