I too have a deep concern for the quality of life for my grand kids and those that will follow them. I sense that our world leaders, including those in this country are focused much more on power and politics and simply push the real problems on to later generations to deal with. I believe the time is shortly a head when the environmental problems of the world will be much too big and too immediate to push them any further into the future and most of us will stop and wonder – ‘just how could we have allowed this to happen’
Over the past 150 years or longer we have been very successful in most parts of the world to have given our children a better life than we had. But I sense that trend may begin to change in the next couple of generations and those of that time will squarely place the blame on earlier generations (including their parents and grandparents) for failing them by ignoring the up-keep and protection of our environment – either because of wars, global warming, pollution, ignorance or just plain stupidity. I don’t suspect there will be a ‘dooms’ day unless it is one that results an act of nature similar to what happened to the dinosaurs, But the easy life and the easy times for most of the world will be what life use to be!
My friend. Bill Avery asked me to post this for him.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Sunday, July 22, 2007
pollution-meister
Most people think of controlling or reducing pollution as simply a matter of generating less of it. Thus they advocate, as well as practice, individual control. For example, to generate less warming, i.e. global warming, they must individually produce less of it. This is good as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go as far as it could. How so? Consider the total pollution equation:
P X N = T,
Where P refers to the quantity of pollution generated per person, N refers to the number of people, i.e. the total population, and T is the total pollution produced. We see what people are missing, are the number of people. In fact, there is much that can be done with N. Of course, the results are not immediate. But the effects are long lasting. Such measures as (vigorously) advocating smaller families will, in the long run, result in smaller families and therefore pollution will be diminished. Add to this a limited schedule for tax exemptions and you have the beginnings of a more fair system of tax benefits.
We should at the very least begin by removing some of our overly generous system of rewarding people with large families: limit the amount of tax exemptions on the basis of dependents. Currently (through tax year 2006) the amount of income subject to taxation could be reduced by allowing exemptions from income without limit! We should limit the amonnt of income that can be exempted from taxation. Instead of allowing an unlimited amount of income to be exempted, we should grant the taxpayer and his/her spouse to one person, with two exemptions to 100% if the first, but only 2/3 of the amount for the second dependent declared, 1/3 if the amount for the third dependent, and cap the number for which exemptions are granted to just 3: no more exemptions above 3. See the final post of this blog for the details.
Except for short periods of famine, we have managed to escape the prediction that we would reach some point at which we suffered from hunger. The agricultural revolution is the reason. This has led many current thinkers to marginalize Malthus’s contribution (Thomas Robert Malthus wrote extensively about population growth in the 19th Century.) But are we so secure in our time? If not the food supply, are we beginning to see the pressures population increase has put on our other resources? And what about our ability to get along with one another? Are we being pressured to get along with one another, when our natural instincts are to fight for “elbow room?” Consider “road rage”: a phenomenon of very recent years. Much of the current problem with the African province of Dar Fur has a lot to do with that; maybe it’s all about that. In any case we have seen a lot of violent behavior in the past 70 years. World War II was about “Lebensraum” (living space) for the German people; Hitler promised them “Lebensraum” as a solution for more land, and he got that land for them by simply taking it by force from those who originally held it.
Then there is global warming. This is controversial, but people are gradually (albeit reluctantly) beginning to accept it.
Clearly, we need to face these issues head on. It’s time to stop wishful thinking about the need for more land and to do something about it. For starters, we need to encourage smaller families. What is your opinion? Let me hear from you!
John Ferguson, JohnOrElaine@aol.com
It makes you wonder if scourges such as AIDS are happenstance or directly related to population growth. Certainly as population grows the touch points between large masses of people as well as between any two individuals increase. Throw in technological advances in and more prevalent access to global transportation systems and the chances for a disease pandemic increase. Similar advances in biological technology increase the chance for world disaster either directly, such as biological agents intended as weaponry, or indirectly, such as an unexpected side effect occuring in a species.
For example, honey bees are disappearing for unknown reasons -- my guess is genetically altered crops, pollution, disease that's spawned from the proliferation of insecticides, or gene mutations from breeding programs and crosses with African killer bees are at the root of the disappearance.
Whatever the case, it seems likely that human overpopulation and the infrastructure required to support a growing humanity is depleting resources beyond the balance of what nature can supply. Efforts to artifically pump Mother Nature up amplify this imbalance in the food chain.
Like any living organism, the Earth, a living organism in my opinion, is responding by dispatching "agents" within its "immune system"'s arsenal to counteract the damage being done to it (the Earth).
It seems completely reasonable that whenever things become imbalanced, the physical universe will attempt to "right" itself.
That is, after all, the essence of Newton's Third Law of Motion.... and while Newton was mostly interested in interaction between two masses, I think "motion" manifested in other non-mass "things" such as emotion or even population growth, for instance, produces a similar pattern of behavior.
