The Baby Bust Generation

CyranoDeBergerac

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
1,148
Reaction score
5
Location
Camp Pendleton, Ca
Originally posted by PuertoRican_Lover
The main issue in the 21st century will not be sexuality, rather it will be one of economical and political dynamics where nations will vie for power to have influence and control over their own regional resources, without the interference of European nations (including America).

In the 21st century and beyond, India and China along with the rest of Asia will be at the forefront of the mental resource war and will dominate and have intellectual, scientific, and economical influence across the globe. The US and other European nations, in their declining intellectual and economical state and dwindling world influence, (because of their dwindling mental resources due to their low birth rate) will try to prevent this loss in superiority, even if war is necessary!

The emphasis in this thread regarding the declining birth rate, is only relevant to the developed nations (i.e. Europeans) where whites are the majority. Every other Peoples inhabiting the earth have a increasing birth rate and are extensively populated. Also, this issue doesn't concern Hispanics and Blacks in America, their families are larger than the average white family for many reasons already listed here.

What Pook is concerned about, is the mental capital that these countries rely on to maintain and increase economical development in their own country and to hold on to their existing superior political status in the world - this issue is only a concern to White European nations, since they are the ones mostly affected.

European nations have been in a decline and losing their grip on the world power scene in the last 60years.To this I say don't fret, because China, and other Asian countries, along with India will be where the new mental capital will come from in the next 100 years. Most scientific advancements in the last few hundred years, in all fields of human endeavor have been derived from European minds. This will change soon as these other countries build their infrastructure and better their educational systems.

American and Britain are desperately trying to maintain their status as ‘leading’ nations by fabricating the current invasion in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and trying to control the resources in the Central Asian region for dominance of the oil supply.

One of the main objectives of the current war is to not allow the abundant oil resources in that region to get in the hands of China and other European and Asian nations who the US fears would surpass us economically in the decades to come, and thus become a greater power politically and undercut the influence of the United States in world affairs. This was a preemptive oil grab to keep it away from our competitors on the world market. Chavez in Venezuela said that hew ill stop selling the US oil if the CIA tried to do another coup.

Pres. Bush himself said his purpose of the war was to try to control the whole Middle East region by changing their governments. Israel is behind this move and welcomes this takeover wholeheartedly, because it benefits them well in getting rid of their enemies once and for all.

Israel was the instigator behind this whole current conflict, working in tandem with the US. Everyone in the world knows this except Americans, because our media is tightly censored and controlled and only mainly used for entertainment and propaganda purposes.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his arrogance, explains this preplanned Middle East / Central Asia takeover in his book, “The Grand Chessboard” WRITTEN IN 1997!. It gives you a step-by-step account of what the US plans to do to dominate that region. Every Head of government in the world knows that this is the real purpose of the war and this is why they did not form a coalition with the US. They actually were against Bush!! Bush said “Either you are with me or against me!!!” Oh well we know the answer to that don’t we – the world is against him / the US!!!!

Oh yeah, back to the declining birth rate. This a non-issue on a global scale, and only concerns European nations in fear of losing their world dominance and stranglehold of the undeveloped nations of the earth. Asia with China and Japan at the forefront, along with India will take the place of Europe and America as being the new leaders in mental resources and scientific discoveries.

A new world war will envelope the earth because America, Britain and other European nations will want to dominate other nations against their will for world dominance – that was what the last two world wars were about, why not the third World War – it has been building up for this!!!! There will be a major population decrease in the billions!!! No such thing as overpopulation!!
PRL, I can't begin to sort the crap from the tripe in this post. While completely avoiding any gratutious or unmeritted flaming I can honestly say that is the most foul piece of convoluted and unsubstantiated logic that I have ever seen you pursue on this forum.

Your argument can be summarized as 'screw whitey', despite the fact that the very reason you can voice this opinion, and the reason you're doing it in English, quoting a Book that was written by Carter's former national security advisor is because the very system for which you cry "The king is dead, long live the king" has been around long enough to have a sufficient impact anyway.

The global declining birth-rate is strictly a European problem? Why do you think these countries have only noticed marginal losses in their population where they've noticed anything other than gain at all? Immigration, as CLOONEY said has propped up the populations of these countries. If anything the decline in the birth-rate poses less of a problem for the 'European countries' than it does for those countries with developing economies, like say Puerto Rico who has profitted mightily from America's tolerance and her many blessings. The simple fact that we haven't annexed Puerto Rico and made her our fifty-first state, instead preferring to let her have the choice of how she should live and under what auspices should be argument enough to refute your outdate cries of imperialism.

