Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Sophistry with much truth. Individuals living in developed countries consume more of the resources of this planet than poorer people of this planet.
...

A goodly portion of China has a population density considerably higher than a goodly potion of Canada, yet the domestic non-immigrant birthrate in Canada is much, much lower than in China.

Kind'a blows a big hole in the argument that population density is a function of birthrates in humans.

ican711n wrote:

Let's closely examine these statements of yours, Chumly, by parsing them into the following three statements:

1. A goodly portion of China has a population density considerably higher than a goodly portion of Canada;

2. the domestic non-immigrant birthrate in Canada is much, much lower than in China;

3. blows a big hole in the argument that population density is a function of birthrates in humans.

China's human population density is higher than Canada's;
China's human birthrate is higher than Canada's;
Canada's human population density is lower than China's; and,
Canada's human birthrate is lower than China's;

Either,
China's human population density is a function of China's human birthrate, and Canada's human population density is a function of Canada's human birthrate,
or
China's human birthrate is a function of China's human population density, and Canada's human birthrate is a function of Canada's human population density

No doubt education and materialism tend to decrease birthrates, however that correlation in no way automatically infers that said lower birthrates are a benefit to global heath and survivability.

Why?

Because it's easily demonstrable that one average North American is far more destructive as per global heath and survivability than one average Third Worlder. Thus population numbers, in and of themselves, can be rather meaningless.

ican711n wrote:

Communicable deseases among third worlders is much higher on average than among North Americans.

Thus efforts to moderate the size of human populations, without reference to global heath and survivability, can also be rather meaningless.

ican711n wrote:

What do you think benefits global health and survivability?

georgeob1,
Since we agreed so wholeheartedly on Canada / US relations in a prior thread (and no I'm not being factious) I'll take your "sophistry" remark as complentary (now I'm tongue in cheek).

Many people are under the mistaken belief that global preservation means anti-materialism, but nothing could be further from the truth, if you georgeob1 adhere to that ideology, then you are the sophist, not me!

Hey, dork, who's talking about how people spend their money?

Hi-yah ican711nm,
I read through your post a number of times and as to your first question, it makes no sense. You need to rephrase and streamline. As to your second question I need to clarify a few things firstly:

1) Does your question presuppose man can have a net positive long term benefit on global health and survivability?

2) Define the context by which you quote me and ask your question as per:
"benefits"
"global health"
"survivability"
...

Either,
China's human population density is a function of China's human birthrate, and Canada's human population density is a function of Canada's human birthrate,
or
China's human birthrate is a function of China's human population density, and Canada's human birthrate is a function of Canada's human population density

1) Does your [second] question presuppose man can have a net positive long term benefit on global health and survivability?

What do you think benefits global health and survivability?

2) Define the context by which quote [you] and ask [my] question as per:
"benefits"
"global health"
"survivability"

Thus efforts to moderate the size of human populations, without reference to global health and survivability, can also be rather meaningless.

What do you think benefits global health and survivability?

reference to global health and survivability

Thus efforts to moderate the size of human populations, without reference to global health and survivability, can also be rather meaningless.

ican wrote: Yes!
Also, richer people on this planet generate more betterment opportunities for poorer people on this planet, than poorer people on this planet generate betterment opportunities for poorer people on this planet.

Just what are you trying to say?

I think that is self-evident!

Did I deny anything you stated?

No!

It seems what you stated could have been said without my quote.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Sophistry with much truth. Individuals living in developed countries consume more of the resources of this planet than poorer people of this planet.

Yes, what I said could have been said without your quote. However, I chose to make it an augmentation of your statement in case your statement was you playing the envy card. :wink:

German Supreme Court Rules Magazine Raid Unconstitutional

On Tuesday, Germany's Supreme Court ruled that a 2005 police raid on the offices of the online magazine Cicero was unconstitutional. The case has raised questions about press freedom in Germany.

Germany's Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe ruled Tuesday that police violated the constitution by raiding the offices of the political online magazine Cicero, based near Berlin.

In a 7-1 decision, the Karlsruhe judges said the September 2005 search breached the constitition because the journalists themselves were not formally suspected of breaking the law.

"Searches and seizures against media people as part of a formal inquiry are unconstitutional if they are purely or mainly intended to detect the identity of an informant," said presiding judge Hans-Jürgen Papier.

Boys and girls.

My personal preference, as originator of this thread topic, is that we keep to that topic more than the last few pages have done. There's a global warming thread (more than one) where that subject is more appropriately addressed.

[O'Brien said,] 'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you [Winston] begin to understand me?'

yes the world wide web is a wonderful thing. and its no wonder governments want to control it. of course it doesnt look regulated but...