A request for "more"

[Jim]

It appears South Africa has an HIV+-AIDS problem (5.7 million infected out of a popualtion of approx. 50 million). US is already the largest contributor and will be pushing in $2.8 billion from American taxpayers by 2013.

Japan, China, the EU, etc. are also being pressured to provide funding. I think their attitude is more correct as they recognize bad behavior is bad behavior and if you want to erradicate it then you might want to stop doing what is causing all of these incidences to come about to begin with. Actions => results.

Now you have 10% of your population infected with AIDS. nationa have been contributing to the effort to combat AIDS yet folks still keep getting it. I'd say that perhaps they need to stop screwing so much. Make sure that the person you want to have sex with or the needle you're using to get a high isn't coming from a sick or diseased person. You do need to look out for yourself. I mean isn't that common sense?

After billions ahve been poured into this country they don't seem to be trying to avert their own calamity it would seem. This isn't a money problem - much like our government educational system doesn't really have a money problem.

I think personal behavior is probably more the real problem instead.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100617/D9GD595G0.html

[ZOOMBAG]

It appears South Africa has an HIV+-AIDS problem (5.7 million infected out of a popualtion of approx. 50 million). US is already the largest contributor and will be pushing in $2.8 billion from American taxpayers by 2013.

Japan, China, the EU, etc. are also being pressured to provide funding. I think their attitude is more correct as they recognize bad behavior is bad behavior and if you want to erradicate it then you might want to stop doing what is causing all of these incidences to come about to begin with. Actions => results.

Now you have 10% of your population infected with AIDS. nationa have been contributing to the effort to combat AIDS yet folks still keep getting it. I'd say that perhaps they need to stop screwing so much. Make sure that the person you want to have sex with or the needle you're using to get a high isn't coming from a sick or diseased person. You do need to look out for yourself. I mean isn't that common sense?

After billions ahve been poured into this country they don't seem to be trying to avert their own calamity it would seem. This isn't a money problem - much like our government educational system doesn't really have a money problem.

I think personal behavior is probably more the real problem instead.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100617/D9GD595G0.html

It's why HIV/AIDS will never have the collective traction of say cancer or heart disease. It is largely a life-style choice disease, largely preventable through sound life style choices.

[Coach 3]

believe it or not, i a gree with both of you...now, with these effective "cocktails" avaialble, tx. costs around 10-12K per year.....

[aufan59]

These people are effectively animals living in the wilderness. They cannot help themselves. Asking an animal population to not mate is impossible, thus other methods must be used.

The elimination of AIDs is certainly a noble goal, similar to the eradication of small pox... It isn't going away on its own.

[Jim]

Aufan says:

These people are effectively animals living in the wilderness. They cannot help themselves. Asking an animal population to not mate is impossible, thus other methods must be used.

The elimination of AIDs is certainly a noble goal, similar to the eradication of small pox... It isn't going away on its own.

===

Now that is a really interesting position to take aufan. If these people are effectively "animals" as you say then I refer you to the humane society that will put unwanted/feral etc. animals down after about three weeks on the dole as it were. If people don't want to think then let them realize the consequences. The world population needs to go from its almost 7 billion down to about a stable 2 billion as it is. Might as well start with that human debris.

The South African government needs to take charge of this situation if they ahve any interst at all. Over and over again the world points an accusing, hatfeul finger at the "imperialist" United States yet holds out the other hand at the same time expecting to get it filled. Let Morgan Freeman, er uh, Mandela address sthe problem. If that communist priest, Tutu (?) is still alive then let him advocate abstenance. Jesus can do only so much. Man's help can do even less as "change" is a personal choice.

They don't attempt to change their ways or bootstrap themselves like we do in this country and is/was a defining attribute of Western Civilization - primarily American. They are among the world's wasted masses.

That $2.8 billion could actually pay off $100,000 on 28,000 home mortgages or provide a top level education to at least 28,000-50,000 talented HS graduates who have shown a motivation and achievement in this country. That is where it is needed - education in the US of A.

But no, the costs ($2.8 billion) once spent will address only half of the problem and not stop anything as it will have doubled in price and in incidences (at least). Those setting these policies are feeling better about themselves without ever having spent a dime themselves. You and I are the ones getting shaken down. Nobody asks they just do it. Taxation without representation. Very well applied to all of us regardless of whichever political party is calling the shots.