You're arguments are so absurd that I cannot think upon them but I am reminded of an angry revolutionary who's ideas are shaped not by fact or reason, but by unresolved anger issues with his father and a complete inability to take any responsible look at their own state of affairs, preffering instead to be ruled by feelings of being shorted by society. Get help. Now.

-CyranoDeBergerac
 

Don Ronny

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
814
Reaction score
5
Leave PRL alone Cyrano! He is my friend!

Until he showed up on these forums I was swimming in more wh@res and homosexuals than you could shake a stick at. I was also helping the White Man maintain his divine supremacy over planet Earth by making sure more blacks and latinos become AFCs

Thank you so much for your contributions, PRL. We would be lost without you!

As for Pook, I am convinced he wants the population to increase again so he can get more accolades in his PM box. I heard a nasty rumor that he keeps them stored on his hard-drive and reads them while wacking off and reciting affirmations

"Who´s a good Pook?"
"I´m a good Pook!"
"Who´s your Pookie?"
"I´m your Pookie!"
"Who is the Lord and Master of SoSuave.com?"
"I am GOD of the forums!! MUUAHAHAHAAHAHAAA!!!"

*squirt* *squirt*
 

DrMetallica

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 11, 2003
Messages
917
Reaction score
0
Location
EU
Originally posted by Don Ronny
Leave PRL alone Cyrano! He is my friend!

Until he showed up on these forums I was swimming in more wh@res and homosexuals than you could shake a stick at. I was also helping the White Man maintain his divine supremacy over planet Earth by making sure more blacks and latinos become AFCs

Thank you so much for your contributions, PRL. We would be lost without you!

As for Pook, I am convinced he wants the population to increase again so he can get more accolades in his PM box. I heard a nasty rumor that he keeps them stored on his hard-drive and reads them while wacking off and reciting affirmations

"Who´s a good Pook?"
"I´m a good Pook!"
"Who´s your Pookie?"
"I´m your Pookie!"
"Who is the Lord and Master of SoSuave.com?"
"I am GOD of the forums!! MUUAHAHAHAAHAHAAA!!!"

*squirt* *squirt*
You have to be one of the supidest posters on this website, bar none.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
4,281
Reaction score
8
Location
Wisconsin. USA
Cyrano, does the truth hurt? If you read my posts you will be in a lot of pain!!!!

My statements have nothing to do with logic, it is the reality of what has happened and what is taking shape on the world scene!

My power of speech and thinking is not given to me by any government or person, as you suggest – my power of communication and my mind was given to me by God!

If you knew History you would know the true intentions of America's imperialistic ambitions which began in the Roosevelt administration at the turn of the 20th century with the concocted war with Spain when America blew up its' own ship (and murdered its’ own citizens) to blame it on Spain and thus take all their territory, including Puerto Rico!! The US knew Spain was weak and no match for their the industrialized US.

The natives of Puerto Rico were butchered by Spain for a few hundred years and then the island was stolen from Spain by the US. Roosevelt voiced his international ambitions and his desire for the US to become an international power and to gain a foothold in Asia – Phillipines, Hawaii, etc. Read, read, read his words – this is known, go to your library and read his words!! Puerto Ricans, Philipinos, and the inhabitants of the other captured islands were despised by whites and they were slaughtered when they cried for independence from the US invaders. How can you say Puerto Ricans and others ‘benefited’ from the invading murderous forces of the US? Huh?? You don’t make sense!

No one or country on this planet needed to be invaded and slaughtered by Europeans. The world was doing fine until Europeans were hell-bent on controlling the earth - as they are scheming to do at this very hour!

Every time someone speaks truth they are labeled a ‘revolutionary’. How can truth revolt against itself?? It is what it is. It is you who are the revolutionary who has rejected truth and try to act as if things that took place never happened! You never call me a liar, do you? Why? Because you can’t!! Why don’t you tell me where I am in error and correct where I faltered.

Europeans have taken over the earth through slaughter and guile – what insane person would state otherwise!!! Look out your window and see reality for what it is. I don’t want to hear excuses of why Whites have to rule – ‘to be Policemen’, ‘to tame the Savages’, to bring Christianity to the Heathens’, ‘to stop the spread of Communism’, to fight Terrorism’!! Europeans control others economically, politically, and culturally.