June 27, 2007 John Ferguson Jr,raddog@kc.rr.com
A person would be blind not to see how this planet is becoming increasingly over populated. In turn, both natural and man made resources are being depleted at a faster rate.
I like Grandpa's suggestion about encouraging smaller families. It seems to me that people are reproducing at an alarmingly fast rate more than ever before. The "baby boomer" age refers to the class of folks born anywhere between the years of (approx.) 1946- 1964. An increase in demand for employment in the healthcare industry is a direct reflection of the projected need for those services to accomodate our population in years to come. Someone has to be qualified to take care of all those "baby boomers," right? At the rate of the increasing population count, the need for decent healthcare services will continue to rise.
It seems to me that the "baby boomer" generation "chilled out" so to speak when it came to their rate of reproduction. In example, my family is composed of five people. My parents (baby boomers) have three kids. It seems as if the baby boomers were not intending to repeat the work of their predecessors. The spawns of the "baby boomers" are known as Generation X'ers. Gen. X'ers is a term used to describe those born between the years of 1965-1981. I think the Gen. X'ers are the ones headed down a similar path of those who bore the "baby boomers." Gen. X'ers are reproducing like flies!
Personally, I think there are many underlying factors that play as catalysts. Some of these factors may include, but are not limited to: less taboo ideas associated with "casual sex" or sex with multiple partners, and poor sexual education programs in the school systems. It is also less likely for a person to become married before having a child nowadays. This is a trend that has been newly introduced within the past decade or so. And, although teenage pregnancy rates have been in a declining state; the United States remains the country with the biggest epidemic of unwanted teenage pregnancies.
Just a personal thought: Why do people continue to reproduce when they are barely able to support themselves with the resources they have? Is it a selfish act, or is everyone entitled the opportunity of becoming a parent?
For example (a very crude one at that, but I'll use it)... A delivery man (courier) who delivers the inter-office mail for the company I work for has five kids. FIVE!! Seems a little much these days. Not only does this man have five children. But, he is originally from Venezuela (irrelevant) and has to work two "working class citizen" positions in order to be able to support his family. I do commend him for his work ethic; at least he's not one of those "dead beat dads" with five kids. But, at some point doesn't financial stability and/or available tangible, and non-tangible resources become of importance when deciding whether to have children? I think so.
Krista Ferguson (kfergie_83@hotmail.com)
What is the solution to this problem? Considering that anything we do will take a long time to slow down population growth. We can use Moral Suasion; that is, we can apply gentle pressure on people to change. And it works! Gandhi used Moral Suasion on the British, and it was very effective, although it took a long time. That’s how it will be with the Population Explosion. Little by little, people will look down on those who have large families. And the people having these families will take notice. They have to! Consider that almost no one curses in public, but plenty of people (including me, sometimes) do in private. Why don’t we all just curse in public, anyway? The answer seems to be that we don’t feel the ostracism we would face would be worth it. The same goes for large families. If people believed that they were looked down upon by the vast majority of people for having large families, well, they would find a reason not to have them. It sounds crazy, I know, but it will work. It has to – we really have no other choice! And it will work with some people, I know. So let’s get started.
It would help to have some jingles. For starters:
A population explosion
Is a very a bad notion,
But a family quite small
Is endearing to all.
Corny – yes – but worth a try, until something better comes along. How about it? Surely some of you can think of more jingles! Let me hear form you.
John Ferguson, JohnOrElaine@aol.com
It has been suggested that it is hopeless to try anything. “I’m sure no one wants to talk about population too much because it sounds racist or heartless, and considering we might top saving lives and reducing birth to correct the problem.”
We might – but not necessarily. That is, we can reduce births, but we don’t need to stop saving lives. Life is too precious a thing to talk about it so glibly. And therein lays the crux of the problem. We are going to continue saving lives no matter what. It just makes sense to reduce births at the same time. In fact, if it were not for net immigration (people coming to live here vs. people leaving the country to live elsewhere), being positive, the U.S. as well as California, would be experiencing a stable or a slight reduction in population. So it’s the birth rate outside the country that matters. I’m looking for some kind of a solution to the problem. I don’t see how we can reduce the population except by reducing the birth rates abroad. We have to tackle this issue head on. If the next administration in Washington would get behind the idea of lower birth rates, then we could turn the corner. After all, it was the notorious Goebels that said if you tell a big lie often enough, people will come to believe it. And it’s true: marketeers have known this for years -- that’s why we have so many jingles.
What can we do?