[aufan59]

Well Jim, that is the only way I can think to justify our foreign aid policies.

It might be harsh to call them animals, but I don't mean it in an insulting way.

For whatever reason, these people cannot help themselves. Whether it is a poor environment, massive foreign interventions, corruption, lack of knowledge, I don't know. I think it might be a combination of all of the above.

[Jim]

Aufan, I know you don't mean to insult them. Hell, they insult themselves enough already.

The reason China might not be overly willing to help is that they support killing female infants anyway. Less wombs, less people. Now 50,000,000 (mostly young) Chinese men have to deal with either no sex, importing starving North Korean sex slaves or going gay.

[aufan59]

Aufan, I know you don't mean to insult them. Hell, they insult themselves enough already.

The reason China might not be overly willing to help is that they support killing female infants anyway. Less wombs, less people. Now 50,000,000 (mostly young) Chinese men have to deal with either no sex, importing starving North Korean sex slaves or going gay.

Why would China care? African oil will run an engine regardless of whether they have AIDs or not. And I'm convinced the only reason why America cares is our guilty conscious.

[Jim]

Iranian and former Soviet Union states are closer. That means their oil is. If push coms to shove the Red Army will send in the hordes. Who will protest? Everybody who could do something about it owes China. The west is basically neutered in this regard regardless of what you're told.

Muslims fear the Christian Crusaders but seem to have forgotten their more recent "exterminations" at the hands of the Mongols. Read up on Baghdad, 1258 AD and a few others under the Mongol invasions in the middle east.

South Africa and neighbors are far more critical more strategic precious metals.

[aufan59]

Where does the 2 billion population figure come from? I think we have plenty of land area to house additional people, the problem is resources. If we find an abundant alternative to oil, I don't see why an even larger population couldn't be sustained.

[Jim]

I don't have any hard figures on this but it seems to me that if you took every human on the planet and how they are living, you'd find the average to be an ignorant person, deeply entrenched into superstitions, probably hungry, trapped into a third world existence and dependent upon those nations and their people who have solved their own problems about existing.

So a "sustaining an even larger popualtion" is not a well thought out plan. What do you gain? Common dirt poor laborers etc. More mouths to feed, more disease, more ignorance, more exploitation.

And with energy. Nuclear power and hydrogen/oxygen engines are a good start. They can be done. Forget solar panels and green technology. It is cost prohibitive and inefficient. Burning our food (corn, a stapel for much agriculture, ranching and general farming growth) for fuel is insane. Gradual growth in the exploration/production of gas and oil is a must. Work on replacements while you "dig" for what you need presently. A smart move.

I'm thinking 2/3 of the world's popualtion is probably close to this "average". Most of the world hasn't improved their situation/existence for centuries.

So 1/3 of 7 billion is approx. 2.3 billion. I rounded down because I don't think we're at 7 billion yet. So I settled on 2 billion.

Aufan, by improving the "delivery systems" you suggest, all you will be doing is allowing for an increase in population. Clearly, the bulk of the world's people haven't figured out how to modify their own choices/actions/behaviors so making it easier for them will just accelerate the problem.

Sine you're probably going to ask me where the problems reside I will have to say Asia, the middle east, Africa, central and south America. Over population and ignorance are the defacto standard in those areas. Of course we have our own here in the USA and in Europe as well so nobody gets a clean pass.

[Jim]

Aufan ...

In light of our conversation, when you apply a broad generalization to the state of the world I come up with four groups.

First, you have those who through their intelligence and motivations, often less than ideal, will rise into positions of influence often culminating in authority of one form or another. Secondly you have the innovators and creators. Those cultures who are willing to try to improve things. Thirdly, the conformist cultures who will take and from the innovators, mimic what they find and apply it to their masses. Lastly, the subservient masses who serve their masters, usually from the first group mentioned above.

I firmly believe that Western Civilization is the crowning jewel of the human condition and when it fully came into being, the world increased the human condition for the better asymptotically. I will agree with those who want to temper my description of Western Civilization that it has also engaged in numerous examples of malevolence. But the contributions of Western Civilization in providing betterment in one’s life far outweigh its darker side.