Those who go against their rule are given a label (Terrorist, ******, Heathen, Extremist, Uncivilized, Savage, Communist) to make those who oppose their wicked rule look as if they are instigators and revolutionaries zealots. This label and image is given to them so that they can deceive others as being ‘justified’ for the oncoming slaughter.

It is not me who needs help, it is you who is delusional and does not see things for what they are, whether intentional or not! Cyrano, I’m going to excuse your ignorance on the grounds of being young and brainwashed by the mass media that is controlled by Europeans!!!

I am here for your counsel on any matter. I am at your service!

Don Ronny, as always thank you for your kind words. J
 

CyranoDeBergerac

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
1,148
Reaction score
5
Location
Camp Pendleton, Ca
Originally posted by PuertoRican_Lover
Cyrano, does the truth hurt? If you read my posts you will be in a lot of pain!!!!
Actually I'm just getting over Pneumonia, so for once in your life you're at least half right. What kills me about you PRL is your Self-righteousness. You've been on this planet for 42 years and all the sudden everything you say is law. I can respect experience, but not your conclusions. The other thing that prompts me not to take you seriously is the fact that not only are your bigotted in your zeal, but you proclaim your dubious insight as the divine truth, to the exclusion of all your detractors. You have a curious form of messiah complex indeed which classifies all that don't agree with you as rebels against truth. You say it yourself: "My statements have nothing to do with logic". How am I supposed to respect that?
it is the reality of what has happened and what is taking shape on the world scene!
America's role is unprecedented and by ignore the factors which led to its dominance and the very role it plays, by not asking why and preferring instead to see your own brand of truth you inherently damn yourself to ignorance. You cite the existence of a book on American primacy, which by the way is just another of any number of analyses on the fact that for the first time in the history of the world there is only one world power, as a declaration of the 'white man's burden' manifesting itself in America. America places many burdens upon itself, not the least of which is peace-keeper to the world (as NATO, UN, and other such world organizations don't have any standing armies and are too corrupt or ineffectual to act) and the world's food and piggy bank. America alone produces 25% of the industrial products consumed in the world. The 'white nations' you decry as imperialistic almost unilaterally train those foreign-born students who practice such fields as medicine and engineeering and banking which prove so vital to the developing economies around the world to say nothing of the outright aid we provide without hope of getting anything back. You ignore this.

My power of speech and thinking is not given to me by any government or person, as you suggest – my power of communication and my mind was given to me by God!
Again with the messiah complex. GOD has divinely inspired you! Check it at the door, I deal in reason.[/b][/quote]If you knew History you would know the true intentions of America's imperialistic ambitions which began in the Roosevelt administration at the turn of the 20th century with the concocted war with Spain when America blew up its' own ship (and murdered its’ own citizens) to blame it on Spain and thus take all their territory, including Puerto Rico!! The US knew Spain was weak and no match for their the industrialized US.