Well, for starters, we should very seriously consider tax policy. After a startup period of no change from current policy, we should gradually lift the tax policy of not limiting family size in deducting children. We could, say, give a generous exemption to a family of three: that is, with one child. Then we should limit tax deductions on the remaining children. For example, we should allow a full exemption of $3,300 for each of the 1st 3 people: one per person for the taxpayer, his/her spouse, and one dependent child, born of the taxpayer or spouse. The second child would be entitled to an exemption of only $2,200. The third child would be entitled to an exemption of $1,100. There would be no further exemptions. For exemptions of adult dependents, and children not born to the insured or spouse, there would be no change. (Figures are given for the 2006 tax year.) Squawking could be expected, but that would be fair given a sufficiently long adjustment period. I propose that at least 3 years be given from the date of the policy's inception until it is active and enforced. That way, no one can accuse the government of peremptily removing an important exemption without adequate notice.
P X N = T,
Where P refers to the quantity of pollution generated per person, N refers to the number of people, i.e. the total population, and T is the total pollution produced. We see what people are missing, are the number of people. In fact, there is much that can be done with N. Of course, the results are not immediate. But the effects are long lasting. Such measures as (vigorously) advocating smaller families will, in the long run, result in smaller families and therefore pollution will be diminished. Add to this a limited schedule for tax exemptions and you have the beginnings of a more fair system of tax benefits.
We should at the very least begin by removing some of our overly generous system of rewarding people with large families: limit the amount of tax exemptions on the basis of dependents. Currently (through tax year 2006) the amount of income subject to taxation could be reduced by allowing exemptions from income without limit! We should limit the amonnt of income that can be exempted from taxation. Instead of allowing an unlimited amount of income to be exempted, we should grant the taxpayer and his/her spouse to one person, with two exemptions to 100% if the first, but only 2/3 of the amount for the second dependent declared, 1/3 if the amount for the third dependent, and cap the number for which exemptions are granted to just 3: no more exemptions above 3. See the final post of this blog for the details.
Except for short periods of famine, we have managed to escape the prediction that we would reach some point at which we suffered from hunger. The agricultural revolution is the reason. This has led many current thinkers to marginalize Malthus’s contribution (Thomas Robert Malthus wrote extensively about population growth in the 19th Century.) But are we so secure in our time? If not the food supply, are we beginning to see the pressures population increase has put on our other resources? And what about our ability to get along with one another? Are we being pressured to get along with one another, when our natural instincts are to fight for “elbow room?” Consider “road rage”: a phenomenon of very recent years. Much of the current problem with the African province of Dar Fur has a lot to do with that; maybe it’s all about that. In any case we have seen a lot of violent behavior in the past 70 years. World War II was about “Lebensraum” (living space) for the German people; Hitler promised them “Lebensraum” as a solution for more land, and he got that land for them by simply taking it by force from those who originally held it.
Then there is global warming. This is controversial, but people are gradually (albeit reluctantly) beginning to accept it.
Clearly, we need to face these issues head on. It’s time to stop wishful thinking about the need for more land and to do something about it. For starters, we need to encourage smaller families. What is your opinion? Let me hear from you!
John Ferguson, JohnOrElaine@aol.com
It makes you wonder if scourges such as AIDS are happenstance or directly related to population growth. Certainly as population grows the touch points between large masses of people as well as between any two individuals increase. Throw in technological advances in and more prevalent access to global transportation systems and the chances for a disease pandemic increase. Similar advances in biological technology increase the chance for world disaster either directly, such as biological agents intended as weaponry, or indirectly, such as an unexpected side effect occuring in a species.
For example, honey bees are disappearing for unknown reasons -- my guess is genetically altered crops, pollution, disease that's spawned from the proliferation of insecticides, or gene mutations from breeding programs and crosses with African killer bees are at the root of the disappearance.
Whatever the case, it seems likely that human overpopulation and the infrastructure required to support a growing humanity is depleting resources beyond the balance of what nature can supply. Efforts to artifically pump Mother Nature up amplify this imbalance in the food chain.
Like any living organism, the Earth, a living organism in my opinion, is responding by dispatching "agents" within its "immune system"'s arsenal to counteract the damage being done to it (the Earth).
It seems completely reasonable that whenever things become imbalanced, the physical universe will attempt to "right" itself.
That is, after all, the essence of Newton's Third Law of Motion.... and while Newton was mostly interested in interaction between two masses, I think "motion" manifested in other non-mass "things" such as emotion or even population growth, for instance, produces a similar pattern of behavior.
June 27, 2007 John Ferguson Jr,raddog@kc.rr.com
A person would be blind not to see how this planet is becoming increasingly over populated. In turn, both natural and man made resources are being depleted at a faster rate.
I like Grandpa's suggestion about encouraging smaller families. It seems to me that people are reproducing at an alarmingly fast rate more than ever before. The "baby boomer" age refers to the class of folks born anywhere between the years of (approx.) 1946- 1964. An increase in demand for employment in the healthcare industry is a direct reflection of the projected need for those services to accomodate our population in years to come. Someone has to be qualified to take care of all those "baby boomers," right? At the rate of the increasing population count, the need for decent healthcare services will continue to rise.