Asian civilization is a vast collection of people, who by their huge numbers, almost need to be herded and held to a hard line level of conformity. Innovation and creativity are not encouraged, at least historically, since those ruling these masses via prior emperors, warlords and Khans (etc.) had such large numbers of persons to control, society was encouraged to frown upon the concept of the individual. Too many individuals would stress the system. A broken one might actually lead to situations far worse than just having to stay in your place.

Other civilizations in times past have disintegrated, at least over the past thousand years or so, and are groveling hordes of people who have to fight tooth and nail just to achieve a level of sustenance. These constitute the poorest nations or groups of people today. They are numerous. Ignorance, pestilence and hunger dominate these masses. Their largest “contribution” is that the females in this group pop out another starving mouth every nine months and a day.

A thought experiment is in order I do believe. Say you’re building a space ark to colonize another planet in say, another star system. Your ark can have at most 1,000 people. Who would you take? Would you welcome aboard 650 uneducated peasants who can contribute little more than back bending labor? No, you would not.

You would bring in engineers and scientists, persons with proven managerial skills leading to successful efforts, medical professionals, anthropologists, psychologists/sociologists and proven educators and the list goes on. Each would have to be in excellent health, of child bearing age with minimal genetic concerns regarding physical/mental problems within their genetic lines and in excellent psychological condition.

A level of intelligence/innovation, conformity and the ability to engage in labor (food production for sustenance; cardiovascular conditioning for a strong heart; and general physical conditioning) as necessary would be needed. So a good balance incorporates all human attributes. Population control would be a must. Like I said, all attributes are employed but, because folks would be smart enough to see it, personal compromises would be more readily understood for the cumulative step forward being taken.

Don’t want to get all science-fiction like here so I’ll leave it at that. But a reduction in human fodder is almost a necessity as things are today. To bring in a change in energy is real “pie in the sky” in my view and best left to those in Hollywood who provide us with a two hour escape. An actual rebuilding of human society is in order. In all likelihood there will be a strong socialist element to it. Don’t like saying that but there has to be a synergy between what is good for all while still allowing for the individual to be no less an equal. Education, not indoctrination, is necessary.

This will require a reshaping of the human condition – a redefinition of trust hopefully leading to a true cooperative society. That goes against human nature. That is a problem. Competitiveness is in our DNA. That is why we’re at the top of the food chain. We will do what is necessary to succeed even if that action manifests itself in just a small, seemingly insignificant event when undertaken. It is a step forward. That is life.

[aufan59]

I don't have any hard figures on this but it seems to me that if you took every human on the planet and how they are living, you'd find the average to be an ignorant person, deeply entrenched into superstitions, probably hungry, trapped into a third world existence and dependent upon those nations and their people who have solved their own problems about existing.

So a "sustaining an even larger popualtion" is not a well thought out plan. What do you gain? Common dirt poor laborers etc. More mouths to feed, more disease, more ignorance, more exploitation.

And with energy. Nuclear power and hydrogen/oxygen engines are a good start. They can be done. Forget solar panels and green technology. It is cost prohibitive and inefficient. Burning our food (corn, a stapel for much agriculture, ranching and general farming growth) for fuel is insane. Gradual growth in the exploration/production of gas and oil is a must. Work on replacements while you "dig" for what you need presently. A smart move.

I'm thinking 2/3 of the world's popualtion is probably close to this "average". Most of the world hasn't improved their situation/existence for centuries.

So 1/3 of 7 billion is approx. 2.3 billion. I rounded down because I don't think we're at 7 billion yet. So I settled on 2 billion.

Aufan, by improving the "delivery systems" you suggest, all you will be doing is allowing for an increase in population. Clearly, the bulk of the world's people haven't figured out how to modify their own choices/actions/behaviors so making it easier for them will just accelerate the problem.

Sine you're probably going to ask me where the problems reside I will have to say Asia, the middle east, Africa, central and south America. Over population and ignorance are the defacto standard in those areas. Of course we have our own here in the USA and in Europe as well so nobody gets a clean pass.

"Sustaining an even larger population" isn't my plan. I just think the earth will be able to house more people as our technology progresses, as it has done in the past.