The natives of Puerto Rico were butchered by Spain for a few hundred years and then the island was stolen from Spain by the US. Roosevelt voiced his international ambitions and his desire for the US to become an international power and to gain a foothold in Asia – Phillipines, Hawaii, etc. Read, read, read his words – this is known, go to your library and read his words!! Puerto Ricans, Philipinos, and the inhabitants of the other captured islands were despised by whites and they were slaughtered when they cried for independence from the US invaders. How can you say Puerto Ricans and others ‘benefited’ from the invading murderous forces of the US? Huh?? You don’t make sense![/b][/quote]I am indeed a student of history. What you fail to do it to percieve current conditions. Assessing current motives by focussing on hundred year old foreign policy ambitions? Why am I arguing this point, it was proved invalid after the first and second world wars! Yet you only delve farther into history to ascribe motive to that without precedent...
No one or country on this planet needed to be invaded and slaughtered by Europeans. The world was doing fine until Europeans were hell-bent on controlling the earth - as they are scheming to do at this very hour!
Far from it actually. My goal is not to defend Imperialism, but I am a free market kinda guy where everyone maintains autonomy and self-governs. If you want to brand these ideals as Anglo-Saxon go ahead, but you cannot tell me you disagree with these principles because you're holding a century old grudge and still claim to me to be a rational human being with any true insight on current or future world affairs.
Every time someone speaks truth they are labeled a ‘revolutionary’.
I speak the truth.
It is you who are the revolutionary who has rejected truth and try to act as if things that took place never happened!
Yes it happened, I merely press for relevance.
Europeans have taken over the earth through slaughter and guile – what insane person would state otherwise!!! Look out your window and see reality for what it is. I don’t want to hear excuses of why Whites have to rule – ‘to be Policemen’, ‘to tame the Savages’, to bring Christianity to the Heathens’, ‘to stop the spread of Communism’, to fight Terrorism’!! Europeans control others economically, politically, and culturally.
I do not preach the white man's Burden. I preach that with great power comes great responsibility.
Those who go against their rule are given a label (Terrorist, ******, Heathen, Extremist, Uncivilized, Savage, Communist) to make those who oppose their wicked rule look as if they are instigators and revolutionaries zealots. This label and image is given to them so that they can deceive others as being ‘justified’ for the oncoming slaughter.
I call them like I see them. If some bastid wants to wage war on innocent people because of some idealogy I call him a terrorist. If someone wants a communistic society I call him a communist.
It is not me who needs help, it is you who is delusional and does not see things for what they are, whether intentional or not! Cyrano, I’m going to excuse your ignorance on the grounds of being young and brainwashed by the mass media that is controlled by Europeans!!!
This is perhaps the most insulting thing you've said as yet so far. I reject your false direction and the assertion that I need to be told what to think. I value objectivism, not rhetoric. Show me some and I'll consider your point.

-CyranoDeBergerac
 

Pook

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 22, 2000
Messages
571
Reaction score
404
Location
Nirvana
NMMCWR

Incorrect.

If a calf is sold, the GNP rises.

If a child is born, the GNP remains static. The per capita GNP falls when a child is born, but such is the nature of basic arithmetic.
Correct.

I want to focus on this because this is the heart of the matter. Starting from the falling birth rate, people said it was good. I disagree because people are assets, not liabilities.

When statistical modeling is used, a born calf is seen as an asset. However, when a child is born, it is put into the model as a liabilitiy.

So, based on these statistical and sociological models, when the nation's population expands, the poorer the nation becomes! Since the larger generation is older, when they pass away there will be much more deaths than usual. Therefore, according to these models, them dying will make the nation become richer. If a cult commits suicide, the model shows that nation becomes richer for it.

There are two major problems with the fall of birth rate correlating with increased wealth (aside from the correlation aspects). First, it means the reverse is true, that decreasing wealth correlates with larger birth rates. I can find no example of a nation becoming poorer because they have a higher birth rate (China doesn't count. Communist government made it law that couples make 3+ children and then later changed it to have only 1. Chinese society is being artifically tampered here, so it bears no good reflection). Often, the increased population increases the entire economy. Second, there is the third variable problem.

A third variable problem is as follows: A study shows a correlation that the increase of churches with the increase of crime. However, the third variable that is totally excluded is the fact that the town's population is increasing. Therefore, the correlation on the churches and crime is entirely misplaced, as both are effects of the growing population.

A third variable in the collapsing birth rates and the increase wealth correlation could be sexual morality. After all, religious communities still have large families. From the data I've seen, the largest families are made by couples who believe strongly in sexual morality. This is just one example of a third variable.

(A third variable to THAT study would be religion, as those who are most religious seem to be the most moral sexually).

You are barking up the wrong tree on the point of the misleading information fed to the public regarding international trade.
It is not the politicians, I still see many economists putting out the balance of trade.

Just as I see many economists make models where when a calf is born, the nation is considered richer, but if a person is born, the nation is considered poorer. If half the population died from disease, these same models would show the economy growing like never before!

Fingers

The only reason that young girls look so lovely with their alluring curves and smooth skin is because they are RIPE for reproduction. Nature has placed this delicious fruit of woman before us yet we have managed to only focus on the pleasure of eating the fruit. A pleasure tainted by the aftertaste of guilt, false expectations and a genuine fear that the fruit may be poisoned!
This is a good point. Sexuality very much includes fertility.

There was one couple I knew where the guy got a vasectomy. They thought they could then have all the sex they wanted! After all, they couldn't have children. Anytime, anywhere!

Unfortunately, that was not the case. The couple's sex life collapsed. Why? Probably because by removing all elements of fertility, the... magic (?) was lost.