It seems to me that the "baby boomer" generation "chilled out" so to speak when it came to their rate of reproduction. In example, my family is composed of five people. My parents (baby boomers) have three kids. It seems as if the baby boomers were not intending to repeat the work of their predecessors. The spawns of the "baby boomers" are known as Generation X'ers. Gen. X'ers is a term used to describe those born between the years of 1965-1981. I think the Gen. X'ers are the ones headed down a similar path of those who bore the "baby boomers." Gen. X'ers are reproducing like flies!
Personally, I think there are many underlying factors that play as catalysts. Some of these factors may include, but are not limited to: less taboo ideas associated with "casual sex" or sex with multiple partners, and poor sexual education programs in the school systems. It is also less likely for a person to become married before having a child nowadays. This is a trend that has been newly introduced within the past decade or so. And, although teenage pregnancy rates have been in a declining state; the United States remains the country with the biggest epidemic of unwanted teenage pregnancies.
Just a personal thought: Why do people continue to reproduce when they are barely able to support themselves with the resources they have? Is it a selfish act, or is everyone entitled the opportunity of becoming a parent?
For example (a very crude one at that, but I'll use it)... A delivery man (courier) who delivers the inter-office mail for the company I work for has five kids. FIVE!! Seems a little much these days. Not only does this man have five children. But, he is originally from Venezuela (irrelevant) and has to work two "working class citizen" positions in order to be able to support his family. I do commend him for his work ethic; at least he's not one of those "dead beat dads" with five kids. But, at some point doesn't financial stability and/or available tangible, and non-tangible resources become of importance when deciding whether to have children? I think so.
Krista Ferguson (kfergie_83@hotmail.com)
What is the solution to this problem? Considering that anything we do will take a long time to slow down population growth. We can use Moral Suasion; that is, we can apply gentle pressure on people to change. And it works! Gandhi used Moral Suasion on the British, and it was very effective, although it took a long time. That’s how it will be with the Population Explosion. Little by little, people will look down on those who have large families. And the people having these families will take notice. They have to! Consider that almost no one curses in public, but plenty of people (including me, sometimes) do in private. Why don’t we all just curse in public, anyway? The answer seems to be that we don’t feel the ostracism we would face would be worth it. The same goes for large families. If people believed that they were looked down upon by the vast majority of people for having large families, well, they would find a reason not to have them. It sounds crazy, I know, but it will work. It has to – we really have no other choice! And it will work with some people, I know. So let’s get started.
It would help to have some jingles. For starters:
A population explosion
Is a very a bad notion,
But a family quite small
Is endearing to all.
Corny – yes – but worth a try, until something better comes along. How about it? Surely some of you can think of more jingles! Let me hear form you.
John Ferguson, JohnOrElaine@aol.com
It has been suggested that it is hopeless to try anything. “I’m sure no one wants to talk about population too much because it sounds racist or heartless, and considering we might top saving lives and reducing birth to correct the problem.”
We might – but not necessarily. That is, we can reduce births, but we don’t need to stop saving lives. Life is too precious a thing to talk about it so glibly. And therein lays the crux of the problem. We are going to continue saving lives no matter what. It just makes sense to reduce births at the same time. In fact, if it were not for net immigration (people coming to live here vs. people leaving the country to live elsewhere), being positive, the U.S. as well as California, would be experiencing a stable or a slight reduction in population. So it’s the birth rate outside the country that matters. I’m looking for some kind of a solution to the problem. I don’t see how we can reduce the population except by reducing the birth rates abroad. We have to tackle this issue head on. If the next administration in Washington would get behind the idea of lower birth rates, then we could turn the corner. After all, it was the notorious Goebels that said if you tell a big lie often enough, people will come to believe it. And it’s true: marketeers have known this for years -- that’s why we have so many jingles.
What can we do?
Well, for starters, we should very seriously consider tax policy. After a startup period of no change from current policy, we should gradually lift the tax policy of not limiting family size in deducting children. We could, say, give a generous exemption to a family of three: that is, with one child. Then we should limit tax deductions on the remaining children. For example, we should allow a full exemption of $3,300 for each of the 1st 3 people: one per person for the taxpayer, his/her spouse, and one dependent child, born of the taxpayer or spouse. The second child would be entitled to an exemption of only $2,200. The third child would be entitled to an exemption of $1,100. There would be no further exemptions. For exemptions of adult dependents, and children not born to the insured or spouse, there would be no change. (Figures are given for the 2006 tax year.) Squawking could be expected, but that would be fair given a sufficiently long adjustment period. I propose that at least 3 years be given from the date of the policy's inception until it is active and enforced. That way, no one can accuse the government of peremptily removing an important exemption without adequate notice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)