Clearly, the bulk of the world's people haven't figured out how to modify their own choices/actions/behaviors so making it easier for them will just accelerate the problem.

Is this their own fault? If American land mass didn't exist, might we still be members of the Church of England? I don't think you can blame a group for being ruled by a totalitarian/corrupt government.

Has the rest of the human population stagnated, or was America's development accelerated by a vast land full of resources and a reasonable limited government?

[Jim]

The following from you led to my response ...

"... I don't see why an even larger population couldn't be sustained. ...".

Regardless of any improvements in our environment or in ability to generate/acquire energy, I feel a reduced population is not only best for us as a species but for the planet as well. Plenty of room, plenty of resources (natural and manufactured) to go around. In other words, "Bountiful".

And recognizing our past tranagressions - anywhere in the world - is no reason to encourage or accept whatever problems an ever increasing population would usher in. Social pressures might lead to eventual positive ends but it doesn't do much for the carnage, death and destruction suffered by those who will not participate in those eventual improved ends.

[aufan59]

The following from you led to my response ...

"... I don't see why an even larger population couldn't be sustained. ...".

Regardless of any improvements in our environment or in ability to generate/acquire energy, I feel a reduced population is not only best for us as a species but for the planet as well. Plenty of room, plenty of resources (natural and manufactured) to go around. In other words, "Bountiful".

And recognizing our past tranagressions - anywhere in the world - is no reason to encourage or accept whatever problems an ever increasing population would usher in. Social pressures might lead to eventual positive ends but it doesn't do much for the carnage, death and destruction suffered by those who will not participate in those eventual improved ends.

What means do we have to control population? If anything our humanitarian aid will make it worse in the long run. Population will have to reach a devastatingly unsustainable level for it correct itself.

[Jim]

I agree that continued aid will only increase the problem. Solution is to provide no aid. Nature is trying to correct the situation presently.

[aufan59]

Don't know how I missed post #12, that was a good one.

An actual rebuilding of human society is in order. In all likelihood there will be a strong socialist element to it. Don’t like saying that but there has to be a synergy between what is good for all while still allowing for the individual to be no less an equal. Education, not indoctrination, is necessary.

This will require a reshaping of the human condition – a redefinition of trust hopefully leading to a true cooperative society. That goes against human nature. That is a problem. Competitiveness is in our DNA. That is why we’re at the top of the food chain. We will do what is necessary to succeed even if that action manifests itself in just a small, seemingly insignificant event when undertaken. It is a step forward. That is life.

If western civ is the crown jewel of civilization, why do we need to drift away from it? It was individualism and freedom that allowed for the greatest progress in human history, not collectivism.

The problem with the 'collective' is that someone needs to determine what is best for the collective. I feel this is an impossible task, akin to playing God, and the results aren't always spectacular(see your China example).

Additionally, what happens to competition? Isn't this the ultimate driving force behind advancement?

[ZOOMBAG]

It appears South Africa has an HIV+-AIDS problem (5.7 million infected out of a popualtion of approx. 50 million). US is already the largest contributor and will be pushing in $2.8 billion from American taxpayers by 2013.

Japan, China, the EU, etc. are also being pressured to provide funding. I think their attitude is more correct as they recognize bad behavior is bad behavior and if you want to erradicate it then you might want to stop doing what is causing all of these incidences to come about to begin with. Actions => results.

Now you have 10% of your population infected with AIDS. nationa have been contributing to the effort to combat AIDS yet folks still keep getting it. I'd say that perhaps they need to stop screwing so much. Make sure that the person you want to have sex with or the needle you're using to get a high isn't coming from a sick or diseased person. You do need to look out for yourself. I mean isn't that common sense?

After billions ahve been poured into this country they don't seem to be trying to avert their own calamity it would seem. This isn't a money problem - much like our government educational system doesn't really have a money problem.

I think personal behavior is probably more the real problem instead.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100617/D9GD595G0.html

Even with 1000, that thousand would still have to be microcasm of modern society. Can't take JUST scientist, engineers, etc.... Someone still has to clean toilets, cook, tend the garden....

[Jim]

Actually Zoom I think the old rule, "clean up what you mess up" and "multitasking" is in order here. Nothing says botanists aren't included in the mix as well as crops specialists.