JohnGalt

I want to know what role do you think education should play, does it itself affect this whole population shrinking phenomenon, and if it is even possible for academia to really come to an understanding of sexuality if they seem too removed from it?
I've never seen anyone go to college to 'learn', everyone drudges to class solely to get the degree which they believe will insure them to a good job.

Rates for tuition keep going up for practically all the universities it seems.

If the day ever comes when people find that the degree does NOT insure them a job, a major shake up would probably occur. After all, to go to college for most people is to go into huge debt. If people become financially literate earlier on, they would reason the debt wasn't worth becoming an employee for a good part of their lives.

If population decline ever rises to a front issue (it keeps being a 'hush hush' topic, only rarely will I hear officials speak of it openly in Europe and that's due to its becoming full flower there), the academies will think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

They will react similiar to some of the responses in this thread. They will all have different reasons, of course, but I expect the universities, already a bit archaic in today's world, to not necessarily become an advocate but try to throw water on anyone discussing or doing something about it.

One thing is for sure, governments (of any culture) will react and try to do something (such as giving women 'bonus' money for having more kids, as Japan currently does). Governments know the handwriting on the wall. Academies will probably just ignore it and, if not, try to poo poo the discussion or the governmental acts about it.

You see, the university will not think there is a problem. Already, as this thread shows, the biology and economist wings of the university thought hold that people are liabilities and not assets.

BTW, have you noticed that sex education is really just education to prevent pregnancy? (I would even go so far as to say its a free commercial for condom and contraceptive makers, as they rake in money over people risking their lives, but I digress...) But there is no sexuality education.

Before, people would read the Greek classics, would read their Shakespeare (and not just 'Macbeth' or 'Romeo and Juliet' ack), would be exposed to high art, and so on. Boys would be taught on how to be men, and girls would be taught on how to be women.

The central problem I see to the university (and especially so to public education) is that politics is defining the education rather than education defining the politics.

But I'm biased. I've always favored the classical system.
 

Pook

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 22, 2000
Messages
571
Reaction score
404
Location
Nirvana
jwhite

Whenever you hint of improving yourself, reaching your potential, and so on, the common theme I notice is time scarcity.
You can never get more time. With time, you can do anything. Time is the currency of life.

I've been able to meet and talk to some very successful people. What is interesting is that they say similiar things.

One common thing is that they all LOVE what they do. Also, because they LOVE it, they work at it. It doesn't feel like work to them.

Also, they seemed to have invested their time rather than spend their time earlier on.

How do most people live? Throughout high school, they get in the habit of spending their time. They go through the drudgery of the school day and can't wait for when school is over or the weekend. They live for the summer vacation. And there is nothing wrong with this.

The problem is that this habit persists. In college, I've seen too many people try to 'wing it' like they did in high school only to drop out. Then, when you are outside the educational walls, time becomes more important.

Too many people, in college for example, think their lives are 'getting ahead' solely because they are 'inching' their way up academically. All time outside of class gets spent.

In their careers, they seek the latest promotion as they go up the career ladder. Unforuntately, the more successful they are, the more taxes they pay, the more things they buy (thus go further into debt), and the less time they have.

Then they become shocked that they could get laid off at a minute's notice. The more life unfolds for these people, the less time they have. They have been crushed into conformity, racked by the system. They will be working the rest of their lives.

Now what have I noticed successful people do? Every successful person I've known (meaning, they are millionaires or famous or considered the very best in what they do) invested their time rather than spend it.

They found out what they loved at an early age and kept working at it. It was their passion in life.

Others felt people wanted them to fail, expected them to fail, so they wanted show the world who they really were.

These people invest a lot of their time on their passion earlier on. Later, the seeds they planted in their youth sprout, and a large oak grows. A decade or two later, the tree takes care of itself and they can relax in the shade.

In sports, people are amazed at those few people who seem to transcend all challenges, who are so marvelous that it looks so easy. Well, that all has a price tag attached to it. They spent a lot of time practicing and pushing themselves.

Do you think each of us, as you say, "can unite our dream and day" by working on ourselves? Should we all chase our dreams until its our reality? Are all SUCCESSFUL people successful because they don't waste TIME?
That's not what I mean by uniting dream and day. I have too many posts on that theme coming up so I won't address that here.

Here's something I think conflicts with "investing" in your time wisely. My roommate is majoring in Mechanical Engineering and Philosophy. He never studies for his tests(writes his papers the night before), yet he can pull of straight A's all the time! He can get schlorships with ease.
School itself is a bit artificial. It ought to demonstrate to you the absurdity of it all. Keep your eye on the REAL WORLD, not the academic mirages.

Just look at any biography of a famous successful person in any era of history including the present. Look at their childhood. Look at what they did when they were young adults. See a pattern?

Thomas Jefferson used to love going to parties and dancing with the girls. But he realized that time was flying by. If he wanted to be something, he would have to invest his time (which was in books and thinking). So it was then that he decided to place his priorities not on his academic studies, but the studies of his own passion.

If you loved football, for example, you would be investing your time into playing football. You would push yourself and break every standard people would put on you.

This path isn't for everyone. But it is this path that makes the extroardinary from the ordinary.

Consistency is the most important thing to success... in whatever you do.

When I was 13, I was sick of having my life controlled by everyone else, by parents, by school, etc. Finally having access to a computer (that my Dad would smuggle from work), I decided to create my own world. I could make my characters, could kill them off, I would blow up the world. It was MY WORLD. I told people I would write a novel and they just kinda chuckled or laughed. Within a year, I had a manuscript of about 500 single spaced pages.

Of course, a lot of it read like cr@p. Remember, I was only 13. What did I know of anything? It got a lot better structure and writing wise as it went on.

The point was that I finished it. I forged in myself the self-discipline to make that happen. AFter that, I could do anything. I would write more books, and do many totally unrelated things (which resulted in one time pissing off a major company). [I don't want to give the impression that it was writing. Rather, it was finding out what I wanted to do and doing it, seeing the project to completion.]

The reason why I'm saying this is that I became friends with an English professor of mine. One night, late in his office, I was there and we were talking about literature and stuff. He told me he was working on a novel. But, alas, for some reason he said, "I just cannot seem to finish it."

I lost total respect in him after he said that and never visited him again.

How could I respect someone who cannot do at age 50 what a 13 year old could?

Take the gym. Lots of people sign up to go to the gym. Many will drop out after a while. Others will go merely for the 'feelings' they get from the gym ("I worked out today" they will say with smug confidence, forgetting that their body still looks the same as it did months ago). Then there are those who go to the gyms with their friends and turn it into a social event.

The gym example reveals many things why most people never succeed. Some buy all the books about gym training. Some hire a trainer. Yet, there is no difference.

Unsuccessful depends on others to get them going (such as depending on a trainer, going to the gym with friends thinking they will then go to the gym more (which is true, but they won't work out as well).

Successful depends solely on yourself, that you have the inner discipline to go the gym three days a week, and when you are in the gym, you push yourself. If you are consistent in doing this, you WILL see results.

This applies to everything else:

Unsuccessful don juans wait for something to get them started, a GREEN LIGHT from the women or a new technique.

Successful don juans go and do it.

Unsuccessful people go to work solely to not hear, "You're fired!" and work hard only to hear, "You're promoted!"

Successful people go to work because they love what they do and can't wait to go at it again.

It's your life. Are you going to let others define it, of how it *ought* to be including your college professors, your parents, or your friends? But if you want to define your life, you have GOT to be a self starter. Only then does the investing time work, as your time will be invested in yourself (where you'll always have it) unlike when you work for someone else (where the business owner gets the fruits of your time).

I admit, I was an odd kid. In high school, many of my peers worked several jobs just so they could have that new car. I was content with my junk mobile (it got me from point a to point b) because I had something my peers didn't, TIME. And I could use that time for anything. If I just sat there, watching tv, I'd be wasting it (my time would have been better spent working). But by investing my time in my talents, interests, and passions, I become... unique. People find me interesting and follow me around, talking to me, curious how I can switch to topic to topic easily and keep saying fascinating things. There is nothing funnier to watch than one english professor's face when I turned in a paper in iambic pentameter. "How can you do this!?" they will ask. I reply: "How can you not?"

It's amazing... these english professors. They talk and analyze but they never put pen to paper. I see that trend a lot throughout the academies. Business professors who never built a business or did anything similiar. Finance professors who have no real investments. Art professors discussing the 'philosophy' of art where they themselves cannot sell a single art piece. It is like a 300 lb gigantic woman as a gym trainer.

Life can be simple. Two choices.

A) Live your dreams. (few people do. Most absorb other people's dreams and claim it is their own)

B) Live other people's dreams.

If you are working for someone, you are fulfilling THEIR dreams. If you are bending your life to match your woman's, you are fulfilling HER dream. Many people go to school in a particular field to please their parents, to fulfill THEIR dream. Others hang out with friends and don't realize that you are who your friends are. On and on this goes.

Many people fall into the B category because they mistake other people's dreams for their own. They've never sat down and thought about what they wanted. They never asked, "What is happiness to you?"

Whose dream are you following? Your employers? Your parents? Your girlfriend?

Rather than live in other people's dreams, lets make our own. THEN the world knows who you really are.
 

diplomatic_lies

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 4, 2002
Messages
4,368
Reaction score
8
Anyone noticed how so many people become doctors, lawyers, engineers, and dentists just so they can live up to their parents expectations and impress other people?

That guy above me is spot on when he says we should focus on our dreams.

"Never make it your goal to impress other people - impress other people in order to get to your goal."

Thats my motto.
 

sisyphus

Don Juan
Joined
Jul 15, 2003
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by Pook
That's not what I mean by uniting dream and day. I have too many posts on that theme coming up so I won't address that here.
Come on Pook, post'em. This is good stuff.
 

CyranoDeBergerac

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
1,148
Reaction score
5
Location
Camp Pendleton, Ca
Originally posted by sisyphus
Come on Pook, post'em. This is good stuff.
I'll go ahead and summarize with a snippet from someting I wrote a while back for a friend called "manifesto of a self-styled romantic". I hope you'll forgive me if it might seem a bit presumptuous for me to do so...


It is incumbent upon every man to first imagine a better reality, and then to apply the greatest within himself to its creation.


Or, more succinctly, 'live your dream'.

-Cyrano
 

hardwork

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
982
Reaction score
2
Originally posted by Pook
When statistical modeling is used, a born calf is seen as an asset. However, when a child is born, it is put into the model as a liabilitiy.
Isn't that because the child costs more money to the parents than it's worth on the open market?

Say I have a cow and a bull that mate (they're paid off, so I'm basically getting a free cow out of this deal). Say this new cow costs me $75 to feed and otherwise keep alive, but I can sell it for $100. Isn't that a gain of $25?

But I can't sell the kid. Say he costs me $75 to feed and otherwise keep alive, but I can't sell him for the same $100. Isn't that a loss of all $75? Sure he may go on to do great things, but am I going to get back my $75?
 

thecraftylefty

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
417
Reaction score
7
You'll get much more than your precious $75 back, assuming the child and parent have a good relationship. All worth isn't valued in just money.

thecraftylefty
 

Walldorf

Don Juan
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
When statistical modeling is used, a born calf is seen as an asset. However, when a child is born, it is put into the model as a liabilitiy.

But I can't sell the kid. Say he costs me $75 to feed and otherwise keep alive, but I can't sell him for the same $100. Isn't that a loss of all $75? Sure he may go on to do great things, but am I going to get back my $75?
Just a short comment. There are static models and dynamic models. So if you look at the static model the child is seen as liability, that is true. But looking at the dynamic model, the child is economically speaking an investment (also referred to as human capital). So you invest into the child (school, university, ...) and hopefully this will result into more productivity, based on the knowledge and the creativity. An increased productivity means more time or more money to the individual (or both), which outweighs the invested money (as this is the idea of an investment).
 

hardwork

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
982
Reaction score
2
Well, yeah: people aren't dollar signs. (I'm not that close-minded.) I was just probing the assertion that
based on these statistical and sociological models, when the nation's population expands, the poorer the nation becomes! Since the larger generation is older, when they pass away there will be much more deaths than usual. Therefore, according to these models, them dying will make the nation become richer. If a cult commits suicide, the model shows that nation becomes richer for it.
 

CyranoDeBergerac

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
1,148
Reaction score
5
Location
Camp Pendleton, Ca
By the way Pook, I'm writing to say that I was wrong and you were right on the non-infinite resources issue.

I was reading a book last night (as I am prone to do from time to time ;) ) and I came upon the example of a famous bet made in '80 between an environmentalist named Erlich and an economist named Simon. Erlich bet Simon that, due to the depletion of non-renewable resources such as certain metals, the scarcity of the metals would increase and, over the period of ten years the prices would go down. He bought two hundred dollars worth of copper, tungsten, chrome, nickel, and tin, adjusted for inflation of course.

Come '90 not only had the prices not shot up, they had effectively halved. If supply fails to meet increasing demand the price goes up (so went the logic of the environmentalist), but as the price went up men adapted their behavior accordingly through substitution and new technologies, aside from just mining more and finding new reserves. Thus, cars no longer embodied elaborate chrome work and coopper cables were replaced by glass fibers in telephone cables. While specific commodities might be in limmitted supply in the short-term, in the long-term, human adaptation and ingenuity make the supply of resources practically infinite.

I was wrong, and you were right.

-CyranoDeBergerac
 

Cheiradawg

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
501
Reaction score
0
Pook

So, based on these statistical and sociological models, when the nation's population expands, the poorer the nation becomes! Since the larger generation is older, when they pass away there will be much more deaths than usual. Therefore, according to these models, them dying will make the nation become richer. If a cult commits suicide, the model shows that nation becomes richer for it.

There are two major problems with the fall of birth rate correlating with increased wealth (aside from the correlation aspects). First, it means the reverse is true, that decreasing wealth correlates with larger birth rates. I can find no example of a nation becoming poorer because they have a higher birth rate (China doesn't count. Communist government made it law that couples make 3+ children and then later changed it to have only 1. Chinese society is being artifically tampered here, so it bears no good reflection). Often, the increased population increases the entire economy. Second, there is the third variable problem.
For a precise explnation of what I'm about to say click herehere (this one kinda sucks but it was the best/shorest).


A rise in the birth rate, centus paribus, causes GNP to increase, and per capital income to decrease.

What you have left out, Pook, is the exogenious effect of technology.

The fall of birth rates does means an increase in per capita income, centrus paribus. However in the real world nothign is ever held constant. It can be the case in which a shift in technology outwieghs the increase in population so the per capita income is actually positive correlated with increasing birth rates. As we all know correlation does not mean causeation.

The reason you aren't finding any data where increasing birth rates are negatively related to per capita income is because the rapid increase in technology has smuged any loss of per capita income that would have been seen otherwise.

If this isn't clear then look up the Solow model. It is kinda complicated but you seem like the type.
 

Cheiradawg

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
501
Reaction score
0
Say there is a town of 10 people.

For the sake of being simple lets assume that their resources are infinite.

The town of 10 people can produce 100 units of output per year with their given technology.

Say the town doubles in population to 20 and technology has not changed.
Say due to the production function, output grows to 150 units of output. Their GNP has increased but their per capita income has decreased. Here, as we would expect, everything else held equal an increase in the population led to a declind in per capita income.

Now lets take into account a shift in technology.
Due to the new technology the production function has shifted ******d so that the 20 people can now produce 300 units of output. Their GNP has increased and their per capita income has increased.

Technology has increased alot in the past years. This is why the per capita income and population are positively correlated in the data.
 

Deep Dish

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
167
I stumbled across the following while looking up some unrelated topic. History repeats itself, or as Mark Twain would say, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes."
“What was free love? The nineteenth century free love movement was a distinct reform tradition, running from the utopian socialist thinkers of the 1820s and 1830s through the center of American anarchism to the anti Comstock sex radicals of the 1890s and 1900s and from there into the birth control movement of the twentieth century. The decades in which free love first appeared were a time of upheaval and change in sexual conventions and the relations between men and women. In the 1820s and 1830s, numbers of women were beginning to have some life outside the family, the Lowell girl being the most famous example. Mary Ryan tells us about the dramatic increase in the population of unmarried women and men living in Utica away from their parents in the 1820s. Things were changing for women within marriage as well. Above all we know that the birth rate was beginning its dramatic turn downward; the years between 1840 and 1850 saw the largest percentage drop in the birth rate, 3/4 of one percent, of any decade in American history. Women were having fewer pregnancies and babies and probably what is almost the same thing, less sexual intercourse, at least on terms over which they had no control. Like the notion of women's spheres and the politics of women's rights, free love was part of a more general nineteenth century effort to respond to these changes and to reform and modernize emotional and sexual conventions between the sexes. Free love was distinguished from these other tendencies by its emphasis on personal happiness rather than social welfare, and its ability to see marriage in terms of affection and personal satisfaction and not merely biological reproduction and social order.”

http://www.h-net.org/~women/papers/freelove.html
Interesting, to say the least.
 
Top